Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Another Scandal In the Making?...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Well I see that the reports are out that President Obama as had accurate Intel on ISIS since 2013. Also that he has missed almost half of his Intel daily briefings.

Forgive me for being just a tad bit skeptical of the reports. You see when the reporting is from either of the two sources that are hitting the blogosphere with the stories today, Breitbart or Daily Mail it is always wise to check the stories against shall we say more reliable and newsworthy sources.

The stories can be found at the above links. They make for interesting reading, whatever your perspective going in. If you catch my drift.

Via: Memeorandum

Monday, September 29, 2014

What Does, or Should it Mean to Be an American?...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

With the national debt presently at $152,155 per taxpayer, and the unfunded liabilities at $996, 668 per taxpayer (source), I is only a matter of time before the soaring symbol of American military and economic preeminence, the American Bald Eagle, will soar no more.

As we continue to pour billions upon billions of dollars into "making the world safe for democracy" the world continues to be a menacing place. The more we do the worse it often seems to become.

With a declining middle class here at home and a growing under class economically we continue to spread America's treasure abroad in humanitarian foreign aid. There was one a well know phrase "charity starts at home." I'm wondering whatever became of that common sense belief.

With grave issues facing our President and Congress more time and effort is spent in haggling over issues of relative unimportance than congress critters putting their collective shoulders to the wheels of government and solving the critical problems that affect Americans of all socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds. Which BTW is precisely what they were elected to do.

Yet with all our nation's serious issues, from defeating terrorism to affordable and available basic health care for all, to insuring equal justice under the law and protecting the human rights rights of all law abiding citizens, from grappling with the national debt and deficits to helping create a business environment that leads to increasing employment opportunities for those who need and are searching for work, it seems our national government and those who run it are more interested in party, ideology, and winning than in solving problems. This is, undoubtedly, to our nation's detriment.

As much as it pains me to acknowledge it, the primary source of our nation's inability to accomplish getting important things done now rests with the republicans, and more specifically the Tre Part.

Then we have ordinary citizen's who blog, ones such as those mentioned in the post immediately preceding this one, who merely add to and encourage the continuation of our national discontent. For reasons known only to themselves.

It is time for Americas to start acting like Americans and begin pulling together, in the same direction to solve our mutual concerns and problems rather than pulling the nation apart.

Sunday, September 28, 2014

On Partisan Politics, Personal Attack Tactics, and Truth...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

This site, and by extension its proprietor, is a stanch fiscal conservative. By we means balancing the national budget and spending the national treasure (of course this means taxpayer dollars) in the best interest of the legal citizens of the United States of America as determined by their elected representatives in Congress. Our democratic republic was designed to do just that. However, in order to accomplish that proper goal of government the influence of money and special interests must be eradicated, a subject for another day.

Partisan politics in the extreme supported by the strategy of personal attack politics and take no prisoners mentality has become the order of the day and nowhere is it more prevalent than the internet, particularly on right wing sites. Yes there certainly are left leaning sites that are guilty of extreme partisanship and irrational conclusions based on personal bias etc., but, after nearly 5 and 1/2 years blogging I have found by far more conservative sites engaging in personal attacks against liberals, outright slander, bigotry, racism, and unethical behavior than liberal progressive sites doing the same.

A rational person can only conclude that personal attacks and the rest are simply the symptoms of an individual, or a subset within a culture or broader society that lacking substantive argument in support of their position, as well as being fearful of changing times resorts to personal attack, slander, and outright lies, in an attempt to gain support and preserve that which they are comfortable with. Their lack of intellectual honesty and the willful attempt to destroy a person through slander and character assassination apparently is of no consequence to them.

While this site, and its proprietor advocates and supports true fiscal responsibility and true conservative fiscal policy, zero special interest, open competitive economic policy with a reasonable degree of regulation etc. it also strongly believes that America as a whole must rise above partisan politics and that all legal citizens must be heard and represented. Now here's the rub, in order to achieve this it means our liberal brothers and sisters must be heard and listened to by us just as we expect them to hear and listen to us.

If this nation is to survive and prosper another 200 plus years it must get beyond the present day take no prisoners and winner take all mentality. Since I am a fiscal conservative as well as a social libertarian I believe hat true rational conservatives and libertarians must lead the way in any effort to get beyond our present dismal situation. In plain talking language this means we must clean up our own backyard before going after others. There is a lot of cleaning up to do.

After witnessing over the last few days some very nasty and slanderous right wing site going after honest and sincere American liberals this site has decided enough is enough. In the effort to expose conservative/libertarian sites who slander, demean, and otherwise attempt to destroy the character of those they simply disagree with yet present no proof of their slanderous claims they will be exposed here.

The first two sites deemed deserving of exposure for their slander, bigotry, racism. and other unethical behavior are; Who's Your Daddy, and FreeThinke. In perusing these sites one of the two has scrubbed the most vile and damaging comments. Hopefully this is an indication the site proprietor has suddenly grown a conscience and the sites behavior will become honorable, as a conservative site should be. At any rate these sites represent the worst in conservative sites, at least at the present. As this site scours the bowels of conservative sites to uncover the unethical sites in right blogistan it is anticipated more, perhaps many, will surface. They will be exposed as this is necessary if conservatism is to regain the high ground. We must root out our own bad actors if we are to ever again be a majority party,

Friday, September 26, 2014

Just Cruz(in)...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Doesn't he remind you of Senator Joseph McCarthy of the "Red Scare" era of American politics. Almost a spittin image in fact.

Who knew his many talents. Senator Cruz is a comedian as well as a Tea Party Republican Senator.

Oh, another thing. Unless my sources are mistaken he's a Canadian Cuban as well.

Have a great weekend. It's going to be beautiful and 80 degrees in Massachusetts.

No for the Cruz man...
TPM - Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) joked that media outlets should refer to the man who jumped the White House fence, made it across the lawn, and got inside as an "undocumented White House visitor.

"We should insist that ABC, NBC, CBS, they refer to the visitor according to the term that is politically correct: an undocumented White House visitor," Cruz, a hardliner on immigration reform, said during his speech at the Values Voter Summit on Friday.

Since the intrusion the White House has said it planned to boost security including increasing surveillance and using more police officer patrols.

Via: Memeorandum

Political Drama Brought To Us By Both Parties...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

The Washington Post- President Obama has yet to reveal his choice to succeed Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., but already the Senate confirmation process has begun its march toward contentiousness.

With Nov. 4 midterm elections potentially tipping the balance in the Senate, some Republicans immediately called for a delay in the hearings and votes on the new attorney general until January, when the possibility of a GOP majority in the Senate might give Republicans almost total control of the outcome.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) issued a political call to arms for conservatives, saying that outgoing senators should not vote on the nominee during the post-election lame-duck session. “Allowing Democratic senators, many of whom will likely have just been defeated at the polls, to confirm Holder’s successor would be an abuse of power that should not be countenanced,” Cruz said in a statement.

Democrats argued that Republicans should step back and allow Obama to select his own cabinet without GOP obstruction.

“This is going to be the first real test, whether it’s in the lame-duck or early in the new year, whether our Republican colleagues are going to continue to obstruct,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday in an interview. “Every president deserves to have his attorney general.”

Political drama. Planned and executed by both parties. And for a very definite purpose.

Continue reading BELOW THE FOLD.

UPDATE, From Cato Institute. Commentary is short and as expected.

Via: Memeorandum

GOP Worried Obama Will Use Lame Duck Session To Replace AG Eric Holder...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

On the resignation of Attorney General Eric Holder...

“Rather than rush a nominee through the Senate in a lame-duck session, I hope the president will now take his time to nominate a qualified individual who can start fresh relationships with Congress so that we can solve the problems facing our country,” said Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Translation... Mr. President, take your time to select and nominate a candidate to replace Holder until late January 2015, after the new congress(presumably with both houses republican) is sworn in. You know, when the politics are possibly going to be in our favor. This way we republicans can stall and obstruct any election we, in our "superior" wisdom do not approve of.

Ya just have to love, and laugh at the hypocrisy of the modern republican party. Yeah, I know the damn democrats do the same when they have the chance. But really, isn't it time to ditch the smoke and mirror hypocrisy and just say it the way it really is. America isn't as stupid as you all seem to believe.

Conservatives are warning President Obama against using a lame-duck session of Congress to push through Attorney General Eric Holder's replacement, even as the White House signals its intention to fill the post quickly.

Holder’s announcement that he will resign as the nation’s top law enforcement officer reverberated Thursday around Washington, where speculation has already begun to mount about who might fill the Cabinet position.

Republican lawmakers quickly vowed that whomever Obama taps would be subject to intense scrutiny following an era when the GOP was often at odds with the Justice Department.
But even if, as many predict, Republicans reclaim control of the Senate in the approaching midterm elections, they would be largely powerless to block Democrats from using their current majority to confirm an attorney general before the new Congress is gaveled into session in January.


Grassley, who voted to confirm Holder in 2009, lamented that his tenure “was strained by his lack of respect for Congress, the American taxpayer and the laws on the books. “

He noted, however, that Holder has committed to remaining on he job until a successor is named, allowing for the confirmation process to run its course.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Judiciary Committee chairman, said on MSNBC that he had spoken with the White House and called for a quick confirmation process.

"I hope that they would be able to decide on a nomination soon, definitely we should have confirmation hearings as quickly as possible in the Senate," he said.

Leahey said he hopes no one will try to slow the process down.

"I would hope that nobody would try to block an up or down vote on the chief law enforcement officer of the country," he said. "It would be the height of irresponsibility."

Don't find myself often agreeing with Senator Leahey but on this one he is right.


Via: Memeorandum

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Off the Rails...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

More evidence that not only Andrea Tantaros, but Fox News as a whole, has jumped the rails and is racing to that great talking point rendezvous just south of Tea Party junction.

TPM - Fox News host Andrea Tantaros said Thursday during a discussion about Attorney General Eric Holder's reported resignation that he ran the Department of Justice "much like the Black Panthers would."

As part of the panel on the show "Outnumbered," Tantaros called Holder one of the "most dangerous men in America." President Obama is expected to announce Holder's resignation on Thursday afternoon.

"He didn't enforce the laws on Obamacare," Tantaros said. "He was droning terrorists without a trial while he was giving them trials in downtown Manhattan. He ran the DOJ much like the Black Panthers would. That is a fact."

Fact is Tantaros and Fox News are not about discussing seriously any serious matter. They are dedicated to shoveling the BS their small minded and apparently intellectually challenged audience loves. In other words, red meat for the carnivores.

Via: Memeorandum

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Did Obama Jump the Gun on Syrian Airstrikes?...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

While this site is supportive of the President's decision to assemble a coalition of Arab states and commence air strikes against ISIL/ISIS in response to the Islamic State's ever growing threat the editorial board of The New York Times doesn't see it that way. However, air strikes should continue nonetheless within the time frame allowed under the 1973 War Powers Act. During which time the President should CLEARLY outline the objectives for the public and make the case to Congress and secure Congressional sanction for his actions. A Declaration of War should not be ruled out.
The New York Times - President Obama has put America at the center of a widening war by expanding into Syria airstrikes against the Islamic State, the Sunni extremist group known as ISIS and ISIL. He has done this without allowing the public debate that needs to take place before this nation enters another costly and potentially lengthy conflict in the Middle East.

He says he has justification for taking military action against the Islamic State and Khorasan, another militant group. But his assertions have not been tested or examined by the people’s representatives in Congress. How are Americans to know whether they have the information to make any judgment on the wisdom of his actions?

There isn’t a full picture — because Mr. Obama has not provided one — of how this bombing campaign will degrade the extremist groups without unleashing unforeseen consequences in a violent and volatile region. In the absence of public understanding or discussion and a coherent plan, the strikes in Syria were a bad decision.

Mr. Obama has failed to ask for or receive congressional authorization for such military action. The White House claims that Mr. Obama has all the authority he needs under the 2001 law approving the use of force in Afghanistan and the 2002 law permitting the use of force in Iraq, but he does not. He has given Congress notification of the military action in Iraq and Syria under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, but that is not a substitute for congressional authorization.

The administration also claims that the airstrikes are legal under international law because they were done in defense of Iraq. In a Sept. 20 letter to the United Nations, Iraq complained that the Islamic State was attacking its territory and said American assistance was needed to repel the threat. But the United Nations Security Council should vote on the issue.

Continue reading BELOW THE FOLD

Via: Memeorandum

Does America Need a Third Party?...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Been saying it for neigh on 15 years. Some things just take time to gather steam I suppose.

Perhaps it is the advent of the Tea Party with it's winner take all and take no prisoners attitude toward government. Or maybe it is America has gown weary of the educated, elitist leftist that control academia and to a lesser extent the main stream media. Possibly it is a combination of both, which is more likely than not.

Without being judgmental it is safe to say it is high time we have a viable third party alternative in these United States of America. Ideally a party that thinks outside the box of 19th and 20th century paradigms.

We can always hope.

Read the complete GALLOP Politicstext.

Via: Memeorandum

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Jon Stewart and Climate Change, Funny Stuff!!!...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

With the help of lawmakers apparently residing in la-la land Stewart has a ice and ice water segment on his daily program.

h/t: Progressive Eruptions

Monday, September 22, 2014

Alaska - KTVA-TV Reprter and Owner of Alaskan Cannibis Club Quits on air...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Alaska Dispatch News - Reporter Charlo Greene quit on-air during KTVA-TV's 10 p.m. newscast Sunday, revealing herself as the owner of the medical marijuana business Alaskan Cannabis Club and telling viewers that she would be using all of here energy to fight for legalizing marijuana in Alaska.

Greene had reported on the Alaskan Cannabis Club during Sunday night's broadcast, without revealing her connection to it. At the end of the report, during a live shot, she announced that she was the club's owner and would be quitting.

"Now everything you've heard is why I, the actual owner of the Alaskan Cannabis Club, will be dedicating all of my energy toward fighting for freedom and fairness, which begins with legalizing marijuana here in Alaska," she said. "And as for this job, well, not that I have a choice but, fuck it, I quit,"

And with that she walked off camera.
Definitely not exactly the bet way to separate from your employer but, you go girl! We here at Rational Nation USA in Massachusetts wish you well in all your future endeavors.

Read the rest of storyBELOW THE FOLD.

Via: Memeorandum

Americans Think Relgion Losing Influence in General, Think Religion Should Have More Influence in Politics and Government...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Americans believe religion's influence in life is waning and that it is a bad thing. Quite possibly this is why the political sector, particularly republicans, believe religion should take a larger part in the nation's politics and governance. I can't help thinking a couple of things, 1) it's unfortunate there is no Thomas Jefferson to breathe some common sense into the religionists, and 2) how do those who think we need more religion in government square there concern with cultures they criticize for having too much religion in government. It's hard not to think those with the opinion we need more religion in government really haven't thought at all.

Pew ResearchReligion & Public Life Project -Nearly three-quarters of the public (72%) now thinks religion is losing influence in American life, up 5 percentage points from 2010 to the highest level in Pew Research polling over the past decade. And most people who say religion’s influence is waning see this as a bad thing.

Perhaps as a consequence, a growing share of the American public wants religion to play a role in U.S. politics. The share of Americans who say churches and other houses of worship should express their views on social and political issues is up 6 points since the 2010 midterm elections (from 43% to 49%). ...

Click on box below to open chart.

Complete report BELOW THE FOLD.

Via: Memeorandum

Saturday, September 20, 2014

Friday, September 19, 2014

NeoCon GOP House Candidate Okay With War With Mexico, "If We Need To"...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

From the always ready and looking for a conflict (war) neocon wing of the GOP. Mexico, the next target?

Probably if Mark Walker were to have his way.

More nonsensical knee jerk from a neocon. Just laser and blitz somebody eh Mark? If that doesn't work, and it won't, then what genius?

TPM - A Republican congressional candidate in North Carolina suggested that he'd be open to going to war with Mexico over problems with immigration and drug cartels.

The candidate, Mark Walker (pictured), the Republican nominee in the race to succeed Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC) in North Carolina's 6th Congressional District, made the comments on June 26.

"I will tell you if you have foreigners who are sneaking in with drug cartels to me that is a national threat," Mark Walker said during a speech to Tea Partiers in Rockingham County. The footage was reported by Rawstory.com via a post at the Daily Kos. "And if we got to go laser or blitz somebody with a couple of fighter jets for a little while to make our point, I don't have a problem with that either. So yeah, whatever we need to do."

A moderator for the event then asked Walker if he would have "any qualms about starting up a little war with Mexico."

"We did it before," Walker said. "If we need to do it again, I don't have a qualm about it."

During the same event Walker said he was open impeaching President Barack Obama if given the chance.

"Yes I would," Walker said, in response to a question about whether he would support impeaching the President.

Via: Memorandum

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Keeping Abreast of the ISIL/ISIS Threat...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA Purveyor of Truth

Following the ISIL/ISIS threat... The three articles below, two from The New York Times and the third from The Guardian discuss the threat, the administrations current positions, and the possible military course the USA may find itself taking at some point to effectively "dismantle and destroy" ISIL/ISIS, to use the President's words.

WASHINGTON — Militants for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria have traveled to Mexico and are just miles from the United States. They plan to cross over the porous border and will “imminently” launch car bomb attacks. And the threat is so real that federal law enforcement officers have been placed at a heightened state of alert, and an American military base near the border has increased its security.

As the Obama administration and the American public have focused their attention on ISIS in recent weeks, conservative groups and leading Republicans have issued stark warnings like those that ISIS and other extremists from Syria are planning to enter the country illegally from Mexico. But the Homeland Security Department, the F.B.I. and lawmakers who represent areas near the border say there is no truth to the warnings.

“There is no credible intelligence to suggest that there is an active plot by ISIL to attempt to cross the southern border,” Homeland Security officials said in a written statement, using an alternative acronym for the group.

Democrats say opponents of President Obama are simply playing on concerns about terrorism as part of their attempt to portray Mr. Obama as having failed to secure the border against illegal immigration.

“There’s a longstanding history in this country of projecting whatever fears we have onto the border,” said Representative Beto O’Rourke, Democrat of Texas, who represents El Paso and other areas near the border. “In the absence of understanding the border, they insert their fears. Before it was Iran and Al Qaeda. Now it’s ISIS. They just reach the conclusion that invasion is imminent, and it never is.”

At a congressional hearing last week, Representative Jeff Duncan, Republican of South Carolina, pushed back strongly against the testimony of Homeland Security Department officials and Mr. O’Rourke, saying they were ignoring a gathering threat.

“Wake up, America,” Mr. Duncan said before storming out of the hearing. “With a porous southern border, we have no idea who’s in our country.”

But counterterrorism officials say they are far more concerned that an ISIS militant will enter the United States the same way millions of people do each year: legally, on a commercial flight. Their efforts have focused on the more than 2,000 Europeans and 100 Americans who have traveled to Syria to fight alongside extremist groups, nearly all of them crossing over its unprotected borders. Without markings in their passports to show that they traveled to Syria, American border authorities have few ways of determining where they were and stopping them from entering the country.

WASHINGTON — Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress on Tuesday that he would recommend deploying United States combat forces against Islamic extremists in specific operations if the current strategy of airstrikes was not successful, offering a more expansive view of the American role in the ground war than that of President Obama.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he said that while he was confident in the ability of the coalition of American, European and Middle Eastern governments to stop the Islamic State, he could not completely close the door to eventually asking Mr. Obama to commit ground troops to fight the group, known as ISIS or ISIL.

“My view at this point is that this coalition is the appropriate way forward. I believe that will prove true,” he said. “But if it fails to be true, and if there are threats to the United States, then I of course would go back to the president and make a recommendation that may include the use of U.S. military ground forces.”

Any future commitment of American personnel on the ground could put Mr. Obama in a difficult position, as he has repeatedly insisted that no American troops would engage in the battlefield, and Gen. Dempsey sought to explain the apparent contradiction.

“His stated policy is that we will not have U.S. forces in ground combat,” General Dempsey said, adding, “He has told me as well to come back to him on a case-by-case basis.”

In his speech last week announcing the expanded campaign against Islamic State, Mr. Obama said the military advisers he was sending to Iraq would help Iraqi and Kurdish forces with training, intelligence, and equipment. But he emphatically ruled out front-line fighting.

“These American forces will not have a combat mission — we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq,” he said.

But as General Dempsey made it clear, the reality of the battle might make such a hands-off approach insufficient. When Iraqi or Kurdish forces are trying to dislodge militants from urban areas like Mosul, airstrikes are less effective because they can cause civilian casualties.

In those cases, the general said, he might recommend to the president that the United States send Special Operations troops to provide what he called “close combat advising,” essentially working alongside Iraqi commanders in the field and helping them direct troops to targets.

The Pentagon leadership suggested to a Senate panel on Tuesday that US ground troops may directly join Iraqi forces in combat against the Islamic State (Isis), despite US president Barack Obama’s repeated public assurances against US ground combat in the latest Middle Eastern war.

A day after US warplanes expanded the war south-west of Baghdad, Army General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate armed services committee that he could see himself recommending the use of some US military forces now in Iraq to embed within Iraqi and Kurdish units to take territory away from Isis.

“If we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific [Isis] targets, I will recommend that to the president,” Dempsey said, preferring the term “close combat advising”.

It was the most thorough public acknowledgement yet from Pentagon leaders that the roughly 1,600 US troops Obama has deployed to Iraq since June may in fact be used in a ground combat role, something Obama has directly ruled out, most recently in a televised speech last week.

Dempsey, who has for years warned about the “unintended consequences” of Americanizing the Syrian civil war that gave rise to Isis, said he envisioned “close combat advising” for operations on the order of taking Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, away from Isis.

He also opened the door to using US “advisers” to call in air strikes from the ground, something Dempsey said they have thus far not done but which the US Central Command leader, General Lloyd Austin, initially thought would be necessary when pushing Isis away from the Mosul Dam last month.

“He shares my view that there will be circumstances when we think that’ll be necessary, but we haven’t encountered one yet,” said Dempsey, himself a veteran of the last Iraq war.

Obama’s prohibition on ground forces in a combat role was less ironclad than the president has publicly stated, Dempsey suggested.

“At this point, his stated policy is we will not have US ground forces in direct combat,” Dempsey said, to include spotting for US air strikes. “But he has told me as well to come back to him on a case-by-case basis.”

All Via: Memeorandum

Monday, September 15, 2014

As the World Changes Views and Positions Follow...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Sen. Rand Paul on Monday pushed back against heightened criticism that he has flip-flopped on foreign policy issues, saying he has stood firmly against the Obama administration’s policies in Syria.

Appearing on CBS “This Morning,” the Kentucky Republican conceded that he has shifted his views in some areas, including on what is an appropriate U.S. response to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. “As world events change, obviously you change your analysis. Five years ago, ISIS wasn’t a threat,” he said, using an alternate name for the terrorist group that has mobilized across much of northern and central Iraq.

Paul acknowledged that his thought process on ISIL has been “influenced” by ISIL’s recent beheadings of U.S. journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff and British aid worker David Haines.

He had previously been publicly skeptical about potential airstrikes against ISIL, but just a few months after criticized the president for not acting more forcefully against the group.

The senator on Monday mainly stuck to his critiques of President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s policies in Syria, saying their plans to potentially arm the Syrian rebels and bomb Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime last summer would have emboldened ISIL.

“Had we bombed Syria — had the president actually got what he wanted and what Hillary Clinton wanted, to bomb the heck out of Assad — my guess is ISIS would now be in Damascus,” he said.

The above excerpt, taken from POLITICO, is illustrative of what a rational politician/leader will do as world events and conditions change. They change their position(s) to meet the realities of the present while remaining true to their core principals. Something Senator Paul has done.

Senator Paul's acknowledgement that President Obama's stated strategy with regard to ISIL/ISIS, and the administration's efforts to create a broad coalition to combat the regional and potentially global threat ISIL/ISI presents, shows political maturity and certainly makes him a more viable candidate for president in 2016.
Paul, a potential 2016 presidential contender, also accused the president of being the real flip-flopper, saying he had changed his views on war authorization. “I have always said that the president is required by the Constitution to come to Congress. … The president used to agree with me.

It’s actually the president who’s changed his position,” he said. Paul was referring to the president’s contention in his address to the nation last week that he does not need congressional approval for airstrikes against ISIL targets in Syria. In 2007, then-Sen. Obama said George W. Bush would have to come to Congress to receive authorization for military action against Iran.

Fair enough,  the President should go to Congress for authorization when he wishes to declare act of war. But then there is something called the War Powers Act , which says in part: the President is required to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

Yet once again the parties continue to play political football and jockey for position rather than uniting behind a common cause while following the letter of the law as it presently exits. For the complete article continue reading BELOW THE FOLD.

Via: Memeorandum

Friday, September 12, 2014

Republicans and Democrats Differ On Importance Of Issues...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Do democrats and republicans exist in different realities? Sometimes I wonder.

The complete Pew Research Center for the People & the Press report.

Via: Memeorandum

Arab Nations Give Soft Support For American Strategy to Defeat ISIL/ISIS...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

This just in from The New York Times. With many key Arab states only expressing lukewarm support for President Obama's enunciated strategy to dismantle and destroy ISIL/ISIS how successful will the plan be?

BEIRUT, Lebanon — Many Arab governments grumbled quietly in 2011 as the United States left Iraq, fearful it might fall deeper into chaos or Iranian influence. Now, the United States is back and getting a less than enthusiastic welcome, with leading allies like Egypt, Jordan and Turkey all finding ways on Thursday to avoid specific commitments to President Obama’s expanded military campaign against Sunni extremists.

As the prospect of the first American strikes inside Syria crackled through the region, the mixed reactions underscored the challenges of a new military intervention in the Middle East, where 13 years of chaos, from Sept. 11 through the Arab Spring revolts, have deepened political and sectarian divisions and increased mistrust of the United States on all sides.

U.S. Pins Hope on Syrian Rebels With Loyalties All Over the MapSEPT. 11, 2014
President Obama and his wife, Michelle, on Thursday at a ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House marking the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.On a Day Devoted to Past Events, Focus on New Terror LinkSEPT. 11, 2014
“It’s important to give the president what he asked for,” Speaker John A. Boehner said.The House, in Rare Unity With Obama, Will Leave the Trail for an ISIS VoteSEPT. 11, 2014
Open Source: Mocking ISIS in BeirutSEPT. 10, 2014
“As a student of terrorism for the last 30 years, I am afraid of that formula of ‘supporting the American effort,’ ” said Diaa Rashwan, a scholar at the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, a government-funded policy organization in Cairo. “It is very dangerous.”

The tepid support could further complicate the already complex task Mr. Obama has laid out for himself in fighting the extremist Islamic State in Iraq and Syria: He must try to confront the group without aiding Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, or appearing to side with Mr. Assad’s Shiite allies, Iran and the militant group Hezbollah, against discontented Sunnis across the Arab world.

While Arab nations allied with the United States vowed on Thursday to “do their share” to fight ISIS and issued a joint communiqué supporting a broad strategy, the underlying tone was one of reluctance. The government perhaps most eager to join a coalition against ISIS was that of Syria, which Mr. Obama had already ruled out as a partner for what he described as terrorizing its citizens.

Syria’s deputy foreign minister, Fayssal Mekdad, told NBC News that Syria and the United States were “fighting the same enemy,” terrorism, and that his government had “no reservations” about airstrikes as long as the United States coordinated with it. He added, “We are ready to talk.”


In Jordan, the state news agency reported that in a meeting about the extremists on Wednesday, King Abdullah II had told Secretary of State John Kerry “that the Palestinian cause remains the core of the conflict in the region” and that Jordan was focusing on the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip.

Turkey, which Mr. Kerry will visit on Friday, is concerned about attacks across its long border with ISIS-controlled Syria, and also about 49 Turkish government employees captured by the group in Iraq. Speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, an official advised not to expect public support for the American effort.


Even in Baghdad and across Syria, where the threat from ISIS is immediate, reactions were mixed. Members of Iraq’s Shiite majority cheered the prospect of American help. But many Sunni Muslims were cynical about battling an organization that evolved from jihadist groups fighting American occupation.

“This is all a play,” said Abu Amer, 38, a government employee, who withheld his family name for his safety. “It is applying American political plans.”

One thing is fairly certain, to achieve success in defeating and destroying ISIL/ISIS, will require the support and resolve of the Arab nations and their people.


Via: Memeorandum

Could Ebola Become a Worldwide Plague?...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

As republicans in congress cut President Obama's request for funding level to counter the Ebola outbraek the potential for a worldwide plague grows. Unless medical science can control the spread, keeping the virus confined to small population area in tribal Africa until ultimately it runs it's course, the entire world is at risk. Controlling the spread and savings lives in Africa is essential to beating preventing mass deaths on a grand world scale.

The New York Times - MINNEAPOLIS — THE Ebola epidemic in West Africa has the potential to alter history as much as any plague has ever done.

There have been more than 4,300 cases and 2,300 deaths over the past six months. Last week, the World Health Organization warned that, by early October, there may be thousands of new cases per week in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea and Nigeria. What is not getting said publicly, despite briefings and discussions in the inner circles of the world’s public health agencies, is that we are in totally uncharted waters and that Mother Nature is the only force in charge of the crisis at this time.

There are two possible future chapters to this story that should keep us up at night.

The first possibility is that the Ebola virus spreads from West Africa to megacities in other regions of the developing world. This outbreak is very different from the 19 that have occurred in Africa over the past 40 years. It is much easier to control Ebola infections in isolated villages. But there has been a 300 percent increase in Africa’s population over the last four decades, much of it in large city slums. What happens when an infected person yet to become ill travels by plane to Lagos, Nairobi, Kinshasa or Mogadishu — or even Karachi, Jakarta, Mexico City or Dhaka?

The second possibility is one that virologists are loath to discuss openly but are definitely considering in private: that an Ebola virus could mutate to become transmissible through the air. You can now get Ebola only through direct contact with bodily fluids. But viruses like Ebola are notoriously sloppy in replicating, meaning the virus entering one person may be genetically different from the virus entering the next. The current Ebola virus’s hyper-evolution is unprecedented; there has been more human-to-human transmission in the past four months than most likely occurred in the last 500 to 1,000 years. Each new infection represents trillions of throws of the genetic dice.

If certain mutations occurred, it would mean that just breathing would put one at risk of contracting Ebola. Infections could spread quickly to every part of the globe, as the H1N1 influenza virus did in 2009, after its birth in Mexico.

Why are public officials afraid to discuss this? They don’t want to be accused of screaming “Fire!” in a crowded theater — as I’m sure some will accuse me of doing. But the risk is real, and until we consider it, the world will not be prepared to do what is necessary to end the epidemic.

In 2012, a team of Canadian researchers proved that Ebola Zaire, the same virus that is causing the West Africa outbreak, could be transmitted by the respiratory route from pigs to monkeys, both of whose lungs are very similar to those of humans. Richard Preston’s 1994 best seller “The Hot Zone” chronicled a 1989 outbreak of a different strain, Ebola Reston virus, among monkeys at a quarantine station near Washington. The virus was transmitted through breathing, and the outbreak ended only when all the monkeys were euthanized. We must consider that such transmissions could happen between humans, if the virus mutates.

Frightening possibilities to be sure. Continue reading BELOW THE FOLD for more.

Via: Memeorandum

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Articles of Substance With Respect to the President's Speech on ISIL/ISIS...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Following are links to articles and people who, unlike Ms. Palin actually have credibility.

Obama's Speech on ISIS, in Plain English

In Fight Against ISIL, Obama Finds Himself Facing Michael Corleone's Dilemma

The Grand Strategy Obama Needs

Obama’s Coalition of the Willing and Unable

Thoughts on any or all are encouraged and appreciated.

Sarah No Substance Palin...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

She is a creation of the Tea Party and neocons. Pushed for purely political reasons, and without the proper vetting by the McCain campaign, Sarah Palin went from relative obscurity as governor of Alaska to the top of the national republican ticket in 2008. After losing to Obama/Biden Senator McCain went back to senatorial pursuits and Palin, she became a media star. One thing for sure can be said of Palin, she has marketing savvy and the people really eat her boilerplate up. Well, some do anyway.

Sarah being Sarah and fully believing herself to have foreign policy and diplomatic credibility came out charging following President Obama's address to the nation on the USA strategy to dismantle and destroy ISIL/ISIS. Keep in mind the woman who credits the President of having accomplished almost nothing has done a damn sight less. But she is appreciated by the Tea Party neocons and that apparently is all that matters.

Full text of the Palin Tweet Rant follows.

War is hell. So go big or go home, Mr. President. Big means bold, confident, wise assurance from a trustworthy Commander-in-Chief that it shall all be worth it. Charge in, strike hard, get out. Win.
Obama famously claims to despise the “theater” and “optics” of the presidency. In tonight's speech he illustrated the “optics” of toughness. He tried to show a war-weary America that he’s tough in his speech concerning the threat of ISIS/ISIL. “The One” who believes in leading from behind can’t have it both ways. He sure wasn’t concerned about “optics” when he let the crisis starring this Islamic death cult reach this point as he dithered and danced and golfed the time away while the Middle East exploded into chaos.

Tonight he announced he’s flipped and will finally militarily engage inside Syria – the red line he’d set and then forgotten about surfaced again. This, after three and a half years of civil war, 200,000 people killed, and millions displaced amid horrifying humanitarian conditions. Last month, he authorized U.S. military action to stall ISIS’ momentum as it’s taken nearly complete control of Iraq. Tonight, President Obama pledged to fight Islamic militants “wherever they exist” with a very small coalition of the willing. (Can you blame foreign nations for not trusting the resolve of this president enough to join us? Right now he has a coalition of nine; President Bush had over 40 allied countries that could trust America’s leadership.)

Remember the inexperienced presidential candidate speaking from Germany at the Brandenburg Gate (2008)? Or the know-it-all state senator (2002), known for merely voting “present” on the big things, yet lecturing about this “dumb war” he claimed was a distraction from his desire to force income redistribution to create security. Remember him? Today, he seems more worried about contradicting his campaign promises (2002-2008) and typical political poll angst than leading as president (2009-present). These are the “optics” he's worried about.

The rise of the animalistic terror group, ISIS, is the result of Obama’s lead-from-behind foreign policy. He had broadcast his war strategy for all the enemy to see in Iraq, so the enemy could wait us out and strike as soon as America turned tail and turned away from all we’d sacrificed there. Terrorists who we had under control got to regroup and grow after Obama’s premature pull out. Those are the facts, and some tough talking speech is still just talk. Ronald Reagan was described by the Soviets as a politician for whom “words and deeds are one and the same.” When Reagan said his vision of the Cold War was “we win, they lose,” he meant it, and his policies won the Cold War. The real question Americans and our allies must ask is whether Obama-the-lecturer's words will translate into deeds.

Go big and be real, Mr. President, if you've really changed your mind again and now wish to engage. You must acknowledge reality: the organization calling itself the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is, in fact, “Islamic.” Not many of us pretend to be experts on the Muslim religion, but these terrorists obviously consider themselves Muslim and they believe what they’re horrifically doing to innocents is part of their “religion of peace.” So, you can use your soapbox to fiercely encourage the sane, civilized Muslims of the world to tell ISIS and all these sickening terrorists that they’re wrong. In the meantime, we must identify and understand the enemy by at least acknowledging their ideological motivation and identity. Our president is naive to ignore this.

ISIS must be stopped in Iraq and Syria before we need to stop them anywhere else. As they dominate the region they head for us; we're next on the hit list. For the sake of peace-loving people in America and throughout the world, let’s hope Barack Obama means what he says when he uses terms like “defeating ISIS.” He is so inconsistent in leading a failed agenda that it’s virtually impossible to put any hope in his new promises, because either his past statements shrugging off ISIS as just a “JV squad” was all talk or tonight’s new terminology is just all talk.

We should honor and understand our brave men and women of the U.S. armed forces today more than ever. Please do not support politicians who join Obama in diminishing our military. Our finest, trained to fight for what is right and determined to win, deserve our support. Thank you, military, may you be heard when you pray America’s leadership understands that if we’re in it, then we're in it to win it; no half measures. Troops, we are always with you.

- Sarah Palin

In a strange sort of way it was refreshing precisely because it gives the serious individual a good laugh.

Via: Memeorandum

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

And The Saints Go Marching On...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Is it a full moon? Ya just can't make this stuff up! Looney at best, dangerous at its worst.

Military service should rightly be reserved for those who believe in and are willing to die for what America stands for - and what America stands for is a belief in God as the source of our rights.

The United States Air Force has refused to allow a sergeant to re-enlist because he will not say "so help me God."

The Air Force is doing exactly the right thing here. There is no place in the United States military for those who do not believe in the Creator who is the source of every single one of our fundamental human and civil rights.

Serving in the military is a privilege, not a constitutional right. And it should be reserved for those who have America's values engraved on their hearts.

Naturally, the American Humanist Association, which has never seen a constitutional liberty it respects, intends to challenge this decision.

This case should be thrown out of court. The Constitution nowhere gives the federal judiciary any authority to set military policy. That's reserved for Congress and Congress alone.

(The "religious test" referred to in Article VI of the Constitution is a reference to a detailed or specific Christian statement of faith, and refers to elective or appointive office and not to military service. States, under the Constitution written by the Founders, can require any kind of religious test they want, and Article VI was designed to protect that power and reserve it for the States.)

Why is all this important? Because our military exists to uphold and defend our Constitution, and the Constitution in turn identifies the "unalienable rights" the Declaration refers to that our government is obligated to protect.

These rights do not come from government, they do not come from the commander-in-chief, and they most certainly do not come from some activist judge. They come from God himself. We are not evolved, as this wannabe-enlistee believes, but we are "created," and "endowed by (our) Creator with certain unalienable rights."

This is an absolutely foundational, non-negotiable, bed-rock American principle: there is a Creator - with a capital "C" (you could look it up) - and he and he alone is the source of the very rights the military exists to protect and defend.

An individual who does not understand and believe this has no right to serve in the U.S. military. Military service should rightly be reserved for those who believe in and are willing to die for what America stands for - and what America stands for is a belief in God as the source of our rights.

A man who doesn't believe in the Creator the Founders trusted certainly can live in America without being troubled for being a fool. But he most certainly should not wear the uniform.

More if you're INTERESTED

Via: Memeorandum

How Special Interests and Money Influence Our Government...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Americans have been lead to believe their vote counts, that our representative democracy gives us a voice in the political process and that by our choice of representatives our voices are heard. Back in the day there may very well have been a modicum of truth to this. However we are not living in the "40's" and "50's", special interests have gained increasing influence and the tax laws have changed in ways that allow big money to have a hugely increased influence on politics and thereby on government. Big money has eagerly taken a much larger place at the table as a result. We all know money talks and we can also be relatively certain big money is not looking out for the average hard working American. Big money is looking out for big money's self interests, not yours or the nation generally.

Thomas B. Edsall, penning an informative article for The New York Times goes into a detailed discussion of the above points. What you will read is troubling. The current situation, if it is allowed to continued unabated, threatens the very fabric of our republic.

Tax-exempt “social welfare” organizations, the new political weapons of choice, are widening the gap between the rich people who control campaign financing and the economically anxious voters targeted by their ads.

We don’t know who the contributors are to Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS because they can hide behind provisions in federal tax law designed to protect donors to “social welfare” charities, but we do know how much each gave, and we do know generally, from Crossroads’s annual 990 filings with the I.R.S., how the money was spent. In 2012, according to its own statement, Crossroads GPS spent $74.2 million not on commonly understood social welfare objectives but on direct political activities.

Crossroads raised the money for its 2012 tax-exempt activities from 291 unnamed men and women who wrote checks for a total of $179.7 million, an average contribution of $617,525 – nearly 12 times the 2012 median household income in the United States of $53,046, and 22 times the 2012 per capita income of $28,051.

The financial resources of the anonymous donors to Crossroads are striking, according to the organization’s 990 filing. Among the donors were 53 who contributed at least $1 million. Even more generously, one donor gave $22.5 million, another gave $18 million, and two gave $10 million each.

The right to veil the identity of contributors to such groups as Crossroads GPS is based on provisions in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, provisions that offer anonymity to those who support tax exempt organizations engaged in activities defined as permissible by the Internal Revenue Code. Here is the language: “IRC 501(c)(4) requires that organizations operate primarily in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the people of the community.” The section continues, “Generally, political educational organizations must conduct their activities in a non-partisan manner.”

At the current rate of growth, the Center for Responsive Politics projects that spending in the current election cycle by 501(c)(4) groups that do not disclose donors will break all previous records, including those of 2012. Spending by these groups rose from $1.3 million in 2006 to $256.3 million in 2012, according to C.R.P.

Regulations adopted in 1959 by the I.R.S. to govern the implementation of the 501(c)(4) section of the tax code (you have to live in Washington to believe this) opened up a loophole intended for a mixed group of nonprofits – “Charitable Organizations, Churches & Religious Organizations, Political Organizations, and Private Foundations” – that Crossroads and similar groups have turned to great advantage.

Here is the regulatory language: “The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity.”

The word “primary,” in turn, has been interpreted by election lawyers and political operatives to mean that a group like Crossroads GPS, with an expressly conservative partisan orientation (or another group with an expressly liberal partisan orientation), can spend as much as 49 percent of its budget on political activities.


“The political network spearheaded by conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch has expanded into a far-reaching operation of unrivaled complexity, built around a maze of groups that cloaks its donors,” The Washington Post reported at the beginning of this year.

“It is a very sophisticated and complicated structure,” Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, a professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School, told The Post. “It’s designed to make it opaque as to where the money is coming from and where the money is going. No layperson thought this up. It would only be worth it if you were spending the kind of dollars the Koch brothers are, because this was not cheap.”

Intrigued, I emailed Rob Tappan, a Koch Industries spokesman:

“Why is there such a complex structure of organizations? Some exist only to transfer money. Many of the organizations provide grants to the same recipients. What is the purpose of this? From a corporate point of view, this structure would seem to only create more inefficiencies and costs of operation. Is the system designed to make it difficult to follow the flow of money? Some of the organizations have changed names. Is there a reason for this? Also, some organizations have what I believe are called ‘disregarded entities’ that receive and transfer money? What is the purpose of the creation of these entities? Do these groups hold meetings to work out strategy? Is there an individual, committee or some other mechanism to oversee the activities of these groups? If you cannot answer some or all of these questions, could you point me to the person(s) who can?”

Tappan referred me to James Davis, a spokesman for Freedom Partners, a mainstay of the Koch network. In 2012, Freedom Partners spent $237.7 million, almost all in grants to other nonprofits, including at least $169.9 million to other Koch organizations.

Davis replied to me by email saying that he could only address questions about Freedom Partners and was not in a position to reply to queries about the larger structure of the Koch network: “Sorry, I speak for Freedom Partners. I can’t help.”

The steady deregulation of election financing has disenfranchised ordinary voters. Part of their disenfranchisement comes from the capacity of donors to remain unaccountable to the electorate at large. The combination of lax regulation by the F.E.C., weak oversight by the I.R.S. and a Supreme Court majority blind to the corrosive power of money in politics has created a system of campaign finance dominated by those with vast fortunes answerable to no one but themselves.

Troubling? It should be. For the full detailed article continue reading BELOW THE FOLD.

Via: Memeorandum

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

House Republicans Cut President's Ebola Funding Request...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

THE HILL - House Republicans indicated Tuesday that they will provide less than half of the White House's funding request to fight Ebola in the next government spending bill.

According to a source familiar with the negotiations, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) agreed as of Tuesday morning to spend a total of $40 million to fight the epidemic in the 2015 spending bill.

This would include $25 million for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and $15 million for the Biological Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) to ramp up production of an experimental anti-Ebola drug, the source said.

The White House had asked for $88 million for Ebola in total, including $58 million for BARDA, which is involved in coordinating experimental treatments during public health emergencies.

A spokeswoman for the House Appropriations Committee would not confirm the numbers, saying the details of the bill are not yet finalized.

The funding fight comes amid desperate cries for help fighting Ebola from health workers in West Africa and institutions like the United Nations.

CDC Director Thomas Frieden says the epidemic is spiraling out of control and needs immediate attention from lawmakers and officials around the world.

The death count in West Africa exceeded 2,000 people this week.

The House is expected to vote on a stopgap government funding bill on Thursday. The measure would keep the government open through Dec. 11.

Your House Republicans at work saving a few cool millions. A savings that could cost s dearly in the foreseeable future. As we hope for the best.

Via: Memeorandum

Sunday, September 7, 2014

On Leon Trotsky...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Leon Trotsky

Recently my curiosity over whether the USSR would have been a far different state had Trotsky succeeded Lenin rather than Stalin was renewed. A post over at Contra O'Reilly is responsible for this revived curiosity. Of course the question that is fun to consider is would have Russia (USSR) and the world been better for it. Of course we'll never know the answer to these musings but there certainly is a large volume of information for anyone interested in the life and times of Leon Trotsky.

Following is an interesting discussion with Hitchens and Service at the Hoover Institute.

Friday, September 5, 2014

A Strategy is Emerging...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

As NATO meets in Wales this week to discuss the many vexing problems facing the world a strategy is developing among western powers. One that is based on a coalition looking a lot like prior engagement strategies. Sensible and ultimately the only way to fly if we wish to succeed.

It will be interesting to hear and read the uber conservatives take on what is almost certainly the strategy Obama has had in mind all along. What most of us have always wanted to know is the President is taking this situation seriously and is working to arrive at a strategy with the best chance of success.

It appears this is what is happening.

President Obama and other world leaders are currently meeting in Wales to discuss the bevy of issues that are currently vexing the world, including the political turmoil in Afghanistan ahead of the alliance’s withdrawal this year and a newly emboldened Russia that has sent troops into neighboring Ukraine. But at the top of the minds of many of the Western leaders was how to push back against ISIS, which since June has controlled a vast swath of territory in both Iraq and Syria. According to the New York Times, “diplomats and defense officials from the United States, Britain, France, Australia, Canada, Germany, Turkey, Italy, Poland and Denmark conferred on what they called a two-pronged strategy: working to bolster allies on the ground in Iraq and Syria, while attacking Sunni militants from the air. They said the goal was to destroy the Islamist militant group, not to contain it.”

When compared with the list of those countries who provided the bulk of the support for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the new coalition provides a few interesting points of divergence. Then, only four countries played a major role in actually taking control of the country from Saddam Hussein: America, the United Kingdom, Australia, and to a lesser extent Poland. The rest of what would become the Multinational Force – Iraq, including countries like Romania and Honduras, would be deployed later to help attempt to stabilize the country.

Read the full story BELOW THE FOLD

Via: Memeorandum

First Eye Witness Account of Events the Night of Benghazi...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

In the continuing and seemingly never ending search for the full truth of Benghazi a new book, “13 Hours,” is likely to provide further insights, as well as stirring the political embers not yet extinguished. Much the the chagrin of the democrats and the powers that be we sure.

CAIRO — Five commandos guarding the C.I.A. base in Benghazi, Libya, in September 2012 say that the C.I.A. station chief stopped them from interceding in time to save the lives of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and an American technician during the attack on the diplomatic mission there.

In a new book scheduled for release next week and obtained by The New York Times, the commandos say they protested repeatedly as the station chief ordered them to wait in their vehicles, fully armed, for 20 minutes while the attack on the diplomatic mission was unfolding less than a mile away.

“If you guys do not get here, we are going to die!” a diplomatic security agent then shouted to them over the radio, the commandos say in the book, and they left the base in defiance of the chief’s continuing order to “stand down.”

Republicans have blamed President Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, then the secretary of state, for the security failure.

Prepare for the next chapter of almost non stop political and media chatter. Hopefully the nation finds the answers it is entitled to and processes and procedures are put in place to minimize the possibility (as well as likelihood )of this happening again.


Via: Memeorandum

Statement From Ted Nugent, the Moron in Chief...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

America's Moron in Cheif

Ted Nugent, America's Moron in Chief took to Facebook to spread more of his now legendary Nugent Insanity. In keeping with his preaching to the NRA choir and other extreme right wing nut balls the Moron in Chief dropped his usual pearls of BS wisdom.

THE RAW STORY- Taking to Facebook, former Damn Yankees guitarist and NRA Board member Ted Nugent warned that the upcoming anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001 will bring a wave of attacks on “unnarmed & helpless Americans and Europeans” by “4th world allahpuke zombies.”

“9-11-14 is the day of infamy again. Unarmed & helpless Americans and Europeans will be viciously ambushed when they least expect it, and the death toll will be more brutal and widespread than all the peace & love dreamers could ever imagine,” Nugent wrote.

Nugent advised citizens to ”gun & ammo up” in order to protect themselves and provided handy shooting tips for killing the “allahpuke zombies.”

“Those who carry guns had better gun & ammo up no matter where you go, carrying at least 10 spare mags or 10 spare speedloaders because the allahpukes are confident they will once again methodically slaughter walking cowering whining cryin helpless sitting ducks capable of zero resistance,”...

Via: Memeorandum

Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Phil Robertson Sounding An Awful Lot Like the Quran... but He's a Christian, How Is This Possible?

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

"In this case, you either have to convert them -- which I think would be next to impossible. I'm not giving up on them, but I'm just saying either convert them or kill them. One or the other." Phil Robertson

Well now, sounds a great deal like what I have read in Islam's holy book, the Quran. Like I've maintained for years extremism is extremism no mater what suit the caricature is wearing.

TPM - "Duck Dynasty" patriarch Phil Robertson put forward a strategy Tuesday for combating militants with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria: "convert them or kill them."

Robertson was asked to opine on Fox News' "Hannity" about how to combat radical Islam and anti-Christian behavior, after ISIS militants released a video showing the beheading of a second American journalist.

"In this case, you either have to convert them -- which I think would be next to impossible," Robertson said. "I'm not giving up on them, but I'm just saying either convert them or kill them. One or the other."

Host Sean Hannity predicted the media would jump on that comment.

"I'd much rather have a Bible study with all of them and show them the error of their ways and point them to Jesus Christ ... however, if it's a gunfight and a gunfight alone, if that's what they're looking for, I'm personally ready for either one," Robertson later added.

It so happens that convert-or-die was the same ultimatum ISIS militants gave to Iraqi Christians after taking control of Mosul.

Robertson is making the media rounds to promote his new book, which defends comments he made on homosexuality in a GQ interview last year.

"I’m as much of a homophobe as Jesus was," Robertson said on "Good Morning America" while addressing the outcry over the remarks. "People who are participating in homosexual behavior, they need to know that I love them."

Take the time to partake of Phil Robertson's biblical take JUST BELOW THE FOLD.

Via: Memeorandum

Obama's Strategy Vacillation

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

It is beginning to look like the President is not at all sure exactly what the objective is or should be with regard to the threat ISIS presents for the USA and the rest of the western world.

All italicized remarks following are taken from ABC News.

At first, the president offered what seemed to be an unambiguous goal. “The bottom line is this: Our objective is clear and that is to degrade and destroy ISIL so it is no longer a threat,” he said

Here the President is clear, forceful even with resolve in his words. His words indicate a policy shift from the prior less strident policy that was in essence a defensive and protective one with no consideration of destroying ISIS.

When Ann Compton asked the President to clarify his statement asking him if the USA is now in favor of destroying ISIS Obama back tracked sending mixed messages.

“Our objective is to make sure they aren’t an ongoing threat to the region,” he said.

“We know that if we are joined by the international community, we can continue to shrink ISIL’s sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its military capability to the point where it is a manageable problem.”

So, here we are, once again wondering what the leader of these United States of America, indeed the leader of the free world, has in his mind. Winging it and sending mixed messages is never a good strategy. If for no other reason than it is hard to follow someone that gives the appearance they don't now where they are going.

See the video BELOW THE FOLD.

Via: Memeorandum

Monday, September 1, 2014

Republicans and the Tea Party Legacy...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Republicans in Congress love to say ‘no.’ Those are just facts, they’re facts of life. They say ‘no’ to everything.” Barrack Hussein Obama, President of the United States of America

Well, when you look at just the facts it is true. For the most part republicans do say no to damn near everything. Even when it makes a modicum of sense to say yes. It is then only natural for rational individuals to consider that republicans have an agenda not necessarily related to what may be in the best interests of the nation.

Something about the republican form of government, as well as our history, informs us that compromise for the purpose of arriving at the solution that is most representative of the will of the people was the intent of the founders. However, today a minority can hold our nation hostage to special interests whose aim are not necessarily in the best interests of our people and the nation.

Republicans, once a respected and honorable party have become synonymous with obstruction and gridlock. I say this as a past Vice Chairman of my prior locales Republican Town Committee as well as a delegate to a Massachusetts state republican convention. In as much as it pains me to say so the national republican party has become a disgrace to the republican form of government and a hindrance to the growth of our middle class and thus our nation at large.

While the democratic party is not the savior by any stretch of the imagination it is high time that independent thinking individuals reassess just what direction they believe the nation needs to take and act accordingly. Reassessment must include the potential advantages of a viable multi party system and possibly a parliamentarian form of government. In light of the gridlock and special interest influence that has become our American Political Reality drastic and even novel possibilities must be considered.

Read the rest of the article from which the above quote was taken BELOW THE FOLD.

Via: Memeorandum