Daily news sites

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your support.

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

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

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

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

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

To the editor:

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Walsh
San Tan Valley, AZ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That changed in 1980.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Via: Memeorandum

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

Buddhist Temple Torched By Muslims...

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

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

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

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

As reported by Reuters...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What will it take... ?

Via: Memeorandum

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

The Inept Supporting the Inept...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Via: Memeorandum

Like the best city mix: structured color block pants team up with a simple basic t-shirt  and nude heels. One item casual and another one elegant is now allowed as long you feel it is right. I call it city-chic!


                                                                          T-shirt: Forever21
                                                                          Pants: H&M/ similar Here
                                                                          Bag: thanks to PLNDR/ another great one Here
                                                                          Cuff: St.Thomas
                                                                          Heels: Aldo/ similar Here
                                                                          Necklace: flea market find/ another great one Here

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

The Question Is... To Where?

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

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

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

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

As he nails it again...

Via: Memeorandum

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Via: Memeorandum

Today I want to share with you some clothing items that are all affordable pieces from Sheinside . The Summer ended and Fall started, hence this is a look for the transition of the seasons ! Leatherette shorts with a parka and gold accessories + a minimalistic bag is what I will like to wear right now. As shoes I chose 3 different style but all great for this outfit  . What piece is your favorite ?



                                                                              1. Blouse : Sheinside /Here
                                                                              2. Parka Jacket : Sheinside/ Here 
                                                                              3. Shorts: Sheinside / Here
                                                                              4. Cuff bracelet : Sheinside/ Here
                                                                              5. Bag: Sheinside / Here
                                                                              6. Collar necklace : Sheinside / Here
                                                                      
                                                                              7. Boots: Sheinside/ Here
                                                                              8. Leopard flats: Sheinside/ Here
                                                                              9. Low heel flats : Sheinside/ Here

 On rainy days like this, I'm not very inspired about what to wear so this is what I came up with ,when Bogdan and I had stuff to do all over the places. Printed silk shirt, skinny jeans, burgundy flats and to animate this look a little bit more, I added this white floral necklace which layers this floral shirt nicely. I don't dress too often in black, but this look was one that I really liked.
Have a wonderful weekend everyone !



                                                                        Shirt : Gap/ another option Here
                                                                        Jeans: Thanks to Lulu's.com/ similar Here
                                                                        Flats: Charles David/ another option Here
                                                                        Bag: Innue /different  color Here
                                                                        Necklace: Thanks to Lulu's.com/ another favorite of mine Here 
                                                                        Sunglasses: thanks to zeroUV/ Here 

As you might have guessed, I like to do a little bit of shopping on vacation. (last vacation related post, promise) But I never really gravitate toward souvenir type things. We've already got enough crap at home, we don't need any additional t-shirts or koozie holders.

But there is one exception. Sea shells. For some weird reason I'm wicked psycho about seashells. It is physically not possible for me to walk down the beach without bending over every two steps to pick up a shell. It's great cardio. I even have a type of shell that I look for each year - this year was sand dollars. (told you - psycho much?!)

This means however that each year, at the end of our annual beach trip, I have a huge basket of seashells that I can't bring myself to leave behind. So I also pick up these old glass canisters from the local architectural salvage thinking I'll store all my shells like some awesome organized person.

And each year they sit in the garage of some awesome unorganized person.

So this year, damn it, I was going to get these things cleaned and put in their place.

First things first, I followed these steps to clean the shells. I had to do them in batches and they took forever to dry, but otherwise not hard at all.

I wanted to add a label to mark each year but I didn't want to stick or spray anything on the canisters. So I went to Michael's and picked up some labels Martha made some for me, and grabbed the twine from the garage. (which ironically was right next the the shells on the shelf)

I didn't want anything to precious or perfect but rather relaxed and easy - just like vacation. So I just wrote the year on each label and tied them around the top of the jar with the twine.

Voila.

Each year lined up and ready to go.

For now they are living on the bookshelves in the family room so I can look at them while I watch TV and remember good times. (the trips, not the tv show) Dynomite!

btw - I HATE taking pictures in the basement. Crap lighting.

What do you bring back from vacation? Does it end up in the closet? Have you found a special place for it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Via: Memeorandum

Update:

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

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

Skip

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

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

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

Via: Memeorandum

I should be giving an update on my progress (click here if you missed last week). But really I'm going to use each and every one of you for your brilliant and creative minds to help me make a decision.

I can't decide on a color combo. Am I going:

1.Navy/White






So cast your vote - 1, 2 or 3?

And be sure to check in with all the other lovelies who I'm sure are farther ahead on their rugs than I am.

My Crafty Home Life

Pawleys Island Posh

The Pink Pagoda

Room Rx

Seekers Bazaar

Simple Details

Trapped In North Jersey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Debbie Dean agrees.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Via: FOX BUSINESS

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

Stein: Green Party nominee for President stands against dependency.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Via: Memeorandum