Daily news sites

Happy Monday (she says with a forced smile that comes after a long holiday weekend)! Thanks everyone for the kind words about the CNN feature and my birthday. 'Merica and I had one great birthday celebration. Here is hoping your weekend was filled with summer fun.

I'm going to diverge from design today to give y'all an update on the potty training front and share some successes and some rather stinky failures. If you don't want to hear about the bodily movements of a toddler, I totally understand and I'll talk with you on Wednesday. For the rest of you, let's chat.

As I said before, I changed up my tactics a bit this time around to accommodate for my independent Eve. I read blogs, books, articles, and talked to anyone and everyone to find out what worked for them. And from all of that research the only thing I learned is that there is no magic potion. For every person who said, "Blank worked really well for my child", I had someone else who said, "Don't do blank, it didn't work for my child". Only you know your child - their temperaments and sticking points - so don't follow one theory or method, but instead follow your gut and go with the flow (I couldn't not have a pun).

So with that in mind, I'm not going to give a tutorial or the 10 best tips etc, because I don't think this is something that can be wrapped up that easily. I'm simply sharing what we did. Take it as advice or just a funny antidote. Whichever you choose.


I want to be just like you.
Eve has no interest in following my directions, however she is more than happy to do anything her big sister does. So for several weeks before we officially started training I left the door open while Amelia went to the bathroom (I know, eww). Eve would hang out in there, sometimes watching and sometimes just playing in the sink. But she noticed.

Take your pants off.
We took the standard trip to Target where Eve got to pick out any underwear she wanted (Dora) and any candy she wanted (Peanut Butter M&M's). But for the first few days she had no underwear on at all and she's worn only dresses. This saves valuable seconds between the 'I have to go' and the actual...going. It may not seem like much but that could be the difference in those first days between celebrating success and just almost making it.


Cold turkey.
This goes right along with the whole pants thing - No pull ups. We go all the way in this house. It makes for a messy few days but I think its worth it in the long run. How confusing to put on things that look and feel just like diapers but be told they aren't diapers. We do however do wear the night time pull ups but that's mostly because I'm lazy and don't want to change sheets in the middle of the night. One battle at a time I think.

Clear the decks.
I have a hard time hiding my frustration when my favorite pillow/chair/rug is hurt in any way (mean mommy) and if there is one time when a child's ego is especially delicate it is when they are trying to master a new task. So to decrease the chance of injuring any of mommy's favorites and keeping spirits high, I covered furniture with towels and rolled up any rugs I was concerned about. We also tried to hang out in the yard whenever possible as nature doesn't care about her floors as much as I do.


House arrest.
This goes right with the no pull ups and no underwear thing. Eve and I hunkered down and didn't leave the house until we had a full successful day, (Well, that isn't entirely true but I'll get to that in a minute) which turned out to be about four days. Amelia was at camp every day so Eve and I had the house to ourselves and it was all about her. I didn't let her out of my sight until we had a few successes as I didn't want her failure to be because I wasn't there to help her get on in time. That potty was two carted around everywhere.

Don't ask me again.
The first day I did the 'let's sit down every 10 minutes and see if anything happens' theory but I quickly found that it created more anxiety than necessary. It is a big change to all of a sudden have to sit on this little throne and Eve was confused as to why she was being made to sit in that chair so often. It was starting to become a frustration for her and I wanted that chair to be something positive. So I changed course and backed off the regimented schedule. Instead I'd ask her after snacks, short walks around the yard, a tv show or anytime I went. This kid is far more 'go with the flow' so by making our training more relaxed she felt more comfortable and willing to give it a try.


Pavlov's Dog.
If there is one thing this girl loves, it is candy. Stickers work better for some kids, little figurines, whatever. The point is it is a prize. However, the prize is not given just for sitting on the potty. M&M's are only handed out once there is a success. I know a lot of people give out the treat anytime the kids says they need to sit down, whether they do anything or not. But (again mean mommy) I think this is silly and confusing. If all I had to do to get something I wanted was just do 20% of the job, hell I'd be asking to sit on the potty every 5 minutes. Nope. You give me something to flush and I'll give you some chocolate and peanut butter goodness.

And the oscar goes to. Hand in hand with the M&M's come the theatrics. Accomplishments need to be celebrated much in the same way a Kardashian throws a wedding - over the top. We cheered, we clapped, we danced, we sang, we called people to tell them. In the words of Kool and the Gang - Celebrate good times, come on.

The P word.
Our downfall. Eve got the hang of peeing on the potty pretty quickly (day 2), but the other P word however was not so easy. The first day she didn't have one at all and the second day we had an accident. No biggie. The third day we had one success and one failure. Moving in the right direction. Then we arrived at the fourth day. Ugh, the fourth day. We had been doing so well up until then that she and I got a little cocky and decided to break one of my cardinal rules - Stay HOME. We picked up Amelia and her friend from camp and I decided to treat the girls to McDonald's. Eve had just gone to the bathroom before we left and I even brought the potty in the car, just in case. We waited in line, got our food and found a seat right next to the play place, all without incident. But then Eve walked over to the slide. The horror. I'll spare the specifics but my tiny 2-1/2-year-old managed to  horrify and disgust two 10 year old. Boys that just a few minutes before were enjoying a very creative burping contest. The janitor had to be called over and gave me the look of death as he put up the yellow cones. I had been shamed out of McDonalds. I didn't think it was possible. And all because I broke the 4th rule of fight potty club - stay home.

A Responsibility To Lead
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
****************

This what you get with a bunch of amateur Progressive/Socialists in the White House.  I am referring to Egypt, Syria, Libya, and, well, you name an area of the world, outside the western sphere of influence, and you can quickly see what happens when the US either withdraws, as in "leading from behind," or interferes by taking sides, especially when the side the US takes is the side against the people of a particular country. 

As I write these few words, Syria and Egypt are both in flames. And worse -- they bracket Israel.  A regional conflict is just one misstep away.

Our jet set, playboy, President and his entourage are, well, where the heck ARE they this week?  Huh?  Our illustrious Secretary of State was off yachting somewhere last week while all hell was breaking loose.

I have seen a lot, I mean A LOT, of presidential administrations come and go, and this one is, by far, the most disconnected from the people of the US of any administration prior to, at least,  FDR.  Hell, the Obama Administration isn't even good at PRETENDING to be paying attention to the people of the country.

Look.  I am an isolationist by nature.  I would be the most happy if I could withdraw and go live in the woods someplace -- quite alone.  See, I understand what drove the old "mountain men," and "frontiersmen" of the early days of this country.  I share their yearning for peace and quiet and room for a man to breath. I'm convinced some of us come wired that way.  As then, nowadays we are considered "a breed apart" even weird.

It has never particularly troubled me, one iota, what other people think of my attitude, or my predilections toward keeping my own counsel.

I am sharing all this to say that while individuals can seek -- and even enjoy -- isolation, nations cannot. If you require evidence as to the "rightness" of this statement, we direct your attention toward the DPRK (the Democratic People's Republic of  Korea) -- especially at night.  That's when the impact of their self imposed isolation is most evident when seen from space.  While the remainder of the world, away from the sun, is lit and bustling with activity, North Korea is blacked out, sitting in a deep despairing darkness their leaders have created just to control the citizens of that hapless country.

America, on the other hand, has never known anything but the glare of the spotlight. 

When a tiny little group of American colonists revolted and went to war, deliberately, against a world super power, Great Britain, there was no way the remainder of the world WOULD NOT sit up and pay attention.  They've been sitting up and paying attention for over 237 years now and continue to be surprised time and time again at the audacity and, at times, the utter stupidity of the Americans.

This is one of those times when their unrelenting surveillance of America is rewarded with a show of world class stupidity.

America has in charge (at the moment) quite likely the least qualified man to ever sit behind the desk of the Oval Office in the White House -- in the history of the United States.  WE elected him!  How dare we actually expect him to do the right thing for America.  After all, he has told us plainly that he is a "citizen of the world."

See, this is a "brave new world."  One in which a president puts his country second to his fellow citizens of the world.    The wants, needs, and desires of the people who elected him simply have to wait.  We Americans will just have to get over our angst ignited by the progressive/socialists when they side-lined the constitution as if it no longer applies.

We will just have to content ourselves with whatever degree of attention our "paternalistic ruling elite" allows us during those infrequent periods between vacations and golfing trips. 

Over the past four-and-a-half years Obama's fellow "citizens of the world" have learned that they, too, are victims of the President's narcissism.  Unable to focus for long on anything, or anyone, other than himself, Obama's Caliph-in-Chief image has proven a false facade and has left his Muslim followers stymied and, as in Egypt, up that "proverbial creek" without a paddle -- and as Egypt's former President Morsi is discovering, likely without so much as a canoe, either.

The mess in Libya -- Benghazi, to be exact  -- is still unresolved and is not likely to be resolved until after Ms. Clinton's first or second term.

In Syria, well, the war there is already lost.  US troops who die there will be dying in the name of politics only.  But, HEY!  Obama is a politician!  That's what he does! 

Mr. Obama is a lot of things. Sadly, being a leader is not among them. 

Ask the common, every day, American and he will tell you, a nation must pick its battles and its wars.  A wise nation only chooses to initiate or join in a fight in which its interests are at stake.

A "responsibility to protect" is one of those "citizen of the world" philosophies that "feels" good.  Never mind that it perpetuates war(s). And never mind that it does not inquire as to America's interest in any given situation that includes gunfire, loud explosions, and mangled body parts. 

A true leader assesses a situation and decides "yes" or "no" on his nation's involvement based upon that simple test mentioned above:  Are there American interests involved?  If there is not, then America should not get involved -- at any level.  That is when a President is called upon, indeed, has the awesome responsibility to say, loudly and clearly, NO!  He must mean it -- and he must convince the remainder of the world that he means it -- by not backing down, or surreptitiously running guns to one side or the other.

So this is what America gets, heck, what THE WORLD gets, when America chooses a person to lead and that person is incapable of leading. 

Buckle up.. It's a long way to January 20th 2017. Rest assured -- things WILL get worse.

© J. D. Longstreet

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


Following 911, and the understandable fear it created in the hearts and minds of Americans, our federal government took steps to insure the security of the nation's citizenry and prevent possible future terrorist attacks. Beginning with the enactment of the Patriot Act the United States of America, in the pursuit of enhanced put into motion the legal mechanisms that can just as assuredly be used against the liberty of individuals as it can be used to provide national society ad thwarting terrorist attacks.

Certainly the argument for grossly expanded federal power in the name of protecting the American people is a powerful one, one few people took issue with following the Islamist attack on the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. From the initial enactment of the Patriot Act federal agencies like TSA, NSA, and the FISA court have grown ever more intrusive of the rights of innocent and law abiding citizens. This is, or should be considered a most frightening trend. As government becomes more intrusive and secretive the possibility, indeed the likelihood the government will use data in liberty sapping ways is increased significantly. The inevitable result will most certainly be an erosion of liberty and a more entrenched and powerful federal government.

GWB is synonymous with the Patriot Act and setting in motion greater expansion of government power. GHO has continued to oversee these expanded powers and the continued enlargement of them.

The New York Times (WASHINGTON) - WASHINGTON — In more than a dozen classified rulings, the nation’s surveillance court has created a secret body of law giving the National Security Agency the power to amass vast collections of data on Americans while pursuing not only terrorism suspects, but also people possibly involved in nuclear proliferation, espionage and cyberattacks, officials say.

The rulings, some nearly 100 pages long, reveal that the court has taken on a much more expansive role by regularly assessing broad constitutional questions and establishing important judicial precedents, with almost no public scrutiny, according to current and former officials familiar with the court’s classified decisions.

The 11-member Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, known as the FISA court, was once mostly focused on approving case-by-case wiretapping orders. But since major changes in legislation and greater judicial oversight of intelligence operations were instituted six years ago, it has quietly become almost a parallel Supreme Court, serving as the ultimate arbiter on surveillance issues and delivering opinions that will most likely shape intelligence practices for years to come, the officials said.

Last month, a former National Security Agency contractor, Edward J. Snowden, leaked a classified order from the FISA court, which authorized the collection of all phone-tracing data from Verizon business customers. But the court’s still-secret decisions go far beyond any single surveillance order, the officials said.

“We’ve seen a growing body of law from the court,” a former intelligence official said. “What you have is a common law that develops where the court is issuing orders involving particular types of surveillance, particular types of targets.”

In one of the court’s most important decisions, the judges have expanded the use in terrorism cases of a legal principle known as the “special needs” doctrine and carved out an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a warrant for searches and seizures, the officials said. {Full Article Here}

A very wise man once said, and it still holds true today... "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. And, there is most definitely unintended consequences. Even when the initial actions were intended for good.

Via: Memeorandum

             
                                                                                 Lancôme mascara Hypnose Doll/ Here 
                                                                                 Lancôme mascara Definicils/ Here 
                                                                                 Lancôme mascara Hypnose Star/ Here 

Edward J. Snowden

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

Having tired of the religious right's fanaticism and the rabid left's fanaticism, while arguing for reasonable and reasoned positions for reproductive rights for women and at the same time arguing to recognize the right of a viable fetus to continue life, it is clear to me this debate will continue into the next century and possibly beyond.

So, this being my last post on the issue I leave you with the insanity.

Just minutes after a House panel Wednesday passed a package of sweeping abortion restrictions, Reps. Donna Howard, a Democrat, and Steve Toth and Bill Zedler, both Republicans, got into an interesting and at times heated discussion. This happened right after several House Republicans held an impromptu presser in the back of the hearing room following an 8-3 partly line vote to pass House Bill 2. Howard, who joined Democratic colleagues in a presser of their own, was still hanging around the hearing room and jumped right into the scrum

If you would like to take the time to read the text you can find it here.

The last thing I'll say about this issue is: BOTH THE RABID LEFT and WING NUT RIGHT are WRONG.

Via: Memeorandum

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

Ex-President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama converse during this week's trip to Tanzania. (Doug Mills/The New York Times)

This should be interesting.

dallasnews -A president named Obama may be most linked to overhauling immigration policy. But on Wednesday, George W. Bush will weigh in.

Bush will deliver opening remarks at an citizenship ceremony and immigration forum at the Dallas presidential center bearing his name, where it’s expected he will talk about how immigration reform will be good for America. A panel discussion titled “What Immigrants Contribute” will follow. The day will start with 20 immigrants taking a quick pathway to citizenship at an actual naturalization ceremony.

It’s unclear whether the ex-president will stick to generalities during his remarks at the citizenship ceremony, or elevate the conversation with details about the super-sized immigration bill now being debated in Congress.

The George. W. Bush Institute has thrown some weight behind measures to overhaul immigration policies and linked it to its “4% Growth Project,” which proposes such growth would create 10 million additional jobs during the next decade with no rise in government spending. The event will include panels discussing immigration and economic growth, why naturalization matters and “how immigrants serve America.”

Bush’s own promised overhaul of immigration policy was defeated in Congress. His measure with its five basic points is even featured in the new presidential museum, which also houses the Bush Institute.

The Bush Institute has pushed a small stream of reports and posts advocating an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws. Many are blunt: “How Conservatives Should Think About Immigration Reform.” Others note that the Bush Institute has backed “immigration reform” with a book co-sponsored with the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

Last week, S 744 passed the Senate, but the real fighting on the overhaul will take place in the House. The Senate measure includes a controversial “border surge” amendment that would double the Border Patrol, supply drones and more fencing to the nation’s southern flank. It was viewed as an inducement to Republicans to rally their support for the Senate measure, but one that brought criticism from Mexico’s Foreign Minister and U.S. citizens living at the border.

Some Latino and immigrant-rights groups based in border states like Texas and California say they oppose a measure that includes increases in law enforcement they consider extreme. The Border Patrol has already doubled its size from about a decade ago. Among those voicing objections are the El Paso-based Border Network on Human Rights, the online group called Presente.org, and border affiliates of the ACLU.

Waiting with baited breath for next Wednesday.

Via: Memeorandum

Last week I was invited to a private online pre-view of the new PBS documentary, Follow the Leader. The film is now available on iTunes – via this link if you can use it: http://bit.ly/11RfZxW – and beginning July 9th on these other platforms: Amazon, Xbox, Playstation, Vudu, Google Play

FOLLOW THE LEADER has a rare U.S. TV Premiere as the only new film to air and the finale of the first season of the PBS/WGBH’s World Channel series, America ReFramed throughout this 4^th of July holiday week, and a re-broadcast on Sept. 11) in the top regional markets including:

New York City (WNET), Santa Ana, CA (KOCE), Philadelphia (WHYY), Dallas (KERA), San Francisco (KQED), Boston (WGBH), Durham, NH (NEWH), Atlanta (GEOR), Phoenix (KAET), Tampa, FL (WEDU), and many more.

You can also view Follow the Leader on Saturday July 6, 2013 here.

According to it’s promotion on the web, Follow the Leader is:

 A political coming-of-age documentary about three boys who want to be President. Over three life-changing years, each rethinks his beliefs and discovers who he truly wants to be as an adult

The over-arching question the film documentary asks is: What shapes our political beliefs?

After viewing Follow the Leader, a well-presented story of three highly motivated, top of their class, 2007 high school graduates, who in the beginning were all politically conservative WASPS (White Anglo Saxon Protestants), I came away with a few questions.

But before I get to my questions, I want to say that the film was very engaging and the young men, D.J., Nick, and Ben, were all very sympathetic. Here’s a little summary:

D.J. saw himself as a geek leader and he began to move toward the Democratic Party early on in the film. After he went off to college, he began “thinking on his own,” and realized that “the rest of the world doesn’t want to follow the United States.” He had a quick change of heart following his realization that there were “no weapons of mass destruction,” yet he voted for McCain and Palin. He thought Palin was hot. He campaigned for Duvall Patrick. He was befriended by Gov. Mike Dukakis. D.J. also worked on the Niki Tsongas campaign. He eventually decided that the goal of becoming president was not what he really wanted. He moved to a Bible college, got engaged to a girl named Hillary, and together they are building a youth ministry.

Nick was a strong conservative leader with some rather old fashioned chauvinistic thinking concerning women early on in the film. He thought that women were too emotional to be leaders. Once he went off to college at the American University in D.C., he really felt like a political outsider. As he began having “intellectual” conversations he began hearing the “echo of conservative arguments sounding ridiculous.” The fact is that he probably succumbed to some pretty strong peer and scholastic pressure. Although still a conservative, Nick decided to vote for Obama because he had such a “cool” story and “even though I disagree with all of his policies he can unite the country.” But Nick grew frustrated with Obama after just a few months. He now considers himself a “radical centrist.” He took a break from college and by the end of the film was working for Americans Elect, an internet based movement attempting to build an “all-partisan” third party.

Ben always thought he had something to prove and saw himself as a fighter at the beginning of the film. He stated that he “can’t settle for anything in life that is not absolutely perfect.” He was into paint ball and believed that “terrorism has shaped what my generation is…” and he believed that the vision of America’s invincibility was shattered on 9/11. Ben talked about facing the brutal reality that (WASP) male leaders are a dying breed and there will be a paradigm shift in 20 years. Ben was very down after Barack Obama’s election to President, and felt he had a challenge to bring the Republican party back.  Ben helped several Republicans win election since Obama’s election including Virginia’s Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II. By the end of the film, Ben was working as a part-time researcher for the U.S. Army and is engaged to a girl named Ann.

So there you have it. One becomes a Democrat and a Christian attempting to build a ministry, one becomes a radical centrist trying to build a third party, and one remains a Republican with a modest job as a part-time researcher for the US Army.

What’s my take away from these boys’ experiences? Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill especially when it comes to politics! What shaped their political beliefs? They are still very young and will continue to change, or evolve, as we all do. There are so many factors involved, including personality and life experiences, that it’s practically impossible to determine what shapes or changes one’s political ideology.

At the end of the film, Nastasha Del Toro hosted an interview with the filmmaker, Johnathan Goodman Levitt and with one of the boys, Nick Trolano.

I’m not sure why all three boys were not involved in the interview, but perhaps Nick was chosen because he sees himself as a radical centrist reformer who wants to “break down political institutions and policies.”

Nick says that we are ‘all in this together,” and we “can’t take for granted America’s role in the world.” He is now in journalism or political story-telling and he sees himself as evolved with a “nuanced view of politics.” He also thinks that there are too many old people in Congress since the average age is 60.

According to the filmmaker, Johnathan Goodman Levitt, “Follow the Leader,” is a non-partisan documentary. But is it really all that non-partisan? Or perhaps “partisan” isn’t even the right word? Perhaps there’s a larger world-view, or ideology, behind this entire series? I don’t know but I must ask.

The film is part of a series of 26 independent films called America ReFramed, which present “the stories of a transforming American culture and its broad diversity.” America ReFramed can be viewed online on World (worldchannel.org.)

Are we to assume that this particular documentary, presented by a liberal progressive organizations has no liberal bias?

Well we don’t know the political bias of the filmmaker,Johnathan Goodman Levitt. He wanted to keep it that way and he did a fairly good job of keeping the film politically neutral.

According to the filmmaker’s representative:

First and foremost, Follow the Leader received no funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), or any other American entity for that matter. The series, America ReFramed, which is carried by PBS/World Channel, is programmed by WGBH and by American Documentary, Inc. (a private company that also programs the P.O.V. Documentary series for PBS stations). CPB does provide partial funding to the PBS World channel and the PBS system generally, but the film itself didn't receive any such funds at all. In fact, Follow the Leader was funded solely by the filmmaker's company Changeworx and by European broadcasters, which were interested in a more non-judgmental film about American politics than most of the documentaries that come from American filmmakers. The licensing agreement from the public television system is also non-exclusive, and the filmmaker is currently pursuing additional broadcast options including Fox, Glenn Beck's The Blaze TV, and others. This is a rare film without any U.S. funding or partisan bent that attracts interest across the political spectrum.

Importantly, The Aspen Institute did not present Follow the Leader or this (or any) episode of America ReFramed, and has no connection to Follow the Leader. There is simply another show on PBS World Channel the features their proceedings, but that is a completely unconnected series to our film and America ReFramed as well.

We still have some questions. Why were three conservative WASP boys chosen for this film? 

Should we assume that other races or ethnic groups don’t have political biases or can change?

Or should we assume that the maker of this film is only interested in learning what makes young conservatives change?

There’s only one thing we can really assume. It was something I learned in a very liberal seminary some years ago. When you boil everything down, all things are political!

Follow the Leader, America ReFramed, TV, Television,  PBS/WGBH, World Channel, film, documentary,  political, beliefs, Johnathan Goodman Levitt,  independent, films, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, (CPB), The Aspen Institute, Open Society Foundations, George Soros.

                             I love the idea of how a pair of shoes can change the whole story of an outfit.
                                        Today's outfit post is exactly about that! I'm always out and about new challenges:)



                                                                                      Top: c/o Joe Fresh/ Here
                                                                                      Skirt: Old Navy (old)/ option Here, Here and Here 
                                                                                      Bag: Valentina
                                                                                      Shoes: c/o I'alave/ Here 
                                                                                      Sunglasses: Chloe/ Here
                                                                                      Necklace: From Portlan Art Museum/ option Here and Here  

A premature blast at a Laredo Fireworks display injured a technician and the display became inoperative. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, thick fog and fireworks smoke on Wednesday's Big Bang caused poor visibility that people left early from the event. Also, the Statue of Liberty opened on Thursday for tours.

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

Stirring words spoken by a man who happened to be the President of the United States of America who although elected twice to the highest office in the land by the American People would not even receive the nomination of his party were he running in 2016. A shame, but the stark truth. Those who really know and understand his record realize this truth.

A big h/t to the Left Coast Rebel blog.



Happy Independence Day!!!

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


Today is Independence Day in the United States of America. A day in which ALL Americans should take pride, as well as being thankful for the liberties we enjoy as a people.

 Governed by the rule of law, free from the religious tyranny of the dark ages as well as present day extreme Islam, and fundamentalist Christianity... We have our founding fathers and the Constitution they gave us to thank for this incredible, and increasingly rare reality.

A recent and timely GALLUP POLL sheds light on American citizens perspective and  Pride in the USA.

As the United States celebrates Independence Day, most of its adult residents continue to say they are proud to be an American, including 57% who are extremely proud and 28% who are very proud. This high level of pride in being an American has varied only moderately over the past 12 years since the question was first asked, but has been lower since 2005 than it was in the years prior.

The latest results are from a June 1-4 Gallup survey. An additional 10% say they are moderately proud to be an American, leaving 3% who say they are "only a little proud" and 1% who say they are "not at all proud."

There are few differences by age on this pride dimension, while those in the South are slightly more likely than those in the East and West to say they are proud. Conservatives and Republicans are also slightly more likely to say they are proud than are liberals and Democrats.

Americans Believe Signers of the Declaration Would Be Disappointed

Despite their widespread national pride, Americans evince a much more negative response when asked if the signers of the Declaration of Independence would be pleased or disappointed by the way the United States has turned out. Seventy-one percent of Americans say the signers would be disappointed, while 27% say they would be pleased.

Americans have become significantly less positive in response to this question, down from a high of 54% who said the signers would be pleased in 2001.

Older Americans, those living in the Midwest, conservatives, and Republicans are relatively less likely to say the signers would be pleased than their counterparts. Conservatives and Republicans also were less likely to say the signers would have been pleased in 2001 -- when George W. Bush was president -- but the partisan and ideological differences are larger today. This indicates that Republicans' and conservatives' growing disenchantment with a Democratic president could be one of the underlying factors in the decline in the percentage of Americans who say the signers would be pleased.

{Read More}

It seems Americans of all political affiliations and ideologies are PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN, with the very small minority of course that likely wouldn't be proud to be anything, except maybe an as*h**e. However, on this day set aside to celebrate our unique American experience, and the freedom of thought and liberty that has continued to this day,  let us postpone discussion of  that issue for another day. In the moment  ALL AMERICANS  should CELEBRATE our unique American identity as well as the spirit of freedom and liberty that has defined us for generations. Irrespective of political party. Let us stand against all (in the memory of our founding fathers) all who would shackle us. Whomever they may be.

Via: Memeorandum

Hat tip to Right Truth

An interesting take on the subject of freedom. Make sure you read all the way to the end…very short!

BOSTON

National guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed on April 19th by elements of a para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.

Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement. Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group's organizers as "criminals," issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government's efforts to secure law and order. The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.

Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.

One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that "none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily." Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government's plans. During a tense standoff in Lexington 's town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists. Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.

Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces overmatched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.

Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops. Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as "ringleaders" of the extremist faction, remain at large.

And this, people, is how the American Revolution began.

April 20, 1775

.........