Registered users, access My Front Page here.
In Depth: Ron Paul
3 hours, 0 minute
Former Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) responds to viewers' questions and comments on topics such as the U.S. economy and foreign policy.
POLICING AMERICA: SECURITY VS. LIBERTY
by John Stossel | July 25, 2014
Saturday and Sunday at 10PM on Fox News Channel
Where's the line between security and liberty? American police are now armed like the military; they use their power more often and forcefully than ever before. The state has new and expanding powers to spy on almost everything you do.
THE WARRIOR COP: SWAT teams were once called out only in emergencies. Now there are almost 100 raids a day. The weapons and tactics they use come straight from the military. Sometimes innocent people are killed. Why use so much force so often? What would you do if armed men in masks broke down your door in the middle of the night?
CONSTITUTION-FREE ZONES: Lots of Americans are getting upset about being detained by armed border patrol agents not on the border but miles away from the border. Some push back, sometimes with violent results.
MANDATORY MINIMUMS: Do mandatory minimum sentences work? Prosecutors like them because they give them more power when they plea bargain with suspects. But judges often object, and sometimes people serve long sentences for trivial crimes. Or no crime.
Although Russia has not responded to US sanctions over the Ukraine crisis by putting a travel ban on President Barack Obama, there is one part of the country he is now barred from entering: Chechnya.
On Saturday Ramzan Kadyrov, the president of the small Russian republic that has been the scene of two devastating separatist wars in the past 20 years, said he was placing Obama on a list of people banned from visiting.
The list also includes European Union figures José Manuel Barroso, Herbert van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton.
Continuing to expose and hammer upon the key enduring questions and revelations that the governments of Britain and U.S. seek to avoid and suppress.
Eloquent and relentless... but looking weary.
DP sends love, respect and a shout out to you Edward!!! Thank you.
Posted by Jim Hoft on Sunday, July 27, 2014, 10:05 AM
Border patrol agents pulled a gun on Mid Iowa Boy Scout Troop 111 as four vanloads of scouts tried to drive from Canada into Alaska.
The scout leaders were furious.
By Nick Sorrentino, via AgainstCronyCapitalism.org, 7/10/2014
While it's been a lost decade & half in wages :
In this week's episode, Slate political reporter David Weigel speaks to Rep. Justin Amash, a Republican from Michigan. Weigel joined Amash while at a parade in a small town in the congressman’s home state. They talk about Amash’s upcoming primary against businessman Brian Ellis, his push for national surveillance reform, and what he thinks about being called al-Qaida's “best friend” by his opponent.
Her Right to Bear Arms: The Rise of Women's Gun Culture
On the ground in Texas at a women's gun conference, where the bullets fly, the bras have holsters and the motivations are murky
By W.J. Cassidy
July 14, 2014 9:00 AM ET
"I'm gonna kill you!" the pert blonde ponytailed lady screams, in a petite room in the bowels of the convention center. "I said I'm gonna kill you!" "No!" huffs her target, a mom-jean'd-woman in her mid-fifties. "Back off!" Then, responding to ponytail's faux-intimidation, the older woman slaps an open palm into the face of a shooting-range silhouette pinned on the back wall, un-holsters a pistol, and pops six rounds into a theoretical assailant's chest — blam-blam-blam-blam-blam-blam, quick sharp cracks, with a corresponding swirl of odorous gun smoke. The ammo's not live: the gun is firing "simunition" bullets, created specifically for this kind of training exercise. But as the casings zing hard off the gray walls and careen, a few feet in front of me, onto the plastic tarp, I cover my eyes in the crook of my elbow just in case.
It's early spring and I'm in Waco, Texas, for the 2nd annual national conference of A Girl And A Gun, a shooting league birthed out of — and, now, attempting to shepherd forward — the nascent women and firearms movement.
Once again, the same people wanting to take away your 2nd Amendment Rights, continue to supply weapons to "terrorists" around the world... with your tax dollars.
"Weapons bought and paid for by the United States for Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) have gone missing, according to a report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction released on July 28.
The Department of Defense has provided the ANSF with 747,000 weapons since 2004 for approximately $626 million, and cannot account for all of their whereabouts due to poor recordkeeping.
By Quentin Fottrell, MarketWatch
1. We’re poorer than our parents were at our age
Few people have been through as many economic ups and downs as the members of Generation X. Born between 1965 and 1980, any entered the workforce during the boom years of the Clinton administration—but then along came 9/11 and, a few years later, the Great Recession.
Over the last two decades, Americans born during the Depression and World War II—known as “The Silent Generation”—have been shedding debt, while boomers and Generation X have been accumulating it. As of 2010, Generation X’s assets were only double their debts, according to the Pew Charitable Trusts. The Silent Generation’s asset levels were 27 times higher than their debts, while older boomers’ assets were about four times higher.
“In the U.S. the expectation is that every generation does better than the last one, but that has not been the case for Generation X,” says Signe-Mary McKernan, senior fellow and economist at the Urban Institute, a nonprofit organization that focuses on social and economic policy. “Xers have less wealth than their parents at their age did 25 years ago.”
By David Firestone | July 26, 2014
In 1970, at the height of his white-hot war on crime, President Richard Nixon demanded that Congress pass the Controlled Substances Act to crack down on drug abuse. During the debate, Senator Thomas Dodd of Connecticut held up a package wrapped in light-green paper that he said contained $3,000 worth of marijuana. This substance, he said, caused such “dreadful hallucinations” in an Army sergeant in Vietnam that he called down a mortar strike on his own troops. A few minutes later, the Senate unanimously passed the bill.
That law, so antique that it uses the spelling “marihuana,” is still on the books, and is the principal reason that possessing the substance in Senator Dodd’s package is considered illegal by the United States government. Changing it wouldn’t even require an act of Congress — the attorney general or the secretary of Health and Human Services could each do so — although the law should be changed to make sure that future administrations could not reimpose the ban.
Repealing it would allow the states to decide whether to permit marijuana use and under what conditions. Nearly three-fourths of them have already begun to do so, liberalizing their laws in defiance of the federal ban. Two have legalized recreational use outright, and if the federal government also recognized the growing public sentiment to legalize and regulate marijuana, that would almost certainly prompt more states to follow along.
A House Republican decided he’d had enough with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce stance on amnesty and China by refusing an award from the organization.
This question has now come to my attention on more than one occasion, and so, I suppose it deserves someone to formally address it. How can property rights be enforced in a voluntary society without the use of force?
Now, hold on for a minute before you hastily click on the reply button. On one account this question is very easy to address. That is, if someone is, for instance, physically stealing your property, the NAP allows for defensive use of force. Case closed.
However, what if you establish a contract (verbal or otherwise) with another party, for example a loan contract, and the other party doesn't live up to their end? Can you drive over to their house and beat them or kill them? Does that fall within the NAP?
These two cases, while both infringements on property rights, are fundamentally different in one regard. In the case where the thief is physically stealing your property, the interaction, on your part, is completely involuntary - whereas, in the case where you contracted, you voluntarily entered into an agreement with another. Why is that important?
In the first case, you were a victim. In the second case, you made a poor business decision.