by LIZ HALLORAN
April 21, 201412:35 PM ET
For more than a year, GOP Sen. Rand Paul has been staking out positions on issues that resonate in the black community, including school choice and prison sentencing reform. And he's been showing up in some unexpected — for a Republican — venues, including historically black colleges.
It's stirred an unusual degree of curiosity about the freshman Kentucky senator — and 2016 GOP presidential prospect — among the Democratic Party's most reliable voting bloc.
By Ramesh Ponnuru | Bloomberg View
Republican politicians are at war over the world.
Representative Peter King of New York says that Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky encourages "paranoia." Paul says his critics are distorting his views. Walter Jones, a North Carolina representative seeking his 11th term, is being challenged in a primary that features ads saying he "preaches American decline" and "opposes sanctions on Iran."
It has been at least 20 years since Republicans have argued this angrily about foreign policy. Voters don't much care about this debate, though, and probably won't until events overseas turn more menacing. In the meantime, Republicans vying for the 2016 presidential nomination are pushing the party toward one of two extremes on the issue -- neither of which will do the party or the country much good.
Most Republican voters, like most Americans generally, are neither isolationist on principle nor promiscuously interventionist. They are neither hawkish nor dovish as a matter of reflex. They want to be "tough" with Russia -- a Fox News poll found that 66 percent of the public thought President Barack Obama insufficiently so -- but also want to avoid getting bogged down in another Iraq war. As broad as that middle is, it isn't being well represented in the back-and-forth among Republicans.
By John W. Whitehead | The Rutherford Institute
April 21, 2014
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”—John F. Kennedy
Those tempted to write off the standoff at the Bundy Ranch as little more than a show of force by militia-minded citizens would do well to reconsider their easy dismissal of this brewing rebellion. This goes far beyond concerns about grazing rights or the tension between the state and the federal government.
Few conflicts are ever black and white, and the Bundy situation, with its abundance of gray areas, is no exception. Yet the question is not whether Cliven Bundy and his supporters are domestic terrorists, as Harry Reid claims, or patriots, or something in between. Nor is it a question of whether the Nevada rancher is illegally grazing his cattle on federal land or whether that land should rightfully belong to the government. Nor is it even a question of who’s winning the showdown— the government with its arsenal of SWAT teams, firepower and assault vehicles, or Bundy’s militia supporters with their assortment of weapons—because if such altercations end in bloodshed, everyone loses.
What we’re really faced with, and what we’ll see more of before long, is a growing dissatisfaction with the government and its heavy-handed tactics by people who are tired of being used and abused and are ready to say “enough is enough.” And it won’t matter what the issue is—whether it’s a rancher standing his ground over grazing rights, a minister jailed for holding a Bible study in his own home, or a community outraged over police shootings of unarmed citizens—these are the building blocks of a political powder keg. Now all that remains is a spark, and it need not be a very big one, to set the whole powder keg aflame.
Employees of U.S. intelligence agencies have been barred from discussing without authorization any intelligence-related matter - even if it isn’t classified - with journalists, under a new directive issued by Director of National Security James Clapper.
Intelligence agency employees who violate the policy could suffer career-ending losses of their security clearances or out-right termination, and those who disclose classified information could face criminal prosecution, according to the directive signed by Clapper on March 20.
If I were compelled to summarize the libertarian philosophy's distinguishing feature while standing on one foot, I'd say the following: Every person owes it to all other persons not to aggress them. This is known as the nonaggression principle, or NAP.
What is the nature of this obligation?
The first thing to notice is that it is unchosen. I never agreed not to aggress against others. Others never agreed not to aggress against me. So if I struck you and you objected, you would not accept as my defense, "I never agreed not to strike you."
Many people are very hostile towards Classical Liberalism and libertarians because the social and economic liberty we desire in this world also has to come with personal responsibility. And many people are naturally terrified of responsibility, of paying their bills, getting food, healthcare, and education for themselves and their children. We all have this in common, we just have to learn that these responsibilities cannot be handed off to politicians who only care about getting elected.
Tell me about it. From the CS Monitor:
“Forget ‘Boston Strong.’ Be strong!” he says.
He’s not unsympathetic to the families of the three people killed in the bombings – he knew Krystle Campbell, one of the fatalities – or to the survivors still recovering from their wounds, he says.
However, “the more we dwell on the sadness, the harder it is to grow and move on,” he says.
With midterm election season in full swing, and coming off of my recent interview with the great Murray Sabrin for the Lions of Liberty Podcast, it seems like an appropriate time to examine the role of political action when it comes to advancing the ideas of liberty. As I see it there are generally three schools of thought among libertarians when it comes to the relationship between liberty and politics.
VIDEO: Elderly man calls for ambulance, violent cops beat him instead
Robby Soave | Reporter
2:20 AM 04/21/2014
n elderly Missouri man dialed 911 and asked for an ambulance to come and help his ailing wife. Instead, the police showed up, threw him to the ground, sat on his head and handcuffed him.
He later received stitches for his injuries.
The Supreme Court states:
The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.
Retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens, in an interview with Stephanopolis on ABC's "This Week" just laid to rest any doubts as to where our nation has it's largest problem. As long as we have elitist individuals serving on the highest court we can expect things to continue on it's downward spiral.
Alex Jones doesn't sound so "out there" when you read this list.
* Executive Order 10990 allows the Government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
* Executive Order 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
* Executive Order 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.
It comes as no surprise to libertarians that when governments use aggression at home to finance their operations they use much of that loot to aggress abroad. To really advocate peace pacifists need to apply their principles consistently. The use of force is either consonant with pacifist principles or it isn't. There is no magic of the collective that excuses the government using force in a way that is immoral for individuals to do so.