Muda69

I can think of one: https://amash.house.gov/ Sure wish he represented me and my family in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Neil Peart, Champion of Individualism: https://reason.com/2020/01/13/neil-peart-champion-of-individualism/ As Bullock notes, the driving force here wasn't Rand's full-throated endorsement of commerce; it was her defense of individual will and artistic integrity against corrupting conformity, whether the pressure to conform comes from the government or from soulless corporate executives. As time went on Peart, distanced himself from Rand and some of her more radical policy notions. The Liberty profile mentions that Peart supports a government safety net. By 2015, he was telling Rolling Stone: "For a person of my sensibility, you're only left with the Democratic Party….The whole health-care thing—denying mercy to suffering people? What? This is Christian?" Rush even sent libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) a cease-and-desist letter in 2010 to get the then-candidate to stop using its songs at rallies and in videos, although the band's lawyers insisted that this was a solely a copyright issue. So went Peart's ideological journey. Meanwhile, the music he made will continue to have a life of its own, inspiring people with its defense of individual freedom for decades to come. Truly a Canadian icon. He will be missed.

I wouldn't be surprised. I just couldn't shake the feeling while watching the 1st quarter of the Chiefs-Texans games that all those drops by the Chiefs receivers along with the blocked punt was scripted.......... NFL = WWF?

Dismissing Her Political Opponents As Mentally Ill, Yale Psychiatrist Diagnoses Alan Dershowitz: https://reason.com/2020/01/13/dismissing-her-political-opponents-as-mentally-ill-yale-psychiatrist-diagnoses-alan-dershowitz/

Whatever happened to the concept of Caveat Emptor? Or does government have to protect us from everything?

I believe the image I posted is linked to the Huffington Post, but it can also be found on many, many other websites. If you use Google Chrome you can right click on the image and select "Search Google for image".

Mr. Booker is out, they are now dropping like flies: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/politics/cory-booker-ends-presidential-race/index.html

The Federal "Crimes" of the College Admission Scandal Aren't Real Crimes: https://mises.org/wire/federal-crimes-college-admission-scandal-arent-real-crimes If the allegations are true, it is clear that the employees involved in the scheme acted contrary to their employers’ policies, and if they did it for payment, then we are looking at bribery. Whether or not these alleged actions rise to a crime, however, depends upon how one defines criminal behavior. First, and most important, none of these actions are directly covered by criminal statutes, federal or state, at least when it comes to employees for private organizations. For example, I had a teammate in college (when I ran track) who had someone take the College Board exam for him, and he was caught. While the NCAA declared him ineligible for his first year (he still managed to be accepted into college — don’t ask), he faced no danger of federal criminal charges despite the fact that what he did was no different than what prosecutors are alleging against a number of parents. The criminal charges, instead, fall into the typical categories of federal law, including honest services fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering. The various employees named in the scheme face charges of honest services fraud , which is a catch-all category of crime, and one of the most devastating weapons federal prosecutors had in their arsenal until the US Supreme Court narrowed the focus of the law. (A decade ago, Judge Andrew Napolitano this law and how federal prosecutors abuse it on his radio show.) All of the “crimes” tied to this case (which the FBI has named “Varsity Blues”) are what Candice E. Jackson and I have labeled “derivative crimes,” essentially fictional charges that are derived from some other action of the accused. That is why Singer would plead guilty to “racketeering,” which is nothing more than a combining of other acts into one “crime,” with draconian penalties for those who are convicted. (Racketeering was invented in 1970 as part of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, better known as RICO.) Because nearly every private college or university receives federal funding, federal prosecutors have a link they can use to pursue these prosecutions. With thousands of federal criminal laws on the book, prosecutors can pick and choose whom they will target and what the charges will be. As Harvey Silverglate noted in Three Felonies a Day, anyone reading this article probably violates at least one federal law each day. The following account from Slate explains this: Second, the fact is that most of the parents who took part in this scheme are white, wealthy, prominent, and utterly unfamiliar with how federal criminal law works. That is why the feds can threaten Loughlin and her husband with up to forty-five years in prison if they are convicted. That is more than most murderers, rapists, and armed robbers receive for their crimes. Yet Loughlin harmed no one. Yes, one can argue that if her daughters had been accepted at USC undeservedly, two other perhaps more promising students would have been denied entry. However, that clearly would be a civil, not criminal, matter, and any students who were left out can seek remedy in court. Unfortunately, most Americans these days seem to believe that since Loughlin’s daughters are “privileged,” the law should turn them into orphans by sending their parents to prison for the rest of their lives. (The feds are calling for penalties that would effectively be life sentences for those convicted.) Like Martha Stewart, who was convicted of questionable “crimes” in 2004, these parents are “wealthy beyond a reasonable doubt,” and the idea that they are able to use their wealth to “break the rules” to get their children into places like Harvard or USC is galling to many. Declares the American Conservative: The notion that throwing Loughlin and Giannulli in prison for the rest of their lives will somehow overthrow the alleged oligarchy that is ruining our lives is a stretch, to put it mildly. But that seems to be the sentiment among many Americans. Like so many others who are ignorant of the vast array of weapons that federal prosecutors can wield against them, many of the parents who are fighting the charges have no idea what they are up against. As Jackson and I noted, federal criminal law does not have to meet the mens rea standard which for centuries has been the bedrock of American-Anglo criminal law. We write: The second disadvantage is that the American news media, which claims to be a “watchdog” protecting our rights, is rooting for the feds. When Martha Stewart was convicted, federal prosecutors already had broken the law by illegally leaking grand jury testimony to the press, a felony punishable by five years in prison. One of the jurors lied in order to get on the jury, and it was clear that his sole purpose was to vote guilty. In other words, the government cheated and denied Stewart the fundamental right to a fair trial, but all that most journalists could do was to be cheerleaders for federal prosecutors and to comment upon Stewart’s wardrobe whenever she made a court appearance. Although what Loughlin and Giannulli allegedly did was wrong by any social and moral standards, they hardly deserve to be thrown in cages for the rest of their lives. I realize that mine is an unpopular opinion these days, just as my questioning the criminal charges against Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling brought out the long knives. That being said, I don’t apologize for my pleas to see sanity return to how the authorities carry out the law.

Aren't the Chiefs just following the playbook/formula perfected by the Peyton Manning-led Colts teams?

As opposed to the 'savior' themes that floated around when Mr. Obama was first elected:

Marianne Williamson Withdraws from the Presidential Race: https://reason.com/2020/01/12/marianne-williamson-withdraws-from-the-presidential-race/ Another one bites the dust.

It all comes down to the principle that government should have no business dictating what an adult individual can or cannot put into their body. Actions have consequences, and if an individual values personal freedom then they don't want government protecting them from those consequences.

Rand Paul, Mike Lee Are 'Empowering the Enemy' By Wanting To Debate War With Iran, Says Lindsey Graham: https://reason.com/2020/01/08/rand-paul-mike-lee-are-empowering-the-enemy-by-wanting-to-debate-war-with-iran-says-lindsey-graham/ History suggests that House and Senate votes on the Iran question will fall largely along party lines. Whether or not politicians express hawkish or dovish proclivities often depends on whoever is in the White House, but Lee and Paul's anti-war dispositions provide a relatively rare exception to that rule. It was actually Graham who explained it best: "You know, they're libertarians." Of course the pentagon officials don't listen to Congress because they basically control the executive branch of the federal government. They are not going to cede back to Congress the powers that legislative body has repeatedly given to the POTUS over the last few decades.

If Trump Decides to Start a Nuclear War, No One Can (Legally) Stop Him: https://mises.org/wire/if-trump-decides-start-nuclear-war-no-one-can-legally-stop-him In other words, the only thing that stands between a president and his launching of nuclear missiles is his own moral compass. Anyone who isn't hopelessly naïve about politicians and political institutions will find this deeply disturbing. But why has there been no significant effort to develop some sort of check or veto to this process? Part of this lies in the fact the US military establishment maintains a posture very much in favor of erring on the side of aggression rather than restraint. In the early days of nuclear-armed Cold War, there were essentially no safeguards in place. A man claiming to be the president, if he had access to the right people, could theoretically call for a nuclear strike, and there was no set way of remotely verifying his identity. ... According to some critics of the Pentagon, however, the military was committed to making it easy to launch the missiles. The Air Force has even been accused of using "00000000" as a code that could enable the launch of a nuclear missile. According to Foreign Policy : Blair contends this easy-code protocol persisted for at least a decade, including the period when he was a launch officer. For it's part, the Air Force denies using the specific code of "00000000." Nonetheless, the pro-launch posture of Pentagon has long been observable. As noted by Jeffrey Lewis at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies: Other potential sources of human error or sabotage have surfaced over the years as well. Military personnel close to president Clinton have claimed he misplaced the so-called "biscuit," the card on which nuclear launch codes are printed. Presidents have often carried them in a coat pocket. But they can be misplaced. According to one of the men who carried the football: Other similar cases reputedly occurred when President Carter "left his biscuit in a suit that got sent to the dry cleaners." One case that has been confirmed, however, is when Ronald Reagan's codes were left discarded and unattended following his attempted assassination: While mere loss of the biscuit does not trigger any sort of launch, it is difficult to predict how access to the codes could be abused by someone else in a chaotic wartime situation. Scholars have suggested several potential problems with verification and authorization. ... The fact of the matter is there is no way to confirm a president has consulted any facts on the necessity of nuclear war, or that the president is in his (or her) right mind when ordering a nuclear strike. Efforts to portray Donald Trump as insane have forced some media figures and politicians to admit this serious problem. But Trump won't be president forever, and it is naïve in the extreme to assume this problem goes away when Trump's successor is sworn in. A very interesting, and very troubling, insight/history of the power of nuclear Armageddon the POTUS holds.

New Evidence From Canada and the U.S. Suggests That Legalizing Marijuana Leads to Less Drinking: https://reason.com/2020/01/08/new-evidence-from-canada-and-the-u-s-suggests-that-legalizing-marijuana-leads-to-less-drinking/ These kind of studies must make the anti-drug warriors out there heads spin.

https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/college/indiana/2020/01/08/hoosiers-lineman-coy-cronk-keeps-options-open/2848714001/ Wouldn't it be interesting to see young Mr. Cronk in a boilermaker uniform next season? After all he went to LCC.

https://gizmodo.com/alcohol-is-killing-more-americans-than-ever-1840862638 Where is the outrage? Why hasn't this insidious substance been banned outright here in the United States of America? Oh wait, we tried that once already.......................

You do know that females can now join Scouts, BSA troops? And you are right about the salty shipping costs. $9.25 for 4-6 boxes? No thanks.

Probably true. There is more advertising money for the MSM in the 2020 POTUS election and the associated impeachment trial.

Don't Believe Mike Pence's Spin About Iran and 9/11: https://reason.com/2020/01/06/dont-believe-mike-pence-about-iran-and-9-11/ There is no good reason to believe this is true. (And that goes as well for his follow-up claim about Soleimani plotting "imminent attacks"—more on that here.) The most obvious problem with Pence's claim is that 19 terrorists carried out the 9/11 attacks, not 12. We'll be charitable and assume that was a typo. The 9/11 Commission established that between eight and 10 of the 9/11 hijackers traveled through Iran to get to Al Qaeda training facilities in neighboring Afghanistan. That is, presumably, the straw that Pence is grasping for here. But the report does not link Soleimani or anyone else in the Iranian regime to the plot. In fact, Soleimani's name is never mentioned in the commission's 1,200-page final report. Here's what the report does say about Iran's involvement—or lack thereof: The 9/11 hijackers—like Al Qaeda frontman Osama bin Laden—were mostly Saudi nationals. Saudi Arabia and Iran are arch rivals, and much of the post-9/11 chaos in the Middle East is due to those two regional powers jockeying for leverage against one another. Iran, run by hard-line Shiite Muslims, is unlikely to forge an alliance with Al Qaeda, a Sunni group with ties to Saudi Arabia. Indeed, after the attacks Iran actively helped the U.S. round-up members of Al Qaeda, including bin Laden's son. Writing at National Review, David Harsanyi argues that Pence's interpretation of the facts surrounding 9/11 is "mostly right" because Iran has backed other terrorist groups, including Hamas, run by Sunni Muslims. But Harsanyi has to concede that there is "no hard evidence that Soleimani himself was involved" in 9/11, and he admits that the "commission could unearth no evidence proving that the Iranians knew what the 9/11 team was planning (which doesn't mean they did not)." Mostly right? No. These arguments do not support Pence's expansive claims, and they certainly shouldn't convince anyone to go to war. If anything, that kind of Bush-era connect-the-dots-to-9/11 logic should make Americans more skeptical of the administration's case for war with Iran, because it is exactly the same playbook—sometimes even using the exact same players—that led the country into the Iraq quagmire. Needless to say, the fact that Soleimani wasn't involved in plotting 9/11 does not absolve him from a history of plotting attacks that did kill and maim hundreds of Americans, among others. But the question we should be asking is whether killing him keeps Americans safer. By escalating the threat of war, it does not do that at all. Meanwhile, most of those deadly attacks were only possible because the targets were Americans in Iraq—and those Americans were in Iraq, at least in part, because Mike Pence was wrong about whether to go to war nearly two decades ago. He's wrong again now. Do we really want another military quagmire, this time in Iran, where trillions of dollars and thousands of lives will be wasted?

https://reason.com/2020/01/08/can-we-stop-with-all-the-congressional-grandstanding/ Agreed. The less power government has over our lives the better. And too bad that most congressional hearings are all about sneering and 'scoring points' instead of actual learning the facts. Sound like several posters here on the GID........................

Yes.

The military-industrial complex run the federal government, not the people. Every president since Eisenhower has had to fall in line.

https://jalopnik.com/classic-tractors-from-the-80s-are-becoming-popular-with-1840854969 Modern tractors are incredibly sophisticated and expensive machines, with lots of very advanced technologies for operation and control, but the fundamental mechanical design hasn’t changed all that dramatically since the 1980s. In much the same way that a 1966 Volkswagen Beetle can get your ass to and from work at generally the same sort of speeds as a 2019 Volkswagen Passat, on the exact same roads, using the same basic principles, a 40-year-old tractor does essentially the same job as a modern one, at a fraction of the cost, and with the ability to effect repairs without involving John Deere reps to come out with a USB key or enlisting the help of Ukranian hackers. What would be interesting is if one of John Deere’s competitors were to look at this and see an opportunity for lower-tech but still useful modern tractors, sold at a price well below what a modern, CPU-choked Deere goes for. Perhaps Mahindra & Mahindra or Case or one of the other big tractor makers will wise up? With less regulations than the automotive world, and with a significant portion of the potential market actively hostile to massive increases in tech, you’d think this could be a good idea. To be fair, though, I don’t know jack feces about farming. But I do know it’d drive me up the wall if I legally wasn’t allowed to repair a vehicle I owned. Yep, sometimes "modern technology" isn't all it's cracked up to be.

"Well we are" is no answer and you know it. Why can't the likes of Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan defend themselves? Pakistan has nuclear weapons, isn't that a sufficient enough deterrent?