In Freedom’s Cause

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7638159.stm

“There is no disagreement that something suspic[sious]… substantial must be done,” said Bush.

In choosing a candidate, there are two damaging ways of thinking that can be seen:

1. Pick the candidate who is in the party you chose, even before you knew the current candidate
2. Predict who you think will win and vote for them (aka bandwagoning)

The problem with picking the candidate who is in the party that you chose creates a major problem. Be reminded that The Republicans are not a sports team, nor are The Democrats. You are not a “fan” of a party and you do not “root” for a party.

Predicting who you think will win and voting for them is dumb. People refer to “wasting their vote”. How do you waste a vote? By casting your first choice? Anyone voting for the to-be-loser has “wasted a vote”, I guess.

One person thinks his vote is so miniscule and meaningless that he won’t vote at all, another guy is so concerned with his vote that he tries to strategically cast it so that it is accompanied by the most possible similar votes. He can then feel like he played a part in the selection process.

Voting, however, is not “game theory”, at least it shouldn’t be. Game theory is the “science” of acting a particular way because you know that people will respond how you would like them to. It is used in mostly all games. For example, a batter knows that the pitcher just threw a curve ball and wouldn’t likely do it again, so he will expect something different. The pitcher knows that the batter thinks that so he may throw another curve because he knows the batter wouldn’t expect it again. They are both preparing for the strategy of the other, all the while knowing that their preparation is known and can change the outcome of the other’s strategy. Maybe rock, scissors, paper is a simpler analogy. Just think of what goes through your mind during a strategic game and this is game theory.

This thinking is not what voting is for. Voting is so your opinion is counted.  Bandwagoning is not your opinion, it is everyone else’s.

The number “700 billion” is being thrown around a lot over the last week. That is the amount the feds want to throw at the economy to fix the problem. (The terms “fix” and “problem” are used very loosely.)

Everyone is saying that $700b will be thrown on the backs of the American taxpayers, so what does that mean? The math is simple. 700 billion divided by 300 million people = $2333.33 per person.

My household has six people so I would owe $14,000. How much would your household owe? Some of the world’s greatest mathematicians have come up with this formula:

$2333.33 x number in household = amount owed in your household

So let’s take this a step further. Let’s say that the average household has 4 people. That’s about $9,333 per household. Since the average savings rate is about negative 2%, we can assume that everyone would have to take a loan to pay for that. Except… there’s a credit crisis, I thought. We couldn’t get that amount because our banks are over extended to begin with. (The terms “our” and “banks” are used very loosely.)

So there’s a credit crisis, according to the government, and they want to fix it by extending a giant loan to the banks and/or financial institutions. And the money will come from the American taxpayers who have no money to begin with, but it will loaned to “us” from us and we have to pay it back. It makes less sense the more you think about it.

Maybe a better answer is to give $2333 to each person in America. That’s just as bad but at least we would have the opportunity to enjoy the destruction of our country.

Source: Reuters

Senate passes $612 bln defense spending bill
Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:54pm EDT

By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a $612.5 billion defense spending bill for fiscal 2009, including $70 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As passed on an 88-8 vote, the measure would authorize $103.9 billion for Pentagon procurement, $1.2 billion more than President George W. Bush’s request. Overall, Bush had asked for $611.1 billion for national defense.

The bill shifts more of the costs of Iraq’s reconstruction onto Baghdad. It also puts further restrictions on contractors working in Iraq, including prohibitions on interrogations and the performance of “inherently governmental functions” in combat.

The measure must now be reconciled with the $612.5 billion version passed by the House of Representatives on May 22.

The Senate bill would let the Pentagon spend $70 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan in the fiscal year that starts October 1 and authorize a 3.9 percent pay raise for military personnel, half a percentage point more than sought by Bush.

House and Senate negotiators are due to meet next week on a compromise version that can be sent to Bush for signing into law.

Among sticking points is the Boeing Co-led Future Combat Systems, the centerpiece of Army modernization. The House cut $200 million from the $3.6 billion requested to continue development of a $160 billion system of digitally linked vehicles for air and ground combat.

The Senate approved without major change the Bush administration request for Future Combat Systems. SAIC Inc is Boeing’s co-lead manager on the FCS program.

The Senate bill would authorize $8.9 billion for Missile Defense Agency programs, $411.8 million less than Bush’s request.

(Reporting by Jim Wolf; Editing by Eric Walsh)

© Thomson Reuters 2008. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world.
Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.

Written on September 16, 2008
(Posted here on September 19, 2008)
Source: blogs.chron.com

Libertarian presidential candidate wants to remove both John McCain and Barack Obama from the ballot in Texas and has filed suit to eliminate the major-party candidates from consideration by Texas voters.

His argument is that the Democratic and Republican parties technically violated state election law by delivering written certification of their nominations by 5 p.m. 70 days before the Nov. 4 election.

“The seriousness of this issue is self-evident,” the lawsuit states. “The hubris of the major parties has risen to such a level that they do not believe that the election laws of the State of Texas apply to them.”

The former Georgia congressman’s campaign manager — a former top aide to Ross Perot — accused American courts of displaying a double standard on ballot access issues.

“The facts of the case are not in dispute,” said Russell Verney. “Republicans and Democrats missed the deadline, but were still allowed on the ballot. Third parties are not allowed on the ballot for missing deadlines, as was the case for our campaign in West Virginia, yet the Texas secretary of state’s office believes Republicans and Democrats to be above the law.”
Barr has scheduled a press conference outside the Texas Supreme Court on Thursday morning to press his case — to reporters, at least.

Here are details of Barr’s complaint:

Texas election code §192.031 requires that the “written certification” of the “party’s nominees” be delivered “before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before election day.” Because neither candidate had been nominated by the official filing deadline, the Barr campaign argues it was impossible for the candidates to file under state law.

“Supreme Court justices should recognize that their responsibility is to apply the law as passed by the Legislature, and the law is clear that the candidates cannot be certified on the ballot if their filings are late,” says Drew Shirley, a local attorney for the Barr campaign, who is also a Libertarian candidate for the Texas Supreme Court.

A 2006 Texas Supreme Court decision ruled that state laws “does not allow political parties or candidates to ignore statutory deadlines.”

Orrin Grover, attorney for Bob Barr and Wayne Root, said that he believes that the Texas Secretary of State is bound by Texas law to remove the Republican and Democratic nominees from the November ballot. “Either we have rules and deadlines, or we do not,” Grover said.

The Chairman of the Texas Libertarian Party, Pat Dixon stated, “Libertarian principles require personal responsibility for your acts and failures. Obama and McCain failed to meet the deadlines. They must follow the law like everyone else.”

The petition also alleges that the Democratic Party’s late presidential filing falsely claimed under oath that Senator Obama had been nominated hours before the nomination actually occurred.

Posted by Richard Dunham at September 16, 2008 05:53 PM

Source: BBC News

“Speaking at an event organised by the German Marshall Fund in Washington, Ms Rice acknowledged that Georgia had fired the first shots in the breakaway region of South Ossetia.”

Full Story:

Condoleezza Rice on Russia’s ”aggression”

Russia is becoming increasingly authoritarian at home and aggressive abroad, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said.

In a strongly-worded speech, Ms Rice said Moscow was on a “one-way path to isolation and irrelevance”.

Diplomatic relations between the US and Russia have been strained by the recent conflict in Georgia.

Earlier, Russia’s president said the two nations should not risk established ties over “trivial matters.”

Dmitry Medvedev said it would be “politically short-sighted” if Washington and Moscow were to endanger their political and economic ties.

However, Ms Rice suggested in her speech that following the conflict in Georgia, Russia’s bid to join the World Trade Organisation had been put in doubt.

The US has already shelved a civilian nuclear deal with Russia, but despite tensions the two countries are maintaining diplomatic links.

Ms Rice held a telephone conversation with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov just hours before delivering her speech, says the BBC’s Kim Ghattas in Washington, and Russia is also due to join an international meeting on Iran’s nuclear programme on Friday.

Our correspondent says Moscow is also telling the US that its co-operation is needed over issues like Iran and North Korea, with many in Washington feeling the Russians have a point.

Several hours after Ms Rice spoke, it emerged that a Russian submarine test-fired an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

An official from Russia’s defence ministry is quoted as saying that the test - carried out in Russia’s far-eastern Kamchatka peninsula - went according to plan.

‘Deeply disconcerting’

Speaking at an event organised by the German Marshall Fund in Washington, Ms Rice acknowledged that Georgia had fired the first shots in the breakaway region of South Ossetia.

“The Georgian government launched a major military operation into Tskhinvali [the capital of South Ossetia] and other areas of that separatist region,” she said.

“Regrettably, several Russian peacekeepers were killed in the fighting,” she added.

But Ms Rice said that Russia had escalated the conflict.

“Russia’s leaders violated Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and launched a full-scale invasion across an internationally recognised border,” she said, adding that Russia had also violated the terms of a ceasefire negotiated by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Ms Rice said it had been “deeply disconcerting” that Russia had tried to “dismember” Georgia by recognising Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and argued that Russia’s actions were part of what she described as a “worsening pattern of behaviour”.

“I refer… to Russia’s intimidation of its sovereign neighbours, its use of oil and gas as a political weapon… its threat to target peaceful neighbours with nuclear weapons… and its persecution - or worse - of Russian journalists and dissidents,” she added.

Pledging help to rebuild Georgia, Ms Rice said the US and Europe would not let Russia benefit from aggression.

‘Taking the bait’

Ms Rice admitted that Georgia could have responded better to the events last month in South Ossetia.

“We warned our Georgian friends that Russia was baiting them, and that taking this bait would only play into Moscow’s hands,” she said.

However Ms Rice, an expert on the Soviet Union, also said that Russia could not blame its behaviour on the enlargement of Nato.

“Since the end of the Cold War, we and our allies have worked to transform Nato… into a means for nurturing the growth of a Europe whole, free and at peace.”

The promise of Nato membership had been a positive incentive for states to build democratic institutions and reform their economies, she added.

And she insisted that Russia would not be allowed to dictate who joined the Nato alliance.

“We will not allow Russia to wield a veto over the future of our Euro-Atlantic community - neither what states we offer membership, nor the choice of those states to accept it,” she said

“We have made this particularly clear to our friends in Ukraine.”

The secretary of state was also critical of the domestic situation inside Russia.

“What has become clear is that the legitimate goal of rebuilding Russia has taken a dark turn - with the rollback of personal freedoms, the arbitrary enforcement of the law [and] the pervasive corruption at various levels of Russian society,” she said.

Russia’s leaders were risking the future progress of the Russian people, she said, declaring that Russia’s leaders “are putting Russia on a one-way path to self-imposed isolation and international irrelevance”.
Story from BBC NEWS:

Source: Army Times

3rd Infantry’s 1st BCT trains for a new dwell-time mission. Helping ‘people at home’ may become a permanent part of the active Army

By Gina Cavallaro - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Sep 8, 2008 6:15:06 EDT

The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.

Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home.

Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.

It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home. In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas.

But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.

After 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one.

“Right now, the response force requirement will be an enduring mission. How the [Defense Department] chooses to source that and whether or not they continue to assign them to NorthCom, that could change in the future,” said Army Col. Louis Vogler, chief of NorthCom future operations. “Now, the plan is to assign a force every year.”

The command is at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colo., but the soldiers with 1st BCT, who returned in April after 15 months in Iraq, will operate out of their home post at Fort Stewart, Ga., where they’ll be able to go to school, spend time with their families and train for their new homeland mission as well as the counterinsurgency mission in the war zones.

Stop-loss will not be in effect, so soldiers will be able to leave the Army or move to new assignments during the mission, and the operational tempo will be variable.

Don’t look for any extra time off, though. The at-home mission does not take the place of scheduled combat-zone deployments and will take place during the so-called dwell time a unit gets to reset and regenerate after a deployment.

The 1st of the 3rd is still scheduled to deploy to either Iraq or Afghanistan in early 2010, which means the soldiers will have been home a minimum of 20 months by the time they ship out.

In the meantime, they’ll learn new skills, use some of the ones they acquired in the war zone and more than likely will not be shot at while doing any of it.

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.

Training for homeland scenarios has already begun at Fort Stewart and includes specialty tasks such as knowing how to use the “jaws of life” to extract a person from a mangled vehicle; extra medical training for a CBRNE incident; and working with U.S. Forestry Service experts on how to go in with chainsaws and cut and clear trees to clear a road or area.

The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use “the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded,” 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.

“It’s a new modular package of nonlethal capabilities that they’re fielding. They’ve been using pieces of it in Iraq, but this is the first time that these modules were consolidated and this package fielded, and because of this mission we’re undertaking we were the first to get it.”

The package includes equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons; and, beanbag bullets.

“I was the first guy in the brigade to get Tasered,” said Cloutier, describing the experience as “your worst muscle cramp ever — times 10 throughout your whole body.

“I’m not a small guy, I weigh 230 pounds … it put me on my knees in seconds.”

The brigade will not change its name, but the force will be known for the next year as a CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force, or CCMRF (pronounced “sea-smurf”).

“I can’t think of a more noble mission than this,” said Cloutier, who took command in July. “We’ve been all over the world during this time of conflict, but now our mission is to take care of citizens at home … and depending on where an event occurred, you’re going home to take care of your home town, your loved ones.”

While soldiers’ combat training is applicable, he said, some nuances don’t apply.

“If we go in, we’re going in to help American citizens on American soil, to save lives, provide critical life support, help clear debris, restore normalcy and support whatever local agencies need us to do, so it’s kind of a different role,” said Cloutier, who, as the division operations officer on the last rotation, learned of the homeland mission a few months ago while they were still in Iraq.

Some brigade elements will be on call around the clock, during which time they’ll do their regular marksmanship, gunnery and other deployment training. That’s because the unit will continue to train and reset for the next deployment, even as it serves in its CCMRF mission.

Should personnel be needed at an earthquake in California, for example, all or part of the brigade could be scrambled there, depending on the extent of the need and the specialties involved.
Other branches included

The active Army’s new dwell-time mission is part of a NorthCom and DOD response package.

Active-duty soldiers will be part of a force that includes elements from other military branches and dedicated National Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams.

A final mission rehearsal exercise is scheduled for mid-September at Fort Stewart and will be run by Joint Task Force Civil Support, a unit based out of Fort Monroe, Va., that will coordinate and evaluate the interservice event.

In addition to 1st BCT, other Army units will take part in the two-week training exercise, including elements of the 1st Medical Brigade out of Fort Hood, Texas, and the 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade from Fort Bragg, N.C.

There also will be Air Force engineer and medical units, the Marine Corps Chemical, Biological Initial Reaction Force, a Navy weather team and members of the Defense Logistics Agency and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

One of the things Vogler said they’ll be looking at is communications capabilities between the services.

“It is a concern, and we’re trying to check that and one of the ways we do that is by having these sorts of exercises. Leading up to this, we are going to rehearse and set up some of the communications systems to make sure we have interoperability,” he said.

“I don’t know what America’s overall plan is — I just know that 24 hours a day, seven days a week, there are soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that are standing by to come and help if they’re called,” Cloutier said. “It makes me feel good as an American to know that my country has dedicated a force to come in and help the people at home.”

To each her own, I suppose. I’m sure this will get misconstrued as sexism, but I don’t care, here goes…

We already thought that John McCain was a dead horse who was chosen to ensure Obama’s victory, but now we know it. As it stands now, McCain has no platform on which to run. When I think “McCain”, I have the empty bubble above my head.
He represents nothing. His campaign slogan should be “not-Obama” or maybe “re-elect Bush” would work, too. If you turn on “republican/conservative” radio like Rushian Limbaugh, he just talks about Obama. All over the news you only see Obama.

McCain had a chance to give himself some hope by choosing the right running mate. Instead he chooses an unknown political lady from the most obscure state of our union. That’s not to put down Alaska in any way nor is it to put down Governor Palin, but image is everything. When you are a dead horse to start with and you then select a political unknown as your running mate, who is a female, it just looks like you don’t want to win. Or, if he is dumb enough to actually think that he could win, then he may think that a woman running mate will give him credibility through diversity,in the eyes of America. What he is thinking is not obvious, but whatever it is, it doesn’t seem genuine.

An election is certainly unpredictable, not because the voters are unpredictable, but because the election riggers are unpredictable. To predict these things you need to think diabolically. To compare Obama with McCain, you have 2 “men” who don’t mind selling out their country.

The lesser of the two evils is probably McCain. McCain literally wrote the bill (with Democrat Senator Kennedy) on amnesty for illegal aliens, which would have been a disaster for this country. I believe the failing promise was to “not quit” and get that bill through eventually. For this reason, McCain could become president. He is a leader in blending our country with Mexico. Think of McCain as the representative of the SPP.

Obama, on the other hand, is the representative for the CFR, Council on Foreign Relations. They are sworn to the destruction of the sovereignty of the United States of America. Consider the quote from its current President, Richard Haas:

Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function.
Taipei Times Feb 21, 2006

It certainly goes way beyond that single quote, but that’s just an example. Obama is teamed up with that organization, as is David Rockefeller, Dick Cheney, Bush Sr., and almost every so-called high-ranking politician. They are sworn to the establishment of a New World Order, which requires the elimination of sovereignty in our country.

Both are traitors by definition. I’d rather vote for Mickey Mouse than those America haters. Their talk can sound sweet, but their end is as bitter as wormwood.

So can it be predicted who will win? No, of course not, but it looks like John McCain is not planning to win.

Written by Selwyn Duke
Tuesday, 08 July 2008 09:41
Source: John Birch Society

On Tuesday, July 1, a Texas grand jury refused to indict Joe Horn, the Texan who killed two illegal aliens who were fleeing a robbery.

The story began on November 14, 2007, when Joe Horn witnessed two men robbing a neighbor’s house. Like any good citizen, the 61-year-old grandfather called 911, but he also did something else — he fetched his shotgun. While the emergency operator implored Horn not to confront the burglars, the Pasadena, Tex., resident made a decision. Here is a partial transcript of the 911 call:

Horn: They’re getting away!
Dispatcher: That’s all right. Property’s not worth killing someone over, OK?
Dispatcher: Don’t go out the house. Don’t be shooting nobody. I know you’re p***** and you’re frustrated, but don’t do it.
Horn: They got a bag of loot.
Dispatcher: OK. How big is the bag . . . which way are they going
Horn: I’m going outside. I’ll find out.
Dispatcher: I don’t want you going outside, Mr. Horn.
Horn: Well, here it goes, buddy. You hear the shotgun clicking and I’m going.

What happened next isn’t entirely clear. We know the two burglars – Diego Ortiz and Hernando Riascos Torres, both unemployed illegal aliens (Torres had already been convicted on cocaine charges and deported, but I suppose his trade is more lucrative in the U.S.) from Columbia who were fleeing with about $2000-worth of loot – did not yield. In dispute, however, is whether Horn had reason to feel threatened and consequently use deadly force.

An action such as Horn’s seems an anachronism in our bystander-apathy, go-by-the-book world. It has created a maelstrom of controversy, with some hailing the Texan as a Charles Bronson vigilante hero and others hating him for taking the law into his own hands. Many agree with the dispatcher – you don’t shoot people over property.

Not many decent folks feel good after killing other human beings. It’s something one would do out of necessity, much like amputating a gangrenous limb; you know the condition will spread if not checked, but, still, you regret that something originally meant to be good must be lost.

Whenever I hear of a situation such as Horn’s, I usually side with the homeowner. My preference would be to hold the perpetrators for authorities or wound them (it’s hard to miss legs with a shotgun), but it’s easy being an armchair quarterback. Adrenaline is pumping in such a circumstance and, as Horn himself said, “You lose track of time,” — it’s real life, not a movie. It’s like shootings involving our troops in Iraq or police officers in that I’m going to give the benefit of the doubt to the “good guys” every time.

Some say the difference is that Horn isn’t a cop; he should have left such matters to the professionals. It’s that ever-more-common injunction to “not get involved.” But is this what America was built on? Is it what we’ve degenerated to? Whatever you think of Horn’s case, leaving things to the “professionals” – be it education, health, charity or thwarting evil – is a recipe for societal decline. The best of lands have proactive citizens, not passive ones. Horn didn’t create this situation by getting involved in justice; the two thugs did by getting involved in crime. If you lose your life during the commission of illegality, the fault lies with only one person: you.

The notion that the only thing at stake during the incident was property has been heard before, and it’s a good example of a failure to look beyond the moment. To use a variation on a Frederic Bastiat line: a fool considers only what can be seen; a wise man considers what can be seen and what must be foreseen.

In a case such as Horn’s, seen is that two criminals who attempted to steal property are dead. But what must be foreseen?

When robbers successfully steal, they seldom retire to lives of sweetness and light; they usually become bolder and persist in their wicked ways. They victimize more people and sometimes innocents are hurt and/or killed. We can’t be sure that Ortiz and Torres would have thus devolved; one can never know about individuals. Certainly in general, when criminals are stopped – whether by steel handcuffs or lead bullets – innocent life and limb are saved. When they aren’t thwarted – whether due to fecklessness or fearfulness – lives that could have been saved are lost.

Our “cower first, slap on the wrist later” attitude, along with other permissive elements in our society, creates an atmosphere where the risk/reward factor starts to favor lawbreakers, sending the message that crime actually does pay. This causes crime to proliferate, as there’s an inverse relationship between the risk an activity entails and the number of people who will engage in it. Those without moral constraints militating against criminal impulses must fear the consequences of indulging them. As that group becomes less fearful of consequences, they become more indulgent of impulses.
Whatever your position on the Horns of the world, it shouldn’t be based on the notion that “only property” is at stake. That’s akin to saying that a cancerous organ shouldn’t be removed because a body part is more important than cancer cells.

May the Lord have mercy on the souls of Ortiz and Torres. I’ll save my tears, however, for the innocents who die every day because we have mistaken permissiveness for compassion.