Saturday, June 25, 2011

Wisdom From Ron Paul

"I'm convinced that you never have to give up liberties to be safe. I think you're less safe when you give up your liberties."   Ron Paul

Friday, June 24, 2011

Senator Ron Johnson Speaks on Manufacturing

Miss USA & C4L Partner on TSA Battle

Miss USA & C4L Partner on TSA Battle

Wisdom From Ron Paul

"Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to hold states "accountable" for their education performance...In the free society envisioned by the founders, schools are held accountable to parents, not federal bureaucrats."

Ron Paul

Dick Morris TV; Lunch ALERT! Release Illegal Immigrants Who Committed Crimes?

Founding Fathers Quote

Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

George Washington

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Prayers For Family

I would like to request our readers to say a prayer for my mother-in-law.  She has had prior surgery on her heart and it looks as if she may need surgery again.  She has been having heart issue for some time now and we pray for a complete healing for her.  We are waiting to hear what the doctors will need to do next so now would be a wonderful time for God to send a miracle. 

Healing Prayer of Isaiah 53

Precious Lord Jesus, I thank you for your enduring love. You came into the world to set me free from the power of darkness. You embraced a violent death on the cross to pay the penalty on my behalf. You suffered the scourging at the pillar, taking the sickness of humanity upon your own flesh, so that I could be healed.

I come before you now to place all my sin upon your cross and ask for your precious blood to wash me clean. I place the penalty for my sinfulness, all my sickness, diseases and infirmities upon your cross, and for the sake of your sorrowful passion, I ask to be set free. I accept your sacrifice and receive your gift of reconciliation. I confess your Lordship over every aspect of my life, heart, mind, body, soul and spirit.

Through the power of your cross Lord Jesus, I now resist all forms of sin, sickness and disease. I say to all forms of sickness and disease caused by my own disobedience, that you are not God’s good and perfect will for my life, and I enforce the power of the cross upon you right now.

By the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, I command all forms of sickness and disease to leave my presence immediately. Jesus bore my infirmities. He was wounded for my transgressions. By his stripes I have been healed. No sickness, pain, death, fear or addiction shall ever lord over me again. The penalty has been paid in full. I have been ransomed and redeemed, sanctified and set free. Amen.

Dick Morris TV; Lunch ALERT! GOP Nomination: My Latest Poll

US Supreme Court Rules For Wal-Mart

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg needs to learn the meaning of discrimination.

Justice is served, at least for now, as the US Supreme Court rules on behalf of Wal-Mart in the class action suit including millions of women alleging Wal-Mart has a discriminatory policy against women.  "Wal-Mart's delegation of discretion over pay and promotions is a policy uniform throughout all stores," Ginsburg said.  Obviously, she has no clue about the inner-workings of Wal-Mart, if she had this statement would never have been uttered by her apparently discriminatory lips (after all capitalism is a four letter word to the likes of her).

I wonder how many of these women deserved their jobs, let alone a promotion.  If you are so unhappy with your job that you have to blame your lack of success on discrimination, maybe you should just find another job that better suits you. 

Not every associate is Wal-Mart material.  As the biggest private employer in the world they have proven that their policies, as a company, are to chose the right person for the promotion; otherwise they would not be successful.  I don't see the male associates who are passed over for a female associate for a promotion launching a class action suit, even though some females have made it more than obvious they expect discrimination in their favor; and liberal courts and justices are more than happy to oblige.

For the few individual cases where discrimination did occur, that is the failure and doing of an individual manager, who should be disciplined, up to termination.  This does not make it a Wal-Mart policy, no matter how you twist it. 

Wal-Mart is very well known by its associates as very cautious that all associates are treated equally with respect and have every opportunity to utilize the open door policy, even up to home office, when they feel disgruntled.  Some associates are just unhappy people, in their personal life as well as their professional life, and no answer, except what they feel entitled to, will do.  Wal-Mart has a long history of treating its associates with respect for the individual; beginning with Mr. Sam himself.

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

More Troubling News Out Of North Korea And A Look At America's Presence On The Korean Peninsula

Article first published as More Troubling News out of North Korea on Blogcritics.

It appears that North Korea is not only moving forward with more effective nuclear designs, but also with a powerful EMP(electromagnetic pulse) device. An EMP attack can begin with the explosion of a nuclear weapon high in the atmosphere. This explosion interacts with the planet’s magnetic fields, creating a pulse, which in turn causes extensive damage to electronic systems. It is critically important that we take this potential threat serious. An EMP blast would devastate the US.

How many Americans could get by without electricity and all of our modern conveniences? Some of us are lucky enough to have grown up on a farm and know how to survive and feed ourselves, but millions of Americans live in cities were not only is that not possible, but the potential breakdown of society would be catastrophic. There is a good suggestion in the linked article about one way to protect the United States from an EMP; definitely worth investigating further.
On a related, but separate, topic why do we still have ground troops in
South Korea? South Korea has Asia's fourth-largest economy. They could afford to expand their already modern and capable Armed Forces. The US could still show its commitment to its Asian partner by permanently stationing a carrier battle group in the Sea of Japan. I think it's time we begin to rely more on our fleet and less on burdensome, expensive overseas bases. No matter how poor North Korea is, they are armed to the teeth; even antique weapons kill if they were to come across the DMZ. Our troops stationed in South Korea would be little more than casualties to justify American intervention. It's time we take an informed look at the rationale behind permanently stationing troops in South Korea.

Let's hope that someday North and South Korea can peacefully unify. I actually believe there's a high probability it will happen after the economic collapse of the North. The real question is will China allow a unified Korea. There is little doubt that China would see a unified Korea as a potential adversary, given South Korea's close friendship with the United States. This is another reason why it makes sense for South Korea to expand its defense budget and be in a position to defend itself.
As much as it may hurt American pride, many of our allies no longer require our protection. Germany, South Korea, and a host of other nations are wealthy enough to provide for their own defense. I think in a lot of ways America relishes the role of global defender, it allows us to dictate the rules of the game and to interfere throughout the world. As we face our crushing debt problem, we must take serious the reality that we can no longer afford to defend the world; especially not if we're leaving the American people vulnerable at home.

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

The Betrayal Of Civil Rights

Walter Williams, in this brilliant article, writes about the new racist in America and how the Obama administration and a more-than-willing mainstream media has condoned racial unrest through their refusal to report or prosecute their black-on-white (and Asian) attacks. This unrefined behavior we are seeing from minority elite is creating a generation of minority youth who would rather exact an unwarranted revenge than obtain an education and a brighter future.

STRATFOR: U.S. and Pakistan: Afghan Strategies

U.S. and Pakistan: Afghan Strategies is republished with permission of STRATFOR.

By George Friedman

U.S. President Barack Obama will give a speech on Afghanistan on June 22. Whatever he says, it is becoming apparent that the United States is exploring ways to accelerate the drawdown of its forces in the country. It is also clear that U.S. relations with Pakistan are deteriorating to a point where cooperation — whatever level there was — is breaking down. These are two intimately related issues. Any withdrawal from Afghanistan, particularly an accelerated one, will leave a power vacuum in Afghanistan that the Kabul government will not be able to fill. Afghanistan is Pakistan’s back door, and its evolution is a matter of fundamental interest to Pakistan. A U.S. withdrawal means an Afghanistan intertwined with and influenced by Pakistan. Therefore, the current dynamic with Pakistan challenges any withdrawal plan.

There may be some in the U.S. military who believe that the United States might prevail in Afghanistan, but they are few in number. The champion of this view, Gen. David Petraeus, has been relieved of his command of forces in Afghanistan and promoted (or kicked upstairs) to become director of the CIA. The conventional definition of victory has been the creation of a strong government in Kabul controlling an army and police force able to protect the regime and ultimately impose its will throughout Afghanistan. With President Hamid Karzai increasingly uncooperative with the United States, the likelihood of this outcome is evaporating. Karzai realizes his American protection will be withdrawn and understands that the Americans will blame him for any negative outcomes of the withdrawal because of his inability or unwillingness to control corruption.

Defining Success in Afghanistan

There is a prior definition of success that shaped the Bush administration’s approach to Afghanistan in its early phases. The goal here was the disruption of al Qaeda’s operations in Afghanistan and the prevention of further attacks on the United States from Afghanistan. This definition did not envisage the emergence of a stable and democratic Afghanistan free of corruption and able to control its territory. It was more modest and, in many ways, it was achieved in 2001-2002. Its defect, of course, was that the disruption of al Qaeda in Afghanistan, while useful, did not address the evolution of al Qaeda in other countries. In particular, it did not deal with the movement of al Qaeda operatives to Pakistan, nor did it address the Taliban, which were not defeated in 2001-2002 but simply declined combat on American terms, re-emerging as a viable insurgency when the United States became bogged down in Iraq.

The mission creep from denying Afghan bases to al Qaeda to the transformation of Afghan society had many roots and was well under way during the Bush administration, but the immediate origin of the current strategy was the attempt to transfer the lessons of Iraq to Afghanistan. The surge in Iraq, and the important political settlement with Sunni insurgents that brought them into the American fold, reduced the insurgency. It remains to be seen whether it will produce a stable Iraq not hostile to American interests. The ultimate Iraq strategy was a political settlement framed by an increase in forces, and its long-term success was never clear. The Obama administration was prepared to repeat the attempt in Afghanistan, at least by using Iraq as a template if not applying exactly the same tactics.

However, the United States found that the Taliban were less inclined to negotiate with the United States, and certainly not on the favorable terms of the Iraqi insurgents, simply because they believed they would win in the long run and did not face the dangers that the Sunni insurgents did. The military operations that framed the search for a political solution turned out to be a frame without a painting. In Iraq, it is not clear that the Petraeus strategy actually achieved a satisfactory political outcome, and its application to Afghanistan does not seem, as yet, to have drawn the Taliban into the political process in the way that incorporating the Sunnis made Iraq appear at least minimally successful.

As we pointed out after the death of Osama bin Laden, his demise, coupled with the transfer of Petraeus out of Afghanistan, offered two opportunities. The first was a return to the prior definition of success in Afghanistan, in which the goal was the disruption of al Qaeda. Second, the departure of Petraeus and his staff also removed the ideology of counterinsurgency, in which social transformation was seen as the means toward a practical and radical transformation of Afghanistan. These two events opened the door to the redefinition of the U.S. goal and the ability to claim mission accomplished for the earlier, more modest end, thereby building the basis for terminating the war.

The central battle was in the United States military, divided between conventional warfighters and counter-insurgents. Counterinsurgency draws its roots from theories of social development in emerging countries going back to the 1950s. It argues that victory in these sorts of wars depends on social and political mobilization and that the purpose of the military battle is to create a space to build a state and nation capable of defending itself.

The conventional understanding of war is that its purpose is to defeat the enemy military. It presents a more limited and focused view of military power. This faction, bitterly opposed to Petraeus’ view of what was happening in Afghanistan, saw the war in terms of defeating the Taliban as a military force. In the view of this faction, defeating the Taliban was impossible with the force available and unlikely even with a more substantial force. There were two reasons for this. First, the Taliban comprised a light infantry force with a superior intelligence capability and the ability to withdraw from untenable operations (such as the battle for Helmand province) and re-engage on more favorable terms elsewhere. Second, sanctuaries in Pakistan allowed the Taliban to withdraw to safety and reconstitute themselves, thereby making their defeat in detail impossible. The option of invading Pakistan remained, but the idea of invading a country of 180 million people with some fraction of the nearly 150,000 U.S. and allied troops in Afghanistan was militarily unsupportable. Indeed, no force the United States could field would be in a position to compel Pakistan to conform to American wishes.

The alternative on the American side is a more conventional definition of war in which the primary purpose of the U.S. military in Afghanistan is to create a framework for special operations forces to disrupt al Qaeda in Afghanistan and potentially Pakistan, not to attempt to either defeat the Taliban strategically or transform Afghanistan politically and culturally. With the death of bin Laden, an argument can be made — at least for political purposes — that al Qaeda has been disrupted enough that the conventional military framework in Afghanistan is no longer needed. If al Qaeda revives in Afghanistan, then covert operations can be considered. The problem with al Qaeda is that it does not require any single country to regenerate. It is a global guerrilla force.

Asymmetry in U.S. and Pakistani Interests

The United States can choose to leave Afghanistan without suffering strategic disaster. Pakistan cannot leave Pakistan. It therefore cannot leave its border with Afghanistan nor can it evade the reality that Pakistani ethnic groups — particularly the Pashtun, which straddle the border and form the heart of the Taliban phenomenon — live on the Afghan side of the border as well. Therefore, while Afghanistan is a piece of American global strategy and not its whole, Afghanistan is central to Pakistan’s national strategy. This asymmetry in U.S. and Pakistani interests is now the central issue.

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Pakistan joined with the United States to defeat the Soviets. Saudi Arabia provided money and recruits, the Pakistanis provided training facilities and intelligence and the United States provided trainers and other support. For Pakistan, the Soviet invasion was a matter of fundamental national interest. Facing a hostile India supported by the Soviets and a Soviet presence in Afghanistan, Pakistan was threatened on two fronts. Therefore, deep involvement with the jihadists in Afghanistan was essential to Pakistan because the jihadists tied down the Soviets. This was also beneficial to the United States.

After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the United States became indifferent to Afghanistan’s future. Pakistan could not be indifferent. It remained deeply involved with the Islamist forces that had defeated the Soviets and would govern Afghanistan, and it helped facilitate the emergence of the Taliban as the dominant force in the country. The United States was quite content with this in the 1990s and accepted the fact that Pakistani intelligence had become intertwined not only with the forces that fought the Soviets but also with the Taliban, who, with Pakistani support, won the civil war that followed the Soviet defeat.

Intelligence organizations are as influenced by their clients as their clients are controlled by them. Consider anti-Castro Cubans in the 1960s and 1970s and their beginning as CIA assets and their end as major influencers of U.S. policy toward Cuba. The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence directorate (ISI) became entwined with its clients. As the influence of the Taliban and Islamist elements increased in Afghanistan, the sentiment spread to Pakistan, where a massive Islamist movement developed with influence in the government and intelligence services.

Sept. 11, 2001, posed a profound threat to Pakistan. On one side, Pakistan faced a United States in a state of crisis, demanding Pakistani support against both al Qaeda and the Taliban. On the other side Pakistan had a massive Islamist movement hostile to the United States and intelligence services that had, for a generation, been intimately linked to Afghan Islamists, first with whole-hearted U.S. support, then with its benign indifference. The American demands involved shredding close relationships in Afghanistan, supporting an American occupation in Afghanistan and therefore facing internal resistance and threats in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Pakistani solution was the only one it could come up with to placate both the United States and the forces in Pakistan that did not want to cooperate with the United States. The Pakistanis lied. To be more precise and fair, they did as much as they could for the United States without completely destabilizing Pakistan while making it appear that they were being far more cooperative with the Americans and far less cooperative with their public. As in any such strategy, the ISI and Islamabad found themselves engaged in a massive balancing act.

U.S. and Pakistani national interests widely diverged. The United States wanted to disrupt al Qaeda regardless of the cost. The Pakistanis wanted to avoid the collapse of their regime at any cost. These were not compatible goals. At the same time, the United States and Pakistan needed each other. The United States could not possibly operate in Afghanistan without some Pakistani support, ranging from the use of Karachi and the Karachi-Khyber and Karachi-Chaman lines of supply to at least some collaboration on intelligence sharing, at least on al Qaeda. The Pakistanis badly needed American support against India. If the United States simply became pro-Indian, the Pakistani position would be in severe jeopardy.

The United States was always aware of the limits of Pakistani assistance. The United States accepted this publicly because it made Pakistan appear to be an ally at a time when the United States was under attack for unilateralism. It accepted it privately as well because it did not want to see Pakistan destabilize. The Pakistanis were aware of the limits of American tolerance, so a game was played out.

The Endgame in Afghanistan

That game is now breaking down, not because the United States raided Pakistan and killed bin Laden but because it is becoming apparent to Pakistan that the United States will, sooner or later, be dramatically drawing down its forces in Afghanistan. This drawdown creates three facts. First, Pakistan will be facing the future on its western border with Afghanistan without an American force to support it. Pakistan does not want to alienate the Taliban, and not just for ideological reasons. It also expects the Taliban to govern Afghanistan in due course. India aside, Pakistan needs to maintain its ties to the Taliban in order to maintain its influence in Afghanistan and guard its western flank. Being cooperative with the United States is less important. Second, Pakistan is aware that as the United States draws down, it will need Pakistan to cover its withdrawal strategically. Afghanistan is not Iraq, and as the U.S. force draws down, it will be in greater danger. The U.S. needs Pakistani influence. Finally, there will be a negotiation with the Taliban, and elements of Pakistan, particularly the ISI, will be the intermediary.

The Pakistanis are preparing for the American drawdown. Publicly, it is important for them to appear as independent and even hostile to the Americans as possible in order to maintain their domestic credibility. Up to now, they have appeared to various factions in Pakistan as American lackeys. If the United States is leaving, the Pakistanis can’t afford to appear that way anymore. There are genuine issues separating the two countries, but in the end, the show is as important as the issues. U.S. accusations that the government has not cooperated with the United States in fighting Islamists are exactly what the Pakistani establishment needs in order to move to the next phase. Publicly arresting CIA sources who aided the United States in capturing bin Laden also enhances this new image.

From the American point of view, the war in Afghanistan — and elsewhere — has not been a failure. There have been no more attacks on the United States on the order of 9/11, and that has not been for al Qaeda’s lack of trying. U.S. intelligence and security services, fumbling in the early days, achieved a remarkable success, and that was aided by the massive disruption of al Qaeda by U.S. military operations. The measure of military success is simple. If the enemy was unable to strike, the military effort was a success. Obviously, there is no guarantee that al Qaeda will not regenerate or that another group will not emerge, but a continued presence in Afghanistan at this point doesn’t affect that. This is particularly true as franchise operations like the Yemen-based al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula begin to overtake the old apex leadership in terms of both operational innovation in transnational efforts and the ideological underpinnings of those attacks.

In the end, the United States will leave Afghanistan (with the possible exception of some residual special operations forces). Pakistan will draw Afghanistan back into its sphere of influence. Pakistan will need American support against India (since China does not have the force needed to support Pakistan over the Himalayas nor the navy to protect Pakistan’s coast). The United States will need Pakistan to do the basic work of preventing an intercontinental al Qaeda from forming again. Reflecting on the past 10 years, Pakistan will see that as being in its national interest. The United States will use Pakistan to balance India while retaining close ties to India.

A play will be acted out like the New Zealand Haka, with both sides making terrible sounds and frightening gestures at each other. But now that the counterinsurgency concept is being discarded, from all indications, and a fresh military analysis is under way, the script is being rewritten and we can begin to see the end shaping up. The United States is furious at Pakistan for its willingness to protect American enemies. Pakistan is furious at the United States for conducting attacks on its sovereign territory. In the end it doesn’t matter. They need each other. In the affairs of nations, like and dislike are not meaningful categories, and bullying and treachery are not blocks to cooperation. The two countries need each other more than they need to punish each other. Great friendships among nations are built on less.
Read more: U.S. and Pakistan: Afghan Strategies | STRATFOR

Way More Golf

Dick Morris TV; Lunch ALERT! Urgent Appeal -- Wisconsin!!!

Ron Paul: Strange Definitions of War and Peace

Last week I joined six Republican and three Democrat colleagues to file a lawsuit against the Obama administration over its illegal war against Libya. Now that more than 90 days have passed since the president began bombing Libya, no one can seriously claim that the administration has complied with the clear requirements of the 1973 War Powers Resolution.

In a remarkable act of chutzpah, the administration sent to Congress its response to the growing concern over its abuse of war powers. Its argument, in a nutshell, is that the War Powers Resolution is not relevant because US armed forces are not actually engaged in hostilities because Libya is so militarily weak it cannot fight back! This explanation would be laughable if not so horrific. The administration wants us to believe that there is no real violence because the victim cannot fight back? Imagine if this standard was applied to criminal law in the United States! I am sure Libyans on the receiving end of US and NATO bombs feel hostilities are quite definitely taking place.

We must recall the origins of these attacks on Libya. The Obama administration made no claim that Libyan leader Gaddafi was killing his civilian population. Rather, the claim was that Libya might begin killing its civilians in the future. One need not defend Gaddafi's regime -- and I most certainly do not -- to object to this flimsy and dangerous rationale for violating the sovereignty of another country. Imagine a scenario where the UN approves military action against the United States as a preventative humanitarian measure over US enforcement of its immigration laws, for example!

Click here to read the full article:

STRATFOR Dispatch: The Financial Positioning of Ukraine and Belarus


Monday, June 20, 2011

Lawmakers to Reconsider Criminalizing Airport Pat Downs

Lawmakers to Reconsider Criminalizing Airport Pat Downs - News Radio 1200 WOAI San Antonio Texas: "Governor places item on special session agenda"

Messenger Orbits Mercury

The Messenger spacecraft has been orbiting Mercury since March and has revealed much information about the planet.  I am glad to see space exploration continuing in some form after Obama mutilated the manned space program.  However, I will always believe that manned space exploration should be a high priority of our republic.

We should have an ever growing program with a massive push for new technology, we are so beyond reusing out dated spacecraft over and over until it literally falls apart.  I would like to see every one of our troops stationed around the world and fighting in unconstitutional and imperialistic invasions at the whims of vain presidents.  There would be your funding for the space program and to build the strongest military in the world.

Don't think it is important?  Don't be lulled by the serpent head because the tail is poised to strike.  There are nations who are arming for their chance to strike and we must not be distracted.  The only thing we should be conquering is space (Do we really want another nation to have the ultimate high ground?) and the only ground our military should be protecting is our own soil, at home.

First Day In Training

The first day is done. While technically in training for the next six weeks, I am currently at what will be my home location and I love it. My new position is quite a ways north of our current home and in a smaller community. The people are amazingly outgoing and friendly, and the opportunities for activities in the area are phenomenal. There are trails and parks everywhere, horseback riding, whitewater rafting, hunting, fishing, and so many more things to do both summer and winter. Living up here is going to be a great adventure for the whole family.

DR is home alone right now, with our six children. God help him:)  I love my family more than anything, but do you know how noisy and busy six children are? It is hard enough for the both of us taking care of them and the house together. Now he is doing it all alone for the next six weeks while I train for my promotion. Please remember him in your prayers now and then, I am sure he can use all of them.

Russia makes major commitment to A Bluewater Navy

No one can doubt Russia's commitment to maintain a blue-water navy after they finalized a deal with France for four Mistral class amphibious assault ships. I don't think the significance of this purchase can be overstated. Russia has humbled itself by purchasing the ships from France and will emerge stronger for it. Of course, Russia's not going to stop at four amphibious assault ships; I have no doubt that their own shipyards will produce an increasing number of surface vessels. After all, you're not going to send assault ships out with no escorts. I'd be curious to see if Russia also starts construction of any large carriers; they currently only have one in operation.

Obama, Bring The Troops Home

It appears that Obama will announce on Wednesday his plans for troop levels in Afghanistan. It is past time for Obama to make the hard decision and bring our troops home from Iraq, Afghanistan, and from his unconstitutional war in Libya. I understand that liberals who don't serve in the military can never appreciate the hardship that the men and women in our Armed Forces have had to endure.

One of my biggest complaints, during Bush's term, was his unwillingness to expand the military enough to deal with the massive amount of missions and deployments he sent them on. I'm tired of our politicians, both Republican and Democrat, thinking the military is their own personal plaything. They seem to want to run around the world and remake it in their image. That is not the purpose of the United States military. It has one purpose, to defend the United States from all enemies; not to build an empire that covers the globe.

Let's bring our troops home and protect our own borders, while keeping a close eye on both China and Russia as they modernize and rearm.



Behind Michele Bachmanns Fundraising Magic

Behind Michele Bachmann Fundraising Magic

The Hill Poll: Majority says military involved in too many places -

The Hill Poll: Majority says military involved in too many places -

Sunday, June 19, 2011

Ron Paul: Conversation with the Candidate

h/t: Ron Paul .com

Founding Fathers Quote

They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.

Thomas Jefferson

Ron Paul's Full Speech at the Republican Leadership Conference (RLC 2011)

h/t: Ron Paul .com

Happy Fathers Day DR

I know it is not often, lately, that I post on the website; my schedule, focus, and energy have been off kilter with my recent promotion, now beginning training, and preparation for our move.

I actually sent my husband an ecard for Fathers Day, which has not showed up in his inbox as of yet. So much for the convenience of technology. This will be my Fathers Day message to the man I love instead.


You have always been there for me, from the very first day we met. Even when I was not. Somehow you always knew we were meant to be and you never gave up on that. The things you went through just to be with me, I doubt anyone else could be found that would go through the same.

You found me at a turning point in my life. I did not have the self confidence to stand up for myself and demand the respect I deserved as an individual who could succeed at anything I put my mind to. I did not know how to take control of my own life back from those around me who only pretended to have my best interest at heart. You showed me the way out of all that. You gave me back control of me.

God brought us together to make us better and I can never praise him enough for bringing me my soulmate, despite where I was in life. Together we have succeeded where separate we could not have. Together we have created a beautiful family. Together we have ensured that what we teach our children will live on for generations after we are gone. Together, with God, we will leave this world a little better because there was an "us".

You have made my world brighter, clearer, safer, and unfettered. After this long together you are me and I am you and yet we still have so much about each other left to explore. That, for me, is what keeps our marriage new and makes our love stronger each year. You are my heart, my soul, my comforter, my partner, and my best friend; and for that I thank you.

Aways and Forever,

Your loving wife

Happy Fathers Day Sweetheart

Ron Paul Wins RLC Presidential Straw Poll with 39.69% of the Vote

Ron Paul Wins RLC Presidential Straw Poll with 39.69% of the Vote

h/t: Ron Paul .com