Audrey Hudson Home Raided By Feds

Audrey Hudson Home Raided By FedsThe home of Audrey Hudson, a reporter for The Washington Times, was raided the pre-dawn of Aug. 6 by Maryland State Police and the Department of Homeland Security’s Coast Guard Investigative Service. They apparently were looking for a “potato gun” belonging to her husband, Paul Flanagan, who was a Coast Guard employee.

Flanagan has yet to be charged with anything although raiders did take notes pertaining to Ms. Hudson regarding stories she had written exposing problems in the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Air Marshals Service, and questioned her as to whether she was the Audrey Hudson who was writing those nasty stories.

The raid occurred at 4:30 a.m. and the raiders were wearing full body armor.

Have you read about this in the establishment mouthpiece papers? Silly question.

Audrey Hudson Home Raided By Feds

Rand Paul Defense Of Life

Rand Paul Defense Of Life — Rand Paul (R-Ky), who may be the freshest breeze to blow through Washington since Reagan, has unveiled The Life At Conception Act (S 583) which  “declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being beginning at the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being,” and  “prohibits construing this Act to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.”

Paul, who has a doctorate of medicine from Duke and spent two decades in private practice, is following the evidence to where it leads and deserves only praise.

It would be adequate to simply seek to return the debate to the states — which means continuing the fight to overturn the legally and logically dubious Roe v. Wade decision — and far more safer politically. It would also be politically safer to make a stand using the traditional standard as to the existence of life which is the pulse and starts for certain four weeks after conception.

Still, if you want to be absolutely certain that another’s life is not being taken, then conception would be the starting place that you would chose.

To show support for the Senator’s bill go here.

Hat tip Regina Scheerer.

Rand Paul Defense Of Life

Get Ready For Bitcoin

Get Ready For Bitcoin — Expect to see stories about the bitcoin  in the old general media.

Online businesses are starting to use this digital currency  because it dodges credit card fees and goes a long way in eliminating payment fraud.

Unlike a fiat currency such as the dollar or euro, bitcoins are mined like gold except that instead of a crusty old guy with a mule wielding a pick they are found by math geniuses using computers.

Each bitcoin transaction  involves data called  “blocks” each of which contain just a little bit of meaningless random information. The miners take all the data in the transaction, shuffle the random part and find a “hash” which are mathematical processes that are easy to reproduce but impossible to reverse and hard to predict. This means that it is more expensive to counterfeit them than to try to find them the right way, as counterfeiters would have to account for more data.

They are backed “exclusively by code” as per  the Bitcoin Foundation.

By design there is never more than 21 million bit coins. New, more difficult to hack, hashes replace the older ones. At some point the system will stop creating new coins and the miners will be out of business.

Note, there is no government regulation or oversight.

Get Ready For Bitcoin

Doubt though you may it appears to work. Over 70 exchanges for bitcoins can now be found online. It is on these that you can get your bitcoins for buying. Merchants, of course, can simply acquire them by accepting them for goods or services.

To use bitcoins, a merchant can site up an account with an exchange such as BitPay which will convert the money to dollars and direct deposit it into the businesses bank account. It charges a processing fee starting at .99 percent which is much less than a credit card.

Here is some more information about bitcoins.

Prediction number 2: Expect to see governments based on fiat currency start attacking bitcoins.

Hat tip Entrepreneur magazine

 

Get Ready For Bitcoin

AP Uses False Headline Regarding Sen. Paul

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) appeared on Fox News Sunday, yesterday, Feb. 17, and said I think people want a little different phase on immigration frankly. They don’t want  somebody who wants to round people up, put them in camps and send them back to Mexico. AP Uses False Headline Regarding Sen. Paul

Associated Press transcribes interviews from newsmakers on the Sunday shows. Concerning Paul’s interview they left out the word “don’t” from his quote and sent it out with a headline “Sen. Paul: Voters Want To Round Up Immigrants”.

Sorta changes the meaning — and impression — don’t it. It appears AP’s reporters don’t listen to the actual words when they have a stereotype in mind.  More damningly, the editors who write headlines don’t bother to consider the ease at which mistakes can be made in transcribing when the opportunity presents itself to further such stereotypes.

AP did send out a correction to its credit.

AP Uses False Headline Regarding Sen. Paul

Hat tip Newsbusters.org

Senator Toomey Nixes SOPA

Senator Toomey Nixes SOPA — Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) tweeted 20 minutes ago (about 8:25 p.m., Jan. 18) that he will not support either the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA) in their present forms.

“Piracy of intellectual property is a legitimate concern that should be addressed. However, the PROTECT IP Act and the Stop Internet Piracy Act are flawed, and I cannot support them in their current form. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues on this issue and finding a better legislative approach for tackling online piracy,” Sen. Toomey said Several major websites including Wikipedia went off-line today to protest the intrusive legislation.

In related news President Obama’s major Hollywood supporters said they were cutting off donations to him because he was against the legislation.

 

Senator Toomey Nixes SOPA

Paul, Soros And Barney Frank

Paul, Soros And Barney Frank — Reader Tom C. sent this link to a FrontPageMag.Com article pointing out that Ron Paul and Barney Frank are on the same page when it comes foreign policy and military spending, and evil America-hating billionaire George Soros is simpatico — a word you better learn if Obama gets a second term — with them.

Good points and all Tom, but if Paul is the nominee I’m voting for him. Actually, if Barney Frank were the nominee, I’d vote for him.

Soros v Obama? I dunno. I think I’d go third party in that case.

Of course, some wag will say Soros couldn’t run because he’s not a natural born citizen ho ho ho.

ABO.

 

 

Paul, Soros And Barney Frank

Red Flag In 2012 Defense Bill

Red Flag In 2012 Defense Bill –The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 is raising concerns across the political spectrum for language that would give the Office of the Presidency the ability to detain people indefinitely without trial.

The Senate version of the act — S. 1867 — was passed 93-7 on Dec. 1 with both Pennsylvania senators, Republican Pat Toomey and Democrat Bob Casey Jr. voting aye.

It is now being reconciled with H. R. 1540. which did not include the rather disconcerting language now found in sections 1031 and 1032 when it was passed   322-96  on May 26.

The senators who dissented on S. 1867 were very conservative Republicans Rand Paul of Kentucky, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Mike Lee of Utah; very liberal Democrats Tom Harkin of Iowa, and Oregonians Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkeley; and outright Socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Paul is the man leading the charge against the new language and explains his reasoning on this YouTube video.

The actual language passed Dec. 1 of the sections which are part of Subtitle D — Detainee Matters  is:

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE
UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION
FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.


(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the
Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the
authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered
persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law
of war.


(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:


(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored those responsible for those attacks.


(2) A person who was a part of or substantially
supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.


(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include
the following:


(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of
Military Force.


(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of
Public Law 111-84)).


(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.


(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s
country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign
entity.


(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to
limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force.


(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or
any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.


(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of
Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the
authority described in this section, including the organizations,
entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons’ for
purposes of subsection (b)(2).


SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.


(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-


(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4),
the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in
paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in
military custody pending disposition under the law of war.


(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1)
shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section
1031 who is determined–


(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an
associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the
direction of al-Qaeda; and


(B ) to have participated in the course of planning
or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States
or its coalition partners.


(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this
subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the
meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise
described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless
consistent with the requirements of section 1033.


(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of
Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the
Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph
(1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that
such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United
States.


(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-


(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a
person in military custody under this section does not extend to
citizens of the United States.


(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a
person in military custody under this section does not extend to a
lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by
the Constitution of the United States.


(c) Implementation Procedures-


(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to
Congress, procedures for implementing this section.


(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:


(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized
to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which
such determinations are to be made.


(B ) Procedures providing that the requirement for
military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the
interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with
regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United
States.


(C) Procedures providing that a determination under
subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the
conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the
determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such
ongoing session.


(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for
military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when
intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the
United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the
custody of a third country.


(E) Procedures providing that a certification of
national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for
the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if
such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not
otherwise be accomplished.


(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the
date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and
shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who
are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United
States on or after that effective date.


The bills can be tracked at Thomas.Gov

Jesus Was Libertarian

Posted at the requested of Katie who was pondering whether Jesus was a liberal or conservative.


I think Jesus was libertarian. He gives us total freedom to choose with the consequences coming only after we make our choices. Rich people have to give to the poor but He doesn’t make them. People must pray and honor God but He doesn’t make them.

He didn’t kick down the door of the rich guy’s house, take his money and give it to Lazarus at the gate which is what the left pretends to do. And of course He didn’t refrain from saying what the ultimate fate of the rich guy was, which would be a message Ayn Rand conservatives would not want to hear.

He didn’t use force to stop the stoning of the adulteress, He just shamed those who wanted to do it into considering what it was they wanted to do.

And of course, He didn’t enforce the law commanding that the adulteress be stoned.

So I think Jesus was a libertarian.

Judas, OTOH, was the classic lefty.

Jesus Was A Libertarian

 Jesus Was Libertarian

Barletta Bans Recordings At Town Halls

Barletta Bans Recordings At Town Halls — Newly minted coal-country congressmen Lou Barletta (R-Pa11) and Tom Marino (R-Pa10) have sparked fears they have gone Potomac by instituting recording bans at recent town hall meetings.

Barletta has denied the claim saying the event at which he banned personal recordings was a  “private” meeting.

To which he had opened to the old media who of course were given permission to record.

The congressmen’s actions were motivated by orchestrated attempts by Democrats to infiltrate the town halls with unruly disrupters whose antics would be recorded and placed on the YouTube in the hope it would indicate widespread grassroots opposition to Republican policy.

It was an effort to mimic action in 2009 and 2010 by Tea Partyers which led to big Republican gains last November.

What should be remembered, however, is that it wasn’t the angry protestors who made the Democrat incumbents look bad but their responses to them. The incumbents, perhaps most famously Arlen Specter,  were recorded being abusive, mocking and dismissive to them, after which they arrogantly ended constituent meetings completely.

If Barletta and Marino follow that path they will be one-termers.

If they, however, let them obscenely and abusively vent and are judicious in their response the strategy will backfire badly on the Democrats.

The Republicans simply have to make sure they have their own recordings to put on YouTube.

It remains to be seen if they are smart enough to do this.

Barletta Bans Recordings At Town Halls

N.J. Asks Your Papers, Please

N.J. Asks Your Papers, Please — What some have come to enduringly take for granted others find to be a revelation.

A discussion the other day with some friends from New Jersey unveiled to me what they must go through to renew their drivers license, namely a series of identification documents identity one which may be the old drivers license with others being birth certificates or passports.

It’s almost like one was running for president.

Just kidding.

My friends told me further that if one used a birth certificate the name must perfectly match what was one drivers license records, which could cause headaches if a woman began using her husband’s name or one stopped using a  middle initial.

Then one also had to provide proof of address such as a utility bill or property tax statement.

Contrast this with Pennsylvania where one merely takes the card PennDOT sends you to a drivers license center and one gets a new photo snapped.

New Jersey, of course, is not alone in its paranoia but as Benjamin Franklin said “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

The Garden State certainly seems ignorant about the directions as to how one catches a wild pig.

 

N.J. Asks Your Papers, Please