Besides cops, handcuff companies, and BDSM enthusiasts, hardly anyone will cheer this potent symbol of state oppression.

Handcuffs provide an easy pathway for police brutality. Whether it’s beating children, raping women, or garden variety savagery, cops routinely carry out violence on people while they are handcuffed.

Alas, simple handcuffs are no longer enough for the militarized police state. In the near future, authorities may have “augmented detainee restraints” that deliver electric shocks, sedatives, and paralytic drugs to detainees. Scottsdale Inventions, based in Arizona, filed a patent application for just such a device.

The handcuffs can deliver electric shocks between 20,000 and 150,000 volts for durations of 0.5 to 10 seconds. Shocks can be triggered remotely from up to 300 feet away, or programmed to happen automatically in a variety of situations such as the detainee stepping outside a boundary.

It doesn’t take much to imagine sicko cops using the handcuffs as a torture device when no one is looking.

Drugs are delivered through a moveable needle or gas injection system. A great deal of fear and anxiety can be induced in a person who is told they could be shocked or drugged at any moment.

Whoever came up with National Handcuffs Day did not do it on Positive Thinking Day.

AMERICAN AND BRITISH spies hacked into the internal computer network of the largest manufacturer of SIM cards in the world, stealing encryption keys used to protect the privacy of cellphone communications across the globe, according to top-secret documents provided to The Intercept by National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The hack was perpetrated by a joint unit consisting of operatives from the NSA and its British counterpart Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ. The breach, detailed in a secret 2010 GCHQ document, gave the surveillance agencies the potential to secretly monitor a large portion of the world’s cellular communications, including both voice and data.

The company targeted by the intelligence agencies, Gemalto, is a multinational firm incorporated in the Netherlands that makes the chips used in mobile phones and next-generation credit cards. Among its clients are AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint and some 450 wireless network providers around the world. The company operates in 85 countries and has more than 40 manufacturing facilities. One of its three global headquarters is in Austin, Texas and it has a large factory in Pennsylvania.

In all, Gemalto produces some 2 billion SIM cards a year. Its motto is “Security to be Free.”

With these stolen encryption keys, intelligence agencies can monitor mobile communications without seeking or receiving approval from telecom companies and foreign governments. Possessing the keys also sidesteps the need to get a warrant or a wiretap, while leaving no trace on the wireless provider’s network that the communications were intercepted. Bulk key theft additionally enables the intelligence agencies to unlock any previously encrypted communications they had already intercepted, but did not yet have the ability to decrypt.

A top Jeb Bush ally said that Jeb Bush will not back down on his support for comprehensive amnesty legislation and is willing to win or lose the GOP nomination based on the issue.

On Thursday, Clint Bolick, who co-wrote Immigration Wars with the former Florida governor, said Bush “is either going to win or lose with a mandate on immigration.”

“He’s not going to shift his position on this,”Bolick told MSNBC’s Jose Diaz Balart. “He believes in this with his absolute heart and soul.”

NPR Washington editor and Bush biographer S.V. Date also observed last year that “immigration, if anything, is less negotiable for Jeb” than Common Core because “while education standards are a matter of principle, immigration is personal.”

Bush continued to advocate for comprehensive immigration reform in Chicago on Wednesday, two days after a federal judge issued an injunction against President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty. He, as in previous speeches, contrasted America’s diversity to Europe’s multiculturalism.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is getting some 2016 encouragement from several of the GOP’s top donors, with Sheldon Adelson signing up as a co-chair for a March 3 fundraiser for the senator’s testing-the-waters political committee, Security Through Strength.

Graham’s “luncheon and policy discussion” at the Capitol Hill club will be held right after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to a joint meeting of Congress. Donors are invited to watch together, before being joined by Graham.

In addition to Adelson, other prominent donors among the 33 co-chairs include Oracle co-CEO Safra Catz, hedge fund manager Seth Klarman, real estate developer David Flaum and homebuilding magnate Larry Mizel. The invitation asks for a donation of $2,700 to be a co-chair and $1,000 to attend.

The discussion will be moderated by Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition. Joining Graham as guest speakers will be Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), former Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.).

What is ATH. What does that mean. Please

Bull markets occur once enough coins/stock have been transferred from weak to strong hands. The huge transfer that occurred when we dipped to $166 was likely the last of the weak hands letting go, not being able to withstand any more losses. We haven't seen any interest to retest sub $200--there is simply not the volume to get there, and whales will not waste money trying if they can't attract much of a following when they sell.

Still holding? Bought more?

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is mulling attaching his Audit the Fed legislation to a vote to raise the debt ceiling, Paul spokesman Brian Darling told The Hill.

Darling said that Paul, who is considering a 2016 presidential campaign, fully expects to get a vote on the measure in the Senate this year and that "there are numerous options to get a bill passed by itself or combined with other legislation."

"The strategy going forward will be to use regular order," Darling told The Hill. "If regular order does not work, Audit the Fed would be a great amendment to a debt-limit increase or any other piece of must pass legislation that hits the Senate floor."

The move is a clear signal of how serious Paul is about getting a vote on the legislation that has garnered political blowback from top Fed officials. The proposal allows for increased congressional oversight at the central bank.

...

"This is devastating for the administration,” Napolitano said. “This is a preliminary injunction which means the court viewed the court’s documents and challenger’s documents…and he made two conclusions. 1) At the end of the case, the challengers will probably prevail, meaning the president probably overstepped his bounds and he has ordered the Department of Homeland Security to create new law.

“And 2) if he does not impose the temporary restraints that he imposed last night, actually, irreparable harm will be visited upon the 26 states,” Napolitano explained.

“In my opinion, the Obama amnesty plan is dead. Absolutely dead,” Napolitano told Kelly. “I don’t think the appeals court will interfere with this decision, And I think it will take this trial judge for the duration of President Obama’s term to rule on this with finality.”

The lack of equipment does not come as a surprise to close observers of the German army. Last year, the parliamentary defense committee was informed that out of 89 German fighter jets, only 38 were ready for use. The list of damaged items also included helicopters, as well as a variety of weapons.

After the lack of arms and vehicles was made public, Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen vowed to upgrade and repair the equipment. According to some soldiers and officers, the minister has so far failed to deliver on her promises.

According to the confidential report that was leaked on Tuesday, the German NATO task force would face serious problems if it had to intervene abroad. More than 40 percent of the task force's soldiers would have to do without P8 pistols, and more than 30 percent lacked general-purpose machine guns, known as MG3. Operating at night would be particularly difficult for Germany's armed task force, given a lack of 76 percent of necessary night viewers.

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic
which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

NEWARK, N.J. (AP) — Four years ago, seven big-money donors and leading Republican activists from Iowa loaded into a private plane and headed to New Jersey for an urgent meeting with Chris Christie. Their message: Run, Chris, run.

The group from the lead-off caucus state failed in that mission to persuade the brash New Jersey governor to jump into the 2012 race for president. This time around, Christie's White House ambitions no longer appear to be an issue. But those once-eager Iowans aren't as keen to throw their support his way.

"It's a brand new ballgame," says donor Gary Kirke. "There's a lot more people in the race, and a lot has happened since then."

Of the seven who made the May 2011 trip to meet with Christie at the sprawling Drumthwacket governor's mansion, Kirke is the most outspoken. Three others are undecided about who they'll support in 2016, one doesn't plan to back any candidate, and two remain loyal Christie supporters.

The change in passions is a reflection of how the still-early race for the Republican nomination is dramatically different from four years ago, when eventual GOP pick Mitt Romney emerged from a large but relatively little-known field of candidates.

This time, Christie is competing for support against a list of potential candidates who include former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and several members of the U.S. Senate, Florida's Marco Rubio and Kentucky's Rand Paul among them. The sense among some in Iowa is that Christie may have lost a unique opportunity in 2012, when the fight for dollars from establishment donors was far less intense.

"I think last time a lot of people looked at the field and saw holes in it," said Craig Robinson, the former political director of the Republican Party of Iowa. "I think the other governors in the race really give him a hard go."

Kirke said that four years ago, Christie looked to be a rising star, with bravado and personality backed by solid conservative credentials. Since then, Kirke's opinion has changed. He pointed to Christie's embrace of President Barack Obama in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy and to the George Washington Bridge scandal, which continues to hang over Christie.

"People just question, you know, he's the CEO of the state," said Kirke. "It makes you wonder about his leadership."

I should hope so. After signing a separate resolution calling for a path to citizenship in 2002, how could he turn down a sequel?

Are we sure Jeb Bush is the most pro-amnesty candidate in the field? Remember, unlike some people, Jeb (supposedly) opposes a path to citizenship for adult illegals.

But the likely presidential candidate apparently stood on another side of that debate as the Milwaukee County Executive in 2006. That year, he signed a resolution calling on Congress to pass the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act, a bill authored by John McCain and Teddy Kennedy that was denounced at the time by conservatives as “amnesty” — and remains anathema to party activists…

The 2006 resolution embracing the McCain-Kennedy bill was sent to Walker by the Milwaukee Board of Supervisors. He signed it despite returning or vetoing numerous other matters that year. The final version of the resolution signaled support for criminalizing federal immigration law violations and increased border fencing. But it also referred to a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and “full labor rights.”

Good news for Walker: The guy who actually wrote that bill — with Ted Kennedy — ended up winning the GOP nomination in 2008, so it’s possible to be a much bigger amnesty shill and still end up as the “conservative” party’s choice for president. More good news: Although McCain faced a weaker field than Walker will, he also had to contend with people running to his right on this issue. Walker really doesn’t. Cruz will try, but when push comes to shove, he supports legalizing illegals. And still more good news: Judging from the reaction of some of our commenters in Headlines, plenty of grassroots righties are already greeting stories like this with “the media’s trying to take down our guy!” rather than “gee, the great conservative hope sure has a bad record on this issue.” That’s Walker’s strength in a nutshell. He’s impressed so many Republicans by winning his death match with labor in Wisconsin that his heresies on immigration are interpreted not so much as damaging liabilities as fodder for “they’ll tell you who they fear” hit pieces by a panicky drive-by media. He’s One of Us, so he’ll get a pass on offenses that constitute high crimes when committed by Jeb Bush or even Marco Rubio. (One commenter touted Walker’s immigration squishiness as a good thing insofar as it’ll help pull votes from the center of the party too. Walker/McCain 2016!) In that sense Walker really is Reaganesque. Sure, the Gipper may have signed off on a truly terrible amnesty bill, but if that’s all you see in his record, you’re missing the forest for the trees.

If reason and justice prevailed in this country, you’d think that the recent series of articles in the Washington Times concerning the U.S.-NATO attack on Libya in 2011 would torpedo Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects.

Clinton as U.S. Secretary of State at that time knew that Libya was no threat to the U.S. She knew that Muammar Gadhafi had been closely cooperating with the U.S. in combating Islamist extremism. She probably realized that Gadhafi had a certain social base due in part to what by Middle Eastern standards was the relatively equitable distribution of oil income in Libya.

But she wanted to topple Gadhafi. Over the objections of Secretary of “Defense” Robert Gates but responding to the urgings of British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicholas Sarkozy, she advocated war. Why? Not for the reason advertised at the time. (Does this sound familiar?) Not because Gadhafy was preparing a massacre of the innocents in Benghazi, as had occurred in Rwanda in 1994. (That episode, and the charge that the “international community” had failed to intervene, was repeatedly referenced by Clinton and other top officials, as a shameful precedent that must not be repeated. It had also been deployed by Bill Clinton in 1999, when he waged war on Serbia, grossly exaggerating the extent of carnage in Kosovo and positing the immanent prospect of “genocide” to whip up public support. Such uses of the Rwandan case reflect gross cynicism.)

No, genocide was not the issue, in Libya any more than in Kosovo. According to the Washington Times, high-ranking U.S. officials indeed questioned whether there was evidence for such a scenario in Libya. The Defense Intelligence Agency estimated that a mere 2,000 Libyan troops armed with 12 tanks were heading to Benghazi, and had killed about 400 rebels by the time the U.S. and NATO attacked. It found evidence for troops firing on unarmed protestors but no evidence of mass killing. It did not have a good estimate on the number of civilians in Benghazi but had strong evidence that most had fled. It had intelligence that Gadhafy had ordered that troops not fire on civilians but only on armed rebels.

The Pentagon doubted that Gadhafi would risk world outrage by ordering a massacre. One intelligence officer told the Washington Times that the decision to bomb was made on the basis of “light intelligence.” Which is to say, lies, cherry-picked information such as a single statement by Gadhafi (relentlessly repeated in the corporate press echoing State Department proclamations) that he would “sanitize Libya one inch at a time” to “clear [the country] of these rats.” (Similar language, it was said, had been used by Hutu leaders in Rwanda.) Now that the rats in their innumerable rival militias control practically every square inch of Libya, preventing the emergence of an effective pro-western government, many at the Pentagon must be thinking how stupid Hillary was.

No, the attack was not about preventing a Rwanda-like genocide. Rather, it was launched because the Arab Spring, beginning with the overthrow of the two dictators, President Ben Ali of Tunisia and President Mubarak of Egypt, had taken the west by surprise and presented it with a dilemma: to retain longstanding friendships (including that with Gadhafi, who’d been a partner since 2003) in the face of mass protests, or throw in its lot with the opposition movements, who seemed to be riding an inevitable historical trend, hoping to co-opt them?
[...]
The results of “Operation Unified Protector” have of course been absolutely disastrous. Just as the U,S. and some of its allies wrecked Iraq, producing a situation far worse than that under Saddam Hussein, so they have inflicted horrors on Libya unknown during the Gadhafi years. These include the persecution of black Africans and Tuaregs, the collapse of any semblance of central government, the division of the country between hundreds of warring militias, the destabilization of neighboring Mali producing French imperialist intervention, the emergence of Benghazi as an al-Qaeda stronghold, and the proliferation of looted arms among rebel groups. The “humanitarian intervention” was in fact a grotesque farce and huge war crime.

But the political class and punditry in this country do not attack Hillary for war crimes, or for promoting lies to validate a war of aggression. Rather, they charge her and the State Department with failure to protect U.S. ambassador to Libya John Christopher Stevens and other U.S. nationals from the attack that occurred in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. And they fault her for promoting the State Department’s initial “talking point” that the attack had been a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim YouTube film rather than a calculated terrorist attack. They pan her for sniping at a senator during a hearing, “What difference does it make (whether the attack had been launched by protestors spontaneously, or was a terrorist action planned by forces unleashed by the fall of the Gadhafi regime)”?

In other words: Hillary’s mainstream critics are less concerned with the bombing of Libya in 2011 that killed over 1100 civilians, and produced the power vacuum exploited by murderous jihadis, than by Hillary’s alleged concealment of evidence that might show the State Department inadequately protected U.S. diplomats from the consequences of the U.S.-orchestrated regime change itself. In their view, the former First Lady might have blood on her hands—but not that, mind you, of Libyan civilians, or Libyan military forces going about their normal business, or of Gadhafi who was sodomized with a knife while being murdered as Washington applauded.

The relationship between the Kochs and Walker was cemented during Walker's bitter war against public unions that led to a recall election in 2012. During the tense weeks of standoff at the capitol in Madison, it was the Kochs' Tea Party troops who provided the main counterforce to the tens of thousands of union activists protesting the governor, in a battle Walker eventually won.

As the struggle raged, Walker’s alliance with his benefactors was embarrassingly satirized when a liberal blogger posing as David Koch (whom at that point Walker had never met) kept him on the line for 20 minutes, making the governor look like a lapdog to the powerful industrialist.

This year, the relationship may evolve in unpredictable ways. With three tough statewide election victories under his belt, Walker, 47, is poised to pursue the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. The Kochs have pledged to marshal some $900 million to spend on a fight for the presidency, and although they may not wade directly into the GOP primary muck, their ties to Walker appear stronger than to anyone else considering a run. While the older brother, Charles Koch, has a personal affection for Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, the most libertarian-leaning potential candidate of the bunch, Paul doesn’t hold the same appeal for the Kochs' donor friends. Another high-profile contender, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, hasn't attended the high-profile donor summits the Kochs host near Palm Springs, Calif., though he was invited this year.

While Tim Phillips, the president of Americans for Prosperity, said that his group won’t endorse a candidate in the primaries, his praise for Walker is effusive. “The difference Scott Walker has made with his policy achievements is as transformative as any governor anywhere in a generation,” he said in an interview. “That's why his appeal flourishes for activists and for donors.”

The Kochs and Walker now share a donor pool—a moneyed set that isn't the establishment Bush is counting on. One Koch stalwart solidly in Walker's corner is Stanley Hubbard, a billionaire Minnesota broadcast executive.

Hubbard supplied a quick assessment of the center-right 2016 field: Bush may be a great guy, but his last name is Bush. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie “blew himself up” with, among other things, his preference for luxury travel. “I am actively encouraging Scott to run, and I know of many other people who are very positive about Walker running,” he said in an interview.

Walker and the Kochs saw their political fortunes supercharged by anger over President Barack Obama's health care law. Charles and David Koch founded Americans for Prosperity in 2003, and it has become the largest organization in a network of Koch-backed activist groups that, as nonprofits, aren't required to reveal donors or detail how they spend their money. The Wisconsin chapter has been around since 2005. The group's mission is to promote a government that collects fewer taxes and regulates less. As the Tea Party movement grew in the aftermath of Obama’s election, the Kochs positioned Americans for Prosperity as the Tea Party's staunchest ally.
[...]
“We're helping him, as we should,” David Koch told the Palm Beach Post in February 2012. “What Scott Walker is doing with the public unions in Wisconsin is critically important. He's an impressive guy, and he's very courageous.”

If the White House hoped to convince Americans about its strategy for handling ISIS, it has failed miserably at doing so. While Eric Holder says we’re not really at war-war, the State Department considers it an opportunity for a jobs program, and Obama insists that we need to concentrate on being better communicators, a growing majority of Americans consider ISIS a threat to national security — and want to send troops to fight them. The change from October of last year in this CBS poll is striking:

The topline numbers themselves speak to the failure of the Obama administration to make its sale on indirect intervention and soft power against ISIS. Almost two-thirds now see ISIS as a direct threat, probably thanks to the videos that make that a very clear proposition, and now a majority of 57% want American ground troops to go to Iraq and Syria. That in and of itself is a sea change from 2008, when Obama won a seven-point victory over John McCain on the promise to get troops out of Iraq and keep them out of other Middle East conflicts.

The change in the gap is even more striking. Last October, a month after Obama announced his strategy to deal with ISIS — coalition building, air strikes, no boots on the ground — the US was split on the prospects, with ground-troop deployment showing a one-point advantage, 47/46. That has changed 19 points in the gap away from Obama’s position, 57/37, in the five months since. It’s a big vote of no confidence in the administration on national security. Obama won office by getting ahead of a curve rather than leading it; now he’s facing a curve in the opposite direction, and he seems not just powerless to reverse it, but might be aggravating the problem with his public-speaking stumbles.

CBS asked former CIA deputy director Mike Morell whether Obama’s making a big mistake by trying to avoid saying the words “Islamist extremism” in relation to terrorism. “I get what the President is doing,” Morrell says, but he’s not going to convince the terrorists that he’s facing reality with that talk. They “believe they are religious warriors … It’s not rhetoric on their part. They really believe it.” It’s not keeping ISIS from “spreading their brand,” either, as Morrell says, although he doesn’t link it to Obama’s focus on communications.

At any rate, Congress has to take up the AUMF debate soon. With these numbers in mind, Republicans should (as I suggested last week) give Obama a “clean” AUMF that authorizes him to use all options against ISIS until we have defeated them — no timetables, no restrictions, just a full authorization, and let Obama either carry the responsibility for his own failing strategy or change it to something more effective.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R) appeared on Glenn Beck’s radio program Thursday to respond to what Beck called a “hit piece” in Politico criticizing the senator’s push to audit the Federal Reserve.

“They bring up a lot of points that somebody like me looks at and says, ‘Well, gee, that kind of makes sense. What’s Rand talking about?’ So let’s go over these point by point,” Beck told the senator. “The article says the [Federal Reserve's] finances are already subject to an audit by the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, the Federal Inspector General and outside audit firms.”

Paul suggested Beck watch a “really great exchange” where a congressman asked the Federal Reserve auditor during a committee hearing what was purchased with around $2 trillion. The auditor said they were “not allowed” to audit Federal Reserve bank activities.

“I don’t think that’s a real audit,” Paul said. “We have a bunch of fake audits, and the fake audits don’t reveal any of the information we want to know. We want to know, who are they buying the stuff from? What are they paying for it? Are they paying a fair market rate, or because it’s someone’s brother-in-law, are they actually paying more for something than it’s actually worth?”

“We don’t know any of that so we don’t really have an audit,” Paul continued. “It’s appalling that something Congress created is such an enormous creature, a creature that creates its own money is now lobbying government. They should be forbidden from lobbying government and forbidden from trying to influence legislation. I think it’s appalling that they’re trying to stop any oversight of the Federal Reserve.”

Beck countered that in the Politico article it reads: “Those interested in what’s on the Fed’s balance sheet can find out, down to the individual bond, on the website of the New York Federal Reserve.”

“I think that that’s true and untrue at the same time,” Paul responded. “There are lists of what their assets are, but they aren’t individualized. You can’t tell who they bought them from or whether they were bought at fair market price or whether they were bought at a haircut and whether or not there were any conflicts of interests in the buying and selling.”

The senator said it is “very concerning” how much the Federal Reserve will not disclose, and his push to audit the institution now has overwhelming bipartisan support.

“Now the Fed has got an all-out onslaught and push against this,” Paul said. “And it should worry people that an individual bank that has the monopoly privilege granted to it by Congress is able to print up money to lobby against legislation that would cause more oversight. That should worry all of us.”