Rand Paul said a curious thing when asked, in reference to the measles outbreak across 14 states, if government should require parents to vaccinate their children. The libertarian-oriented Republican senator from Kentucky could have been expected to say, as he did, that government should not. But his reasoning took the philosophy of less regulation and more personal freedom to a whole other level.

"States don't own the children," declared Paul, who is considering a run for president. "Parents own the children."

No, we don't own our children. From slavery to child sexual abuse, the notion of owning another human has led to nothing good. Legally, we're responsible for our kids and their care, feeding and safety until they're old enough to take care of themselves. But they are autonomous human beings, which is why, unlike property, there are laws and standards governing what we can and can't do to them culled not just from individual whims and wishes, but from knowledge of child development, mental and physical health and education.

On Saturday night, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul will give a video address to the International Students For Liberty Conference in downtown Washington, D.C. One night earlier, self-exiled whistleblower Edward Snowden—who has a little less mobility inside the United States than Paul—will address ISFL "via videoconference," according to organizers. Paul has consistently spoken out on behalf of Snowden, calling his actions "civil disobedience," and saying that if Snowden faced justice he should "share a jail cell" with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Not every potential 2016er could appear on the same virtual dais as Snowden. Paul will be right at home.

"There seems to be a generational divide in opinion on Snowden, with young people more broadly supportive of his conduct," says Alexander McCobin, the president of Students For Liberty. "I think it's largely a result of young people having a different worldview these days, one that emphasizes individual empowerment and skepticism of the efforts of long-established institutions reforming themselves." (Disclosure: McCobin interned at Reason magazine when I was a reporter there.)

Paul's appearance is as good a reason as any to explain the difference between the sort of libertarian youth groups that are giving him hope for a broader, larger GOP. Students for Liberty was founded in February 2008 by McCobin, from an idea germinated in the Charles-Koch funded Institute for Humane Studies summer program. Young Americans for Liberty was founded roughly six months later, when Texas Representative Ron Paul ended his campaign for president, and "Young Americans for Ron Paul" was re-branded. Both are 501(c)3 organizations; both are still run by the former students who founded them. (Jeff Frazee, a veteran of the 2008 and 2012 Ron Paul campaigns, is executive director of YAL.)

(Reuters) - North Korea said on Wednesday it sees no more need to negotiate with the United States, accusing Washington of plotting to "bring down" its regime, and threatened to strike back using all its military resources.
North Korea routinely seeks to raise tensions ahead of annual joint military drills by U.S. and South Korean forces that usually begin in March. This year, Pyongyang has offered to suspend nuclear testing if Washington calls off the exercises.

However, North Korea's National Defence Commission said on Wednesday the United States was inching close to "igniting a war of aggression" and that the Obama administration was working to trigger its collapse.
The commission, Pyongyang's supreme leadership body, is headed North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

"Since the gangster-like U.S. imperialists are blaring that they will "bring down" the DPRK ... the army and people of the DPRK cannot but officially notify the Obama administration of the USA that the DPRK has neither need nor willingness to sit at the negotiating table with the U.S. any longer," it said.

Using the North's official name of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), it said Pyongyang had decided "to write the last page of ... U.S. history".

"(Smaller), precision and diversified nuclear striking means and ground, naval, underwater, air and cyber warfare means will be used," the commission said in the statement carried by the official KCNA news agency.

The Federal Reserve's cronies launched a nasty smear campaign against me because they're terrified of the momentum Audit the Fed is gaining in Congress.

The attacks are personal -- and they're only going to intensify.

That's why RANDPAC is holding a "Stand with Rand® Audit the Fed" Money Bomb to raise $150,000 starting tonight and ending on Monday.

In the last 3 weeks bitcoins have traded below $200 exactly zero days.

In the same time period they have traded above $280 on 2 days, and above $260 on 4 days.

In that time span they have dipped below $220 on 8 days and gone above  $230 on 16 separate days.

These are the facts.

Delusional beartards ignore these facts when they foolishly suggest that Bitcoin prices will head lower.

Best to ignore them.

Long term, the price of bitcoins has risen spectacularly. Short term it has made modest but substantial gains.

Only in the narrow range of the last year or so has it decreased in price.

Don't fall prey to the unscrupulous lowlifes that will try anything to coerce inexperienced coinholders into selling below fair value.

They are just opportunistic parasites looking to buy cheap.

They use Bitcoin cause the bitcoiners target victim are get rich scheme gamblers who are unsophisticated and generally dumb.  They think anything Bitcoin must be good

Anyone looking to get their head around how the next round of the Crisis will look should consider what’s happening in Europe today.

Europe is ground zero for the whole debt bomb implosion, not because it has the most debt but because it’s politically and economically on the least sound footing. 

Some 19 countries share the currency, all of them in varying degrees of socialism (the public sector accounts for roughly 1 in 3 employees in Germany’s allegedly “free market” economy), and varying shades of broke: even Germany a real Debt to GDP of over 200%.

In this regard, Europe gives the rest of us a front-row seat to learn how things will unfold when the real stuff hits the fan and the political and financial elite are at risk of losing their power and wealth.

We’ve been through this mess multiple times in the last three years. The most notable cases involved Spain and Cyprus. And the formula is as follows:


1)   A problem first emerges.

2)   Various political and financial officials state that the problem is contained and there’s nothing to worry about.

3)   Months later, the market and mainstream media catch on… usually when the problem is already a massive crisis and a bank holiday needs to be declared.

4)   Individual investors lose a LOT of money while the same folks who cause the problem A) are not fired, fined or jailed B) never come clean about the full scope of the problem and C) claim that they can solve the problem and have all the answers.

Following yesterday's summary of the utter farce that the Minsk Summit/Ukraine "peace" deal talks have become, the various parties involved appear to be fracturing even faster today. The headlines are coming thick and fast but most prescient appears to be: Despite John Kerry's denial of any split between Germany and US over arms deliveries to Ukraine, German Foreign Minister Steinmeier slammed Washington's strategy for being "not just risky but counterproductive." But perhaps most significantly is France's continued apparent pivot towards Russia... Following Francois Hollande's calls for greater autonomy for Eastern Ukraine, former French President Nicolas Sarkozy has come out in apparent support of Russia (and specifically against the US), "we are part of a common civilization with Russia,” adding, "the interests of the Americans with the Russians are not the interests of Europe and Russia." Even NATO appears to have given up hope of peace as Stoltenberg's statements show little optimism and the decision by Cyprus to allow Russia to use its soil for military facilities suggests all is not at all well in the European 'union'.

Amid mounting tension between the U.S. and North Korea over the hacking incident at Sony Pictures Entertainment and annual tension incited by the ROK-U.S. joint military exercises, relations between the two nations are expected to further deteriorate after North Korea’s reaction to recent comments by U.S. President Barack Obama.

In a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency on February 4th, the North’s National Defense Commission declared, with a litany of scathing criticism, that it would be pointless engage in dialogue with the U.S. after President Barack Obama gave a speech on “bringing down the regime.”

“It is the decision of the army and people of the DPRK to have no longer need or willingness to sit at [the] negotiating table with the U.S. since the latter seeks to stamp out the ideology of the former and ‘bring down’ its social system,” the statement read.

Referring to the president as the “root of all evil,” a “power abuser,” and a “wild dog,” among other inflammatory remarks typical of the North’s rhetoric, the statement is assumed to reflect the views of Kim Jong Eun himself, given its release from the highest organ of state authority, the National Defense Commission.

Ukraine is sovereign and should be given the chance to defend itself against soviet expansionism.  I don't see how being diplomatic and brokering a power transition is any sort of democratic impropriety.  The author clearly has an agenda.

WASHINGTON – Spending for the Department of Homeland Security hangs in the balance as Congress fights over immigration matters in the agency's annual funding bill. Without action by Feb. 27, the department's budget will shut off.

To hear Democrats and many Republicans tell it, the result would be unacceptable risks to U.S. security at a time of grave threats worldwide. In reality, though, most people will see little change if the department's money flow is halted, and some of the warnings of doom are as exaggerated as they are striking.

"There are ghoulish, grim predators out there who would love to kill us or do us harm," said Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee. "We should not be dillydallying and playing parliamentary pingpong with national security."

In the view of some House conservatives, though, shutting off the agency's $40 billion budget for a time "is obviously not the end of the world," as Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., put it, because many agency employees would stay at work through a shutdown.

Who's right, and what would the impact be if Congress were to let money for the department lapse?

Salmon and a few other conservatives are the only ones saying it publicly so far, but the reality is that a department shutdown would have a very limited impact on national security.

That's because most department employees fall into exempted categories of workers who stay on the job in a shutdown because they perform work considered necessary to protect human life and property. Even in a shutdown, most workers across agencies, including the Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency and Customs and Border Protection, would continue to report to work.

Airport security checkpoints would remain staffed, the Secret Service would continue to protect the president and other dignitaries, the Coast Guard would stay on patrol, immigration agents would still be on the job.

Indeed, of the agency's approximately 230,000 employees, some 200,000 of them would keep working even if Congress fails to fund their agency. It's a reality that was on display during the 16-day government-wide shutdown in the fall of 2013, when national parks and monuments closed but essential government functions kept running, albeit sometimes on reduced staff.

So what of the sometimes overheated rhetoric, often from Democrats trying to prove a political point?

"If this goes to shutdown," Mikulski said, "this could close down ports up and down the East Coast, because if you don't have a Coast Guard, you don't have the ports. You don't have the ports, you don't have an economy."

But if the department loses its money, the Coast Guard will stay in operation and so will the ports.

There would be one big change, though. Most workers would not get paid until the shutdown ends, a circumstance guaranteed to put pressure on members of Congress hearing from constituents angry about going without their paychecks.

Making employees come to work without pay is "a real challenge" for them, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."

Workers at agencies funded by fees, instead of by congressional appropriations, would continue their functions while still drawing a paycheck.

It so happens that applies to the very employees charged with putting in place the immigration programs at the heart of the political dispute.

Fees pay the salaries of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services workers who would process applications from immigrants eligible to work lawfully in the country under President Barack Obama's immigration policies. Even though Republicans are so determined to shut down Obama's program that some are willing to risk Homeland Security money to do it, it would stay up and running with little impact in the event of a shutdown.

So who would stop working in a shutdown? Mostly administrative staff, including support workers at headquarters and personnel who do training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers, employees involved in research and development, and those responsible for operating and maintaining the E-Verify system that allows businesses to check the immigration status of new hires.

In addition, all personnel involved in administering grants would be furloughed, including Federal Emergency Management Agency workers who make grants to state and local governments, fire departments, and others to help them prepare for or respond to various threats and emergencies. That has led to pleas to Congress from the mayors, among others, to keep Homeland Security Department funding going.

The Department of Defense spent more than a half a million dollars on the male enhancement drug Viagra last year, according to government contracts.

The Washington Free Beacon reports the Pentagon issued 60 contracts worth $504,816 for the drug in 2014. All 60 contracts were awarded to Cardinal Health Inc., a pharmaceutical distribution company based in Dublin, Ohio.

Last year, the department also ordered $3,505 worth of Levitra, and $14,540 of Cialis, other popular erectile dysfunction drugs.

The contracts were filed under “Troop Support.”

The department began offering Viagra to soldiers as a medical benefit in 1998, when the drug cost $10 a pill. Due to inflation, one pill now costs $25. At the time the military’s policy only allowed for six pills a month per patient, and the department said they would “not replace lost or stolen pills.”

Sen. Ted Cruz said Sunday that the U.S. should honor a treaty obligation to supply weapons to Ukraine to thwart Russian-back separatists -- a plan with little support among European leaders trying to broker a cease-fire deal as early as Wednesday.

“When it comes to Russia and Ukraine, the path we're on doesn't make any sense,” Cruz, R-Texas, told ABC’s “This Week” while at the Munich Security Conference. “We need to be providing defensive arms to the people of Ukraine.”

He was in Germany as part of a bipartisan congressional delegation attending the conference that also met with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.
........................................
Secretary of State John Kerry, who also is in Munich, on Sunday tried to dispel the notion of a trans-Atlantic rift on supply arms, saying U.S. and its European allies are "united in our diplomacy" on Ukraine.
.......................................
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was also in Munich and said the U.S. must provide defensive arms to Ukraine.

more hyper-interventionism at link

Sen. Lindsey Graham wants Congress to give President Barack Obama unequivocal authority to fight Islamic State militants. Yet Sen. Ted Cruz says lawmakers should be wary of handing the commander in chief a “blanket authorization” to wage war.

Sen. Marco Rubio is open to sending ground troops into the region if that’s what it takes to win. But Sen. Rand Paul says he’s “not eager” to send troops back to the Middle East, and he’s demanding that Congress set a one-year timeline for a war authorization to expire.

As Congress prepares to dive into its most politically charged debate in years over war and peace, the four Republican senators considering 2016 presidential bids are staking out diverging positions on how much power to give Obama — a fight that is bound to drive the argument on which candidate would best defend the U.S. from threats abroad. The GOP presidential field consists of roughly two dozen potential candidates, but these are the only four who can help shape the proposed Authorization for Use of Military Force and will have to vote on it.

If they vote yes and the war campaign goes poorly, they could own the consequences, as Hillary Clinton did after backing the Iraq War authorization in 2002. If they oppose it, they could be castigated as weak on defense at a time when military and political leaders are calling for partisan posturing to be put aside — much like the congressional Democrats who saw their presidential hopes dented after voting against the 1991 Gulf War.

“I think it’s going to show divisions,” Graham said, “between those who understand what it takes to contain the threat and defeat the threat versus those who are just stumbling around trying to find a political sweet spot.”

Foreign policy has already become a political flash point for 2016. Rubio argues that his Senate experience sets him apart from governors who have little background on foreign affairs. Graham, who serves in the Air Force Reserve, would heavily promote his hawkish national security views and his calls for an assertive U.S. presence in the world. Cruz, a likely candidate, is positioning himself between the neoconservative and isolationist wings of the party, while Paul has long sought a less aggressive American role overseas.

In interviews with POLITICO, all four senators laid out their views on the AUMF, showcasing the divide that is about to become more pronounced on the campaign trail.

Paul is clearly aiming for younger and war-weary primary voters eager to see the next president exercise restraint before sending troops into harm’s way.

“I’m not for declaring a worldwide war where I can send troops anywhere anytime,” said Paul, the libertarian former congressman’s son, who won his first foray into public office in 2010. “I’m not for sending 100,000 troops back to the Middle East.”

Last fall, Paul offered an AUMF proposal that would have declared war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, with some caveats. It would rescind existing war authorities for Afghanistan and Iraq approved after the Sept. 11 attacks; it would limit the use of ground forces to intelligence-gathering, attacks on high-value targets and situations where U.S. citizens face an imminent threat; and it would expire one year after enactment.

“I’m willing to give my opinion about what I believe; the question is whether or not it resonates,” Paul, a Kentucky Republican, said when asked how his views would play with GOP primary voters. “But I think, frankly, that there are many in the Republican Party who are not eager to send ground forces back into the Middle East.”

Graham, a South Carolina Republican, shot back.

“The idea that you would declare war for one year and not use any ground troops probably is not going to be taught at West Point,” said Graham, who was elected to his seat in 2002.

While Paul calls the 2003 invasion of Iraq “a mistake” that spawned chaos in the region, Graham, a staunch supporter of the war effort, said the Kentuckian “just doesn’t get radical Islam.”

“The isolationist, libertarian wing of the party really believes we brought this upon ourselves,” said Graham, who has been back to Afghanistan four times over the past two years for Air Force Reserve duty. “The fact of the matter is: This is a religious war.”

On the AUMF, Graham said he’s opposed to setting conditions because he’s not “into restricting our ability to defeat ISIL.”

“I don’t want to restrict the commander in chief’s options,” said Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “You can’t have 535 commanders in chief.”

Rubio, a Florida Republican elected in 2010, has foreign policy views that more closely align with Graham’s. And he’ll have the first chance to square off with Paul, since both men serve on the Foreign Relations Committee, which will get the initial crack in shaping the use-of-force resolution.

While Paul’s proposal last year limited the scope of the fight to ISIL, Rubio said the language should be broader because the U.S. faces a “rapidly evolving conflict” in which the militant organization could “quickly morph into something different over a period of time, as we’ve already seen happen.”

“We shouldn’t be dictating in legislation: You can do this but you can’t do that, you can go here but you can’t go there,” Rubio said of an AUMF. “I think it should be broad enough to allow him latitude on choosing the tactics, the method, the timing, etc. — that’s not just President Obama, it’s future commanders in chief.”

Asked about sending ground troops into the region, Rubio said, “I’m open to doing whatever it takes to defeat them.” He added that the president must make a “a cost-benefit analysis” to determine whether U.S. troops would fight alongside Iraqi forces or if they would face threats from militias backed by Iran.

“Ultimately, I think we need to do what we can within the realm of the responsible to defeat them,” he said.

With their perches on the Foreign Relations Committee, both Paul and Rubio have had a series of high-profile and bitter splits, including over Cuba policy, foreign aid to Egypt and arming moderate Syrian rebels. Yet the two were on the same page in 2013 when they both voted against a resolution authorizing force against Syrian President Bashar Assad, while Graham strongly supported a bombing campaign against the Assad regime.

Cruz, a Texan who was elected in 2012, is more known for his stands against Obamacare and immigration than foreign policy. Yet he serves on the Armed Services Committee, which oversees the Pentagon, and has tried to push a national security policy in between the Graham and Paul wings of the party.

In an interview, Cruz said the effort against ISIL “has been unfocused” and that the administration needs to seek congressional approval immediately. But when asked if there should be limits on an AUMF, Cruz said: “We need to see what specifically the administration asks for, and what they are purporting to do with the authorization. I don’t think an amorphous and blanket authorization for military force with no time limits is a sensible approach.”

While Cruz’s main argument for the nomination is that he’s been a leader in the fight to derail the president’s agenda, agitating leaders in both parties, both Rubio and Graham seem ready to pull the national security card if they mount bids for the White House.

While just 43 years old and a first-term senator, Rubio has dived into foreign affairs, taking nine official trips around the world, heading everywhere from Afghanistan and Pakistan in January 2011 to Japan, the Philippines and South Korea in January 2014.

While governors could make good commanders in chief, Rubio said, senators have the inherent advantage of being grounded in national security issues that are central to being president.

“My point is there are advantages to being a governor,” Rubio said. “It’s also important to understand the predominant issue before the federal government is national security and national defense.”

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the party’s 2008 presidential nominee and Graham’s closest friend in the Senate, said that once national security concerns begin to get heightened attention, his South Carolina colleague will rise in the polls should he mount a presidential campaign.

“As things get worse, Lindsey Graham will gain more prominence,” McCain said.

Asked what set Graham apart from Rubio, McCain said flatly: “Vast experience."

Bush 16%
Paul 13%
Walker 12
Christie 10
Carson 6
Huck 6
Rubio 5
Cruz 3
Trump 3

S.300 - A bill to provide for auditable financial statements for the Department of Defense, and for other purposes.

AMES, Iowa — Sen. Rand Paul, nursing a cold, did not shake many hands on the first day of his swing through Iowa this weekend. Instead, he elbow-bumped activists as he made his way through crowds and hoarsely thanked them for their support.

The Republicans who showed up Friday at Paul’s rally did not mind. In a state where caucus-goers often demand warm interactions with presidential contenders, they were happy to hear Paul’s riffs on monetary policy and Montesquieu from a distance.

As Paul (Ky.) moves closer to a 2016 bid, he is betting that in a field of big personalities, his low-key style and atypical pitch — mixing snarky asides, dovish takes on foreign policy and a compassionate plea for criminal-justice reform — will set his candidacy apart.

“Just look at who’s here,” said David Fischer, a former Iowa GOP official, as he surveyed the crowd at Paul’s gathering Friday at a Des Moines winery. “He is actually bringing women, college students and people who are not white into the Republican Party.”