WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Rand Paul on Thursday picked up the backing of the Republican Party of Texas' chairman, who is stepping down from his role to take a position as a national senior adviser to the Kentucky Republican's presidential campaign-in-waiting

In doing so, Steve Munisteri bypassed two Texans who are also likely to seek the Republican nomination: Sen. Ted Cruz and former Gov. Rick Perry. Munisteri has known Paul for 34 years, dating back to when Paul's father represented Texas in Congress, and counts Paul as a friend.

"I couldn't say no to him," said Munisteri, who will formally leave his post next month and will split his time between Texas and Washington.

Munisteri will be tasked with helping Paul fine-tune his communications strategy, as well as help guide Paul's ongoing effort to appeal to minority and youngers voters, who typically vote for Democrats.

David Kochel, a Republican strategist based in Iowa who worked on both of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaigns, is joining Jeb Bush’s political action committee as a senior strategist and is in line to serve as Mr. Bush’s national campaign manager.

“David is one of the most talented state-based operatives in the nation and brings a different focus and different set of priorities to our effort to communicate Governor Bush’s focus on economic and social mobility,” said Sally Bradshaw, Mr. Bush’s longtime strategist.

The move to tap Mr. Kochel, who advised Mr. Romney for over six years, represents a shot across the bow of the 2012 Republican nominee, who is now considering a third bid for the White House.

Mr. Kochel offered only praise for Mr. Romney, while also promoting Mr. Bush’s strengths.

“I really believe Governor Bush is the right person for the right time,” he said. “He has a successful conservative record in Florida, and I’d put that record up against anybody else.”

Ross Caputi, a former marine who participated in the US’s second siege of Fallujah, writes that the reason the American Sniper book and film have been so successful is that they “tell us exactly what we want to hear”: that US America is “benevolent” and “righteous”. That, he says, is why the book and film are so popular; their popularity speaks volumes about US society, and signals more danger ahead for the rest of the world.

The killings for which Chris Kyle is idolized, Caputi notes, were perpetrated during his participation in the second US siege of Fallujah, which Caputi, from firsthand knowledge, calls an “atrocity”.

Specifically of the siege, Caputi notes:


“All military aged males were forced to stay within the city limits of Fallujah” [while women and children were warned to flee through the desert on foot]


“…an estimated 50,000 civilians were trapped in [Fallujah] during this month long siege without water” [since the US had cut off water and electricity to the city]


“…almost no effort was taken to make a distinction between civilian men and combatants. In fact, in many instances civilians and combatants were deliberately conflated.”


“The US did not treat military action [against Fallujah] as a last resort. The peace negotiations with the leadership in Fallujah were canceled by the US.”


“[The US] killed between 4,000 to 6,000 civilians, displaced 200,000, and may have created an epidemic of birth defects and cancers“


“[The siege was] conducted with indiscriminate tactics and weapons, like the use of reconnaissance-by-fire, white phosphorous, and the bombing of residential neighborhoods. The main hospital was also treated as a military target.”


In modest conformity with international law originally flowing from the Nuremberg tribunal, he says that neither he or Kyle should receive any “praise or recognition” for their actions against Iraq.

Further, he notes that Clint Eastwood, director of the American Sniper movie, made many changes to Kyle’s accounts of what happened. For one, Kyle, in his autobiography, recounts shooting a woman who was taking the legal action of throwing a grenade at invading forces. Eastwood changes this so that the woman gives the grenade to her child to throw at the invaders. “Did Clint Eastwood think that this is a more representative portrayal of the Iraqi resistance?” Caputi asks. “It’s not.” (Caputi gives Eastwood the benefit of our lack of knowledge of his thought process; he could have asked if Eastwood did this to try to dehumanize Iraqi mothers or Iraqis in general, or whip up US American xenophobic hatred of foreigners, a not-so-difficult feat which Eastwood accomplished with flying colors. See The Guardian’s “American Sniper: Anti-Muslim Threats Skyrocket in Wake of Film’s Release“; many who see the film “emerge from theatres desperate to communicate a kind of murderous desire.”)

The US invasion of Iraq, Caputi concludes, was “the imposition of a political and economic project against the will of the majority of Iraqis. … We had no right to invade a sovereign nation, occupy it against the will of the majority of its citizens, and patrol their streets.”

Caputi “holds an MA in Linguistics and … is working on an MA in English Studies at Fitchburg State University.”

Also see Professor of International Affairs Sophia A. McClennan’s piece, where she says the American Sniper movie is “a terrifying glimpse” of a “mind-set that couples delusion with violence”.

If you think you have retirement worries, even teachers who are on a state-run pension may be in the same boat, or even worse down the road. A new report card prepared by the National Council on Teacher Quality shows that state teacher pension systems had a total of $499 billion in unfunded liabilities in 2014. Yes, that is just one interest payment short of hitting a half-trillion dollars.

Another concern is that this debt load has risen by $100 billion since the same report card was prepared for 2012. States earned an average overall grade of C− for their teacher pension policies. That doesn’t sound very good.

The 2014 report card showed that roughly 70 cents on every dollar contributed to state teacher pension systems is now paying for debt rather than paying for retirement benefits. If that much funding is just supporting debt, what happens if the investment returns take a hit? And what happens if interest rates paid to support that debt start to rise?

(Bloomberg) -- As many as 6 million U.S. taxpayers will have to pay a penalty of as much as 1 percent of income because they went without health insurance in part or all of 2014, the Treasury Department said.

The penalty, part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is designed to encourage people to sign up for health insurance using the expanded options and financial assistance available under the law, known as Obamacare. The penalty would apply to about 2 percent to 4 percent of all taxpayers for 2014.

Tax filing for 2014 opened Jan. 20, and the Internal Revenue Service’s Form 1040 -- for federal income tax -- includes a new Line 61 asking if the taxpayer has health insurance. Three-quarters of taxpayers won’t have to do anything more than check that box, said Mark Mazur, the department’s assistant secretary for tax policy. The remainder will have to to take additional steps, though most won’t pay a penalty, he said on a conference call with reporters.

The IRS has been preparing for additional strain during the tax season as people adjust to the rule, warning that about half the people who call its toll-free phone lines won’t be able to get through.

About 3 percent to 5 percent of taxpayers got tax credits last year to help afford their premiums on Obamacare insurance plans, Mazur said. Ten percent to 20 percent weren’t insured for all or part of the year but will be able to claim an exemption. People who owe a penalty “will pay a fee because they made a choice not to obtain health insurance that they could have afforded, and they’re not eligible for one of the exemptions,” he said.

The government will issue about 4 million new tax forms, called a 1095A, to people who received the tax credits, Kevin Counihan, the CEO of healthcare.gov, the federal insurance exchange, said on the call.

The tax penalties start at $95 and can be as much as $12,240 for a wealthy family.

The chairman of the National Committee of the Communist Party USA has penned a 2,023-word manifesto making the critical point that American Communists are eager to work with the Democratic Party to advance the modern communist agenda and achieve communist goals.

Communist Party chairman John Bachtell published his essay last week at People’s World, a “daily news website of, for and by the 99% and the direct descendant of the Daily Worker.”

“[L]abor and other key social forces are not about to leave the Democratic Party anytime soon,” Bachtell promised. “They still see Democrats as the most realistic electoral vehicle” to fight against perceived class enemies.

Bachtell, 58, is playing the long political game and he has a strategy, he said.

“First, we are part of building the broadest anti-ultra right alliance possible, uniting the widest array of class (including a section of monopoly), social and democratic forces. This necessarily means working with the Democratic Party,” the communist leader explained.

“Second, our objective is not to build the Democratic Party. At this stage we are about building the broad people’s movement led by labor that utilizes the vehicle of the Democratic Party to advance its agenda,” Bachtell further expounded. “We are about building the movements around the issues roiling wide sections of people that can help shape election contours and debates.”

According to some Republicans, the Bush committees together are raking in daily sums in the mid-to-high six figures, an intake that should guarantee an impressive showing once the first fundraising quarter concludes in March.

“Other candidates aren’t doing that,” said one unaffiliated Republican in Washington who had been recently briefed on the fundraising.

Still, Bush backers vigorously deny a report from earlier this month that they are planning to haul in $100 million in the first quarter, a near impossible goal.

Much of the news about Bush’s financial activities is emerging from supportive donors leaking tidbits to reporters. On the staff side, it’s no-comment, all the time.

“It’s the Jeb Bush culture,” said one Florida Republican who knows the likely candidate. “It’s consistent with how he ran previous campaigns. Consistent with how he governed. Focus is execution, getting things done and lack of turmoil. That’s the goal anyway. You always fall short from time to time.”

Romney   21%
Paul         11%
Huckabee 11%
Bush        10%
Carson       9%
Walker       8%
Rubio         5%
Christie      4%
Cruz           4%

On the morning before attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch would face Congress, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul re-introduced a bill that would tie her hands. Paul and a crew of congressmen—Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison, Michigan Representative Tim Walberg—had resurrected the Fifth Amendment Integrity Act. If passed, it would restrict the government’s ability, from the Department of Justice on down to local cops, to seize property from criminal suspects.

“We’ve had protests across our country, and people think it’s about one or two instances,” Paul said from the rostrum. “No. It’s one thing after another. Let’s say you’ve got a poor family in a neighborhood in a big city, and grandmother owns the house. The 15-year old son is selling marijuana. They catch him. They take the house! The house was the only stabilizing thing in a family that was having trouble.”

Ellison, a black Democrat who was the first Muslim elected to Congress, stood by Paul as he summoned the ghosts of the Civil Rights movement.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the 2016 field’s most prolific adopter of social media, has posted what aides wryly call a “secret tape” of a fake phone call between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton.

RAND PAC, Paul’s political organization, used actors to portray the conversation, which hits both rivals on the dynasty issue.

“Bush” tells her he’s thinking about running for president: “I just wanted to call and give you a heads-up in hopes we could work something out.”

“Clinton” says: “We both agree on so many issues: bigger government, Common Core, and amnesty for illegal immigrants.”

Late night talk show host David Letterman had nothing but positive things to say about possible 2016 presidential candidate Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

During a conversation with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Wednesday about the 2016 race, the comedian said he was impressed by the libertarian Republican, according to The Daily Caller.

"I've heard Rand Paul say things that seem just pure, hardcore, logical good sense," Letterman said on his "Late Show" on CBS.

Maddow was cautious in her agreement.

"Rand Paul sometimes makes a lot of sense," she said, but emphasized, "sometimes."

this brought lots of information with it. Those ladies seemed to know exactly where they wanted to go. Imagine if they were government employees just wanting to have a friendly chat before they went into Area 51 as perhaps they had never been there before. Pretty crazy. But they were probably just there to take pictures. They were probably never seen again lol.

Beijing’s mayor, Wang Anshun, has called the city “unliveable” because of its noxious smog, according to state media.

“To establish a first-tier, international, liveable and harmonious city, it is very important to establish a system of standards, and Beijing is currently doing this,” he said last Friday, according to the China Youth Daily newspaper.

“At the present time, however, Beijing is not a liveable city.”

Anshun’s speech came days before the market research company Euromonitor International announced, in its findings on the global tourism market in 2013, that tourism to Beijing had declined by 10% from the year before due to pollution and a countrywide economic slowdown.

The company’s top 100 city destination rankings, released on Tuesday, ranked Hong Kong, Singapore and Bangkok in its top three spots, followed by London and Paris. Beijing ranked 34th, in between Johannesburg and Sofia, Bulgaria.

Beginning this year, North Korea is to execute a new directive, set to make military service mandatory for eligible women between the ages of 17 and 20, as a bid to strengthen the nation's defense forces.

“Late last year, we received orders for all women who have graduated from middle and high school to undergo mandatory military service,” a source based in North Hamkyung Province told Daily NK on Tuesday.

This measure has been handed down to army mobilization offices in each province, city, and county, with implementation reportedly already underway. “The preliminary screening and physicals related to enlistment, which begins in April, are all complete and duty sectors have been organized," he said.

Most candidates pass these screenings barring any outstanding physical problems or contagious diseases such as tuberculosis and/or hepatitis. The minimum height requirement for women to serve was lowered to 142cm in 2012, but this standard is not strictly enforced, according to the source.   

Customarily, enlistment in North Korea occurs twice a year in April and August, and up until now, women served only voluntarily, while men invariably underwent mandatory service. School graduates aged 17-18 years enlist in April, while the enlistment period for workers at or under the age of 20 takes place in August.

This new policy, however, will not apply equal serving period requirements to both men and women. “Unlike men, who have to serve for ten years, mandatory service for women is only up to the age of 23,” the source said. “A 17-year-old who enlists in April will serve until she is 23, but a 20-year-old worker who enlists in August will only serve three years," adding that a rumor of men's service being extended by a year has been swirling around recently, but cannot yet be confirmed.

As with millions of other Americans, I went to see the hugely popular Clint Eastwood-directed movie, "American Sniper." Here are some of my thoughts:

No one, at least not me, doubts the patriotism, courage, and sacrifice of our nation's military personnel--especially our combat forces. I certainly do not share Michael Moore's opinion that Chris Kyle (and our snipers in general) was a coward. Snipers have been effective in helping to wage America's wars since our War for Independence. In lawful combat, snipers are as needful as any other specialized fighting man.

My issue is not with Chris Kyle, or with any other American fighting man. My issue is with the justness of the war Chris Kyle was ordered to fight. Yes, I realize that we have an all-volunteer army; but let's be honest enough to admit that the vast majority of our young people joining the U.S. military sincerely believe that they are doing their patriotic duty by volunteering to conduct war against America's "enemies." They learn nothing else from family, school, movies and television, and church. The singular message they hear is that everything the U.S. military does is right and righteous and that every military engagement we fight is just and justified. I'm sure Chris Kyle was no different.

However, at the risk of sounding unpatriotic, after watching the real-life military exploits of Chris Kyle on the Big Screen, I left the theater extremely angry.

In the first place, Saddam Hussein and the country of Iraq had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11. G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney unabashedly lied to the American people about the necessity of America invading Iraq. We invaded Iraq under false pretenses; we occupied Iraq under false pretenses; and we took (and lost) thousands of lives under false pretenses.

Secondly, as I watched the depiction of U.S. Marines going house-to-house and kicking down doors, manhandling old men, women, and children, it occurred to me that these exact same tactics are now being employed by American police agencies against the people of the United States. Our so-called SWAT teams are nothing more than occupying military units. The strategies, philosophies, and tactics are exactly the same as soldiers in a war zone.

Congress failed to agree last year on a measure that would reform the practice of mass government surveillance, but privacy-minded state legislators have a back-up plan for shutting down alleged violations of their constituents’ constitutional rights.

In eight states, legislators are pushing bills they hope will either boot National Security Agency facilities or ban the agency from setting up shop. The bills would prohibit state and local governments from offering material support to the agency, including use of public utilities that carry water and electricity. Two of the bills would criminalize official cooperation with the NSA and several seek to squeeze contractors out of work with the electronic spy agency.

The state-level push began months after whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed in June 2013 the NSA’s bulk collection of U.S. phone records and Internet-mining programs.

Last year, bills in Utah - home of the NSA’s massive Utah Data Center - and Maryland - host of the agency’s Fort Meade headquarters - sought to shut down those operations, winning broad media coverage.

The Utah bill remains active and its sponsor, Republican state Rep. Marc Roberts, is cautiously optimistic about its chances, particularly after a seemingly receptive committee hearing in November.

Roberts says colleagues he’s spoken with “have concerns with the NSA programs and violations of the Fourth Amendment.” But, he says, “when it comes down to a big vote on it like this I'm not sure [what] they will do.”

Roberts is waiting to learn which legislative committee this year will hear his bill, which seeks to shut off the water supply to the NSA's vast Utah Data Center that's currently provided through a sweatheart deal with the city of Bluffdale.

Legislators in Alaska, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Washington, meanwhile, introduced similar bills this month, many called Fourth Amendment protection acts, based on model legislation from the OffNow coalition. More are likely to be introduced as the legislative season unfolds.

The bills generally say states and their political subdivisions cannot supply material support to federal agencies that collect citizens’ metadata without individualized warrants, and they intend to bar NSA-derived evidence from state courts and block the agency from research partnerships with state schools.

In Washington, the proposed bill goes further. It would force companies to choose between NSA and state contracts. And if state contractors or officials do provide “material support, participation, or assistance in any form” to the NSA, they would be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and up to one year behind bars.

The president and Mrs Obama cut short their trip to India to pay their respects to the Saudi Arabian royal family on the death of King Abdullah
But the First Lady did not look happy during the brief trip to Riyadh to meet the new King Salman
During a meet and greet with Saudi dignitaries, many of the men refused to shake her hand
Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world where women are banned from driving cars, among other restrictions
Many have criticized Mr Obama and former presidents for not pushing the oil-rich Saudis on their women's rights record

Who is killing the great bankers of Europe?
By Rick Moran

This is either the most interesting case of coincidental deaths or one of the most evil plots in modern history.

Western bankers are dropping dead all over the place - most of them youngish and in good health. There appear to be an unusual number of suicides and "unexplained" deaths.

Last year, 36 bankers died. There have been 3 already this year, including the latest - a Dutch financier who worked for Amro bank.

Zero Hedge blog has been following this story.

Following the deaths of 36 bankers last year, 2015 has got off to an inauspicious start with the reported suicide of Chris Van Eeghen - the 4th ABN Amro banker suicide in the last few years. As Quotenet reports, the death of Van Eghen - the head of ABN's corporate finance and capital markets -"startled" friends and colleagues as the 42-year-old "had a great reputation" at work, came from an "illustrious family," and enjoyed national fame briefly as the boyfriend of a famous actress/model. As one colleague noted, "he was always cheerful, good mood, and apparently he had everything your heart desired. He never sat in the pit, never was down, so I was extremely surprised. I can not understand."

As Niburu details, friends and colleagues were startled by the news that Chris van Eeghen had committed suicide.

He worked in Amsterdam for ABN / AMRO in the position of "head of syndicate and corporate finance markets."

Again, there is again a familiar pattern, namely that there is no indication that Van Eeghen had plans to take his life.

Ostensibly a successful banker, coming from what was described as an illustrious family. Chris was also a familiar sight in Amsterdam's nightlife scene and enjoyed national fame as possible new boyfriend of Tatjana Simic (a famous Croatian-Dutch model, singer, actress).

Most believe that the suicide is not related to his work at the bank,
but a former colleague had noticed that on his Facebook recently changed
its job title to "former."

Chris leaves behind a son - who had recently been cleared of cancer.

This is the 4th ABN Amro suicide in recent years...

So what's going on? Almost certainly, it isn't a plot. Banking - especially at the level that most of these bankers had reached - is a stressful occupation with more than the average number of suicides. It's also logical that such stress could lead to an early death due to heart attack or stroke. (Researchers now believe that some cancers are related to stress.)

If you were to take employees from a similarly stressful industry and compare suicide and early death rates, you would probably make similar correlations appear.

So far, no evidence of foul play has emerged in any of these deaths. So either the plotters are spectacularly competent in fooling authorities, or there is nothing fishy at all about these deaths.

”Republicans have consistently railed at President Obama’s exercise of his executive authority, disparaging him as “an emperor” who has ignored Congress on immigration, climate and Cuba.

Now that they fully control the Congress, those same Republicans critics are on the verge of handing the president expansive new powers to circumvent those who want to stand in his way on trade.

GOP leaders in both chambers are close to introducing legislation that would grant the administration broad authority to finalize one of the largest free-trade pacts in the nation’s history.”

The power being discussed here is one which removes the people’s Representatives from the process to create, debate, amend and then adopt legislation regulating trade with foreign nations.

Fast-track trade power would allow the President to negotiate trade deals with foreign nations in secret, eliminating the American People’s Representatives from their assigned duty to create legislation regulating commerce with foreign nations. Congress would no longer create the legislation and the process of adding corrective amendments to the president’s deals to insure deals which promote America’s best interests would be totally circumvented. The only part Congress would have in the President’s fast-track trade power would be an up or down vote within 90 days upon receiving the presidents deal which leaves little time to even allow the people’s representatives to read and study the deal and then debate it before a vote.

This is another Chamber of Commerce idea to remove the people’s Representatives from the process and be free to adopt trade deals which are not in the best interests of America, but rather, are deals beneficial to international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or promoting the general welfare of the United States.

Every member of Congress who supports this Fast-Track crap ought to be viewed as a domestic enemy of the United States who is attempting to circumvent the People’s Representatives’ constitutionally assigned duty to create legislation promoting an America First trade policy.

Some of the GOP ringleaders behind Obama-Trade are Senator Mitch McConnell from Kentucky, Senator Orrin Hatch, Utah, and our little weasel from Wisconsin, Paul Ryan.

Just remember exactly what they are attempting to do, which is to circumvent the process of having the people’s Representatives creating legislation, debating it, amending it and then adopting it. The intention is to effectively exclude the people’s elected Representatives from the law making process as it was intended to operate by our founding fathers.