SPLC is garbage, every drop of information they distribute has an agenda. Additionally this is also from 2011, a lot has changed policy wise since then. How come no one ever mentions how much easier smuggling guns, drugs, and sex trafficking back and forth is with a completely open border?

Catalyzed by the total failures of Iraq, Afghanistan, Benghazi and more, foreign policy has been the hot debate lately. Just over two years out from a new administration, which many predict will be of the Republican brand, and the arising noise of pundit and politician fills the air with commentary regarding the failures of American foreign policy. Some are blaming Obama (Karl Rove/Laura Ingram). Some are blaming Bush (Not Karl Rove/Laura Ingram. Like Obama and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi D-Calif.). Fewest of them all are blaming Bush and Obama (Like U.S. Senator Rand Paul R-Ky.). For this, Paul has been attacked viciously by many in both parties.

Congressman Peter King R-N.Y. somehow gathered, “Paul’s foreign policy makes America the enemy.”, because the senator from Kentucky believes America should concern itself with strengthening its own borders to fight against de facto amnesty rather than sending young men and women to their death in order to secure the borders of Iraq.

Many have been more than willing to oblige in the attempted take down of Paul’s foreign policy.

However, a palpable shift has occurred, and now the media has been toying around with the idea that ‘maybe’ Paul is right. With articles titled, “What if Rand Paul is right on foreign policy?”, pundits now ask questions like, “Is Rand Paul the next generation-defining senator on American foreign policy?” Enough with the questions already. The battle is over– Paul won. But what’s fascinating— is how he did it.

(If Republican or Republican Leaner) If the Republican primary for President were being held today, and the candidates were: Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee, for whom would you vote?

Paul.........11%
Christie.....10
Huckabee.....10
Bush.........10
Cruz..........8
Walker........8
Ryan..........8
Rubio.........6
Perry.........3
Santorum......2
Kasich........2
Jindal........1


From June 24 - 30, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,446 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of +/- 2.6 percentage points. The survey includes 620 Republicans with a margin of error of +/- 3.9 percentage points and 610 Democrats with a margin of error of 4 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones.

Glad to hear about the positive energy in Michigan. Any news from South Carolina, which is a huge, very early state?

Russia and bosnia aren't that great anyway.  Mexico and chile played well and were both unlucky not to progress further.

Brazil, france and holland are already decent teams.  We cant learn anything from this information.

WASHINGTON (CBSDC) – Sex may play a bigger part in success than you’d think.
The Moscow Times reports that a new study published in “Quartz,” has found a link between sex and success at the World Cup.

The study says that all of World Cup teams that imposed a ban on sex failed to advance past the Round of 16 in the knockout stage of the event.

Russia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, both of which banned sex during the World Cup, each fell short and were eliminated in the group stage of the competition. Mexico and Chile also banned sex for their players, and both teams were eliminated in the Round of 16. Mexico lost to the Netherlands while Chile fell to host Brazil.

Meanwhile, teams such as Brazil, Costa Rica, France, and the Netherlands that have not banned sex or have only placed minor restrictions on sex each advanced to at least the quarterfinals.

The journalist Peter Beinart, who ought to know something about the hazards of shifting foreign-policy views, had a message for Rand Paul: the senator can “destroy an olive grove with [his] bare hands” without gaining the trust of Republican hawks exemplified by Sheldon Adelson.

This tartly worded tweet was in response to Paul’s call to end aid to the Palestinian Authority following the brutal murder of three kidnapped Israeli teenagers. Previously, Paul had introduced the Stand with Israel Act, which makes future aid to the Palestinian government conditional upon a ceasefire and, according to a statement from his office, “recognizing the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.”
...
Since “beefing up his Israel bona fides,” Paul has been one of the few Republicans to blame Bush-Cheney rather than President Obama for the violence engulfing Iraq. He has ruled out ground troops in the country and made the point that it is ill-conceived regime change rather than inaction that has made a “jihadist wonderland” out of Iraq and Libya.
...
Cutting foreign aid has always been a non-interventionist position. It also happens to be one that resonates with the Republican rank-and-file, if not GOP elected officials. Paul, who initially proposed zeroing out all foreign aid (including to Israel), is building further support by putting money for allies like Israel on the chopping block last.

There are several things worth considering here. The first is that Paul is vying to lead the entire Republican Party, not just one particular faction. His intended audience isn’t Adelson (though perhaps he can get some other hawkish donors to hold their fire) but evangelicals who want their party’s nominee to be pro-Israel but are open-minded about what the actual foreign-policy implications of that might be.

Paul is trying to demonstrate to such Republicans that you can pursue a less interventionist foreign policy without neglecting legitimate national-security concerns or abandoning allies. Where possible, he is using anti-interventionist means to pro-American and pro-Israel ends.
...
Paul’s rhetoric is neither right in every particular nor risk-free. But it might be the best way to reach a conservative Republican electorate with a message that is pro-American, pro-Israel, and Lord willing pro-peace.