How much foreign aid did we send to Oil-Rich Libya before we removed Gaddafi?

Oh, right. None.

Toomey voted for NDAA also. All but three representatives for the House and Senate voted for this piece of crap. Only 3 democrats refused it from PA.

We receive a major strategic advantage in exchange for our aid to Egypt. US war ships are allowed to go to the head of the line at the Suez Canal.

Quote:

Numerous Republican senators stood up in opposition to Paul’s bill, calling it dangerous and irresponsible, especially to Israel.

What kind of twisted logic is that??

Cutting foreign aid to Israel wasn't part of the bill...

Ooo I get it, once they say the magic words ``it will hurt Israel`` most of these morons will vote against the bill since they have not read it.

One reason to truly respect Rand is that he will step out and stand on the third rails. It's not because self-destructive behavior is admirable. It is because he provides the opening for discussion on untouchable topics. He provides some leadership for the shy or weak or compromised legislators who may desire to do the right thing. He provides logical argument and pokes holes in talking points used by legislators who play the DC power games rather than represent the interests of their states, constituents, or the nation at large. He introduces well-reasoned legislation that should be easy for an honest senator to co-sponsor. The debates and subsequent votes on his bills and amendments can be quite revealing and should alert the constituents of some of the senators in opposition. Anyone who wants to cut to the chase on how ones senator is aligned has only to show up for a town hall meeting and ask for justification of a vote on a couple of Rand's pieces of proposed legislation. Some of Rand's offerings are so grounded in common sense that the only way those bills could fail is through wheeling and dealing. It would be refreshing to see videos of constituents publicly asking for explanations from their incumbent senators for why a senator opposed specific pieces of legislation from Rand Paul.

A whole lot of Ron Paul supporters are angry with Rand over his Mitt endorsement, especially after Ron Paul and the RP delegates were treated so abominably at the RNC convention in Tampa. I include myself among the miffed. Nevertheless, Rand has legislative goals that are also his father's goals. Having the RNC turn against him in time for his re-election campaign will not help to meet those legislative goals. I hope the disgust with Mitt and the RNC and politics in general will not keep people from showing up at the polls and voting for good candidates down the ticket from the top. The House and the Senate both need better people in place who may join with the few Rand Pauls in DC. The state and local political breeding grounds need to be weeded and replanted. Rand is a good start.

Quote:

There are a few in the Senate who "get it." They understand that giving money to those people

Ummmmm.....any strings attached to that money?

I think you will be surprised if you search for the answer to that question...

Here's a nugget...some of the money we "give those people" comes with the requirement that they buy food for their country that is MADE IN THE USA!

Ho, Ho, Ho...it's a freaken US jobs program hiding under the banner of "foreign aid"!..end foreign aid and you destroy farming, trucking, commodity trading, banking, shipyard, shipping, ship building, logistics and a whole ****load of other jobs HERE in the USA!

That's why only a few chumps will vote to end it!

..and here's the real rub...we send money to Libya with the requirement they buy corn from the USA to feed the starving...by the time they pay for transport, the corn is 50% more expensive than if they had just bought it from a neighboring country!

But hey, Libya doesn't care because they're spending our money!

Care to wager that the same is happening with bullets and bombs?

The deception runs deep...

Debtpie is right. Foreign aid to Israel must be spent on US manufactured weapons and systems. It's ****ing law.

Corporate welfare.

100%

Ahh yes, foreign aid. Excellent video and I watched all 56 minutes of it. I recommend anyone who comments actually watch the video, I already see comments where questions are answered right in the video.

I wish Rand would have mentioned 9/11. Terror cell leader Mohammad Atta received $100,000 from the Pakistani ISI, you know, the intelligence agency we give nearly a billion dollars a year. It baffles me how ignorant people are.

Karl, I like you weep for our country, but our country really is a reflection of us as a society, lazy, uneducated, and lacking critical thinking. Obviously some of an exception to the rule but 98% of the people have no clue about the real deal.

Quote:

On October 6, 2001, a senior-level U.S. government official, told CNN that U.S. investigators had discovered Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh (Sheik Syed), using the alias "Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad" had sent about $100,000 from the United Arab Emirates to Mohamed Atta. "Investigators said Atta then distributed the funds to conspirators in Florida in the weeks before the deadliest acts of terrorism on U.S. soil that destroyed the World Trade Center, heavily damaged the Pentagon and left thousands dead. In addition, sources have said Atta sent thousands of dollars—believed to be excess funds from the operation—back to Saeed in the United Arab Emirates in the days before September 11. CNN later confirmed this.[16]

The 9/11 Commission's Final Report states that the source of the funds "remains unknown."

More than a month after the money transfer was discovered, the head of ISI, General Mahmud Ahmed resigned from his position. It was reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was investigating the possibility that Gen. Ahmed ordered Saeed Sheikh to send the $100,000 to Atta [14]

The Wall Street Journal was one of the only Western news organizations to follow up on the story, citing the Times of India: "US authorities sought General Mahmud Ahmed's removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 was wired to WTC hijacker Mohamed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of General Mahmud."[17] Another Indian newspaper, the Daily Excelsior, quoting FBI sources, reported that the "FBI’s examination of the hard disk of the cellphone company Omar Sheikh had subscribed to led to the discovery of the "link" between him and the deposed chief of the Pakistani ISI, Mahmud Ahmed. And as the FBI investigators delved deep, reports surfaced with regard to the transfer of $100,000 to Mohamed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the September 11 attacks, who flew a hijacked Boeing commercial airliner into the World Trade Center. General Mahmud Ahmed, the FBI investigators found, fully knew about the transfer of money to Atta."[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Omar_....

DebtPie,

The food has to be shipped on US flag vessel's with a unionized crew. It is a very expensive jobs program.

We should stop all foreign aid it is nothing but theft from U.S. citizens

Have you seen Gary Johnson's latest fiasco Karl's right about him Libertarian lol

Gary Johnson Crosses the Line
By Skip Oliva

The Libertarian Party has never done the larger libertarian movement much good. The party’s 2008 presidential ticket jumped ship and endorsed Mitt Romney. And the 2012 ticket of Gary Johnson and Jim Gray has now stooped to filing a federal antitrust lawsuit–not the most libertarian of tactics–in order to force their way into the upcoming presidential debates. It’s a pathetic move that insults the thousands of people deprived of their property and liberty by the scourge that is the Sherman Act.

Johnson’s lawsuit is pure nonsense. He claims the Commission on Presidential Debates and the Democratic and Republican National Committees have “conspired” to “restrain trade” by excluding Johnson. “The office of president, to which Governor Johnson aspires,” the lawsuit argues, “pays a salary of $400,000 per year.” This makes the presidential debates “commerce” under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Really, Gary? I think I can hear some lawyers at the Federal Trade Commission laughing at you.

“The Sherman Act was enacted in 1890 to prevent conspiracies such as the one alleged herein.” No, it wasn’t. The Sherman Act was adopted to punish more efficient competitors in industry and agriculture who displaced politically connected but less efficient firms. There isn’t a single shred of evidence to suggest the law’s framers intended to apply it to political activities like a presidential debate. (Indeed, presidential debates were unheard of in the 19th century.)

Johnson’s lawsuit claims the defendants “continue to secretly meet” to conspire against him by passing exclusionary debate rules. This ignores the fact the Commission and the two major parties are private, non-governmental entities. Private groups are not only free to meet and exclude outsiders, they have an absolute right to do so under the First Amendment. Johnson is effectively trying to employ antitrust to overrule the right of free association.

Even by antitrust standards, Johnson’s case is meritless. Antitrust requires some sort of “relevant market.” Johnson claims the debate participants “monopolize the field in the race for president and vice president,” which harms not just him but “the American electorate generally.” First of all, antitrust deals with consumers, not voters. The two are not interchangeable. Second, exclusion from the debates does not “monopolize” the race itself. Johnson will still appear on the ballot in most states and he has every opportunity to get his message across to the voters. If there’s anything monopolistic here it’s the restrictive access laws that hinder or prevent Johnson from appearing on the ballot–none of which are a subject of this lawsuit.

There is no “right” to appear in a presidential debate. Nor is there a right to force your opponents to make a joint public appearance with you, which is exactly what Johnson seeks here. What if Johnson prevails in the lawsuit and Mitt Romney decides he won’t appear in any debate unless it’s one-on-one with Obama? Will Johnson sue Romney to compel his attendance?

I’ve already had some Johnson defenders claim the antitrust lawsuit is justified “to combat the dirty tricks perpetrated by both major parties.” This is an “ends justify the means” argument. It goes against the LP’s own mantra as “The Party of Principle.”

Read the rest here.

http://blog.skipoliva.com/2012/09/gary-j....
via
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/

IMHO, Johnson was a plant meant to make sure the LP stayed under 1%.
He has a nice position waiting for himself in the next administration.

Vote out all incumbents.

My apology. I know I sounded like a broken record. But I know almost all incumbents will be re-elected. For that matter, my vote does not count.

Well, as I said repeatedly in this forum that the only way to save the US of A is praying for its demise, the sooner, the better.

term limit; balance budget; etc., etc., will only happen after the collapse.

A better idea is to take pensions and pay away from all representatives (all expenses paid while in job).
Also make accepting anything from a lobbyist a felony with minimum prison time. They can only meet with representatives under strict observation.
And they can NEVER work for any lobbyist they met with. EVER.

It should never have been a career to be a representative.
Today, they only think of holding on to their own jobs for life and f'ck the rest of us.

New Ticker on Johnson.....

ghopper, we sent aid to libya:

http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/query/do....

of course, maybe they didn't get that money-but notice the jump during the obama administration? :)

i do think johnson may be a spoiler to make sure that BO stays in power. he certainly is no patriot to america.

Make me proud to be from KY

He will always get my vote

Bill McCord

Louisville KY

Didn't Rand Paul already endorse Romney?

sure debtpie, just like those shovel ready jobs?

how many times do americans have to fall for having their money confiscated for "their own good"?

if you are going to pull that crap, then why not just eliminate the middleman and offer americans money to grow american food.

make it here, buy it here, keep it all here.

Noodleman, Rand endorsed Romney in June. It was during the time the Texas GOP convention was in session. Caused a big uproar. Rand said that it was obvious at that point that his father's numbers could not add up to win the GOP nomination, therefore he endorsed Mitt Romney. He said his father was his first choice. If his father was not going to be the nominee, he would endorse Romney. At the time, there was talk that Rand was among those being vetted as one of the potential Romney running mates as an appeasement measure to bring in the Ron Paul supporters. If so, the plan backfired.

The backlash he's talking about cannot be fixed or avoided and what we are seeing now is what happens when we are NOT supporting and manipulating via dollars repressive dictators in Muslim countries. Stupid foreign policies for the sake of expediency result in unavoidable blowback. Too late now...

Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire

http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Second-Ed....

Karlmarxghost wrote..

Karl, I like you weep for our country, but our country really is a reflection of us as a society, lazy, uneducated, and lacking critical thinking.

You left out gullible, trusting beyond all reason, excessively deferential to authority figures, and addicted to delegation.

Quote:

From Publishers Weekly:
This no-holds-barred indictment of what Johnson calls the post-Cold War American "global empire" is not for the faint of heart. Among the opening images is a plastic bag containing three pairs of bloodied men's underwear gathered as evidence from the brutal 1995 gang******of a 12-year-old Okinawan girl by two American marines and an American sailor, a crime that was officially passed off as an aberration but may qualify more accurately as another move in the endgame of, in Johnson's astringent phrase, "stealth imperialism"...

http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Second-Ed....

Oh horse ****. Usually this tactic is called "waving the bloody shirt." But in light of what Chalmers actually waved, in his hands it becomes a rank obscenity. Johnson in that book merely outed himself as the truly despicable individual that he was in real life. Before thankfully, and to the betterment of the world at large, the mother****er croaked.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waving_the_....]

let me correct my post, which wasn't directed specifically at debtpie's comments. (sometimes when you read something later, it didn't come out exactly as intended)

if the ADMINISTRATION is going to call it aid, why not eliminate the foreign country and give the money to american farmers to grow american food to feed americans.

obviously, rand is going to endorse romney--because like romney or not, at least he has some belief in the private sector, whereas obama has zero. obama can do nothing but spend, because he wants to be "a celebrity" way more than he wants to be president. celebrities are popular, and denying money is not popular!

what choice does rand have, really? i vote for ron paul, and so did rand, but americans chose otherwise.

you have to play the hand you are dealt.

No monetary aid to any country without an official declaration of War against their enemies. Must include an termination date.


Done. Enough of this kickback bribery circle jerk.