Virginia Nullifies NDAA

In an enormously uplifting turn of events, the Virginia House of Representatives has passed legislation (by a whopping 96% majority) which nullifies Sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.  The bill, dubbed the Liberty Preservation Act, reads as follows:

“the Legislature finds that the enactment into law by the United States Congress of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Public Law Number 112-81, is inimical to the liberty, security and well-being of the people of Virginia, and was adopted by the United States Congress in violation of the limits of federal power in United States Constitution”

Doesn't that just put a smile on your face?

Arizona, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maryland and Washington states have also introduced the bill in either the House or the Senate.  In addition, seven local legislative bodies nationwide have already nullified the notoriously venomous Sections, which would give the U.S. Military jurisdiction over policing American soil and allow for indefinite detention of United States Citizens without charge, trial, or due process - all at the behest of the President of the United States of America.

Want to know the best part?  This bill is much more than just a heartwarmingly symbolic, but ultimately limp-wristed stand against the abhorrent usurpation of power by POTUS.
This bill has some balls.

In Washington's iteration of the LPA, ". . . state and local officials (including members of the Washington National Guard) would be prohibited from participating in or assisting the federal government in the unlawful activities purportedly authorized by the NDAA. The bill would also outlaw any of those actions by the U.S. armed forces within the state."

Want to know if your state is making efforts at making tyranny illegal?  Check here.

If your state isn't on the list, you can locate and contact your State's legislators here.

And of course, if you would like to see legislation passed at the federal level which declares the NDAA illegal and nullified, I humbly ask that you give serious consideration to Ron Paul as your presidential candidate in 2012, because he's doing just that as we speak.

Who Watches the Watchmen?

Well, I unfortunately can't say that I'm very surprised at the latest news of police state surveillance.

It turns out that the NYPD has been covertly keeping tabs on Muslim students all across the Northeastern United States, far exceeding the city-limits of their jurisdiction.  Students from as far away as the University at Buffalo, Yale, and the University of Pennsylvania were targeted for a broad-reaching violation of privacy rights that extend even beyond the post-Patriot Act powers of the FBI.

From the MSNBC report:
"Police talked with local authorities about professors 300 miles (480 kilometers) away in Buffalo and even sent an undercover agent on a whitewater rafting trip, where he recorded students' names and noted in police intelligence files how many times they prayed."

Not one of the students investigated and included in the NYPD reports has been accused of any crime, either prior to or as a result of the investigation.

The reason given for the surveillance?
"Asked about the monitoring, police spokesman Paul Browne provided a list of 12 people arrested or convicted on terrorism charges in the United States and abroad who had once been members of Muslim student associations"

Yep.  Of the millions of Muslims in America, and of the thousands upon thousands of young men and women who have once been actively involved in Muslim Students' Associations over the past decade or two, 12 of them have been arrested as terrorists.

There's nothing fuzzy about the math here.

For Mr. Browne's benefit, I've taken the time to compile a brief list of NYPD officers who have been arrested for felonies.  By 'brief', I mean that they appeared within the first 4-5 pages of Google results, and encompass only the past 2-3 years.  Admittedly nowhere near as exhaustive as his List of Twelve, of course.


- Former NYPD Officer Edwin Coello Arrested for Murdering his Wife
- Ex-NYPD Officer Clarence Cash Arrested for Killing his Wife, a Criminal Investigator
- Three NYPD Officer's Arrested and Charged with Sexual Assault After Sodomizing a Suspect with a Police Baton
- NYPD Officer Arrested for Raping a Woman at Gunpoint
- NYPD Narcotics Officer Arrested for Giving Crack to Drug Addicts in Exchange for Sex
- 8 Members of NYPD Arrested on Federal Weapons Charges for Smuggling Stolen and Illegal Guns into New York City
- NYPD Officer Rafael Casiano Arrested for DWI Following a Crash which Left his Partner in a Coma
- NYPD Officer Arrested for Racially-Motivated Assault with Baseball Bat
- NYPD Auxiliary Officer Daniel Sayers Arrested for Child Pornography
- NYPD Officer Arrested on Federal Civil Rights Charges after False Arrest of African-American, Tells Wife Later: "I Fried Another N*gger"
- NYPD Veteran Officer Arrested for Indiscriminantly Pepper-Spraying Bar Patrons
- NYPD Officer Arrested in Connection With Money Laundering Scam
- Retired NYPD Officer Michael Oliver Arrested for First-Degree Reckless Endangerment After Discharging Two Rounds from a Firearm in Anger
- NYPD Officer Arrested for Theft and Misconduct after Stealing iPads from an iPad Thief
- Two NYPD Officers Arrested in Separate Drunk Driving Incidents
- Officer Raymond Gumti of the NYPD Arrested in ID Fraud Scam

That's 26 right there.  That should be more than enough to justify a KGB-scale surveillance task, by the NYPD's own logic.  It's a pity that there would be nobody left to conduct it . . .

An Ice Cream Truck, a Squad Automatic Weapon, 100,000 rounds, and an Internet Connection

shootmytruck.com is setting up an ice cream truck fashioned after Sweet Tooth's ride in the Twisted Metal series of games, somewhere in the desert, with a SAW pointing at it.  The trigger on the SAW being controlled via the internet by the winners of a drawing.  On the 14th the lucky winners will be expected to fire around 100,000 rounds downrange at said truck (or a couple-days worth of action).

More games (more anythings) should market themselves like this.  Hell, I might just have to buy the damn thing now.

Cutty Sark Scotch Whiskey

I was out drinking with a buddy last week when I spotted a bottle behind the bar.  It drew my attention because of its name and the tall ship pictured on its label: the Cutty Sark.  I had heard about the Cutty Sark from of the Dire Straits' song, "Single-Handed Sailor", one of my favorite songs by that great band.  So after a few beers and in a more romantic---in the single-handedly-sailing-around-the-world sense---demeanor I was more than willing to try a shot of whatever libation was in that particular bottle.  I was glad to find out it was whiskey, something I've been known to be partial to!

This was in a college-town type bar, so I don't think the bartender was really used to whiskey drinkers.  She gave me a blank stare when I walked up to her and told her "My friend and I would like a shot of the Cutty Sark!"  Now, if you walk up to a bar like that, with single-minded purpose, this somehow disturbs the harmony of the place a bit.  People come to her counter, sit by and wait to be served.  We just walked straight up to the counter, stood there in front of her until she acknowledged us, and just told her what we wanted, much like a sailboat captain would to a ship's first---"Have the jib brought in, Mr. Dillon, would you kindly."  Her confusion and lack of context were amusing there, but were much unlike the knowing efficiency of a professional who loves their trade.  She wouldn't do in any ship of mine.  The poor thing actually said, "we don't have that."  I retorted directly, "sure you do, the bottle right over there."  Her confusion only got worse when I asked her to bring me the bottle, which apparently is against the rules!  There's something thoroughly pasteurized and unromantic about a bartender being uncomfortable about such a request.  But I digress.  We got our shots, downed them on the spot, payed up, and left.  As I turned I actually told her something like "I wanted to try it because of the Dire Straits' song."  She just looked at us, very uncertain about any of this.  Sad.  We left knowing that those people had no business running a bar.

So, how's the Cutty Sark?  Romanticism aside, this is no high-end whiskey.  I'm not a whiskey snob by any means, but I tend to find that bourbon has a more honest feel to it at the lower-price tiers (though I've yet to try the truly cheap stuff).  The old Cutty Sark blended Scotch I had that night was a bit rough for Scotch whiskey, but without the more complex finish of a good American bourbon.  I should also say that we didn't really give it a fair shake.  Take this tasting experience for what it was: sharing grog with a mate.

Cutty Sark is a blended Scotch whiskey made in Glasgow.

Haters Gonna Hate

I've got a bit of a bone to pick with Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post's "Fact" "Checker".

See, as a blogger who's wearing an agenda on my sleeve, it pains me to see other bloggers (yes, Kessler is a blogger, NOT a journalist) who are hiding obvious bias behind a subterfuge of honest journalism.  Here, we at least have the decency to express biased opinions for what they are: biased opinions.

Let's take a comparative look at Kessler's treatment of Barack Obama and Ron Paul, respectively:

In this article, Kessler fact-checks one of Obama's claims made on January 30, 2012 during a Google+ Hangout:  

"There's a huge demand around this country for engineers. . . . Where you’re seeing a lot of specialized demand is in engineering that’s related to the high-tech industries.”
 
To his credit, Kessler gives a reasonably pseudo-accurate report detailing some of the falsehoods and half-truths surrounding this claim:

While the unemployment rate for "architecture and engineering occupations" in 2011 was 5.1%, as compared to the 8.9% national average, Obama failed to mention that "Architecture and engineering unemployment stood at a lowly 1.7 percent in 2006".  That's exactly triple the unemployment in six years, a very drastic change for the worse.

The H1-B Work Visa allows U.S. employers to hire a limited number of temporary foreign workers each year.  In 2005, the cap on such visas was raised to 85,000, with many of these jobs filling the (alleged) talent-gaps in the high-tech industry.  There is also a great amount of effort in the industry to see this cap raised. Economist Jared Bernstein, who has first-hand experience and has seen such lobbying efforts within the Obama Administration, noted: “They want all the engineers they can get at the lowest price . . . They say they can’t find enough talent, but what they really mean is that they can’t find enough people at the rate they want to pay.”  So if the demand is as high as alleged, with young engineers able to sell their talents with ease across the country, why does this seem to describe a buyers' market?

As a (luckily employed) member of the high-tech industry, I myself can attest to the fact that prospects have been bleak for recently graduated engineers since the 2008 recession.  Many of my engineer friends from college are bartending or working construction today.  Obama was wrong when he said this, plain and simple, and Kessler seemed to understand this in the article.

Until the closing paragraphs:

"Demand for engineers remains relatively high compared with most other professions, but it’s not what it was before the recession. We don’t expect Obama to have enough detailed information to know that electrical engineers . . . fared worse than computer-hardware engineers in recent years, but he probably should have known that unemployment has risen for such high-tech fields on the whole.
Job prospects within the semiconductor industry look bleak heading into 2020, and the president should have known that as well."
 
Kessler's verdict?  One Pinocchio (on a four Pinocchio scale).  One Pinocchio represents "Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods."

Okay.

Now, let's take a look at Mr. Kessler's treatment of Ron Paul, specifically his "strange claim about bases and troops overseas".  For those of you keeping score at home, here is the claim, as Paul has said, in so many words, countless times this election cycle:  

“We don't need to pay all this money to keep troops all over the country, 130 countries, 900 bases. But also, just think, bringing all the troops home rather rapidly, they would be spending their money here at home and not in Germany and Japan and South Korea, tremendous boost to the economy.”

Here's what Kessler had to say on the matter:

"First of all, Paul needs to update his rhetoric. He is still using the same numbers now that he used in September, but since then, the United States pulled out of Iraq, closing scores, if not hundreds, of facilities. So one would have to scratch Iraq off the “occupy” list. (A Paul spokesman did not respond to a query.)" 

Hostile overtones aside, if a "fact checker" is going to dispute a specific number, shouldn't he bother to look into the actual number, rather than calling them "scores, if not hundreds, of facilities"?  He goes on to correct Dr. Paul with the official numbers:

"As of Sept. 30, 2010, the DOD list shows a list of 611 military facilities around the world (not counting war zones), though only 20 are listed as “large sites,” which means a replacement value of more than $1.74 billion." 
 
Not counting war zones?  You know, those places where military bases tend to be fairly plentiful?  And let's not exaggerate, my dear fact checker.  The conflict in Iraq has indeed been officially called off, but there is still a U.S. military presence there.  Not to mention the fact that, as a Congressman, Dr. Paul may or may not have knowledge of military bases of a more confidential nature.  Knowledge not immediately available to a blogger from the Washington Post, I mean.

As for the "large sites", if you're going to nit-pick semantics, you might bother to notice that Paul makes no claim as to the size of these 900 military facilities.

"Not only that, but we count 153 countries with U.S. military personnel, actually higher than the 130 cited by Paul.  What’s going on here? The answer is that the list essentially tracks places where the United States has a substantial diplomatic presence. (The United States has diplomatic relations with about 190 countries.) In other words, Paul is counting Marine guards and military attaches as part of a vast expanse of U.S. military power around the globe."

Yes, that is exactly what Paul is counting.  He is counting the size and cost of the "vast expanse of U.S. military power around the globe" as you put it, to include troops stationed in countries as part of diplomatic attachments.

 So what is Glenn Kessler's verdict?  Three Pinocchios:

 "As evidence of the United States occupying “so many countries” or the “all this money” spent on the military, Paul’s statistics barely pass the laugh test. He has managed to turn small contingents of Marine guards into occupying armies and waste dumps into military bases. A more accurate way to treat this data would be to say that the United States has 20 major bases around the world, not counting the war in Afghanistan, with major concentrations of troops in 11 countries."
 
Barely pass the laugh test?  You would think that Dr. Paul had just insulted his mother. 
 
So why does Obama get a gentle, apologist treatment while Paul is thrown to the wolves?  I couldn't tell you.  But here's another article on Obama's choice to consolidate the Small Business Administration with the Commerce Department, the U.S. Trade Representative’s office and three other agencies.  Two Pinocchios, complete with apologism: 
 
"To some extent, these are issues of symbolism and process. Perhaps the president also has so much on his plate that he should not be expected to keep straight the details of his own reorganization." 
 
And here's another article fact-checking Ron Paul's claims about Medicaid and Medicare.  Again, three Pinocchios.  Why?  Among other reasons,

"We can’t disprove Paul’s assertion that people weren’t “laying in the street with no medical care” before 1965, but the argument seems like a red herring, anyway." 
 
Once more, I would like to insert the following disclaimer:  I am biased.  This is opinion.  I will be voting for Ron Paul in the coming primaries, and (hopefully) will vote for him in the Presidential elections as well.

But it still seems fishy to me, despite my most earnest efforts at objectivity.  Check out the articles for yourself.  Let me know what you think.

State of the Primary, February 2012

Fresh off of Saturday's Nevada caucus (which my esteemed compatriot has already discussed), it's high time to evaluate the remaining candidates, their relative statuses within the Republican Primary to date, and, most poignantly, what lies ahead for their candidacies.

Here's my take, in order of delegates earned to date:

• Mitt Romney (81 Delegates)

Let's face it.  Massachusetts' former governor has all-but secured his position as this year's Republican nominee.  While Newt Gingrich may have dominated South Carolina, and a retrospective recount squeezed him out of first place in Iowa by a few votes, his strong showings in New Hampshire, Florida and Nevada have given him a substantial lead and, more importantly, all of the momentum.

It is interesting to note that Romney's core supporters have mostly come from the "Whoever can beat Obama" demographic, which speaks volumes about what is most important to a vast majority of conservative voters in 2012.

•  Newt Gingrich (27 Delegates)

The former Speaker of the House had a sweeping victory in South Carolina, but has been a dwindling second ever since.  With supporters comprised mainly of the "Whoever can beat Obama, but isn't Mitt Romney" demographic, it's hard to see a path to nomination for Newt, though it's certainly far from impossible.  Probably the best debater we've seen in this election cycle, look for Gingrich to continue his well-verbalized but mostly insubstantial monologues at least until March.

• Rick Santorum (16 Delegates) 

 Perhaps the biggest surprise of Iowa, Rick "Santorum" Santorum had hoped to ride that momentum straight through to the Convention.  Unfortunately, after spending all of his time in Iowa (and most of his money) eeking out that victory, the former Pennsylvania Senator has very little to justify his continued presence in this race.  I would expect him to drop out within the week, barring surprise showings in Colorado or Minnesota.

• Ron Paul (6 Delegates) 

 If you've been paying attention, or even if you've just skimmed an article or two, you've probably surmised that we here at TPGTFS have more than a bit of sympathy for the Texas Congressman.  Supporters, yes, but realists all the same.  Having yet to finish first in any Caucus or Primary election, the "Intellectual Godfather of the Tea Party Movement" is not going to be the nominee.

The good doctor, however, may not define this as a defeat.  Let's briefly go over a few statistics so far:

1. Ron Paul has received almost double the amount of campaign contributions from active military personnel than all the candidates combined, including Barack Obama.
2. Ron Paul has absolutely dominated the youth vote in every state so far.
3.  In Nevada, Ron Paul garnered 42% of voters who said that "true conservatism" was the most important factor behind their choice.  Compare this to Gingrich at 30% AND Santorum at 24%, both of whom have billed themselves as the "true conservative" Romney alternative.

 These stats show the necessity of Dr. Paul's presence in the Republican party.  To discount him is to throw away a large chunk of these three demographics, all of whom will be vital to next year's general election against Obama.  It is very likely that Paul is positioning himself as an asset to the eventual nominee, and that the eventual nominee will be hard pressed to ignore him.  (Notice how Paul and Romney rarely go after each other, and indeed have been known to exchange compliments?)

If this is indeed the case, an intelligent Republican presidential candidate would do well to accommodate Paul and his supporters, thus changing the dialog of the election and pushing the Republican Party back toward its libertarian roots.  Especially if this candidate is Mitt Romney, who has virtually no die-hard loyalty within his fan base, Republicans will need the kind of support given to Ron Paul, specifically from the demographics that Paul has dominated.

It would be difficult for Ron Paul to call this a defeat.

Nevada Primary and the State of Small L Libertarianism

By now everyone is aware of the results of the Nevada caucus.  According to Google, with 88.9% of precincts reporting, the results are:

1. Romney (49.6%)
2. Gingrich (21.3%)
3. Paul (18.5%)
4. Santorum (10.3%)

 Now, as a realist Ron Paul supporter I understand the odds against his campaign, and so these numbers surprise me in a positive way.  That's a pretty close third, I think.  The thing is, as it happened in New Hampshire, the Paul campaign had higher expectations for this caucus, so this third place has been seen a bit of a let down.

What does that say of the success of libertarian ideas this election cycle?  Is libertarianism failing to make inroads into mainstream America because Congressman Paul could not amass more votes than Gingrich (and Romney, for that matter) even in freaking Nevada? Or does it imply that libertarianism has become so mainstream that a fairly close third place in Nevada (after a fairly close third in Iowa and a second place in New Hampshire) is just a sign of abject failure?

I think Dr. Paul is achieving something important with his campaign.  I'm not saying anything original here, it's been a talking point everywhere for months now that Dr. Paul's main goal may be simply to obtain enough delegates in the primaries to affect the Republican platform this election, perhaps add a libertarian plank or two.  But it does amaze me how successfully he has been bringing some well-established libertarian ideas (end of the "war" on drugs, sound money, etc.) more to the forefront of political discussion.  At every debate so far Paul has consistently received less time than most other candidates, and I expect this to be still true as we proceed down the primaries calendar, but being part of a smaller field he's still received a great amount of exposure.  The next debate he might be one of three (assuming Santorum drops sometime soon).  It's going to be progressively harder to ignore the good Congressman and his ideas.