Mediaboss Marketing

Amid reports casting doubts on the valuation of a $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, the Senate on Tuesday considered a resolution by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., which would prevent any such deal from taking place.

The joint resolution was not passed, but Sen. Paul gave an impassioned apology for it.

Diverging from policy under both Republican and Democratic administrations, Paul argued on the Senate floor that rather than advancing American interests to end everlasting conflicts in the region, giving arms to Saudi Arabia would only prolong conflicts.

"This may make the situation with Iran worse," he argued, rather than helping the U.S. keep Iran in check. He continued, "What do you think Iran thinks when Saudi Arabia gets weapons? They think to themselves, 'well, if the Saudis are getting more, we need more.' ... We are fueling an arms race in the Middle East."

Paul also argued against the deal on behalf of Israel. "Saudi Arabia is no friend of Israel. Do they cooperate with Israel some? Yes. But their missiles are pointed at Tel Aviv."

Paul's other main argument involved Yemen.

Yemen is a nation ravaged by war, man-made famine, and a cholera epidemic, but it is often forgotten. "Everybody is listening to some silly show trials and silly stuff going on in committee. Nobody is talking about this stuff [Yemen] at all. They say it is worse than Syria. Many people have fled Syria, hundreds of thousands have died, and now many are predicting Yemen may be worse."

In his view, the Yemen conflict tragedy, really is only prolonged by Saudi Arabia, which backs the regime and has repeatedly bombed civilians.

The position of non-intervention was represented well yesterday, even though it lost the vote on Saudi arms. In the end, Paul exhorted the public to remember this conflict: "It's being done without your permission, but with your weapons."

Link:
Sen. Rand Paul uses Israel, Yemen to argue against Saudi arms deal - Washington Examiner

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said it's likely many people would have died during a shooting that occurred at the Republican baseball practice Wednesday morning had it not been "for the bravery of the Capitol Police."

"As you have likely heard a gunman with a rifle opened fire on congressmen, senators, staff and police this morning. I was there and am shaken but unharmed," Paul said in a statement.

"Many people likely would have died this morning if not for the bravery of the Capitol Police," he continued. "My thanks to them are inadequate but heartfelt. They never hesitated to put their lives on the line to save everyone. Please pray for those who were injured."

Paul and several other Republicans were practicing for Thursday's annual congressional baseball game when a gunman armed with a rifle opened fire on the practice in Alexandria, Va.

Five people were transported to local hospitals, including Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., who was shot in the hip. Scalise went into surgery Wednesday morning.

The No. 3 Republican, Scalise travels with a security detail, and Paul said had they not been there, the shooting would've been a "massacre."

Paul and others at the practice said the shooter fired at least 10 to 20 rounds before the security detail engaged him.

Multiple reports identifed 66-year-old James T. Hodgkinson of Belleville, Ill., as the shooter. President Trump said shortly before noon on Wednesday that the suspect had died as a result of police counterattack.

Original post:
Rand Paul: Bravery of Capitol Police kept us alive in congressional baseball shooting - Washington Examiner

I have a co-worker who is of Puerto Rican descent. His name is Luis. Were about the same age. Hes been married 20 years. He and his wife work, and their eldest son has just started college. We were both raised Roman Catholic. Were both concerned about terrorism. Were middle class; we have good incomes, but there are times when we have more expenses and have to balance earnings with costs. We both try our best to be financially responsible for ourselves for retirement, our property and our dependents. We work a lot during the week, and spend the weekends maintaining our homes and property, and when we have a few free hours, spend them with family and friends. Were both New York Mets fans. Neither of us collects welfare. Our parents are getting older, so we try to make their lives a bit more comfortable. We love our wives, though they drive us crazy sometimes!

I wish Luis would take his goddamn family back to Puerto Rico and stop subverting white values and raping my wife, in that order.

***

Puerto Ricans have voted to force America to accept Puerto Rico as the 51st state. Americas 20 trillion dollars of debt will have reached its tipping point when we white Middle Class workers are forced to absorb Puerto Ricos 70 billion dollars of sovereign debt; it is the straw that will break the backs of white American taxpayers, and it is enabled by GOP establishmentarians, Jewish internationalist banksters, the Deep State, feminazi enviro-fascists, and Zionist globalist accountants.

What will be the effect of Puerto Ricos brazen decision to sew another star onto Old Glory? What is all this in service to?

Its so Puerto Rico can increase the Democratic Partys share in government thereby leading to a further rejection of property norms. Its so that Jew Chuck Schumer can ensure white voters can never vote him out of office. Its so that trisexual, trans councilman, abortion coercive Nancy Pelosi can remain in power. Its so that Chicago Bears linebacker, veganist, Bolshevik MicHELLe Obama can force our children to eat asparagus.

Do all of you, dear readers, want to live in a world dominated by Marxist Islamist Mexican deconstructionist Communist post-structuralist Central American post-modern social architects?

No. No, of course you do not.

I know Im preaching to the converted, but Ill state this as explicitly as possible: Puerto Rican statehood will literally result in the eradication of the white race, and white, anglo-saxon, heterosexual, Protestant, capitalist, collectivized commons subsidizing married couples have a moral obligation to produce one child per year until joint-fertility is no longer possible.

***

Oscar Lpez Rivera of theFuerzas Armadas de Liberacin Nacional Puertorriquea is an American hero. If it wasnt for him, Puerto Rico would have been a state when our fathers wore a younger mans clothes.

Rivera, in case you dont live in the New York metro area, was told he couldnt be honored in this years Puerto Rican pride parade because he committed only over a hundred bombings in American cities. Rivera is a freedom fighter who wanted Puerto Ricans to own their own means of production instead of be exploited by interloping Zionist homosexual corporate special interest Bilderbergers, and in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Locke, Richard Spencer and Arnold Schwarzenegger, stood up to corporate job offshoring autocratic tyrants and fought for liberty for Puerto Ricans so they wouldnt be Americans and further denigrate apple pie, baseball, the Constitution, Walter Cronkite, and the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum.

If it wasnt for Rivera, Puerto Ricans would already have access to white wealth.

***

Puerto Ricos invasion of safe American spaces shows its time, now more than ever, to reassert white hegemony and to enforce peaceful ethnic cleansing. It isnt fair for unborn white Americans to suffer the burden of Puerto Ricans who will take advantage of established markets, debt-free infrastructure and publicly owned private commons. Our markets cant absorb more consumers who reject white American values. Call your elected representatives and demand they send Puerto Ricans back to Uruguay, where they belong, and where they are better off, for their own sake, as well as ours, and theirs, but mostly ours, and equally theirs.

***

And thats the way it is, as far as you know.

Image: Terry Sparkman

This post was written by Dillon Eliassen.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Dillon Eliassen is the Managing Editor of Being Libertarian. Dillon works in the sales department of a privately owned small company. He holds a BA in Journalism & Creative Writing from Lyndon State College, and needs only to complete his thesis for his Masters of English from Montclair State University (something which his accomplished and beautiful wife, Alice, is continually pestering him about). He is the author of The Apathetic, available at Amazon.com. He is a self-described Thoreauvian Minarchist.

Like Loading...

Follow this link:
Shortcuts & Delusions: Puerto Rican Statehood Is White Genocide - Being Libertarian

Last fall, the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire reached an important milestone: They managed to get 4 percent of the vote in the governors race, giving them official party status and a place on New Hampshire ballots. But a snag for one candidate seeking to run in the House special election highlights the fact that many of the state election laws were still built for a two-party system.

When a House seat opened up in Grafton, John Babiarz wanted to run as a Libertarian in the upcoming special election.The problem? When he went to register, he says the town clerk blocked him from changing his party registration from undeclared and filing necessary paperwork to be on the ballot.

In a normal election cycle, the law gives voters a chance to change their party affiliation before the filing period for a primary election.

Typically before an election season starts, there is an opportunity for voters to meet with the Supervisors of the Checklist and change their party affiliation before the filing period opens, Deputy Secretary of State Dave Scanlan explained. That gives the voter an opportunity to become a candidate in the party they want, but also any voters party affiliation is locked in from the filing period until after the primary election.

But Babiarzs case highlighted a gap in the state law for special elections: The window of time between when an elections called and when the filing period starts is much narrower and doesnt allow for the same flexibility for candidates like him to change party status.

In this case of the special election, the governor and council set the date of the special election, and its done on a Wednesday. The filing period starts the following Monday. So theres very little opportunity for the Supervisors of the Checklist to call a meeting together and properly advertise it.

And whats new about this process, both Scanlan and Babiarz noted, is the inclusion of another political party that wasnt previously recognized.

I think for too long, the two major parties had everything set. They were comfortable with it. But when you have a new party with special elections They didnt take that into consideration that a new party would just start ramping up new membership, people may have not changed over to have the valid thing to run like everybody else.

On Tuesday, the state ballot law commission sided with Babiarz, ordering election officials to allow him to add his name to the ballot for the July 18 primary.

The commission said the law needs to be updated to fix the gap this case illustrates something Babiarz hopes to have the chance to do, should he win his bid for the seat, as a Libertarian.

View original post here:
Ballot Law Commission Grants Libertarian Candidate a Spot in NH House Special Election - New Hampshire Public Radio

Step back from the daily headlines of the Trump administration.

After almost 6 months under President Trump and the 115th Congress, the United States is in a strange position: Republicans enjoy a decisive partisan advantage, controlling the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives.

Yet GOP officials have no mandate to govern. (And neither, of course, do Democrats.) The country is adrift as a result, even amid significant challenges that confront it at home and abroad. And it is likely to stay adrift through the 2018 midterms, when voters can next send a clear signal about their preferred course.

Until then, Trumps allies will remain frustrated by the stiff opposition their champion faces. Some cast that opposition as illegitimate, given that Trump won the 2016 election. They insist that allegations about collusion with Russia and entrenched opposition from the bureaucracy are unfairly stymieing the White House.

But even if Trump is vindicated on Russia and gains greater sway over the federal workforce, this fact will remain: Voters preferred his opponent by a margin of more than 2 million, even though the Democratic nominee was a weak, corrupt candidate.

Yes, the Electoral College confers absolute legitimacy on its winner.

But it cannot confer an accompanying mandate on a candidate who loses the popular vote by so much. In fact, asked after the election if Trump had a mandate to carry out the agenda he campaigned on, or if he should compromise on matters that his Democratic rivals strongly oppose, just 29 percent of Americans said he had a mandate. And even that 29 percent may feel differently about matters where Trump campaigned on one agenda only to pursue a distinct or contrary course in office.

Trumps initial lack of a mandate has been underscored by his consistently dismal approval ratings. A clear, growing majority says it disapproves of his performance. Nate Silver reports that even part of his base seems to be eroding: Theres been a considerable decline in the number of Americans who strongly approve of Trump, from a peak of around 30 percent in February to just 21 or 22 percent of the electorate now.

The Republican Congress (and its own dismal approval rating) only complicates matters.

All of its members were duly elected, too. Most of those senators and representatives ran on platforms that clash bigly with Trump on immigration, trade, foreign policy, or some other vital matter. (The GOPs primary electorate may have rejected Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz as presidents; but voters in Florida, Kentucky, and Texas Senate races chose them, even as voters in House Speaker Paul Ryans district chose him over a Trumpian challenger.)

At times, divides among Republicans are as sharp as their disagreements with Democrats, as Americans have witnessed watching GOP attempts to repeal and replace Obamacare. Doing so has proved so difficult in large part because both Donald Trump and Republican leaders in Congress were long unwilling to level with the public about the tradeoffs that must be made to reshape the health-care system.

They promised a costless improvement on Obamacare.

Trumps inconsistent rhetoric on health care and his preferences on infrastructure spending sometimes seem to align with Democrats more strongly than with those of Republicansand little surprise, given his previous incarnations as a registered Democrat, his donations to Democrats, and the praise he once lavished on the Clintons. But Democratic legislators will have a hard time compromising with Trump even on matters where their beliefs overlap, given how fully he has alienated the partys base with the charge that Obama is a secret Kenyan, the claim that Mexico is sending us rapists, and the boast that famous men are able to grab women by their genitals without asking.

Some conservatives are similarly unwilling to support Trump because they believe his glaring defects in character and judgment outweigh any policy agreements. And internal disagreements within both political parties are likely to go unresolved so long as Trump is in office because his polarizing quality has only intensified the degree to which American politics is now composed of people driven by their antagonism to other factions more than by their attraction to any positive agenda for the country.

Trump began his tenure by suggesting that a country so divided would be failing. We must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, but always pursue solidarity, he declared in his inaugural address. When America is united, America is totally unstoppable. The ensuing months have confirmed what was evident at the time: America will never be united under Trump, a divisive man who cannot even unite his own party behind a coherent agenda.

A new national pride will stir our souls, lift our sights, and heal our divisions, he declared. But as long as he is president, tens of millions will rightly or wrongly regard him as a stain on Americas character and regard his tenure as a national shame.

Those are the stark political realities that the Trump administration and the GOP Congress will keep facing, even if resolution comes in the Russia investigation, the still-hidden tax returns, Trump family profits from foreign dealings, the leaky White House, and the national-security officials who mistrust their commander in chief. While those realities persist, America will prove unable to solve most of the significant problems that confront it at home or abroad. It is a handicap of our own making.

See the original post:
Republicans Are a Majority Without a Mandate - The Atlantic