Kimberly Dozier, and Intelligence and Counterterrorism writer for AP and former CBS News Baghdad correspondent asked Snowden via Twitter:

“US officials say terrorists already altering TTPs because of your leaks, & calling you traitor. Respond? http://www.guardiannews.com #AskSnowden”.

Snowden replied that each time public discussion emerges, US officials provide misleading, false assertions about the program’s value. He encouraged journalists to ask what specific terrorist attacks were thwarted solely by suspicionless surveillance that could not be gained other ways. Then he said Americans should inquire whether such wholesale privacy violations against innocent citizens are worth the sacrifice.

He then addressed Cheney’s comments that he was a traitor for violating his position to “damage the national security interests of the United States”.

Snowden responded, “It’s important to bear in mind I’m being called a traitor by men like former Vice President Dick Cheney. This is a man who gave us the warrantless wiretapping scheme as a kind of atrocity warm-up on the way to deceitfully engineering a conflict that has killed over 4,400 and maimed nearly 32,000 Americans, as well as leaving over 100,000 Iraqis dead.

To read the rest of this article: Snowden: Cheney calling me traitor is “highest honor” for an American | Washington Times Communities

Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Today, the government shut it down.

Cody Wilson, the 3-D gunsmith, libertarian law student, and founder of the non-profit innovation outlet, Defense Distributed, broke the bad news in a tweet to his followers.

#DEFCAD has gone dark at the request of the Department of Defense Trade Controls. Take it up with the Secretary of State.

— Defense Distributed (@DefDist) May 9, 2013

According to an earlier interview, Wilson received a letter from the US Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance, Enforcement Division (DTCC/END) which demanded the group remove the content in question from public domain.

The complaint reads that the “DTCC/END” will review the data Defense Distributed has released to ensure compliance with “Category I of the USML” (United States Munitions List). Apparently, releasing the files possibly violated the ITAR, or International Traffic in Arms Regulations.

Though Wilson is not legally restricted from privately manufacturing firearms, apparently sharing emerging technology without a license or written approval from the government is unlawful. “Commodity Jurisdiction” determination requests were solicited for ten of Defense Distributed’s file types, including “The Liberator.”

To read the rest of this article: US Government shuts down 3D gun manufacturer | Washington Times Communities

Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

As Reason Magazine and WTSP.com in Florida report, “Meet Kiera Wilmot, a 16-year-old student in Bartow, Florida. Before last week, Bartow High School Principal Ron Pritchard told WTSP-TV, she had “never been in trouble before. Ever.”

Curious to experiment for an upcoming Science Fair, Wilmot mixed toilet bowl cleaner and aluminum foil in a tiny 8-ounce water bottle. The student was unsure what to expect, but heard from a friend the mixture would produce non-toxic smoke. The concoction caused the bottle top to pop off and, in fact, produce smoke.

Assistant Principal Dan Durham reportedly heard the noise, investigated and called the police. The arrest report can be reviewed here.

The chemicals were legal and no one was hurt, but the activity violated the school’s code of conduct, which mandates expulsion for any “student in possession of a bomb or explosive device… while at a school, a school activity or a school bus…unless it’s used as part of a school-related activity sanctioned by and conducted by a teacher.”

Wilmot’s friends and classmates told reporters, “She just wanted to see what happened to those chemicals in the bottle,” one teen said. ”Now, look what happened.”

Principle Pritchard agreed. “She made a bad choice. Honestly, I don’t think she meant to ever hurt anyone. She wanted to see what would happen [when the chemicals mixed] and was shocked by what it did. Her mother is shocked too,” he said. “She told us everything  and was very honest. She didn’t run or try to hide the truth. We had a long conversation with her.”

Wilmot has been expelled, arrested and charged with possession/discharge of a weapon on school property and discharging a destructive device. Her family was unavailable for comment, but she, according to reports, will be tried as an adult.

Read more:  Florida schoolgirl charged with felonies for science experiment | Washington Times Communities
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

This article is the copywritten property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. Reprinting TWTC content without permission and/or payment is theft and punishable by law.

“It’s a battlefield because the terrorists think it is.” Referring to Boston, he observed, “Here is what we’re up against,” and added, “It sure would be nice to have a drone up there [to track the suspect.]” He also slammed the president’s policy of “leading from behind and criminalizing war.”

On Twitter, he suggested the Obama administration toss the court system and Constitution for “intelligence gathering purposes”. He declared the administration should hold the accused bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, as an enemy combatant. This legal status has been mostly reserved for al Qaeda and those held without charge for the last decade in Guantanamo Bay’s military facility.

Senator Graham is a known proponent of military-style detention for American suspects merely accused of terrorism. During debates regarding indefinite detention provisions in 2011, which effectively invalidated the Bill of Rights, he notoriously bellowed that Americans accused of a terrorist-related crime should be denied Due Process. “When they say I want a lawyer, you say “Shut up! You don’t get a lawyer”.

He was also a most vocal critic of Senator Rand Paul’s 13-hour filibuster designed to demand answers regarding the Obama administration’s domestic drone program. When the tide of public opinion turned against him, he stopped vocally defending the “homeland battlefield” ideology, but Graham never lets a crisis go to waste.

These statements are a lame attempt to justify the further militarization of the American justice system. While most Americans are content with disregarding this typical chickenhawk rhetoric, this narrative becomes increasingly more dangerous. All Americans should be wary when congressional leaders like Graham attempt to justify 12th century-style military custody.

To read the rest of this article: GRAHAM: Boston proves “homeland battlefield”, Constitution obsolete | Washington Times Communities

Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

The 10-year anniversary of the Iraq War is today. My Facebook feed is full of well-meaning civilians sharing photographs of honorable soldiers in venerable poses and elegant yellow ribbons. It seems as if, as time has passed, the anniversary of America’s invasion of Iraq has become a gleeful opportunity for some to demonstrate their patriotism.

It is understandable that those that never served, never loved nor lost a soldier or Marine to that war would look at this anniversary without grief. The American military is an all-volunteer force comprised of less than 1% of the population. As fewer Americans serve, the gap between civilians and military personnel widens, leaving subjects such as the Iraq War near-taboo.

The opinion-makers and news personalities setting the tempo for how this war will be remembered rarely emphasize what those close to the military community or combat veterans feel on this day: solemnly reflective and gravely concerned over the health of our nation’s moral compass.

From where some of us stand – ten years ago – millionaire politicians and chicken-hawk ivy-league pundits mobilized their resources to persuade an entire nation and the world that “liberating” Iraq would be a cakewalk, that our soldiers and military families were worthy sacrifices to eradicate Saddam’s threat to the world and liberate the Iraqi people.

Regardless of your opinion on the Iraq War, given what we’ve learned this last decade, why are otherwise good Americans equating worship of the invasion with honoring our soldiers and Marines?

After the dust of occupation settled and the trucks roared home, did we not discover awful truths about our politicians and their eagerness to wage war? Did we not reflect at all this last decade on why we went to Iraq and whether that war was the best use of our military’s energy?

In light of the last decade of revelations, is comparing this Mesopotamian endeavor to Pearl Harbor (?) or associating Iraq with 9/11 revenge responsible? Does willful twisting of history honor our troops that served? Many Americans cannot pinpoint Iraq on a map, but are intent on “celebrating victory”. Some would say this insults our warriors.

It is wonderful that the love of country inspires remembrance, but if we want to support the troops and their sacrifices of the Iraq War, Facebook photos of yellow ribbons don’t cut it.

Volunteer with the wounded at the local VA, through a local charity or by donating to a family in need. The next time a horrible policy rips education or healthcare from our veterans, pick up the phone and call the politicians responsible. Or send them an email. It takes 5 minutes to care.

If we want to honor those that served, support the troops by never forgetting that soldiers don’t determine foreign policy, we do. Never forget that we elect the opportunists willing to exchange their lives, bodies, families and sanity for international chess games played by the powerful.

If we truly care, we must never forget the mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, sisters, brothers and children that still live with the consequences of 10 years of constant deployments, emotional, physical and financial losses, and wounds seen and unseen. We must accept it is the American people’s responsibility to protect the soldiers of tomorrow from smooth lies and lofty promises of professional liars.

We must never forget where Iraq is in this world, where so many of our patriots lost their lives. We must never forget the Battle for Baghdad, Basra, Karbala, Al Kut, Mosul, the Battles of Ramadi, Sadr City and Samarra. We must never forget the Battle of Haditha and the toll taken on all involved. We must never forget Nasiriyah, Najaf, Fallujah I or II.

We must never forget the 4,804 soldiers lost in Iraq and the 32,221 wounded as well as the tens of thousands of non-combatant Iraqis lost. We must never forget the 3,263 lost and 18,333 wounded in Afghanistan. We must never forget that nearly 22 veterans kill themselves every day. We must never forget that we’re still in Afghanistan.

We must never forget that HUMAN LIVES forever altered or lost are the cost of war. We must remember that perpetual war for perpetual peace is not a worthy ambition. We must remember that military resources are not statics. And battles, soldiers, bombs and wars are not merely considerations of policy.

We must value that American tax dollars and military families are not endlessly expendable in pursuit of slippery enemies and nation-building fantasies.

More than 1.5 million Americans served in the Iraq War; some worry their sacrifices were for nothing, some say history will decide, some have tucked Iraq away and moved on, others never will. Instead of warping this day into something it is not, remember them, mourn them and support them by caring beyond the moment.

Most importantly, protect them the next time the establishment politicians and media beat the drums for another war.

To join the Facebook conversation, visit here.

Stand your Ground” by Don Troiani

DALLAS, March 14th, 2013 – A record number of Americans are tiring of our antiquated two-party system, but the left vs. right paradigm thrives. Hot button issues are seasonally thrust into the American political arena, dividing and distracting us from looming national crises.

An expanding subset of voters grasp that facing national challenges requires political evolution and trans-partisanship. They express frustration with the status quo established by yesterday’s ideological salesmen. Many wonder how fruitful dialogue is ritualistically handicapped by bickering and demagoguery.

The genuinely curious can look no further than a well-written but misleading Huffington Post article titled, “Disarming Republican Anarchists” by contributor Bob Burnett.

The right-wing is equally guilty of fear-mongering as the left, but this piece demonstrates why fruitful communication between both camps stagnates.

In the article, the author buttresses the left’s gun control argument with bad rhetoric and bizarre conspiracy theories about Republican inner-party politics. Burnett claims Washington cannot muster the will to restrict firearm ownership because the GOP is occupied by selfish, crazed insurrectionists. These “far right” lunatics are choking common sense gun control legislation.

The millions of Americans resisting controversial state and federal measures are not rational, concerned citizens with valid concerns, but disturbed “Republican anarchists”.

He writes, “As University of California linguistics professor George Lakoff observed, “[ultra conservatives] believe that Democracy gives them the liberty to seek their own self-interests by exercising personal responsibility, without having responsibility for anyone else or anyone else having responsibility for them.” Republican anarchists reject the founders’ morality, the sentiments that produced the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution.

These ultra-conservatives don’t believe in the common good or the notion that Americans have a moral responsibility to care for each other. But they do venerate the second amendment to the Constitution, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

The conflation of academic terms and offensive distortions of gun rights supporters can be forgiven, but Burnett’s tangling of opposing ideologies and misrepresentation of political realities must be addressed.

To read the rest of this article: Are “Republican anarchists” blocking gun control measures? | Washington Times Communities

Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Cornyn highlighted the contradiction and inequality of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. The sponsors had deemed assault weapons too dangerous for civilian self-defensive purchase over safety and training concerns. But under the Feinstein Law, government employees and retired law enforcement are exempt from the assault weapons ban while hundreds of millions of Americans are not.

SEE RELATED: After recent shootings, Americans reject renewed calls for federal gun controls

Coryn questioned this unnecessary, peculiar new division of property rights and self-defense. An entire new market would emerge from such a ban. If American history of the 21st century proves correct, violence would skyrocket. This congressional edict creates a foreign set of powerful rules for equal Americans.

“Is it because we [the Senate] believe they [only retired police] have some special competency and training to use these weapons to defend themselves and others, or do we think their families are worthy of special protection?”

The Senator clarified his belief that Americans must determine how best to defend their homes and communities. “If you don’t believe these weapons can be used lawfully for self-defense, then you should be offering an amendment to strike the pass for law enforcement. But of course, I don’t expect that,” Cornyn said to Feinstein and the co-sponsors.

In response to his amendment Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), a notorious proponent of gun control, demonstrated a rather callous disregard for the 1.8 million veterans residing in California, and a fundamental misunderstanding of mental health issues.

To read the rest of this article: Feinstein exempts police, not “PTSD” vets from gun ban | Washington Times Communities

To join the Facebook debate, visit the threads here and here.

Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

The capital lockdown was not founded in partisan grandstanding over President Obama’s nominee choices, nor was he questioning overseas War on Terror tactics, despite claims from opposing politicians and mainstream media.

Paul’s intention was to highlight the administration’s eerie avoidance of questions regarding the legal authority to use drone strikes against citizens in the U.S.

Today, the White House press secretary replied to Senator Paul’s questions, “President Obama would not use drone strikes on American citizens on U.S. soil,” he said.

Eric Holder confirmed in his single-paragraph post-filibuster letter, “Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on U.S. soil?” the letter reads. “The answer to that is no.”

“I’m quite happy with the answer,” Paul said. “Through the advise and consent process, I’ve got an important answer.” He still has questions about the administration’s drone policy, but for now, “I’ve kind of won my battle.”

These responses satisfy Paul’s initial inquiries, but why was this filibuster even necessary?

When Paul originally asked the Obama administration whether it presumed the authority to use lethal force against non-combative Americans on U.S. soil, the correct answer from the nation’s most powerful prosecutor should have been a resounding ‘no’.

Instead, Eric Holder wrote an evasive and manipulative letter to Paul which did not answer his question, nor concede the illegality of government assassination of non-combatants without due process on U.S. soil. Holder later informed Congress that the president can authorize lethal force against Americans, and that Congress is powerless to limit him.

To read the rest of this article: No, Eric Holder, Obama can’t murder us with drones | Washington Times Communities

Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

To join the Facebook debate, visit the thread here or here.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

“It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have [rape] whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know, if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around, or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop a round at somebody,” Salazar said.

Salazar’s remarks enraged other lawmakers and constituents. A petition demanding his resignation has circulated while others expressed their anger on his Facebook page.

“I will not have my daughter go to college in Colorado if your only means of a 130 lb. girl defending herself is to blow a whistle, vomit, or pee on the assailant. An evil person, bent on committing an evil crime will not stop unless they are physically forced to do so.  Her 130 lb. frame cannot stop most men, but her .357 mag can.

You will let her have a 15 round mag (for another gun), yet not allow her to carry when she needs it most – 8:00 at night after class…walking alone? Where is the logic? We will be taking our $30,000 tuition to another state,” said Facebook poster Naomi Moss.

“How dare you demean a woman’s judgment by insinuating we’re so incredibly stupid and emotionally unstable we’d ‘pop out that gun and pop…pop around at somebody’? Maybe you could just hang a Rape Free Zone sign next to the Gun Free Zone sign? That should make everyone safer. Or maybe do a better job of keeping rapists and other actual criminals in jail instead of treating female gun owners like irrational idiots,” said another poster.

After his comments garnered a national response from citizens across the country, Salazar apologized for any offense he may have caused, but not for his characterizing women as careless and incompetent. He maintains his position that even permit-carrying, trained women do not need firearms to protect themselves on the campuses of Colorado’s public universities.

To read the rest of this article: College women need rape whistles, not guns says Colorado lawmaker | Washington Times Communities

Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

According to police, gunfire exchanges occurred after Dorner killed and injured deputies while evading capture. He reportedly barricaded himself inside a remote cabin and remained there as law enforcement surrounded his position. With the suspect inside, officials reportedly smashed windows and detonated tear gas or smoke canisters while urging Dorner to surrender.

Without reply, officials rammed the building with a special vehicle before hearing what they believed was a gunshot from inside. Flames systematically engulfed the structure, and though Dorner’s body has not been identified at this time, authorities confirmed no one escaped the blaze. Though the chase is over, analysis of the case will occupy investigative resources in the coming months.

As details are released, questions are emerging as to the origin of the cabin’s fire. The New York Times reported that the direct cause of the cabin fire was unknown while other outlets report “tear gas” and “smoke canisters” were deployed. Most outlets state simply that the “cabin caught on fire”, not that police officers intentionally set the cabin ablaze.

But as events were unfolding, journalist Max Blumenthal live tweeted a different narrative reportedly lifted from San Bernadino Sheriff Scanner Channel 7/8 via the 5-0 iPhone app.

The live feed Blumenthal catalogued appears to indicate officers had no intention of encouraging Dorner’s surrender.

To read the rest of this story: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2013/feb/13/chris-dorner-police-intentionally-set-fire-to-kill/#ixzz2KpB1JMZV
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

An internal affairs investigation concluded the claim was false and he was released, but Dorner has set out to redeem himself and retaliate against the force and its bureaucratic protectors. He claims the conspirators participating in the police department’s rotten culture, institutionalized discrimination, are fair game for his violent, vengeful rampage.

With charges of racism a central element of both the LAPD’s shady reputation and Dorner’s complaint, two additional African American officers have attempted to reach out to the disgruntled fugitive “waging war” on the force.

Two days ago, 48-year old Joe Jones – a Los Angeles police officer of eight years turned entrepreneur – released an essay on his Facebook account disapproving Dorner’s violence while sympathizing with his claims of injustice.

He wrote, “Just like former Officer Christopher Dorner, I used to smile a lot. I loved everyone. I was voted Friendliest Senior of my Sr. Class in High School. I always believed in the system and never got into any trouble. I loved hard and gave to all I could. After Joining the LAPD in 1989 I quickly found out that the world and society had major flaws. I had flaws as well for ever believing that our system of government was obligated to do the right thing [sic].”

Jones references three incidents of injustice he experienced as an African-American, “I had my Civil Rights violated on several occasions. I was falsely arrested at gunpoint by the Sheriffs as an Officer who ID’d himself and was conspired against by both LAPD and the Sheriffs when my civil case went to trial.

To read the rest of this article: Chris Dorner: Two African-American LAPD officers appeal for surrender | Washington Times Communities

Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

“I see the world as it is. I am a realist, not a neoconservative, nor an isolationist,” Paul began, immediately distancing himself from the GOP’s increasingly unpopular war wing and critics charging libertarian conservatism breeds isolationism.

Paul explained that considering past policy successes and failures while balancing present challenges for the 21^st century is essential. Referencing Ronald Reagan’s era, he encouraged renewed suspicion of military alliances and a strong defensive military posture, but discouraged continued imperialism.su

Paul, quoting Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, linked foreign policy and the national debt crisis, “At some point fiscal insolvency at home translates into strategic insolvency abroad,” and this requires, “re-examining missions and capabilities,” and perhaps most importantly, “will entail going places that have been avoided by politicians in the past.”

He continued, reminding listeners that serious threats loom. “[Radical Islam] is no fleeting fad but a relentless force. These forces are supported by Iran and compensate for a “lack of conventional armies with unlimited zeal”. Likening the fanaticism of radical Islam to ideological extremism of communism, Paul’s strategy then begins with containment, not invasion, occupation or pre-emptive attacks.

As for Iran and its rumored nuclear ambitions, maintaining strategic ambiguity is paramount. “No one, myself included, wants to see a nuclear Iran. Iran does need to know that all options are on the table. But we should not pre-emptively announce that diplomacy or containment will never be an option.”

Paul highlighted Israeli intelligence officials’ warnings that military strikes may be premature, or even cause Iran to accelerate their nuclear program. War, then, should be a last resort, not the first option.

The Senator’s speech was fairly well-received as most Americans feel the Iraq War was a mistake and 70% want immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. Most believe future conflicts should be absolutely necessary, not built on false intelligence for resource acquisition or spreading “democracy”.  Paul challenged Washington to make commitments to national defense, not policing the world.

Career academics from pro-war, pro-intervention militarist outlets blanched at Paul’s advocacy for a constitutionally prudent, fiscally reasonable foreign policy. Writing for the National Review, Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute chastised Paul’s approach with alarmist threats and condescension.

To read the rest of this article: Conservative militarists bemoan Rand Paul’s diplomatic foreign policy | Washington Times Communities

Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Do these renderings hint at a guilty conscience for the disastrous decisions he allowed himself to be manipulated into making by neoconservative war-hawk academics. Though stopping short of admitting the Iraq War was an expensive, fruitless blunder, Bush admitted he still has “a sickening feeling” about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

In these representations, is he trying to get clean? Is he staring at his own feet and in the mirror? His back is presented to the viewer; a sign of closed communication, but the image in the mirror is only a partial view. Perhaps Bush believes we have only seen a portion of the man he is, or perhaps he only understands a portion of himself.

As a Vanity Fair writer commented, “Psychologically, it’s telling that the artist puts his reflected face in the center of the shower painting but then has his actual figure off to the side, with his back to the viewer. One imagines that a president might feel that the public has only seen a small portion of himself, and even then only a facsimile and not the real man. Intriguingly, you can read the figure with his back turned to the viewer as both defiant and, in being almost literally marginalized, melancholy. One can easily imagine Bush—a proud man but also an ex-president widely seen, even within his own party, as a failure—harboring both those emotions. If this is indeed his work, I wonder how conscious he was about choosing these compositions.”

But no matter how much water he submerges himself in, he can’t avoid the decisions he made, where he allowed himself to take the American people, or the man in the mirror. No amount of hot water can erase the blood of millions of Iraqis and thousands of my countrymen, no cleansing can erase the guilt he must feel over establishing a national security Leviathan steadily destroying the great American experiment. I almost feel sorry for him now. Almost.

You can read more here.

Interview originally posted at Speak Liberty Now. Nick Grant, co-founder of Speak Liberty Now: You know when you haven’t known someone for too long, but you feel as if you’ve known them forever? Well, for the short time I’ve known Tiffany Madison, that is exactly how I feel about my Texan partner and good friend; what a privilege it has been, too. It has been one large net gain, actually. At the risk of sounding cheesy, I can honestly tell you there is no one I know more generous, caring and real, but she wouldn’t tell you that. You have to get to know her interests and what she stands for [and be willing to put up with her political rants at 2am. Hah! Love 'em, T. Mad!] to get a glimpse of the person she is.

I’d like to direct you here [because she didn't] for a sneak peek of what she is working on. The best seller list ought to keep a ‘candle in the window because this bad boy is a comin’ home.

One other thing that she wouldn’t say herself, but is abundantly clear when you read her words – she’s bright, intensely articulate, and one hell of a writer. Let me quote her from one of her responses below; that should tell you all you need to know.

 I am an American born and bred free. To remain silent in the face of injustice is against my nature and a sin against greater men before me that sacrificed for my right to speak the truth.

What is your name/pen name?

My name is Tiffany Madison.

What Facebook page(s) do you help administrate?

I co-administrate Speak Liberty NOW and 9 other Facebook pages, though SLN is the only political page.

Do you have a website/ blog? If you do, what is it about?

I do have website TiffanyMadison.com, which contains articles, short fiction, and extras from my previously published novel Black and White (being edited for publication in hard copy now). I am not much of a blogger per say, so I’m more active on social media such as Facebook and Twitter. Facebook is my primary place of interaction, though I’m going to post more on the site in 2013!

What is the focus of your page?

The focus of Speak Liberty NOW is as the name implies: translate current events and social, political and economic issues through lens of liberty. So often the liberty movement fails to communicate our fundamental ideas to those that are just now learning of the mission and message. We want to change that and we want to provoke discussion.

Do you have a favorite page (other than the awesome one you dedicate your time to)?

I do, but I cannot choose just one. For organizations, I perk up anytime I see something from Bastiat Institute or Mises Institute. I admire Fredric Bastiat and Mises, and unlike other pages dedicated to scholars, they stay relevant and true to the causes of the thinkers. For individuals, I am a huge fan of Tom Woods, Austin Peterson and Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mic.).  They are all warrior statesman breathing life into our republic and the liberty movement. I check their pages daily and so should you.

What are your favorite kinds of posts? (comedy, informative, satire, economic, philosophical, political, etc.) 

My favorite posts are thought-provoking. I like a clever analysis, a quip or a question designed to make people think. Comedy is great. All the political posts in the world can’t compare to the hilarity of finding the Tumblr page #ronpaulproblems. Classic stuff.

Do you have a philosophy that helps you understand the world?

I’m a classical liberal. My belief in the timeless principles of classical liberalism serves as the foundation for my entire philosophical outlook. I’m an advocate for civil liberties and political freedom. Much to the chagrin of my fellow libertarians, I advocate constitutionalism, limited government under the rule of law and laissez-faire economic policy.

What do you think about politics?

Politics is life. It is the art and science of running governmental or state affairs. Nothing is more important for a citizen but to pay attention to politics and activism, or the process of becoming involved or advocating for changes within the system. That is the rent we pay for freedom. I never trust an individual that claims they care nothing for politics. Instead of accepting the machinations of this world, they simply ignore reality.

What brought you to the message of liberty?

I came to the message of liberty through studying Western philosophy in my spare time. I am a nerd for the Founders, so long ago I began studying Jefferson, Adams and Madison. From there, I delved further into their influences, exploring an entire collection of philosophers, mostly impressed with Voltaire and Bastiat and eventually working into the (pre and post-enlightenment) German and English minds (my favorite philosopher is Arthur Schopenhauer, however, though he has nothing to do with liberty per say!)

While reading their insightful, revolutionary and original works, I also researched how the powerful elite reacted to their wisdom and/or rejected it, which sparked a revelation of sorts: controlling elitists don’t like progress, ideas or change whether they pretend otherwise or not. Nevertheless, most philosophers I’ve explored have been the source of so much inspiration. I am still  learning and currently exploring Mises, Thomas Sowell and Hayek. Liberty and discovery! A never-ending process.

Who are your biggest influences?

My favorite intellectual and political philosopher is Thomas Jefferson; he is my ideological hero and through his writings and letters, I came to convert from modern liberalism to classical liberalism, or libertarianism. His faith in humanity is inspiring and as my favorite Founder, he embodies the intellectual spirit of America. He is truly the greatest American mind, and my inspiration for political activism. I can’t wait to stalk him in the afterlife.

What made you want to speak out?

I have no choice. I am an American born and bred free. To remain silent in the face of injustice is against my nature and a sin against greater men before me that sacrificed for my right to speak the truth.

What are your goals for speaking out?

To inspire and encourage others to think, wonder, explore, ponder, read, write, and discuss issues and topics crucial to an advancing, healthy and free society. Ideas must always remain seductive. Like all passionate, compassionate individuals I seek to encourage change. I want to leave the world a better place than the one I entered.

Where do you see the liberty movement headed in 1, 5, 10 years?

That depends on many unpredictable factors. The liberty movement is on the rise. Luxury and decadence have bred a carefree culture. My fellow Americans have taken for granted their foundations and liberties for too long, but as our economic situation worsens, the illusion of perpetual prosperity will fade, and we’ll be forced to reconcile the state our society is in and how we arrived there. The liberty movement will have answers based not on the fleeting, fashionable marketplace ideas, but timeless wisdom and bedrock principles of classical liberalism and its evolutionary branches.

Do you debate on Facebook? If so, what is your favorite subject to talk about?

Daily. I love uncensored idea exchange and encouraging others to think beyond the talking points we’re fed from politicians and the establishment media. We have the Internet at our disposal, which is the greatest information-sharing network in the history of humanity. We should use it. No topic is off limits and I never censor unless violence is expressed, so it’s a free-for-all. If I don’t know something about a subject, I enjoy watch the exchanges between those that do. Fruitful, productive debate and discussion have always been the spice of life for me!

Who is your favorite historical figure?

Yeshua Ha-Nozri. Despite how men have perverted His message and teachings, Christ was a philosopher to trump them all. He was the first to teach violent, selfish humans the art of humility and kindness. Through His philosophical example, individual accountability to a higher power was emphasized as well as extreme virtues He understood humans would strive toward, but never perfect. His great philosophy has inspired the hearts and minds of countless individuals throughout time, contributing significantly to the development of  Western civilization, the greatest civilization in the history of the world.

I also admire both Martin Luther and Charles Darwin as second and third favorites because I admire their work, and they were men ahead of their time. They dared to reject systems that confined their moral or intellectual principles and pursuits in favor of truth and wisdom.

Do you have a favorite quote?

“Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness. Concerning all acts of initiative and creation, there is one elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, and then providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one’s favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and material assistance which no man could have dreamed would have come his way. Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and… magic in it. Begin it now.” – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

And…

“The question isn’t who is going to let me; it’s who is going to stop me.” – Ayn Rand

Do you like politicians?

No. There are very few I respect and they’ve earned it, yet I’m not sure I could ever trust a man or woman that seeks power over others without principle or righteous purpose, which so few have.

Did you campaign for Ron Paul?

Yes, I did. Quite successfully.

What is the most annoying or frustrating thing about facing opposing arguments when debating those with differing beliefs?

Logical fallacies. If one cannot form argument based on sound judgment and appreciation of fact and reason, the discussion is pointless. I hate quitting a debate because I want to believe that all individuals are capable of rational logic, but I’ve learned sometimes that is all one can do. Walk away at your very last resort. Anything less is censorship.

Are you an activist in the “real world”?

I am an “activist” or advocate for my military veterans in the sense that I have visited congressional offices, emailed, called and corresponded with leaders serving the veteran community regarding issues that affect my nation’s former soldiers and Marines. If I didn’t have a real job, that would be another story, but my time is limited so I spend my time where my passion lies: advocating for changes that affect the veteran community. For liberty, I am more of an online advocate using my pen and passion to encourage uncensored discussion, debate and reflection. Civil liberties are sacred and I’ll always speak in their defense for my sake and for posterity.

When not handing statists their rear end in debates what do you like to do?

Write. I am finishing the edits on my novel and try to maintain a column for Washington Times Communities as well as two works in progress that I touch each week. I spend time with family and read voraciously.

Do you have a family?

I do. They are the most amazing people in my world.

Are you single and looking for a fellow liberty loving partner?

No.

What is your favorite movie or television show?

Favorite television show in the past is definitely The Sopranos. I’ve watched it over and over. Second would be HBO’s John Adams, third HBO’s Generation Kill. Boardwalk Empire, 30 Rock and Game of Thrones are top notch! I am a fan of True Blood damn it. Love my southern people! Currently I am discovering Dexter, which is epic. Favorite movie is Braveheart.

What is your favorite kind of music or song?

I love pretty much everything except cheesy new country and death metal. Southern Rock, Classic Rock and Classic Country storytelling are my favorites. For true classical, my favorite composer is Beethoven with Schubert as a second, though I enjoy Puccini and Verdi’s operas; favorite all-time band is Creedence Clearwater Revival. Alabama Shakes, Arctic Monkeys, classic Kings of Leon, and Otis Redding are in my current rotation.

This is my own interpretation, but it seems to me that the “Copybook Headings” reference holds two meanings: 1) in the 19th century, children would practice their calligraphy with eternal maxims thought universally true (he provides Western examples, but the concept transcends culture); 2) these edicts are simple recitations of interpreted natural law that don’t promise beautiful things, but represent truth. It is not kind, good, fair or evil; it just is.

The Gods of the Marketplace peddle promises and ideas, various schemes for “social progress”, and fallacious ideologies based on defying basic truths. The peddlers are politicians, philosophers, social engineers, elitist academics, pundits, tyrants, etc.

Throughout history, as society advances from the jungle to civilization, we’ve a habit of ignoring natural law or universal maxims (water is wet, fire burns) in pursuit of wordly  or “new” ideas of the marketplace, or society; these false hopes and grand lies based on hope and change are often peddled by ideological salesmen, which wield the power of new ideas to control humanity.

In pursuit of new wisdom, “[we seek] a truth that will help us deny our limited creature nature and exalt us for our mental or physical or moral prowess. Truth, that, supposedly none has known or seen before – these ideas change and pass like women’s clothing fashions.”

Our desire to defy nature, conquer natural law and evolve toward a state greater than our flawed humanity brings advancement, but leaves us susceptible for manipulation by the Gods of the Marketplace. In time, understanding of natural law is replaced by worship of marketplace ideas, education, entertainment, and even religion, which are ultimately superficial  and therefore short-lived.

Entire power structures from kingdoms to civilizations have been built and lived with these marketplace ideas as their foundation. As time cycles, favoring one power structure for another, death and destruction follow the failure of these marketplace ideas and humanity painfully realizes old truths, or natural law, out lives social, government or man-made promises.

When these Gods of government, religion and civilization fail, we are left with the violence of natural law and human nature, which is not kind, good, fair or evil; it just is.

From another intellectual, “The only sociopolitical element is the inference that “Social Progress” – this constant following of the “market place” truths will end up with mankind justifying their own existence and loosing sight that they are imperfect. From that unfortunate vantage point, they have “progressed” to the point where their downfall is the only possible fate.

The implication, then, is that those who build a life based on the truths of the Gods of the Copybook Headings will do wisely and avoid destruction. What is unclear is whether Kipling believed men capable of following the truths of the Gods of the Copybook Headings or whether he had a more cynical view of mankind and believed we are all meant to “learn the hard way” and return to them after having ignored them [universal truth, natural law] at our peril.”

History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes and every few hundred years wealth, power and fashionable marketplace ideas rise to greatness and crash and burn. Mesopotamia, Persia, Macedonia, Greece, Roman Empire, Byzantium, Mongolian Empire, Ming Dynasty, Ottoman Empire, Hapsburg Empire, French-Bourbon Monarchy, British Empire, Third Reich, Soviet Union, and United States of America.

In these modern times, the West’s unsustainable “ideas of the marketplace” steadily march toward reckoning day. In the United States, the empire upon which the entire global financial fiat-money scheme is centered, the state has erected itself as a welfare/warfare entity, defying natural law in a myriad of ways.

As we (Americans) “progressed” away from principles of self-determination and self-reliance, we’ve bought into the marketplace ideas of dependence and expectation of comfort, luxury, opportunity and entitlement only the state can promise to provide. We’ve chosen to value positive rights over protecting our negative rights, or natural rights. The Gods of the Marketplace are convincing, persuasive and full of promises they’re unable to keep (the government doesn’t even collect enough tax revenue to cover the costs of endless wars, mandatory entitlement programs and interest on the debt; we’ll eventually default or drastically cut the cord for the dependent class, which will not be pretty).

Everything about this situation screams unsustainable, but the Gods of the Marketplace continue to promise, and we continue to listen not to nature, but to them. They’re hustlers  peddlers and scheming opportunists now as they’ve always been. So goes mankind marching toward its destruction once more. In the end, perhaps that’s all we really understand.

–

AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.” 

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

Source: Kipling.org

Final thought: I cannot discern whether Kipling’s ultimate message was one of nihilism or hope that eventually, in our perpetual quest for evolution, we will evolve away from the same cycles that entrap and define us.

36% of surveyed social media users admitted changing their opinions of someone based on political content posted to Facebook or Twitter. Other surveys show that 1/5 of social media participants block, defriend or hide friends and loved ones over political posts. Surely we’ve all seen posts like this: Dear everyone: I don’t care about politics, so please shut up. We are all entitled to our opinions, but I’m going to defriend you”, or “You vote for Romney, I’ll vote for Obama just leave me to my lolcats.”
 
Thankfully, the Internet is here to help. Several handy browser tools can silence those bickering, posturing relatives, buddies, co-workers and otherwise polite strangers without using the unfriend or mute option.
 
1) The Social Fixer is a handy browser extension compatible with Firefox, Safari, Chrome, and Opera. It activates a keyword-based filter allowing you to block specific words like “Romney”, “Obama”, “Obamney”, etc. The settings are navigable once the application is active. One refresh enables the filters! Interested?
 

LifeHacker put together a wonderful how-to guide video and article worth checking out:

The best part? If you want to view a specific post, you can click the “Undo” button to see what that person actually said, so it doesn’t hide stuff completely. If your politically ignorant friends are starting to tick you off as the election gets closer, this extension is a must-have.

Unpolitic.me also works on Twitter and is relatively bug-free thanks to the masterminds at Buzzfeed and the creators of the infant-deleter, Unbaby.me.

As previously reported:

“Corporate influence in politics has gone off the charts, and it’s more important than ever for voters to understand who is financing candidates,” Evan Hansen, editor in chief of Wired.com, said according to the post. “Maplight has done the hard work of compiling the data. At Wired, we’re happy to help get that information out to the wider public, and share it as broadly as possible with this web-based embeddable widget.”

The donor information itself is pulled together by Maplight from campaign-financing figures obtained by the Federal Election Commission. Wired states that this information remains up-to-date.”

Beautiful. Check your leader below and spread the word: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/10/wired-campaign-widget/

DALLAS, August 22, 2012 — Brandon J. Raub, a 26-year-old pro-liberty activist, former U.S. Marine, and Virginia resident, was arrested after authorities deemed his Facebook posts threatening. Citing an obscure statute allowing the involuntary detainment of a citizen for psychiatric evaluation, the FBI, Secret Service, and local authorities swarmed Raub’s property to question and then seize him.

Without a warrant or recitation of his Miranda rights, Raub was handcuffed and taken into custody. After a quick hearing, government officials confirmed that Raub’s Facebook posts necessitated his detention, refusing to acknowledge legal objections that the words were wrongly interpreted. The former Marine will undergo 30 days of evaluation at Salem VA Medical Center.

Since the incident, Raub has become an online hero as the arrest video and Facebook pages teeter on the verge of going viral. Citizens from all political persuasions, veterans, civil liberties advocates and the generally curious are discussing the political manifesto and detainment of Brandon Raub.

Read more: The case of Brandon Raub: Can the government detain you over Facebook posts? | Washington Times Communities
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

This article is the copywritten property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. Reprinting TWTC content without permission and/or payment is theft and punishable by law.

DALLAS, August 16, 2012 — Julian Assange, founder and guiding spirit of the whistle-blowing organization Wikileaks, has been granted asylum by Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa, sparking a tense diplomatic stand-off between Ecuador and the West.

Ecuador’s foreign minister Ricardo Patiño explained the government’s decision to media. “The Ecuador government, loyal to its tradition to protect those who seek refuge with us at our diplomatic missions, has decided to grant diplomatic asylum to Mr. Assange,” he said.

In response to Correa’s decision, the U.K. expressed “disappointment” before privately threatening to forcibly arrest Assange if he attempted to depart for Ecuador. The foreign minister promptly denounced threats to assault the Ecuadorian embassy. “Today we received a threat from the United Kingdom; a clear and written threat that they could storm our embassy in London if Ecuador refuses to hand in Julian Assange. We want to make it clear we are not a British colony and that the times of the colonies are over,” said Patiño.

This move is bold, but unsurprising. In 2011, State Department cables showed American ambassador Heather Hodges instigating unfounded rumors of high-level Ecuadorian corruption, angering Correa’s progressive administration. According to Correa, Hodges was approached with requests to validate her claims but refused, replying with “arrogance, an imperialistic attitude and insolence.”

To read the rest of this article: Ecuador grants Wikileaks’ Assange asylum, ignites diplomatic storm with England | Washington Times Communities

Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

DALLAS, August 6th, 2012 – After the Aurora, Colorado tragedy law-makers, gun control advocates and media pundits predictably called for tougher federal laws. This reactionary process is reliable: a horrific crime sparks circular blame and the disarmament agenda is exalted.

Within days of the shooting, Rupert Murdoch was tweeting, Michael Moore appealed to emotion and Bill O’Reilly called for federal oversight of “heavy weapons”. The establishment cannot resist exploiting opportunities to promote an anti-firearm platform.

Despite media hysteria, however, the national mood shifted against new federal restrictions. According to Pew, 72% of Republicans, 55% of independents and 27% of Democrats feel protecting gun ownership trumps “controlling guns”.

As American gun ownership hits record highs awareness that “gun control laws” do not keep guns from criminals grows. Sensing this shift, most politicians sprinted from post-Aurora gun control discussions, knowing it was election season poison.

But after ABC reported that Senate Democrats would not introduce new federal laws, notorious gun-grabbers Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) broke ranks.

Read more: After recent shootings, Americans reject renewed calls for federal gun controls | Washington Times Communities
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

This article is the copywritten property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. Reprinting TWTC content without permission and/or payment is theft and punishable by law.