"The real stunner was the conquest of the sometime anti-interventionist junior Senator from Kentucky."

Really, Justin, this is only a surprise for those who wore rose colored glasses or who believed whole heartily in dynasty politics.

"By joining the wrecking crew of Cotton & Co., Sen. Paul has proven he cares more about gaining the approval of neoconservatives who will always hate him than he does about preventing a major war in the Middle East."

This has been clear ever since he supported Romney for President. All this time wasted by those for whom hope sprung eternal regarding Rand Paul.

To top off his signature fiasco there is also his colonial plan to remake the middle east by redrwaing the borders. The more he speaks the more dangerous Rand Paul becomes.
http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/11/rand-pauls-plan...

"My fear is that Sen. Paul will give ammunition to those sectarians who call themselves libertarians and yet are content to sit on the sidelines, criticizing anyone who enters politics as a "sellout": these habitual naysayers are too busy contemplating their own pristine-pure virtue to notice anything going on in the real world, and our movement would be better off without them."

This is a canard. The many people who supported his father in politics have not supported Rand Paul precisely because he is the near anti-thesis of everything his father stood for but yet they were involved in Ron's real world campaign. Words and actions do matter and when they are the right ones people will get engaged. Rand Paul has been off the rails from the beginning of entry into electoral politics and was seen clearly as being so by many.

The upside to this is clarity. Even those with those rose colored glasses will find it hard to ignore reality now.

Given what Putin did to Grozny I can understand the thirst for revenge against him by the Islamists. It is a mistake I think to call any one 'terrorists' these days, especially those who act out of revenge for the deaths of those they once knew by state sponsored 'terror'. At least a question pops up in my mind when I read articles such as this one which indicate no doubt about such labels in the author's mind.

Aside from those who are international interlopers there are no clear good guy or bad guys, just those who want to get back at those who did them harm.

p { margin: 0; }
It is nearly impossible to correct a wrong under 209a for your own situation. Even if/when you 'win' you have already lost your time, money and peace of mind. If you have children you have lost your time with them. Get involved politically to change the laws for your children. If you are in Massachusetts attend the Governor's Council hearing noted elsewhere on this website on Wed. Oct. 21.

p { margin: 0; }
I believe they can but suggest you sign up on our website (www.fatherhoodcoalition.org) for the Fathers' List email board. Lots of information by many individuals available available.

We plan to present similar questionnaires to nominees for the family courts and question them on them on custody and child support issues. When/if district court judges are re***igned to family court we have the opportunity to question them on these family court issues as they go through the public nomination process once again.

Yes...This is worth reviewing. If quoted accurately ( " McChrystal rejected the growing call among members of Congress and the Obama Administration to scale back his broad ambitions for a complete military victory ") it appears to be a direct challenge to the power of president to decide foreign policy . If so, McChrystal has forgotten he acts solely at the discretion of civilian control.

"The Guardian Council has insisted that the millions of apparently fraudulent votes would not be enough to alter the outcome..."

Athough this is the latest Western talking point in the accusation of 'fraudulent votes', referring to the 50 cities wherein more votes were cast than the number of residents eligible to vote, the fact that voters are not restricted to casting ballots in their own district should indicate to Jason Ditz a strong note of caution is in order before using this accusation so loosely.

The underlying theme of this article seems to be that the Iranian government is bad and therefor you should expect any election there to be a fraud. The predisposed attitude against Iran
is clear when dismissing Khamenei's speech as weird and rambling. I listened to his speech and thought it anything but that. It seems the Mr. Raimundo's does not accept the religious belief of other peoples and his disdain for Islam is driving his criticism of the government and the election results.

Yes, Buchanan's idea rests on the claim of fraud although he is smart enough to know there is no basis for it. His argument, depending solely on a belief/hope that the Iranian government has no legitimacy, is that of a shallow 'non-interventionist'.

Good comments (jackbootstate, hibckus, Micus_pyre) on this board.

I find Raimundo comments to be straight out of interventionist play book :
" In any case, the Mousavi challenge was a frontal assault on the legitimacy of the current regime, and they have responded just as tyrannical elites have always responded, with deadly force and brazen fraud."

Deadly force? In the one shooting now publicized the Revolutionary Guard building was being attacked by the protesters. Does he not believe in self defense?

In some posted videos the police are being attacked and then respond with thier batons. The still photos cover only the baton weilding police.

Being the water boy for propaganda does not promote non-interventionism.