Lawyers For Ron Paul Civil Rights (Voting Rights) Lawsuit FAQ

INQUISITION NEWS T-Shirts

Front

Back

Available at: Cafe Press

The Cowboy Byte

Today's Featured Article:

Obama Mega-Donor And “Patriotic Millionaire” Makes Huge Profit By Shorting Obama-Funded Solar Company…

Today's Cowboy Headlines:

Headlines you might have missed:

WND News Alerts

Farmers: Let us use the water in our own wells

Colorado farmers, who are watching their crops wither in a severe drought – but are forbidden by state lawmakers and bureaucrats from irrigating them – have joined together to ask the governor to use his executive authority to just let them pump their own wells.
They have water in the wells. The water table is so high it's flooding basements in some places. And millions of dollars in investments are at stake.

Now, the farmers may have found a way to get the politicians' attention. They're saying: No water, no crops ... no crops, no farm income ... no farm income, no state taxes for you.

Read the latest now on WND.com.

Plus!

The Department of Homeland Security isn’t meeting up to a quarter of service requests for air and marine backup to meet potential homeland security threats, according to the congressional watchdog Government Accountability Office.

Some of these non-responses are occurring at locations designated as high priority based on threats.

Click here for details.

Must Read News

Banning Bibles out of line, Congress told

Other Highlights

CAIR-Michigan chief attacks Jews in 2 speeches
Feds to chop down $14,000 Idaho treehouse
Customer goes Chuck Norris on robber

Make WND your homepage today!

Daily Blessing

Your daily dose of spiritual inspiration
Today's Scripture reading from the Holy Bible

Joke Of The Day

Fasten your seatbelt

Today's Poll

Can I hear an Amen?

These New Drones Are Like Nothing The World Has Ever Seen

BAE

Walter Hickey

Even with drones already dominating the skies, neutralizing adversaries and covertly collecting data, new research is still underway on the generation of pilotless planes to come. And the United States isn't the only country interested in developing long-range and lethal drone technology.
See the pictures >
Groups of European and Asian nations — allies and former adversaries alike — are busy investing in next-generation unmanned aerial vehicles of their own.
These UAVs — some in development, some testing, and some already in service — are part of a global competition to gain aerial superiority.
But right now, only a handful of companies are working seriously on this next wave of drones. Some are researching independently, some are working for a single nation, others are working for a dozen.
Here's the top tier of next-gen drone tech.

Northrop Grumman X-47B

Northrop Grumman Courtesy Photo

The strike fighter was developed by Northrop Grumman as part of a research contract awarded in 2007. Look for these in use for the Navy, which hopes to use them as carrier-based drones. Tests for that begin in 2013. National Origin: United States
Intended Customers: United States Military and clandestine services
Status: In development, used by Navy for testing
Cruise Speed: around 420 mph, (Mach 0.55)
Wingspan: 62 ft
Range: At least 2,400 miles

Boeing Phantom Ray

Boeing Courtesy Photo

The project was hatched in 2007, and was carried out in utmost secrecy. The drone's development was funded internally, without funding from the government of military. The Boeing Phantom Ray, which precedes the development of the Phantom Eye, is Boeing's planned ground strike and surveillance drone. National Origin: United States
Intended Customers: United States Military and clandestine services
Status: In development, maiden flight April 27, 2011
Cruise Speed: 614 mph (Mach 0.8)
Wingspan: 50 ft
Range: 1500 miles

General Atomics Predator C Avenger

General Atomics Courtesy Photo

This drone is incredible. The Predator line of drones currently in constant use in Afghanistan and Iraq were the first ever weaponized UAVs. This model follows up with a reduced heat signature and speed boosts. It boasts an upgraded "quick response armed reconnaissance capability" from its predecessors. National Origin: United States
Intended Customers: United States Military and clandestine services
Status: Deployed. Maiden flight April 4, 2009
Max Speed: 460 mph
Wingspan: 66 ft
Range: 20 hours

BAE Systems Taranis

Fun Fact: the Taranis is pictured here in an Anechoic chamber, a room which cancels out sound or electromagnetic waves. It's used for calibration, testing, and measurements.

BAE Systems Courtesy Photo

BAE Systems, a major supplier of aircraft to the Royal Air Force, began development of their drone after being allocated funds from the British Ministry of Defense. The project also involves General Electric and Rolls Royce, and the aircraft is named after the Celtic god of thunder. National Origin: United Kingdom
Intended Customers: United Kingdom
Status: Ground tests complete, Flight trials upcoming
Cruising Speed: Unknown
Wingspan: 30 ft.
Range: Expected intercontinental

Dassault nEUROn

Replica nEUROn

Eurocopter Tigre / Wikimedia

The name refers to intended buyers of the planned drone, the European community. Flight tests were planned for last year but were delayed to late 2012. Pictured here is a replica of the aircraft, as the project is being closely protected by manufacturer Dassault. National Origin: France
Intended Customers: Euro-zone nations, especially France, Italy, Sweden, Spain, Greece.
Status: Maiden flight planned for 2012
Cruising Speed: Undetermined, Top speed 0.8 Mach
Wingspan: 41 ft
Range: Unknown

EADS Cassidian Barracuda

Cassidian (EADS) Courtesy Photo

The Barracuda is a project of German and Spain to develop a ground-attack drone. The test model, despite a successful maiden voyage, crashed into the Atlantic is late 2006. Germany initiated the program with Spain after abstaining from involvement in the nEUROn project for fiscal reasons. National Origin: Germany and Spain
Intended Customers: Euro-zone nations, especially Germany and Spain, possibly Italy and Sweden.
Status: Maiden flight April 2006. Remains in development.
Cruising Speed: Uncertain, Top Speed 0.85 mach
Wingspan: 24 ft
Range: Unknown

Mikoyan Skat

Pycckue / Wikimedia Commons

Made by Mikoyan — formerly MiG — the Skat was developed as one of two concept drones for the Russian government. Skat means "manta ray" in Russian, and the aircraft would be used against enemy air defenses and as an attack drone. Development was discontinued recently. National Origin: Russia
Intended Customers: Russia
Status: Discontinued. Work on Russian drone project to be continued by Sukhoi Holding.
Cruising Speed: N/A, Top Speed was 500 mph
Wingspan: 37 ft
Range: N/A

Lockheed Martin RQ-170

Sam_Churchill / Flickr

Details on this one are sparse, mostly because the RQ-170 was developed by Lockheed Martin for covert use. A significant setback occurred with the capture of one in-service RQ-170 by Iran. The Air Force, which uses the RQ-170 already for surveillance purposes, has contracted Lockheed Martin Advanced Development Programs to make the drones. National Origin: United States
Intended Customers: United States Military and clandestine services
Status: In service with U.S. Air Force. One allegedly crash landed, and is in Iranian possession
Top Speed: Information unavailable
Wingspan: around 39 ft
Range: Information Unavailable

Drones aren't going away any time soon

U.S. Air Force

Now Click Here For The Coolest Military Gear From Skunk Works, Phantom Works And DARPA >>;

When Murray Rothbard Endorsed George Bush

Murray Rothbard is considered by many to be the founding father of the libertarian movement. More than this, he coined the phrase “anarcho-capitalism” which is about as radically libertarian as you can get. Rothbard’s “Man, Economy and the State” is considered quintessential Austrian economic reading, and last but not least, Mr. Rothbard was a personal friend of the greatest champion of liberty of our time, Ron Paul.
I actually don’t agree with Rothbard’s endorsement of President George H.W. Bush in this 1992 Los Angeles Times column. I understand why congressman and senators have to sometimes make endorsements as political strategy, like Richard Nixon endorsing and campaigning with his Republican nemesis Barry Goldwater in 1964. I wish Nixon endorsing Goldwater really did mean that Dick had adopted Barry’s philosophy, but of course his presidency proved this wasn’t true.
Just because you endorse someone doesn’t mean you necessarily believe everything they stand for. In fact, I would argue that the majority of endorsements for any political office and in any party are almost always about political strategy more than anything else.
In his role as philosopher, intellectual and commentator, I would not have joined Rothbard in endorsing President Bush, and I was a Pat Buchanan supporter just as Rothbard was. Then again, at that age, maybe I would have–the last time I voted for a Republican candidate for president in the general election was in 1996. It was for Bob Dole. Why? Because I was 20 years old and Pat Buchanan told me to.
But every presidential election after that I voted third party: Buchanan/Reform Party in 2000, Michael Peroutka/ConstitutionParty in 2004, Chuck Baldwin/Constitution Party in 2008. As a mere conservative pundit, I can afford to simply vote my conscience. Washington political leaders have other things to consider, and not just for them, but the constituents they represent.
Some even have movements they represent. Ron Paul’s movement is slowly (not even slowly in some states) but surely taking over the GOP from the grassroots up. Any endorsements made or not made are done with our movement’s goals and efforts within the GOP in mind, whether some understand this or not.
That said, does anyone think that because Murray Rothbard endorsed President George H.W. Bush in ’92, that everything else Rothbard stood for, wrote and believed simply evaporated? Does anyone think Rothbard endorsing Bush represents the be-all-end-all of his political legacy?
That would be absurd. It would be giving too much credence to the mere act of endorsing.
From the July 30, 1992 issue of The Los Angeles Times:

COLUMN RIGHT/ MURRAY N. ROTHBARD : Hold Back the Hordes for 4 More Years : Any sensible American has one real choice–George Bush.

July 30, 1992|MURRAY N. ROTHBARD | Murray N. Rothbard is a professor of economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and academic vice president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Ala

As often happens, my current quandary was put best by my old friend, Prof. Ralph Raico. He was an ardent Buchananite, but as the horrible nomination of “Slick Willie” loomed, he began to admonish me, in his hilarious mocking half-serious tone: “Remember Murray, we must do nothing to harm the President.” When the Perot phenomenon hit, Raico, for some unaccountable reason, failed to share my enthusiasm for the little punk from East Texas. After the Great Betrayal, I was ranting and raving over the phone to Raico, who took it all in, and then concluded: “I’m glad to see you’re working your way back to the President.”

Yes, gulp, I’m down to the grim, realistic choice: Which of two sets of bozos is going to rule us in 1993-1997?

No one has been more critical of George Bush than I, but yes, dammit, I am working my way back to the President. What? “Four More Years?” Yes, there is only one rational answer for the conservative, the libertarian, or indeed any sensible American.
In Bush’s favor:
–First and foremost, Bush ain’t Clinton.
–Bush has kept his cool and not gotten American troops or even airmen in a shooting war in the former Yugoslavia. The poor Bosnian Muslims claim that all the United States need do is bomb Serbian gun emplacements around Sarajevo. Rubbish. Objective military experts say that it would take a 500,000-man expeditionary force to secure Bosnia and Sarajevo, and God knows how many more to roll back the Serbs. America, keep out of Bosnia!
–Bush has the most even-handed Middle East policy since Jack Kennedy. The most credit, of course, goes to Secretary of State James A. Baker III, who formulated this policy and maintained it under vicious pressure. But Bush deserves credit for picking Baker and backing him up. With only a little stretching, Bush/Baker can even take credit for the Israeli election that got rid of Yitzhak Shamir.
–Last but certainly not least: The President is about to reconcile with Pat Buchanan. At last, Bush has shown some smarts, and perhaps even a spark of a sense of justice. After a vicious and despicable smear campaign by Rich Bond, William Bennett, Dan Quayle et al., the Bush people–while of course not apologizing–are at least implicitly repudiating their own smears by rolling out the welcome mat for Buchanan. Which brings us to the ghastly specter of Clintonian Democracy.
Against Clinton:
–Clinton as Southern moderate is the Big Lie of the 1992 campaign. He is a McGovernite. When he says “investment,” he means government spending.
–The Clinton-managed Democratic convention was the most leftist ever: multiculturalism reigned triumphant, with “Lesbian Rights” banners almost as prevalent as “Clinton for President.” Clinton means the triumph of ultrafeminism, trillions more of our dough for inner cities and the aggrandizement of phony “rights” over the genuine rights of private property.
–Al Gore was one of the biggest spenders in the wild-spending recent Congress. Gore, furthermore, is an extreme-left environmentalist, and he shores up Clinton’s left flank on this issue.
–Never forget the menace of Hillary Clinton. Sure, they cleaned up her act until November; they shut her up, bobbed and blonded her hair and took that damned headband off, and made her look like a sophisticated matron instead of an aging grad student. But if Clinton wins in November, Hillary will be back: in control, nasty, tough and very leftist.
Read Murray Rothbard’s entire column

National security expert: Law of the Sea treaty a ‘question of sovereignty’ [VIDEO]

By Paul Conner

For three decades, the United States has declined to sign on to a U.N. treaty that would give unprecedented taxing and permitting authority over activity on international waters to a U.N.-created agency.
But the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has been making its way though committee in the Senate, and a vote could come up before the end of the year. (RELATED: Trent Lott explains support for treaty he once opposed in the Senate)
National security analyst Frank Gaffney warns that signing the treaty would cede a significant portion of American sovereignty to an international body that is not electorally accountable to U.S. citizens.
“Suddenly, there isn’t a part of our society, our economy, our industrial capacity that isn’t going to be at the mercy of people who are completely unaccountable to us,” Gaffney told The Daily Caller’s Ginni Thomas. “This is a question of sovereignty.”
“It’s a question of America as we have known it, and I believe President Obama is determined to try and jam this through, because he recognizes it will be the perfect complement to the other wrecking operations that he’s been running against the rest of our country,” he continued.
The treaty has support from companies like Shell Oil, business groups like the American Petroleum Institute and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elected officials like President Barack Obama, Sen. John McCain and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
Gaffney, president of the Council for Security Policy, is urging interested parties to read the treaty instead of taking other people’s word that the it benefits the U.S.
“What’s in this treaty is actually not in the interest of the oil and gas industry,” he said. “What will flow from this treaty … is not going to be in the interest of the United States Navy or the military, more generally. And more to the point, it’s not going to be in the interest of the American people.”