I now know a little bit how you feel whenever you write about the hallowed U.S. military.  I write a column about beer -- beer! -- once a week and yesterday made the mistake of joking that this weekend we should honor those who serve us beer. Although I agree with every word you write about the military, the column is about beer so I leave politics out of it.

Well, some self-described vet almost immediately commented about how disrespectful, etc. I was. I shrugged it off. This morning lo and behold I received hate mail from this guy calling me names and telling me he has contacted the publisher of my piece and complained about my "satirical garbage" and so on and so forth. Instead of using my email address, which is at the bottom of everything I write, he apparently Googled me, found my old business website, and used the contact form on there so he could keep his identity secret and provide no email address where I might respond. Classy.

All this over a column about beer. That didn't even mention veterans or the war dead at all. Which I guess is the problem because these brave heroes fighting for our freedom are so emotionally fragile that you had better constantly be saluting their favorite institution or they will melt down. You know, the institution that's responsible for all those war dead we are supposed to honor in the first place. (At least the American ones; never mind anybody on the receiving end of all this "heroism.")

I can only imagine the sorts of horrible, horrible junk that must fill your inbox constantly. Thanks for what YOU do; I know you are at least reaching those who are receptive to the truth.

From the 101st Airborne during Korea, F__k you ____. You disgust me with your whole thought process. I hope the mods leave this thread here so the whole forum can see what a f__ktard you really are. This has NOTHING to do with honoring our fallen heroes. Instead, you spit on them.  F__K YOU! Since you obviously hate America, and despise anyone who defends it, please PACK YOUR S__T and GET THE F__K OUT!

Get ready for the Memorial Day "support the troops" orgy. Hornberger's "open letter" is a good way to present the truth out of the mouth of a veteran.

RT’s Abby Martin talks to LRC contributor Russ Baker, managing editor of WhoWhatWhy.com, about President Obama withholding more than 50 thousand pages of JFK assassination-related documents and outlines the unanswered questions about the case. This is a terrific interview.

And yet the TSA’s deviants merrily continue groping us.

Now, a mere three or four months after the agency's chief thug, John “The Pervert” Pistole, proposed permitting the serfs to carry pocketknives aboard planes, those same legislators vigorously and efficaciously oppose his whim. One hundred and forty-five of these worthless leeches galvanized themselves to sign a petition, ordering The Perv to continue stealing our knives at the checkpoints; not a single one of them ever cared enough to sign, much less initiate, such a document against sexually assaulting the serfs. (Hmmm. Consider the Constitutional crisis when Congress must beseech a bureaucracy to redress its grievance.) No less than four of these elected criminals have introduced a bill to outlaw The Perv’s measure.

What made the difference? Read the unions’ glowing defense of one obedient Congressional dimwit. For reasons I haven’t fathomed, the unions cursing aviation adamantly oppose allowing knives on planes. And when bought-and-paid-for lackeys like Markey face a challenge for office, the unions reward them.

So long as the serfs have only the Constitution rather than a union with millions of dollars at its disposal protecting them, the TSA will blithely paw us.

In Seattle recently (actually, Oregon but reported by CBS Seattle) a woman who was about to be raped (or worse) called 911 and was told by the dispatcher that the cops were not available to help her because of "budget cuts."   Dial 911 and die.  As Ron Paul once said, you are safe in your home not because the cops are driving around in circles in your town, but because of the Second Amendment.

This humble yet learned Amish farmer faces the ruin of his farm, his family, and jail time in a trial that highlights the utter depravity of the so-called authorities who claim the right to rule over the rest of us.

Over and over thugs raided the peaceful Hershberger's farm, destroying his property and terrorizing his ten children. His crime was selling a product that has been consumed from time immemorial and which thousands upon thousands of families (including this writer's) increasingly swear by as healthful and wholesome: unprocessed, fresh milk.

Hershberger was caught up in a hell of Kafka's worst nightmare:

"The state is arguing that Hershberger violated the law by selling milk (raw) while he was not licensed. But here's the problem: licensing requires that milk producers sell to a licensed processing plant. If you don't sell to a plant, you aren't licensed. At issue is not the fact that Hershberger failed to obtain a license, but that he cannot get a license, period, to sell milk because he was no longer shipping to a plant. Instead, he was attempting to sell raw milk directly to buyers or buying club 'members' who had purchased shares in cows. But no one is allowed to say that."

His trial is a repulsive, Darkness at Noon, mockery of justice, where the judge forbade the words "raw milk" from even being uttered in the courtroom where the very "crime" is that Hershberger sold raw milk to willing customers! Every time this forbidden phrase was about to come out of the mouth of either side in the trial, the judge ordered the jury to be quickly removed from the courtroom to protect them from even hearing this dangerous term.

California raw milk entrepreneur and activist Mark McAfee was forbidden from entering the courtroom due to a mere suggestion of the banned term:

"McAfee was not allowed to wear his organic pastures t shirt in the courtroom because of its reference to raw milk."

A woman wearing a t-shirt that read "Got Initiative" was likewise banned because of the milk implication of her chosen attire.

A teen-aged girl was forced by the court to remove a button that simply said “Raw Milk Me.”

Hershberger's children were forced to listen to the dedicated father that they no-doubt idolized being portrayed as a dangerous criminal for selling unadulterated, natural, healthy, chemical-free meat and dairy products to grateful customers.

Here is an actual exchange between a defense witness, the defense attorney, the prosecuting attorney, and the judge:

Defense testimony from one of Vernon Hershberger's buying club members since 2004, Joseph Plasterer, as to how he came to seek out farm's food.

Plasterer: "We were looking for some natural milk sources, in early 2004."

Defense lawyer: Did you come and meet the Hershbergers?

Plasterer: "Yes. We asked if we could be part of the farm…

Defense: Did you have a reason?

Plasterer: "My son was not thriving…"

Prosecution: "Objection!"

Judge Guy Reynolds: "Sustained"

Plasterer: "We wanted access to unprocessed food that was higher quality that would not be available from the stores."

Prosecution: "Objection!'"

Judge Reynolds: "Sustained. Strike the answer. The jury is to ignore that."

As it happens, we took a brief break today to travel to a rural farm not far from the artificiality of suburban life to pick fresh strawberries from a young farm family that was trying to transform their 100 year old family farm to meet the exploding demand for fresh, wholesome, local food. They set aside some of their barley fields to grow fresh local produce with no chemical applications. But the county, they informed us, had fought them every step of the way. Their planned farm shop was delayed at least a year (at enormous financial loss) due to bureaucratic resistance to their wishes. Any value-added product is strictly forbidden, forcing them to only sell the peach rather than a delicious pie made from the raw materials. It is absolutely inhuman.

The food freedom movement is rapidly becoming the most fundamental issue of our time, as there can be no more central issue than the state demanding to approve the very sustenance with which we chose to nourish ourselves. Cannabis decriminalization, wiretapping, IRS thuggery, and other issues are indeed important to the struggle for individual liberty. But if we surrender to the state the authority to dictate what we are allowed to feed ourselves and our families then little else matters afterward.

Let us pause to reflect on the noble, kind, gentle, peaceful businessman who faces jail time for crossing the inhuman, totalitarian authorities:

Who was more politically savvy on this matter, Osama bin Laden or George W. Bush? Or the neocons who influenced him? Or the U.S. Congress? Or Barack Hussein Obama for that matter? The degree of over-reaction and blunders by all of these and the Empire is so astounding that bin Laden must be judged to have been more politically shrewd. His death doesn't take one grain of sand away from this conclusion.

* disparaging Aussie slang for British person

"Nationality?" asks the immigration officer.

"German," she replies.

"Occupation?"

"No, just here for a few days."

Rome went from republic to empire in a clear fashion. Caesar crossed the Rubicon. Washington's transition is fuzzier and has taken longer, but it's to the same end. The country is run by a collection of Caesars, expanding the triumvirate into a multumvirate, and leaving in place a facade of totally hollowed out, anti-republic, democratic institutions. The American Republic is dead and buried. May it rest in peace. Long live the Empire!

Kerry is on the stage and holds the stage, and he wants a curtain drawn so that we cannot see the actual play going on. He wants to be in front of the curtain showing us a faux play. He wants as much as possible secrecy and media control. This is why the attacks of the Obama administration on leaks, whistle blowers and investigative reporting are so very, very dangerous. This is why the monitoring and surveillance of reporters and such as antiwar.com are so extraordinarily dangerous. This is why free speech is so incredibly important. We can use 100 of Lenny Bruce.

I think I can set their minds – such as they are – at ease. No self-respecting thief out there lusts after your identities, you jack-booted thugs. Indeed, you couldn’t even give them away. Who wants to be known as a paranoid control-freak and pedophile, let alone a pervert strip-searching grandmothers while bullying survivors of cancer and disabled little kids?

Free-lance criminals have way too much integrity ever to hope that someone will mistake them for such sleaze.

Indeed one of the eyewitnesses of today's London attack could well have been describing Syrian rebel Commander Sakkar's butchery a few weeks ago in Syria:

"We thought the two guys were helping him. We then saw two kitchen knives like you would find in a butchers shop, they were hacking at this poor guy literally. We thought they were trying to remove organs or something."

Nearly identical behavior.

It is important to point out that while the US and UK increasingly condemn (and exaggerate) the role of Lebanese Hezbollah and Iranian fighters on the side of the government in next-door Syria, the truth is thousands of foreign fighters, including at least hundreds from Europe and handfuls from the US, have signed up to fight with the radical Islamist insurgents in Syria.

Time Magazine reported yesterday of a young Belgian teenager who dropped his Western life and went to Syria to fight a jihad against the secular government of Bashar Assad. The story is repeated thousands of times, as foreign fighters in Syria are so significant a part of the insurgency that they overshadow domestic Syrian rebels.

The Moon of Alabama blog has helpfully assembled just a few of the press reports of foreign fighters

Strangely enough, just a couple of weeks ago the Economist published an article titled "British fighters in Syria: Will they come home to roost?", which points out UK fears:

"British intelligence sources cite three particular worries. First, some of the British fighters may have already been inclined to attack their home country, but simply lacked expertise: they will acquire that. Second, they may be exposed to al-Qaeda’s ideology in Syria, and perhaps even talent-spotted as potential leaders. Third, the prospect of a large, ungoverned space close to Europe that could be used as a base from which to stage an attack on Britain is troubling."

Though there is no indication the attackers had spent time in Syria, clearly these fears are all of a sudden much more relevant.

Incredibly, US Secretary of State John Kerry and British Prime Minister David Cameron appear blind to this reality. Speaking in Jordan today, Kerry condemned the violence of a handful of Hezbollah fighters in Syria while acting as if the documented evidence of the overwhelming foreign radical Islamist presence in the insurgency simply did not exist:

"The United States, I think, joins the other core nations who are supporting the opposition in condemning Hezbollah’s destructive role of all of the foreign fighters who are in the region, particularly in Syria. And active military support to the Assad regime simply exacerbates the sectarian tensions and it perpetuates – perpetuates – the regime’s campaign of terror against its own people."

That US overt and covert support of the insurgency in Syria, including its radical and al-Qaeda affiliated elements, is a known fact. Yet Kerry with a straight face simply fails to mention it. As in the days of Bush, the Obama administration is making its own reality. But we know that eventually these US-supported Islamist radicals with Western passports will come home -- and now we have a better idea of what might be in store for us when they do.

Kerry today in Jordan also drags out the old tried and true trick -- see Saddam, Gaddafi, etc. -- of condemning a foreign leader for killing his own citizens and using that to demonstrate that therefore the leader has lost all legitimacy and must be regime-changed:

"And finally, with respect to Assad and the future of Syria, just as a matter of practical negotiation, I’d ask anybody of common sense: Can a person who has allegedly used gas against his own people; can a person who has killed more than 70,000, upwards of 100,000 people; can a person who has used artillery shells and missiles and Scuds and tanks against women and children and university students – can that person possibly be judged by any reasonable person to have the credibility and legitimacy to lead that country in the future? I think the answer to that is obvious."

This is particularly devious considering that any government on earth -- the US certainly included -- would use the force of arms if a foreign-funded and supported insurgency sought its overthrow.

But here is the really good part: Kerry in the above quote argues that a government using deadly military force on its own citizens without trial justifies foreign-sponsored "regime change" on the very day that the US government has admitted to using deadly military force on its own citizens without trial!

It is also interesting to see Kerry walking the administration back from his colleague Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's claim that the Syrian government has used WMD against its citizens -- while leaving the implication squarely on the table. No mention at all of the UN findings that it was the Syrian rebels who used the prohibited weapons.

Kerry also misrepresents the Russian position on implementing last year's Geneva agreement for a political settlement in Syria, suggesting that the Russians agree with the Obama administration that Assad must go as a precondition for any meaningful talks between government and insurgent forces scheduled for next month. Said Kerry:

"I want to thank President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov for their willingness to say that they will work in good faith, in good conscience, to try to find a way to implement Geneva 1. And I will simply remind everybody: Geneva 1 is clear; it says there must be a transition government with full executive authority with mutual consent. And it is very, very clear as a starting point that mutual consent will never be given by any member of the broad opposition of Syria for Assad to continue to run that government."

Kerry is putting words into Putin's and Lavrov's mouth that are very different from what they actually said. On Monday the Russian Foreign Minister was clear that the insurgent pre-condition that Assad must depart is a non-starter. Period:

"The main thing is to ensure the consent of opposition groups to take part in the conference without any precondition. Our colleagues, including Americans together with who we put forward this initiative [to hold the conference], took the obligation to work closely with the opposition in order to make it change its approach to the immediate start of the negotiations and stop conditioning it with unrealistic things."

Will the Russian government correct Kerry's "mistake"?

And God help us when the European and American Islamist insurgents the US and EU sponsor in Syria come home.

On Twitter @DanielLMcAdams

The legislation, as expected from a Lindsey Graham product, is full of misstatements, historical revisionism, and war-drum-beating hyperbole. Particularly revolting is the distortion and lies about Iran's not being in compliance with IAEA nuclear safeguards requirements and the irony of Graham's using Iran's refusal to implement UN resolutions as evidence of its rogue status. Also deceptive is the sleight of hand claiming that Iran pursuing a "nuclear weapons capability" is the real violation, rather than an Iranian failure to uphold its agreed upon obligation to not actually divert fissile material to build a nuclear weapon. It is a unilateral lowering of the bar, which is in fact itself a US violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Most alarming, however, is that this resolution contains among the clearest legislative language to date promising that should Israel decide to attack Iran, the US would back Israel militarily. It is breathtakingly foolhardy for the US Senate to give such carte blanche permission to any foreign country to attack another nation as it sees fit with the promise of the backing of the United States military. The move will likely embolden Israel to continue recent escalation of military action in the region and will likely propel Israel closer to an attack on Iran. In economic theory this is known as "moral hazard."

The resolved clauses of the resolution must be seen to be believed, so I reproduce them here (see especially the original point (8), which was apparently even too over-the-top for the Senators -- the substitute language is just as bad but it adds a layer of vagueness as a fig leaf):

Congress--
(1) reaffirms the special bonds of friendship and cooperation that have existed between the United States and the State of Israel for more than sixty years and that enjoy overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress and among the people of the United States;

(2) strongly supports the close military, intelligence, and security cooperation that President Obama has pursued with Israel and urges this cooperation to continue and deepen;

(3) deplores and condemns, in the strongest possible terms, the reprehensible statements and policies of the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran threatening the security and existence of Israel;

(4) recognizes the tremendous threat posed to the United States, the West, and Israel by the Government of Iran's continuing pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability;

(5) reiterates that the policy of the United States is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon capability and to take such action as may be necessary to implement this policy;

(6) reaffirms its strong support for the full implementation of United States and international sanctions on Iran and urges the President to continue and strengthen enforcement of sanctions legislation;

(7) declares that the United States has a vital national interest in, and unbreakable commitment to, ensuring the existence, survival, and security of the State of Israel, and reaffirms United States support for Israel's right to self-defense; and

[Struck out->] (8) urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in self-defense, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence. [< -Struck out]

(8) urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapons program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with United States law and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.

A meaningless statement is added at the end which likely guaranteed unanimous support:

SEC. 2. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war.

This last part is Congressional weasel language, as the point was not to declare war but rather to define the circumstances under which war would be authorized. Point (8) lays down those circumstances, which is a trap for any Senator who voted for this bill. Imagine if the criteria in point (8) are satisfied by an Israeli attack on Iran claiming self-defense. Any Senator hesitating to authorize the US military to join Israel's war would be shown his vote on this resolution and told that he is already on record supporting war in these circumstances. That is how it works on the Hill.

This is an important vote.

Mostly, people do respond accordingly, and they follow up via email. Still, the old-fashioned crowd leaves me old-fashioned voice mails, and there they sit, sometimes for days or weeks. I made my point, so it's up to them to either adhere to my wishes or take their chances with waiting for me to find the time to sift through multiple, blabbing voice mails.