I have to agree with the basic synopsis, but I don't agree with the description of Russia. Sure, things have changed massively since the fall of the Soviet Union and more free enterprise has sprung up, of course. Just like here, most of it is a facade of "freedom". But there is still a huge, all-consuming state apparatus in place in Russia and it, too, is a belligerent one exporting it's own aggression and internal tyranny. And it is still run by former Soviets who would like to revert back to either Soviet controls or some sort of a greater Imperial Russia pipedream.. The struggle for power and control is just as real there, too. And it's not pro-freedom.

"The market economy involves peaceful cooperation. It bursts asunder when the citizens turn into warriors and, instead of exchanging commodities and services, fight one another. What the incompatibility of war and capitalism really means is that war and high civilization are incompatible. In the long run war and the preservation of the market economy are incompatible. Capitalism is essentially a scheme for peaceful nations."
-Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, pp. 817-828

Side note: Somewhat surprised that Justin of all people said, "the anti-climactic end of the Iraq war". Those renamed combat troops, ie. the Advise and Assist Brigades, have been driven so far out of sight and off the radar that even he thinks the Iraq war is over. July was the bloodiest, deadliest month for Iraqis since 2008 and that Vatican-sized embassy there still costs $4B a year to run before the paychecks go out. Reading the daily death counts on antiwar.com, it's fairly easy to see that war is far from over for the Iraqis.

Well, now that Rand just endorsed Romney, I wonder how everyone feels about him now? Hmm, like the writing on the wall....

Um, Ron Paul is the only candidate from either party who is staunchly anti-war... the broad sweeping brush doesn't fit.

Maddow's paycheck is signed by one of the largest gov't contractors of the military-industrial-complex... General Electric, who owns MSNBC.

@horse237 I don't know that it's a big zionist scheme per se, although they may be one cog of it. I do agree with you on the banks, the MIC and the corporations, however. Global corporatists, wherever they may be from, have been writing openly and candidly about it for years. See this:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9903/sovereignty_a...

@zeofredo... I'm with you on the coherence and relevance of comments... eeesh.

Something I'd like to point out from this broadcast re: military tribunals. Military tribunals are only legal when war has been declared. The congress hasn't declared a war since WWII. Just calling it a war doesn't make it one, so technically military tribunals are null and void from a legal standpoint. Basically, a kangaroo court.

Regardless, both the Bush &Obama administrations stopped playing by the rules a decade ago. The entire Bill of Rights is dead in the water.

I'm skeptical of Rand Paul until the swearing in of the 112th and we see some actual proof in the proverbial pudding. Reading over Rand's issues pages on his website combined with his quotes in the media, I wouldn't be too quick to count my chickens on this one.

I'm agreed with Richard.

I can't get past Rand's Gitmo/Afghanistan/Iran/military tribunals positions. A non-interventionist he is not. His 'terrorist' talk and belief in the official 9/11 narrative, verbatim, shows how super weak he is on foreign policy history. Rand would do well to read that booklist his father assigned to Giuliani. http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/h-p/national-d...

And just like Judge Napolitano pointed out.... military tribunals are only "legal" with a declaration of war...just calling it a war doesn't make it one. So even if it were possible to create military tribunals, they still wouldn't be legal. Not to mention that most people know the Gitmo 'thugs', as Rand calls them, were mostly people in the wrong place at the wrong time...handed over by war lords and neighbors for cash payments. US taxpayer cash payments. The 'terrorists' in Gitmo were bought and paid for.

It doesn't warm my heart to hear Rand talk about the US government's "special relationship" with the Israeli government. As far as Iran, the US and Israel go, it was you, Justin, who summed it all up pretty well here: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2007/09/26/dre...

Rand Paul has made it very clear, repeatedly, that he is not a libertarian.
"Paul has lately said he would not leave abortion to the states, he doesn't believe in legalizing drugs like marijuana and cocaine, he'd support federal drug laws, he'd vote to support Kentucky's coal interests and he'd be tough on national security. "They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I'm not a libertarian," Paul says..." http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,...

Don't even get me started on his position of gays and lesbians, DADT, etc..

I wouldn't hold my breath or get my hopes up for Rand Paul. Heck, the guy hasn't even been sworn in yet. I'd be willing to bet that in time Rand becomes the new Scott Brown.