M2

https://www.foxnews.com/us/air-force-identifies-8-crew-members-killed-b-52-stratofortress-crash-edwards-air-force-base

Having spent a little time along the Texas border with Mexico in an official capacity, and having seen the onslaught of illegal immigrants wading across the Rio Grande, I am not without sympathy for their plight but I also clearly realize that the government's main priority must to be protect its citizens above all else. This issue has been politicized far more than it needs to be, it's a sovereignty issue and nothing else. No modern country allows completely unrestricted entry and settlement by anyone. Even places often cited as “open” still have rules, they require identification, limit how long you can stay, and/or enforce conditions like employment or housing. The “sovereign right to control borders” is a core principle of international law and statehood, meaning every country has the legal authority to decide who can enter, stay in and leave its territory. It’s codified across several core international legal sources. This is a great example I found years ago… Imagine a crowded town built inside sturdy walls. Inside the walls, there are laws, courts, schools, roads, and a shared agreement about how life works. People rely on these structures—they trust that disputes will be settled, that services will function, that rights will be protected. These things don’t exist by accident; they are maintained by the authority of the town itself—its ability to define who belongs inside, how resources are shared, and how order is kept. Now imagine a group of townspeople who begin to argue that the gates should be opened—wide. They believe movement should be freer, that people outside should not be held back by lines on a map. They point out, correctly, that on a human level, the walls can feel arbitrary. Why should where you’re born determine where you may live? Why should opportunity stop at a border? Their argument is rooted in a sense of fairness, even moral clarity: people should be able to move, to seek better lives, to not be constrained by geography. But across the square, others see a tension taking shape. They look at the same walls—not as arbitrary barriers, but as the very structures that make the town possible. The walls define the system that allows the laws to work, the taxes to be collected, the services to be delivered. Without some control over who comes and goes, they worry the town could lose its ability to function as it does now. And so, to them, an irony appears. They see people standing inside a functioning system—protected by it, benefitting from it—while calling for a loosening of the very boundaries that make that system coherent. It feels, to the critics, like wanting both the shelter of the house and the removal of its walls at the same time. Meanwhile, the reformers don’t see irony at all. In their eyes, the critics are too rigid—too tied to a model that treats borders as permanent and necessary in their current form. They point out that the town has already changed over time: gates have opened before, alliances have formed between neighboring towns, and entire regions have created shared spaces where movement is freer without chaos ensuing. To them, the walls are not sacred—they are adjustable. They would say: we’re not asking to destroy the town; we’re asking to rethink how its boundaries work. So the “irony” lives mostly in the space between these viewpoints. To one side, it is a contradiction: a desire for the benefits of a bounded system while arguing to weaken the boundaries. To the other, it is not a contradiction at all, but an evolution: a belief that systems can adapt, and that human mobility and social order do not have to be in conflict. And the town square conversation continues— not really about walls, or gates, or even borders, but about how much structure a society needs, and how much freedom it can sustain at the same time.

WOAI'He is a leader, he's a hero': Wife remembers Edwards AFB...Lauren Smith, the wife of one of the victims killed in the B-52 crash at Edwards Air Force Base, sits down with Eyewitness News to talk about the life of her hu

Yeah, gotta admit this one has me scratching my cranium! Avril Haines, Michael Morell, Sue Gordon, Paul Nakasone, Scott Berrier, Lisa Monaco, Tom Donilon, Jen Easterly and Chris Inglis all would have been better options in that they at least have some experience in the spooky world of intelligence! Continuity picks (Haines, Gordon): Stability, low disruption Operators (Morell, Berrier): Strong intelligence tradecraft focus Cyber-focused (Nakasone, Easterly, Inglis): Future-oriented threats Policy drivers (Monaco, Donilon): Strong White House alignment If the goal is stability and experience → Avril Haines or Sue Gordon If the goal is modernization and cyber → Nakasone or Easterly If the goal is policy integration → Monaco or Donilon Bill Pulte has zero intelligence community experience (CIA, NSA, DIA, ODNI), no national security leadership background, no history in government intelligence oversight and no Senate-confirmable track record in similar roles. Hell, if I can AI my way through who would be the best choice, Trump or someone in his cabinet should be able to do the same! At least Gabbard served in the military and participated in intelligence oversight via Armed Services subcommittee work. That far from qualifies her for the job, but it's more than Pulte has! Overall, Gabbard’s tenure can best be summarized as high-impact but contentious. Supporters view her as a reformer who reduced bureaucracy, increased transparency and challenged entrenched practices within the intelligence community. Critics see her as weakening institutional norms, politicizing intelligence and expanding the DNI’s role in ways that risk undermining long-standing boundaries. In short, she delivered substantial change, but at the cost of significant controversy and division.

German.

Crazy Ludwig! Low Helo Fly By.mp4

So you're completely oblivious to the photograph of the dude shitting in the streets in California? Simply Google "pictures of people defecating in the streets of California" and you'll get a near endless list of photos of it happening. Or how these facts.. "It’s an empirical fact: San Francisco is a crappier place to live these days. Sightings of human feces on the sidewalks are now a regular occurrence; over the past 10 years, complaints about human waste have increased 400%. People now call the city 65 times a day to report poop, and there have been 14,597 calls in 2018 alone. Last year, software engineer Jenn Wong even created a poop map of San Francisco, showing the concentration of incidents across the city. New mayor London Breed said: “There is more feces on the sidewalks than I’ve ever seen growing up here.” In a revolting recent incident, a 20lb bag of fecal waste showed up on a street in the city’s Tenderloin district." https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/18/san-francisco-poop-problem-inequality-homelessness That article is over seven years old, are you claiming it's gotten better, because that's extremely doubtful! And being cute only amplifies your cluelessness. Yes, Austin does have a homeless problem and yes, they do defecate but not in the middle of public streets. Unlike California, such behavior is not tolerated in Texas and even the liberal city of Austin (which condoned homeless encampments for years) is finally pulling its head out its ass and eradicating them (which a push from the Governor). You can be as delusional as many Californians are, but the truth is that state is quickly becoming a failed one and only a change in government as the result of the people forcing it will stop it from spiraling into an even deeper hell hole!

An International Drivers License is not a drivers license per say but a translation of your US license. While encouraged to have, especially in countries were English isn't widely-spoken; they are not required. I've driven in Europe countless times without one and it was never an issue. Most of my speeding tickets were from cameras and sent to the rental company anyway! 😁😁😁 Also, it's been a very long time since I rented a car on military orders; but quick research showed if you use your GTCC it does provide rental car insurance for official government travel. It provides Collision Damage Waiver and Loss Damage Waiver (LDW), but does not cover damage/injury to other people or property or if you use the car off-duty or for personal travel. However, when you book through the DTS with approved vendors rental cars often already include full insurance in the contract thus you usually don’t need to rely on GTCC coverage at all. But don't trust my word, confirm that! Personally, I would much rather have a vehicle at my disposal than depend on the Transportation Squadron!

Austin was getting close (no surprise), but the state finally intervened and while it's still bad, it's getting better!

I've never seen homeless shitting in the streets in Texas, even in Austin where homeless are a big issue! It's well know to be a major problem in California. Burying your head in the sand doesn't make it go away!

Sure thing, as long as you quit sending all your idiots to Texas, especially Austin! And I don't have to say Texas is great, everyone knows it is except for all the Californians moving here!

Apples and oranges... While North Korea has been a threat since 1953, tell me how many Americans have been killed as a result of that regime since? Now, how many Americans have been killed as the direct result of Iranian-sponsored terrorism since 1979? If you think Iran is less likely to use nukes (if they get them) than North Korea, please elaborate why. Yeah, North Korea is somewhat unpredictable; but I feel they are far likely to go full on stupid unless they feel the regime is threatened versus Iran who would use them (especially against Israel) for far less justifiable reasons. Iran’s leadership blends religious ideology with state strategy, which could make its decision-making less purely deterrence-based than a typical state. North Korea’s primary goal is widely viewed as regime survival above all else. Iran has a long track record of using proxies (Hezbollah, militias, etc.) that creates a scenario where escalation could occur indirectly or ambiguously. Iran operates in a densely contested region (Middle East) with multiple adversaries, frequent conflict and short missile flight times which increases the chance of miscalculation, rapid escalation and pressure to act quickly in crisis. This recent conflict with the US, and the fact that several Middle East countries are siding with the US on it, has clarified who are their allies and who are their adversaries. Overall, Iran's ideology, proxy conflict and regional instability far more increase the risk!