Those would probably work too; however, when you have a large pool of  potential martyrs you don't need anything as flashy as that kind of scenario.  A container on a ship, or a Ryder truck works just as well at a tenth of the cost.

A terrorist could smuggle a weapon into the US and detonate it as an Atomic suicide bomb.   That way instead of facing a sophisticate air defense network.  You are only facing the same bureaucracy which can't stop millions of people, or tons of drugs from coming across the border. 

Unfortunately,  Iran will never use something that can be intercepted by a Missile Defense system.   Bombers and Missiles are only necessary if you want to survive the initial attack. 

Adding to PseudoDionysius list:6) All members of congress, cabinet secretaries, and the president and Vice President, must complete their tax forms by hand with only the preprinted instructions provided by the IRS every year. The will all be audited ever year for accuracy and assessed double any fines or penalties associated with any "mistakes" discovered during the audit.

After watching the events in Illinois with Obama's seat I have to say I gained a new respect for the reasoning behind the 17th amendment.  It  was a fundamentally corrupt practice in parts of the country and would be so today.  I think that a better reform would to be dividing it so that one senator is elected and one is appointed.   This would balance out the power between entrenched political machines and the people of the state who might have other views.  Keep in mind Rubio, Paul, Cruz, and Johnson would not be serving US senators if the 17th amendment were not in place. 

You maybe right.  I think that these types of quarrels are helpful because it is difficult to for the press to demagogue this as having an important impact on the country.  In the end most people don't care and can't identify these people anyway.  It can be used though to send  a message to the political class who take these things more seriously.  In the end I think we just differ about where to have the fight.  

Your second observation is truly a cause for weeping.  There was a time where someone who had done what Kerry did would be shunned by both political parties.  The fact that he was nominated for president and may now serve as Secretary of State is a sign of how far we have fallen. 

In Kerry's case, he has made several extreme charges against the American military in Vietnam.  If the charges were true he is a confessed war criminal and if they are false then he smeared the US military for personal political gain.  That testimony was a propaganda victory for our enemies at a time of war and was used as an excuse to mistreat American POWs.   It is something that Mr. Kerry should be called to account for.    Hagel is a garden variety political hack; however, there is no reason to play nice with the administration.  So what do we gain by cooperating?   Especially since the democrats have never dealt in good faith with us.

Even if I thought Kerry or Hagel were good nominees, which I don't.  I think the Republicans ought to engage in some hyper-partisan activity to block both of these nominees if only to provide some payback to Reid and Obama for there own antics and partisan hectoring.   Bad behavior needs to be punished.  The democrats routinely blocked qualified nominees under Bush.  Why not do the same?  Kerry particularly deserves the same treatment that Robert Bork, and Clarence Thomas received.  He should have to go up there and defend every assertion he made in his Vietnam era testimony and answer questions as to what he was doing when he met with the Vietnamese government.  I doubt the Republicans have the stomach for it but that is the kind of behavior it is going to take to restore civility.  If the left never pays any price they will continue to use the tactic.  

The problem is that the previous deal had placed the Republicans on "dying ground." As a proper student of the Art of War knows on Dying ground you have to fight. Retreat is not an option, so in this case I think Rubio's strategy is the correct one. I don't see any safe place for the Republicans after this deal they are completely routed. Ryan is trying to organize a withdrawal in good order, but I am not sure he can salvage enough of the situation to actually regroup. That is the problem with organizing a battle on dying ground retreat isn't really possible, even if the battle is not winnable. Ryan chooses to try to manage the rout Rubio to try to fight, neither or both could be right. The thing to realize is that Boehner and McConnel put us into an untenable position to begin with and both are still in charge. Ryan and Rubio are not really relavent at this time. One other thing to note. Rubio's vote has little effect, Ryan's could change the result, assuming that he is respected in the house republican caucus. That makes Ryan's decision much more difficult than Rubio's.

I believe the firewall theory comes from the fact that black holes radiate a tremendous amount of thermal energy.

Admittedly it has been a while since I researched this at all. I was under the impression though that beyond the event horizon it is impossible to apply normal physics. The normal constants take on new meaning and things that do not normally have importance in the quantum scale, like gravity, now have a measurable effect. In the end it may be like other fields of physics, Newtonian physics is a reasonable description of the way things work on a global scale; however is insufficient to a universal scale, Relativity works well on a Universal scale but breaks down on a quantum scale. Maybe quantum physics is insufficient to describe the space beyond the event horizon.

Because they have the media on their side; however, I wonder if that can last forever. It may be a finite reasource that is being consumed or at least diluted. I think they pay a price though in the long run. If only because they look ridiculous. Additionally, I don't think it benefits statist to have a general perception that government is broken. The net result of this type of grandstanding tends to reinforce that narrative.

Late to the party. I largely agree that plan B was a good tactic; however, here is the problem. Conservatives are done trusting the establishment. I know they are likely right on this one but it doesn't matter. The establishment has lost virtually every contest, so why should we trust them. They stab us in the back every chance they get. They seem incapable of stopping the democrats in any meaningful way, in fact they hardly appear interested. Their tactics after 2010 were ridiculous and put us in this bind. After all this is it any wonder that we don't take their advice even when it appears to be sound? Another point is that we keep playing for the next election; however, what makes us think that can be won even if we take plan B? We sell out here lose in 2014 and 2016 anyway and gain nothing. I am sorry but much as I think that plan B is a good tactic. I see why the rank and file are no happy with it.

Unfortunately a frail, fragile, kleptocracy is exactly the kind of China that is likely to cause a catastrophe in the Pacific! especially if they sense an opportunity from a declining US.

The problem with Republican strategists with blue state experience is the tend to run lousy national campaigns. The only strategists we have won with in recent years were Red State strategists. Maybe instead of going for the traditional run to the base in the primary, run to the center in the elections, we should follow the democratic model of running to the base all the time. After all if Romney's base had shown up he would have won.

I love the Salt lick, both the original in Driftwood, TX and the new location in Round Rock; however, my personal favorite is Cooper's BBQ in Llano, TX. I have heard that Lockhart is a destination for TX BBQ but I have never been there personally.