Let's talk foreign policy.

I've needed to write this for a while. As you may have noticed, I've been blatantly campaigning for Ron Paul. The single most common objection I get is foreign policy. It's usually something like this: "Well, I think he's great, but I just can't stand his foreign policy."

Let's go in-depth with this. Dr. Paul has been repeatedly called "isolationist" - this is a very inaccurate term for his policy ideas. He's about as internationalist as one can get, since it's pretty hard to be isolated with free trade. He is non-interventionist. Specifically, that means the following:

1) No foreign aid. Yes, that includes Israel. However, it also includes Israel's two biggest enemies - Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Yes, we are giving those two nations foreign aid. Cutting foreign aid to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt would probably be a net benefit to Israel.

2) Out of Afghanistan. NOW. Nobody is entirely sure WHAT we're doing there, especially now that bin Laden is dead (in PAKISTAN). We're certainly not accomplishing anything, unless you count angering Afghans who are really tired of being invaded. On a slightly creepy note, Afghanistan has been invaded two other times by superpowers, the British Empire and Soviet Empire. The Brits were using Lee-Enfields, the Soviets AK-47s. Guess what empires no longer exist? Guess what weapons are being used against us by the Afghans? The country is called the Graveyard of Empires for a reason.

3) Bring the troops home from the Middle East. And Europe. And Africa. And Asia. And... I think you get the picture. We've got soldiers on every continent except Antarctica (I think...). Why? It's costing a ton of money, and it's not making us any safer. Isn't there a certain extremely violent border where these soldiers would be more effective, anyway?

Now, let's talk a little more about Israel. Whenever it is suggested that we really don't need to lavish funds upon them, there is a horrified reaction from most people. Here's the thing - the Israelis can easily handle themselves. They have defeated the ENTIRE FREAKING Middle East on at least one occasion, and numerous attempts to destroy them have failed, completely and totally. They have an advantage in that they have an AIR FORCE. A modern one, not using outdated MiG fighters and even more outdated SCUD missiles. They have tanks that can launch infrared missiles. I somehow doubt that some angry Palestinians are a real threat. If Iran does get a nuke, I don't expect the Israelis will let it last, either.

Speaking of Iran, that's another thing. They're what amounts to a third world nation. Refining uranium is not exactly easy or simple, in case you were wondering. Even if they DO get a nuke, only a complete MORON would attempt to use it. Iran's missile tech is also utterly outdated - to call their ballistic missiles "medium range" is quite a stretch, certainly nowhere close to modern missiles that can hit any target, anywhere in the world.

In short - Iran is not a threat.

Now, why NOT Ron Paul? To paraphrase John Q. Adams, America is the champion and vindicator of only her own. "Spreading democracy" at the point of a gun is not going to work. Freedom is best spread by example, and we are not setting a good one.

Why Ron Paul could absolutely cream Obama

Whatever you may think of his chances for the Republican nomination, I think we can all agree that he would stand a very good chance of utterly destroying our current dimwit-in-chief in the general election.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Electability: Ron Paul Soundly Defeats Obama for These Eleven Reasons

by Dave Trotter





Establishment political personalities are quick to claim poor "electability" to diminish Ron Paul’s chances because they presume that Paul holds no positive advantage in a head-to-head matchup against Obama in the general election. That’s an apparent premise of their calculation.


This is either a sublime miscalculation or a profound deception. If Ron Paul can win the Republican nomination, the path to the White House could seem downhill by comparison. Why?

Unprecedented debt circumstances demand an unprecedented reimagining of US government priorities and obligations. The U.S. national debt is categorically unsustainable and literally, it’s now mathematically impossible to repay, too. That the debt, banking, and finance system is increasingly proven to be a rigged Ponzi scheme in mainstream media only underlines Ron Paul’s tenured criticism of the oligarchical Federal Reserve System itself. Further, increasing numbers of voters awaken daily to the direct correlation between endless foreign interventionism and that categorically unsustainable debt that vexes the nation.


Indeed, from wars, rumors of wars, a fading dollar, climbing prices, hopeless unemployment, and an overreaching federal police state, the time is ripe for Ron Paul’s small-government message.

There’s merely that small prerequisite for the general election: winning the Republican nomination.


The first contest, the Iowa caucus, is an activist-gathering, hand-raising event that heavily favors a strong ground organization. Ron Paul, by all accounts, enjoys a robust ground organization in Iowa – the strongest of the field. Ron’s numbers are up recently in Iowa, too, leading many previously dismissive pundits to consider seriously the prospect of a Paul victory next month.

After all, Paul fell just short of winning the Ames Straw Poll in August by a mere 150 votes to Michelle Bachmann, who’s since collapsed utterly from relevance – or posing any serious threat of repeating. Bachmann was merely the first of several anybody-but-Romney candidates to grab the "frontrunner" baton for a few precious moments of prime time.

The momentum for Ron Paul coming out of an Iowa victory could roll right through New Hampshire, considered a more libertarian-leaning electorate, and in turn, trigger Romney’s long-inevitable glass house collapse.

Despite a hiccup here or there, maybe in South Carolina, no other already-passed-the-baton "frontrunner" could stop Ron Paul after victories in both Iowa and New Hampshire. So there you go: early victories, nomination, a speech, and on to the general election.


In that general election matchup, Ron Paul would make short work of Obama, for these eleven reasons.

Ron Paul significantly outclasses Obama in any extemporaneous, conventionally conceivable economic or foreign policy debate format not involving teleprompters. How does Obama justify expanding the bailouts, the wars, and the police state at home after promising the opposite – "hope and change" – throughout his 2008 campaign? Filling his cabinet with crony bankster speculators and lobbyists? Secretly bailing out insiders and foreign banks alike? How does Obama defend Solyndra or Fast and Furious? Answer: He can’t.
I say "conventionally conceivable" because it seems there’d be one offsetting chance here for Obama: cancel the debates. And the election.

One thing’s clear, though: if Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, the debate moderators will have much more difficulty ignoring him on a stage of two or three than in the midst of eight or more in the GOP primary debates.

Ron Paul wins the issue of war and foreign policy for anti-war liberals, independents, libertarians, and constitutional conservatives. Don’t look now, but that’s a sizable and growing coalition, and one that isn’t currently gauged by restricting polling samples to GOP primary likely Republican voters. There’s upside there, too, as Paul makes progress with traditional Bush-supporting "conservatives" who begin to recognize that wars cost trillions, and the U.S. is flat broke.
There’s a significant portion of Obama’s base that elected him based on his antiwar rhetoric, which he subsequently abandoned upon inauguration. These disillusioned liberals and independents have witnessed Obama expand the war in Afghanistan as he drew down symbolic numbers in Iraq (and replaced those troops with mercenaries). They watched Obama expand the front in Pakistan with collateral damage-inflicting drone strikes – even as he launched a completely new conflict in Libya – without a declaration or even an unconstitutional authorization from Congress.


The most depraved recent offense? Obama executed an American citizen and his children in Yemen without a trial, presentation of evidence, or any authentication whatsoever of the speech crimes allegedly committed by him. (Anwar Al-Awlaki, this new Boogeyman/Goldstein/Osama, had himself questionable ties to the US military industrial complex shortly after 9/11.) Consider that with Ron Paul and Barack Obama on a debate stage, Obama becomes the pro-war candidate. Needless to say, any voter who trends anti-war will likely vote for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul wins the domestic police state issue before the debate even begins. After all, Obama is the one on that stage who must answer for gratuitous TSA abuse. Seemingly all voters have either had bad experiences themselves with the TSA, or have heard anecdotes from friends or relatives describing the rampant violations of dignity and body so common now to airport travel. Everyone’s heard the stories about TSA agents raping, stealing, leering, and murdering. Would Obama attempt to suggest that the TSA keeps us safe – by exposing our children to pat-downs by pedophiles?
With domestic surveillance, Obama essentially expanded Bush’s worst abuses and then argued for more. Even more disaffected liberals and independents will join the libertarian and constitutional conservative coalition over these issues and vote for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul wins the federal drug war issue by arguing to end it. By killing that decades-old federal boondoggle, Paul wins the support of most California, Washington, Nevada, Montana, South Dakota, New Mexico, Alaska, Hawaii, Colorado, and Oregon medical marijuana patients who’ve watched as Obama’s DEA raids state-approved medical marijuana dispensaries contrary to state law. You know who else would appreciate an end to federal drug enforcement? Minority populations, who are disproportionately prosecuted for nonviolent federal drug crimes. Still think Obama has an unquestionable advantage with minority groups? How is this growing coalition of voters even quantified?

Ron Paul wins the abortion issue. Ron Paul is unabashedly pro-life in his personal life, and as an obstetrician, he speaks with conviction – from wisdom and personal professional experience. He will own the Christian vote on this issue, obviously. But Paul argues that the federal government holds no jurisdiction over the issue, and if individual states wish to pass more restrictive or permissive laws, those states should pursue the legislation that best fits their unique populations.


It’s a compromise, in other words. So even if pro-life Christians can’t be enthusiastic about Paul’s lack of advocacy for a federal ban on abortion, "pro-choice" abortion supporters can’t credibly be existentially threatened by Paul’s 10th amendment approach, which is less strident than sound-bite saber rattling over a federal ban. In other words, don’t look for this issue to serve as a convincing single-issue rallying cry for Obama supporters, which qualifies it as a win for Paul.

Ron Paul wins the homeschool, pro-organic, anti-mandatory vaccination, and other pro-liberty niche crowds. Who else but Ron Paul has argued for the rights of the people to consume raw milk? Who else but Ron Paul has proposed granting tax credits and more freedom to homeschooling families to set their own curricula? Contrast this with Obama’s attempts to nationalize education standards further on the back of Bush’s overreaching "No Child Left Behind," and the more recent viral images of armed FDA goons raiding organic food store Rawesome Foods in Venice, California. Yep, even more Californians sympathetic to Paul.

Republicans will turn out en masse to support the GOP nominee – even if it’s Ron Paul. Consider how anti-Obama the lowest common denominator of GOP talking points has become, as voiced by pundits, talk radio, and primary candidates in the debates. Making Obama a "one-term President," repealing "Obamacare," and so on.

Republican voters, long accustomed to "lesser of two evils"-type calculated rationalizations, won’t bat an eye when pulling the lever for Ron Paul. After all, Paul’s single heresy from current GOP orthodoxy is over his principled resistance to interventionism abroad. But he’s the first to point out that it’s the current GOP that’s out of step with the traditional Republican Party platform, not him. Those voters whom Paul can’t convert on morality can also be swayed by fiscal arguments. Wars cost trillions. The U.S. is broke. Rationalizations abound.

Either way, expect a giant anti-Obama Republican turnout in November, 2012 – regardless the GOP nominee. The advantage with a Paul nomination is that Republicans can expect Paul supporters to support the Republican nominee – something they can’t do if they nominate Romney or Gingrich.

The Tea Party rallies behind Ron Paul because his Trillion Dollar Plan is a perfect ideological match. After all, Ron Paul supporters are the ones who started the Tea Party movement in 2007 – the proto-Tea Party. As far as the electorate recognizes the problem to be government spending, Ron Paul is the clear answer.

Ron Paul wins on auditing and ending the Federal Reserve. Who can claim that the US has a "free market" despite artificial price fixing of interest rates at the very core of the economy? What free market advocate supports crony secret taxpayer-funded bailouts of speculators and foreign banks? The Tea Party and the entire GOP field now parrots Ron Paul on the Federal Reserve.


But there’s yet more upside here for Paul: the Occupy movement makes a special point to protest crony capitalism and the abuses of a corrupt, insider financial oligarchy. If Paul can tap that sentiment, which clearly overlaps with his arguments against crony capitalism and the lack of transparency of the Federal Reserve System, he can convert a portion of those Occupy voters into voting Paulistinians. Rest assured, Paul volunteers are already performing this outreach on the ground.

Ron Paul wins on torture and the Bill of Rights. Let Obama attempt to characterize water boarding as something other than torture, as his neocon counterparts have, and Ron Paul will provide a stark contrast – an iconic symbol of authentic, principled "hope and change." As for the Bill of Rights in general, Ron Paul wins clearly with any voter who cherishes the idea of not having to present his or her papers at random checkpoints; for whom government surveillance of citizens is anathema; who cherishes the idea that the government is the slave to the people and not the other way around; or in particular relevance to the Obama record – to anyone who cherishes the idea that we have a right to be left alone.

Circumstances and current events in November, 2012, will play right into Ron Paul’s wheelhouse. This one is the clincher. After repeated, nefarious inflations of the money supply through bailouts and Fed treasury purchases, Obamaflation will be unmistakable at the grocery store, the doctor’s office, and at the fuel pump. Gold will be well over $2,200/ounce. And after an eleven-year string of templated, bankrupting, and needless interventionist wars abroad, voters won’t be easily convinced that high gas prices are solely Iran’s fault. Ron Paul is expertly capable of clearly articulating the causation between interventionist foreign policy and poor economic circumstances at home – including the inflation that will be hitting voters right smack in their wallets as they head to the voting booths.


So there you have it. If only Ron Paul can win the Republican nomination, global and domestic current events in November, 2012 will assure that a Ron Paul victory in the general election is a very high probability. Compared to the primary fight, some might even describe that general election matchup as a cakewalk for Paul.

One word of warning for pro-war Republicans: if you fail to nominate Ron Paul and instead nominate an establishment neoconservative like Romney or Gingrich, expect Paul to run on a third party ticket, and due to the reasons outlined above, expect him to win a higher percentage of the overall vote than Perot did in the 1992 general election (greater than 18.9%). That would undoubtedly reelect Obama.

Is that what you want?

Save your outrage and answer instead this question: given your less than courteous opinion of Paul, how can you possibly explain your sense of entitlement toward his supporters and their votes? Answer: you can’t.

Besides, even if Ron Paul did not run third party, and even if he were to endorse the neoconservative Republican nominee, his supporters wouldn’t necessarily follow his lead. I know I wouldn’t.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would also like to add that he wins the gun control issue. He has consistently been pro-gun, no compromise whatsoever.

I declared war on them, and I now present a decisive victory.

I'm sure y'all remember my massive rant objecting to a significant portion of the content of the "Patriot's History of the United States." Well, it got worse. Seriously.

First - blatant fabrications. I kid you not. They make several claims about the Confederate Constitution "externalizing" the costs of slaveholding by making non-slaveholders pay court expenses for fugitive slave cases. Problem. I have a copy of said Confederate Constitution, and the clause they rant about... doesn't exist. They made it up out of thin air. I checked and re-checked the CS Constitution, especially the areas relating to the judicial branch, and it wasn't there. I suspect most people don't keep a copy of the document, so the authors apparently rightly assumed that they could get away with such deception. Here's a very convenient copy of the Confederate Constitution - make sure you read the key at the top.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/csconstitution.htm

Second - citing a forgery. This really ticked me off. They claim that President Davis, in response to the Emancipation Proclamation, unilaterally declared on January 5, 1863 that as of Feb. 22, 1863, all free blacks within the Confederacy would be enslaved. Problem - he never made the speech. Here's a copy of his actual January 5, 1863 speech. It's actually a pretty good speech, in my opinion.

http://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=94

And here's a copy (courtesy of Harper's Weekly) of his actual response to the Emancipation Proclamation. Racist? Yup, but what do you expect from a slaveholder? But unilaterally declaring all free blacks to be slaves? Uh, nope.

JEFF DAVIS'S MESSAGE.
Jeff Davis has issued his annual Message to the rebel Congress. He speaks of the early determination of England, France, and other European Powers to confine themselves to recognizing the self-evident fact of the existence of a strict neutrality during the progress of the war, but draws from this the conclusion that their course of action was but an actual decision against the South, and in favor of the Union, at the same time tending to prolong hostilities. He denounces the conduct of the Union armies as atrocious and cruel.

HIS VIEWS OF THE PROCLAMATION.
In relation to President Lincoln's emancipation proclamation, he says he may well leave it to the instincts of that common humanity which a beneficent Creator has implanted in the breasts of our fellow-men of all countries to pass judgment on a measure of which several millions of human beings of an inferior race, peaceful and contented laborers in their sphere, are doomed to extermination; while, at the same time, they are encouraged to a general assassination of their masters by the insidious recommendation to abstain from violence, unless in necessary self-defense. Our own detestation of those who have attempted the most execrable massacre recorded in the history of guilty man is tinctured by a profound sentiment for the impotent rage which it discloses. As far as regards the action of this Government on such criminals as may attempt its execution, I confine myself to informing you that I shall, unless in your wisdom you deem some other course more expedient, deliver to the several State authorities all commissioned officers of the United States that may hereafter be captured by our forces in any of the States embraced in the proclamation, that they may be dealt with in accordance with the laws of those States, providing for the punishment of criminals engaged in exciting servile insurrections. In its political aspect this measure possesses great signification, and to it in this light I invite your attention. It affords to our people the complete and crowning proof of the true nature of the designs of the party which elevated to power the present occupant of the Presidential chair at Washington, and which sought to conceal its purposes by every variety of artful grace, and by the perfidious use of the most solemn and repeated pledges on every practicable occasion. He gives extracts from President Lincoln's inaugural, and comments fully upon the subsequent acts by Congress and the Administration.

"Fast and Furious" and more ranting about gun control

This is freaking ridiculous. Are you a law-abiding citizen who's never committed a crime? Sure, you can get automatic weapons if you have more money than is good for you and go through a TON of paperwork and registration, in addition to a $200 tax. Are you a member of a Mexican drug cartel? Congrats, the BATF will sell you automatic rifles, machine guns, and grenade launchers! I can't help but suspect that the regulation-happy BATF may be trying to manufacture reasons for gun control. Don't you dare object to them or they'll spew flammable tear gas into your home, cause an explosion, and then say you did it. Or they'll make up a charge, then have a gullible jury convict you.

They call Fast and Furious a "sting," but as far as I can tell, the people shot with these guns are just as dead as with any others. Nice job, you jackbooted thugs - sorry, benevolent protectors.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Fast and Furious weapons were found in Mexico cartel enforcer's home
Guns illegally purchased under the ATF operation were found in April hidden in violence-plagued Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, court records show.

This arsenal uncovered by police in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, in April turned out to include weapons from the ATF's ill-fated Fast and Furious operation. (Associated Press)

October 8, 2011, 8:46 p.m.
Reporting from Washington— High-powered assault weapons illegally purchased under the ATF's Fast and Furious program in Phoenix ended up in a home belonging to the purported top Sinaloa cartel enforcer in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, whose organization was terrorizing that city with the worst violence in the Mexican drug wars.

In all, 100 assault weapons acquired under Fast and Furious were transported 350 miles from Phoenix to El Paso, making that West Texas city a central hub for gun traffickers. Forty of the weapons made it across the border and into the arsenal of Jose Antonio Torres Marrufo, a feared cartel leader in Ciudad Juarez, according to federal court records and trace documents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.



The smugglers' tactics — quickly moving the weapons far from ATF agents in southern Arizona, where it had been assumed they would circulate — vividly demonstrate that what had been viewed as a local problem was much larger. Six other Fast and Furious guns destined for El Paso were recovered in Columbus, N.M.

"These Fast and Furious guns were going to Sinaloans, and they are killing everyone down there," said one knowledgeable U.S. government source, who asked for anonymity because of the ongoing investigations. "But that's only how many we know came through Texas. Hundreds more had to get through."

Torres Marrufo, also known as "the Jaguar," has been identified by U.S. authorities as the enforcer for Sinaloa cartel chieftain Joaquin "Chapo" Guzman. The Fast and Furious weapons were found at one of Torres Marrufo's homes April 30 when Mexican police inspected the property. It was unoccupied but "showed signs of recent activity," they said.

The basement had been converted into a gym with a wall covered with built-in mirrors. Behind the mirrors they found a hidden room with the Fast and Furious weapons and dozens more, including an antiaircraft machine gun, a sniper rifle and a grenade launcher.

"We have seized the most important cache of weapons in the history of Ciudad Juarez," Chihuahua state Gov. Cesar Duarte said at the time, though he did not know that many of the weapons came from the U.S. and Fast and Furious.

Torres Marrufo has been indicted in El Paso, but authorities have been unable to locate and arrest him.

In the U.S., intelligence officials consider the Sinaloa cartel the most powerful drug trafficking organization in the world. Weekly reports from U.S. intelligence authorities to the Justice Department in the summer of 2010, at the height of Fast and Furious, warned about the proliferation of guns reaching the Sinaloa cartel.

Under Fast and Furious, begun in fall 2009, the ATF allowed illegal buyers to walk away with weapons in the hope that agents in Phoenix could track the guns and arrest cartel leaders.

Three months into the program, El Paso began to emerge as a hub, perhaps the central location, for Fast and Furious weapons. On Jan. 13, 2010, El Paso police stumbled upon 40 firearms after following a suspicious dark blue Volkswagen Jetta that backed into a garage at a local residence, according to federal court records.

Alberto Sandoval told authorities he acquired the weapons three days after they were purchased from someone he knew only as "Rudy." He said he was paid $1,000 to store the guns and "knew the firearms were going to Mexico."

Sandoval pleaded guilty in federal court in El Paso and was sentenced to 6 1/2 years in prison. A month later, on Dec. 17, 2010, he escaped from a minimum-security prison in Tucson; officials believe he fled to Mexico.

Two others, Ivan Chavira and Edgar Ivan Galvan, were subsequently charged in that gun recovery, along with the recovery of 20 Fast and Furious weapons on April 7, 2010, in El Paso. Those guns also were discovered by chance by local authorities, and ATF trace records show that the weapons were purchased in Phoenix two weeks before they were found in El Paso.

Chavira and Galvan pleaded guilty. Chavira received eight years in prison; Galvan is to be sentenced next month.

Gun Control - it's not about guns, it's about CONTROL

I've been doing a lot of reading on gun control, lately, and I noticed something. Both sides were arguing the purely practical aspect - guns cause crime/guns prevent crime.

Typical pro-gun position - guns are good because they help prevent crime, and allow people to protect themselves, in addition to hunting and sport. Military rifles are fine, since they're useful in self-defense.

Typical anti-gun position - guns are BAD, but it's okay to have them if they're kept locked away, that way they can't be used in crimes. Definitely no military rifles, since they have no practical purpose.

Congratulations, different portions of the population. Both of you are COMPLETELY missing the point. The Second Amendment protects a right, and whether or not guns increase or decrease crimes, it is my right to own them. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting, and little to do with personal safety. The purpose of this right is to be able to resist attacks on liberty.

The right to bear arms is there to allow us to protect ourselves FROM OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. Anti-gun guys, I understand your intentions. But when the government tries to restrict guns, it is NOT to protect people - it is to solidify its CONTROL of the people. Pro-gun guys, once again I understand your intentions. But stop arguing from the crime-related position. Seriously. Start arguing from the position of the fact that IT IS A RIGHT, and the government CANNOT take that right away. All else is a red herring.

Now, if the government is so bent on controlling us, WHY is it not restricting our right to free speech and instead focusing on the right to bear arms? Well, first of all, it is actually trying - the PATRIOT Act, for example. Second, they are a LOT more worried about people with guns than people with blogs. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns - outlaws and the government. Personally, I'm a LOT more concerned about the government. The evil Chairman Mao of China acknowledged that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Thus, for Communists, only the government should have guns - can't risk the people having political power! Take a quick look how that worked out. Thomas Jefferson, arguably the most important of the Founders, stated that "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms." Alexander Hamilton and James Madison made it abundantly clear in the Federalist Papers that the right to bear arms is for protection against possible usurpations of power by the Feds.

In short, the REAL question with "gun control" is purely about control. Do the people control the government, or does the government control the people? "Practical" guns are all well and good, but good luck defending your freedom with a shotgun and a pistol, if it ever comes to that. Military rifles are easily targeted by the gun control lobby, since they have relatively little use for hunting, and pistols or shotguns do fine for personal defense. But they are arguably the most important category of guns to allow the people to own! Take a look at what every military on the planet uses - military rifles. The US uses the M-16. The Russians use the AK-whatever-number-is-preferred-at-the-moment. Either one is superior in almost every way to "practical" guns like bolt-action rifles, shotguns, and handguns when it comes to warfare - the exception being that bolt rifles tend to have ridiculous range and power, making spectacular sniper rifles. Military guns have higher capacity, greater versatility, a MUCH higher rate-of-fire, faster reloads, and tend to be better for combat generally. They're also a heck of a lot scarier looking than "practical" guns.

When the government wants to ban military ("assault") weapons, they are NOT trying to protect you. They are trying to eliminate your ability to resist.

Can we say, "Media bias?"

Okay, if you're following the Republican debates, you know that the two top candidates are Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, right? Wrong. Dr. Ron Paul, according to polls, is in the top two - in fact, according to a Yahoo poll, he won the recent debate. Of course, to look at the title of the article, you'd never guess that he existed. The following is the actual title of the Yahoo article:

Poll: Romney leads New Hampshire, Huntsman in third, Perry in fourth

Notice anything really, REALLY weird about that title? Romney first, Huntsman third, Perry fourth. I could have sworn that there was a number called "two." Sadly, them not including the runner-up in the title doesn't surprise me. Know why? Because Dr. Paul was number two, and the media insists that he not exist. The media has declared him to be a "non-person" in a way strikingly similar to the Soviet Union.

The article gives him ONE SENTENCE, devoting much more time to Perry, the Bush rerun, even though he placed fourth. Heck, it devotes plenty of time to all of the top four EXCEPT Ron Paul. Here's the article if you're wondering: http://news.yahoo.com/poll-romney-leads-hampshire-huntsman-third-perry-fourth-150212964.html

Ron Paul MUST win the Republican nomination. If he does not, it will prove that there is NO hope for this country, and our only option left is taking it back from the bottom up.

All you libertarians who don't vote on some principle or another - I beg you, vote just this one time. Get Ron Paul in office, and maybe we can finally get some REAL change for freedom. Believe it or not, it IS possible to shrink government. Jefferson did it in 1800. If Ron Paul wins, this would literally be the single most important and revolutionary election in over two hundred years. If not? It'll be more of the same, with the next president advancing us ever more rapidly to our inevitable destruction. More war, more taxes, more regulation, and less freedom. That's the inevitable result of another business-as-usual election

The absurd myth of macroevolution

I was just read the book, "Now, That's a Good Question!" by R.C. Sproul, and a certain quote inspired me to finally get back to this blog and post this. Sproul described macroevolution as "one of the most unsubstantiated myths I've ever seen perpetuated in academic circles."

Here's the thing - Darwinists have tons of evidence showing that a degree of evolution can happen. That's basically a confirmed fact. Just look at dogs. Wolves, wild dogs, coyotes, foxes and domestic dogs all probably share a common ancestor. The same probably goes for a lot of bear species and felines, among others. However, that's microevolution, not the all-encompassing, life-from-one-cell macroevolution that Darwinists believe in.

So, you ask one of them to show you evidence. They'll come up with all kinds of things supposedly showing how it can happen. It all sounds very convincing. Here's the problem: showing that it "can" happen does not prove to any degree that it "has" happened. So where's their evidence that it HAS happened?

Nowhere.

It's not here.

It cannot be found.

It doesn't exist.

Proof that macroevolution happened exists the same way unicorns and fairies exist - in people's imaginations.

In other words, they expect reasonable people to accept that something happened against all odds that they have ZERO evidence for. They do not have a tape of matter appearing from nothing, or a primitive bacterium being spontaneously generated from chemical goo. Even according to atheists, the odds of such things happening are infinitesimally small.

First, we must assume that all matter in the universe appeared out of NOWHERE. We must then accept that this tiny ball of matter exploded and formed the entire universe, that some of that matter formed a spiral galaxy, and in that galaxy was formed a star just the right size, with eight planets at just the right size and positions to promote life on the third of them - Earth.

We must also convince ourselves that a planet-sized object then rammed into Earth, scattering enough debri to form a perfectly-sized moon that causes tides required for life in the oceans.

As if that's not impossible enough, we're then expected to believe that on this perfectly-sized planet there is just enough oxygen to promote life, but not enough that said life would spontaneously burst into flames. Next, supposedly, chemical goo somehow assembled itself into a fully-functioning reproducing, feeding, reacting proto-bacterium, which then, via mutations and natural selection, changed over eons into jellyfish, eels, dinosaurs, crocodiles, hamsters, trees, algae, eagles, and people.

Interesting thing - the odds of even ONE of these things happening are unbelievably small. Suddenly God doesn't sound so ridiculous, does He? The modern Darwinist flat out tell us that we should ignore our common sense and believe that all this happened. Why? What could POSSIBLY make the above absurdity ANY more plausible than the Bible's account? Especially considering that the Bible, over and over again, is being proven right, and even Richard Dawkins at least acknowledges that nature "overwhelmingly impresses us with the illusion of design." (FYI - a certain atheist I have debated claimed I was taking that out of context. I am not. I clearly included the word illusion, and my point still stands. Dawkins admits that nature looks designed, and we must convince ourselves that it is not.)

Just for kicks, here's an issue with biological evolution that throws it down for good. It can't happen. There is no way for organisms to gain genetic information. Mutations can alter or destroy genetic information, but it can't create new information. Oops. I just wrote a paragraph that kicks the legs out from under the current scientific paradigm.

For the record - I truly respect Charles Darwin as a scientist. He was intelligent, honest, and more than willing to acknowledge gaps in his theory - which is much more than can be said for those so-called "scientists" who blatantly say that they will only accept evidence that supports Darwinism. Did he take it back? No, because at his death it still seemed perfectly reasonable. A hundred years of science, though, and it has not held up. Darwin would have acknowledged this if he had been alive to see it.

This. Means. WAR.

I have recently had the immense displeasure of reading Challenge III's history textbook, A Patriot's History of the United States. The title should give a lot away about the book - that, and the fact that it's been endorsed by Glenn Beck. I have been writing down the major historical errors I've found in first third of the book, and I will address them here.

This is gonna be a loooong post.

First off - they refer to Northern colonies as "non-slaveholding" and Southern ones as slaveholding. Minor problem - the colonies all had slaves in 1763, the year that was being discussed. Oops.

Moving forward thirty or so years, we come to the great Adams/Hamilton vs Jefferson/Madison years. The guys who wrote this book defend Adams and the Federalists to a ludicrous degree. Remember the Alien and Sedition Acts? The latter of the two was a blatant violation of the right to free speech and freedom of the press as protected by the First Amendment. The Patriot's History guys, however, say it was "arguably" unconstitional. Arguably? REALLY? That's just pathetic.

Throughout the book so far, the authors repeatedly associate states' rights with racism and attack the doctrine of nullification, never mind that it was and is a critical check on the government's power.

They also defend the position that a president can unilaterally declare preemptive war by citing an incident in which President Jefferson dispatched troops to the Barbary States. Minor problem - the Barbary States had declared war first (so much for "preemptive"), and Mr. Jefferson consistently sought Congressional authorization. There goes "unilateral."

It just gets better, though! According to these poor deluded fellows, the "necessary and proper" clause allows Congress to do pretty much anything. Unfortunately for them, it also states that said "necessary and proper" laws must be made within the Constitution's limits.

Now the REAL fun begins - the "crisis of union" in their words. They EXPLICITLY call secession treason, forgetting that the colonies seceded from the British Empire. I can only assume that this was treason as well. In reality, Constitutionally speaking, using force against a seceding state is the real act of treason. They also fail to mention the fact that Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Quincy Adams, John Adams, James Madison, and others explicitly or implicitly stated that secession was a necessary means to secure liberty.

Oh yeah, and a certain Illinois lawyer said the same thing.

Yes, I am referring to Abraham Lincoln. When he came into the picture, this book got a LOT more annoying. My gosh. This is one of most embarrassing Lincoln-worship sessions I have ever read. They attempt to portray him as a champion of black rights. This is new information to me, 'cause last time I checked, he explicitly said that whites were superior, and was a member of the Colonization Society, the purpose of said Society being to free the slaves - then boot them to Africa and Central America. They then claim that in the 1860 election, only Abe stood "squarely against slavery." I nearly gagged when I read that. I'm sorry, but the authors must have come from a different universe, because in this one, Lincoln explicitly stated that he had no intentions to interfere with Southern slavery, and he also supported the Corwin Amendment, which would have made slavery permanent and literally untouchable by the government. Oh, and there was an Illinois law prohibiting the immigration of blacks - guess who voted for it?

As far as Lincoln's Republican party buddies go, the Patriot's History kooks portray them as egalitarian, black-rights free-soil saints. Eh, not so much. They were the same ones who voted along with Lincoln to prohibit black immigration to their states. Their free soil position was not so much a moral opposition to slavery as it was an overt attempt to reserve the territories for free WHITE labor.

To top it all off, in reference to the secession conventions they say, "Given that the South was bent on violating the Constitution no matter what..."

I hope for the authors' safety that they never say something that stupid in front of me.

After 10 long years...

Osama Bin Laden is finally dead. This is undeniably a good thing. But before we get caught up in the excitement caused by killing the Big Bad, we should do two things.

Number one - realize that a monster has been killed. A monster that the United States' government created in the first place. Keep that in mind.

Number two - we need to ask ourselves, "At what price did we stop this man?"

Thousands of United States soldiers dead...



...Iraq and Afghanistan still war-torn and occupied...






...and to top it all off, infuriated radical Muslims.





Obviously, it is a good thing that bin Laden was brought to justice. But always keep in mind the cost, and the fact that were it not for the United States arming him during the Cold War, he would never have become a threat.

Leigh Bortons interviews Tom Woods

If you're wondering who Leigh Bortons is, she's basically the one who started Classical Conversations, the homeschooling method we use. In the following interview, she and THOMAS E. WOODS discuss a number of economic and political issues. I found it very interesting.

Listen to internet radio with 1 Smart Mama on Blog Talk Radio

Are all religions basically the same?

I know, I typically don't talk about religion. If I haven't offended you with my politics, odds are I'll now offend you in some other way. Sorry, but I've been running into the "all religions are the same" BS quite a bit recently, and feel the need to address it. Oops, just gave away my position. Now I shall elaborate.

One of the most insidious versions of this one is the claim that the God of Christianity and Islam are the same. They most certainly are NOT. The Bible makes it clear that God is Three and One. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Muslims consider this polytheism - Allah is NOT a triune god. Already, we've plainly distinguished that Islam and Christianity are incompatible. Also, Christians believe that Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God, sent to die for our sins. Islam teaches that Jesus was a prophet, but nothing more.

The rest of the "all religions are basically the same" argument falls apart. Islam is one of the religions that is most easily compared to Christianity. Buddhism? It teaches that there is no God. Hinduism has MANY gods. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the Trinity, and believe that Jesus was in fact the archangel Michael.

Jesus Himself said that He was the only way to Heaven, which makes Christianity 100% incompatible with other religions. There is only room for ONE religion to lead to eternal salvation, only room for ONE religion to be true.

That religion is Christianity. It's not a matter of personal taste, as liberals like to make it out to be. It's a matter of life and death.

More Obama brilliance

OH MY GOSH! A president didn't tell the truth! This is completely and totally shocking and unexpected!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama: No U.S. Forces on the Ground in Libya… Except For Those Guys.

By Jim Geraghty

NPR: “President Obama said Wednesday it was ‘absolutely’ out of the question that U.S. ground forces would be used in Libya.”

How would the president describe the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit? There is no such thing as a purely air-based combat mission; planes have problems and pilots end up on the ground, and then U.S. forces have to end up on the ground, hopefully briefly, to rescue them and bring them home safely. Ask Scott O’Grady how much time you can spend on the ground while patrolling a no-fly zone.

Details on the recent rescue:

The Kearsarge then sent up two MV-22 Ospreys carrying Marine rescue teams. As they were en route, the Harriers dropped two laser-guided bombs near the crash site, apparently to keep Libyans on the ground from approaching the pilot.

With additional helicopters hovering overhead for security, one of the Ospreys landed and picked up the pilot. He was then taken aboard the Kearsarge.

The weapons systems officer was recovered by what U.S. officials described as Libyan opposition forces. He is safe, officials have said.

There are about 2,200 Marines off the shore of Libya right now.

UPDATE: God bless Matt Drudge and the Drudge Report.

With the sudden influx of attention, permit me to further clarify the original point of this post: President Obama’s tendency to speak in broad, sweeping terms that are not accurate (see Tim Carney for more illustrations of this) and to underline the folly of the notion, implied by much of this administration’s rhetoric, that any military action can be quick, clean, easy, or minimal risk. Thankfully, the rescue of the downed pilots earlier this week went off without a hitch, and God willing, any future rescues will end successfully and with minimal contact with the enemy. But that’s up to chance; Operation Eagle Claw and the Battle of Mogadishu demonstrate that there’s no such thing as a simple rescue mission. At some point, the U.S. may need many “boots on the ground,” despite repeated, broadly-worded assurances from the president and commanding officers that such a scenario will not occur.

---------------------------------------------------------

Know what's REALLY sad? This does not surprise me in the least, especially considering how well Obama's previous promises have been fulfilled. Let's take a quick look at a few, shall we?

Getting the troops out of Iraq/Afghanistan - Well, that worked out well. And now we're in Libya.

Closing Guantanamo - It's still there, Mr. President.

Stopping the Bush regime's trampling of civil liberties - Oops. That didn't work out as planned. Because Mr. Obama has continued.

Please do this - if a president makes a promise, prepare for the OPPOSITE of that promise.

Iraq... Afghanistan... Now Libya

The UN has declared a no-fly zone. US units have launched Tomahawk missile strikes.

Great.

Peace-Prize winner O-bomb-a has gottent the US involved in a stupid war. Again. It is only a matter of time before air strikes turn into troops on the ground. Again. It's only a matter of time before we get involved in an endless war. Again. Odds are, we'll end up causing more problems than we solve. AGAIN.

I can't help but get the feeling that this has happened before. Oh, well. The President's approval ratings with the neocons should soar, and that's what really matters.

I'm sick of Obama. I'm sick of Congress. I'm sick of half-witted goons started idiotic wars that will accomplish NOTHING. I'm just plain sick of Amerika. I want America back!

The Tragedy in Japan and Nuclear Power

I WOULD do a post on the actual disaster in Japan, but it would be a little late, and there are many, many better places to read about it. Instead, I am going to criticize media reporting. You may have noticed that for every report on the actual tragedy, there are two or three screaming "NUCLEAR MELTDOWN!!!" I can guarantee you, this will be turned into an anti-nuclear crusade, even if (like at Three Mile Island) nobody is actually harmed by the plants. A "meltdown," even if by some freak chance one happened, would not harm anyone except people stupid enought to be literally inside the plant itself. That's what happened with Chernobyl - the only people killed died INSIDE the plant, and nobody died from "fallout" - in fact, nobody was even harmed.

Now, one thing I've seen claimed is that uranium fuel rods are dangerous because they have such a long half-life. This is both true and a flat out lie. It IS true that uranium has an extremely long half-life, but that is what makes it SAFE, except in obscenely high amounts, by which I mean being literally surrounded by it. Half-life is the amount of time it takes for 50% of a radioactive compound to "decay" - that is, emit radiation and cease to be radioactive. When a compound emits a particle of radiation, it ceases to be that compound, and thus no longer emits radiation. Something with a short half-life, such as radon gas, is quite dangerous, because a LOT of radiation is emitted in a short time. On the other hand, if you take the same amount of uranium, it will take FAR longer to emit the same amount of radiation. So yes, it is radioactive longer, but it emits very little radiation.

Please, news outlets, stop with your ridiculous crusade against safe, clean, affordable power! In fact, stop taking tragedies and using them as an excuse to condemn those you disagree with.

Go, South Carolina!

Lightbulb tyrants, tremble in fear! There are some legislators that are actually trying to get some good accomplished.

---------------------------------------------------

SC State Reps Have More Than Their Heads Screwed on Properly
by Jerry McConnell





According to Robert Romano of NETRIGHTDAILY.com two State Representatives in South Carolina want to get their heads screwed on right by allowing the people of their state to be able to continue to screw incandescent light bulbs into the lighting fixtures in their homes in that state.

These two screwy, in the most commendable way, legislators Bill Sandifer and Dwight Loftis, have authored and submitted a bill that would allow for the manufacture and purchase of incandescent bulbs in South Carolina. As Romero points out, these bulbs are currently subject to a federal ban that begins to take effect in January, 2012, just a mere nine months from now.

NetRightDaily’s reporter Romano explained what motivated the two State Representatives Sandifer and Loftis as told by Bill Wilson, the President of Americans for Limited Government when he said they “are taking the lead in protecting the rights of South Carolina consumers, who don’t want the federal government telling them which light bulbs they must use.”

“The basic concept of the bill” according to State Rep. Bill Sandifer, Chairman of the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee, “is to allow the citizens of South Carolina to be able to continue to buy incandescent bulbs.”

“It is my strong belief that the feds have overstepped the Tenth Amendment, and now are venturing into telling us what kinds of lighting we can have in our homes,” Sandifer added.

“But how can the federal government ban light bulbs?’ asked Romano, “They are trying to use again as they have so often done, the Commerce Clause. But I have a real problem with Big Brother intruding in how I live in my home,” Sandifer declared.

Explaining what the bill does, Representative Loftis said “it provides for the option of an entity manufacturing these bulbs in South Carolina to be sold in South Carolina.”


Wilson explained, “since the bulbs would be made entirely in South Carolina and sold in South Carolina, the federal government has no power to regulate it under the Interstate Commerce Clause.” Romano’s report went on saying there would be more hearings in the subcommittee before coming to a final vote in the full committee. Chairman Sandifer was hopeful for a full house approval of the bill.

After regaining control of Congress in 2006 a piece of legislation passed by the Congressional majority of Democrats in 2007 called Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 which requires that all general-purpose light bulbs be more energy efficient than the existing incandescent bulbs starting on January 1, 2012 on a graduated basis beginning with 100 watt bulbs and ending with 40 watt bulbs in 2014.

It seems like that legislation was enacted just this past year it is still so fresh in people’s minds along with the unpopularity of its requirements. Except for a few chronic worry-warts I know that would be happy to ban almost any activity we humans take for granted, just about everyone else I speak with would prefer to keep the old reliable bulb Thomas Edison brought to us over a century ago.

The “Greenies” as environmentalists are often known, might be happy with their coup of replacing incandescent with the compact fluorescent lamps but our modern day rival China is ecstatic over this new ruling, as they have gained the lion’s share of the market for CFLs as they are commonly known.

So the Democrats once again proved their leadership in moving jobs away from American citizens and blessing foreigners with their largesse, reminiscent of the job shift from American citizens to foreign illegal aliens for the sake of gaining more votes, illegal in many cases, right here at home.

So OK, maybe they’re better for us in terms of environmental issues; but much of the opposition to these bulbs do not agree with that assessment. And the cost factor is also being argued in some circles that the excessive extra cost can, in some instances, never be recovered through cheaper operating costs. Time will settle that issue.


But these new corkscrew looking bulbs may be MUCH more dangerous to our health and the environment as the heavy content of mercury poses long-term additional risks and the very costs of necessary burdensome methods of exact clean-up of broken bulbs is onerous, particularly indoors where nearly all of the breakage will be concentrated. Another time-will-tell issue. But can we wait to find out?

One more complaint with these bulbs is the inability to provide a dimmable bulb which is very popular in many households. It is believed that this will be worked out in due time; but as stated above, can we wait to find out?

Robert Romano furnished these closing remarks by Dwight Loftis, one of the South Carolina Representative authors of the bill who blasted the federal ban on incandescent light bulbs, saying, “On the one hand, the feds say we need to do something about cleaning up the environment, and on the other hand, they impose requirements that we use this particular light bulb that has hazards with the disposal of it.” The new fluorescent bulbs are laced with mercury, raising concerns over the costs of proper disposal and over mercury seepage back into the environment.

“All in all, it’s just something that the feds really I think have no business in regulating,” Loftis said, saying that the supposed cost savings from using the bulbs simply will not be there for consumers.”

I agree. Why in the world would we Americans want to mandate a foreign product of highly questionable merits, and of higher costs along with attendant loss of jobs going to other countries?

Are all those negatives worth seeing Democrats get more votes to perpetuate their terms in office? Good luck to the two South Carolina solons and may their zeal spread rapidly to other states if the Republicans in Congress can’t repeal this bad piece of legislation.

-------------------------------------------

What is this?! A sane statement by a politician? This is very, very good. If this passes, it will be VERY interesting to see how the Feds respond. Will they attempt to strike out at SC over lightbulbs? Or will they sit back and destroy their own credibility by being beaten by a State? I seriously hope it's the latter, simply because it's been ages since States' Rights have been effectively used to stop any government infringement.

Oh, one other thing. Hold me to this - unless it is literally impossible, I will make sure to post at least once a week on here. I am SO sorry for not keeping this blog updated with stuff on Egypt and the like.

(Late) Happy Birthday, Lincoln!

America's first dictator was born 202 years and one day ago! In his honor, let's take a look at the results of his reign.

His legacy includes introducing the police state and martial law to America, as well as the tradition of declaring war under false pretenses. Without him, we may have actually stuck to the Constitution, and later presidents would not have a hero to justify their illegal actions. In fact, without him, the Confederate States of America just might still be a free nation, and slavery would have been abolished peacefully, as in every other country in the world, without 600,000 soldiers and countless civilians dead, without razing entire towns to the ground, without depriving innocents of much-needed medicines and supplies. Let us not forget, Lincoln single-handedly introduced the concept of the powerful executive.

Where would we be had he not happened? Well, we'd be much freer, the government would be far more sane, we would still keep within the Constitution to some degree, and the racial tensions resulting from Reconstruction would have been dramatically mitigated by a peaceful abolition of slavery. Presidents would have had no Great Hero to justify their obscene power grabs. The world would be a horrifying place indeed.

The United Police States of Amerika

Nice. Superbowl 2011 gives us a gigantic show of force from our Benign and Almighty Protectors. Just read the article.

-----------------------------------------------------------------


Robots, guns, horses highlight Super Bowl security demonstration
Parking lot A at Rangers Ballpark in Arlington was a bad guy's nightmare on Friday, as officers from 12 law enforcement agencies -- including the FBI, ATF and ICE -- showed off the equipment they will use to secure Cowboys Stadium on Super Bowl Sunday.

The event, billed as the Super Bowl XLV Joint Information Center Public Safety Media Day, drew everything from bomb dogs and robots to mounted patrol officers to haz-mat teams.

The coolest demonstration I saw was the Arlington Fire Department's bomb robot, which has a long official name but which I -- as a technology fan -- would like to call Awesome.

Arlington firefighters remotely helped the robot pick up a "suspicious backpack" and stuff it into a container that can withstand a pretty big bomb blast. (See short video below.)

The equipment will on site Super Bowl Sunday, just in case.

Special Agent Matthew Segedy, senior SWAT team leader for the Dallas field office of the FBI, had some high-powered weapons and sniper scopes on display. Segedy said FBI agents will be stationed inside Cowboys Stadium for the Super Bowl, in case of emergency.
He said agents from the Houston field office are helping out, just as Dallas agents helped out in 2004 when the Super Bowl was in Houston.

The Arlington Fire Department folks were also on site during the NBA All-Star Game at Cowboys Stadium and the World Series at Rangers Ballpark. (It's been a rather big year for sports in Arlington, huh?)

But Segedy said the FBI was not involved in those events because they were not at the same security threat level as a Super Bowl -- which is a Level 1 national security event.

--------------------------------------------------------------

And he calls it awesome. I call it creepy. The fact is, if a terrorist sneaks in with a bomb, all the snipers in the world won't do any good. In fact, come to think of it, what idiot would try to snipe an individual in such a crowded place?! Then there's the massive amounts of security personnel decked out like the United States' freaking Army. Personally, I'm not a football fan, but if I were, I sure wouldn't want to walk past a few rows of faceless paramilitary goons with riot shields and M-4s.

The Arizona Massacre

Has anyone else noticed anything REALLY odd about the reporting on it? Every single article I've read on the subject from a major news outlet makes no mention of the fact that at least two of the people who stopped the shooter were armed. They felt confident in going after him because they had their guns with them, and one opened fire. Why no mention of this fact?

Another issue - "right-wing rhetoric" is constantly blamed for this guy's rampage. That makes perfect sense, right? After all, he made videos about the gold standard! Of course, they were also completely incoherent ramblings that made no degree of sense, and there's the minor fact that most of those who knew him described him as left-wing. One of his favorite books is the Communist Manifesto, not exactly a right-wing staple. His target was a "blue-dog" Democrat who is opposed to gun regulation. BUT HE MADE VIDEOS IN FAVOR OF THE GOLD STANDARD!!! Well, I'm convinced. Who else here is willing to bet that even if he had never heard Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin he still would have gone ballistic? He was a deranged lunatic, and most of those who knew him KNEW that he was dangerous and violent.

Even better, they're now wanting to ban 33-round magazines for handguns. The fact is, he would have gone on a rampage ANYWAY, even with standard 10-round mags. It's called "reloading" - it actually doesn't take that long with a Glock. Speaking of which, sales of the Glock 19 have skyrocketed. Get 'em while they're available - and legal.

Some thoughts on WikiLeaks

I cannot believe that I haven't posted on this subject yet. We all know what the statists say - "WikiLeaks is a threat to national security! Julian Assange is a traitor!"

First of all, it is NOT a threat, in any way, to national security. The only thing that MIGHT be dangerous in some vague way are the documents listing "vital" locations across the world. They consist almost entirely of mines (palladium, cobalt, etc.) and undersea cables, with a few other locations that aren't in either category. My thoughts are:

#1: Just how do you expect terrorists to get to undersea cables?
#2: If terrorists thought strategically, most of these places would have been attacked already. Listing them isn't doing any damage.
#3: Terrorists DON'T think strategically. They want to kill as many people as possible, and visibly destroy as much as possible. Attacking a mine, no matter how important or how valuable, is not going to achieve the same effect on the public as bombing buildings, turning them into very visible ruins, which causes TERROR.

I'm also still curious as to how Assange could be a "traitor," considering that he's not a citizen of the United States.