So, I was looking at some SC polls...

To see how (who else?) Ron Paul was doing. Turns out, he's in third (20%) behind Newt (25%) and Romney (25%). Darn good if you ask me, except that he (an ideologically consistent libertarian who actually believes in small government) is behind a notoriously unfaithful serial hypocrite and flip-flopper (A Newt! He didn't get better, either.) and a well-known Massacheusetts liberal/"moderate" flip-flopper campaigning as a conservative (Romney). So yeah, that kinda stinks that the only good guy is behind the two worst. Oh, well.

Now, here's what's disturbing. The polls also divided by category, to see how the candidates were doing with certain voting groups. The disturbing part? Among evangelical Christians, Paul placed last. What. The. Heck. Are you JOKING?! Ron Paul, a pro-life, small government, pro-free market, pro-peace Christian who actually lives out his religion rather than using it for political purposes is losing to all the other guys among CHRISTIANS.

Refresher: Gingrich is notoriously unfaithful, and is currently married to his THIRD wife. He's consistently hypocritical (Free market! Unless Romney participates in it!) and is a complete warmonger regarding Iran.

Romney is a freaking MORMON. A MORMON is doing dramatically better among CHRISTIANS than another Christian! Romney is also a "moderate," which, translated, means "no principles whatsoever." The man is pro-choice (until he needs to be pro-life) and has an economic plan comparable to Obama's according to the Wall Street Journal, and is also a warmonger regarding Iran.

Santorum... well, there's a lot to say about Santorum. There's a 2006 ad floating about on Youtube in which Santorum actually brags about working with liberals like Nancy Pelosi to get big-government, big-spending legislation passed. Claimed to be all about a balanced budget, so when the time came... he voted five (5) times to RAISE the debt ceiling! His position on Iran also makes the others look like peace-lovers, too.

Perry. Well, he was pro-bailout, is essentially a rerun of the disasterous George W., and... uh... oops. Yep. Another clueless, big-government warmonger.

Huntsman - who? Joking aside, he seems like a "decent" guy, but looking at his objectives, he's... really, really lacking when it comes to a substantive plan, and he's also convinced Iran is a "strategic threat."

What unites Christians behind four outrageously bad candidates and one somewhat bad candidate, instead of the thoroughly good, consistent Ron Paul, who actually lives out his Christianity?

Iran. Yes, that annoying nation that refuses to go away, despite all our sanctions against it. It appears that the single unifying element that has convinced the majority of South Carolina Christians not to support Ron Paul is a hypothetical nuclear weapon being hypothetically developed by a hypothetical nuclear weapons program in a third-world country. In other words, the majority of evangelical Christians in SC place more importance on a theoretical nuke than on actually getting a small-government, pro-free market, pro-life president into the Oval Office, and are willing to vote for anyone and everyone entirely on that basis.

Because another war in the Middle East over weapons of mass destruction (sound familiar?) is precisely what we need, apparently.

"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.

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.

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!

Joe Biden's Apparent Election Strategy

That is, open mouth, insert foot. This HAS to be the most inane, historically inaccurate statement EVER. Just read the article.

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


VPOTUS Joe Biden: Dems Will "Keep The Senate And Win The House" »
By Celeste Katz

Sorry for the delay -- had my hands a bit full with the meltdown at the NYC Board of Elections -- but here is the pool report filed by Newsday's Reid Epstein on Vice President Joe Biden's fundraising visit to Manhattan today:


.VPOTUS spoke Tuesday in a wood-paneled second-floor bar at the Helmsley Park Lane Hotel on Central Park South at a fundraiser for incumbent Democratic NY-1 Rep. Tim Bishop.

Wearing a blue suit and a bluer tie, VPOTUS reminded the 70 people who paid a minimum of $1,000 to hear VPOTUS's remarks and eat a menu of cold-cut sandwiches, salad and coffee that the nation’s economic malaise is the fault of the Bush Administration and is improving under Democratic stewardship.

“We’ve done a lot in the last 20 months,” VPOTUS said. “The economy has grown four quarters in a row, not what it needs to, but it’s growing, it’s not shrinking. Just since January, 860,000 private sector jobs, not nearly enough. But guess what? That’s more jobs than were created in the entire eight years of the Bush Administration. That’s factual.”

VPOTUS did not mention Bishop’s Republican opponent, businessman Randy Altschuler, by name, but predicted the federal government will grind to a halt if the House or Senate fall under GOP control. He predicted Democrats would “keep the Senate and win the House.”

“This is a real important election,” he said. “It’s more important than the one that got Barack and me elected, it literally is. Because there at least we would have continued to drift another four years, which would be bad. Now at least we’ve stopped the drift and are starting to head in the right direction. If we lose in the House or the Senate, we’re now in a position where we are in a stalemate and this thing is just going to go in reverse and our most powerful weapon will be a veto pen, and that’s bad.”

VPOTUS, who stood next to Bishop and grasped the four-term Democrat’s shoulder at several points during his remarks, waded into the audience as he discussed the nation’s need to compete with education and infrastructure investments made by nations like China and India, and Republican opposition to such spending.

“Every single great idea that has marked the 21st century, the 20th century and the 19th century has required government vision and government incentive,” he said. “In the middle of the Civil War you had a guy named Lincoln paying people $16,000 for every 40 miles of track they laid across the continental United States. … No private enterprise would have done that for another 35 years.”

Bishop, who represents the East End of Long Island, touted VPOTUS as “an adopted son of Southampton” - Bishop’s hometown - who spent time this summer at a home to which Bishop, as a teenager, delivered groceries.

VPOTUS replied: “When I die, I want to be reborn in Southampton… You’re the only Democrat I know in Southampton, well, that’s not quite true.”

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

Well. Every great idea in the last 200 years, huh? So I guess the following ideas aren't great:

The airplane
Air conditioning
Google
Replaceable parts
Automation in industry
The telephone
Electricity
The MP3 player
Countless medical advances

And dozens upon dozens of other ideas that I was under the delusion of thinking were great and useful. What a goon. Now, notice his ignorant little statement about the trans-continental railroad. He says private industry wouldn't have done that for another 35 years. Apparently, we live in different universes, since in this universe one James Hill did it well within 35 years of it, completing it in 1893. Construction on the "official" Great Northern began in 1889 from existing railways. Construction of the preexisting tracks, of course, began long before that. Interesting fact - the famed transcontinental railway went BANKRUPT, and right after being completed had to be closed again due to crappy workmanship, causing it to easily be washed away by floods. Since when was that thing a "great idea?" The Great Northern out-competed all of its Federally-aided rivals, and was laid on far more effecient routes. Proof positive that great ideas typically are killed by government aid.

NOOOOOOOO!!!

I can't believe this. I feel like screaming. Dangerous carbon emissions?! Just read the terrifying article below to see plenty more stupid phrases

Hours after the House passed landmark legislation meant to curb greenhouse gas emissions and create an energy-efficient economy, President Barack Obama on Saturday urged senators to show courage and follow suit.

The sharply debated bill's fate is unclear in the Senate, and Obama used his weekly radio and Internet address to ratchet up pressure on the 100-seat chamber.

"My call to every senator, as well as to every American, is this," he said. "We cannot be afraid of the future. And we must not be prisoners of the past. Don't believe the misinformation out there that suggests there is somehow a contradiction between investing in clean energy and economic growth."

Obama said the bill would create jobs, make renewable energy profitable and decrease America's dependence on foreign oil.

"It will spur the development of low-carbon sources of energy _ everything from wind, solar and geothermal power to safer nuclear energy and cleaner coal," he said.

House Democratic leaders said the bill helped accomplish one of Obama's campaign promises and would make the U.S. a leader in international efforts to address climate change when negotiations take place in Copenhagen later this year.

"We passed transformational legislation, which will take us into the future," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., after the 219-212 vote.

"For some it was a very difficult vote because the entrenched agents of the status quo were out there full force, jamming the lines in their districts and here, and they withstood that," Pelosi said.

The vote marked the first time either house of Congress has passed legislation to curb global warming gases. The legislation, totaling about 1,200 pages, would require the U.S. to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and by 83 percent by mid-century.

Success will be tougher in the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid says he wants to take up the legislation by the fall. Sixty 60 votes will be needed to overcome any Republican filibuster.

The "razor-thin vote in the House spells doom in the Senate," said Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the top Republican on the Senate's environment panel.

Reid, D-Nev., was more optimistic.

"The bill is not perfect, but it is a good product for the Senate," Reid said. "Working with the president and his team, I am hopeful that the Senate will be able to debate and pass bipartisan and comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation this fall."

Supporters and opponents agreed that the legislation would lead to higher energy costs. But they disagreed on the impact on consumers.

Democrats pointed to two reports _ one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency _ that suggested average increases would be limited after tax credits and rebates were taken into account. The CBO estimated the bill would cost an average household $175 a year, the EPA $80 to $110 a year. But Republicans and industry groups say the real figure would much higher.

The White House and congressional Democrats argued the bill would create millions of green jobs as the nation shifts to greater reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar and development of more fuel-efficient vehicles _ and away from use of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal.

It will "make our nation the world leader on clean energy jobs and technology," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who negotiated deals with dozens of lawmakers in recent weeks to broaden the bill's support.

Republicans saw it differently.

This "amounts to the largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change," declared Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind.

In the Republicans' weekly radio and Internet address, House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio said, "By imposing a tax on every American who drives a car or flips on a light switch, this plan will drive up the prices for food, gasoline and electricity."

But Obama said the measure would cost the average American about the price of a postage stamp per day.

"It is paid for by the polluters who currently emit dangerous carbon emissions," the president said. "It provides assistance to businesses and families as they make the gradual transition to clean energy technologies."

In California alone, Obama said, 3,000 people will be employed to build a new solar plant that will create 1,000 permanent jobs.

It just keeps getting worse and worse...

After watching the following videos, you will feel like running up to D.C. and screaming your head off. You will also probably get an intense hatred for our brilliant government.