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.

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.

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.

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!

Lincoln's Humanitarianism at Work

The first group of pictures in this montage are rather graphic, not to mention depressing, but it really gets the message through.



Long live the American Union. May its bayonets never grow dull.

Oh, Goody...

Tensions between North and South Korea are heightening. Apparently North Korea torpedoed a South Korean warship, and the two Koreas are starting up with more irritating saber-rattling.

At this point, US citizens reading this will likely ask, "Does this really matter to the United States?" Well, no, but if there's war, we'll probably get involved anyway. Heck, why don't we just go ahead and simultaneously attack North Korea and Iran? It's glaringly obvious that Peace-Prize Obama is hungry for war with these two nations.