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 A modern one, not using outdated MiG fighters and even more outdated SCUD missiles.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.

"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

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!

(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.

Christine O'Donnell's Non-Gaffe

Just copy and paste the address; I can't get the link to work.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/19/christine-odonnell-church-and-state-gaffe

Really, she's ignorant of the Constitution? I have a copy of the Constitution and its amendments, and I see nothing about so-called "separation of church and state." The First Amendment does nothing but prohibit Congress from establishing a national religion. In fact, the States used to have their own official religions.

The Left (actually, the Right, too, on occasion) cracks me up sometimes. They know nothing about the Constitution besides little sound bits they've been trained to spew, yet accuse Christine O'Donnell of being "ignorant" of the Constitution. In her "gaffe" she demonstrates a greater understanding of it than most Americans.

These people are nothing but smear artists, and if anyone's ignorant of the Constitution and its associated history, it's these Establishment mouthpieces. Yet, this is all that many Americans hear. Bring up nullification: "SLAVERY! RACISM!" Dare to bring up secession: "NEO-CONFEDERATE! RACIST!' Defending the Constitution? "IGNORANT! EXTREMIST!" Or how about militias? "WHITE SUPREMACISTS! NEO-NAZIS! TERRORISTS!" Ever seen a discussion between a libertarian and the media goons? It's all the good guys can do to say anything over extended versions of these sound bits. It's an embarrassment to the country. I don't know how anyone maintains any degree of respect for these people.

I sense a high paranoia level...

Seriously, I understand the fear of terrorism, but this is way over the top.

Jewish teen’s prayers spark jet security scare
Flight is diverted after religious item is mistaken for a bomb, police say

PHILADELPHIA - A Jewish teenager trying to pray on a New York-to-Kentucky flight caused a scare Thursday when he pulled out a set of small boxes containing holy scrolls, leading the captain to divert the flight to Philadelphia, where the commuter plane was greeted by police, bomb-sniffing dogs and federal agents.

The 17-year-old on US Airways Express Flight 3079 was using tefillin, a set of small boxes containing biblical passages that are attached to leather straps, Philadelphia police Lt. Frank Vanore said.

When used in prayer, one box is strapped to the arm while the other box is placed on the head.

"It's something that the average person is not going to see very often, if ever," FBI spokesman J.J. Klaver said.

The teen explained the ritual after being questioned by crew members of the flight, which had left LaGuardia Airport around 7:30 a.m. headed for Louisville and was operated by Chautauqua Airlines, authorities said.

Officials with the airline, however, said crew members "did not receive a clear response" when they talked with the teen, according to a statement issued by Republic Airways, which owns Chautauqua.

"Therefore, in the interest of everyone's safety, the crew decided to land in Philadelphia, where a more complete investigation and follow-up with authorities would be possible," the statement said.

The flight landed in Philadelphia about 9 a.m. without incident and was met by police, bomb-sniffing dogs and officials from the FBI and Transportation Security Administration.

‘They were more alarmed than we were’
Authorities said the plane was searched and passengers were questioned. The teen, who is from White Plains, N.Y., and was traveling with his 16-year-old sister, was very cooperative, Vanore said.

"They were more alarmed than we were," Vanore said.

Klaver said the teen and his sister were never in custody and were cleared to continue their travels.

The teen's grandmother, who was waiting for him at Louisville International Airport, said the early flight left no time to pray before leaving New York.

"He hadn't had the opportunity to pray, so that is why he did it on the plane," Frances Winchell said.

She said the episode was traumatic for the boy, whose mother requested that he not give interviews.

"But in any event," she added, "all's well that ends well, and maybe some good will come to the world because of it."

The teen, who belongs to the congregation Young Israel of White Plains, is "a brilliant student" from "the sweetest family," said Shmuel Greenberg, the synagogue's rabbi.

The morning prayer ritual is supposed to take place within a few hours of sunrise, so it's understandable that the teen was doing it on the plane, Greenberg said.

‘Aware of ignorance’
Binding the boxes of holy scrolls to the arm and head serves as "a reminder for the person that their actions during the day, and what they think about during the day, should be on a level of holiness and should inspire them to do productive, good things," he said.

The rabbi said he could see how someone unfamiliar with the tefillin could be alarmed.

"Security today is a serious issue. You can't become educated up in the air," Greenberg said. "I can definitely see a pilot or a crew that never saw it before in today's environment be very, very concerned."

Another rabbi, however, said tefillin have been used for thousands of years and he found it hard to believe no one recognized it. Benjamin Blech, an assistant professor of Talmud at Yeshiva University in New York, said he found the incident "both humorous and outlandish" and called it a "wake-up call" for religious sensitivity.

"We should be aware of ignorance just as much as we should be aware of terrorism," he said.

Concerns about passengers carrying bombs have been heightened since a Nigerian man was accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines flight using explosives concealed in his pants on Christmas Day.

The Republic statement said the airline would use Thursday's event "to further strengthen our commitment to both security and customer service."

The flight was carrying 15 passengers and three crew members; travelers were rebooked on other flights, US Airways spokesman Morgan Durrant said.

This is spooky...

Prophetic.

This is great!

Paul Krugman (BIG liberal) is in favor of socialized health care. This video is priceless.

This is scary

Just watch, and you'll see what I mean.

Proof that we need to GET OUT.

I found this horrifying article on my dad's blog, The New Mrs. Gunderson. If you don't think we're at the point that secession is a necessity, think again. This is nothing short of communism. This is EXACTLY what the Soviets did. It DOESN'T WORK.


U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms
Goal Is to Limit Risk to Broader Economy
By Binyamin Appelbaum and David Cho
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 24, 2009; A01

The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.

The government at present has the authority to seize only banks.

Giving the Treasury secretary authority over a broader range of companies would mark a significant shift from the existing model of financial regulation, which relies on independent agencies that are shielded from the political process. The Treasury secretary, a member of the president's Cabinet, would exercise the new powers in consultation with the White House, the Federal Reserve and other regulators, according to the document.

The administration plans to send legislation to Capitol Hill this week. Sources cautioned that the details, including the Treasury's role, are still in flux.

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is set to argue for the new powers at a hearing today on Capitol Hill about the furor over bonuses paid to executives at American International Group, which the government has propped up with about $180 billion in federal aid. Administration officials have said that the proposed authority would have allowed them to seize AIG last fall and wind down its operations at less cost to taxpayers.

The administration's proposal contains two pieces. First, it would empower a government agency to take on the new role of systemic risk regulator with broad oversight of any and all financial firms whose failure could disrupt the broader economy. The Federal Reserve is widely considered to be the leading candidate for this assignment. But some critics warn that this could conflict with the Fed's other responsibilities, particularly its control over monetary policy.

The government also would assume the authority to seize such firms if they totter toward failure.

Besides seizing a company outright, the document states, the Treasury Secretary could use a range of tools to prevent its collapse, such as guaranteeing losses, buying assets or taking a partial ownership stake. Such authority also would allow the government to break contracts, such as the agreements to pay $165 million in bonuses to employees of AIG's most troubled unit.

The Treasury secretary could act only after consulting with the president and getting a recommendation from two-thirds of the Federal Reserve Board, according to the plan.

Geithner plans to lay out the administration's broader strategy for overhauling financial regulation at another hearing on Thursday.

The authority to seize non-bank financial firms has emerged as a priority for the administration after the failure of investment house Lehman Brothers, which was not a traditional bank, and the troubled rescue of AIG.

"We're very late in doing this, but we've got to move quickly to try and do this because, again, it's a necessary thing for any government to have a broader range of tools for dealing with these kinds of things, so you can protect the economy from the kind of risks posed by institutions that get to the point where they're systemic," Geithner said last night at a forum held by the Wall Street Journal.

The powers would parallel the government's existing authority over banks, which are exercised by banking regulatory agencies in conjunction with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Geithner has cited that structure as the model for the government's plans.