For your bemusement all of my blogging is now being done at :

http://soichiro1974.wordpress.com

Come see what's going on in my head!
Thanks!

I wasn't able to watch tonight's Republican debate. It sounds, however, like I really didn't miss much. I have to admit it's starting to become rather humorous when I think of how the mainstream media is treating ( read: ignoring) Ron Paul. How badly they wish he would just go away and let them enjoy their establishmentarian lovefest. But he won't go away. And I admire him for it. After all, why SHOULD he go away? Aren't the American people supposed to hear EVERY side of the "story" before they make a choice regarding who should be President? Isn't that what this sacred cow of "democracy" is supposed to deliver? Apparently not. American democracy evidently means that those major organs of the government, the mainstream media, select which candidates are "electable" and then showcase them in all their glory.  The annointed ones are given ample time to elucidate their grand visions for the future and assure us that they will be everything to everyone. The sheeple nod and smile in their living rooms, bathed in the glow of their big screen LCD televisions, while visions of decimated Middle Eastern civilizations dance in their heads. As for a "fringe" candidate, well,  if he happens to be unsavory enough he will be cast out of the illustrious "top-tier" of candidates and relegated to political Siberia, where he will be expected to wait quietly while the REAL candidates woo the public. And don't even THINK of favoring a third party candidate! My goodness, don't we all know that in this great "democracy" there is only room for TWO political parties?

So after the media has selected its cast of presidential characters they present them to us under banners such as "You Decide 2008." Sure, I decide which one of the establishment's golden boys I'd like to see as President.  Ron Paul, if you haven't noticed is NOT one of the media's annointed ones. He's been ridiculed, laughed at, yelled at, accused of being a racist, an anti-semite, and lately he's just been...ignored. It seems the establishment organ's dirty tricks haven't succeeded so they've resorted to giving Dr. Paul the silent treatment. And of course they expect him to remain silent as well. Observe the amount of speaking time given to the five participants in tonight's debate:

This is information from MSNBC's website.

Romney: 21:11, during 13 times

McCain: 16:00, during 13 times

Giuliani: 13:50, during 11 times

Huckabee: 12:11, during nine times

Paul: 6:31, during six times

The mainstream media is always telling us how Ron Paul has no chance. Maybe if they actually let him speak during one of these "debates" he would. Oh, but wait! I almost forgot! That's the whole idea! Silly me, I  just got caught up in this whole "democracy" nonsense again. Now I remember how "democracy" works. The U.S. government invades another country to FORCE "democracy" on them, while "democracy" IN the U.S. is systematically destroyed by that same government and its shills in the media.

And now back to your regularly scheduled brainwashing...er, I mean...uh... program.

So here I am, thinking about "debates." I suppose being caught up in all of this political business has led to my current train(wreck) of thought. The prospective presidential candidate debates are really more like game shows. And honestly, I think they might as well go the whole proverbial nine yards and just bring in Wink Martindale to host the festivities. Actually, were it not for people like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel there would literally be NO debate at all. Instead we would all be subjected to nothing but hours and hours of political pablum from the big name "serious" candidates who are about as interesting as Pittsburgh International Airport on Thanksgiving night. ( I was there. The rest of humanity was most certainly not.)

Sadly, I must conclude that it seems most people don't really want to debate ANYTHING except whether or not the Patriots will go undefeated this year. Political debates are avoided at almost all costs by most people. I mean, why bother talking politics when it's just going to start a nasty argument, right? And that's pretty much it. Most of us never talk about politics with even our best friends for this reason. Oh sure, when people who agree on political matters get together the talk is all sweetness and light. But get two people who DON'T agree with each other and just watch the juvenile name calling festival begin.

So here are a few big time debate killers. Just try to present the case for a non-interventionist foreign policy to a neoconservative. While your at it, try to illustrate how the Iraq War is actually illegal according to our Constitution. And what the heck, go ahead and try to explain how the War on Terror is actually creating more terrorists.
You probably won't get too far before you're called something like an anti-American supporter of "islamofascism" who just wants to "cut and run." From there it could very well be said that you don't support the troops as "they fight for our freedom." And don't forget that you're probably an evil isolationist to boot.
Nope. No need for debate here! To most neoconservatives, when you say you're against war they assume that you're planning to join Al Qaeda.

For more fun, try to present the case for ending the War on Drugs to a drug warrior. Immediately you'll find that you are ACTUALLY an advocate of recreational crack cocaine use. Furthermore you'll just be considered crazy. I mean, hey, drugs are BAAAAD! You can try to explain how prohibition of anything makes that "thing" even more valuable on the black market , but it will be to no avail. Remember: Drugs are BAAAAD! Laws are GOOOOD!

And since you're a glutton for punishment the next trick will be to present the case against the welfare state to a welfare statist. Look out! You may be surprised to discover that you ACTUALLY hate poor people! AND to top it all off you're also a greedy capitalist . Sure you can try to explain how government entitlement programs destroy the concept of self reliance and replace it with dependence on government. You may even explain how private charity works much better than coercive redistribution of wealth. But people, that is people in the PRIVATE sector, are just too gosh darn greedy. We need those generous (with other people's money) and selfless PUBLIC servants to deliver alms to the under privileged people in this country.

And for the grand finale it's environment time! Just try, even for a second, to argue AGAINST more environmental regulations, or for the repeal of regulations already in existence. Of course there's only one reason why you would ever do such a thing. You're a friend of capitalist, corporate greed, remember? Never mind that the federal government owns much of the land throughout the United States.

"Based on data provided by the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), the Republican Study Conference recently issued a report on the amount of land and buildings owned by the federal government. It revealed that "almost three-in-ten acres in the United States are owned by the federal government," with the government sometimes owning more than half of the land in some states. In California, nearly half of land area is owned by the federal government.

Other key findings of the report show, as of September 30, 2003, 29.6% of all land in the U.S. was owned by the federal government, with total acreage of 671,759,297.7. Some of the states with the largest percentage of federal land ownership were:

1.) Nevada: 91.9% 5.) Wyoming: 50.6% 9.) Colorado: 34.9%

2.) Alaska: 66.7% 6.) Arizona: 50.2% 10.) New Mexico: 34.1%

3.) Utah: 66.5% 7.) Oregon: 49.7% 11.) Montana: 31.3%

4.) Idaho: 66.4% 8.) California: 46.9% 12.) Washington: 31.0% "

So when we hear about the horrible state of the environment, or shortages of natural resources, is it possible that our government might actually be the major offender? No, of course not. Let's just have those Earth loving bureaucrats in D.C. draft some new regulations that they won't even follow on their own land.

Yes there are many more contentious issues about which people are loathe to converse. But the point here is that it doesn't really matter what the issue is. People are different. There WILL be different opinions out there on just about EVERY issue. This should be viewed as a GOOD thing. We don't have to agree with other peoples' opinions or beliefs, but ignorance gets us nowhere. A free exchange of ideas, on the other hand, can be beneficial for everyone.

Most mainstream media pundits seem to be rather bemused that Ron Paul's campaign for president keeps going from strength to strength. Many of them still refuse to recognize him at all, while others like talk show host Glenn Beck have recently attempted to smear the good doctor and his supporters by equating them with terrorists.

Of course, the Beck invective has done nothing to weaken support for Dr. Paul. How could it? It is simply false. Beck is referring to the theme behind Ron Paul's "moneybomb" on November 5th. On that day, over 30,000 people made donations totalling approximately $4.2 million to the Texas Congressman's campaign. This theme centered on Guy Fawkes day. Fawkes, incidentally, attempted to blow up Parliament in England on November 5th in 1605.   He was the inspiration for the character "V" in the 2005 movie "V For Vendetta." Anyone who can think rationally for a second ( this immediately excludes paranoid and desperate neoconservatives like Glenn Beck) would understand that this movie is first and foremost about breaking free of the repressive, totalitarian tentacles of a government run amok. This then, explains the true connection between "V For Vendetta" and Ron Paul's run for the Republican nomination.

However, the November 5th fundraiser had nothing to do with the official Paul campaign. But that didn't stop ex-Marxist David Horowitz, a guest on Beck's program, from lying about it when he claimed it was significant that Ron Paul CHOSE Guy Fawkes as an image. Certainly Ron Paul is leading the fight against our rulers and their machinations to destroy everything that made this country so respected around the world. But he has also stated that he had never even spoken to the organizer of this fundraising masterstroke until after November 5th. So how, exactly, could DR. PAUL have made the choice to use Guy Fawkes as an image? But the important question here is, who is actually advocating violence? Who, exactly, is calling for a war that will last generations, and probably kill millions of
people? It's not Ron Paul or his supporters who are such fervent advocates of peace. Alas, it's people like Glenn Beck and David Horowitz. Who is calling for the American military to be used to suppress the voices of Americans who are tired of endless war and lies from their government? It's NOT Ron Paul. It's merchants of death like Glenn Beck and David Horowitz.

I suppose it's official then. Ron Paul really is a top tier candidate. People like Glenn Beck can no longer ignore him, so it's time to smear him as well as his supporters. But this plan, like every other plan hatched from the lame brain of a neocon, will fail, too.
Their desperation is palpable now. The rEVOLution is making ALL of these lowlifes squirm. The rEVOLution, however, is one of PEACE. This fact will surely result in collective neocon apoplexy!

Ask people why they support a particular candidate for president and most of them will tell you about all of the wonderful things he (or she) will do once elected to office. Many voters just love an active government. They love government that will "protect" the environment, stamp out illiteracy, create a drug-free America, defeat all of those freedom hating terrorists, eliminate poverty, and provide universal healthcare. Problem is, all of these wonderful deeds are expensive. And who pays for it? We do, of course. We have no choice in the matter. Government officials are supposedly much wiser and responsible with our money than we are, so we are told to just trust them. We should trust that the amount they take from us is a fair amount. We should also trust that they are using the loot in the way it was intended to be used. This redistribution of wealth is acceptable because it is for the "greater good," or the "good of society." Individuals, after all, can't be bothered with caring for their fellow humans. It is only monolithic governments that can be compassionate AND trustworthy.

But theft is theft. Even if the thief is stealing for a good reason, it's still theft. If I take $2000 from my neighbor without permission and give it to a poor man, it's still theft. Sure I may have provided some relief to the poor man, but the cash that helped to provide the relief was stolen. Consequently I am in big trouble. When governments do exactly the same thing it is regarded as noble and even good for society.

Many people, however, LIKE to be taxed. Many people would love to see more of their money going to help environmental causes or to combat the terrorist menace. But why should the people who DON'T support these causes be forced to support them, too? The idea here is that government knows what's best for us and we should just accept it. The government is blessed with an intelligence that those of us in the private sector just can't match.

But what about private charity. There are plenty of people who want to protect the environment, help the needy, and tackle the drug problem. These people are free to donate to whatever private charity they like. Why should EVERYONE have to pay? Someone once told me that we all have to pay for various programs through taxation because people just aren't generous enough. They would never do it on their own. Therefore everyone has to be forced to hand over some money to the people who ARE generous enough; the government. But here's the problem with this little scenario. If people, by their very nature, are not generous, and do not care about helping their fellow humans, how is the government going to behave any differently? After all, isn't the government comprised of these same fallible humans that can't be trusted in the private sector.

Furthermore, the idea that government is somehow compassionate is ludicrous. How many millions of people have been killed by various government wars? How are we supposed to believe that our government actually cares about ANYONE when they indiscriminantly kill hundreds of thousands of innocents in Iraq? And how can it be said that there was any regard for innocent human life when the bombs were dropped on Japan?

Government is the problem. It is NOT the solution. Ask for an active, aggressive government and you'll end up with nothing more than a band of thieves and killers.
Look at ANY problem government has set out to fix. Inevitably that problem gets much worse. No amount of legalized theft is going to right the wrongs in this country or world. It's a total contradiction anyway. How can government FIX problems in society when it has to resort to STEALING the money that funds their efforts?

It's shocking! That's what it is! Just shocking, I say! I'm referring to an article appearing in USA Today titled " Most fake bombs missed by screeners." But that's impossible! Airport security was made foolproof, wasn't it? I mean, in this post 9/11 America the nationalization of airport security was finally going to make us all safer. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) , under which the TSA operates, was a vital element in the "war on terror." And we hear time and time again from the Decider and all of the other neocons that we are MUCH safer now than we were in those blissfully ignorant pre 9/11 days.

Okay, so maybe I'm being just a LITTLE bit sarcastic. Actually this USA Today article does not present ANY surprising information regarding the ineptitude of the government goons who patrol the airports' security checkpoints. It simply serves as another reminder that whatever government tries to accomplish through intervention, the exact OPPOSITE will happen.

According to a classified TSA report obtained by USA Today " screeners at Los Angeles International Airport missed about 75% of simulated explosives and bomb parts that Transportation Security Administration testers hid under their clothes or in carry-on bags at checkpoints. At Chicago O'Hare International Airport, screeners missed about 60% of hidden bomb materials that were packed in everyday carry-ons."

In the late 1990's, before airport security checkpoints were the domain of the Feds, tests revealed that screeners missed about 40% of fake bombs. This information comes from the Government Accountability Office. Admittedly, that's not a particularly reassuring statistic either. BUT, just look at what has happened to that statistic since the government has been running the program.

Former inspector general for the DHS, Clark Kent Ervin (What a SUPER name) had this to say when he learned of the information contained in this latest report. " That's a huge cause for concern." He went on to say that "screeners' inability to find bombs could encourage terrorists to try to bring them on airplanes." No, REALLY?!?!
Additionally, Mr Ervin claimed that all of this failure proves that the TSA needs "more powerful checkpoint scanning machines." Spoken like a true government man. Failure of a government program naturally requires that MORE money be funneled into that program. I can practically hear the joyous shouts from the manufacturers of those checkpoint scanning machines. After all, those government contracts are pretty lucrative things. He also said something about more training for TSA screeners. I bet I know when they'll conduct that training. Most likely it will be during peak periods at the airports. You know, those times when the lines at the security checkpoint are backed up and everyone is saying "why do they only have two lanes open?"

Interestingly, however, this article also points out that "San Francisco International Airport screeners, who work for a private company instead of the TSA, missed about 20% of the bombs." Well, how about that?! Could it be that privatization is the solution to the airport security problem? No, no. That's a crazy thing to suggest. I can't believe I even entertained that notion for a split second! I remember now. The correct way for us to deal with this situation is to wave a flag, watch Fox News, eat some freedom fries, go back to sleep and remember that the government is out there, keeping us safe from all of those big, bad terrorists and their bottles of water and sports drinks.

I feel SO much better now!

So another Republican debate has come and gone. This time it was held in Michigan and focused on economic matters. But this was to be no ordinary debate. For none other than Fred Thompson was going to be there! Surely the presence of this man whom Tricky Dick Nixon once called "dumb as hell" ( I'm not making this up either.) would provide the watershed moment in which the whole of the Republican world would realize that their savior had come. Alas, it wasn't to be for the actor man. Sure he was on a stage, but he was roundly UPstaged by the "Mayor" and the "Governor." Yep, Rudy and Mitt sure did steal the show with their interestingly timed argument over which one of them was the biggest government reducer. Naturally it was all nonsense since both of these creeps are career liars and statist to the core.

But something is troubling the front runners. Or I should say someONE is troubling them. Now who could it be? Well they only mentioned her about 12 times during the debate. Yes, shock of all shocks, it's the dreaded Hillary! But why? Why are they so worried about her ALONE. The Democrats haven't nominated anyone yet, right? Alright, I know Hillary is considered to be a shoo-in for the nomination. So let's just say that she gets it. Do any of the war hawk Republican candidates actually believe they can beat her? Now that's not to say that Mrs. Clinton is anti-war, because she certainly is NOT. After all she voted for the Iraq war. That's also not to say she's better than the hawks on civil liberties, either. She voted for the Patriot Act, too. And when it comes to the enemy du jour, Iran, she's just as hawkish as the neocons. BUT, she has one big advantage. She's NOT a REPUBLICAN warmonger. The American public is thoroughly disgusted with Republican warmongers. Even though historically the Democrats have been responsible for getting America into most of its wars, six years of the neocon led "war on terror" have convinced most people that ANY Democrat would be better than ANY neocon. Therefore, Hillary wins by default against all of the Republican candidates except, guess who? Yes it may just be that doctor guy who keeps irritating all of the establishment types with whom he shares the debate stage.

Yes that's right. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who can beat Hillary. My dream debate involves Dr. No vs. Mrs. Clinton. Any perceptions the public has about Hillary being anti-war would be utterly destroyed in a foreign policy debate with Ron Paul. And it seems pretty clear that foreign policy is going to be the number one issue with voters in 2008.

Furthermore, if most Republicans dread the thought of living through at least four more years of Clintonian rule (and they have good reason to dread that thought) they should ALL get behind Ron Paul right now! They need to quit with all of the war hysteria and just look at the facts. Ron Paul is TRULY a small government candidate. All of their "front runners" are just representing a slightly different form of socialism/fascism than Hillary.

I quit calling myself a Republican because of the neocons. They started to wreck the party after WWII . Thanks to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney it's finally been  finished off. Ron Paul can restore it. He can make me and many other people proud to call themselves Republicans again.

AND he can beat Hillary!

What's NOT to like about that!?!?

It's a miracle! I HAVE been cured! Alright, this sign is not mine. I just happened to find it on the Ron Paul 2008 website. But how true it is! And how many other people out there feel the same way? How many Ron Paul supporters could have been observed shrugging their shoulders at the political scene in the past? But we are seeing now that common Americans really DO value freedom. Ron Paul is not promising to take care of everyone. On the contrary, he is promising to leave people ALONE. And lo and behold it seems like that is exactly what so many of us really want in a president. Why does the president have to wield absolute power? Why do we have to tolerate an always expanding corporatist state? Why is blind acquiessence to the dictum of the "war on terror" considered a trait befitting a patriotic citizen? Why should we accept that the government has a right to own all of our earnings and ALLOW us to keep a portion of them? What good is the "war on drugs" when it has only exacerbated the drug problem while wasting taxpayers' money? What are the benefits of restrictions on gun ownership, when as a result of these restrictions, the only people who seem to be able get their hands on them are violent criminals? Why do we need a "war on poverty" when it is REALLY a war ON the impoverished intended to keep them poor and dependent on government?

Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, are all coming out in support of Ron Paul. His message is not one in which he stresses loyalty to any particular political party. It is a message in which he stresses the importance of loyalty to the principles that made America the great, free, prosperous country that it is. It is also a message in which he emphasizes that we have been living on borrowed time and money. The current prosperity we enjoy is somewhat illusory. Our dollar continues to weaken as the Federal Reserve maintains its legalized counterfeiting business to support our rulers' imperial ambitions. In addition we are continuously sinking in debt as our government borrows copious amounts of money from countries around the world. Many foreign governments have propped up the dollar by using it as their reserve currency. But that is changing as they see the dollar in decline. There is parity now between the Canadian dollar and the American dollar. When we see prices rise on the things we buy every day, we are ACTUALLY seeing the dollar depreciate.

One of the reasons empires always end is because they overextend themselves financially. Empires are expensive to maintain. Make no mistake, there is an American empire. Our leaders from Lincoln, to Woodrow Wilson, to FDR, Truman, Clinton, and the Bushes have steadily destroyed our Republic. With Ron Paul's candidacy for president we have a chance to reclaim that lost Republic. This is how Dr. Paul cured me of my apathy. He reminded me that our government has drifted far from the principles of the founders. But he also reminded me that we should be optimistic for our future. We can change course and return to the original philosophy that made America a great country. It's pretty simple really. It's all about individual liberty, property rights, limited (constitutional) government, and peace.
I think those are things about which we can ALL get excited!

If Ron Paul does not receive the Republican nomination for president, there will certainly be many thousands of Americans deciding NOT to vote for president in 2008. I will be one of them. And as usual, all of us non-voters are likely to hear the following from proud voters: "If you didn't vote, you have no right to complain." In other words, support the system, or shut up!

Of course, many of these proud voters will be neoconservatives. But we should not be too surprised when THEY tell the non-voters to stifle it. After all, the neocons don't like that nasty idea of thinking for oneself. We all know that in their world, dissent is simply NOT allowed.

Ironically, however, still other proud voters will be left-liberal activists who defend free speech and expression in art, music, and lifestyle. In politics, however, free speech is allowed ONLY for the people who have voted.

Many of these leftists will boycott Wal-Mart and complain because the company is anti-union. They'll boycott McDonald's and complain about the company poisoning us and making us fat. And plenty of them will boycott and complain about companies who test their products on animals.

But hang on a second! These lefties are not actually SUPPORTING these companies. So where do they get the right to boycott, or criticize them? If they follow their own reasoning they will find that they should only be allowed to complain about these companies if they are supporting them. After all, that's their position when it comes to non -voting. If you don't support the election process, you have no right to complain. And likewise, if you don't shop at Wal-Mart, you have no right to complain about Wal-Mart.

Maybe this all sounds ridiculous. But, it is necessary to highlight the equally ridiculous claim that people who do not vote relinquish their right to complain about politics.

But there's another reason why non-voters have every right to complain. Quite simply, there is money involved. For example, if you don't like McDonald's and refuse to support them, they don't send you a bill every month anyway. However, if I don't feel comfortable endorsing either candidate in a presidential election, the winner will STILL expect to receive money from me in the form of various taxes. And I have no right to complain?!?!

When a politician I DON'T support wins an election, then tells me that since I didn't vote I am exempt from paying taxes, I will stop complaining. Until then, and I know we will all be dead before that happens, I will continue to boycott elections if I am forced to choose between evil candidate "A" and slightly less evil candidate "B."

They still haven't learned. Their plan will not work. Their statist rhetoric will not harm him. In fact, it will HELP him! Their confrontations with him on stage at the debates will inevitably backfire. But they are desperate. "They," of course are all of the Republican candidates for president who are NOT Ron Paul. Problem for these fellows is that Dr. Paul has let a rather large feline out of the political bag. He's blown their cover. He's exposed them as the "big government conservatives" they are. Actually as Dr.Paul's popularity grows I would expect these "Republi-clone" attacks to become truly vicious. These people are wounded animals right now, and they are likely to go to extremes in their attempts to stay alive. Of course, they would REALLY just like to ignore this constitutional maverick who keeps upsetting the delicate balance in their realm and hope that he just goes away. But he won't. Consequently, they are forced to argue with him, and try, in vain, to defeat him.

Of course, Rudy Giuliani tried to cast Ron Paul as one of the "blame America first" crowd, while also claiming that Dr. Paul was being absurd when he explained that people from the Middle East don't actually hate us because we're free. Naturally, Giuliani's plan did not work. Actually it made Dr. Paul even more popular.

Now fast forward to the most recent Republican debate. It was broadcast by Fox News, the unabashedly pro-war, yet "fair and balanced" network. So basically, when it comes to foreign policy questions, the dim bulbs at Fox only consider one answer to be acceptable in ANY situation. It goes something like this: "Let's bomb SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE!!! Let's kick their asses and show them that 'these stripes don't run.' "
To even SUGGEST that the U.S. should follow a different foreign policy will get you laughed at, called anti-American, soft on terrorism, and according to Chris Wallace of Fix, oops I mean FOX news, it also means you take your marching orders from Al Qaeda. In a moment of brazen neocon stupidity Wallace asked Ron Paul if he does just that. Brilliantly, Dr. Paul stated that his orders and our government's orders come from the Constitution, not any enemy. Score one for the doctor.

Ah, but there's more, of course. Enter Mike Huckabee, presidential aspirant and philosopher king. According to the Huckster we can't just leave Iraq because as his mother taught him years ago, "if you break it, you bought it." This is his view of Iraq. WE broke it, now WE must fix it. Ron Paul tried to explain to Mr. Huckabee that the American PEOPLE did not "break" Iraq. It was a handful of neocon warmongers who made this terrible mistake. So why should innocent American taxpayers have to pay for it? Why should American soldiers continue to be wounded and killed for someone else's mistake.

But the statist in the Huckster came to the fore as he played the "we must stand united" card. The state, and the people are one unit. The state's honor is the people's honor. Again the neoconservative, collectivist philosophy rears its ugly cranium.
Dr. Paul, however, would have none of it. And rightly so. Anyone who understands TRUE liberty knows that the state is NOT the nation. Anyone who advocates freedom should never suggest that innocent Americans make sacrifices to bail out their bungling, corrupt rulers. The people who created this middle east mess are safely ensconced in their war rooms in Washington D.C. telling us how the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are making us safer. Easy for them to say.

The truth, however, is that the architects of this war are only concerned with domination of the Middle East. And the next target in their crosshairs is Iran.
At the end of the debate the candidates were presented with a doomsday scenario involving Iran. They were asked how they would handle the situation. Basically, the idea was that Iran goes nuclear, they make very strong threats against Israel, and war is imminent. Ron Paul was, not surprisingly, the ONLY candidate who said it is first the Congress' job to assess the situation and determine if our national security is threatened. But he also said we must do everything we can to AVOID war. As far as Israel is concerned, he pointed out that Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons already, and that it is quite capable of defending itself. The other candidates, predictably, warned about the horrors of Iran having a nuclear weapon. This hysteria is insane, to say the least. There they were talking about Iran as if it was trying to take over the world. Meanwhile, the U.S. has military personnel stationed in almost every country in the world. The CIA operates secret prisons all over the world. The U.S. has recently invaded two countries in the Middle East, and is threatening a third. How many countries has Iran invaded? How many military bases does Iran have all over this planet? How many atomic bombs have actually been used by Iran?

But then we hear that Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. That's odd. Iran didn't seem to be such a great threat back in 2002 and early 2003 when we were told Saddam Hussein and his WMDs were ready to strike us.

Additionally, Ron Paul pointed out that the people who are beating the drums for war against Iran are the same people who told us how the Iraq war would be a "cakewalk." And we are supposed to believe these people AGAIN?

And so the debate ended. And the voting began. Who won the debate? Surprise, surprise, the voters chose Ron Paul. I think we can expect another boost for Dr. Paul's popularity as well. The message is now out there, loud and clear. The "Republi-clones" and their lapdogs at Fox News have tried yet again to smear Ron Paul. However, their debate tactics, just like their foreign policy of conquest, have failed. Well, at least they're consistent.