Keogh is sickening. The war in Iraq, the war on terror and the coming war with Iran all are making both Israel and the United States far less safe. Anyone can see that and ALL of the intelligence agencies agree. The only winners in all of this stupidity are the big oil companies and the defense industry.

"That sounds like something the UN would propose."

The UN redefines certain acts to be peacekeeping that were acts of war in the past. In particular, the "enforcement" of trade sanctions, and especially blockades, are war.

The UN sends troops into countries, but these are not called war either.

The UN sends in aid without regard to local soveignty.

The UN puts constraints on travel and trade. It puts pressure on countries to abide by world opinion.

What Ron Paul is proposing is not anything like what the UN does.

The whole idea of increasing peace by redefining war is sick.

Wow, I conservatively predict that this will rain down a hellacious barrage of tinfoil-hatted Paul fanatics at any moment. I'm ducking under the couch now.

Dave

You're the real sheep. Enjoy your dream world, interventionist foreign policy will be the demise of this once great nation.

BTW, I offer the latest in fashion wear for Ron Paul fans. I hope you enjoy.

Dave

Oh yeah, drop the tin foil hat business... Paul was right about the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, etc...

Grow up out of ad hominem attacks on logic. You're the problem with our country, not Ron Paul or Ron Paul's fanbase by condeming logic and freedom of choice/expression/speech.

Since the Iraq (population 27 million) war is going so great it only makes sense that we could only do much better in a war with Iran (population 70 million). Heck, that's more than twice the number of civilians to kill for oil.

Hey, if I put that on a T-Shirt at CafePress would anyone buy it?

dave

As someone who cares deeply about Israel I am very saddened by this article. How will war with Iran help Israel? How is provoking war in a foreign land about liberty? Do you think Israel is safer now then it was six years ago? If so explain. God says we will be punished if we abandon Israel. What about abandoning it to war which is what an attack on Iran will cause. Finally after dfeating Nazism and genocideal regimes what kind of dignity is there in replicating that mentality. I pray for peace and hope the devil hasn't decieved too many people that nuking Iran is about liberty. -

What is funny is that this guy most likely doesn't even know what the national debt is? He has no idea who David Walker is. Would you like to share real facts and info? I wonder if you even have read most gov't documents. Sad, that you even try to have an opinion on things. Have you ever heard "Don't talk if you don't want everyone to know how stupid you are?" Your next article should be how to address the coming Baby Boomer's and their future.

Abel, you're either lying to yourself and others, or you're an idiot.

Oh I forgot to mention that the anti-defamation league just published a salute to Ron Paul for his steadfast defence of liberty. Rectify that with your logic. Would the ADL salute someone who hates Israel? Here is the quote. "The Anti-Defamation League Salutes Rep. Ron Paul, a Truly Patriotic American -- July 10, 2007 Congressman Ron Paul is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation's capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill.
PLEASE NOTE: This is not a political endorsement, but rather recognition of a dedicated statesman."

Keogh, many of us are tired of supporting a group that is hell bent on winning the terrorist of the year award year after year. We are also tired of giving them our tax dollars to support their terrorist activities. If this issue were to be decided in a popular vote instead of by a treasonous government (Washington)Israel might well find itself standing all alone in the world.

there is no vanity in preserving liberty. slander is no means of pushing the truth into the dark cloud of lies that our government hides behind.

Oh yeah, drop the tin foil hat business... Paul was right about the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, etc...

That's about as much of an accomplishment as predicting the sun will rise tomorrow.

Grow up out of ad hominem attacks on logic. You're the problem with our country, not Ron Paul or Ron Paul's fanbase by condeming logic and freedom of choice/expression/speech.

How does belief in ridiculous conspiracies translate into logic of any kind?

Well, I'm off to finish my article about how great the CFR is.

Dave

re #9, #12, #13:

Incoming from Ruvy in 5... 4... 3... 2...

I think it's still dinner time in Israel.

dave

Wow, I think Paul is right on, Why is the United States fighting the United Nations failures? Remember the oil for food scandal? The United Nations should be defunded if they can't seem to find solutions to world powers disagreements. Obviously the author of this article doesn't approve of asking for accountability from the United Nations. A non binding resolution? that ought to do it? and just because Paul doesn't buy into it, he hates Isreal? I don't think so. Why doesn't the writer interview Ron Paul on his reasoning behind the vote instead of trashing him. This obviously is politically motivated to steer people away from Paul's growing support!

haha Keogh you just got pwned! now give your head a shake, do some research and start supporting Ron Paul.

"Now, certainly there are powerful, established combinations both domestically and internationally working to destroy America. These groups and others like them have been laboring at it for decades, perhaps longer. There are also threats from terrorists and rogue nations. I am certain there are traitors in our midst, including some in high places." -- Rick Koerber, The "Brain-Off" Conspiracy

We need look no further than Abel Keogh.

haha Clark, you just used the word 'pwned' automatically losing any debate with people over the age of 14.

Dave

Maybe Ron Paul voted against the resolution because he believes "this resolution is an exercise in propaganda that serves one purpose: to move us closer to initiating a war against Iran." He usually says what he means, and he always means what he says.

Maybe he wants to save us from another pointless war that would drag on for years, cost thousands of lives, and accomplish nothing toward making us safer.

Maybe if more people had listened to him sooner, we could have avoided the mess in Iraq. Maybe it was "widely believed" that Iraq was a threat, but at least one presidential candidate had the foresight and judgment to see through the propaganda last time.

Maybe we should listen to him this time. Maybe we should vote for him.

Cool to see Dave Nalle still shilling for the War Party. War - It's What's For Dinner!

This article is the sort of tripe that "they" (you know who "they" are!) continually try to force feed the public in the hopes of keeping everybody stupid and moving in the same general Orwellian direction. I got news for 'em, and it goes a little something like that Twisted Sister song (which may have been a remake) . . .

#17: You're probably right, Dave. And dinner in Israel - in fact, in most any country apart from the US of Instant Gratification - is a serious business.

But I can't believe Ruvy will let those couple of comments pass without saying something...

No one that smears Ron Paul ever offers their candidate of choice up in a side by side comparison on the issues, because then they would look like the whacko.

Guh.. Iraq was not a threat, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, yes it was mistranslated, he compared Israels destruction to that of the collaps of the soviet union, Im an american, not an Israeli, if Israel wants war with the world, please let them do so without using our lives and tax money, Ron Paul is right, has always been right, get out of the middle east and buy the oil in a competetive free marked, dont fight wars for them.

And "Dave", how old are you?

re #9, #12, #13:

Incoming from Ruvy in 5... 4... 3... 2...1

Actually, Dave wasn't finishing an article on the greatness of the CFR - he was publishing my article on Waiting for War in the Shards of Shattered Illusions.

There really isn't much to say about this article. It's about a vote of a non-binding resolution. The most that can be said is that both Ron Paul used a motherhood and apple pie resolution to try to make a point...

That's nice.

Dinnertime is over in Israel, by the way... Dinner is usually eaten in the afternoon, with the evening reserved for a light supper. It's a Mediterranean - Middle Eastern thing. Dave could have told you that - but he was too busy working on my article...

I forgot to mention Kucinich in there somewhere - but he's a forgettable guy anyway.

Abel,
You're so confussed I don't know where to start. Let's start with Israel (the Jewish state).
Fact: the Jewish state was founded with terrorism (google Irgun Terrorism)and the forced removal of families from homes they had lived in for hundreds of years....(but its o.k. cause God wanted it?)
Fact: the Jewish state you describe as a shining example of democracy actually still practices APARTHEID, treating Israeli Arabs as second class citizens.
Fact: According to the Apostle Paul, the 'Israel of God' is not the Jewish state, but rather all those who love God's Son the Lord Jesus Christ (see Gal.3 and Romans 8-10)
Fact: most Jewish citizens of Israel are, according to polls, ATHEIST or non-religious. Ouch, I know that hurts, but deal with it.
Conclusion: let the Jewish state fight its' own enemies...they can do it with the hundreds of nukes that they stole from the U.S. and the billions in welfare we give them yearly.
Ron Paul knows more than you.

Perhaps the other reason to vote against the resolution is because it's nonsensical garbage.

The claim is that Ahmadinejad's statement that he wanted Israel wiped off the map is a call to genocide, and thus it is appropriate for the UN to censure Iran. That's absurd. Even if this claim hadn't been widely debunked as a mistranslation, wanting Israel wiped off the map is not the same as wanting genocide.

I wanted the Soviet Union wiped off the map. I got my wish, too. Strangely enough, the Soviet Union was wiped off the map without genocide.

Should Ronald Reagan have been censured as a genocide-inciter, based on his anti-Soviet statements? Obviously not.

The resolution is exactly what Paul said it is. It's part of the process of trying to paper together justification for a first strike against Iran. A first strike that does not serve the national security interests of the United States.

I also have to point out the extraordinary intellectual dishonesty of the part of this article that deals with the justifications used to invade Iraq. News flash: the people who thought Iraq was a threat to our national security were wrong. The people who said that Iraq had no WMD and posed no threat to our national security were right. One of those people was Ron Paul, who said as much in a 2002 interview with Bill Moyers that is widely available on YouTube. Perhaps we might want to consider no longer listening to the people who were absolutely dead wrong on Iraq, and might want to instead give an ear to the people who were absolutely RIGHT about Iraq. If one of the few national politicians who could tell that the case for war against Iraq was being falsely trumped up comes out and says, "A case for war is being trumped up all over again, this time against Iran," maybe it's time to listen.

Tomdawg;

I saw that name and had the feeling that you were barking up the wrong tree and trying hard to piss into a log standing upside down. And I was right both times!!

Instead of arguing with you here, you can read about reality at comment #1 of The Anti-Islamist Manifesto, Waiting for War in the Shards of Shattered Illusions, and the other 75 of my articles at my writer's page at Blogcritics Magazine.

Laters!!

Amazing. You've found a conspiracy that Ron Payl's supporters actually don't believe in. I guess the jews aren't behind it.

I wish one you neocons can tell me how
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statements threatening Israel are more inflamatory than Sen. John McCain singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" to the tune of Barbara Ann.

Ruvy:

Nice job of not replying. But I can't much blame you since your obviously out of ammo.

I agree with Dr. Paul , remove ourselves from the UN and allow Israel to defend itself. I'm sure the Israelis are capable of their own defense.

where in the constitution was it written that the U.S. should become the worlds police ?... oh wait it doesn't!

"America went to war in Iraq, first and foremost, because it was in our national security interests to do so. At the time it was widely believed that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent and strategic threat to the United States, our allies, and other US interests."

It was widely believed by who? Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of the neo-cronies.

It turns out it was all smoke and mirrors. Oops! 3,600 dead soldiers and quarter million dead civilians and civil war. Double Oops!

Ohhhhh, but this time it's different! We've got the intelligence right this time. Iran is a threat and it's going to be a cakewalk!

Forgive me for being skeptical.

Look buddy, Americans are tired of war and they are luckily seeing through the b.s. lies about how muslims want to convert us to their religion or kill us.

It sounds silly coming from all the chickensh*t Sean Hannity wannabe's like you.

Damn u - u idiot you still think that US went to war in Iraq because it was in our NATIONAL INTEREST .. - how stupid and ignorant can a person be.. - you destroyed a stable country killed millions - 500,000 children for national security ?? on what basis did u come to this conclusion ??? read - imperial hubris by CIA head of bin-Laden group .. to get your ideas straight.

Absolutely nothing in this world could help Ahmadinejad more than a U.S. attack. Right now the people, at least some of them, are protesting in Iran about gasoline prices/shortages. The moment after a U.S. bomb drops no Iranian citizen would dare speak out against Ahmadinejad, lest they seam anti-Persian or anti-Islamic. This logic is elementary in the extreme...even someone as shallow as Sean Hannity tries to use it to accuse the anti-war crowd of Treason.

Nice job of not replying. But I can't much blame you since your obviously out of ammo.

Tomdawg, not only do you bark up the wrong tree, try to piss in a log upside down, but you also haven't got the guts to engage me in a debate, by reading what I have to say. You sure that ain't "yellerdawg"? for your moniker?

So, I guess we should just keep kicking everybody's ass until they figure out that we are the nice guys huh? Your obviously a one world gov't kind of guy, so why bother trying judge Ron paul when your actions equal nothing more than handing the one world cronies the key to our country.

You obviously haven't seen the video on Google, Freedom to Fascism or Fiat Empire? All of you, pull your head out and watch the movies.

The threat posed by Persia is that she will reunite and only accept Euros and Yen as payment for her oil. There isn't anything we can do to stop that so we better get our financial house in order.

*sigh*

I cant WAIT for the day that this treasonous neo-con garbage is purged from our national consciousenss. I hope we can do this before they drag us all down with them.

In short, your entire worldview is a sick, sick illusion. I recommend cleansing yourself with large amounts of illegal drugs. After you've wandered around town homeless for a few months hopefully you'll wake up and get an education.

Inflation is really at 12%.

Still want to vote for a CFR-backed candidate who supports the the corporate-owned IRS?

How would you feel if I asked you to give me 20% of your income for the rest of your life, for nothing in return?

If that makes sense to you, then by all means -- vote for it! I'd love to see you screw yourself if you're really that stupid! You deserve the best.

Ruvy:

Thanks for another non-reply coupled with an extremely lame attempt at a personal attack on someone you don't know. A great intellect you've got there.
To humor you, I glanced at some of your drivel, and apparently you don't like Olmert...longing for the good ole' days of Begin, Irgun and the other murderous goons of Zionism?
Atheists, Aparthied and a love for U.S. welfare $$$$. Which of these does not describe the Jewish state? Still, who wants to see it wiped off the map? Not me. How in the world would Jimmy Swaggart and John Haggee raise their millions?

Well, that article was interesting. I admire Dr. Paul's foreign policy as a Jew and as one who has been to both Israel and Iran. In fact, the inflated rhetoric now emanating from the U.N. and the Congress and the Bush administration is exactly the wrong thing to do when dealing with that part of the world.

I am not a conspiracy theorist. And I am a big supporter of Israel both morally and financially, and additionally, I have donated one of my children to Israel. Nowhere will you find a bigger supporter of Israel and its right to exist. However, I am not willing to allow any American taxpayer to be forced to subsidize Israel, Fatah, Egypt or Jordan, which is what we currently are doing. And I do not wish to see a single American taxpayer forced to assist the monarchy in Saudi Arabia, you know, the place where most of the terrorists on Earth come from.

I don't understand the anger that some express at Ron Paul. Kucinich? Yeah, he's insane and does seem to hate Israel. I'm not a fan of his either. But Ron Paul does not possess either of those attributes. In Dr. Paul's administration, Israel would do much better than it has during the Arabist Clinton administration, the anti-semitic Nixon administration, and the Saudi-indebted Carter administration, just to name three.

Wow. Ruuuuuvy?

Hey, Ruvy. Check out A.K. Smith's comment.

Poor scared Abel must defend the UN resolution defying nation of Israhell by all means. No country in the world has ignored so many UN resolutions and got away with it. War should be waged against Israel until it complies with all UN resolutions Abel, put that in your Pipe and enjoy the smoke.

Speaking of a smoke...I've got a Cuban waiting at home. Later on, y'all.

I NEED FIVE GALLONS OF HOT BUTTERED POPCORN, STAT

This will be fun.

Experts who take a good look at the middle eastern situation agrees with Ron Paul, including those who worked in the CIA bin laden unit. We do more harm than good toward Israel when we do stuff in the middle east. Besides, they have proven many times they have no problem defending themselves, our involvement and our wars only hurts israel.

#48 -- July 17, 2007 @ 17:42PM -- CaptainZen

Poor scared Abel must defend the UN resolution defying nation of Israhell by all means. No country in the world has ignored so many UN resolutions and got away with it. War should be waged against Israel until it complies with all UN resolutions Abel, put that in your Pipe and enjoy the smoke.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And you wonder why people like Abel are suspicious of those who favor non-intervention? You call Israel Israhell, so I'm guessing your particular brand of insanity is that of the conspiratorial true believer. And yet, even though the U.N. is part and parcel of the Great Conspiracy, you want its sanctions enforced against Israel? Or do you see it as democracy in action since about 40 Arab or Muslim countries have more votes than Israel and its tiny handful of allies?

But either way, if you think Israel is supposed to live by U.N. resolutions, then I suppose you won't mind when they vote in the U.N. to take away your weapons, and to train international forces in your backyard.

Maybe you can rant a little about the beaners crossing the border too, just to mix in a little more irrational hate and stupidity.

Um, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Inflation is really at 12%.

You do understand that when a site calls itself 'shadow government' whatever, then it's a bunch of conspiracy nuts and not to be taken seriously, right? I can recalculate alternate versions of those various indeces using additional special criteria and produce almost any result you like. Hell, I can make inflation go negative with a little creativity.

Still want to vote for a CFR-backed candidate who supports the the corporate-owned IRS?

Ooh, the CFR. A moderate think-tank on international policy. Scaaaary. And exactly what corporation 'owns' the IRS?

How would you feel if I asked you to give me 20% of your income for the rest of your life, for nothing in return?

No thanks. I need to spend that money on tinfoil hats to pass out at the next Birch Society meeting. I assume you'll be there wearing your LaRouche t-shirt?

Dave

As Bourne said, "War is the health of the state." Just to connect the dots for those not Abel to, this means more government and less freedom.

For someone who is affiliated with a website named "freecapitalist", this is a pretty huge oversight.

Killing Iranians will not restore lost liberties in this country (or are you asserting that the US is as free and capitalist as it can get?). It will not reduce the deficit; it will not deregulate any industry; it will not reduce any taxes.

Compare Bush's government growth record with avowed anti-capitalist LBJ and get back to me if you are Abel.

When somebody hits you, the first instinct is to hit back. It is a natural reflex--we all do it. When somebody calls you a name, you get upset and call them a name.

I think we can all agree on the above.

We seem to lose our respect for logic, however, when we deal on the international level. When one nation "hits" another nation, the second nation's instinct is to "hit" back. An eye for an eye. It is human nature.

Like Pearl Harbor.

Here is a brief history of our current situation:

The U.S. "hit" Iraq throughout the 90s, and a bunch of aggressive teenagers and young men join the Al-Qaeda, because they wanted a chance to "hit" back. Then came 9/11. Finally, the Al-Qaeda had gotten their chance.

The instinct reversed itself--now, Americans wanted to "hit" back. This should have been expected by the Al-Qaeda. It's only logical. It's the way we are.

**The U.S. had every right to hit back after 9/11.**

We did not, however, have the right to invade Iraq. Iraq was not who "hit" us. The damage to our nation and our people was done by the Al-Qaeda. Not Iraq (as despicable as Saddam was).

America is a nation of laws. Those laws forbid us to punish an individual or group of individuals before they are proven guilty.

Until they are proven guilty.

Iraq was not proven guilty. Al-Qaeda was. But now, we are "hitting" that region again. Does anyone seriously think that Al-Qaeda will not retaliate? It is human nature to retaliate.

Bring the troops home now. Stop giving the Al-Qaeda a reason to hate us.

We do know that inflation isn't what it's reported to be because the government has no incentive to be honest about it. In fact, inflation can be calculated at the grocery store by anyone who is paying attention and while it's not currently South American-style hyper-inflation, it is certainly not as low as the media is reporting.

How do I know the government has no incentive to report inflation accurately? Well, besides the fact that inflation allows them to spend beyond their means, and they could turn it off tomorrow by reigning in the fed if they wanted to, I know because I have a memory. Remember Ronald Reagan? Remember what his administration did when they didn't like the inflation numbers? Ronald the Saint Reagan's people merely changed the items in the mythical "economic basket of goods" used to calculate inflation to reflect a lower number.

I tried that with my golf handicap once and made the rest of my foursome very angry. They started a conspiracy website about it, I think. They won't tell me because it's a secret.

The author would quote the "Weakly Standard"? The author would quote William Kristol, son of Irving Kristol, father of the Neo Conservative movement? I ask why not just quote Wolfowitz, Strauss or Machiavelli directly?

Pure propaganda.

Israel can go take a flying leap. Why should we give money to ANY country?

Elated to see a whole two people in Congress unwilling to censure someone for eaying something they didn't actually say, either out of ignorance or ust to get more AIPAC bucks. Things are looking up. Not long ago, there was only one congressman with a modicum of integrity or acuity. Maybe we'll get more, and the ones they replace will go into msm journalism or sell used cars. What was that quote about a majority of one? Now two. Two down, 433 to go--433, the recriprocal of the average sheeple's IQ.

"Even though violations of UN resolutions were some but not all of the reason listed in the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Act that gave President Bush the legal means to go to war, America went to war in Iraq, first and foremost, because it was in our national security interests to do so."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! Sorry, couldn't resist. This is the lamest of the neocon excuses for killing 3/4 million Arabs in Iraq.

There is absolutely no security interest in Iraq for the US.

Any leftover chemicals that might be used in chemical weapons were sold to Iraq by US defense corporations. It didn't bother anyone to allow that but all of a sudden it is a great danger to us.

bah.

Yeah, it appears Abel Keogh is pretty much a paid cheerleader for the neocons. Everything he writes is watered down echoes of Faux News and the Weakly Standard.

I'm fairly certain he chose to bash Ron Paul because it serves his two main interests, strengthening the neocon agenda and attracting attention to his obscure blog.

I have yet to see a critic with a real argument to discredit Ron Paul. From the ones who have tried, they have yet to propose an alternative candidate that fits their own critical description.

If Ron Paul and his supporters are members of the tin foil hat brigade, so were the Founding Fathers and the framers of the constitution.

It was stated that the U.S. went to war against Iraq because there were reasons based on national security. Isnt that for Congress to decide? And if they decide so, where was the declaration of war? If this isnt to the author's tastes, how about amending the constitution instead of ignoring it? That is the difference between having a rule of law and a rule of men.

Ron Paul is right - if there is to be war against Iran, does anyone suppose that it will be a declared war or will U.N. resolutions be used as a method of circumventing this vital part of the constitution?

Thank God for at least one brave voice.

So far, the only intelligent comments I've seen here are those of A.K. Smith.

Like A.K. Smith, I don't support any foreign aid for Israel; it's really important to cut off the thieves in Jerusalem from their money teats in Washington, Rome and Brussels. People like Peres, whom the world's leaders all praise, haven't done a decent thing for Israel for over 30 years. But, evil as he is, at least he has a little more intelligence than the retards he left behind in the cabinet, Olmert, Livni, Barak and Ramon.

But this whole article is about a non-binding vote in the American House of Mirrors, a place where 435 windbags leave their "extended remarks" like so many farts in the wind. Who gives a rat's ass?

It is the State Department that decides America's policies, not the House of Mirrors. And the State Department long ago decided that a Jewish state was a strategic mistake, and has been trying to correct that mistake since 15 May 1948. Israel's biggest enemy is not some raghead with a hard-on, it is the United States of America and the oil and banking elite that rules it.

That sucks, but it's the truth.

AK Smith-Obama talks about being a unifier but it is only Ron Paul who is actually capable of it. I'm Muslim and like you I am a big fan of Ron Paul. It's time we stopped sending money to the Middle East. All it does is prop up governments that are opposed to freedom. Israel is no American style democracy, with its apartheid system, and Egypt is none either with its iron fist dictatorship. And yet each and every American is giving about $20 a year to these countries.

Ruvy-And the state department and its policies are one thing that the president has control over. So it is important that we get Ron Paul elected.

ronpaul2008.com

Nana,

One of the things you learn when you study political science and public administration, as I have, is that the president has only theoretical control over the state department. The reality is that the state department usually cons the secretary into "going native" and supporting its priorities. In fact, this is generally true with most cabinet departments, but it is especially true with the state department.

Your sitting president is a hired hand of the Saudi monarchy, as is his daddy. That is why your freedoms are going down the drain. All this yak-yak about an election in 2008 is just that. I'll believe it when I see it. In the meantime, November 2008 is 15 months away. Until then, it is just Obama Oshmama, Hillary Shmillary, and Paul Shmaul - any line of trash to keep your eyes off the ball.

As for the rest of you - especially you, slimedog...

Speaking as an Israeli, I have no trouble with the idea that the United States should get the hell out of the Middle East - and stay out. I don't give two shits about your "vital interests". The truth is that we do not need an "ally" that keeps twisting a knife in our back.

We don't need America to piss on us defending ourselves and calling it kosher, just like we do not need America to fuck up all of our weapons deals.

We have our own nukes, and can and SHOULD turn Riyadh, Jidda, Teheran and Damascus into nuclear glass. In addition, we should destroy the Aswan High Dam and end the existence of Egypt as a nation.

Then, if you all want to bitch about genocidal Israelis, at least you'll have something to bitch about. In the meantime, shut your faces, and get your money and your soldiers out of here - before they leave in body bags.

Who ever wrote this artical put their mouth on the barrel and their toe on the triger!

Welcome to BC, Abel!

That is rather disturbing news re: Ron Paul. It sounds like he takes his antipathy toward foreign entaglements too far. His antipathy towards that resolution is puzzling and makes him out to be a bit of a knee-jerk anti-war activist. It's sad but true that some conservatives are just as eager to appease rogue states as most liberals are.

Ruvy: "We have our own nukes, and can and SHOULD turn Riyadh, Jidda, Teheran and Damascus into nuclear glass. In addition, we should destroy the Aswan High Dam and end the existence of Egypt as a nation."


And what a lovely favor you'd be doing the world if you did!

Ruvy, I agree that it's hard to take America seriously when we're still in bed with the Saudis. After all, it was mostly Saudi citizens who carried out the 9/11 atrocity; just as it's Saudi Arabia that poisons young Muslim minds throughout the Islamic world with their psychotic Wahabbist worldview. (Not necessarily that one has to subscribe to Wahhabism to be both Muslim and psychotic, I feel it worth mentioning!) Perhaps most angry young Muslims in the West, in Pakistan, in Palestine, etc. worship the ossified cave ground that Osama shits on, but we can never get past the question: what nationality is Osama? If we're serious about the W.o.T., then we need to tell the Saudis to go fuck themselves. But, oh gee, that'll never happen because American citizens are too addicted to their oil, so if you piss off Saudi Arabia, you piss off Americans by default. Bush finds himself in a bit of a catch-22.

Something's gotta give -- our oil-addicted way of life or the House of Saud. I wonder which will prove to be more important?

I shouldn't be astounded, but I am. What drivel this article is, but Paul is a true patriot in the second American revolution and has certainly ducked better attacks than this simple-minded attempt.

Simple fact checks my friend. Read a smidge of history! This spin is no better than the comedy I see on Fox "news". Are you just regurgitating the talking points from Tony Snow?
Just like on 9/11, the real terrorists in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia(you know that big country with significant Bush ties?). It has been reported recently that they represent more than 50% of the foreign insurgency in Iraq. Iran doesn't even rate a percentage worth mentioning, except in speeches by Bush, Snow, and Lieberman. Any condemnation resolutions from the U.N. on Saudi Arabia? Don't hold your breath.

Several posters mention "rogue" states. I suggest you buy and read "Rogue State" by William Blum. You'll find exponentially more state sponsored terrorism perpetrated by the U.S. and Israel. While we're at it, we can point out that the U.S. and Israel can veto any U.N. resolution they don't care for, namely the ones that condemn our ACTIONS while we try to condemn Iran for misinterpreted WORDS? The lie is being exposed slowly and the worst of the neo-con ilk are getting scared.

The U.n. is a socialist elitist nation building useless organization that is a front for oneworld government

I'm happy to see the responses to this hollow piece of writing. Allow me to quote from Uncle John's Bathroom Reader: "The first US coin to bear the words, United States of America, was a penny piece made in 1727. It was also inscribed with the plain spoken motto: "Mind Your Own Business."

Something to think about.... if Barney Schwartz wants to kill people in a foreign land, he can make a bomb, take it over there and set it off. Chances are someone from this foreign land might go looking for Barney in his three floor cold water walk up. If, however Barney could convince his Government to do the job for him....well, now they want all of us.... dig? Peace and let's mind our own business.

Has anyone seen Dave actually make any sort of argument, or is he only able to make smarmy comments?

interesting that some would put Paul into the "tinfoil hat" category, especially after this article previously...

personally, Ron Paul is one thing the rest of the GOP contenders are not

honest

i do not agree with some of his positions, but i find him refreshing in his courage to stand up and speak out for what he thinks

a valuable Lesson there for many...imo

Excelsior?

gonzo, I think Dave's target (he seems to have swapped his sniper's rifle for a blunderbuss) is not so much Paul himself as some of his supporters.

There were a couple more articles about Dr Paul on BC a month or two ago. (His candidacy has certainly stirred up a lot of interest here.) Go back and read those, and the threads attached to them, and you'll see what I mean.

His criticism is a little unfair, as every candidate attracts their share of kooks. But Paul's particular kooks seem to come from all over the spectrum, from white supremacists to anti-war conspiracy theorists.

But, in any case, a significant proportion of them are wearing tin foil hats...

Deterance. If they nuke use they will surely die. No need for such reasolutions.

The author writes "Thankfully, most Americans are able to see that both Paul's and Kucinich's positions are not based on principle but simply designed to boost their own egos."

In the case of Paul, this statement is a BOLD FACED LIE. Ron Paul is a man of principle, and votes on principle. His vote on the measure in question is obviously based on principle. The author is obviously shilling for the GOP establishment in an attempt to destroy Ron Paul's candidacy.

Here are some interesting stats:

Campaign donations from the military. Ron Paul received 1/3 of the total donations from military members and vets to Presidential campaigns.
Ron Paul 32.94%
John McCain 22.99%
Hillary Clinton 13.92%
Bill Richardson 7.03%
Barack Obama 6.85%
Mitt Romney 4.68%
Rudy Giuliani 3.06%
John Edwards 2.97%
Tom Tancredo 1.85%
Duncan Hunter 1.32%
Joe Biden 1.06%
Mike Huckabee 0.20%
Mike Gravel 0.09%
Sam Brownback 0.07%

From The Spin Factor and Phreadom

So, what conclusion can you infer from the high level of donations Paul receives from the military and vets?.

Is that group somehow imbued with greater insight and political perspicacity, thus lending more legitimacy to the Paul candidacy?

How can you NOT agree with Ron Paul's take on this. Who do you support, that idiot Giuliani?

Ron Paul brings in the CIA, the 9-11 Commission, the Constitution, and other credible sources to justify his argument. People like Rudy - neocons - offer NOTHING but fear and stupidity.

It seems to me it's others who are wearing the tinfoil hats.

Do the research.

There's NO way I'm going to die for Israel. I would give my life for MY country. Perhaps we should realize that Israel and America are NOT the same country!

Sure they're an ally, but belive me, Israel is MORE that strong enough to whip Iran's ass if need be.

Dr Paul is also the only one that's not under investagation for LIEING,SEX,EMBEZZLEMENT,CHILD PORNOGARPHY,SPYING or some other SECRET WASHINGTON GAME. The washington fineist wouldnt know what to with themself if a HONEST AMERICAN WAS TO BE PUT IN POWER. It makes me think of a 3rd rate restaurant kitchen when the LIGHTS GO ON. Wayne

You said Israel is a vibrant democracy. I assume when you say vibrant, you mean they actively drop bombs on people, hence vibrant.
I have recently decided that anything related to religion is dangerous. If millions of people differ on the one true god, it is probably because there is no god at all. We are just scared little animals and are more darwinian than we thought. Natural selection is based on strength. It doesn't matter from where that strength gets it underlying motivation, nationalism, religion, ethnicity, gender, or what. So to back a nation like Israel because some folks think it is the homeland of their god or to back a nation ready to destroy that homeland because their god told them to do it, is both a waste of time.
Mother Nature is the real threat. That battle we are all going to lose regardless of the god of the day. Ron Paul 2008

This article and thread certainly win the award for Largest Pile of Loony Bird Comments. The entire 'debate' seems to be taking place on Planet Pluto among a bunch of demented toddlers.

Well, whatever you do, don't refute any points or add any valuable information to this looney-bird commentary. If you did, it might involve doing more than name calling and generalizations and that could cause one whopper of a headache. Besides, any minute now Fox might announce something for us to be scared about while we waste time debating what the author seems to believe is the frivolous nature of the Constitution.

Sounds like Abel Keogh is one of these

Funny that to leave a comment, you read:

"Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy"

This whole blog post is a personal attack on Ron Paul.

Re; #s 74 and 75.

I did indeed write the original pro-Paul article on this site. It was then responded to by a whole bunch of scary conspiracy loons.

That made me reconsider Paul in the context of the people who are supporting him. It made me concerned about the fact that Paul appears to be pandering to these people and even encouraging them.

Paul is basically a pretty decent guy with some good ideas and a mostly libertarian philosophy. But despite his efforts to downplay them, he does hold some very strange beliefs, and the lunatic fringe has picked up on that and made him their candidate.

Now things are going in another direction with his campaign which I find even more troubling. He's also begun to attract support from what I call Socialist/Libertarians. These are far left libertarians who combine libertarianism with socialist internationalism. They're LaRouchites and Wobblies and the like. They're extremely anti-American and anti-corporate and see the Iraq war as the wedge issue on which to bring down capitalism in America. They're flocking to Paul because of his anti-war position.

Increasingly it's becoming clear to me that the Paul campaign embodies most of the things I really despise politically, not necessarily because of Paul, but because of the people he's attracted to his banner.

Dave

I'm not even going to waste my time trying to back some argument that reading stuff like this is a disservice to one's brain; I'll leave that to all the other people who now have a lower IQ thanks to having to read this pathetic article. I'm just going to give one tip: ease off the name-calling and actually cite some creditable evidence for once.

Oh yeah, and Ron Paul is the best thing to happen to America in a long time. If you need evidence and further convincing, trying listening to what he's saying with an open mind rather than looking for things to be critical of.

RE: 88

Dave - I too have noticed the strange support for Dr. Paul from some quarters. But I've met him and spoken with him and recently saw him in Las Vegas addressing a large crowd. All kinds of conspiracy theorists are certainly supporting him. And some haters are definitely supporting him. And being realistic, he can't exactly afford to turn away their support when the major media is trying its best to ignore him to death. And on his part, I haven't heard him tailor his message to satisfy these people. He has said the same things for the nearly twenty years I've been listening to him.

I've also met a lot of more normal people who support him. People interested in unflinching support for the second amendment. People who understand that non-intervention in foreign affairs is not the same as isolationism. People who understand that free trade is better than the pseudo-free trade we have under NAFTA and CAFTA.

There are some peace-at-all-cost types who mistakenly support him because they didn't notice that Paul favored a measured but aggressive approach to Osama bin Laden and 9/11, even though the Bush White House has dropped the ball. And DR. Paul has said that if there is an imminent threat to the U.S., he will act immediately and decisively. And he's rightly pointed out that the president has that power without having to consult congress.

I've watched and listened intently for conspiracy theory or hate or intolerance coming from Ron Paul. I really have. And I haven't seen it. My BS meter is usually pegged pretty easily by politicians. But not by him in particular. The day this election is over, I assume that many of the people who support his limited government ideas will be my antagonists in many ways. But I tend to believe that THEY, and not I, will be the one disappointed by Dr. Paul's presidency. When they realize he doesn't hate immigrants, but would encourage them once we dissipate the welfare state. When they realize he doesn't hate Jews, or subscribe to their loony theories about who the real and fake Jews are. When that happens, they will again be left without anyone to root for except the theocratic Constitution and Independent American Parties. Or maybe they'll filter back to the John Birch Society. But in any case, I don't see the "Bear False Witness For Christ" stamp on this man in any way. I'll only judge him by the people his ideas attract if the loons become the company he keeps once in the White House.

Smith does it again by posting one of the few sane statements here. kudos.
It should be a lesson to the Paul bashers out there.
If you despise him, it can only be because you are taking someone else's word for something. If you actually listen to him, and not judge him for the other people who are attracted to him, he makes a lot of sense and seems much saner than any other candidate I've ever seen. His record and his words speak for themselves. Let them.

They still havent figured it out. Dr Paul is out in the open, you and they know what he stands for unlike the rest that do every-thing in SECRET in the back room closet. Their worse night-mare is an investagation. Ask Bush.

This is far rightwing neocon propaganda. The neocon movement is dying and will soon be dead. Thank goodness.

You are hilarious! Your article is the funniest thing I have read in a long time! Wow! For a minute there I thought you were serious! Phew! Thanks for the laugh. (o=

That sounds like something the UN would propose.

Ouch! Touche!

Brother Nalle, I'm SO ripping off that Ron Paul tinfoil hat picture. He's asking for that.

My observation indicates a beautiful synthesis between America and Is Ra El, a confluence of ideals and goals, hopes and aspirations. It is something of a symbiotic relationship. The Us being the dog and Is Ra El being the tick. They never did apologize for the USS Liberty..now did they.

mazz

A vibrant democracy and the only beacon of freedom in the Middle East? Top Ten Reasons why you are wrong:
1) Apartheid (I guess its a beacon of freedom if you are Jewish...)
2) USS Liberty
3) Rachel Corrie
4) Bulldozing of villages (Nuremberg violation)
5) The only thing keeping them from being found guilty of war crimes by the UN, on numerous occasions, was a US veto
6) The few resolutions that DID pass were ignored. No nation has violated more than Israel
7) They hold tens of thousands of Palestinians captive, with no rights (lawyer, phone, etc) and no charges against them
And they use lobby groups to:

8) steal countless Billions from governments around the world
9) Establish free trade with the US and Europe and pressure for higher tariffs between the two so all trade between the two must pass through their hands to remain economical
10) Pass laws in the US that all trade between the middle east must have something like minimum 15% Israeli involvement.

Lets see how long they get away with all of that once Ron Paul is elected. No more handouts. I'd love to argue so many other things in your article, but lets just say that probably the only thing I agree with is that Ron and Dennis voted against the Bill...

I have to give credit to A. K Smith for one of the few rational comments on here. He actually listened to what I had to say and made a reasonable defense of Paul.

I've also met Dr. Paul and I worked on and contributed to his previous campaigns. This alliance with the radical crazies is a new development which came out in this presidential campaign, but he has provided them with enough fodder that they have reason to believe he's on their side.

For example, in one of his articles on lewrockwell.com he perpetuates and more or less endorses the mythical North American Union conspiracy which only exists in the minds of a couple of extreme internationalist thinktankers and a horde of xenophobic crazies. He's also promoted the NAU conspiracy in other forums, including on the floor of the House.

Similarly, he dances around supporting the 9/11 Truth movement. The truthers are about as dangerous a group of delusional fanatics as we've got in America today and Paul keeps throwing them bones. He's met with them, he keeps raising questions about the 9/11 Report, and he's hinted at a personal belief that 9/11 was the result of a conspiracy. He won't come right out and say it, but it's there.

Then there's the issue of Paul's longtime association with the John Birch society. No, I know he's not an official member, but they have supported him for years and are actively promoting him in this election, plus in the past he's had links to their sites on his web page. I'm not convinced that he's antisemitic as some have claimed. I'm pretty sure he's not racist at all. But an awful lot of really virulent racists do support him wholeheartedly and that looks bad.

I'd really like to see Paul make some sort of definitive statement on the conspiracy issues, especially denying any belief that a government conspiracy was behind 9/11. I think that if done right that would strengthen him a lot as a candidate. On the other hand it might make him look as if he's on the defensive, so it could be a mistake.

He does have to find a way to distance himself from the crazies if he wants to keep expanding his support. I suspect that he's so happy to have supporters at all that he's been over indulgent towards them. He needs to move beyond that weakness.

Dave

"I have to give credit to A. K Smith for one of the few rational comments on here."
- Dave Nalle

I respectfully disagree, Nalle; I feel that most of the comments on here are more rational than anything you've written.
- MCH

So everyone who keeps an open mind regarding the activities of covert government agencies must be a "crazy". And have you investigated the issues fully enough on your own to be absolutely sure that no conspiracy exists on ANY level? How about mere facilitation rather than explicit involvement? Considering what we know about CIA activities in the past and recent disclosure about planned false-flag events in Cuba alone(Northwoods), nothing is beyond the realm of possibility for the shadow side of the U.S. government. We've supported both IRAN and IRAQ when it suited our purposes. Remember as well that these activities were planned and executed on ideology alone and rarely due to any real threat by another nation. Anyone dismissing the mere possibility out of hand does a disservice to the truth simply because they wouldn't know what to do with it or that it's too frightening a scenario to believe.

I wasn't so sure about Paul or Kucinich before, but I like them a lot more after reading this cliche drivel.

Dave, it's time to come out of that warm, fuzzy box you're still in. Maybe you would explain Larry Silversteins comment on national TV..."WE DECIDED TO JUST PULL IT"...referring to the WTC Building # 7. Questioning government is our right and indeed our responsibility. You have not done your homework. Research 'Operation Northwoods","Operation Gladdio", "Operation Paperclip", "Operation Ajax"....and on and on ad infinitum. Consider Ron Paul, he is our last, best hope to neutralize this Global Corporatocracy.
Mazz

You say Israel is "...a vibrant democracy and the only beacon of freedom in the Middle East." Have you closely examined the struggle between Israel and Palestine? Ask yourself if you have actually studied this for yourself or have merely relied on popular information to form your opinion.

Just for the sake of argument, I challenge anyone reading this to dedicate a some time to reading about the conflict between Israel and Palestine from the perspective of the Israeli refusenik soldiers. Go ahead, put that in google. Or just go to the URL I have listed. Read "the Combatant's Letter".

Oh come on... I consider myself as conservative as they come but this editor is just blind. I mean do some research on what our government is doing before you blow this propaganda. I once also used to write pieces like this. Thank goodness my readers were few because I was wrong.
RON PAUL'08 BABY

Antisemitism is horrible! No decent person who has studied the Holocaust wants its horrors to be repeated.

This is why, Mr. Keogh, it is disturbing to hear the charge of "antisemitism" so cavalierly applied in a way that waters down the power of the word's real meaning.

Examples: "You're criticizing neoconservative policy? You must be antisemitic." "You're criticizing U.S. support of current Israeli foreign policy? You must be an antisemite."

It's possible to be pro-Palestinian and pro-Jew, Mr. Keogh, but it takes imagination, courage, charity, and the magnanimity to renounce one's dearly-held former prejudices.

The Greatest Enemy of knowledge is not ignorance... it is the illusion of knowledge. -Stephen Hawking

Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land

Mr. Keogh, Have you heard of the economist Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian Jew who escaped Vienna mere hours before the Gestapo?

Through the efforts of Lew Rockwell, the Misean capitalist theory is enjoying a renaissance. Lew Rockwell is SOLIDLY behind the presidential campaign of Ron Paul.

You might want to give Lew's webpage a look-see.

Miss Irene- I appreciate the conciliatory language in your comment 106, but it's nice language in fact covering for I'm sure accidental but nonetheless de facto anti-Semitism.

It's possible to be pro-Palestinian and pro-Jew, Mr. Keogh, but it takes imagination, courage, charity, and the magnanimity

In truth, in 2007 is NOT possible to be pro-Palestinian and also pro-Jew, anymore than it would have been possible to be pro-Nazi and pro-Jew. The main point of existence for most Palestinians at this point is their nearly universal desire to kill Jews.

You are right, however, in saying that it takes "imagination" to be both pro-Palestinian and pro-Jew.

Mr Barger (my title is Mrs., by the way, but you may call me Irene)--

It's impossible to be pro-Palestinian suicide bomber and pro-Jew in 2007, I'll own that. But there are so many other facets to the group we broad-brush as "Palestinians" and also, I'm afraid, many facets to the group we broad-brush "Jews."

This is an article whose title might SOUND antisemitic, but I can assure you it is not. Why Germans supported Hitler.

It should give conservatives of every stripe pause.

Al Barger. I like your comment. Because it is exactly the type of comment that makes my point. You may not know what my point is. That is intentional, as one would actually have to look at the information I have provided.

Let me ask you this. Here is a list of Palestinian solidarity organizations.

Do you think these Jews are Anti-Semites?

Jews Against the Occupation
Jews for Israeli-Palestinian Peace
Rabbis for Human Rights
Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions
Bat Shalom
Machsom Watch
Women in Black
Jewish Voice for Peace

Criticism of Israel is not antisemitism.

Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land

That's a powerful video, Cindy, particularly the clip of the Jewish woman talking about the pregnant Palestinian women,being denied access to medical care, dying at Israeli checkpoints. Thanks for sharing the link.

Perhaps there is already a group forming that calls itself Jews for Ron Paul.

Listen up, tinfoilhatters. I never said there were no conspiracies. I have personal and direct experience of genuine conspiracies. I also didn't say there were no government coverups. They are certainly far more common than conspiracies.

But what does not exist are the giant world-spanning conspiracies which require the cooperation of thousands of people and many different groups to achieve extreme long-term goals which are logically improbable. Real conspiracies involve few people and have short-term, achievable goals.

For example, I'm willing to believe a number of things about 9/11. I'm willing to believe that Flight 93 may have been shot down and covered up. It makes sense and would involve only a small group of people. However, I've seen zero convincing evidence on it. I'm also willing to believe building 7 was deliberately demolished for one of a number possible reasons. But again, there's not much evidence. I'm also willing to believe that the government attempted to cover up the fact that they knew quite a bit about the attack in advance and in particular that they are covering up the fact that they completely dropped the ball. There's actually quite a bit of evidence to support this, and the 9/11 commission confirms some of it. What I don't buy is that the government or Israel planned the 9/11 attack to give them an excuse to start a war. Such a conspiracy woudl involve too many people and is just too complex and nefarious to pull off without someone ratting them out. It just doesn't stand the test of reason.

Dave

We're not talking about conspiracy theory, Dave. We're talking about actual footage of actual human rights offenses of actual IDF soldiers against actual Palestinian human beings who are trying to do simple things on their illegally occupied, actually, land---things like get to the hospital before they die in childbirth, etc, etc.

Regarding 911, Ron Paul said in his now famous debate with Rudy Giuliani, "Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years." So many Ron Paul detractors have misconstrued that statement as an endorsement of 911 tinfoil conspiracy theories.

"They attack us because we've been over there here because we're over there" means Palestinians who have been under the heel of the nation of Israel are attacking the US, who is a supporter of Israel's Mideast expansion with dollars and military force. It's NOTHING to do with conspiracy theories or tin hats.

Caught Red-Handed: Media Backtracks on Iran's Anti-Israel "Threat"

by Arash Norouzi / July 17th, 2007

For close to two years, the media has stubbornly clung to a long discredited story about the Iranian President's alleged threat to "destroy Israel" with nuclear weapons Iran doesn't have and denies any intent to acquire. 'Wiped off the map, wiped off the map,' they bleat incessantly, even though his actual words, "The Imam [Khomenei] said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," were paralleled with the fall of regimes like the Soviet Union and Iran's former U.S.-installed monarchy [see: "WIPED OFF THE MAP" -- The Rumor of the Century for a thorough disassembly of this claim]. From the start of his Presidency, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has rhapsodized regularly about the demise of the 'Zionist regime' in various metaphorical terms. He and his associates in the Iranian government have compared its fate to the Pharaohs of Egypt and the former apartheid regime in South Africa (which they also did not recognize), but never have they threatened to start a war with any country.

Full Story - See URL

Dave:

Read "Crossing the Rubicon" by Mike Ruppert.

Government has indeed kept things quiet that involves 1000s of people. This book also provides a compelling case for the means, motive, and opportunity for high level members of our government to carry out 9/11. Something any investigative reporter would attempt to find out.

The evidence is out there, its just most people cant seem to break the psychological block and look for it.

It's no surprise that the Republican Party's gatekeepers keep such shills on retainer, but to be fair, not every writer who supports the war in Iraq, including Abel Keogh, is necessarily one of them.

We're asking Abel Keogh to reconsider his stance that Ron Paul's supporters are, knowingly or unknowingly, causing harm to Jews in general and the United States in particular, and we'd like to extend that offer to him graciously.

I'm grateful for the opportunity to engage in meaningful debate about Ron Paul, and to direct people to the blog of economist and Ron Paul supporter Lew Rockwell.

I've also appreciated seeing the link Cindy D recommended, in which Jews support the cause, but not the methods, of occupied Palestinians.

Also, discussions about whether or not 911 was the product of a world-wide conspiracy are beside the point. One might as well engage in arguments concerning the existence of an ages-old conflict between Good and Evil. We can only change what we have power to change, and should direct our focus to that. That's what the Ron Paul supporters with whom I am personally involved are trying to do.

Ad hominem attacks usually backfire, sooner or later. Truth is strong enough to stand on its own merits.

Cindy,

The organizations you mentioned in comment #111, listed as follows:

Jews Against the Occupation
Jews for Israeli-Palestinian Peace
Rabbis for Human Rights
Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions
Bat Shalom
Machsom Watch
Women in Black
Jewish Voice for Peace

are not anti-Semitic. They are engaged in treason, as the law defines it here in the State, and their members deserve to be hung by the neck. But, it's pretty hard to make an accusation against them stick, when you have a traitor as president, a traitor as prime minister, a traitor as attorney general, and a bunch of traitors sitting on the "high court of justice."

In Israel, we are waiting for a war to start against us, and reading dumb comments like yours tend only to convince me that the ONLY friends Jews have are other Jews. But Jews cannot rely on other Jews (see the list above that you so kindly provided). We have to rely on G-d. America can only be relied to welsh on its obligations, as it did in 1973. Europe is a Jewish graveyard and the European pigs have not changed in 70 years.

So, to repeat for the zillionth time, we do not need America, we certainly do not need Europe. We need only our faith in the Almighty, the Living G-d of Israel by Whose command we are here, and our clutch of nukes to get rid of the local enemies and teach the rest of you that the price of Jewish blood has gone up a bit...

If that attitude bothers you, tough shit. As time goes on it will get more and more common here, so get used to it.

Oh, and Cindy - try spelling "maHsom" (roadblock) correctly, instead of the way the idiots in the media spell it... That capital "h" in the middle of "maHsom" stands for the gutteral letter "Het."

Ruvy in Jerusalem,

Quixotically, I try to introduce an element of civility to this debate, and then I read your comment.

Listen Ruvy, G_d does not and never has counted as too high the price of Jewish blood when the leaders of Israel have acted in blood-thirsty manner, in His holy righteous name and in desecration of his merciful character. Certainly the occupants of Palestinian refugee camps have their tales of fear to tell, no less legitimate than your own.

Micah 3: 9 Hear this, I pray you, ye heads of the house of Jacob, and princes of the house of Israel, that abhor judgment, and pervert all equity.

10 They build up Zion with blood, and Jerusalem with iniquity.

11 The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money: yet will they lean upon the Lord, and say, Is not the Lord among us? none evil can come upon us.

12 Therefore shall Zion for your sake be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of the forest.

Abel: At first I thought this article was serious. Then I realized that it was satire and I saw how funny it was. For a moment I was actually worried that there were people in this country that actually thought like this. You got me. Thank goodness this article was a joke 

There are many now that when lacking a good argument resort to just calling it un-American. Like opposing Bush's War on Terror is un-American, for example. And now disagreeing with Israeli foreign policy is un-American. For these 'wolves in sheep's clothing' we need a definition of what it is to be American. Is being American - hot dogs and Apple pie? If one does not like hot dogs or Apple pie does this mean they are un-American?

America is typically a reference to the union of 50 states rather than continental America. Hence an American is one who believes in and supports the fifty United States of America. Notice the word 'fifty'. Fifty includes the fifty states, but does not include other countries like Israel, Iraq or Iran. Hence we cannot use the word 'American' when referring to these countries.

What defines America is what binds the fifty states: the constitution and the bill of rights. It's as simple as this: if you defend the constitution and bill of rights, you are an 'American'; if you do not defend this, then you are not 'American'.

What has made America great for 231 years (+-6) is its protection of individual civil liberties. This is what sets it apart from many other countries that do not have such regard. Israel for example does not protect individual civil liberties. So saying that if one does not agree with Israeli policy then they are un-American is only about 180 degrees from the truth. Israel will not be like America until it accepts the principle that America is founded on which is the protection of individual civil liberty regardless of race. The founders considered these liberties God given and could not be granted or taken away by any man or government. Until Israel accepts this, I think they will be continually bombarded with violence and I don't think that we should support them.

So we have a definition of what it means to be an 'American'. I realize that there are many that do not like this definition and would like to change it. But this is the definition that it has been for the majority of American History. Many now would like it to mean something more akin to an ideology that has recently been imported from countries such as Germany and Russia. These ideologies might be valid, but let's call them what they are and argue them based on their merit (or lack thereof) rather than attempting to sneak them in by calling them 'American'. We Americans are wise to this guile. Yes I consider myself an American as well as Ron Paul.

Opposing Bush's war on terror is not unamerican. Opposing America because Bush has engaged in a war on terror is unamerican. Do you get the difference, Tom?

Dave

Wow, this is more entertaining than Oprah. Of course, dead air is more entertaining than Oprah.

I won't bore anyone with a history lesson, but the Palestinian homeland is vast because it actually historically includes Jordan. But since the Palestinians (Arafat) tried a bloody overthrow of Jordan back in 1974, the West Bank Palestinians are not welcome there.

Everyone on Earth, including Israeli's for the most part, feel badly for the average Palestinian. And that's the truth. Before the Intifadah, they built schools and hospitals, and supplied clean water and power to the Palestinian areas. But this was met with resistance of the occupation. And ahhhh, the occupation. Isreal was attacked once and about to be attacked for the second time in 6 years back in 1973. So they fought and won and advanced to more defensible borders. In the meantime they gained access to the ancient capitol of Jerusalem.
So, what country in history has won a war then been forced to give back the territory by an international body such as the U.N.? Not one other.

There is and has been a rough peace plan that has been agreed to for a long time. Shared capital in Jerusalem, give back some land won in 1973 and maybe even the Golan Heights, although that's very tricky for defense purposes if you know anything about the geography and battle tactics. But every time they were close to making it happen, Arafat would walk away, leaving everyone at the table scratching their heads, and start up with violence again. Either he never had the backing to agree to peace, which would be the fault of the Palestinian extremists, or he never had any interest in making himself less necessary, which would be Arafat putting his personal wealth and well-being ahead of those of his people. Myself, I think it was a mixture of both.

And if the Palestinians put down their arms today and came to the table in peace, Israel would settle with them peacefully with an agreement that would make both Jews and Palestinians a little happy and a little unhappy, and that's how these treaties work.

So how do we sort out blame? Maybe it's not productive to sort out blame. But think about the proposition. Israel would compromise instantly and help the Palestinians if they would agree to live peacefully as neighbors. Would the Palestinians do the same if the Israeli's came to the table and offered to compromise? Well, we already have our answer to that one, don't we?

And now to the present. Israel has made plans through Jordan and Egypt's good offices to meet with the Arab League to reach a comprehensive settlement. This was agreed to about 2 weeks ago. Israel is speaking to Syria about negotiating for peace and a resolution to the Golan. So what did Israel's great ally the U.S. do? The U.S. convinced Saudi Arabia to slow up the process by equivocating on whether they would come to the talks. And now the "quartet" has reinserted themselves into the process. Why? I sure don't know why. Things were going better without us.

So, my considered opinion is that Israel will be much better off the day we stop interfering in their affairs. And Ron Paul is the only one putting out this position. Can you imagine Rudy or Mitt staying out of other people's business? They never have before.

I'd truly love to see a non-interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East, and everywhere else. Because it sure seems like what we've been doing my entire lifetime isn't working.

The day I start basing my vote on who supports them, rather than their own beliefs, will be the day I turn into a sheep that only listens to peoples opinions rather than the facts.

A.K.Smith,

Clay raises a good point--base your decision to support/not support Dr. Ron Paul on your own reasoned opinion, not on a revulsion of the possibility of guilt by association with those in tinfoil milinery, for example, who have glommed on to his campaign.

In order to win a presidential race in a pluralistic society such as ours, Dr. Paul will have to win the votes of all manner of strange bedfellows. I've seen Ron Paul supported by:

1. Folks with varying opinions on what to do about the immigration crisis (which, perhaps, one has to live in a U.S. border state to appreciate fully. Ditto, the desperate overzealousness of Palestinian suicide bombers raised in refugee camps.)

2. Jews such as yourself, who appreciate the sanity of Ron Paul's devotion to nonintervention policy, their own devotion to Israel and it's right to exist notwithstanding.
It is the policy that is not only best for the long-term national security of the US, but for all nations, as you point out.

3. Those, such as myself, disillusioned by the Christian Right, having realized that the over-zealous support for Israel promoted therein was largely due to infiltration by Trotskyite neoconservatives who, if you'll pardon the expression, did not give a da-n about G-d.

4. A lot of antisemitic loonies. Oh well. Distasteful I know, but I'd rather see their votes go to Ron Paul than to Hillary or Jewliani (did I really just make that up?) Those other candidates also have more than a few loonies supporting them.

Irene.

Your 114 is a pretty strange response to my 113, since I didn't even mention Israel in my comment, but you seem to have directed it at me.

Israel's mistreatment of the Palestinians isn't a conspiracy. It's quite public and quite obvious.

Suggesting that AIPAC secretly controls our congress - not THAT is a conspiracy theory, and a popular one. And like most of them, it's a case of taking a nugget of truth - that it's an influential lobby - and blowing it way out of proportion.

Dave

Anyone who talks against Ron Paul is a pathetic coward.

The nation's median real wages have decreased in the last 35 years, despite the massive gains in productivity.

The nation's foreign owned debt is at its highest level in history.

Social Security obligations have reach 60 TRILLION dollars, a figure we can never hope to afford.

The dollar is crashing, losing around 50% of its value against the euro since the euro's launch.



You all want this to continue?

Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. He upholds his oath to office, unlike all the other politicians. He's never voted to raise taxes, never voted for unconstitutional spending. Never voted for foreign wars that drain the American tax payers.

You cowards who insulted Ron Paul and his supporters are useless.

BTW, who the hell is Ron Paul? Never heard of the bloke. Is he important or something? Seems to be causing a stir here, whoever he is

#80. You can infer that the military seems to favor Ron Paul's foreign policy, policy o nthe Iraq war, etc. Pretty strong stuff actually. I thing with their donations they are saying "get us the hell out of Iraq! And don't start anymore bogus wars!"

Irene, please don't waste your time quoting the Bible to me...

Jews who consider leaving the Holy Land are committing a sin, the sin of lack of faith in G-d (see the deaths of Elimelekh, MaHlon and Khilion in the Book of Ruth and the Midrashic commentaries in Ruth Rabba concerning them). Jews who consider turning it over to our enemies are committing the far greater sin of rejecting His Land Covenant with us... We're not talking Israeli civil law, which defines as treasonous most of the activities of the Israeli government leaders quoted above, we're talking Torah.

By 1968, the Israeli government had already begun to doubt and reject the miracle of the 1967 victory over the Arabs. See my comment to the article referenced. And we have been paying a very high price for doing so, and continue to pay a high price.

There is no "justice" to the "Palestinian" side, for there is no "Palestinian" side. There is only the anger on the part of Arabs that Jews - the Sons of Israel - are reasserting their control over the Land of Israel - something which the Qur'an, as well as the Torah defines as G-d given.

Unfortunately, too many Jews have walked away from their own faith to even understand the Land Covenant, and too many Arabs choose to misread their own Qur'an and follow the heretic el-Wahhab instead.

This is costing US - both Arabs and Jews - a huge price in blood.

The fact Europeans and the United States have chosen to insert itself into the problems here, have only paved the way for the realization of the Biblical prophecies of Zechariah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Joel and Amos, all of which are coming true in our faces and our own lifetimes. As a guide to all of this, read the prophecies of Bila'am - backwards. There you will see in its first lines (read backwards) what is happening now.

As for your own quotes, Jerusalem has already become a rubble and has been rebuilt. See Amos 9:9-15. That prophecy is not complete. When the State of Israel falls and is replaced by a Jewish messianic state (don't confuse Christian messianic thinking for Jewish messianic thinking), the prophecy in Amos will have been totally fulfilled.

Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. He upholds his oath to office, unlike all the other politicians. He's never voted to raise taxes, never voted for unconstitutional spending.

Except for his vote this year for HR5385 to build permaent structures to support a standing army. And his vote this year for HR 3010 to provide $100 million to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting a government owned media/propaganda outlet.

These don't involve funding, but they do involve taking away basic constitutional rights from selected groups, when he voted for HR2587 in 1999 to prohibit funding to any agency that permitted gay adoptions. And for HR2679 in 2006 which exempts public officials for civil penalties for violating the separation of church and state? Or for HR2122 in 1999 to require background checks at gun shows? Or in 2004 to protect the violation of the separation of church and state in the Pledge of Allegiance?


Never voted for foreign wars that drain the American tax payers.

Really? Then who's paying for the wars he voted to authorize under the AUMF of 2001 which he voted for and which led to the invasion of Afghanistan?

Yes, Paul is better than most of our legislators, but he does have his achilles heels and parts of the constitution he's willing to overlook, particularly when the constitution comes into conflict with his extreme religious beliefs.

Dave

As for Ron Paul, whatever some voters think of him, the article author's assessment - that he is a vanity candidate with only a very long shot to win - is on the money.

Mike wrote: "The dollar is crashing, losing around 50% of its value against the euro since the euro's launch. You all want this to continue?"

Actually, yes (rubs hands gleefully thinking about holiday to Portugal in July, the Aussie dollar rising on the back of a falling greenback, and the favourable Euro exchange rate to be had as a result).

You've had it all your own way for far too long. Now it's my turn to get a decent exchange rate for my holidays. If Ron Paul is responsible for that in some small way, all hail to Ron.

He might be a good congressman and have a decent record but I don't know anyone who wants to immediately pull out of Iraq shouldn't be running this counry.

This is a very slanted article to only help you propel one of the other candidates. Ron Paul may not have the money the other candidates have and that may indeed make him a long shot. But think about this for a minute. Look at these comments from Ron Paul supporters. These are people that are seeking out people like you who try to slander Ron Paul to set the record straight. These are also the same people who will tell there friends, family, and strangers about the message that Ron Paul is giving. I don't know if your just brainwashed by the current administration or you've been paid to slander him but not one person here agrees with you. It's funny why that is. I guess you have to pay your mortgage so you sold your liberty and your country. It's not going to do you much good when the dollar crashes.

David, You now know of at least 50.

I'm sorry I meant Anthony you now know at least 50 people who want to march right out of Iraq.

Jared, in other words they are fanatics whose loyalty to Ron Paul admits to no challenge and no alternative viewpoint and they will do everything they can to silence those who don't agree with them.

Good lord, they sound like Democrats.