Today on Blogcritics
Home » Ron Paul and the Brain-Off Conspiracy

Ron Paul and the Brain-Off Conspiracy

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

"The Patriotic Sheep" are often the most difficult to work with because they won't take a minute to consider that which they do not know…these folks are so busy defending the Constitution that they are often the last to consider the damage they are inflicting. — Rick Koerber, The “Brain-Off” Conspiracy

It’s a telling sign when the only two US Representatives who voted against a non-binding resolution last month to censure Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are also (thankfully) the least likely people to be elected president.

Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Dennis Kucinich were on the losing end of a 411-2 vote that reaffirmed America’s partnership with Israel, urged the United Nations Security Council to censure Ahmadinejad for past remarks about destroying Israel, and asked the U.N. to consider measures to prevent him and his terrorist cronies from obtaining the nuclear weapons.

Kucinich’s vote shouldn’t have come as a surprise since he has a long track record of hating Israel, freedom, and anything remotely pro-American. Kucinich tried to defend his vote by sounding like al-Jazeera and claiming Amhadinejad’s remarks had been mistranslated and that he really didn’t really want to destroy Israel – an allegation long since proven false.

Paul’s vote, however, was particularly disturbing. As someone who claims to champion the principles of liberty, it’s odd that he would vote against a resolution – even a non-binding one – that condemns a bunch of religious fanatics for wanting to destroy a vibrant democracy and the only beacon of freedom in the Middle East.

In his statement denouncing the resolution, Paul said:

This resolution is an exercise in propaganda that serves one purpose: to move us closer to initiating a war against Iran. Citing various controversial statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this legislation demands that the United Nations Security Council charge Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Having already initiated a disastrous war against Iraq citing UN resolutions as justification, this resolution is like déja-vu. Have we forgotten 2003 already? Do we really want to go to war again for UN resolutions?

So Paul’s vote is really one of “principle.” He was afraid that the US will go to war against Iran simply to enforce UN resolutions rather than its own national security interests.

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. 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. Hussein had admitted to being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, his desire to acquire more, and he had a clear track record of aggression against neighboring states, and sponsoring terrorism. The war could have been avoided if Hussein had accepted President Bush’s last minute offer to relinquish power and leave Iraq. He didn’t. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Paul should know that the UN is the most ineffective and corrupt organization that ever existed. It has no ability or recognized authority to back up anything decides to do. Terrorist states such as Iran and North Korea, like Iraq before the war, routinely ignore ultimatums handed down from New York. UN “peacekeeping” forces that are sent to different parts of the world are ineffective at stopping even the most basic atrocities and instead rely on the military forces of other countries to keep the peace where its troops are located.

About Abel Keogh

  • A.K. Smith

    Hey, good interview from yesterday, in which Dr. Paul is given the chance to say he is a 9/11 conspiracy believer and to disavow his libertarian philosophy.

    Instead he embraces his libertarian/Constitutional beliefs and says he is not a 9/11 conspiracy believer but acknowledges that some of his supporters are. Overall, this should put to rest some of the concerns about Dr. Paul.

  • Cindy D


    Regarding Posts 118 and 129

    You speak about Jews who belong to peaceful organizations that disagree with you by saying, “their members deserve to be hung by the neck.” You display not an ounce of tolerance, nor any inclination to see those you disagree with as even misguided. Instead you harbor a wish to kill your fellow Jews for disparate beliefs. I can certainly see that Rabbis for Human Rights and Jewish Voice for Peace would be such a great threat to your extremest mindset.

    It becomes clear now, what you are. Of course, to you, “There is no ‘justice’ to the ‘Palestinian’ side, for there is no ‘Palestinian’ side.”

    Do you hear yourself? Do you fully comprehend the seething hostility and racism, the marginalization of an entire people inherent in the core of your beliefs? You are reactionist and violent.

    “I believe I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the (insert the race of those you wish to justify oppressing here), I am fighting for the Lord.”

    You do recognize that quote don’t you? Do you recognize yourself in it?

    Jewish messianic thinking– isn’t that about redemption and peace? And you wish to achieve this peace and redemption how? By cruelty and subjugation? By hanging peaceful members of your own faith?

    There is something wrong with your picture. I am not Jewish, so I will not debate with you about scripture. I do know, however, that the Torah is interpreted. Your interpretation is not only frightening, there is no place for it in a civilized world.

  • Irene Wagner

    Christopher Rose: Yikes! Sorry for making you follow behind doing all my a-hreffing for me! But thanks, and…

    Ron Paul, Y’all! 2008

  • Irene Wagner

    And whatever the outcome of the election there will be Shalom.

  • Dave Nalle

    HR 5485 is absolutely not unconstitutional. Since when is funding programs for veterans who fought and bled for the country unconstitutional?

    That’s hardly all that’s in the billl.

    The constitution allows federal funding for national security. There is nothing in the constitution prohibiting funding a standing army like you claim.

    The intent of the founders was that the nation would be defended by state militias. Do you contest that? The Constitution is clearly structured to support that approach to national defense. If any one person was most responsible for the Constitution as it was written it was James Madison who wrote “As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia.” And also go read his first inaugural address. It has a long section on how undesirable a standing army is. Almost all of the founding fathers commented on this. The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent the creation of a standing army. If Paul doesn’t know this then he’s no constitutionalist.

    You’re spreading misinformation:

    And you’re spreading bullshit.

    “In 1999 he voted for H.R. 2587 which contained an amendment that sought to prevent the use of federal funding for the promotion of adoptions of foster children being used to promote joint adoptions by unrelated, unmarried people. There was no mention of gay adoptions in the bill.”

    Nice doublethink there. The bill was promoted by the religious right as blocking gay adoption and opposed by pro-gay groups on that same basis. During this campaign gay-rights advocates have asked Paul’s campaign about it and they refuse to reply or explain in any way. Prohibiting gay adoption clearly violates the Constitutional right to free association if you’re a strict interpretationist.

    Truth: HR 2679 is constitutional and that is why Ron Paul voted for it. The first amendment only prohibits the federal government from establishing an official state church, like the church of England.

    Utter crap. This is the propaganda stance of the religious right. I can see who your secret masters are. As with the standing army issue, minimal research will provide you with all the examples you need of the framers stating unequivocally that the intention was far more broad than just preventing a state church.

    In fact, if Utah wanted to create a state Mormon church, it could, according to the constitution.

    Really? Then why was state funding of churches in some of the New England states done away with in the 19th century on a constitutional basis?

    If Ohio wanted to create a State Hindu church, it could. The only thing the fist amendment prohibits is the establishment of an official state church by the federal government.

    Both untrue and directly contradicted by multiple Supreme Court rulings. Again, you’re just dead wrong and spreading religious right propaganda.

    I can see why you support Ron Paul now.


  • Irene Wagner

    Whoever wins, Shalom.

    Darn it, Dave Nalle. First Ron Paul supporters as antiSemites, then you come out with an antiChristian zinger like the one in your last comment. Be consistent with your stance on religious bigotry. Preferably, you’ll choose to avoid it altogether.

    And DON’T put words in Ron Paul’s mouth regarding his stance on gay rights. I gave you a link with his own words on this and other ethical issues on which WE THE PEOPLE are polarized. Now READ it, and let Ron Paul speak for himself without your twisted commentary. All sides deserve to be heard, the issues deserve to be debated in a STATESMANLIKE manner, by the representatives of the geographical areas who will be directly impacted by them.

    And the IDEA of dropping the ball on wounded vets! Yes, state militias would be best, but the wounded vets had answered the call to defend the country, as they understood it, in the only manner currently available. It was an important enough concern for Ron Paul to give a Yes vote to the bill. You don’t agree with 100 percent of the bill, and I’m not sure Ron Paul did either. So there, he isn’t so much of an idealist that he can’t get the job done with reasonable realistic compromises.

  • Ray

    Dave, You seem to want to minimize AIPAC’s influence…check out Gregory Levey’s article excerpt from Article “Inside america’s powerful Israel lobby.”

    “I don’t sit behind my desk and come up with this stuff,” Coleman said, stressing that he often consulted AIPAC executive director Howard Kohr for policy advice. Barbara Mikulski, a Democrat from Maryland, said that she, too, often spoke to Kohr and others in the AIPAC leadership. “They’re like daily phone calls,” she said, as other Democratic and Republican members of Congress onstage nodded in agreement.

    I think Levey knows what he is talking about.

  • Irene Wagner

    Dave Nalle,

    I GAVE you a link in which Ron Paul stated his stance on divisive ethical questions. He’s about state’s rights, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? If you want to live in a state that supports your gay agenda, Dave Providence in Rhode Island might be more comfortable for you than Austin in the state of Texas. And if I can’t tolerate the idea that in the hospital down the street, partial birth abortion specialists are cutting off the heads of half-born babies, then maybe I’ll have to relocate to the Dakotas or Nebraska.

    It’s a pluralistic nation. Issues like these deserve to be debated locally by the people who will be affected by the decision most, not rammed down their throats by the federal government. And debated in a STATESMANLIKE manner, not lobbing ad hominem slurs the way…some people do.

    And the IDEA of cutting off funds to wounded vets! They served in the only way available to them. State militias would be the Constitutional Way, but don’t you DARE tell a wounded vet that. It was an importantant enough issue to Dr. Ron Paul that he voted on a bill that YOU might not have been 100% comfortable with. And you’re the hawk, anyway, right? So you just want to send US soldiers into the meat grinder and to hell with them when the Neocons can’t use their broken bodies any more?

    Who do YOU support, Dave Nalle? Who’s running for president besides Ron Paul who is working harder towards the goals of limiting the federal government (and the Supreme Court, for that matter) to be in line with Constitional balance?

    And by the way, Shalom to you, too, Dave.

  • STM

    Irene writes: “And now, STM if you’ll excuse me, a Christian, from expressing her views in a political forum:”

    I don’t have any problem with Christians posting anywhere or doing anything.

    What I do oppose is evangelical Christians of the right, who contrary to the teachings of Jesus keep telling me that if I don’t do things the way they say, I’m going to the other place.

    Just for the record, I’m a Christian too – a practising Catholic.

    So even though I know I’M right, I won’t be telling you heathens how to go about it.

  • Gary

    Wow. This is an amazing article. Just to count the verbal backbends that must be made to fit so many falsehoods into so few words is amazing. I’ll tell you what I got out of this article about Kucinich and Paul. 411-2. That means 2 shephards and 411 sheep. 2 Solomons and 411 Abel Keoghs.

  • Dave Nalle

    I gave you the link to Ron Paul’s article where he gives his stance on how to handle divisive ethical questions

    You mean where he sidestepped the responsibility under the constitution to protect citizens rights by palming it off on the states.

    like abortion and the homosexual agenda.

    The ‘homosexual agenda’? You mean that evil plot to have equal rights under the law?

    It’s called “The Federal Marriage Amendment is a Very Bad Idea.” Ron Paul defends the right of each individual state to decide on divisive matters such as these.

    He defends the right of the states to nullify basic human rights and parts of the constitution within their borders. That’s not very libertarian.

    If the Constitution were being followe, then the homosexual populations of Louisville, Austin and Providence stayed in or moved to Rhode Island, promoters of the homosexual agenda might be able to hold sway in the Rhode Island State Senate.

    So you’re saying that they are entitled to equal rights only if they are willing to relocate to a different state? Perhaps we could force them all to relocate to a prison camp or something.

    Does it bother you at all to be a homophobe and a hypocrite?

    It’s a pluralistic nation, and again, people tend to be happiest in geographical locations where their lifestyles and values are supported and appreciated. Decisions on such emotionally charged issues should be debated locally by the people who will be affected by the decision most, not rammed down their throats by the federal government. And debated in a STATESMANLIKE manner, not lobbing ad hominem slurs the way…some people do.

    When fundamental rights are involved (and here I’m talking about gay marriage, not abortion) then it’s outside of the authority of state or federal government to interfere.

    And the very IDEA of allowing the US to fall down on the job of supporting its wounded vets! What do you propose we do, send them into the Middle East Meat Grinder and toss them aside when we have no more use for their broken bodies?

    Where did I ever say anything like this? The bill I brought up included a lot more than just veterans facilities, and it was the other elements which I specifically referenced.

    that shows that Ron Paul IS, contrary to the assertions of his detractors, able to be flexible ideologically when it comes to addressing the needs of reality.

    It shows that he’s willing to sacrifice his constitutional principles when personal issues and prejudices override them. It doesn’t show that he has any common sense.

    I haven’t decided yet. I’d like to be able to support Paul, but he’s making it difficult. I’ve voted libertarian in every presidential election but one since 1980.

    (I’m taking the time to post all these comments on my own nickel by the way.)

    As opposed to the vast salary I’m being paid for my editing work here at BC?

    Who’s running for president besides Ron Paul who is working harder towards the goals of limiting the federal government (and the Supreme Court, for that matter) to be in line with Constitional balance?

    No one, but it’s all worthless if he can’t get elected and if once elected he can’t set realistic goals and work within the existing structure to make reasonable changes.

    I think the Paul candidacy is a great thing for the issues it brings to prominence, and I think he’d make a great Vice President, which is a realistic goal to aim for. I hope he stays in the campaign until the very end and thereby puts pressure on the winner to be more libertarian.


  • Irene Wagner

    Well done, Dave. You hopped right over the partial birth abortion issue I brought up. If I’m willing to move to North Dakota, don’t put up such a fuss about the Rhode Island trip. Most gays living in Louisville, Austin and Providence have already changed addresses once already to be closer to kindred spirits!

    And don’t be so disingenuous as to claim that the only element of the homosexual agenda is to have gay unions (which exist now already without the police busting the door down) recognized as legal marriages. There’s the Boy Scout thing, the adoption thing, the pushing for more awareness and acceptance for the lifestyle in public elementary school thing. And I know not all homosexuals are pedophiles, but you can’t honestly deny that politically active groups like lambda exist. Let the decent boundary-respecting gays take the matter to the mat with them in Rhode Island, and force them out of the country to Greece or wherever they belong.

    Well, I guess we won’t carry on like this once Ron makes the ticket one way or t’other.

    And thanks for not using any ad hominems in your reply to me.

  • Dave Nalle

    Irene, I don’t give a rat’s ass about abortion, and I agree that it’s ambiguous enough that it might as well be left up to the states. It doesn’t infringe on clear, constitutionally defined rights. Gay marriage prohibition does.

    Every time you talk about the ‘gay agenda’ you expose your bigotry. Carry on, you’re your own worst enemy.


  • A.K. Smith

    Dave – I wonder why anyone feels the federal government should get involved in marriage, either hetero or homosexual marriage. Why does anyone feel the need to get their marriage okayed by any level of government? My guess, although I don’t know this class I, is that Dr. Paul doesn’t think government has a place in marriage either. It’s a little tough to tell from his position paper. We know that for him the battle over homosexual marriage is really a battle over nothing more than government benefits, or government mandated benefits from private business.

    And that is something government should not be doing for either hetero or homosexual marriages. Marriage is and should be a private contract between two people, with our without their religious institution involved as they choose. A.K.

  • Clavos

    “We know that for him the battle over homosexual marriage is really a battle over nothing more than government benefits, or government mandated benefits from private business.

    And that is something government should not be doing for either hetero or homosexual marriages. Marriage is and should be a private contract between two people, with our without their religious institution involved as they choose. A.K.”

    True. But if the benefits are available to heteros, they should be available to gays as well.

  • Dave Nalle

    Dead on, A.K. Separation of church and state suggests that the government should play NO role in approving marriages at all. Marriage is a religious ritual. The government should have nothing to do with it. The state should formalize in some way the contractual arrangement of cohabitation regardless of the genders of the people involved. Whether they call it a marriage should be between them and their church.


  • Dave Nalle

    We know that for him the battle over homosexual marriage is really a battle over nothing more than government benefits, or government mandated benefits from private business.

    I don’t think we DO in fact know this. I’m pretty confident that he is opposed to gay marriage in any form on a religious basis and that his states rights cop out is his way of avoiding having to admit it.


  • G

    The constitution and its amendments do not grant the federal government the power to do anything on the subject of marriage (or abortion, for that matter). Yes, the 14th amendment does guarantee “equal protection of the laws” and it grants congress the power to enforce it, but protection is not marriage. Unless I suppose, marriage grants some form of protection. I wonder if the supreme court had made a ruling on this topic?

    Federalism works by the state and federal government sharing power. Sometimes this is a good thing, such as individual states allowing things like gay marriage and medical marijuana before they’d have enough popular support to be legalized by the feds. Other times its not so good, with some states holding back good legislation. In any event, you can’t expect 300 million very independent people to agree on much, and federalism is designed to keep them happy with a degree of independence from each other. I don’t think its perfect, and I think we have an excessive number of states in this day and age of easy travel, but its the law. And for the most part, it works.

    In a recent Google interview, he said he’s stated his support for gay marriage, and freedom of voluntary association in general. But I doubt he’d do anything to support it in office in any branch of the federal government. I doubt he’d support the redefinition of marriage, since he seems to look at it from a Christian standpoint, but who cares? If there was ever a president that would keep the government from infringing on freedom of association, its Ron Paul.

  • Christopher Rose

    Irene, the automatic spam prevention software is having a little brainfart and blocking some of your comments. Please just continue to post normally (ie, not repeatedly) and I will unblock them for you. It will wise up shortly, it’s a bit slow on the uptake sometimes ;-)

  • Irene Wagner

    Thanks, but no Chris, don’t unblock them, because then it really would be spam! I finally got my comment through when I took all HTML out of it.

  • Irene Wagner

    But I’m posting a new one now, Chris, after reading Dave’s comments to me.

    It’s unclear to me how anyone could consider severing the head of a half-born child anything BUT a human rights violation. But that’s a fight to be fought at the state level.

    And I stand by my comments on the broadness of the homosexual agenda. It’s the truth.

    And what may surprise you, and hopefully inform you, Dave, is that I and other Christian friends were FURIOUS with the Religious Right for trying to push through the Federal Marriage Amendment, and at the state level, much “anti gay marriage” legislation.

    For one thing, why was the issue brought up at that time, when the country’s attention needed to be focused on the issue of War in Iraq? It seemed like a cynically-staged distraction to pull dyed in the wool Republics whose support for the war was faltering back into “the fold of those with traditional values.”

    Secondly, the act was unfair to “untraditional” households in general, whether or not they were gay. I don’t care to know what is going on sexually between two adults in the same household. If one partner is acting in the role of caretaker and/or breadmaker, and the other has been in the role of home-maker (whether he/she is part of a gay union, or just part of a spinster sisters household) those folks should be able to afford medical care. And they shouldn’t be so overburdened by income tax that the right to file jointly is almost a necessity.

    And as I’m sure you know, Dave, Ron Paul’s policies on healthcare and taxation would ease the burdens on households, be they gay or not, without requirement of federal sanction of anyone’s marriage.

  • Dave Nalle

    Well, that’s a bit more rational, Irene. At least you managed not to let your fear of homosexuals distract you quite as much. Now, how do you feel about polygamy?

    It’s unclear to me how anyone could consider severing the head of a half-born child anything BUT a human rights violation. But that’s a fight to be fought at the state level.

    I’m not for partial birth abortion either. I don’t think anyone is except for a few lunatics. I don’t get all overwrought about it, however. I think our society places way too much value on human life in general.

    As for the gay marriage issue being a distraction fromt he war in Iraq, that doesn’t fly. At the time it was a hot-button issue Republican support for the war was at an all-time high.


  • Irene Wagner

    Thankyou Dave.

    How do I feel about polygamy?

    I’ll beg your indulgence and answer as a Christian first, and then I’ll answer as a citizen. (Not all Christians, Jews, or Muslims will agree with me, so I don’t claim to speak for all Bible-readers.)

    Abraham (father of the faith of all “peoples of the Book”) was a polygamist. The dynamics in his family were quite troubled to say the least, so Abraham’s example stands to me as a warning rather than a vindication about the realities of polygamous households. As for the serial multiple marriages that resulted from the practice of allowing a man to divorce his wife for the most trivial of reasons, Jesus said, in the beginning it was not so. The man and wife should cleave to one another, and no man should separate them. Jesus said that Moses had made allowances for them because of the hardness of their hearts.

    Jesus Christ often made reference to himself as “the Bridegroom.” St. Paul in the epistles more than once makes the analogy between the relationship of a man and a wife whom he cherishes and cares for, and the relationship of Jesus Christ, and the Church he cherishes and is trying to remove the spots and wrinkles from to prepare for the Wedding at the end of the age.

    So as a Christian, I see the deep and intimate love between a man and his wife, an intimacy that will admit for the intrusion of no third parties, as the ideal that God had in mind when he established marriages.

    When Christian missionaries succeed in bringing the Gospel to communities where polygamy is the norm, THE BEST OF THEM (and I’m as disgusted with the worst of them as you are, Dave, probably moreso) do not try to break up these marriages. That would be cruel. What they do is to recommend that all wives be treated equally, and that monogamous marriages be held up as the ideal for young men looking for wives for the first time.

    NOW AS A CITIZEN, I realize that at least some of the Muslim families relocating to the US are polygamous, and that many Muslims believe it is actually merciful to take a woman on as a third or fourth wife if she has no other means of support. On the other extreme, I know that all sorts of multiple partner randiness is going on behind closed in orgies and the like.

    As a citizen, and as a Christian, too, for that matter, I’d say that its a waste of time for the State to go after polygamous Muslim and certain sects of Mormonism that allow polygamy (or any other sort of other polyamorous arrangements) AS LONG AS 1)they aren’t asking that polygamous families be given special rights such as, 2) they aren’t requiring private institutions such as the Boy Scouts, to hire polygamous staff 3) they aren’t asking that the promotion of the legitimacy of polygamous marriages be made an educational goal of the public elementary and high schools 4) they aren’t requiring churches to hire polygamous preachers and staff 5) they aren’t forbidding churches to preach against polygamy.

    Fair ’nuff?

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem


    When Christian missionaries succeed in bringing the Gospel to communities where polygamy is the norm, THE BEST OF THEM do not try to break up these marriages. That would be cruel.

    Maybe you would like to answer this as a Christian.

    Who the fuck are you to insist on shoving your “gospel” down anybody’s throat? It stinks when you do it in America, but it stinks even worse when I see it in the streets of Jerusalem. In America, a “Christian” country, presumably you have “Christian liberty” – the right to shovel your gospels down non-Christians throats – and non-Christians have to shut their mouths.

    But you have no such privileges in THIS country. Why don’t you get your damned missionaries out of here? One day, we are liable to lose our sense of tolerance and throw them all out – dead or alive.

    They are not welcome here at all.

  • Irene Wagner


    The link must have set you off. Musalaha, in case the rest of you didn’t know is a Christian organization that has reconciliation between Palestian and Jewish (Messianic) Christians as a goal, as a first step to breaking down hostilities in the rest of the country.

    PS Is it kosher to use the “F” bomb on a lady? Or is it only a sin if she’s frum? I know many, many Jews who must be reading your remarks right now and shaking their heads sadly.

    I forgive you in advance.

    Irene Wagner

  • Irene Wagner

    Aren’t “vibrant democracies” supposed to have freedom of speech and religion?

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Sorry sweetheart;

    I’m not a nice boy at all. But you haven’t answered my question. Who the hell are you to shovel your trash down our throats in Israel? And no, I’m not talking about some little web-site. I don’t have to listen to a web-site.

    I’m talking about the scum who try to steal our souls in our own homeland. I’m talking about the loudmouth assholes who hustle your garbage on our streets!! Israel was founded precisely because of shit like Christian missionaries assaulting our sensibilities with their trash and garbage, and trying to coerce Jews to convert with all kinds of pressure. This country exists as a refuge from YOU!!!

    It’s disgusting to have to countenance your scum in OUR country that we have paid for with our blood!

    And I don’t give two shits about YOUR forgiveness. We have yet to forgive YOU for seventeen centuries of persecution.

    Aren’t seventeen centuries of rapes, murders, rigged justice, auto da fés enough? Have you NO shame at all? Do you think that because Orthodox Jews haven’t killed the loudmouths in our streets heretofore, that they won’t?

    You do not have “Christian liberty”, the right to hustle your religion, in this country!


  • A.K. Smith

    I’m pretty confident that he is opposed to gay marriage in any form on a religious basis and that his states rights cop out is his way of avoiding having to admit it.

    Dave – You seem like a pretty reasonable guy. And maybe he is indeed opposed to gay marriage on a personal level. I don’t know, however, that his “states’ rights” position is a cop out. I think he truly wants to divest the federal government of any powers it is not supposed to possess. Admittedly, he and I and apparently you, don’t always agree on the proper powers of the federal government. But I do think he’s making an honest effort to differentiate what is a federal and what is a state/local/individual issue. That goes to the question of intent. And on that, I’m not sure it matters. I know he only cares about gays in the military if sexual conduct becomes disruptive, the same as for non-gays. And I know he doesn’t believe in group rights, only individual rights. And I believe the bill he voted against in congress (can’t recall the bill number) was described as one that was meant to stymie gay marriage. I can’t swear that that’s the proper take on the bill because admittedly there are usually dozens or hundreds of often conflicting parts of each bill.

    But I do think we quibble here. For the first time in my lifetime (51 years) we have a candidate who is making a serious stab at following the Constitution (at least the Constitution as he sees it.) That is a major step from every other candidate. They all follow the “whatever I say goes” or “whatever I think works” theory of constitutional construction.

    I am not a Constitutionalist. In my heart I am an anarchist. But I have been saying for almost thirty years that if a truly constitutionalist candidate ever ran, I would support him or her because I’d rather live under the document as written than just having the government make it up as they go. And that’s why I’m supporting Dr. Paul. I have my disagreements with him just as you do. But I see this as an opportunity that I can’t pass up because it’ll clearly never come again during my life, and I plan to make it to well over 100.

    Btw, did everyone see the video of Dr. Paul getting Fed chairman Bernanke to admit the fed causes inflation. Then telling Bernanke he was answering a question with his fingers crossed? How could we not support a guy who will say that?

  • Irene Wagner

    The comment facility keeps on telling me I’ve put a naughty word in, A.K.Smith It’s not TRUE. I’ve already forgiven Ruvy and have moved on.

    Dave I hope my answer to your question about polygamy shows how a person with strong religious beliefs can be fair, in government and other matters, to people who don’t share that belief.

    I think people’s reservations about Ron Paul’s strong faith will melt away once they see how reasonable and fair his economic policies are to everyone.

    I think I’ll go try that link you gave about Ron Paul getting Bernanke to back down on inflation.

    http mt tb 66511

    The only way I can get that link to post is to take the colons and slashes out. I’d ahref the link for you, but I haven’t been able to put in any HTML for hours.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    I’ve already forgiven Ruvy and have moved on.

    The woman has no answer to what I say. Or refuses to answer. But note, this is the typical behavior of the religion hustlers. They refuse to recognize their own sins when their noses are rubbed in them – they “forgive” the person and move on. I’ve dealt with such people before.

    This is why they rouse only my contempt…

    Disgusting hypocrites…

  • Dave Nalle

    Good lord, Ruvy. You didn’t close the bold tag EITHER? May you accept an appropriately Jewish load of shame for your failures.


  • Irene Wagner

    But I DID have an answer Ruvy, and it was “Shouldn’t a ‘vibrant democracy’ [Keogh's words] have freedom of speech and democracy?”

    Please stop being so angry, Ruvy. I’m not mad at you anymore, except for putting so much verbiage between the end of the comments and my reply to Dave on polygamy and how it relates to the RON PAUL CAMPAIGN.

  • Irene Wagner

    That should be “Shouldn’t a ‘vibrant democracy’ [Keogh's words] have freedom of speech and religion?”

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem


    You have not answered me at all.

    You do not have “Christian liberty”, the right to hustle your religion, in this country! And you haven’t answered my question. Who the hell are you to shovel your trash down our throats in Israel?

    In light of Christian behavior to Jews over the last seventeen centuries, your “evangelists” still presume the right to walk in OUR streets, spreading the lies and poison of your “religion?”

    Why shouldn’t we kill such scum on our land? I’m not talking about America anymore. This is a Jewish country with Jewish norms and proselytizing is in bad taste here, to put it most politely.

  • Irene Wagner

    Who am I? I’m someone who’s never even BEEN to Israel, Ruvy. I’ve never assaulted anyone on your streets or on any streets, for that matter.

    I am a person who loves…the J fellow…and I love talking about him, and I tend to grab opportunities to brag on him whenever there is an opportunity. I guess I am a little like the way YOU are, only you talk about your passion for the nation of Israel. I think we BOTH annoy people sometimes.

    I’m not going to make any apologies for people who claim to be Christians, who, in persecuting Jews in actions such acts as the disgraceful European pogroms, ignore the clear teaching of Romans chapter 11 (one of the longest books in the Christian Bible.) This scripture states that Jews were the original olive vine, and that Christians better not be haughty towards them.

    Ruvy, I hope some day you can go to a place called the Avenue of the Righteous over there in Israel, Ruvy. At that memorial, the Jews give honor to Christians who are my heroes, Christians who risked their lives to hide Jews during the Holocaust. Like Corrie ten Boom.

    In this thread, I didn’t notice anyone else besides me identifying themselves as Christians. So when others in the thread brought up Ron Paul’s Christianity as a stumbling block towards their support of him, I decided to take breaks between laundry and vacuuming to take up for him.
    I wasn’t meaning to force…the Big J…down anyone’s throat.

    Now, can we PLEASE bury it and let the others get back to talking about politics in America, Ruvy?

    ronpaul2008 com

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    And Irene, let’s get a few points straight. This “those people who persecuted Jews are not Christians in my eyes” garbage doesn’t wash here. Christians waving their damned crosses and stuffing your religion down Jewish throats did evil: just as you have held Jews responsible for the acts of other Jews, I’m holding Christians responsible for the actions of other Christians. And since you are so proud of Christian missionaries hustling your “gospel” to the “heathen”, I’m going after you.

    If you don’t have an answer, it’s because no Jew ever DEMANDED that you face up to the many sins that Christianity has committed in the name of G-d – particularly against Jews.

    Finally, just to set you straight, you haven’t got a clue as to what the Tana”kh talks about – the message in Isaiah is for us, and not you. The Spirit of G-d will break all of you – all the would be destroyers of Israel – and that is what you are.

    And that is how I view you.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem


    Your comment came on line at 20:02 – two minutes before mine did at 20:04. I was still typing my remarks and did not see what you had to say. Had I seen those comments, I’d have not posted mine.

    Just so you know, I visited Yad va’Shem and visited the Street of the Righteous. One visit is more than enough for me – my father’s family died in Poland at the hands of the Nazis. I do not need any further reminders.

    And now, I’ll let the subject drop.

  • Irene Wagner

    Yes, Ruvy. Have a blessed Sabbath, if Sabbath isn’t over for the week in Jerusalem.

  • Christopher Rose

    Ruvy, if you don’t develop a more complete set of manners, you’re going to be added to the shortlist for a compulsory holiday in Siberia. FACT.

    In a modern society, anybody has the right to campaign for their views, no matter how absurd they be. Unless it is illegal, they can also do it wherever they want. You can write all the ill-mannered sound and fury you want but it isn’t going to make you right, it is going to make you edited, deleted or possibly even holidayed.

    Furthermore, you aren’t shy of championing your own views here on this American site, so by your own “logic” how do you defend that?

  • Dave Nalle

    So when others in the thread brought up Ron Paul’s Christianity as a stumbling block towards their support of him

    Let me make entirely clear that I have no problem at all with Paul’s personal choice of religion. What I have a problem with is his demonstrated willingness to set aside the constitution so that he can impose the dictates of that religion on others.


  • Clavos

    Here are a couple of interesting quotes from an opinion piece by Christopher Caldwell in today’s NYT Magazine: (Requires free registration)

    “Paul understands that his chances of winning the presidency are infinitesimally slim. He is simultaneously planning his next Congressional race. But in Paul’s idea of politics, spreading a message has always been just as important as seizing office. “Politicians don’t amount to much,” he says, “but ideas do.””


    “But what is “Ron’s message”? Whatever the campaign purports to be about, the main thing it has done thus far is to serve as a clearinghouse for voters who feel unrepresented by mainstream Republicans and Democrats. The antigovernment activists of the right and the antiwar activists of the left have many differences, maybe irreconcilable ones. But they have a lot of common beliefs too, and their numbers — and anger — are of a considerable magnitude. Ron Paul will not be the next president of the United States. But his candidacy gives us a good hint about the country the next president is going to have to knit back together.”

  • A.K. Smith

    I think this is sophistry. McCain’s advisers told him to quite the Senate to make his campaign more effective. Did he also think he didn’t have a chance? Is that why he didn’t retire from the Senate? Even though he was the early front runner and being in the Senate has clearly hurt him?

    Politicians don’t amount to much but ideas do? Yeah, he says this all the time. I think it actually makes him a humble person, not one who doesn’t think he has a chance. Yeah, at first it seems he didn’t think he had a chance. But I think he’s since changed his mind.

    And the second quote is the author’s opinion. That has as much validity as anyone else’s INDIVIDUAL opinion. My guess is that anyone who reads the article, paying close attention to the writer’s bias, will be interested in the candidate. Even though the author’s bias does come through, I think on balance it was a pretty good piece and not the overt hit job I expected from the NYT.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Personally, I think that Ron Paul hasn’t a ghost of a chance in any American presidential race, assuming that one actually takes place in 2008. This has nothing to do with his positions, or lack of them, or his religion, or lack of one. At best, he is a latter day “Clean Gene” in an era that doesn’t seem to want one.

    But politicians are known by the enemies who attack them as well as those who support them. When CAIR starts going for Ron Paul’s goiter, as they have done to Rudolph Giuliani, I’ll pay some attention to him.

  • A.K. Smith

    Ruvvy – Why would CAIR go after Ron Paul? He is not trying to support Israel at the expense of any other country. I think the U.S. getting disentangled from the Middle East will be very good for Israel. But I’m sure CAIR thinks that the U.S. has been helping Israel, even though you and I know that isn’t true.

    Yeah, I always depend on those who live in Israel to divine what’s going to happen in American elections. I live here and often can’t tell what’s going to happen. In fact, I was sure Bush would lose the second time. And so was almost everyone else.

    Of course, we’ll see what happens. But I wouldn’t count the man out. He’s always had to run against his own party when running for Congress, and nobody ever thought he’d get as much support as he has so far in the presidential campaign. A.K.

  • Michael Ross

    War is only good for the pocket books of dick Chenney.

  • will

    I can’t believe I wasted the time to read this. I actually feel like this killed some brain cells I was going to use.

  • Jared

    For anyone that thinks Ron Paul is a kook. Take a look at this video from Bush’s Sec of Treasury.

  • Michael Bass

    How many liberties are we willing to give up to obtain safety? Benjamin Franklin stated that “those who sacrafice liberty for security deserve neither.” Many people today believe that ole man Franklin is outdated and obscure – surely he couldn’t have realized the modern advances of terrorism when he made these statements. On the contrary, our Founding Fathers probably saw more death and destruction than any technologically advanced culture like “ginger bread America” ever dreamed of. They brought down the brick wall of tyranny, greed, and supression – and replaced it with it’s worst enemy, the United States Constitution.

  • Clavos

    Actually, Franklin never said that.

    From Wikipedia:

    “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

    * This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania.” (emphasis added)