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.

The real danger to our way of life is not from UN’s well-intentioned but ultimately ineffective resolutions but from terrorists who not only want to acquire nuclear weapons but believe their life mission is to kill every Jew and forcibly convert everyone else – including Americans – to their religion. If we go to war with Iran it won’t be to prop up the UN but to eliminate a threat to our security and freedom.

So what is Paul’s solution to dealing with Iran? He says, “We need to engage the rest of the world, including Iran and Syria, through diplomacy, trade, and travel rather than pass threatening legislation like this that paves the way to war.”

That sounds like something the UN would propose.

Paul’s blind adherence to his anti-UN principles is what causes politicians to ignore more obvious threats to freedom and cast a stupid and regrettable vote. Sure, the resolution was entirely symbolic but, sadly, even symbolically backing Israel’s democracy and the principles of liberty is too much for people who share Paul's libertarian politics if the UN is involved.

Paul’s logic in voting against the resolution is almost as twisted and Kucinich’s defense of his vote. The only difference is that Paul actually believes he’s acting in the spirit of Founding Fathers rather than just being someone who has been blinded by his own vanity and rhetoric.

Blind adherence to any set of principles or doctrine is dangerous. The lack of rational, objective thought when it comes to one’s beliefs is what causes some people to fly airplanes into skyscrapers, blow themselves up in crowded market places taking the lives of innocent men, women, and children, or cast a vote that ultimately favors murderous tyrants.

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.

Their air of self-importance is the main reason they’re both the leading presidential vanity candidates and long shots to win their parties presidential nomination.

Powered by

About Abel Keogh

  • http://tsoldrin.blogspot.com tsoldrin

    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.

  • Thomas

    “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.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    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

  • Cliff

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

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

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

    Dave

  • Cliff

    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.

  • D

    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.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

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

    dave

  • joshuabrucel

    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. -

  • Proud American

    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.

  • Lincoln Turner

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

  • joshuabrucel

    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.”

  • mike smith

    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.

  • andrew Burris

    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.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    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

  • Dr Dreadful

    re #9, #12, #13:

    Incoming from Ruvy in 5… 4… 3… 2…

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I think it’s still dinner time in Israel.

    dave

  • sheila

    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!

  • David Clark

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

  • TonyBologna

    “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.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

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

    Dave

  • http://paul4prez.blogspot.com Doug

    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.

  • http://ronpaulforums.com beermotor

    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) . . .

  • Dr Dreadful

    #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…

  • Chris from Ohio

    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.

  • Republican again

    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?

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    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…

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

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

  • tomdawg

    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.

  • Fluffy

    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.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    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!!

  • Lumpy

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

  • Sammy

    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.

  • tomdawg

    Ruvy:

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

  • jc

    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!

  • JP

    “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.

  • Abhishek

    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.

  • tomdawg

    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.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    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?

  • Jack D.

    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.

  • Robert Moore

    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.

  • EEKman

    *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.

  • Luke

    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.

  • tomdawg

    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?

  • A.K. Smith

    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.

  • tomdawg

    Wow. Ruuuuuvy?

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

  • 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.

  • tomdawg

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

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    I NEED FIVE GALLONS OF HOT BUTTERED POPCORN, STAT

    This will be fun.

  • clay

    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.

  • A.K. Smith

    #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.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    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

  • Richard

    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.

  • Walker Pfost

    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.

  • A.K. Smith

    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.

  • Chad Bishop

    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.

  • NH

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

  • Robert Lukens

    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.

  • http://demidog.blogspot.com Rick Fisk

    “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.

  • Kyle Sanders from Salem, OR

    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.

  • Daniel

    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.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    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.

  • Nana

    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.

  • Nana

    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

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    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.

  • http://googel jason

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

  • http://nightdragon.diaryland.com Mark Edward Manning

    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.

  • http://nightdragon.diaryland.com Mark Edward Manning

    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!

  • http://nightdragon.diaryland.com Mark Edward Manning

    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?

  • crazychester

    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.

  • Mark G.

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

  • Paul Furlong

    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.

  • Brandon

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

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    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?

  • Dr Dreadful

    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.

  • Clavos

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

  • Floccina

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

  • Don Wills

    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.

  • Paul

    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

  • Clavos

    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?

  • Perry

    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.

  • wayne

    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

  • Earl E Riser

    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

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    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.

  • crazychester

    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.

  • http://disinter.wordpress.com/ disinter
  • http://disinter.wordpress.com/ disinter

    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.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    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

  • Mike

    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.

  • Mike

    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.

  • A.K. Smith

    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.

  • crazychester

    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.

  • wayne

    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.

  • Steve Barry.

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

  • Mabel

    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=

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    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.

  • Mazz

    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

  • bill

    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…

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    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

  • REMF

    “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

  • crazychester

    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.

  • Sam

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

  • Mazz

    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

  • http://www.seruv.org.il/english/default.asp Cindy D

    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”.

  • T

    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

  • Irene Wagner

    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.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCL6WdnuNp4 Cindy D

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

    Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land

  • Irene Wagner

    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.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    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.

  • Irene Wagner

    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.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCL6WdnuNp4 Cindy D

    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

  • Irene Wagner

    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.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    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

  • Irene Wagner

    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.

  • http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/caught-red-handed-media-backtracks-on-irans-anti-israel-threat/ Cindy D

    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

  • EEKman

    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.

  • Irene Wagner

    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.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    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.”

  • Irene Wagner

    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.

  • http://freedomsphoenix.com tom

    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.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    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

  • A.K.Smith

    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.

  • http://ilovetheconstitution.blogspot.com/ clay

    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.

  • Irene Wagner

    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.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    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

  • Mike

    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.

  • STM

    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

  • Paul

    #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!”

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    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.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    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

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    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.

  • STM

    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.

  • http://www.myspace.com/135553418 Anthony Grande

    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.

  • Jared P

    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.

  • Jared P

    David, You now know of at least 50.

  • Jared P

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

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    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.

    I’m hoping some of them will take the time to explain why Ron Paul opposes gay marriage and gay adoption and wants to put prayer back in the public schools. Boy, that’s the true definition of a libertarian/constitutionalist.

    Dave

  • STM

    I reckon from what I’ve now read, the prospect of people like Ron Paul getting into power makes a really good case for compulsory voting in the US … so that blocs can’t be formed by special interest groups and thus ensuring that any elected government is truly representative of the wishes of ALL the people.

    In this case, and correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m assuming that bloc consists largely of right-wing evangelical Christians (do it my way or it’s the highway, in direct contravention of the teachings of the founder of Christianity, BTW), and we saw what happened there last time. That is the REAL danger to your way of life … power manipulated into the hands of a minority with dangerous ideas in terms of what constitutes a democratic and representative government.

  • http://www.myspace.com/135553418 Anthony Grande

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

    I don’t know fifty but that is basically why I joined the army over a year ago.

    AG

  • Jared P

    From what I have seen lately it has been the other way around. The GOP has tried to silence Ron Paul For instance in Iowa he was not included in the Iowans for Tax Relief rally. Ron Paul had to have his own rally and had more attendence. He was also bashed by Fox news after the South Carolina debate when he was confronted with a leading question about wether he thinks we invited the september 11th attacks. This was not what he was saying and the gentleman asking the question seemed to be set up with Giuliani to attack him. As you can tell when you watch Giuliani try to make his one liner he was tapping his thumb to the beat of his rehearsed comeback. Things like that is are driving support for Ron Paul. Fox’s Hannity had to add that Pauls campaign was over but sure enough he had the came in second in their polls. 25% That’s pretty amazing considering he was talking to the base of republicans. Now imagine what he can do for the party when he brings independants and democrats to the republican party. I think the GOP should wake up and embrace him because without him they will be a complete minority for 4-8 years. I was going to vote for Hillary but after looking at her voting record found she was just as bad as all of the terrorist pushing neocons. Our country can not handle another war. We can’t secure our borders. It makes no sense whatsoever to say that we are in a war on terror but anyone can walk into our country without much resistance. Ron Paul is right. Shut down the border, bring our troops home to secure it. Do away with the Federal reserve and let congress start printing the money without financing it through income tax which by the way is unconstitutional and the 16th amendment was never ratified by the states. This is the only way we are going to be able to take our country back so our children can actually have a future in this country. Unless of course we just secumb to the New World Order. One world goverment and conquer all of the other countries that dont like us. As far as Pauls opinion on abortion he believes its up to the states to decide. I personly believe in a womens right to choose. I dont care about gays getting married or adopting as long as their good citizens that don’t mess with my property Im all for it. Not sure what Pauls stance is on the issues but you have to read between the lines with Paul He does what the constitution says and so far everything that I’ve read has been verified by his voting record. Plus he talks with passion and knowledge. And from what I ‘m able to tell he’s very consistent.

  • Jared P

    And I to add to that I think that as a supporter of Ron Paul we can sometimes be over zealous. I apologize but we are not trying to silence anyone just give the man a fair shake and read up on his true agenda.

  • Jared P

    For the comments about inflation. Bernanke was quoted last nite on CSPAN as saying that “core inflation does not include food prices and oil”. So there you have it. If the fed says inflation was 5% than you have to do the additional math to find the true inflation # add in the increase of food and oil. Bernanke also agreed with everything the Ron Paul said. You can watch the video at youtube.

    Bernanke is going to keep manipulating the markets to try and pull us out of the recession that is already happening. First it was the stock market, then it was the housing market, and now its the dollar. But I believe the problem will always exist as long as we are running a deficit. There are only so many ways to manipulate the economy until it fails. I believe that a greater depression is nearer than you think. What are we going to do when the chinese no longer offer us credit? What will Wal-Mart do?

    That’s why I believe a vote for withdrawing the troops is the only way to secure ourselves. This is more important then ones beliefs to fight wars with Iran and Iraq and Alqueda. We could have used that money to spend here to make us more secure. We still could have disabled there money supply without dropping a single bomb or loosing a single life. If our economy fails we loose anyways. Thats exactly what happened to the soviets when they attacked afghanistan. The war is much too expensive to be there for years without an end in sight.

  • Irene Wagner

    Dave Nalle–You said you were confused about comment #114. In response to your addressing Ron Paul supporters as “tinfoil hatters” in comment #113, I explained that one doesn’t need to believe in conspiracy theories to see a relationship between Islamic anger at the US, culminating in 911, and the treatment of Palestinian Israelites described in the video “Peace Propanda and the Promised Land

    As for Ron Paul’s criticism of the US succumbing to pressure from Jewish lobbies, that’s nothing to do with conspiracy theory either. Both Ruvy in Jerusalem and A.K.Smith in their very distinct expressions of Jewish thought and feeling, have come to the conclusion that US military and “diplomatic” involvement in the Mideast is *NOT* good for the Jews. That puts the lie to the major premise of Abel Keogh’s article: namely, that those in opposition to that involvement, (Ron Paul supporters in particular) are antisemites.

  • Irene Wagner

    Dave Nalle, you also reqested information about Ron Paul’s views on homosexual rights. Here it is, right from the horse’s mouth.

    In this article, you’ll see that, as he does with other thorny ethical issues such as abortion, Ron Paul defends each the right of each state to decide how it wants to settle the matter. Constitutionally speaking, if a state decides to welcome gay marriages, it would have that right, but the federal government could not force a state to recognize these marriages. People will tend to congregate in geographical areas where their lifestyles and values are supported and appreciated.

    Don’t forget Dave Nalle, that the conflict between the “traditionals” and the “gays” isn’t one-sided. The homosexual agenda can sometimes be as unfair as the extreme rightist’s is. Remember the court decision in which the Boy Scouts had to fight for the right to exclude homosexuals from the role of scoutmaster?

  • http://freedomsphoenix.com Tom

    #121 — July 19, 2007 @ 21:03PM — Dave Nalle [URL]

    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?

    Yes I understand the difference. For example voting for a bill that is a direct attack on the constitution like the Patriot Act is ‘opposing America’ like you said and would be considered unamerican. Is there something else you had in mind?

  • Lumpy

    Lukens u might want to read up on some of the stuff &hmadinejad has actually said. u seem kind of ill informed.

  • Irene Wagner

    And finally to Ruvy in Jerusalem,

    We agree on the point most germane to the article under discussion–that the US should get out of Mideastern military affairs.

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

    Ruvy, I can’t understand how anyone, religious or not, would think that the Jews don’t deserve a homeland. I don’t consider the “Christians” who persecuted Jews in Europe to be of the same faith I am. (They certainly weren’t taking to heart the latter half of Romans chapter 11, which explicitly tells Christians not to have a haughty attitude toward the Jews, because the Jews after all, were first in God’s heart.)

    But Ruvy, when God restores a PEACEFUL Jerusalem to the Jews, it’s going to be in such a way that the whole world knows the power and reality of God. The victory is going to be “not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts.”

    And importantly, too, Ruvy, Isaiah speaks of the WHOLE WORLD being blessed in the city of Jerusalem. Other nations will stream to it to learn of God. That’s a Biblical promise to the Jews AND to ALL the nations, to whom the Abrahamic promise guarantees a blessing as well.

    I’m not sure how that peace is going to be accomplished by continuing centuries of escalation of hostility and animosity between Jews and the other Semites.

    It’s all about: you did this to us, so we’re going to do this to you, and it’s our land, the Bible (or the Koran) says so, so we’re taking it now no matter HOW many centuries your family’s been on it. A nation that claims to be the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy has to let the fulfilment come GOD’s way, again, not by might, but by his spirit.

    I believe the miracle of ’67 of God’s defending his people against their enemies, but that’s not Divine Sanction for the nation of Israel to engage in wanton acts of aggression of its own.

    I believe I know what role America is to play in bringing about that peace, and it’s NOT military. I support the efforts of peace-making organizations like musalaha and I support the endeavor for which the major universities of America like Yale and Princton were originally designed, propagation of the good news of the Prince of Peace, without whom there will never be peace in Jerusalem.

    And you called it right, Ruvy. Peace in Jerusalem is NOT the vision of ALL Americans. They should not have to pay for it in any way, including in the occult way of allocation of tax money or in the obviously horrific way of the blood of their sons and daughters. America is supposed to be a place where the government stays largely out of the way (except for maintaining the peace) allowing We the People to follow our own dreams and visions.

  • http://www.robot-of-the-week.com Christopher Rose

    Irene, As the Blogcritics Comments Editor, I’d like to welcome you to our pages and just give you a little headsup. As you seem to be developing into somewhat of a frequent commenter here and are clearly an avid linker, please follow the Blogcritics protocol of formatting links properly. That means like this Blogcritics rather than simply pasting in a raw url. Just in case you’re not sure how, here is a very easy explanation of how to format a url.

    Thanks!

  • Mike

    to #130 Dave Nalle,

    Stop with the misinformation, it’s ridiculous.

    QUOTE:

    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.

    Truth:

    HR 5485 is absolutely not unconstitutional. Since when is funding programs for veterans who fought and bled for the country unconstitutional? The constitution allows federal funding for national security. There is nothing in the constitution prohibiting funding a standing army like you claim.

    QUOTE:

    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.

    Truth:

    You’re spreading misinformation:

    “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.”

    QUOTE:

    And for HR2679 in 2006 which exempts public officials for civil penalties for violating the separation of church and state?

    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.

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

  • Mike

    Ron Paul is the greatest politician in American history, and I stand by him 100%.

  • 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

    Ruvy,

    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…

    SHALOM, MY FRIENDS!
    Ron Paul, Y’all! 2008

  • Irene Wagner

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

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com 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.

    Dave

  • 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.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com 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.

    Dave

  • 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.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com 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.

    Dave

  • 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.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com 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

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com 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.

    Dave

  • 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.

  • http://www.robot-of-the-week.com 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.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com 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.

    Dave

  • 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

    Irene,

    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

    Ruvy,

    The musalaha.org 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!

    SO ANSWER MY QUESTION!!!

  • 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
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    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 blogcritics.org 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…

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com 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.

    Dave

  • 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

    Irene,

    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

    Irene,

    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.

  • http://www.robot-of-the-week.com 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?

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com 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.

    Dave

  • 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.””

    And:

    “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.

  • http://www.debtprison.net 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)