Commander-in-Chief Ron Paul?
The 1979 film Being There came to mind recently after I heard Ron Paul utter more of his irrational ideas on foreign policy — the gist of course being that the jihadist enemy wages war because of us “being over there.” In Being There, Peter Sellers plays a middle-aged, simple-minded gardener who hasn’t had any real contact with the outside world. After his benefactor dies, he has nowhere to go and so ends up wandering the streets of Washington, D.C. By literal accident, he enters the world of powerful Washington insiders who mistake him for a man of profound intelligence and introduce him to those in power.
No matter what he says, no matter how absurd, they believe it all to be profundity, even leading some to consider him a serious presidential candidate. And so it is with Ron Paul, that no matter what he says, he is still considered by some to be a serious presidential candidate. The most recent revelation about Paul’s destructive foreign policy ideas comes from an ex-aide to Paul who says, among many claims, that Paul opposed any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.
I’ve created over a dozen Ron Paul cartoons and graphics within the last year and I’ve posted them all in the proceeding pages with the below making its debut here at PJ Media. Based on everything Ron Paul has said about the threats we face from the jihadist enemy, and his never mentioning the victims of the attacks against America, what would a President Ron Paul say and do if the enemy were to set off a nuke in America?
Next: Ron Paul: Originalist?
Below is a graphic that accompanied a blog post titled “Originalism is Ron Paul’s Undoing. Will it Be Ours?” In it, Amy Peikoff argues:
What we need… is not a candidate who accepts wholesale whatever our Founders, as great as they were, meant when they wrote and established the Constitution. Rather, we need a candidate who understands what policies are right for the United States - those that protect individual rights – and who will work either within the scope of the Constitution or, as might sometimes be necessary, to change the Constitution, in order to implement them.
Next: Think our response to jihad can’t get more ap.Paul.ling?
I did the below piece in Sept. 2010 after Paul pulled one of his, “They’re over here because we’re over there” excuses for the enemy, as if our being “over there” (for reasons that have everything to do with “them”) justifies Muslims flying planes into buildings in order to mass murder Americans. It was also a commentary on how weak the enemy viewed George “Islam means peace” Bush & Barack “I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear” Obama. Either way, Paul makes even Obama look like a hawk.
Next: Whom would the enemy vote for?
I did the below graphic after Paul expressed regret over our killing of Osama bin Laden. Besides everything else that this says about him, it’s his absolute indifference to the victims of jihad that condemns him for me. For more about his foreign policy, generally, see: “Why I Won’t Vote For Ron Paul”
Next: Befriending our greatest enemy
I did this piece of Ron Paul and Ahmadinejad after Paul answered the question of how he would deter Iran from acquiring nukes with “maybe offering friendship to them.” Ron Paul speaks of offering American friendship to the greatest state sponsor of terrorism on earth which has American blood on its hands and which constantly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. And its “theme song” is “DEATH TO AMERICA!” This alone disqualifies him from the presidency, but don’t tell that to his supporters…..
Next: If you think Ron Paul is crazy….
I drew this after noticing that one too many Ron Paul supporters are not only willing to excuse his irrational ideas about foreign policy, without any attempt to defend them, but are also willing to threaten critics of Ron Paul in the guise of equating the murder of their fellow Americans with forcibly preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. In a piece posted today, Daniel Greenfield argues that “The most troubling thing about the Ron Paul campaign is not Ron Paul, but his supporters.”
Next: Ron Paul’s foreign policy in one word
For more than one word on why “Ostrichism” should be the word used to describe Ron Paul’s foreign policy, see this post.
If you want to see more of my work, please visit my blog where you can get a glimpse at my current graphic novel, THE INFIDEL, featuring PIGMAN, the jihadists’ worst nightmare.
I completly agree..esp with the ‘ostritchism” one. RP complete denile of reality is scary. This is comming from a man who actually like paul but will NEVER vote for him now. While i agree we cannot be the world police and we should only help other countries install govts like ours when overthrowing current dictators instead of killin a dictator who likes us and replace him with one who hates us. But RP viewon iran, 9-11, WWII and other things are completly retarded and scary. he is falling in with a long line of fools who think enemies should only be defeated to a certain extent then helped to rebuild. and thats if he thinks we should be allowed to protect ourselves at all. if another country wants nukes…ok. but if that same country has made it and stated it loudly that its entire life goal is to then use thoes nuke to kill us and our allies whom it hates. to state that its their ‘right’ is ignorant and dangerous. As a liberterian I believe in alot of things and in our rights. but we also cannot put our heads in the sand and pretend that enemies do not exist and are tryig to kill us. “we shouldnt have been there” is like saying a battered housewife ‘should be in the way of her husbands fist or in the house” its idiotic! As a liberterian Ron paul has lost a supporter for life
Are you retarded? Ron Paul isn’t about “defeating our enemies to a certain point and then helping them rebuild.” He doesn’t want us meddling at all in foreign affairs. He supports pulling out of other countries and just building up defense at home. We haven’t been nuked (yet) and that likely wouldn’t happen if we weren’t meddling. Our involvement in foreign affairs stirs up anger toward us. You have a blatant misunderstanding of what RP stands for. He fully supports building our home defenses and putting even more money than we already do into protecting the USA. He doesn’t support us aiding and assisting other countries and rebels in overthrowing governments and being “international peacekeepers.” Know the facts.
Clearly Fawstin is the idiot, not Dr. Paul. The U.S. Constitution is not a piece of paper to be subject to variable interpretation, rather, it is the line in the sand. There is nothing in the constitution that is outdated. Only those that want to change the US would call for change. Fawstin thinks that a president has the right to change the constitution. What Fawstin should have done was study in school. The constitution can only be changed by the states!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_convention
promote this, not Ron Paul..
moron.. LOL
This page was last modified on 25 September 2011 at 23:41.
You don’t want to discuss Ron Paul, you do want to discuss originalism? Perhaps you should be commenting on the article referred to. As it is, you’re off topic.
You wish to discuss the article? Here goes, it is one escalating diatribe of invective and personal attack! Now! Each and every topic included in the article is open for investigation and is therefore on topic. The critque of the authors lack of understanding of the purpose of the U.S. Constitution is spot on. The comment by the author; “What we need… is not a candidate who accepts wholesale whatever our Founders, as great as they were, meant when they wrote and established the constitution.” betrays his lack of konwledge of history. The equation goes, more power to the government, less freedom for the people.
So that there is no misunderstanding, The Constitution of the United States of America is fully current and functional as writen and ammended.
I find Ron Paul and his followers philosophy to be collection of counterdictions. They seem perfectly willing to receive the benifits of our competition while rejecting any of the responsibility, much the same as liberals. This does not make them evil, just wrong, and maybe lazy.
So Paul believes the Constitution is a “line in the sand.” What a bunch of bunk! We have a Usurper in Chief occupying the Commander in Chief position who is NOT a “natural born Citizen”, a requirement of the Constitution and Ron Paul sits back on his good ole boy arse and says nothing and does nothing. He is not one iota better than the other silent Republican candidates. As a matter of fact he is worse because he is always talking about the “constitution.” Not only is Obama NOT “a natural born Citizen” he is using a FORGED Birth Certificate, a FRAUDULENT SS# and a FRAUDULENT Selective Service registration to maintain his FRAUDULENT idenity. What the hell could be more dangerous than that, having a man who not only ineligible and criminal but also despises everything America stands for and he is in charge of the nuclear suitcase. Wake up and ask your favorite candidate to do something about this crap!
“We have a Usurper in Chief occupying the Commander in Chief position who is NOT a “natural born Citizen”, a requirement of the Constitution and Ron Paul sits back on his good ole boy arse and says nothing and does nothing”
Nope…he hasn’t done a thing, nothing at all to stop this Usurper in office….oh…wait a minute, he’s running for President? But that’s nothing.
While I believe your right that he may not be constitutionally viable you have to prove it. Ron Paul would require extraordinary evidence to present such an argument. Wise man once said extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you have it bring it forward……
Including the tolerance for slavery?
I always thought that Obama was this character. Especially when he ran for president with no real record.
Why are we even wasting our time talking about Ron Paul (and all of these other clowns)?
Ron Paul (and the rest of the clowns) have ZERO chance of defeating Romney for the Republican nomination.
It is going to be Romney vs. Obama in 2012. (There may be a 3rd party candidate — Trump, Paul…) You can set it in stone. You can take it to the bank.
The Republicans are going to have to reconcile themselves to the candidacy of Mitt Romney. That is, unless they want Obama to have another 4 years.
The Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians are going to have to get over their anti-Mormon bigotry. Their bigotry and irrationality is sickening. “Mormons aren’t Christians.” Don’t give me that crap! It is a sect of Christianity. The Christophobes have taught you that you should hate other sects of Christianity. That’s a Divide and Conquer tactic of the Christophobes. You’re playing right into their hands. It’s like the Sunnis and Shiites fighting with each other… Romney was a missionary for his religion — a sect of Christianity. What have you done for Christianity?
No.. like islam, mormonism is a replacement theology and historical revisionism..
mormons are islamochristian frauds.. Joseph Smith is nothing more than a ‘pale’ reflection of mohammad..
btw.. George Romney is a Mexican born citizen born to Mexican born citizens.. Mittens is not natural born..
Democrats are about a third more likely than Republicans to refuse to consider voting for a Mormon–largely because of the Mormon Church’s part in promoting “one man, one woman” definition of marriage.
So what is Romney is a Mormon. There are many Mormons in our Congress and I only know one bad apple amongst them, Harry Reid. I agree Christians should get over the fact that Romney is a Mormon, they need to worry about who the heck Obama is. We do know that Obama came out of Jeremiah Wright’s church, a church he and his family attended for 20 years, it is a radical Marxist church (Black Liberation Theology is Marxist). They also have what is know in homosexual circles as a “down low” club of which Obama and Donald Young were part of (Donald Young is now dead). “Down low” is a term used by those who live double lives, usually married but have a man on the side. Chicago runs rampant with folks like this. Larry Sinclair busted Obama at his “game” and has paid dearly for it. Summary, we have a Bi-sexual crack head and a Marxist centered Usurper in the White House. Now get focused and lets expose this terd for what he is.
The reason we’re still discussing him because he’s a candidate that has an appeal no other candidate has, has a plan that no other candidate has (that we’ve seen), and is not given to flipping or wavering in his positions or record, that’s why he’s leading the polls and why we’re still discussing him. Figuring out your position and then standing your ground is still a virtue in case anyone has been taught otherwise. We can disagree, yes, but why has he gained popularity recently? It might be because much of the country is figuring out that the GOP moved away from traditionally conservative principles like: constitutional small government, limiting our foreign involvement (remember Thomas Jefferson’s “prudent” quote), and sound monetary policy. Geez, man, do you not see some harder times coming if we don’t make some responsible financial and political changes by the end of 2012? Has anyone heeded the consensus among many returning war vets that our presence overseas generates hostilities toward the U.S? I could go on.
I challenge anyone to find ANY candidate that is 100% appealing. And don’t give me the “throwing away you vote” argument. Hope and change isn’t all rosy and free.
Ron Paul 2012!
Actually, Mitt will lose come November. I love reading these comments by his supporters to now “vote for the nominee and stop bickering, we need all the votes we can get!”
First of all, as the record of popular voting now stands, Romney does not by any means have a majority over the candidates together. All caucus delegate tallies are speculation, not absolute (until state GOP conventions.) Secondly, if Gingrich drops out (which he may not do right up until Tampa), there is very little chance he will endorse Romney, as he hates him. Santorum somehow remains in this race but only because people have seen him as the “anybody-but-romney” candidate with his fake social conservative spoutings and because he has retained one marriage and not three separate ones.
And then come the Paul supporters. After being marginalized, mocked, blacked-out and misrepresented, it’s no wonder that they won’t support any of the establishment candidates. Romney will never win without Paul’s supporters, who are all but ready to put the pen to paper in their states’ primaries / caucuses and come November (whether he’s on the ballot or not). All we’ve gotten is negativity and abandonment. Prepare yourselves for that come November if Romney is the nominee, as our gift.
Doing posters of a marginalized politician that then need a lot of text as background because of that very marginalization doesn’t work for me. The posters don’t go for the jugular because there is no jugular to go for. So Paul didn’t want us in Iraq after 9/11? Seems a difference over tactics since Hussein really had nothing to do with Wahabbi inspired Saudis on 9/11. Hardly a classic case of stupidity.
Paul’s an isolationist? Seems that’s a nuanced argument that is far from a case of night and day.
So Paul doesn’t understand Middle Eastern history and its context regarding say, the idea of Western “Crusaders” who did almost nothing and within a short time period compared to the centuries of permanent colonization and imperialism of Islam. That would make Paul ignorant. Where’s the beef as they say?
I recommend reading every Mad Magazine from 1960 to 1968 to understand how to go for the jugular while at the same time embedding a truth that can not be denied within one’s satire.
What’s next, the conspicuous anti-Semitism and evil of Thomas Friedman? Let me guess, Hitler mustache and a keffiya? Stunning and zany.
“So Paul doesn’t understand Middle Eastern history and its context regarding say, the idea of Western “Crusaders” who did almost nothing and within a short time period compared to the centuries of permanent colonization and imperialism of Islam. That would make Paul ignorant. Where’s the beef as they say?”
So Paul is not suited for the fall of Europe to muslim colonizers.. he will side with the muslims as aggrieved former colonizers not caring that muslims were colonized because Europe wanted to halt muslim attacks..
Paul does not take into account the whole of history.. only the history that suits him..
Somebody needs to question Ron Paul on his opinion of the Barbary Wars.. on camera.. Puck Fall..
Ron Paul is running for President of the USA, not President of Israel.
His views on the Palestinians shouldn’t matter. In fact, it’s nice to finally have a candidate who is looking out for America’s best interests, rather than taking sides in the petty religious wars in the Middle East.
In what respects are the barbarous, deadly, long lasting religious wars in the Middle East….”petty”?
“Somebody needs to question Ron Paul on his opinion of the Barbary Wars.”
I am so sure this esteemed poster knows much more than Cong. Paul so I will not bother to directly respond. But ya gotta love his macho tone and his willingness to expend our kid’s lives fighting in the ME.
For all you folks here who think we should immerse ourselves and our young in bloody wars in order to show 5th century Islamic barbarians a better way, check out any of our military hospitals. And start donating to Wounded Warrior Project. What has out last 10 years in the ME done for our security and the building of democracy (misnomer) in the ME? Paul is all about defending our nation-not defending the world.
Paul is NOT an isolationist. He only insists we abide by the Constituion on the way we handle foreign policy. He will not cut Israel loose; he will let them act without constraint. What has Dear Leader of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave done to help our image in the ME? How’s that non-war war in Libya going?
When Israel announces that it needs sophisticated missiles and fighter jets to help maintain its qualitative edge, would a President Paul authorize those sales?
Would you support such sales?
Because Israel has NEVER asked for U.S. troops. Like other U.S. allies like Britain in 1940, all they ask for is the tools to keep defending themselves. Britain would have been doomed without a steady supply of U.S. military aid prior to Pearl Harbor.
Without those tools the Israelis can’t defend themselves. And there aren’t a lot of nations that will sell them that hardware anymore.
“Without those tools the Israelis can’t defend themselves. And there aren’t a lot of nations that will sell them that hardware anymore.”
You got the above statement correct….especially when Israel sells missiles they bought from the U.S. to China for enormous profits. Seems they really don’t want the hardware. They want the money!
Ref: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/12/23/breaking-patriot-missiles-seized-sold-to-china-by-israel/
the middle east and related issues are passe
Look Barack you need to get out of the bunker more often. At least open the door from time to time to get some Oxygen in there.
Love that movie though.
Considering Bin Ladens stated goal was to destroy the United States from within by having it’s government slowly strip away it’s citizens freedom and spend itself into bankruptcy you could argue that BOTH the BUSH and OBAMA administration are jihadist agents.
As for foreign policy, non-interventionist is not the same as pro-jihadi, anyway the United States is going bankrupt and will soon be forced to abandon most of it’s overseas bases and end the pointless and un-willable war’s on brown people and Muslims.
Those troops will be needed at home to quell the rioting and civil war against Congress when the currency collapses and hyperinflation occurs.
Are we really expected to believe that Dr. Paul, who has delivered thousands of babies, doesn’t participate in the congressional pension system, argues for a sound currency, advocates a foreign policy based on the constitution, seeks an end to the racist drug war, and returns unspent money from his office budget to the U.S. Treasury every year, is somehow an empty suit?!
That PJ Media’s esteemed cartoonists and writers see fit to dismiss Ron Paul with such derision demonstrates that phony conservatives are now in full scapegoat mode, seeking to sacrifice Paul rather than have their own serial hypocrisies exposed.
This article by Bosch Fawstin is way below PJM standards and should not be repeated–PJM is worthy of better–this stuff seriously harms the PJM brand
–This Bosch Fawstin article is pure pathetic propaganda with no analysis nor evidence and the cartoons are childish.
Paul will never be president and he must know that
–Paul seems to be supporting the Western Republican Goldwater ticket by putting American fundamental interests first.
People can’t accept Ron Paul in a rational manner. Spiritually broken people can’t understand him.
so if i don’t like obama i am a racist and if i don’t like paul i am spiritually broken. seems to me the paulanites are as bad, if not worse, than the obamanites.
paul is no different than obama in apologizing to the “muslim world” for our existence
Leciat, It’s cool if you don’t like Ron Paul.
What I don’t get, is if you write a comment pointing out that less wars, less spending and less government would be good, you get called out by posters and writers as a Ron Paul moonbat.
My personal opinion is we let the primaries play out and vote for who we think is best. What I don’t appreciate, and it sounds like you don’t either, is when people try to demean me to make me cower and give in. As you probably feel, I am way past that point where someone who has elitist mind sets is going to tell me what to do or what to think.
Ron Paul brings a fresh view of the Federal government. Unfortunately, it is not a good one. It is up to Patriots like ourselves to make up our own mind, not to try to bully others out of there independent thoughts.
So I guess the whole reason that Ron Paul is getting attacked non-stop by mainstream republicans is that he is rocking the boat…well that is enough for my vote. I’m sorry but when I get told that I “have” to vote for Oven Mitts, just so he can appear as a lighter alternative to the Socialist in Chief, I’ll vote for a bucket of dog doodoo before that.
Do I agree with everything that Ron Paul stands for? No. But at least Ron Paul treats me like a functioning adult. He isn’t trying to be everything to every voter, making claims that any rational person should know is not going to happen.
Look, here is a dark little truth…the military is not nearly as necessary as we get told. Any government service, ANY government service could be offered better and cheaper by the private sector. We do not need young men getting killed for a terrible wage (believe me, I served from 2000-2006) when we could get mercenaries, pay them more per person, and take the gloves off of them, really allow them to get the job done, and boom…downtown Iraq is nice and peaceful. Hell, we wouldn’t even need US citizens risking their lives, have the Kurds cleans out the Muslims and offer Turkey the chance to evicted all of the Kurds into Iraq.
Ah but whatever….everyone just wants to have a choice between Obama and Mormon Obama.
ROFL. That first part was good, and your privatization point speaks of knowledge and experience, which is commendable. Thanks for your service.
You might want to note that Kurds are Muslims.
Yeah…no duh. Not sure who you expect to use other than Muslims. Kurds are Sunni…so they got no issue targeting Shiites, plus, as the regions whipping boys for centuries, an Arab, Persian, or Turk is fair game to them.
Actually…that would be a bit of a problem. Giving them Iraq would naturally embolden the PKK and cause problems for our ally Turkey. The key would be to use Iraq as the new “Kurdistan” and hopefully Turkey can get the Kurds to leave the mountains. Access to oil revenues would be just as effective as tanks.
I could only take a couple of minutes of his squeaky voice. The man is seriously demented. If he should ever become the President of the United States we would in effect be surrendering to whoever decides they want to fight us. Just after “Anyone But Barry” I would put “Anyone but Paul”. Maybe even Barry.
To any and all Ronulans out there:
1) The Constitution is NOT a Suicide Pact.
2) Inter arma enim silent leges.
You may not have meant to insult our military service members but you did just that! They give an oath to support and defend the Constitution. To that end they knowingly pledge their lives.
Is Ron Paul running for Truther in Chief? http://bit.ly/svoU4o
John Bolton: If you’re thinking of voting for Ron Paul, think again!
Could Bolton possibly be a talking head war hawk lobbyist for US weapons field testing and export? The talkers may rotate but their angle has changed little since a few political families cornered the market for both banking and TNT. War zones are but field test sites for sales of weapons while young Americans are considered as only cannon fodder to promote the sales.
Occasional appearance of gallivanting leader such as Teddy Roosevelt or BHO emerge by political propaganda pressure financed by the moguls that are stationed to profit from any export sales that they can legislatively monopolize. Profit by the figureheads is seldom questioned after years of media whitewash.
Biased media promoted propaganda has worked well for promoting both weapon sales and human sacrifice for a hundred years while accruing banking wealth remains concealed from all but the eternally vigilant. The uninformed may be amazed by a study of only a few family histories and their influence on wars of the last century.
There will always be Khans, Alexanders, Ottomans, Stalin, Hitler and The House of Rothchild but those that refuse to be used by them are few and far between. Those that dare to attempt to reveal them are even more rare. Regardless of their media classification or political affiliation, there are only two kinds under sworn oath of office, traitors and patriots.
Ron Paul is the only representative in congress to recognize them and offer legislation contrary to their ruthless cause and greed and can in no way be logically referred to as a traitor among the many that ignore their sworn oath of office. Lack of party and media support in no way demeans his attempts to draw attention to the cancer that continues to consume the wealth of the populace while compounding the wealth of mogul parasites. Conversely it becomes the enigma that condemns all that fail to acknowledge and support his cause.
Barack-Hillary in 2012?
Bill Clinton’s old Secretary of Labor, the diminutive Robert Reich with an ego the size of Monica Lewinsky, is predicting a 2012 Democrat Party ticket of Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton to oppose the yet-to-be-designated Republican nominee.
In an article appearing on BusinessInsider.com, Reich concludes, “Obama-Clinton 2012. It’s a natural.”
If that prognostication were not enough to curl conservative hairs, Reich also thinks the bumbler-in-chief, VP Joe Biden, will switch jobs with Hillary and become America’s chief diplomat, Secretary of State, in a second Obama administration.
Alice could not have experienced more bizarre scenarios in that rabbit hole.
Admitting he has no foundation except intuition for his prediction, Reich believes Hillary is needed on the national ticket “to stir the passions” of a disillusioned Democrat base and because “Clinton would help deflect attention from the bad economy and put it on foreign policy, where she and Obama have shined.”
As an added bonus, Hillary would then be on the fast track for the 2016 Dem nomination.
There are more holes in Reich’s theory and in his shining observation than there are on all the golf courses in Hawaii. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11935.)
A Redstate Exclusive: Ex-Staffer Calls Ron Paul ”The Original Truther”
”When Al- Qaeda attacked our country on 9-11, Ron Paul told us the CIA was behind it. And that Bush and Cheney knew about the attack in advance.” That is a quote from ex-Ron Paul staffer and confidant Eric Dondero about Ron Paul. Eric called Paul ”the original 9-11 truther”.
This makes sense on so many fronts. When Congress was getting ready to vote on a military response in Afghanistan, Ron Paul initially OPPOSED responding to the attack, and expressed no concern about those who died that day. In fact, his only concern was that this attack would be used by the Bush administration to invade Iraq.
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/staffer-says-ron-paul-opposed-to-military-reaction-of-9-11-terror-attacks
They say that ”birds of a feather, flock together”. After Ron Paul got destroyed in the 2008 Republican presidential primary by John McCain, he showed his pettiness by refusing to endorse fellow Republican McCain, saying that ”I couldn’t find anything we agreed on”. Ok, so you can’t find any common ground with a highly decorated naval aviator who was captured and brutally tortured as a POW. When the badly wounded McCain was offered ”to be released out of turn” by the North Vietnamese, McCain refused it unless the men that were captured before him were also released. Yet that’s not the type of man that Ron Paul can support? OK, then who did he endorse?
Also running for president in 2008 was Cynthia McKinney. a race baiting Democrat considered one of the most far left members of congress. McKinney was the elitist who arrogantly struck a white police officer because he ”dared” to ask her for ID. McKinney is also the one who tried to impeach President Bush, Vice President Cheney. and Secretary of State Condi Rice for being ”war criminals”. Yet Paul chose to endorse this worthless piece of trash over McCain???
http://brian-therightperspective.blogspot.com/2011/12/flashback-ron-paul-endorses-cynthia.html#!/2011/12/flashback-ron-paul-endorses-cynthia.html
However, McKinney possessed one advantage that McCain did not. She is a fellow truther. Cynthia has been outspoken in her belief that 9-11 was a ”government conspiracy”. And she accused President Bush of ”needlessly murdering the innocent people of New York City so his popularity would rise.” So naturally Paul endorsed her over McCain.
And the cult truther movement obviously considers Paul ”one of their own”. In fact, when Paul gave an interview to a conspiracy group called ”We Are Change”, they asked Paul WHY he didnt come out with ”the truth about 9-11”. Notice that they didn’t ask him ”if he believed 9-11 was an inside job”. Why didn’t they ask that? BECAUSE THEY ALREADY KNEW THAT HE BELIEVED THAT!!!!!
But surely Ron set them straight. Stood up for America and said that 9-11 was not a conspiracy perpetrated by the Bush administration to start a war with Muslim countries so that Jewish bankers could get rich. That 9-11 was in fact a cowardly attack by Al-Qaeda on our country. Nope. When they asked Ron the reason he didnt tell everyone ”the truth about 9-11”, Paul actually said that he ”couldn’t handle the controversy because had a full plate and was dealing with other issues”. Wow. I will post the transcript and link including a video of the interview below.
Kyley from ‘We Are Change LA’:
Kyley: Okay and one last thing why won’t you come out about the truth about 9/11?
Paul: Because I can’t handle the controversy, I have the IMF the Federal Reserve to deal with, the IRS to deal with because no because I just have more-too many things on my plate. Because I just have too much to do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrQVaiFYmcg
It sounds to me like Ron Paul is a truther but isn’t honest enough to come out and say it directly because he knows it will kill his political career. Or maybe career politician Ron is just acting like a truther to con those morons into supporting him politically. Either way, this corrupt creep belongs in the nut house, not in the white house.
Eric also said that ”Paul is not opposed to foreign aid, he is just opposed to foreign aid to Israel. Whenever you hear Paul talking about cutting foreign aid, he always leads out with Israel. But Egypt and Pakistan actually recieve more aid than Israel does”. ”And Ron wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. Paul has said this to me on many occasions. Ron is 100% pro Palestinian and believes ALL of Israel should be surendered to the muslims”.
I asked Gregg Hilton of the RSC(Republican Security Council) for his assessment of Eric’s claims. ”Dondero is right on the money” said Gregg. And then Mr. Hilton gave me the following examples:
Paul is a supposedly a foe of all foreign aid, but there is one exception. He naturally supports full funding for his Hamas buddies at the Palestinian Authority.
On June 20, 2007, Paul and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) were the only two lawmakers to vote against the Rothman-Kirk Resolution, which calls on the United Nations to charge Ahmadinejad with violating the genocide convention of the United Nations Charter based on his numerous statements.
Paul has called the Gaza Strip ”a concentration camp” and defended the Palestinians right to make bombs and to recieve weapon shipments to attack Israel with.
On June 19, 2009, the House voted to pass H Res 560 by a 405 to 1 margin. The resolution was entitled: “Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for other purposes.” Guess which loon was the one negative vote.
He thinks Iran should have nuclear weapons but then says “We need to take out the CIA,” and wants the agency abolished. OK, that combination would give us a nuclear Iran led by a wackjob holocaust denier(Ahmadinejad) and us with no intelligence information on what is happening in the world. And that scenario makes America safer how?????
(My thanks to Bruce Cohen of ”Stop Ron Paul 2012” for setting up the interview with Eric Dondero for me. And of course a great big thank you to Eric for his time)
http://www.redstate.com/mikeymike143/2011/12/30/a-redstate-exclusive-ex-staffer-calls-ron-paul-the-original-truther/
Recall, if you will, that Obama has undergobe what has been for him and his base a radical transformation in foreign policy. As has been written ogten, even on PJ, those daily NSA briefings have a way of sobering one’s views. I truly expect RP to modify his positions. Hey, if it can happen to a radicalized Obama it surely can happen to Paul.
On originalism, the woman trying her darndest to critcize Paul actually mimics him perfectly. In fact, she is so devoid of an actual criticism that she is unable to identify a single item for constitutional amenment, indicating that she thinks it stands pretty good as it is, as does RP.
Could Bolton possibly be a talking head war hawk lobbyist for US weapons field testing and export? The talkers may rotate but their angle has changed little since a few political families cornered the market for both banking and TNT. War zones are but field test sites for sales of weapons while young Americans are considered as only cannon fodder to promote the sales.
Occasional appearance of gallivanting leader such as Teddy Roosevelt or BHO emerge by political propaganda pressure financed by the moguls that are stationed to profit from any export sales that they can legislatively monopolize. Profit by the figureheads is seldom questioned after years of media whitewash.
Biased media promoted propaganda has worked well for promoting both weapon sales and human sacrifice for a hundred years while accruing banking wealth remains concealed from all but the eternally vigilant. The uninformed may be amazed by a study of only a few family histories and their influence on wars of the last century.
There will always be Khans, Alexanders, Ottomans, Stalin, Hitler and The House of Rothchild but those that refuse to be used by them are few and far between. Those that dare to attempt to reveal them are even more rare. Regardless of their media classification or political affiliation, there are only two kinds under sworn oath of office, traitors and patriots.
Ron Paul is the only representative in congress to recognize them and offer legislation
contrary to their ruthless cause and greed and can in no way be logically referred to as a traitor among the many that ignore their sworn oath of office. Lack of party and media support in no way demeans his attempts to draw attention to the cancer that continues to consume the wealth of the populace while compounding the wealth of mogul parasites. Conversely it becomes the enigma that condemns all that fail to acknowledge and support his cause.
After 35 years in the U.S. Congress, Paul is still a loon. He’s 76 years old; Ya think he’s gonna change now? He’s gotta have some ostrich in the family, cause he’ll stick his head in the ground when the going gets really tough. And who’s dumb enough to be his vice president? OMG; The two stooges!
We could keep Obama and have the same results.
Foreign governments can make big money by selling the U.S. short. Everybody knows that’s where shrewd financiers like Soros are putting their money.
If you don’t vote for Ron Paul, then don’t spend the next four years sniveling about how nothing has changed.
A vote for anyone else is going to get you more-of-the same.
I think I’ve seen the worst of the candidates, I was wrong.
WOW! What a bunch of uninformed idiots. Well, get prepared to be shocked when Ron Paul beats Romney in the primaries.
If the argument against Ron Paul is his non-interventionist approach, is it really fair to base that attack on an event that, if his approach had been implemented, would not have been possible?
You claim that the jihadists are bent on destroying solely due to their hatred of our ways, yet have nothing but rhetoric that is propagated by them for recruitment to back up the statement. Ron Paul makes the claim that they wish to destroy us because we were occupying their country and you call it ludicrous, even though the one person that should be considered the leading expert on the subject period, walked up to the mic and said it himself. I can ignore this because the motive behind ANY war will be arguable. What I cant ignore is the fact that the leaders of the jihadists, which you are now using to attempt to discredit his approach, are products of an an interventionist US military strategy are they not? Our intervention in the 80′s produced Bin Laden, and considering it was that same training that was implemented to the majority of his “army,” by extension, the very enemy we are currently fighting. Considering all of that, one has to wonder exactly how many of the other wars/revolutions in which we are currently engaged could be traced directly back to our intervention. Surely we had nothing to do with leaders like Hussein coming into power.
A reply to the comic. LOL so True. So we are even now. The war is over. Ron Paul would defiantly strike back but I wish we would not. It would be a constitutional legit war. War is bad.
its sad to see brainwashed americans with a computer. Liberty is what Dr.Paul works for and strives toward for every individual of all nationalities. To smear this man with outrageous claims of hate speech and irrational rasiscm is to accept one’s own ignorance and confirm the fact that you have no idea of what you’re talking about. please keep wasting your time with these downright idiotic articles. i like a good laugh every now and again.
Wow. I didn’t even read past the first sentence. This is fallacious and any actual reporter would be ashamed. I bet you’ll just say it’s for entertainment though.
You’re cartoon makes absolutely no sense at all. Especially considering most people are worried that Iran would use it’s nukes against Israel and the surrounding countries, not the US.
But the longer we occupy, the more people will become angry in Iran, and the chances of them trying to take action against us will increase.
Your ignorance, no matter how destructive, is amusing.
I fail to see how this cartoon even makes any sense… It hinges on the supposition that Iran has already nuked us. In reality, the U.S. has meddled with Iran’s affairs by installing a puppet shah to eliminate an elected leader in 1953. So in REALITY, the U.S has actually been an aggressor in this. Secondly, you poke fun of Paul saying the U.S. “being over there”.
We are “over there”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WVtpao0KSM