The Last Pre-Iowa Debate

Ryan Mauro is a fellow with the Clarionproject.org, the founder of WorldThreats.com and a frequent national security analyst for Fox News Channel. He can be contacted at ryanmauro1986@gmail.com.


Pages: 1 2

The Republican presidential candidates had their last debate before the January 3 Iowa caucus last night and surprisingly, there was not a single confrontation between frontrunners Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. Instead, Ron Paul stole the show with his assertion that there is “no evidence” that Iran is seeking a nuclear device, sparking a furious back-and-forth with Michele Bachmann and, to a lesser degree, Rick Santorum.

Ron Paul was asked about his position in favor of lifting sanctions on Iran. He compared Iran to the Soviet Union, arguing in favor of deterrence and complained that “war propaganda” was falsely characterizing Iran as a threat. He commended President Obama for backing off of tougher sanctions on Iran, saying that they would hurt Europe. He also claimed that the U.S. was provoking Iran by surrounding it with military bases and by bombing Libya.

Rick Santorum was the first to respond. He said that the Iranian regime is the equivalent of Al-Qaeda and that it honors “martyrdom.” Mutually Assured Destruction is an incentive, not a deterrent, Santorum explained. He won applause by suggesting that the U.S. should tell Iran that if its nuclear sites are not shut down, then “we will close the nuclear facilities for you.”

Michele Bachmann took on Ron Paul with more fury. She first slammed President Obama for the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq, noting that it gives Iran a bridge to the Mediterranean Sea through Syria. She then said that she has “never heard a more dangerous” statement than what Ron Paul said. She pointed out that the Iranian constitution mandates jihad and predicted that Iran would use its nuclear weapons on Israel and the U.S.

Ron Paul accused his rivals of wanting to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims and said that presidential “overreaction” is a greater threat than Iran. He disagreed that the terrorists target the West for its way of life, claiming that Sweden and Switzerland are not targeted (that is false). He criticized President Obama for flying the stealth drone over Iran. Apparently, even overhead surveillance is too aggressive for Ron Paul.

Bachmann rebutted by pointing to the incriminating IAEA report showing that Iran is indeed working on a nuclear weapon and could be only months away from getting one. Ron Paul said she was wrong and that no U.N. report states that. He claimed that the report was intended to make you believe Iran was guilty, but that “no evidence” was actually provided. Ron Paul was mostly booed by the crowd.

The second big clash came between Bachmann and Gingrich. She criticized him for taking money from mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, claiming that he was paid to influence Republican officials to “keep the scam going.” She received moderate applause for the line. He said that she needed facts to back up her “wild allegations” and that his position was never influenced by money. Gingrich pledged to “break up” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac if elected.

Pages: 1 2

  • http://home.comcast.net/~enjolras/site/?/home/ Underzog

    Soon, the board will be spammed by Paulbots, praising their antisemitic, isolationist candidate.

    Ron Paul is an antisemite who naturally takes money from a neo Nazi organization such as Stormfront (Howard Dean returned a similiar contribution).

    Ron Paul 1488

    The Final Solution for America!

    The two eights of the number 1488 stand for the eigth letter of the alphabet: H. And the two of them together form H H or Heil Hitler.

    The fourteen part of the number 1488 stands for those fourteen words that every white supremacist knows: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children. (hat tip Bill Levinson

    • 1keith1

      I don't understand why you use the number 1488. If you think he is Hitler, why don't you just call him Hitler?

      • Stephen_Brady

        I think he used it because the White Supremacists use it.

        • UCSPanther

          And there is an unacceptable number of white supremicists rooting for Ron Paul.

          • Stephen_Brady

            This is true!

        • Reason_For_Life

          If ZOG is the Zionist Occupation Government then what in hell is "underzog"?

          • Stephen_Brady

            "Underzog" is how a German citizen might pronounce the name of one of my favorite cartoon characters, whose voice was Wally Cox. It could be "Unterzog", but one never knows!

          • WilliamJamesWard

            Could be, 'Under Zionist Occupied Government' but other acronyms
            could apply………………………………………..William

          • Stephen_Brady

            That's it!

            But as RFL said, above, if ZOG stands for "Zionist Occupied Government" then Underzog must refer to all non-Jews.

    • johnsmith9875

      RP's comment on taking money from Neo Nazis was pretty straightforward "I will gladly accept their money, but they're wasting their time doing it"

  • Nathaniel Hamrick

    No, it wasn't false.

    They DIDN'T target Sweden, or Australia, or Portugal.

    Did they? No. They flew a plane into an American building in early 2000's.

    Why? Because we're bombing them.

    the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) agrees with Ron Paul.

    • Chezwick_Mac

      What about the double bombing of Bali, the slaughter at Mumbai, the murder of children at Beslan, the bombing of a synagogue in Tunisia, the hotel bombing at Amman, Jordan, and on and on…?

      These countries didn't "bomb" them, yet they were attacked.Hoe do you explain that, Sherlock?

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Did they? No. They flew a plane into an American building in early 2000's.

      Why? Because we're bombing them.

      Hey moonbat…I hate to rain on you and Ron Paul's kook parade, but 9/11 wasn't an act perpetrated by terrorists. Instead, it was a violent jihad attack, as jihad and terrorism are mutually exclusive manifestations and two entirely different things altogether, as jihad, in stark contrast to terrorism, is holy fighting in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme.

      Hence moonbat, Paul isn't qualified to be dogcatcher let alone president.

    • vlondo

      They have attempted many organised jihadi attacks here in Australia. Fortunately theyve mostly been thwarted however they killed 92 Australians in the two Bali bombings and they are reponsible for hundreds if not thousands of rapes and spontaneous street jihad assaults and many killings. ln Australia crimes committed by muslims are not reported as such – the authorities go out of their way to delink islam and violenct crime. Anecdotal evidence suggests there is an unreported war occuring here in this country. The same unreported war is waging in every Western country. Ron Paul and every other libtard/socialist politician knows this – very few have the courage to tell it like it is.

    • truckwork

      Nathaniel, Did you go to the link provided in the article? The article appeared in the NY Times! The Swedish authorities were able to disrupt a potential attack against Swedish citizens and described an attack that happened in December 2010 by a Muslim in Stockholm. Sweden has been attacked by Muslims! In what universe is that statement by Dr. Paul NOT FALSE?

      This whole idea of a world completely controlled by the Muslim faith was started and fomented in Iran. It began in Iran with the illegal attack on the US Embassy in November of 1979 and the taking and holding of US Embassy officials for 444 days. Iran didn't attack Israel, they attacked the US. Just as the Palestinian Authority's efforts against Israel isn't about land, this is not about the US support of Israel although I'm sure that our support of Israel is just another "reason" why muslim radicals hate us and continue to attempt to kill as many of us as possible.
      The war against us by the crazy mulahs of Iran and other neighboring countries is about making this world and everyone in it muslims.

      • Supreme_Galooty

        The number 444 divided by 5.04545 equals 88 which stands for H H or Heil Hitler!

    • ChrisNichols

      Those bombings also save a lot of Muslims from being killed by other Muslims as well. I seem to recall Al Queda in Iraq setting off a lot of bombs in Baghdad marketplaces too. Is that part of their plan to get back at us, by killing Iraqi civilians? Brilliant. Osama bin laden had no problem with our interventionist policies when we were sending them missiles to help them shoot down Soviet helicopters.

    • myohmy

      Well maybe you could explain why muslims were killing Jews and other "non belieers" for hundreds of years prior to the existance of the USA and Israel??? YOU STUPID MORON…..

    • Rui

      I see. So, we must cave in to the tyrants. "How can we object ourselves even more to our enemies?" you ask (with words to that effect). They will hate you no matter what you do, except converting to islam. How's that working for you?

      Your comment shows that, not only are you incapable of looking at "the other", you are even incapable of recognising there is an "other". You merely project your own bias onto other people; assuming that muslims (and anybody who doesn't belong to the third world and isn't a "white westerner") can never do any wrong. Do you mean that these people have no purpose in life or any other aspirations other than reacting to what we do? They are merely reactive and never proactive? That is the soft racism of lowered expectations. Relativistic mush!

      They didn't target Sweden? If jihad for you means "flying planes into buildings", then no, they didn't "target" Sweden. Anbody that knows just a little about what it is, understands why Malmo is an islamic city, why "no-go zones" are popping up all over Europe like mushrooms, why gay bars are closing its doors in Amesterdaam and so on.

  • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

    Ron Paul's statements on islam and islamization of the world betray his ignorance and dhimmitude both.

    1) Disregarding whether Mr. Paul wants it or not, islam is already in a state of war with the rest of the world. One cannot wish away the war which is already declared and waged by the enemy – unless one has already capitulated without fighting!

    2) No, Mr. Paul, in order to defeat the enemy, there is no need to confront the entire 1.2 billion strong islamic world by putting American boots on the ground. It is enough to destroy a few symbolic targets of the enemy such as Mecca and Medina, and to rid of islam inside the US.

    3) No, Mr. Paul, a great nation do not ask the opponents if they possibly have any "grievances", nor does a great nation care what is an opinion of "islamic street".

    4) You are a liar and demagogue Mr. Paul claiming as though islamic enemy had never attacked Europe or other nations: only America. Really? What about bombing in London and Madrid? In Moscow and Beslan? In Bombey and Bali?

    In Sweden, Netherlands, and in Eurabia in general moslems established no-go zones, comprising already up to 10-30% of some small European nations. Isn't it an enemy intervention by other means, Mr. Non-interventionist Paul?

    As a Minister in Swedish government said: "We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us." Britain, Sweden, Norway seem to compete for the lowest level of dhimmitude and fastest selling out of their nations to islam. And Mr. Paul applauds them.
    http://www.resonoelusono.com/Imminent.htm

    • Beth

      Ron Paul's statements on islam and islamization of the world betray his ignorance and dhimmitude both.

      ABSOLUTELY! Alexander (excellent post)

      "4) You are a liar"…..

      Do not let that surprise you Alexander….it is a muslim command to be a liar to the so-called 'infidels' ( a fact that I would like to see ron paul address….but will never be seen) Never mind the fact that a true hero would never lie….simply because a true hero wouldn't have to.

      "As a Minister in Swedish government said: "We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us."

      I'd rather be dead….and not just for myself….but for my children also.

      The people NEED to understand what exactly it is that ron paul stands for when it comes to having the right to spread the teachings of beheadings.

      National AND international laws condemn that teaching (supposedly). Where is ron paul's voice on that very simple understanding???

      Total silence. (this is a real good marker to see exactly what the canidates are made up of).

    • Cker17

      Why do so many Americans speak such utter garbage when someone speaks truth that they dont like because the whole dam lot of you are drugged through your food drugged by hollywood arrogant as fk because you have been led to believe youare the greatest sht man you had the wool pulled over your eyes so Israel could rob you blind ..create the biggest military base called Israel…who have a very huge phobia cause they stole Arabic land and teach the hated you even expose on your peice here have you Alexander ever been in the depth of an Islamic country?? they created Chess Astronomy mathematics ..what really has America done for this world..poison bomb destroy create war and all for Israel..so buddy wake up this man has a brain and really can do much for the mentality of you dumb down fools WAKE UP …Stratagists of the highest order are from the oldest civilzations on our earth…CHINA IRAN INDIA RUSSIA….how about that truth Alexander..???and you dislike the lot of them cos they just happen to be smarter. Peace Bro.

  • franz von fear

    Iran, Palestine, Israel, Bibi…………….is this a US campainge or a Likud convention?

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Hey franz von kook…are there enough obsessed Jew haters living in America to elect Paul?

    • Nakba1948

      What's the difference? The Likud, through their Israel-first neocon fifth column in the US, control the US government anyway. Sick of your foreign policy being dictated from Tel Aviv? Ron Paul 2012!

      • http://visionsandprinciples.blogspot.com/ InRussetShadows

        How to tell you're debating an anti-semite: his first argument is to blame the Jews. Go home, son. You've lost.

        • Nakba1948

          Puh-lease! First of all, I can't be an "anti-Semite," since I'm a Semite myself. Secondly, I didn't mention Jews whatsoever in my comment. Many of the worst Zionist warmongers are evangelical Christians. That Zionists control American foreign policy is beyond debate. Or is reality now "anti-Semitic"?

      • UCSPanther

        Translation: The Jews run the world, Ron Paul and Iranian domination are the only things that will save us.

        Just like the Pro-Hitler crowds in the 'States loudly calling for Hitler to "Liberate the US from Jewish domination" during the early stages of WWII.

    • http://visionsandprinciples.blogspot.com/ InRussetShadows

      An American president will never have to deal with these issues, right? And what Obama has done has no impact on America? Ron Paul supporters are brain-dead.

    • http://www.456lock.com Locksmith

      One thing i know is, iran is a big threat to the world because of their stupid president .

  • ObamaYoMoma

    He disagreed that the terrorists target the West for its way of life, claiming that Sweden and Switzerland are not targeted (that is false).

    Okay, Muslims wage both violent and non-violent jihad against non-Muslim unbelievers, not because of our way of life, but because they are obligated to fight jihad in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme.

    Furthermore, Muslims are not terrorists, as terrorism is a Western manifestation only and in fact is a capital offense in Islam because it is considered to be un-Islamic and blasphemous. However, Sweden and Switzerland are targets as is all non-Muslim countries and non-Muslim unbelievers in the world.

    In fact, Paul believes that 9/11 was America's chickens coming home to roost because he believes that terrorists attack us in response to America's interventionist foreign policy, which he believes is hijacked, controlled, and influenced by Israel. However, I hate to rain on Ron Paul's moronic kook parade, but 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack. Instead, it was a violent jihad attack and jihad in stark contrast to terrorism is holy fighting in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme.

    Therefore, Paul isn't qualified to be dog catcher let alone president, as he is not only incredibly delusional, but he doesn't have a clue that jihad even exist, let alone understand it. Of course, all of this is a direct manifestation of his insane obsession with hating Jews, which totally consumes him and defines his entire ludicrous worldview. In any event, luckily there are not enough Jew haters in America for Paul to ever be elected. Indeed, show me a Paul anarcho-kook and I'll show you a Jew hater.

    With respect to Bachman and Gingrich, Bachman definitely bloodied up Gingrich's nose pretty good last night on several occasions, and she definitely got the better of him as Newt appeared weak. Hopefully, Mitt Romney will send her some flowers. Perhaps seeking her endorsement and promising to pay off her campaign debts at the same time.

    Mitt Romney definitely won the debate last night as he came off as being very presidential, very articulate, very qualified, and very capable. A lot of people erroneously believe that Newt is the best debater in the race, but the truth is Romney is the best debater and it really isn't close. In fact, it looked a couple of times like Newt was on the verge of conceding the campaign to endorse Romney. You could definitely see Newt's admiration for Mitt on several occasions.

    As for as the rest go, they need to get out of the race and pick a viable candidate to endorse.

    • WildJew

      I worry about Romney though. Unlike Gingrich, he does not appear to understand Islam and its imperative to wage violent jihad against unbelievers, even post 9/11. He believes jihad has nothing to do with "peaceful" Islam; they are two entirely different things in Mitt Romney's view. How can a man in his position be so ill-informed when other ordinary people like you and me get it? Did you see how Romney and Santorum condemned Gingrich for his honest observations about the phony Palestinian Muslims who are determined to destroy the Jewish state? Everyone on that stage (last Saturday night) should have stood with Gingrich but they didn't.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Unlike Gingrich, he does not appear to understand Islam and its imperative to wage violent jihad against unbelievers, even post 9/11

        So that's why you have been repeatedly spamming this site with all that garbage trying to mislead potential conservatives voters with respect to Romney's position on Islam, which, by the way, isn't any different from Gingrich's position or any of the other Republicans in the race with the exception of Ron Paul? I hate to rain on your parade, but anyone can go to youtube and easily confirm that garbage you are posting is false.

        In any event, I've been watching, following, and monitoring Gingrich for years. In fact, I was the one that first told Robert Spencer about the American Enterprise Institute speech Gingrich made way back when. The truth is he doesn't know Islam any better than Romney or any of the other Republican Party candidates with the exception of Ron Paul. The sad fact is they are all blind as a bat. In fact, if Gingrich understood Islam, he never would have backed Obama's senseless war in Libya before he conveniently flip flopped and stopped supporting it,.

        Did you see how Romney and Santorum condemned Gingrich for his honest observations about the phony Palestinian Muslims who are determined to destroy the Jewish state?

        Give me a break, that's not what Romney and Santorum repudiated Gingrich about. They condemned him for putting the information forth publicly without consulting the Israelis first. It's not like they don't know that the so-called Palestinians were invented out of whole cloth. Now, to be honest, I happen to agree with Gingrich's position more than I do with their position, but nonetheless Gingrich still didn't go nearly far enough because he still doesn't have a clue.

        In any event, that is not nearly enough to make me support that flip flopping amnesty supporter. Indeed, if amnesty is ever implemented, it will sound the death knell for conservatism in this country forever as the Left will acquire a vice grip like permanent majority. Now, you may be a RINO Republican who advocates tossing conservatives under the bus in favor of going after liberal Hispanic voters by throwing them the amnesty bone because they are going to be the largest demographic in the future, but don't assume I am. In fact, if Gingrich wins the nomination I'll stay home on Super Tuesday 2012, exactly like I stayed home on Super Tuesday 2008. Indeed, if amnesty is imposed, this country will be destroyed long before the Muslim non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad ever comes close to doing it.

        Anyway, if Newt and all of his excess baggage wins the nomination, I predict the Obama landslide victory will be even larger this time around and also that the Republicans will fail to win back the Senate and lose ground in the house.

        By the way, if you believe that Gingrich was paid $1.6 million dollars to be a historian for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, call me at BR-549, as I have a bridge in excellent shape I need to sell you.

        • WildJew

          Don't insinuate I am a RINO unless you've got facts to back it up. Do you? I'm not saying Gingrich is not a very flawed candidate; he is but so is Romney. Romney's advisers helped Obama and his people craft Obamacare which is modeled after Romneycare.

          Gingrich has a long way to go making amends for his mistakes (apostasies) – several of which he has acknowledged. What mistakes has Romney acknowledged? Has he acknowledged Romneycare and the individual mandate was / is a mistake?

          I can understand a young man changing his position on a fundamental moral issue, but Romney's flip-flops (on life for example) occurred as an adult man. You might be right about Romney having a better chance of defeating Obama (many conservatives are with you) but Romney seems to not be a fighter — not unlike John McCain — whereas Gingrich is a fighter. Romney has indicated he is not going to be a "flame-thrower," unlike Gingrich. What does being a nice guy mean when it comes to defeating a Chicago street thug like Obama?

          But I can see in your post above where your priority is – immigration – whereas mine is national security (albeit not unrelated but mostly due to Islam rather than Hispanics) and foreign policy.

          To your point about Romney and Gingrich being indistinguishable on Islam:

          Asked by Dan Gilgoff of U.S. News & World Report if his repeated references to "jihad" in a speech at the Heritage Foundation characterized Islam in sinister terms, Mitt Romney surprised Gilgoff with this reply:

          "I didn't refer to Islam at all, or to any other religion for that matter. I spoke about three major threats America faces on a long term basis. Jihadism is one of them, and that is not Islam. If you want my views on Islam, it's quite straightforward. Islam is one of the world's great religions and the great majority of people in Islam want peace for themselves and peace with their maker. They want to raise families and have a bright future…."

          "There is, however, a movement in the world known as jihadism. They call themselves jihadists and I use the same term…. It's by no means a branch of Islam. It is instead an entirely different entity. In no way do I suggest it is a part of Islam."

          http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013343.html

          I agree with Romney on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Gingrich should return the money and move on.

          • Chezwick_Mac

            The quote from Romney is explicit in its separation of Jihadism from Islam (an entirely different entity). This is what distinguishes Romney's position on Islam from the others. Doesn't mean it isn't similar, but it's certainly not the exact same, as Skippy insists. I've never heard Gingrich or Bachman or Santorum ever characterize "radical Islam" or "Jihadism" (or any other euphemism for the violence in Islam) as "an entirely separate entity."

            And Skippy certainly can't produce evidence they have. But he also can't admit he is mistaken because of his God-complex.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Okay MOONBAT, as previously explained ad nauseum, Gingrich, Bachman, Santorum, Huntsman, and Perry, exactly like Romney, all strictly adhere to the false political correct paradigm whereby Islam is understood to be a so-called Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists. Thus, they all believe that there is peaceful and moderate Islam and then there is radical and extremist Islam, and they all believe that there are peaceful and moderate Muslims that constitutes a vast overwhelming majority of Muslims and that there are radical and extremist Muslims that constitutes a tiny minority of Muslims in the world.

            As a matter of fact, if anyone of them deviated from that false PC multicultural paradigm once iota during a presidential campaign, they would inevitably incessantly be attacked, demonized, and vilified relentlessly by the Muslim community together with the leftist useful idiot community, and their campaign would for all intents and purposes be utterly destroyed in the process.

            In addition, I also already supplied you with youtube videos where Romney uses the term jihadism and radical Islam interchangeably. However, because you are addicted to emoting and still a liberal deep down, you pretended to ignore it in order not to have to apologize for your stupidity because you are a humongous hypocrite.

            Nevertheless, again all of them without exception routinely separate peaceful and moderate Islam from radical and extremist Islam and peaceful and moderate Muslims from radical and extremist Muslims, and if you have never heard them before, then you must be suffering from a very severe form of amnesia or some other severe form of degenerative brain disease like dementia or Alzheimer disease, which would explain why you are a MOONBAT.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Don't insinuate I am a RINO unless you've got facts to back it up. Do you?

            With all due disrespect, I'm sorry, but I didn't insinuate it. I said you are a RINO because you are supporting a RINO and a fat progressive, which makes you by definition a RINO and progressive too. Indeed, what more do we need?

            Romney's advisers helped Obama and his people craft Obamacare which is modeled after Romneycare.

            That is so absurd, that it is not even going to warrant a response.

            Has he acknowledged Romneycare and the individual mandate was / is a mistake?

            Take meds to relieve your severe issues with respect to paranoid delusions.

            I can understand a young man changing his position on a fundamental moral issue, but Romney's flip-flops (on life for example) occurred as an adult man

            You sound exactly like a leftists. Oh yeah…that's because you are one. Romney has a track record of flipping to more conservative positions as he grew older and gained experience in the school of hard knocks known as life, exactly like Reagan and many other conservatives did as well, but unlike Gingrich, once Romney flipped to more conservative positions, he didn't flip flop back to more liberal positions and then flip flop back to more conservative positions and then flip flop back to more liberals positions and then flip flop back again and again ad nauseum, depending at the time upon who was buttering his bed on that particular given day. Hence, since you are a leftist, you see Romney's flips to more conservative positions as being betrayals and stabs in the back. I understand; believe me I do.

            whereas Gingrich is a fighter.

            Give me a break, he is an over the hill fat has-been. Hell, Michelle Bachman, Michelle Bachman of all people, had Newt on the ropes last night and all he could do was squirm and repeatedly attempt to change the subject, or try to claim she had her facts wrong without ever offering up a plausible explanation. It was utterly pathetic. Just pathetic, and everyone knows it! Indeed, everyone could see his face last night and the fear in his eyes, and indeed he looked like a deer in the headlights fixing to get run over by a big Mack truck.

            What does being a nice guy mean when it comes to defeating a Chicago street thug like Obama?

            You got to be joking!

            But I can see in your post above where your priority is – immigration – whereas mine is national security (albeit not unrelated but mostly due to Islam rather than Hispanics) and foreign policy.

            You focus on only one thing and only one thing alone, Israel. Indeed, you are one of the core reasons that Ron Paul anarcho-kooks incessantly claim that America's foreign policy has been hijacked by Jews.

            If you understood national security, you'd understand that if the Left gains a permanent majority in this country via amnesty, then America's military might will be defunded and used for social justice instead, which will sound the death knell for the USA and then subsequently Israel.

            Nevertheless, because you are a self-hating Jew, you can't overcome your leftwing compulsions, which runs extremely deep within the Jewish community. Thus, you are compelled to support fat RINOs that are also weak and over the hill progressives.

            To your point about Romney and Gingrich being indistinguishable on Islam:

            Excuse me if I ignore your idiocy, especially since it is one of the oldest tricks in the book. Indeed, you have about as much credibility as a turnip that just fell out the back end of a turnip truck.

            I agree with Romney on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Gingrich should return the money and move on.

            But instead of being prosecuted, he should be elected president. No…..there is no way you are a conservative. Indeed, you are about as conservative as that overly emotional leftwing liberal moonbat Chezwick_Mac.

          • WildJew

            Romney looks to be a outright appeaser of Islam. See part of the transcript of the debate (two weeks back) on the thread just below.

          • WildJew

            You wrote: "If you understood national security, you'd understand that if the Left gains a permanent majority in this country via amnesty, then America's military might will be defunded and used for social justice instead, which will sound the death knell for the USA and then subsequently Israel….."

            Check this out. From a Romney supporter:

            "Even though I've been leaning towards Romney, this does not look good at all. If he does get in, he must be challenged on this."

            Click here: A probable cause for Romney's deep deceitfulness on illegal immigration: the Mormon Church is deeply invested in i
            http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/021243.html

    • Cker17

      you to are as uneducated as possible what aload of garbage ..go and reeducate yourself about Islam and Jihad Ist and for most the most unfortunate thing for you guys in America you have been taught to hate Arabic people from a very young age your Hollywood childrens movies such as Alladin for example is just one but go back to the beginning Jews who own Hollywood had the program all ready in play before any of you where aware of what the carpet bagger (Jew) was doing he has robbed your country blind even your war vets are on the street hungry dying not to mention others ,who holds all your money right now?.. the fkin contractors Building on Palestian lands for the screaming Jews who came out on the streets a couple of months back demanding better conditions so BiBi put the screws on Obama whom proudly states much to our horror your taxpayer dollars is given to Israel and he is the President whom has given more money than any President in history fk he's a groveling sucker as is Gingrich you guys are the loosers and wish to take out your frustration on the Arabic countries cos thats how the Jews want it cause the Jews want the wealth that America cannot provide unless they send in the Metal Dragon and steal it…this time the game is big real big so best you check your choices …cos there will be no going back…remember who is friendly with who and the Strait of Homuz is key as is India , Russia, China, Nth Korea think real carefully about what you say.. With Peace and blessing this holiday 2011..:)

  • WildJew

    Why Won't Glenn Beck Praise Newt for "Invented Palestine" comments in favor of Israel?
    12/15/2011 | Ralph Mitchell

    Posted on Thu Dec 15 2011 01:38:21 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) by mitchell001

    Beck is making a fool of himself going hard against Newt, with no on-air rebuttals on GBTV.com or Beck Radio allowed. His credibility is now severely damaged. Also, notice that Beck did not mention or emphasize Newt's defense of Israel, via Newt's true statement that "Palestinian" is an invented term for the Arab people in the Middle East. Can someone get a question to Beck on Newt's loyalty to (support for?) Israel, which is important to Beck? (Is it really important to Beck? Or does Beck pay Israel lip service? — wj)

    http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2820623/post

    • ObamaYoMoma

      First, you were spamming the board deliberately misrepresenting Mitt's position on Islam, now you are spamming the board again misrepresenting Glen Beck's positions on Gingrich and on Israel. Indeed, this is becoming an annoying bad habit of yours, not to mention what it is doing to your credibility or lack thereof.

      Anyway, Glen Beck doesn't support Gingrich because he is a big government progressive. Indeed, only RINOs support amnesty. As a matter of fact, how is being pro amnesty not progressive?

      Give me a break, is Gingrich the only Republican in the race that supports Israel? Like I said, I'll stay home on Super Tuesday before I will help the Left to further hijack the Republican Party. Indeed, I would have thought you would have learned your lesson after Bush was elected, but I was wrong.

      • WildJew

        I am not a religious Jew. Nonetheless, my political views are based on the warnings to our nation found in the Bible; in particular Genesis 12:3: "I will bless those who bless you and the one who curses you, I will curse." If I am convinced Gingrich will follow Bush's immoral policies visa-vis Israel I will not support him. In the past couple of weeks Gingrich set down a marker, on the Muslim world war against Israel, albeit it could have been stronger. Not one candidate on that stage was willing to commend him for his honesty of his courage. Romney and Santorum outright condemned Gingrich for telling the truth about these killers. It was a sad spectacle. Need I post Romney's and Santorum's pusillanimous comments?.

        No one is forcing you to vote for Gingrich in the primary. If he is the nominee (a long shot) will you stay home November 2012? I've been a Bachmann supporter. I was profoundly disappointed she did not credit Gingrich for his bold statement on these Muslims who are committed to the destruction of Israel. I'm not sure how I will vote next year in our primary.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          Romney and Santorum outright condemned Gingrich for telling the truth about these killers.

          Take your meds, you are paranoid delusional. I watched the exchange as well. All they said was that Gingrich should have checked with Israel's State Department first. Indeed, Ron Paul anarcho-kooks constantly say the Jews have hijacked America's foreign policy, and you are making it seem true.

          Your problem dude, is like most Jews in America you are really a stealth leftists exactly like your idol Bush, which is why you support that RINO Newt. In any event, if Newt wins and amnesty gets implemented, the left will acquire a permanent majority in this country and conservatism will die on the vine. Thus, the self destruction that started under Obama will resume at an accelerated pace because they will inevitably own both houses of congress in due time, and that will destroy America and eventually Israel as well, because without the USA, Israel simply can't stand and survive. Apparently, you are incapable of connecting the dots and that's a sure sign that you are really a stinking stealth leftist.

          No one is forcing you to vote for Gingrich in the primary.

          The primary doesn't matter. If Newt and all of his excess baggage wins the nomination, Obama wins re-election in a landslide and the Senate stays Dhimmicrat. It is as simple as that. I can tell you this, I and a lot of other conservatives will never vote for Newt in a million years, just like we didn't vote McCain. If Republicans and RINO Tea Partiers haven't learned their lesson yet, then let them suffer under Obama further. Screw them…they deserve exactly what they get.

          • WildJew

            ObamaYoMoma, your champion:

            (My comments are in parenthesis — wj)

            GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: "…by going down and saying the Palestinians are an invented people. That I think was a mistake on the speaker's part. I– I think– you– you– I think the speaker would probably suggest that as well….

            (SPEAKER NEWT GINGRICH: UNINTELLIGIBLE)

            GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: Maybe not. I– (LAUGHTER) I think we're very wise to stand with our friends, Israel, and not get out ahead of them. They– Israel does not want us to make it more difficult for them to sit down with the Palestinians…(THEY don't? — wj) …and the– and the United States of America should not jump ahead of Bibi Netanyahu and say something that makes it more difficult for him to– to do his job.

            (What does Mitt Romney think Netanyahu's job is? Is it not to protect his people / nation? Or is his job to commit national suicide as Romney would have it? — wj)

            SPEAKER NEWT GINGRICH: This is a propaganda war in which our side refuses to engage.

            (Here Gingrich is mistaken. Romney is indeed engaging. He is engaging on the side of the jihadists – on the side of Islam – as are supporters like ObamaYoMoma — wj)

            And we refuse to tell the truth when the other side lies. And you're not gonna win the long run if you're afraid to stand firm and stand for the truth….I feel quite confident an amazing number of Israelis found it nice to have an American tell the truth about the war they are in the middle of and the casualties they're taking and the people who surround them who say, "You do not have the right to exist, and we want to destroy you."

            GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: I– I've known– I've– (APPLAUSE) I've also known Bibi Netanyahu for a long time…. the last thing Bibi Netanyahu needs to have is not just a person who's an historian, but somebody who is also running for president of the United States, STAND UP (emphasis mine — wj) and say things that create extraordinary tumult in– in his neighborhood.

            (Romney is now compelled to acknowledge Gingrich is "standing up," while Mitt Romney exhibits fear and dhimmitude. Who is creating extraordinary tumult in Israel and the region, Gingrich by telling the truth or Romney and his supporters by lying? — wj)

            GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: And I'm president of the United States, I will exercise sobriety, care, stability. And make sure that in a setting like this, anything I say that can affect a place with– with rockets going in, with people dying, I don't do anything that would harm that– that process.

            (Romney does not want to do anything that would harm WHAT "process" ObamaYoMoma? The process of rockets going on or the phony "peace" process? — wj)

            And therefore, before I made a statement of that nature, I'd get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say, "Would it help if I said this? What would you like me to do? Let's work together, because we're partners." I'm not a bomb thrower, rhetorically or literally.

            ("We're partners?" Romney is a partner to the global jihad and the jihad against Israel. That is what Romney and his supporters are a partner to. Let's be honest. These are mealy mouthed, pusillanimous bromides Romney is repeating in this exchange. — wj)

            SPEAKER NEWT GINGRICH: I think sometimes it is helpful to have a president of the United States with the courage to tell the truth, just as was Ronald Reagan who went around his entire national security apparatus to call the Soviet Union an evil empire and who overruled his entire State Department in order to say, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Reagan believed the power of truth restated the world and reframed the world. I am a Reaganite, I'm proud to be a Reaganite. I will tell the truth, even if it's at the risk of causing some confusion sometimes with the timid.

            http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2011/12/11/

      • WildJew

        How have I misrepresented Romney's views on Islam?

        • ObamaYoMoma

          How have I misrepresented Romney's views on Islam?

          With the exception of Ron Paul, Mitt's position is exactly the same as Newt and indeed all of the other Republican Party candidates in the race. Yet, you are posting misinformation trying to deliberately make it seem that Mitt is somehow softer on Islam than everyone else, and never mind the fact that anyone who isn't brain dead can easily go to youtube and look up Mitt's record relative to everyone else for themselves.

          In addition, if the propaganda you are spamming FPM magazine with to attempt to deceive conservatives while destroying your limited credibility at the same time were correct, it would be front page news, in all the headlines, and it would lead off all the news. How dumb do you think people are? Indeed, Mitt would morph into the new Ron Paul.

          Not to mention that he ran for president in 2008 as well and his position on Islam hasn't changed one iota since. Are you claiming that the news media, the public, and all of his competitors in two campaigns for president and in all those many debates he participated in both the 2008 and 2012 campaigns that somehow no one ever noticed that Mitt was a loon on Islam relative to the other candidates? Yeah right and your credibility is not worth the bandwidth you are wasting.

  • StephenD

    .As far and away as Ron Paul is from reality (remember Pat Paulson? Is Ron Paul his long lost brother?), he would still be better than Obama. At least we could see openly where he is off course. Currently, we have clandestine operations going to coddle the Islamist deep in OUR Government. I can't stand the thought that our officials, who take an oath to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies lets in those whose confessed faith is anathema to our Constitution. This is incongruent within itself. One or the other will prevail. My money is on a true American fighting to restore American Exceptionalism and calling Islam what it is, an enemy of the American way of life

    • http://visionsandprinciples.blogspot.com/ InRussetShadows

      Actually, no. Ron Paul would be AS BAD as Obama, and in foreign policy, he would be WORSE. In fact, Paul's disconnected-from-reality thinking would likely lead to crisis after crisis. I suspect that a Paul presidency would go something like Andrew Johnson's did.

    • cker17

      Islam is only your enemy cos you sucker have had that thrown down your throat since you were a kid and with all the hatred breed into your brainwashed school system i mean look where you Americans rate scholastically in the world the lowest rate in the western world and that is a checkable fact…!! you even throw the bodies of your dead veterans in mass graves and you think Islam would do that ?? and you reckon Islam is your enemy no no no Israeli Jew boy is your real enemy whom blew a hole into the American Frgate and killed all those seamen (NAVY) who really bought down the twin towers and make money on insurance JewBoy..who is the lobby every President must get into office by committing to Yip you got it the enemy of America is the Jew …Not the Arab but by the powers of heaven and hell …you push and you push these nations the will rise up no matter what turmoil you create in each country like you are doing now they will all come together as one with their long time friends…trust these words my friend and watch if you guys choose the wrong Guy of which i think you no doubt will as you did with Obama oops emotion got you all sucked in on him emotion will do the same this time ..so Mr Paul is hitting buttons and you dont like the truth so good luck America you dont have too many friends now even your drone have great landings on Iranian runways …Peace to u bro.

  • davarino

    Newt would tear Obama a new one. I dont get this accusation that he is not conservative. That is wishful thinking and he convinced me last night that he is conservative. Newt is the smartest guy among all the candidates and is head and shoulders above the rest in his ability to debate with articulation and skill. He knows Washington and foreign affairs like non other. Out of all the candidates he has shown courage to tell it like it is with respect to islam and the Pallies. I loved what he said about activist judges, he is absolutely right. As far as his "negatives" are concerned, Michelle did not convince me he has done anything as egregious as she accuses.

    Oh ya, and Ron Paul is either niave or stupid to think that is we just play nice with iran and other like it that they will play nice with us. Remember, tried that with North Korea, Nazi Germany…..etc.

    • 1keith1

      Gingrich believes in government control of private business, and also in man-made global warming. Two reasons he is not conservative-I'm sure I've read others.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      I dont get this accusation that he is not conservative.

      Newt claims that FDR, the father of Socialism in America, is the best president ever in American history, not Ronald Reagan like true conservatives. He also claims to be a big admirer of Teddy Roosevelt, a dyed in the wool progressive, and also a Wilsonian progressive. Hell, he was tossed out of congress by conservatives and all of them to this day still refuse to endorse or support him even if he wins the nomination. In any event, if you don't get that he is progressive then you aren't looking as there are tons of stuff out there.

      Newt is the smartest guy among all the candidates and is head and shoulders above the rest in his ability to debate with articulation and skill.

      That's a myth. He got his nose bloodied up big time last night by Michelle Bachman and Romney is by far the best debater in the race and it is not really even close. Hell, Romney bloodied him up on several occasions last week before the debates for which Newt was forced to apologize publicly after being caught lying.

      Anyway, enough of Gingrich, if he somehow wins the nomination, Obama will be handed over his reelection to him on a silver platter and the Republicans will fail to win back the Senate.

      • sharpsrifle

        Let's not go placing TR in the same camp as Wilson and FDR. Wilson was a self-admitted Fabian socialist. Theodore's progressivism was of a far different stripe.

        The first thing we need to do is understand that the left has hijacked the term progressive. Theodore Roosevelt's progressivism was aimed at protecting the American system from socialists. The best example of that is the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. Socialist muckraker Upton Sinclair had written a book about the horrific working conditions experienced by the employees of Chicago meat packing plants called The Jungle with the aim of spurring a socialist upsurge in the United States. Roosevelt defeated Sinclair and the socialists by advocating for, and then signing, legisation which would work to clean up food processing facilities and compel manufacturers of of food and drugs to list the ingredients of their products on the packaging. One of the results of this legislation was the disappearence of alcohol-based patent medicines which did more harm than good. It also gave consumers the information necessary to make informed choices when buying food or pharmaceuticals. Bluntly, Roosevelt's action was good for capitalism.

        • sharpsrifle

          His busting of the railroad trust also was beneficial to small farmers and ranchers. During his time as a rancher in Dakota Territory, Theodore saw how small farmers and small ranchers were being gouged by the railroads when it came time to ship their crops and livestock. Ranchers could avoid using the railroads, especially after 1884 when the Omaha Stockyards were opened, by driving their cattle to market. Farmers, on the other hand, were in a bind. It's a bit tough to drive stalks of corn or wheat on the roots overland…

          The only ranchers or farmers who could afford the rates charged by the railoads on the northern plains were the cattle barons (and even then it was hard on them), or large corporate-owned farms. Further, the trusts cut price breaks for their friends and stuck it to everyone else. This was not the market speaking, since there was no competiton. These practices were driving small producers out of business and reducing competition, thus forcing up retail prices and harming the consumer.

          • sharpsrifle

            Roosevelt was no fool. He clearly saw what anarchists and socialists in Europe and the US were railing about, and he understood that in order to protect our society, competition and free enterprise had to be defended…and since the railroads operated across state lines, that was indeed in the federal purview. Now, before someone says that the federal government has no place getting involved in the railroads, they had already been INTIMATELY involved in the building and operation of railroads (the Transcontinental Railroad Act during the Civil War is the best example), so TR did nothing unusual. Again, his action was aimed not at hurting business, but rather at HELPING business…in this case, small ranchers and small farmers.

          • sharpsrifle

            Theodore's Kansas speech was vehement, but with reason. Taft and the Ohio Gang which ran the Republican Party at the time were undoing many of the actions he'd taken as president, and thus returning the conditions on which anarchists and socialists thrived. Yes, Theodore was an activist president, but his activism PROTECTED our system. It didn't alter it for the worse as did FDR's, Wilson's or Obama's. Theodore Roosevelt understood that free markets need both large and small players, or else there is no free market at all.

            Wilson jailed political opponants (Eugene Debs, among others), shut down newspapers, imposed censorship and re-segregated the military. Theodore Roosevelt did none of that…and FDR was as bad as Wilson (can you say "internment camps"?), and in many ways worse. Theodore Roosevelt left the United States stronger than when he entered office. FDR and Wilson just left messes.

            Bluntly, not all "progressives" are "progressive" in the sense used by Obama…those "progressives" are best called "socialists."

    • Jim_C

      Newt would be a gift to Obama.

      There's only two candidates who can give Obama a run for his money: Huntsman and Romney. Romney's a freaking robot, though, who has a hard time relating to we humans.

      Ron Paul, oddly enough, would also be a formidable candidate just for his novelty and candor. Not gonna happen.

      I could live with any of these three, actually, with Romney being my least favorite. The rest of them are disasters-in-waiting.

  • jacob

    Ron Paul's position remids me of the Congress isolationists proposing to ask the
    Japanese govmt whether the 12/7/1941 Pearl Harbor attack wasn't carried out by
    mistake…..
    So in other words, this biased idiot who in my concept is more reactionary and
    dangerous than PAT BUCHANAN denies IRAN's aspirations of becoming a nuclear
    power, ignores the asssitance given it by Russia and the rogue North Korea as per foreign diplomats reports, believes we must wait for the smoking gun, not realizing
    that by then it will be too damned late ??
    I dare bet he would have opposed tooth and nail as well, the A bomb dropping on
    Japan which ended WWII and to see he still has a following and a well oiled
    machine as well, easily explains how a "socialist" Muslim born parachutist is sitting
    at the White House and aspiring re-election….
    He mentions the "million" deaths in IRAQ and American casualties forgetting
    conveniently that American casualties are the result of fighting under UN "principles"
    and the violence of Shiites against Sunites and viceversa…
    If he is suitable for President, then I'm the Pope….

    • UCSPanther

      The US tried isolationism during WWII, but the world grabbed them and dragged the right back into the arena with Pearl Harbour, and none too soon.

  • myohmy

    "Ron Paul stole the show"??? All he did was let people know he's a fool where national security is concerned. He cleared the air once and for all that he is totally unacceptable as a potential President. To not recognize the difference between islamic fanaticism and the former USSR is pure idiocy. Just because Russia never pulled the nuclear trigger on us doesn't mean radical muslims would act the same. Muslims for years have said "you seek life, we seek death". Iran declared war on us in 1979 and Paul doesn't seem to realize that ever since then Iran as been the world's biggest terrorist sponsor and funder. I could say more but no need to, Ron Paul shouldn't even be invited to the next debate.

    • StephenD

      LOL You're absolutely right! He let everyone know what a fool he really is.

  • mrbean

    Ron Paul – “A Complete Nutcase Conspiratorialist Quasi-Anti-Semitic Leftwing American-Hating Nutball.” accurately describe this leftist in a patriots clothing. What insecurity must possess this fruitcake to insist that “America has done things in the past that have pissed off Arabs, which has caused them to attack us” He is as anti-American as borsch. The truth is, this is not Ron Paul knows that none of his policies have any chance of clearing the Congress, to which he will be treated as a hostile by both parties. He will have to govern as a dictator by E.O. Notwithstanding his completely ignorant and juvenile take and stance on global Jihadists and how Isolationism and Appeasement is the answer to any threat. He is worse than Obama.

  • WildJew

    ObamaYoMoma, I would be interested in your take on this recent piece:

    Romney: Islam Is a Peace-Loving Religion
    Saturday, 10 Dec 2011 11:54 AM

    By Gary Cohen

    Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney says the Muslims he knows are "peace-loving and America-loving individuals."

    At a campaign event in Cedar Rapids Friday, the subject of how to handle the threat posed by radical Islam was raised….
    http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Romney-Muslims

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Not really…you don't care for my take. You are just looking for another reason to smear Romney in favor of that flip flopping amnesty supporting progressive you support.

      • WildJew

        I do want your take. That is why I am asking.

    • Stephen_Brady

      I would also add Mitt's statement in Worcester, Massachussetts, in 2004, where Mr. Romney ran away from his party and admitted that his policy ideas were "progressive".

      • ObamaYoMoma

        It was kind of funny to watch Newt squirm and try to change the subject back to when he was in Congress in 1994 in response to Bachman's questions regarding the $1.6 million dollar bribe he took from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2008 in the debates last night. Except Bachman didn't let him off the hook that easily. All of the pundits today agree that Newt miserably failed last night and suggest that Newt come up with better lies that makes his bribery seem more plausible.

        Indeed, it was especially enjoyable to watch after watching the videos of Newt back in 2008 like a hypocrite calling for all those that were also bribed to be forced to return the money and to be prosecuted. At least Newt didn't claim last night again that he got the money to be an historian. Yeah right….that was a good one, wink, wink. I'm wondering how many times Newt will have to change his story. Obama's reelection team's mouths must be watering.

        Just wondering, Steve, do you believe like Newt that FDR was the greatest president too? For me and my conservative buddies, it was Ronald Reagan.

        • Stephen_Brady

          I've read several of your comments, in this thread, in which you claim to have watched Newt "squirm". I was wondering if we were watching the same debate. The one I watched started 9pm, EST, and was on Fox.

          Also, "all of the pundits" do not agree that Newt "miserably failed last night". In fact, most of the ones that I watched, on several different channels, were under the impression that he came off quite well, and did not hurt himself, at all.

          Just wondering, Obama, are you a progressive like Mitt claimed to be in 2004?

          As for me and my conservative buddies, Reagan was the greatest President of the 20th Century. Unfortunately, you are I are locked in the year 2011, and not 1980. You have chosen Mitt Romney. I have chosen Newt Gingrich. Can we not get along, for the sake of the conservative movement? Can we not save our nation, together?

          • Stephen_Brady

            I strongly agree with something Dick Morris said, today. Perhaps, we can agree about this:

            "The runner up was Michele Bachmann. She is, obviously, the truest of the conservatives. She always makes the right choice on issues and stands by her principles. She is articulate, forceful, factual, well informed, cerebral, and able. She deserves more than a fifth place finish in Iowa. She's right on the debt limit. She was right on TARP. She was right on health care. She's a solid reliable social conservative. And she's the only candidate up there about whom all that can be said (except perhaps for Santorum)."

    • ObamaYoMoma

      I hate to rain on your intentionally misleading parade, but if you ask Newt, Santorum, Bachman, Perry, Huntsman etc. the same exact questions, they will all answer the questions in the same exact way like Mitt did and like pre-programmed robots, as they all believe or feign to believe that Islam is a Religion of Peace™ being a hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists. Thus, in their calculus, there is the Religion of Peace™ and then there is radical Islam, and there is peaceful and moderate Muslims and there are a tiny minority of radical and extremist Muslims.

      Hence, they will all claim that the vast overwhelming majority of Muslims in the world are "peace loving," and the ones living in America, are "America-loving individuals." In fact, if they wouldn't say that in public, they would all be labeled Islamophobes by the Muslim community and leftist useful idiots so fast it would make your head spin, and in that regard Mitt's position on Islam isn't any different from any of the other candidates. In fact, it is identical.

      Anyone can play that game. If you take Newt aside in public and ask him the same exact questions, he will answer those questions in the same exact way as well. In fact, if he or any other candidate said like me instead that ALL MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX MUSLIMS ON EARTH are jihadists. A few of them are violent jihadists, while the vast overwhelming majority of them are non-violent stealth and deceptive jihadists, and the few of them that are not jihadists are not Muslims at all but instead blasphemous apostates that per the dictates of Islam should be executed, he and anyone else would be instantly demonized and vilified as Islamophobes, and it would end up inevitably destroying their campaigns.

      Thus, anyone can publish an article and substitute Newt, Santorum, Bachman, Perry, or Huntsman's name for Mitt's name, and then claim whoever it is, is weak on Islam. Indeed, that's one of the oldest tricks in the book, and never mind the fact that none of Mitt's opponents are attacking him, which indicates that they all agree with him, and never mind that Mitt's alleged weakness on Islam is never attacked in the debates or by the news media.

      Indeed, with all due disrespect, you have exactly zero credibility.

  • Supreme_Galooty

    Ron Paul was busy showing off his tin foil beanie – you know, the one with the little prop on top? His grasp of economics is without sin, but his positions regarding international relations are similar to Madeleine Albright. Scary.

  • Ghostwriter

    What world is Ron Paul living in? Certainly not ours. Iran not a threat to America? Is he kidding?! They recently came out with a plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the United States! Maybe Ron Paul should get with the real world and not the fantasy one he currently inhabits.

  • Jim_C

    It's funny, the ridicule Ron Paul gets for being an actual conservative. I get that he's a fringer but not only would he be the most conservative president the US has ever seen, he'd be quite an opponent for Barack.

    Huntsman could win handily. The middle would vote for him over Obama. He's like a more natural, human version of Romney.

    Romney…geez, could the guy be any more plastic? Probably the best you got, but man, the guy just oozes "politician." And he's a bit like Palin in that if you take away his looks, we wouldn't have any idea who he was.

    And that's it–the only candidates who have a chance of beating Obama.

    Newt's flavor will sour eventually. Don't believe me? Remember, I told y'all Cain wasn't a serious candidate….

    • http://visionsandprinciples.blogspot.com/ InRussetShadows

      Well then, it's time to hang up your predictions and go home. Do you have proof that Cain wasn't a serious candidate? You need to tell the media because even they haven't gone there. How did you get your secret information, anyways?

      And oh, the "Palin is dumb" thing. Yeah. Dumb people manage to be elected governor and then run a state surplus. Right. I know, I know. You have secret info that proves that Palin is a dunce.

      But saying that Huntsman could win handily is laughable. The guy has never polled in the double digits, so how could he possibly win? Wait. I know. It's that secret info you have again.

      • Jim_C

        Do I have "proof" Cain wasn't serious?

        Is he still running?

        Huntsman could handily win the middle, which I've already stated. If you knew something about electoral politics, you'd know that's where the race is won.

        It's not "secret knowledge," but it is knowledge, and knowledge, perhaps, is something that threatens you?

        As for Palin, please, I can't let you embarrass yourself.

  • BLJ

    Ron Paul is in denial about Islam. That alone disqualifies him in my book. The Dems would portray him as the crank uncle that no one in the family likes talking about.

    Huntsman is a RINO to the extreme. This is the guy that the MSM and Dems would love to have against Obama. I actually think the man likes our Dear Leader.

    If Romney does get the nomination I am sure his Mormon faith will become an issue for the hypocrites who said that Obama's membership in Rev Wrights racist church was off limits.

    Whoever does get the nomination needs to just hammer the Dear Leader 24-7 on his worthless record as President. Stay on message and keep away from his shady past.

    • Jim_C

      I am willing to bet Romney's Mormonism will not be an issue to any liberal, but will be (and already is) to certain conservatives.

      (Btw no one said Wright's church was "off limits," just that it was, like Romney's denomination, basically a non-issue. Looks like it was–Obama won).

      I'm not sure if you get politics. You may, but I'm not sure. What makes Romney and Huntsman the most formidable of the pack IS their moderation, their ability to sound reasonable, and their polished presentation. And that is dangerous to Obama in a hobbled economy. It takes the middle away from Obama.

      I can assure you we would much rather have Newt, Perry, or Bachmann as opponents. In various ways they freak people out.

      Essentially you guys want a Reagan–conservative, experienced, charismatic–but you don't have him, this time.

      • Jim_C

        It's also why I say, partially tongue in cheek, that Ron Paul would be a good challenger: he's explicitly conservative in the traditional (not pop-culture) sense but also has a certain appeal to a really wide variety of people: people tired of same old politics; people who understand the system's rigging; people who don't understand the system's rigging; people sick of our overseas adventures; people sick of the moronic drug war; people on drugs….

        So, tongue in cheek, but his support in Iowa and elsewhere is nothing to sneeze at. While people flit from Cain to Gingrich to Romney, Paul's stand firm.

  • Supreme_Galooty

    It ain't over til the fat lady hangs her laundry out to dry. Side by side, Rick Santorum and Obama present a similarly feckless appearance. Ron Paul is not a conservative, although actually defining the term could be tendentious. Rather, he is a libertarian steeped in the Austrian school of economics – an Americanist, if you will. A solid character, all in all, but not to be trusted with the keys to the kingdom. Romney, regardless of any miscellaneous, petty complaints, has a proven track record of competent executive leadership. I remain wary of his ideological leanings, however. Likewise Huntsman and Perry. Newt Gingrich is a tireless and talented intellectual. A president would be well served having him as a member of his cabinet – perhaps a new cabinet position whose duty is to abolish other cabinet positions such as education, energy, transportation, and fold other cabinet positions into each other, such as agriculture into interior, homeland security into defense labour into commerce, commerce into state, etc.

    Given the phenomenal incompetence, the costly and egregious corruption, it is long past time to trim the tail feathers of the Eagle.

  • myohmy

    The makers of South Park should pattern a rediculous cartoon character after Ron Paul and just report the truth about this crackpot politician…. Or maybe someone could make movies like Peter Sellers did in the Pink Panther series about the inept and confused Inspector Clusseau.

  • notme

    The argument made by Paul that the 9/11 attackers only attacked the U.S. because of our policies towards the Muslim world is a red herring. Besides that fact pointed out in many here that other nations have also been attacked, OF COURSE those that hate the West would make the U.S. their primary target. We are the strongest, richest (or at least we were), and most symbolizing of Western values and that is what they hate. So, even if it was only the U.S. that had been attacked, there is more than sufficient argument to state that it was for reasons other than our policies towards the Muslim world. Besides, what exactly are those abhorrent policies that would warrant such an attack?

  • RiverFred

    Ron Paul is very naive about Islam and the nuclear progress by Iran. Someone please send him the DVD Iranium.

  • UCSPanther

    The fact Ron Paul has personality cult disqualifies him in my books. His zombie followers are way too enamored with him to be anything but, and how they spam and even threaten those who question the "Ron Paul Revolution" is another symptom.

    His baggage and questionable supporters would more than enable Obama and his MSM allies to rip him right apart.

  • http://visionsandprinciples.blogspot.com/ InRussetShadows

    Where are the Paul supporters? I see a few here and there, but I guess talking about what Paul ACTUALLY SAID instead of what their secret decoder rings TOLD HIM THAT HE SAID is a real buzzkill. It tells me a lot when your most ardent supporters can't be bothered to pile on after a very public demonstration of your man's…uhm…gifts. Your absence thunders, guys.

  • Reason_For_Life

    Let's look at our "successful" interventions.

    Idiot Jimmy Carter decided that the Shah of Iran was evil and had to go. He knew of Khomeini' s ideas but decided that a little old time religion would be good for Iran. How'd that work for ya?

    Jimmy the C (with an assist from, alas, Reagan) also supported the mujahedin in Afghanistan against the Soviets. The regime that ultimately came to power was the one that assisted the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. How'd that work for ya?

    Of course the Republicans are much smarter. They decided that evil Saddam had nuclear weapons. chemical weapons and biological weapons, indeed the country was one vast arsenal with which Saddam was preparing to attack Israel and the US. No matter that Iraq's economic infrastructure was utterly incapable of creating nukes the equally idiotic GW Bush launched an attack.

    Thanks to this "gutsy" move we now have in Iraq a budding theocracy that has driven Christians from the country and is preparing to engage in the ethnic cleansing of Sunnis as soon as the US leaves. How'd that work for ya?

    Based on this record we are supposed to attack yet another Middle Eastern country, one with a government that the US helped to create!

    Ron Paul may not understand the nature of Islamic Fascism but the alternative of endless war for endless reasons certainly isn't an improvement.

    Our previous interventions have resulted in disaster after disaster. Iraq used to have enormous animosity towards Iran. After the Sunni cleansing they will have much in common with the Iranian mullahs. Add to this theocracies in Egypt and possibly Syria and I don't think it would be terribly unfair to categorize American foreign policy as suicidal.

    (Obama claims that if he hadn't implemented the stimulus then things would have been much worse. Are the Republicans claiming that if we hadn't intervened then even more countries would fall to Islamic fascists? Or is it merely that they as stupid in foreign policy as Obama is in domestic policy?)

    Keynesian economists looking at their failure argue that the stimulus wasn't big enough. Neocons look at their disastrous foreign policy and, like their Keynesian cousins, proceed to double down on stupid.

  • waterwillows

    Ron Paul is a nit wit, far out in some la la land ranting away in delusions. Obama is actually a better candidate than Paul because at least his hatred for America is something concrete and real. It is always easier to deal in reality than delusion.

    Romney is pure fool's gold. He's more plastic than Hollywood. Obama verses Romney? Well garbage in…..garbage out. There is hardly any difference which is which.
    That being said and if either win the Oval Office, the people must look to their state leaders and salvage whatever may be saved.

  • Unholyjake

    It's simply amazing to see the ignorance of the warmongers that have posted here. I'm not going to get down on your level to argue with you about Ron Paul. His ideas are so far above your heads that it is impossiable for you to understand them…there are no winners in a nuclar war and that is what is going to happen in the mideast unless some people with some common sense get some control of the situation. It won't make any difference who pulls the trigger first…it will be a world disaster unlike anything ever seen by moderan day humans…and you wanting a war like that which will destory the american way of life…showes a like of common sense.

  • waterwillows

    Unholyjake,

    No, not warmongers. Just people who know the problems of Iran and Islam must be faced head on.
    Ron Paul is an old man. He knows if he can just keep the lid on things for now….then it will be someone's else who has the problem. But I do not think this can be passed to our children.
    Islam has an agenda of genocide and oppression. They are militant and aggressive. It is our problem. Ass-kissing and appeasment is no solution.
    Ron Paul is too old and tired to take up the fight. He just wants to not face the reality in his lifetime.
    He is empty of solutions and that just makes it more certain and much sooner the attacks

    • Unholyjake

      The sooner the better huh? It's coming a lot sooner than you probably think…like within two to three months from now at the most. Actually the GOP canidates are wasteing their time…no sitting Prez has been voted out during a war.
      America is going to lose at least one major city and Isreal will cease to exist as will most of the middle east. As soon as it starts, ten doller gas at the pump and your dollar won't buy you a piece of bubble gum…and after all the dust settles…martial law, a New World Order, and a one world currency.
      A little common sense right now could alter the future…but sadly there is no common sense…so let's get it on…it going be a hell of a ride! Make sure you place your bets on which American city it's going to be!

    • johnsmith9875

      Iran is a shia nation surrounded by hostile Sunni neigbors, some quite well armed. Iran has bigger local and regional problems than any obsession with the west would seem to indicate

  • waterwillows

    unholyjake,

    Your viewpoint is somewhat typical of the 'unholy'. But that does not make it more valid than the holy viewpoint.
    I did not say 'the sooner the better' read again. Do not discount the Lord Most High. There is nothing on this planet He can not handle. The Jews will remain.
    Perhaps no sitting President in the past was voted out during a war, but what has that got to do with the future?
    Past Presidents were not blamed for the war. Can we say as much about this one?

  • johnsmith9875

    We simply can't maintain our empire. The Soviets tried to, and failed, and we are doomed to that same failure.
    I've never seen anything that indicates RP wants us to bend over backwards to Iran. He was quite blunt in saying that yes we will attack Iran if they attack us.

    Europe isn't defenseless, and with The USSR gone, the USA mother hen mentality is out of place in this new geopolitical spectrum. What keeps a country strong is its economy, not its military. If we sacrifice our economy for the sake of our military we are making the same mistakes that nations throughout history have made.

    • waterwillows

      johnsmith9875,

      Do you know of any time that muslims were not at each other's throat? This aggressive attitude and behaviour is pretty standard and does not indicate any measure of safety for non-muslims.
      They simply set their own differences aside for the period it takes to become aggressive to non-muslims and then return to continue the usual in-fighting. Their obsession is to 'always' be fighting in order to get the 72 virgins.

      If Iran were to attack, do you not think it would be nuclear? I doubt they are going to send their army over to US soil.
      So to return the attack as you suggest RP would do, seems somewhat late.

      • Unholyjake

        With a Prez that's determined to leave our southern border open…bringing a nuke into the US from Mexico would be a piece of cake. Iran is not going to attack the US unless we attack them and then that's probably where their attack would come from…but Iran is not the real problem…the real problem for the US in WWIII will be the two nations that support Iran…Russia and China…and that's a no win situtation except for the New World Order that's set this whole situtation up and are standing by and waiting for some idiot to spring their trap…and then when the glass parking lots of the middle east are complete…they will step in and bring order out of chaos. Most American's have been so brainwashed and are so angry…they simply can't see the forest for the trees.

        • waterwillows

          While the southern borders of the US are somewhat porous right now, it seems unlikely that the US would be the prime target.
          They have a much easier and softer target in Europe to make their point.
          It is to be expected that the mad mullahs understand the Americans are still in the frontier justice stage. The Europeans have more or less brought them in with open arms and mostly want to be 'as nice as possible'.
          Americans really don't do the 'nice' thing. It is not the cowboy way.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    All in all after reading this entire post there is a line of reasoning that points
    to the fact that Conservatives could have done much better in view of those
    who care. Our National problems are multiple killers that due to PC insanity
    are not deliberately and prominently addressed and if done so would fly over
    the electorate attention span in a millasecond. Just how bad off we are is
    almost impossible to expose no less do anything meaningful to change what
    will be and odious outcome. The vein I see progressing is Obama destruction
    or professional obfuscation continuing the idea we are a viable Nation with
    a secure future. Thanks to leftists America does not know what it is and due
    to the degeneration of moral and ethical conduct it seems to not give sufficent
    care. Many here are correct in what they see and expound on but by way of
    personal anger, distraction or perplexed antisocial feelings and lack of
    experience remain unclear as to making clear and well defined decisions.
    Defining candidates, properly exposed by a credible venue is not on the agenda
    as the seriousness of the situation is not understood, not comprehended.
    There is a vulgarity that explains our common plight…………………..William

  • Mladen Andrijasevic

    How come everyone misses the most important thing Rick Santorum said?. His statement on the death of MAD:

    "They’ve been at war with us since 1979…The IEDs that have killed so many soldiers, they are manufactured inIran. Iran is not any other country. It’s a country that is ruled by the equivalent of Al Qaeda on top of this country. They are a radical theocracy. The principle virtue of the Islamic Republic of Iran, according to president Ahmadinejad, is not freedom or opportunity. It’s martyrdom.

    The idea, Ron, that mutual assured destruction like the policy during the Cold War with the Soviet Union would work on Iran when their principal virtue is martyrdom is.… mutual assured destruction with respect to Iran would not be any idea of preventing a war; it would be an inducement to war. This is what their objective is. Their objective is to, in fact create a calamity. That is what their theology teaches. They believe that it is their mission to take on the West. They don’t hate us because of what we do or the policies we have. They hate us because of who we are and what we believe in, and we need to make sure that they do not have a nuclear weapon, and we should be working with the State of Israel right now. We should use covert activity and we should be planning missile attacks against their facilities and say that if you do not abandon those facilities and close them down we will close them down for you.”

    For more on the death MAD see MAD is Dead http://www.madisdead.blogspot.com/

  • Derek Wain

    The Obama-Paul line of accommodation, apology, and appeasement towards radical Islam and Iran. "…for you to say maybe in a year they might have a weapon, there's a lot more saying they don't have it.” The only evidence that Paul will accept is an atomic weapon in Iran's hands. His policy of submission to radical Islam is the blueprint for national suicide for the U.S. I trust Michele Bachmann. She is as smart as a whip and tougher than steel–the little lady with a spine of titanium. She is loved by patriotic Americans; she is hated by the jihadist's "useful idiots."

  • Stephen_Brady

    Holy cow!

    " “Not just so-called Palestinians in Israel, which is an invention used to justify the permanent and genocidal jihad of conquest being waged perpetually against the Jewish unbelievers in Israel by the Islamic world to make Islam supreme, as Muslims all over the world as a matter of routine and always like clockwork perpetrate cultural genocide with respect to the non-Muslim previous owners they conquered and rendered into harsh and degrading dhimmitude for the purpose of erasing their history and replacing it with Islamic history instead.” Dec 12 "

    At the university, I most likely would have circled the sentence/paragraph in green, and wrote the following in the margin: ??? After all, there's at least four to five sentences in the quote you make reference to.

    Like you, once I understood what he was trying to say, I would have agreed with it. But my agreement is not something he wishes, at this time. It seems that he has decided that I am a "progressive" and a "neocon". I made the mistake of questioning one of his pronouncements, and things have been going downhill for a couple of weeks.

    Interesting study, Chez …

  • joe

    wow! AWESOME POST!….your right on….. you call him skippy….. i call him GANDALF LOL