Imagine a Ron Paul Presidency

Mark Tapson, a Hollywood-based writer and screenwriter, is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He focuses on the politics of popular culture.


Pages: 1 2

“Imagine for a moment,” a man’s voice intones in an urgent whisper, “that somewhere in the middle of Texas there was a large foreign military base – say, Chinese or Russian.” So begins a video produced by Revolution PAC, comprised of supporters and some former campaign staff of Ron Paul. The text of the video derives entirely from a Paul speech given in early October, in which the presidential candidate condemns what he deems to be our jackbooted foreign policy and likens our military abroad to an oppressive occupation force, while whitewashing murderous insurgents as freedom fighters.

“Imagine,” the voice continues as the text zooms and veers about on the screen,

that thousands of armed foreign troops were constantly patrolling American streets in military vehicles. Imagine they were here under the auspices of “keeping us safe” or “promoting democracy” or “protecting their strategic interests.”

The analogy, of course, is to our own troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, which Paul and his supporters cite as the reason Islamic fundamentalists hate us, along with such other offenses as our military bases on Saudi soil. And the video’s suggestion is that the justifications noted above for our presence there are mere pretexts.

The video graphics come fast and furious now, and the music and narration escalate in intensity and menace. It’s moving at a pace and volume that steamroll right over any reasoned objections:

Imagine that they operated outside of US law, and that the Constitution did not apply to them. Imagine that every now and then they made mistakes or acted on bad information and accidentally killed or terrorized innocent Americans, including women and children, most of the time with little to no repercussions or consequences. Imagine that they set up checkpoints on our soil and routinely searched and ransacked entire neighborhoods of homes. Imagine if Americans were fearful of these foreign troops, and overwhelmingly thought America would be better off without their presence.

Of course, our troops are doing anything but running around ransacking entire neighborhoods; it is the insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan who are terrorizing innocents. We have gone to such ludicrous extremes to win hearts and minds that we’re more comfortable putting our own troops’ lives at risk than offending the locals. But the video’s denigration of our military and whitewashing of the enemy get worse as the analogy goes completely off the rails:

Imagine if some Americans were so angry about them being in Texas that they actually joined together to fight them off, in defense of our soil and sovereignty, because leadership in government refused or were unable to do so. Imagine that those Americans were labeled terrorists or insurgents for their defensive actions, and routinely killed, or captured and tortured by the foreign troops on our land.

Take a moment to wrap your mind around Paul’s meaning here. He’s saying that al Qaeda- and Iranian-backed mujahideen who are wreaking havoc in Iraq, who massacre Christians and pro-American Iraqis, who gleefully kill Americans, and who are destabilizing the country in hopes of establishing another Islamic fundamentalist state, are freedom fighters who have been falsely labeled terrorists and are no different from Texans banding together in defense of our freedoms and rights against Chinese or Russian soldiers. He’s saying that our troops kill and torture innocent Iraqis routinely.

Now the narrator’s voice hits a fever pitch as he takes this offensive analogy further:

Imagine that the occupiers’ attitude was that if they just killed enough Americans, the resistance would stop, but instead, for every American killed, ten more would take up arms against them, resulting in perpetual bloodshed.

Our troops have never been out to “kill enough” of the Iraqi or Afghan people. This is an outrageous slur, but typical of the Paul mindset which eliminates inconvenient facts in order to assert that America has enemies only because our foreign policy makes them so.

The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas.

Nonsense. The reality is that reality isn’t Ron Paul’s strong suit. The video ends with Paul’s own voice asserting that we must “[cease dealing] with other nations with threats and violence” and instead, “[open] ourselves up to friendship, honest trade and diplomacy.” Right. Because we all know it’s America, not Iran or Russia or China or al Qaeda or the Taliban, that is the entity trafficking in threats and violence, and eschewing friendship, honest trade and diplomacy.

Pages: 1 2

  • jfwaveman

    Is this writer a veteran of one of our many wars? If not, I have absolutely no interest in his criticisms of Ron Paul's foreign policies.

    • LeninsBarber

      You're right only people who have served in the military have a right to voice any opinion on foreign policy. I'm sure that will be first on Ron Paul's legislative freedom agenda.

      • Boogey

        I wonder if the commentor above yours has ever been a writer on this site. If he hasn't then I don't care to hear his opinion. In fact if he hasn't been Ron Paul in an out of body experience then he isn't a true believer.

      • tonythenbrain

        No, but they might know about ii from first hand experience.

        Also, you'll notice the lead hawks are USUALLY (not always) rich boys who got deferments from having to serve during the wars of their generations. "Chickenhawks" is what they're called. They're quick to send other people's kids to die, but not so quick to make the sacrifice themselves.

        I find the better way to parse out who is for war and who isn't is to separate the nationalists from the patriots. Nationalists support the government over the people (the country). Patriots support the people (the country) over the government….as the two often conflict.

        It's not in out prople's interests to provoke hatred against them to secure oil interests. Anyone who thinks this isn't the purpose of our foreign policy doesn't do a lot of reading on the subject. Jon Bolton even admits it. "strategic interest" is code word for oil access for cheap. It's not our property, and theft is not an acceptable reason for war.

        • davarino

          ya but you would be marching in the streets as soon as gas was $5 a gallon and it cost you a fortune to heat your house. I wish we were taking oil from Iraq like you accuse but where is it?

        • Ennis

          "Also, you'll notice the lead hawks are USUALLY (not always) rich boys who got deferments from having to serve during the wars of their generations. "Chickenhawks" is what they're called. They're quick to send other people's kids to die, but not so quick to make the sacrifice themselves."

          Says the idiot who thinks a parent can "send" his to war.

        • john oconnor

          Buying oil is is not theft and I'll bet you use oil to. Nobody is stopping us from buying oil, we have a choice, we still have some freedom. would you like iran to accelarate its wealth as a non secular society and ram missles and religion down our throats with traqs oil. Empires take capitalist buy..

        • Ostiaman

          You know, this Chickenhawk deferment business is getting real old. There has not been a draft since 1973. So talk of a deferment is just bogus. Regardless of wether you have served or not, YOUR TAXES will be used to fund any military operations. So you definately have a say!!

    • Steve Chavez

      And then there is Obama and Hillary WHO SPIT ON GENERAL BETRAY US and now they depend on him by putting him in various positions? If I were the General, I would have SPIT ON THEM!

      There's nothing wrong with Paul's positions except that he's in the wrong Party like many of his supporters! Being that more than half of the Democrats should be in the Party they really represent too, THE COMMUNIST PARTY USA, Paul would fit right in with this group of delusion psychotics! For proof of my comment, go to CPUSA.ORG AND PEOPLESWORLD.ORG and see if they are the same positions as the Democrat Party. Paul's positions are even beyond their Twilight Zone! I do wonder who came up with the CPUSA AND DEMOCRAT talking points of the day FIRST! Being that the CPUSA are professionals and use all their time thinking of slogans and programs to defeat every U.S. move around the world, I would guess it is they would come up with the talking points first and the Democrats open up their email boxes every morning to repeat their points.

      Paul and Gary Johnson, my former Governor, ARE NUT CASES but Johnson did at least defect from the Republican Party to now run as a Libertarian where he should have been in the first place. Now if only the Democrats would be true to their ideals and join the CPUSA!

    • Mellie Wilkes

      Oh there ALREADY HAVE BEEN AMERICANS who have had military troops riding through neighborhoods, terrorizing civilians; shooting any who opposed them; stealing and raping and marauding.; and burning houses leaving women an children under TREES in the dead of winter. It happened in 1864 when AMERICAN General Wm. T. Sherman made his infamous "march through Georgia" and the Carolinas. AND we are still waiting for OUR FOREIGN AID DOWN HERE for what was destroyed.

    • Stephen_Brady

      Everyone has a right to express their opinion about foreign policy … everyone. It's a God-granted, blood-bought right, and if you don't understand that, you have my pity. This from a veteran of the Vietnam War …

    • Nakba1948

      Hear hear! Way too many chickenhawks in this crowd.

    • john oconnor

      Pauls domestic policies would create one of the biggest economic booms in history! One that ayn rand would be proud of. Sadley or happily for some his foreign policies would probably add to the boom with a huge world war eventually! I think we should keep a strong presence in isreal,south korea and iraq and close many other bases. But there is also a side of me that wants paul for his purist capitalist views and to be able to say see i told you his other views would cause a war. If he ever was president and he was briefed on intel, i think he would change his retoric. Hopefully

  • Erik

    Since your an expert on foreign policy, please explain why Ron Paul gets so much support from the military. I am a former Sgt (USMC) and Iraq war veteran. I have seen first hand the consequences of our foreign policy, this is why I along with many other veterans support Ron Paul.

    RON PAUL 2012!!!!!!!

    • Boogey

      Sorry, the vast majority of veterans don't support Ron Paul. He may have gotten the largest donations but it was from a small pool of people.

    • Ben

      Well, thanks for your service. I'm also an OIF vet, and I can't stand the guy.

      let me ask you a serious question. Why does RP's support among the military mean something, when his support among the white supremacists, the KKK, 9/11 troofers, and the John Birch Society means nothing?

      I mean this in the most thought-provoking way. I have come into contact with many crazed Ron Paul fanatics who dismiss off the cuff the support that comes from the bizarre fringes. "A candidate can't control who supports him" they respond.

      True. But a candidate can control who he accepts money from. He didn't have to take money from Don Black, former Grand Wizard of the KKK.

      Even so, there's an underlying assumption that RP's support among the military must mean SOMETHING. Obviously, military members must see something in RP, his candidacy and his message must ring true to them. But not Stormfront and the KKK. Their support is inexplicable. Their support has no rational basis, so please stop asking the question. Move along, move along.

    • Winghunter

      Terrorism and the New American Republic http://www.dojgov.net/Liberty_Watch.htm

      Paul may be an isolationist, but the Founders weren't http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/

      To Get Ron Paul's Insanity, You Have To Understand Libertarianism
      Libertarianism is to authentic conservatism what Barack Obama is to 19th century liberalism http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/to_get_ron

      • Paul of Alexandria

        Good points. I would also like to encourage people to read (or re-read) "The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11" by Dinesh D'Souza. He makes the excellent point that most politicians are totally mistaken about the root causes of Arab dislike for the U.S. Ron Paul's proposed actions would not only not stop the terrorist actions, they would make it worse.

      • Stan Lee

        The question about Paul is; WTH is he doing in the Republican run-off? The man is no Republican, he's an extreme Libertarian who's trying to draw upon any "fringe" people he can get. At least the former Governor of NM, Gary Johnson, had the integrity to declare himself a Libertarian candidate.
        Paul knows what he's doing, it's questionable whether people who buy into him do. Put a bunch of his followers in a room and very few would agree with each other. Would-be Constitutionalists with American Nazis, and everything between?

    • FriendofGaryCooper

      Well, Gen. Barry McCaffrey isn't for Ron Paul; neither is Col. Oliver North. But what did Ron Paul have to say about the Fort Hood massacre, if anything? Was it anything other than "Let's mind our own business?"

    • Bruce from Denver

      I'm a Navy veteran from 30 years ago. I really doubt the military supports Paul anymore than any other Republican candidate running. The "statistics" that "prove" Dr. Paul's support are based on campaign donation paperwork in which Occupation listings of Active duty, Reserve, and Veterans are all lumped together. However the total numbers of Military both Active and Veterans who donate at all is so low, to make such a tabulation meaningless as a statistical sampling! President Thomas Jefferson ran as anti Navy and standing Army candidate way back when, and his rhetoric is much of the source of Dr. Paul's "non-interventionist" campaign. Guess what? Jefferson had to send the Navy and the Marines on a "non-declared War military operation" against Islamic terrorists in North Africa! That illustrates two points: 1. Ron Pauls policy of non-intervention has been totally impractical even at the birth of this nation, and 2. It also clearly illustrates that Pauls assertions of "Blowback" is completely misguided, and NOT SUPPORTED BY HISTORICAL FACTS!

  • http://firstclassmemo.blogspot.com/ Mike Ouellette

    So you'd have no problem with a foreign country setting up a peaceful base on our land, say like we have in Germany or South Korea?

    I would

    • Boogey

      You know that isn't a fair comparison and the countries you speak of like us there and actually require it in many instances. The US doesn't exist in a region with a high concentration of different nations with different goaols. What part of "defend" do you people not get? It's not food enough to catch people after they bomb us. Ron Paul foreign policy is scary and terrible!

      • daniel

        Your right we should pick a fight with another powerless country, and kill kill kill baby, that how we got to the top? Ahh no it has not worked it will never work.

        I was 23 when we invaded iraq, I never thought my little nephew who was 8 on September 11th would end up in fighting and risking his life everyday. He was only 8.

        • Winghunter

          Hundreds of thousands slaughtered and you call them 'powerless'?? Whatever, clown.

          Apparently, HW Bush should have ended Hussein at the time we had to kick them out of Kuwait.

          Everyone knew we would have to go back where I predicted it would be 10 years or less. You don't have to be John Bolton to figure those SOBs out. Well, maybe you do.

    • Stan Lee

      Sure, I'd have a problem with any foreign power trying or landing its forces here. That doesn't mean I subscribe to Ron Paul's theology.
      What present candidate, other than Obama, would tolerate foreign occupation?
      Man, you sure went for the Paul hook!

    • Dr_Funk

      Imagine that our country was ruled by a dictator, and he gassed the entire state of Wisconsin to death because of their religious sect, and that the was intending on acquiring nukes to go to war with a country that wished to see us living as a free people.

      Then, imagine, that this horrendous dictator refused the demands of the freedom-lovers, and they invaded and captured him and killed all his stormtroopers, and then set about trying to help us create a framework for democracy while simultaneously spending billions upon billions of their own money killing opportunistic terrorists crossing into the US from Canada and Mexico.

      Then, imagine that, because of political pressure, this foreign freedom-defending country that spent so many of its own soldiers' lives freeing us decided to just leave; that its president decided that, in order to score some sort of political boost, he decided to just ditch us without securing our fledgling democracy. So now, each of us who supported the overthrow of the dictatorship and supported that foreign nation's efforts in establishing democracy here are being abandoned…and the cartels and terrorists will hunt us down and establish a new militant dictatorship in the same vein as the previous one.

  • Norma Links

    With Ron Paul we finally have a chance to become the country America was supposed to become: a place for individual freedoms to be realized. That does does not include a foreign policy of interventionism and meddling in other country's affairs. Ron Paul 2012!

    • Boogey

      Ron Paul would take us back to the days of paying off the Barbary pirates… It's called HISTORY people, please try picking up a book you zombies. This Paul worship is worse than Obama worship.

      • daniel

        You should read History boogey ever heard of rome you niwit, grow up and stop insulting people its very small of you.

    • http://www.themadjewess.wordpress.com MAD JEWESS

      With Ron Paul we finally have a chance to become the country America was supposed to become
      —————————
      YOU are in dream land. It would take 50 years to undo what the left has done.
      My guess is that MANY of Pauls supporters are X-Commies, filled with guilt with what they have done, so, instead of coming out and confessing their crimes and treason, they use Paul to 'make themselves right'.

      PORC-FEST sound familiar?
      Pot smokers for R. Paul.
      Hearts and flowers, yada yada.
      We have been through this crap before.

  • paul camera

    Who is this clown?

    • leninsbarber

      His name is Ron Paul and you can read about him at http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

      he is a whiteface clown. The top of the Clown Food Chain.

      • Boogey

        So true, Ron Paul is a joke and is the LEAST constitutional person on the ballot next to Romney. I have actually hear Paul supporters say "he is the only be who talks about the constitution" which A. is a bald face lie and B. even if it was true does talking about it mean anything? What if Obama started "talking about the constitution" all the time? Would that make him a good president!

        • coyote3

          I would support Obama if he started following the constitution, but if he did that, he would have to undo most everything he has done.

      • tonythenbrain

        I read it. and I like it. I'd say that makes you the clown with nothing but insults to back up your nationalism. Patriotism is much better than nationalism.

        • Boogey

          I didn't call you a name. What a low brow move but typical for a Paul supporter. "Constitution, constitution, Ron Paul, constitution… I win the debate." hahaha, this is like shooting fish in a barrel.

  • mgginva

    Who is this Tapson fellow? He certainly is full of his own intelligence. He seems to have spent a fair amount of time writing this. Can you imagine having to listen to it? Without being able to skim this blathering would be painful. Another hit piece by an ignorant dolt supporting his masters – the 1% – to prevent change. Anyone who isn't super rich and attempts to manipulate the voter into helping maintain the status quo is a drone.
    There can be no prosperity without Peace.

    • Boogey

      Tapson is a very astute man that just dismantled the bad logic of another terrible Ron Paul ad. I thank him for it. Get a clue, take off the tinfoil hat.

  • imagine

    I liked your novel way of writing absolute and utter drivel.

    • Boogey

      I like how you don't even know the irony that is your own comment. Derp!

    • stern

      How? By quoting from a Ron Paul video? Exactly where does the drivel come from?

  • ronin

    we can not afford acting like Cowboys anymore with rising China!!! We better have smarter solutions. Ron Paul tells the truth, and the rest of clowns are corporations mouth piece like Obama, Bush, Clinton,………

    • Boogey

      Ron Paul is the kickback, pork barrel king of earmarks that benefit the BIG CORPORATIONS in his constituency that funnel money to his campaign and super pacs. He IS THE bought and paid for phony candidate. Earth to ronin, come in ronin… Step away from the voting booth.

    • Winghunter

      A Quick History Of Socialist Ron Paul http://bit.ly/uJxlHi

      Ron Paul-Economic Hypocrite http://bit.ly/tAMyPa

      What Ron Paul Thinks of America http://on.wsj.com/uRqlYU

  • JasDal

    Imagine that an American screen-writer could sort out truth from illusion. Imagine that this writer could put himself in the place of human beings in societies other than his own.

    Imagine that he got over thinking of himself as exceptional and accepted that he was not the superior of other humans but their equal – and they the equal of himself. Imagine that this was possible.

    Imagine that writer as a small Iraqi child starving to death under 10 years of sanctions against Iraq. Imagine now that writer as the father of that child. Imagine his outlook on those who brought these sanctions.

    Imagine that that father now hates the US because they are lovely, free, dancing happy shoppers.

    Never imagine he is a father whose child was starved to death by US actions. Whose homeland is invaded by hundreds of thousands of troops. Imagine he can't possibly react as you would in his circumstances.

    Imagine if this writer could imagine.

    • Erik

      Great Comment!

    • Boogey

      Imagine the logical fallacy of an argument that ignores the starvation, rape and murder of innocent Iraqi children, women and Kurds before the US ever got there. Imagine over 40,000 people a year murdered by their own government while the dictator stock piled weapons that he used against his neighbors and his own people by the hundreds of thousands over the previous 15 yrs… Imagine those people cheering US soldiers in the streets and voting for the first time in a real fair election… Imagine all that hard work being undone by withdrawing US troops too soon – oh wait, you don't have to imagine just watch what is happening now.

      • Erik

        Where did you serve in Iraq?

        • Boogey

          I served in Qatar, HooRah! But what difference does that make? Not one bit! I fought so even ignorant fools could speak freely. Go ahead and speak…

          • Erik Teer

            You fought in Qatar so ignorant fools could speak? I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion, but anyway i served two tours in Iraq as a Sergeant in the United States Marine Corps and im pretty sure that my service had absolutely nothing to do with anyone's freedom, but had a whole lot to do with money.

            And calling me an ignorant fool at the same time implying our presence in the middle east has something to do with Americans freedom of speech just sounds dumb.

        • Ben

          Here's one OIF vet who agrees with Boogey.

          I wonder why that's your comeback? "YOU didn't serve so shut up!" Could it be that he's right, and you can't rebut his logical explanation? So you have to tell him to be quiet because he doesn't have enough required military service.

          Ron Paul didn't serve in iraq either. Should he shut up now?

      • JasDal

        None of that is ignored. Most soldiers join for great reasons. Idealism, to protect their country and freedom.

        Facts may be unpleasant, but soldiers face many unpleasant facts. The truth is your government lied to you about why they invaded Iraq.

        They did not do it to find WMD. They did it to secure the oil of Iraq. They did not invade Iraq to overthrow a terrible dictator or to create a new democracy or to save women from oppression.

        WMD – What they found:
        In his State of the Union address on January 29, 2002, President George W. Bush declared that Iraq was a member of the "Axis of Evil", and that, like North Korea and Iran, Iraq's attempt to acquire weapons of mass destruction posed a serious threat to U.S. national security.

        However, according to a comprehensive U.S. government report, no weapons of mass destruction have been found. There are accounts of Polish troops obtaining antiquated warheads, dating from the 1980s, two of which contained trace amounts of the nerve gas cyclosarin, but U.S. military tests found that the rounds were so deteriorated that they would "have limited to no impact if used by insurgents against coalition forces.

        • Ben

          Okay, JasDal. let's look at some facts.

          "There are accounts of Polish troops obtaining antiquated warheads, dating from the 1980s…"

          Oh, they don't count because they're from the 1980's. Maybe you need a few things explained to you. Saddam signed a ceasefire in 1991 that required him to destroy his stockpile of WMD and DOCUMENT THEIR DESTRUCTION. nearly all of those weapons were made in the 1980's. Twelve years later, he still hadn't documented their destruction.

          Actually, Polish troops didn't find just "two" warheads containing trace amounts of nerve agent (not "gas" as you call it). Nearly five hundred weapons have been found.

          Would you believe Wikileaks? http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks

          The only one lying here is you.

          • JasDal

            Accusing people of lying is not nice – unless you have evidence of malicious intent to present a false image of the facts. Do you? If so, let's have it.

            Oh, Wikilleaks. Evidence. Let's go check it out… ah, mustard gas. Yes, a terrible WMD from WW1. I was kinda expecting a nuke, you know, that giant mushroom cloud thing Bush got the whole US terrified about – scared enough to illegally invade another country on false pretenses without a declaration of war.

            So you fought for oil. Just face the facts. You bought the lie of fighting for democracy and saving the homeland from WMDs.

            Can you handle the truth, soldier?

      • Dave

        Boogey you do realise that those stock piled weapons you speak of were provided by the US government, and their use against Iraq's neighbours (Iran) was also given the go-ahead by the USG??

        • Ben

          Not true. Even if it were true, so what?

          You can't simultaneously assert that there were no weapons and that the non-existent weapons were provided by America.

          • JasDal

            "The WMD diehards will likely find some comfort in these newly-WikiLeaked documents. Skeptics will note that these relatively small WMD stockpiles were hardly the kind of grave danger that the Bush administration presented in the run-up to the war."

  • http://www.boycottscotland.com Edward

    MORON Paul is a fascist.

    I've heard that MORON Paul is a protege of lyndon larouche.

    Lyndon Larouche and the New American Fascism http://www.amazon.com/Lyndon-Larouche-New-America

    They both have a bunch of fanatic sickos who support them – at the expense of their personal well being.

    MORON Paulers are as sane as the mourners at the funeral of the dead dictator of North Korea.

    • tonythenbrain

      Umm, you do realize libertarianism is anti-fascism, right? I mean, seriously, you do realize it's an anti-big government philosophy, so it cannot be fascist, right? Fascism is a philosophy that puts the state above the individual. It's also akin to nationalism…which is what you are if you support these wars and not the people (our country). We are pro-individual, anti-state…you would be the oppsoite of that if you're neoconservative. Neocon is a philosophy that leads to fascism, logically, as it endears itself to nationalism.

      • Boogey

        He was referring to the hating "zionists" part of fascism which is a valid tenant. So go try your semantics BS somewhere else. It doesn't fly at the adult table. Grow up and learn the definition of "neocon" which you throw around like a fool. Paul is a racist and a foreign policy moron.

        • JasDal

          Oh Mr. Boogey, you seem to love throwing insults at people. Is it possible for you to converse with someone who has a different opinion than you have without using insults? From looking at your comments, I expect an insult as your thoughtful reply – but maybe you will surprise me.

      • http://www.boycottscotland.com Edward

        tonythenobrain,

        MORON Paul and his fascist brand of "libertarianism" leads to fascism. Just look at who MORON Paul supports, the genocidal Islamic Republic of Iran. MORON Paul believes that the IRoI has the right to nuclear weapons – ignoring the IRoI genocidal rants "Death to America".

        Iran wants "Death to America" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHoVuFlrcjA

        And once again, notice how frenetic MORON Paul supporters shout and rant. Looks just like the fascists behind Lydon LaRouche.

      • http://www.themadjewess.wordpress.com MAD JEWESS

        IF you are anti fascists, STOP being bossy and authoritarian.

      • http://www.themadjewess.wordpress.com MAD JEWESS
    • Boogey

      Yes he is! Paul is an anti-Semitic fool.

  • Joe

    I’m sure when texans fight Russian troops that would include fighting pro Russian Americans and targeting ethnic minorities to take advantage of the lawlessnesss

    Al Qaeda and Taliban are two different things

    Since America supports terrorist in iran. , iran will support anti American terrorst

    • Dr_Funk

      Can you rephrase that as a coherent sentence, please?

      What "terrorist" is America supporting in Iran, you dips***?

    • http://www.boycottscotland.com Edward

      Joe, since you love the Islamic Republic of Iran, PLEASE be a human shield, stand next to one of the Iranian nuke weapons development sites.

      I hope you get a first hand look at projected American power.

  • Joe

    American troops are immune from afghan laws and literally now up everything o into people homes in the middle of the night …. Hearts and minds ? Lol more like f16s first think later
    Americans destroy ppls home just to build forward operating bases

  • tonythenbrain

    "The analogy, of course, is to our own troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, which Paul and his supporters cite as the reason Islamic fundamentalists hate us, along with such other offenses as our military bases on Saudi soil."

    Cite is correct, as it's concept called BLOBACK that the CIA teaches and is PROVEN in several large exhaustive studies on the matter, including some CITED in the 9/11 Commision Report which even neoconservatives in favor of interventionist foreign policy like Paul Wolfawitz said was accurate, prompting us to WITHDRAW from Saudi holy lands to stop antagonizing those who would use terrorism to attack our populace.

    The problem you have is that you won't face the facts. You'll contine to slander us as propogating an "outrageous slur", but it's no less true.

    • Boogey

      Do you know the history of Muslim Jihad! Do you know why there were crusades? Do you know the reason for the Spanish inquisition? Have you ever heard of the Barbary pirates and why they attacked and enslaved US seamen from the very first days we were a country? The Marines were OUR BLOWBACK! Read why they are called leathernecks and why we had to fight after years of non-interventionism and even paying them off. Read what the Sultans said why they were attacking us… A nickel to the Pauler who gets this answer correct. I bet you don't care and still believe Ron Paul's anti American lies.

      • http://www.boycottscotland.com Edward

        Boogey, You DA MAN, Da Boogey Man!

    • 2012

      Jihad has been going on for 14 hundred years. Bin Laden and other terrorists need to justify their aggression as a defensive jihad so they blame US troops in Iraq or Saudi Arabia or whatever. This is an excuse to gain Muslim support since a defensive jihad must be supported. But look at the private communications between the terrorists, these communications tell their real motive. The terrorists are motivated by Islam. They are clear on this. Once we leave Iraq, they will simply find another excuse.

    • Dr_Funk

      You'll get blowback from standing up to a bully.

      That doesn't mean its not the right thing to do.

    • http://www.themadjewess.wordpress.com MAD JEWESS

      There is no such thing as 'blowback' with Islam.
      If you REALLY believe this, tell it to Spain, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway-ALL of which experience Islam insanity, rapings, beatings,. ETC and they are NOT involved in ANY of our wars. NONE.
      So, they are suffering this 'blowback' for America-
      KOO KOO KOO KOO
      -
      So, sell that CRAZY "blowback" theory to the pot-smokers for Paul-they will believe you, because most of them are on mind-altering drugs.

  • tonythenbrain

    Part 2:

    In FACT, we do go house to house in neighborhoods and ramsack homes. In FACT, we do try to win hearts and minds in a strategy (a failed strategy that has only worked once for us in the Phillipines) called COIN (nation-building; COunter INsurgency). This ties the hands of our troops in an attempt to NATION-BUILD, not win a war. It's an open-ended strategy that lasts a PLANNED 10-20 years or MORE. This is NOT debatable, it's FACT. Anyone who nows anything about Black-Ops knows this. Talk to a CIA agent and find out for yourself.

    • Boogey

      Your facts are lies and completely wrong. Go troll somewhere else.

      • JasDal

        fact/fakt/
        Noun:
        "A thing that is indisputably the case."

        Get your facts right, Boogey.

      • AL__

        He is just a pothead

  • tonythenbrain

    Part 3:

    You can continue to sophisticly turn a blind eye to the causes of suicide terrorism in fully 98% of the cases (this is real statistic from the most strenuous study ever done on the subject just a a few years ago), but then you will continue to assert the very "cure" you give us isn't the actual cause of the disease you're attemting to cure. Interventionism causes terrorism, end of story. Only about 70% of cases are muslim, the 98% are occupied people or those whose governments are unpopular and propped up by foreign nations like ours. Your correlation is not causation. We identified the causation in the 1970s, for God's Sake! Wake up already, before it's too late and we're attacked yet again.

    • Boogey

      The reason is we are infidels. Why don't you people ever listen to the terrorists? Why don't you read a history book and discover that it is the entire history of the Muslim world. It is a Jihad that their book demands them to see through. See also: Barabry pirates, The Crusades as response, etc…

    • http://www.themadjewess.wordpress.com MAD JEWESS

      Nevermind all of that.
      Please tell us WHY Conservative people would 'like' R Pauls DADT repeal. WHY would they want legalized prostitution and drugs, or gay marriage?
      you aint a Conservative LOL

  • tonythenbrain

    Part 4:

    The number one perpetrators of suicide terrorism were the Tamil Tigers…they are Marxist athiests from Sri Lanka (India) who kill Buddhists. They are born into Hundu families largely, before becoming atheists. They killed more people than Al Queada, Hamas, And Hezbollah COMBINED. They invented the suicide bomb vest the Palestinians later copied. They did it because they were occupied by their government during a secessionist movement…similar to the KKK's terrorist activites when the North occupiued the South post-Civil War during Reconstruction. Once the North pulled out of the South, the KKK began to lose it's recruitment tool (occupation) and it slowly dwindled into obscurity. The Klan is still a terrorist organization deemed by Congress since the 1860s, but it has not actively terrorized anyone for years. Why? NO OCCUPATION. Evil ideas, whether religious or not, cannot recruit people to sacrifice their lives to suicide attacks or prison if they are not properly motivated by slaughter OR occupation (or both, of course).

    • Boogey

      Pure crap. Denies actual history of Islam.

    • Da Macha

      I stopped reading your drivel when you wrote Sri Lanka (India).. They are 2 different countries you idiot.. It is just like writing Mexico (USA)… Moron..

  • tonythenbrain

    Part 6:

    So why then do you avoid the light of reason and make illogical assertions contrary to all facts on the matter that we are at war with Islamic fundamentalism, not the unintended consequences of our own covert foreign policy?

    And COVERT is the operative word here (no pun inteneded). Blowback means unintended consequences of foreign policy that the public is not privy to…not just unintended consequences. This leads to questions like "why do they hate us?", and erroneous answers like "because they are religious extremists". When the public is not aware of the things we are doing in the CIA, this is what happens…ignorantly blaming the wrong thing.

    • Paul of Alexandria

      Um, so how do you propose to keep classified information classified? There's a reason that this stuff is kept secret – to protect sources and means. Unfortunately, there's no way to let the "public" know what we're doing and not let the enemy know also.

      • JasDal

        Yes, of course. Secrets must be kept – always for pure reasons of course:

        Operation Northwoods
        "According to secret and long-hidden documents, the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government – a fake terrorist attack on citizens.

        Code named Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.

        One idea seriously considered involved the launch of John Glenn, the first American to orbit the earth. On February 20, 1962, Glenn was to lift off from Cape Canaveral, Florida, on his historic journey. The flight was to carry the banner of America’s virtues of truth, freedom, and democracy into orbit high over the planet. But Lemnitzer and his Chiefs had a different idea. They proposed to Lansdale that, should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, “the objective is to provide irrevocable proof that the fault lies with the Communists et al Cuba.

        - PDF file showing the original documents: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northw

  • tonythenbrain

    Part 7:

    There is a difference between patriotism and nationalism. Nationalism supports your government over your country (the people are the country, not the government; this is where it helps to know the actual meanings of words, not their colloquial uses). Patriotism is supporting the people all the time (the country), and your government when it DESERVES it. It does not deserve it on covert foreign policy and failled strategies like COIN, that we have failed at from Vietnam until now. It gets our troops killed by forcing them to follow stupid limits on the rules of engagement as to "win hearts and minds", because nation-building only works if the populace sides with the occupying force (please look up COIN). It also doesn't work EVER if the people we are occupying do not want us there. Nation-building is just stupid. There is no real evidence it works even 50% of the time (in fact, the evidence shows it works closer to 10% of the time).

    • Paul of Alexandria

      Just as a note, most of the Iraqis and even Afghanis actually like us over these, since we keep down the extremists. We were not really fighting the Iraqis in Iraq, we were fighting Iranian-paid guerrillas.

      • JasDal

        Yes, and the native Indians in the US loved having the Europeans come in and "protect them" by occupying their land.

        How about some nice Russian or Chinese troops to come and stay in the US to "protect" you from all those terrible Columbian-paid drug criminals? Americans actually would like that so they can keep down the extremists.

  • tonythenbrain

    Part 8:

    Be a patriot, support reason and logic, and the end to the use of COIN for the sake of our civilians safety and our soldiers lives. Don't be a nationalist and support the government when they're dead wrong and refuse to inform the public (who are largely sheep who will believe any non-sense the media perpetuates via CIA propaganda in clandestine operations called psy-ops). You need to read on your own on the subject. Get your nose out of the Koran for a few weeks and read a few books on the study of the causes of suicide terrorism. We've all reviewed the hateful things preached in Islamic fundamentalist circiles…but we've also, as patriots, read the studies on terrorism.

  • tonythenbrain

    Part 9:

    Start with Professor Robert Pape's book "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism". It's one of the most in depth studies ever done on every suicide terrorist attack in the last 30 years (since the phenomenon began). He's a conservative, and he has yet to have his study attacked by any credible sources. You can read an interview and some of his stats at an interview he did for the American Conservative Magazine. Just google or bing "Robert Pape Dying to Win American Conservative" and click the first link. I am not associated with him or that site, btw.

    Good luck. I hope you leave behind zombie nationalism and become a patriot. Too many who have served this nation have died for a bad strategy only to make us less safe. Too many more have survived it, but become brainwashed nationalists. But, there are many, and growing, that are waking up from that brainwashing and learning the truth for themselves by way of education and facts. Patriotism isn't an emotion or a religion…it's a product of reason and logic that God gave us.

    God Bless America.

  • tonythenbrain

    Please excuse any typos, have a nice day.

    • Boogey

      Typos cause terrorism!

    • David Tsal

      I'll excuse the typos. What do I do with the message?

      The CIA is infiltrated and practically works for Arab oil sheikhs. It’s completely unreliable.

      CIA's former high-level official Michael Scheuer has since shown himself to be a person thoroughly confused by his own Jew-hatred.

      "The number one perpetrators of suicide terrorism were the Tamil Tigers. … They killed more people than Al Queada, Hamas, And Hezbollah COMBINED"

      No, sorry, I don't buy it.

      First off, how does one even know how many people Hamas or Hezbollah have killed? Who is counting those innocent Palestinian Arabs murdered by Hamas for mere suspicion of working for Israel (and in reality – for anything at all)?
      (cont.)

      • David Tsal

        Second, the movement for Tamil independence from Sri Lanka is represented by Tamil Tigers alone. The cause of global Islamization is represented not only by the three organizations you mentioned, but by Taliban, Ansar al-Islam, Muslim Brotherhood, Hisb ut-Tahrir, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Islamic Jihad, Boka Haram, Tehrik-e-Taliban, World Islamic Front, Islamic Salvation Front, Jamaah Islamiyah, Abu Sayyaf, Groupe Islamique Armee, Salafist Group for Call and Combat, Salafia Jihadia, Riyadus-Salikhin, Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Jund al-Sham, Jemaat al-Tawahid wal Jihad, Jaish Ansar Al-Sunnah, Islamic Army in Iraq, Jaish Muhammad, Lions of the Peninsula, Army of Heaven, Jamaat ul-Fuqra, Al-Shabab, Islamic Defenders Front, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Indian Mujahideen, Mahdi Army, Hizbul Moujahedeen, Harakat al Ansar, Al-Islah, Hofstad Netwerk, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Students Islamic Movement of India, Al-Itihaad Al-Islamiya, Kabardino-Balkarian Islamic Jammat, and many others.

        So if you want to do comparisons with Tamil Tigers, please compare them with all this put together.

        And Tamil Tigers have been destroyed… how?

        Yes, exactly. By military means.

        • David Tsal

          "Evil ideas, whether religious or not, cannot recruit people to sacrifice their lives to suicide attacks or prison if they are not properly motivated by slaughter OR occupation (or both, of course)."

          Oh yes they can!!! When were you born? Yesterday? Have you studied anything at all about human history?

          Please don't assault the readers' intelligence with this propagandistic demagoguery.

          You are a perfect example of this mass insanity of Ron Paul's supporters that scares me the most. There is this goody-goody madness in the heart of too many Americans, and the whole country – no, the whole world – will pay for this.

          I actually looked up "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism" on Amazon, and it doesn't look nearly as bad as your writings here.

          So the core problem is with you. The book deals only with suicide terrorism. This is by far not the only threat to the U.S.
          (cont.)

          • David Tsal

            Here is the phrase that seems to be the key in the book: "Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland."

            And the key word here is "consider.”

            Who was occupying Algeria in 1992, when Islamic Salvation Front launched a civil war? Who is occupying Philippines today? Just look at Abu Sayyaf.

            Maybe in the crazy minds of Abu Sayyaf, the U.S. is still occupying Philippines. Maybe in the crazy mind of Muslims of the Americas Inc (American branch of Jamaat ul-Fuqra) most Americans are Muslims, occupied by white hegemony. Maybe in the crazy mind of Hitler, Germany was occupied by Jewish interests.

            We need army, navy, police, FBI to keep this nuttiness form ruling us. We have learned this from many thousands of years of human conflict and self-inflicted misery.

            And now Ron Paul and his supporters are about to let all this practical knowledge go to waste. And America – into dark ages. And the rest of the world with it.

  • bsrighthere

    Start with Professor Robert Pape's book "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism". It's one of the most in depth studies ever done on every suicide terrorist attack in the last 30 years (since the phenomenon began)

    Umm, say this with me. Kamikaze!!!

    • http://www.boycottscotland.com Edward

      How were the Kamikazes defeated? Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

      How can Jihadi be defeated? Hijack the Kabba of Mecca.

      End Jihad or Kabba is destroyed – video on Internet.

  • combatairman

    I used to be a Ron Paul supporter and was starting to waiver after I read the terrible things in his hateful newsletter. After reading your sound logic here I feel like the blinders are off. I can't believe I fell for his lies. Now I'm reading the comments and I'm sorry I used to be one of those people. I hope we can all wake up to the truth. Ron Paul is anti American and the fervor for him is frightening.

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

    As a skillful demagogue, Ron Paul speculates on some truthful issues about America, yet distorts them to his advantage.

    Yes, the recent (if not all) external policy of America was hectic rather than well motivated strategically. This includes the military exercises of the recent years. Islamic war could be and ought to be ended on 9/12/2001 by nuking Mecca and Medina (without losing even one American soldier). That stellar moment was missed, and what followed did deserve a criticism, but not by a fake " non-interventionist" of the Ron Paul type.

    A fake non-interventionist and fake "constitutionalist" Ron Paul is all for intervention of islam into America. In fact he paves the way for islamization of America even more. In fact, he does not even acknowledge that America is an exclusively Judeo-Christian nation.

    Ron Paul negates the very fact that islam is at war with America and the entire Western world. He completely misunderstands both the enemies of America, and America itself: her role and God's mission. Due to that alone he is unfit for presidency being rather a national threat to America – just like the sitting impostor in the White House

    • JasDal

      dem·a·gogue – "A political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument."

      Alexander, you sure fit that description. Wanting people to put other people in a group and then hate them so you can justify your religious war, see your biblical Armaggedon happen in the Middle East and see Jesus come in his 2nd Glory.

      Sorry, I don't buy your paranoid conspiracy theory.

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

        The "other people" (called "moslems") established "a group" themselves in the 7th century being at war against the rest of the world since then for the last 1400 years. So it is their (not mine) religious war, whose recent "successful" acts of war took place in New York, Washington, London, Madrid, Moscow, Beslan, Mumbai, Bali, in Africa, and yes in the Middle East… One must be particularly blind to not acknowledge this war or to hope to win it by wishing it away.
        http://www.resonoelusono.com/Imminent.htm

        • JasDal

          Sorry buddy, I'm not interested in your call for volunteers to join your Christian Crusade against the Muslims. The West has been doing that for 400 years. I'm not interested in any of this religious paranoia that wants me to go kill someone for Jesus (or whatever other god you want to die for).

          "Summing Up the Period 1370s–1520s
          In sum, throughout this period, religion helped to generate conflicts, albeit only on the fringes of Europe. Yet although these wars were waged in Christendom’s borderlands, men from Central and Western Europe were consistently drawn to them, motivated by religious fervor and particularly by the concept of “crusade.”

          Patterns were set that were to be important in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when Christendom and Islam directly confronted each other, even while Catholic and Protestant tore Christendom apart.

          In particular, the enduring emotional appeal of the crusade was to be extremely influential.

          In 1494 King Charles VIII of France had made serious plans to crusade against the Turks. He told one of his confidants that he would “not shed any more blood, nor expend his treasure [on wars with Christians] until he had overturned the empire of the Ottomans or taken the road to Paradise.”

          So powerful was the concept of crusade in Western culture that Protestants, as well as Catholics, were to be influenced by it in waging the confessional wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; crusading was to be the model for Christians fighting the Ottomans and for Catholics and Protestants fighting each other.

          It was a model of great heroism and commitment on campaign and in combat, but frequently of great brutality and cruelty as well, one which tended to entrench rather than erode enmity between adherents of different faiths and confessions. As we shall see in the next article, the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century wars of religion were to be among the largest, most long-lasting, and most sanguinary conflicts in history, unmatched before the wars of the twentieth century." http://www.libertymagazine.org/index.php?id=1616

  • Stephan

    Okay, so this Paul analogy is saying that for a democracy to invade a dictatorship, is morally equal to a dictatorship invading a democracy. Actually that makes no sense logically– those would be virtual exact opposites conceptually. The PURPOSE of the Chinese in Texas would be vastly different from the purpose of the US army abroard. Sensible and sane Iraqis and Afghans are glad we have helped free them from tyranny– that doesn't make them unpatriotic! Quite the opposite. Just the loonies choose to believe this kind of perversion of logic and use it for an excuse to murder people. As Mark states above, a reasoned argument can be made against foreign involvement, but this kind of propaganda is outrageous.

    • Constitutionalist

      Al'Qaida has sent agents, Veteran Jihadists, MASTERS of Propaganda to badly manipulate Afghanis to take up arms against American Soldiers. The fact is there have also been attrocities committed, that would be committed during any war by any Nation, by American Soldiers does not help their case. I've already seen the things a few Soldiers have done, and it's vile, and most of the men there are honourable and good men, but it's like taking a Black Man and shoving him in a Racist White Neighborhood in the 20's right after a massive race riot, and then getting mad when he gets attacked.

  • David Tsal

    Bravo!

    Every time I read or hear anything by Ron Paul or his supporters, I remember the words of Marcus Aurelius:

    "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

    I have yet to se one sane supporter of Ron Paul.

    As for the man himself:

    He is not antisemitic, he is not against American Jews, only doesn't mind the extermination of 6 million European Jews and supports extermination of 6 million Israeli Jews.

    His foreign policy is closest to that of Barack Obama. Only, it's Obama on cocaine.

    He is filled to the brim with crackpot conspiracy nonsense, like "Bush/Cheney wanted 9/11 and allowed it to happen" and "Jews control America" and the general "God damn America" attitude. And also filled with deep-seated prejudices and unconscious fears, like going into restrooms or shaking hands with "certain people."

    Just the man to be American president. (sarcasm).

    • JasDal

      If you want to see a sane supporter of Ron Paul, it would help if your logic was sane.

      "…doesn't mind the extermination of 6 million European Jews and supports extermination of 6 million Israeli Jews…"
      - Of course you have evidence for this. Let's see it. Some sane evidence please. Search 35 years. Get a direct quote from him supporting this statement. That would be a sane thing to do. Let's see what you got.

      You are full of statements – lots of opinions; short on facts.

      Of course, you will give me a sane response here. I expect some insult. Go ahead. I would be shocked otherwise.

      • William

        Nutjob, the poster was making an inference–something you should have learned in school. Of coursem, there is not one quote on some things, but all the evidence you need is present to make the correct inference on Paul.

        • JasDal

          "Of coursem" – spelling is also taught in schools. Next time, pay attention.
          "inference" – start with the one syllable words – spell them right. Then work your way up. Get back to me in a couple of years after you do this.

    • formationrx

      your a dummy

  • oldtimer

    I don't know much about foreign policy but I do study history and RP policies seem to me to be alot like Woodrow Wilson, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that his motto, but we still ended up in WWI. And the League of Nations. What goes round, comes round.

  • DumbPakies

    The writer of this article is your average dumbbss motherfcuking piece of shiitt judeo-christian fcukwit american

    • Stephen_Brady

      You do credit to Ron Paul. Keep it up! Please ….

  • oldtimer

    Motto was, he would keep US out of war. Sorry, forgot to put in my comment.

  • William

    Ron Paul supporters on any criticism: "Illuminati! Illuminati! NeoCons! NeoCons!" Yawn.

    • UCSPanther

      Don't forget to add "zionists!" to that list as well.

      That's another favorite charge of the more openly antisemitic Ron Paul gestapo members.

  • http://www.GodsSabbathRest.us Gary McAleer

    Is this author trapped in the fictional rubbish of The Twilight Zone? Using the words of others as though they are Ron Paul's is bearing false witness in violation of the 9th Commandment. I stand with those who believe WT7 proves all three were marked for demolition on 9/11. People need to realize that these 1st degree murderers and traitors in this nation, from the apostate Christian Bush family to the dogs who prepped the buildings: those who plotted to carry out this atrocity will not hesitate to detonate a nuclear warhead in America before they will step down from their power-mongering dementia. What amazes me is how they calm the conscience through some sense of justification for their sacrifice of innocent life on their altar of ambition. Two things GOD demands from man in that beautiful book called the Bible: 1. Be a man of your word; 2. Never have innocent blood on your hands. It seems our religious leaders disagree.

  • ze-ev ben jehudah

    I like Newt Gingrich to win.He will make a good president.You might not like this
    but I rather have 100 Bushes than one R.Paul and that is for his anti Jewish
    staments. Against all those religious Muslim fanatics who want to kill every Jew
    on this planet and those who think the same and those who rather look the
    other way.Why is it to much to ask for a president who at least for a period of
    4 years would stand on the side of the state of Israel? .

    • Dr_Funk

      Gingrich is one of the most knowledgeable candidates we have when it comes to truly understanding the threat that Islamists pose to the US and its allies (such as Israel).

      I don't know what the future holds, but I have a feeling that someday in the near future, that foreign army prophesied in Joel chapter 2 will be the USAF.

      We Americans will stand with Israel, even if our child of a president does not. Take heart; the next administration will be led by a friend of Israel, I can guarantee you that.

  • http://www.GodsSabbathRest.us Gary McAleer

    If the world honored the Ten Commandments there would be no wars or locks on doors. The Constitution and Bill of Rights perfectly compliment the value of the Ten Commandments. The first four Commandments deal with our relationship with GOD and no one has the right to impose on another their version of obedience. But the last six Commandments deal with our safety with one another. Every crime the world over is due to their transgression. The moniker of Ron Paul is to restore the dignity of our forefather's intent in those documents. And the only reason men historically have trampled them is because they despise the conscience calling for mutual liberty. Its always the childhood game of King of the Hill. As wild animals are tame when they’re young but grow up into fierce predators, so it is with men.

    • Dr_Funk

      "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

      Ron Paul would have us do nothing. Ron Paul campaigns for the triumph of evil throughout the world.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Imagine a Ron Paul Presidency

    Why? There aren't nearly enough Jew haters in the USA for Ron Paul to ever get elected president.

    • Nakba1948

      Earth to nutjob: this election isn't about Jews. This may be difficult for fringe nuts like you to accept, but the world doesn't revolve around you.

    • formationrx

      fail…….

  • Winghunter

    To Get Ron Paul's Insanity, You Have To Understand Libertarianism
    "Libertarianism is to authentic conservatism what Barack Obama is to 19th century liberalism" http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/to_get_ron

    • Dr_Funk

      Ron Paul isn't even a libertarian. He's a strange, left-anarchist anomaly.

  • FriendofGaryCooper

    Ron Paul will not get the Republican nomination. So I'm not worried about this mealy
    mouthed whiny voiced isolationist crackpot getting into the White House. I am, however, concerned that he will run as an independent, and attract votes which would otherwise go to the Republican candidate; thus handing Obama victory.

    • Stephen_Brady

      What wll happen is that "America Elect 2012" will get on the ballot in all 50 states. When they hold their "online convention" next Sping, the Paulbots will vote early and often, and give him the "nomination".

      Of course, he will not win the general election. But he will hand four more years to BHO on a silver platter. He has too much ego not to "accept" such a nomination, and he and his wild-eyed followers … note, I don't say supporters (they go far beyond just supporting him) … will be responsible for the end of America, as we know it.

  • Brain

    If Ron Paul were to win the Primary Election, not only would he end up with the republican voters vote, he would get the libertarian vote, young vote, some democrat votes, and most of the independent vote whereas Obama would only get the democrat vote. Romney and Santorum would only get the Republican vote and the young and independent votes would go to some random third party out of protest for the two boneheads claiming to be the only legitimate candidates.

    • Dr_Funk

      No, its precisely the opposite. All of the Republicans would stay home, and Obama would win by a landslide.

  • joy52

    Some want our troops home for other reasons, such as we don't like seeing blood and treasure wasted. We don't care about nation-building and we don't feel bad if somebody does not like us. There are a few good ideas coming from Ron Paul, but he is a 76 yr. old kook who has too narrow support to be president. Take his good ideas and leave the bad.

  • http://www.GodsSabbathRest.us Gary McAleer

    "Imagine" men took the time to review Ron Paul's legislation bills of recent years
    1. Ron Paul’s American Sovereignty Act of 2009 (forbidding all foreign dictates overruling our Constitutional Liberty)
    2. The Federal Reserve Transparency Act (forcing the exposing of the greatest financial hoax and heist of human history: the meltdown of '08).
    3. American Travelers Dignity Act of 2011 (forbidding the sex-offender groping of any and all airline passengers by the TSA)
    "Imagine" how none could find one immoral statement within these bills. And yet the bribing, blackmailing lobbyists put the pressure on. The corpocrisy rules politics, not because there is any virtue in their manipulation: it has nothing to do with America's benefit, and Americans either believe the disinformation, or don't care, or their willfully blind to the plunder in their blunder!

  • Richard Johnston

    Imagine having a president who wouldn't have gotten the U.S. into two failed, costly wars! Imagine not bankrupting the country! One popular dig on Paul was that 99% of the legislation he sponsored never became law. Given the consequences of the legislation sponsored by so many others that did become law, this shouldn't be considered a dig but instead an asset.
    Beam me up Scotty; there's no intelligent life down here.

  • Foreigner

    Paul is not isolationist, he is pro-Open Borders, against border fence with Mexico, etc.

    Of course he is a fool. Libertarianism can only work with european people's, not with all peoples. If you implement libertarianism among somalis or mexicans you will not get an enlightened society, you will get anarchy. And thats what will eventually happen in America too, because of changing demographics.

    • Dr_Funk

      Correction: libertarianism can only work with MORAL AND ENLIGHTENED people. Race has nothing to do with it, you bigot.

  • mrbean

    Ron Paul is: “A Complete Nutcase Conspiratorialist Quasi-Anti-Semitic Leftwing American-Hating Nutball.” when you follow the money given to the Ron Paul Campaign – you discover some frightening details about the ideologues who are supporting Ron Paul for President. They are not Conservatives, or Republicans, or Constitutionalists – they are rabid Anti-American moveOn.org Leftists that are using the Ron Paul campaign to sabotage the GOP and they are attracting a host of GOP disaffected conservatives and anti-war pacifists to a banner that will do more harm than any good. Ron Paul does not have the tempermant nor the intelligence for the presidency.

  • UCSPanther

    Between the personality cults of Obama and Paul, I fear for the future of America.

    I want a Ronald Reagan, or a Margaret Thatcher or a Stephen Harper in the Whitehouse, not some questionable politician with a highly questionable record.

  • coyote3

    Unfortunately, Dr. Paul, has fallen for the "America is to blame" rhetoric. It is shame, I would like to support him, if he would frame the issue a little differently. The U.S., should not use its military power for nation building, and establishing U.S. bases, not because we go from house to house terroizing and killing people or not. The reason is, because, many times there is no constitutional authority for us to do it in the first place. It is called the rule of law, and enforcing the constitution, pursuant to the oath that these people took. I didn't get to enforce only the laws I believed were just, regardless of the consequences. Another good reason, is that all of the miserable corrupt sheetholes and untermenchen in the entire world are not worth the life of one G.I. They are simply not worthy of our sacrifice. Let's leave the along, ALL ALONE, and watch them eat each other.

  • Ghostwriter

    I've said it before,I'll say it again. Ron Paul lives in a fantasy world. We need people who base their policies on reality,not their own personal fantasies. Both Ron Paul and Barack Obama are stuck in the Land of Make-Believe. We should elect someone who lives in the real world,not Never-Never Land.

  • formationrx

    The fact is the majority of Americans do not want more wars. Whatever ESTABLISHMENT WARMONGER the republicans put up– they will LOSE. Obama totally sucks, but people will not risk getting someone worse. If Ron Paul were to get the nomination– I think he would have a serious shot at winning. He is different– and sometimes different is all it takes. Ok bring on the nasty comments and OYM– your rant sucks even before you start ranting.

  • AL__

    Part 10 : tonythebraindeadrone drinks the water of his bong

  • Grayrider

    President Paul's America will sorta be like Somolia only with more firearms

  • Constitutionalist

    Keep labelling Ron Paul " delusional " and voting in Republicans and Democrats. They aren't getting any thing done, and the nation is in a downward spiral. And you guys want to fix this by voting in more Republicans and Democrats? You're fooling yourself if you believe voting a guy in like Mitt Romney into office will fix anything at all. If you think Ron Paul's foreign policy is so delusional then go look up Military contributions to Ron Paul. He decimates every single other candidate, end of story. No theories, no conspiracies, cold hard facts. I think the Service Members know best about THEIR Military. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result. Enough with the partisan bickering of Republicans and Democrats, elect someone who is going to get something done, and stop with your bickering or trying to tear other candidates down for every little thing because you don't like them, because you look no worse than Liberals complaining about George W. Bush.

  • patrickfitzmichael

    I used to support Ron Paul because I'm gay and I thought he cared about my liberty. But then I learned more about him. He's a theocrat thug like the rest of them.

    I blogged my heart out about it here:
    http://twogaybullies.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/ron