Live by the Sword, Die by the Drone

Ronald Ernest Paul, the nation’s last best hope for Internet gambling and the gold standard, responded to the murder of a Navy SEAL by saying, “He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.” But the question is whose sword is it?

To the anti-war movement, all conflicts between the free world and the world of slaves are reduced to a pithy formula of moral equivalence. America lifted the sword and has gone on swinging it. It never puts the sword down and therefore it dies by it. Chris Kyle becomes a metaphor for the great beast of war, unleashed by the Rockefellers, the CIA, the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve, that goes around swinging the sword until it destroys itself.

The far left and the far right agree on few things, but they both agree that America’s wounds in the War on Terror are self-inflicted. America creates terrorism through its foreign policy and fights terrorism thereby perpetuating terrorism. Islamic terrorism is just a figment of our foreign policy. Put down the sword, is the implication, and the fighting can stop. Keep fighting back and eventually more planes will fly into your skyscrapers as blowback for all the fighting back that you did before.

Moral equivalence would have it that all swords are created equal, much as gun control advocates insist that a rifle in the hands of a hunter is no different than a rifle in the hands of a serial killer. A gun is a gun and a sword is a sword. If you own one, you’re likely to use it. And if you use it, then you are utterly evil, regardless of the reason you use it and the purpose that you use it for.

In the school of thought embraced by such students of history as Oliver Stone, Noam Chomsky and Ron Paul, the sword is the massive steel blade of empire that is borne by the strongest power. Followers of this school of thought style themselves realists. Their sword of empire realism, however, fails to encompass the history and ambitions of over a billion people, their theology, their dreams and their internal conflicts.

To the realists, over a thousand years of Islamic history hardly carries any weight compared to the doings of ARAMCO and the CIA. There is a certain unrealism to such realism. The realist may be a cynic, but if he, like the World War II labor unions in the UK who told their members that the American soldiers weren’t coming to fight Hitler but to break up labor strikes, follows a realism mired in petty cynicism that cannot see past last week, then his realism is really ignorant cynicism masquerading as history.

The revisionist history of the realists blames America by beginning with America. America is the axis around which the world revolves. There was no Islam before America and if America sinks into the ocean, the realists must assume that Islamic terrorism will go with it, unless the Zionist Entity sticks around and continues infuriating the otherwise peaceful peoples of the Middle East whose brief history of violence only commenced in 1948 or 1917.

Anti-war activists cannot spend too much time contemplating the other side. The anti-war position automatically picks the other side and because of the innate whiff of treason in such a choice, it must justify that treason by utterly damning and demonizing its own side. It cannot afford nuance at home, though it often calls for it abroad, because to concede complexity is to endanger its own moral standing.

The only thing standing between the anti-war movement and treason is its ceaseless effort to demonize its own government, soldiers and people as monsters. If it lowers that sword of invective for a moment and accepts that they are less than monsters, then its moral standing falls apart.

The anti-war movement can only maintain its moral standing through extremism and hate. Its activism is an eternal war fought against an endless war whose existence justifies their existence.

Each war, whether it is against Communism or Islamism, tribal warlords or world powers, reaffirms their thesis that their country is a bloody monster, an empire of skulls ruled over by warlords who live by the sword and then die by it.

Pearl Harbor, the sinking of the Lusitania and the Maine, September 11 and the Pueblo Incident all blend together into one false flag operation; a single continuous historical event with a single explanation. And the explanation is the Great American Sword that sets up bases to extract oil, drugs and arms deals along with all the other trappings of empire. It is the answer that answers everything. Even the question of why the wars don’t stop.

And what of the sword of Islam, its hilt inlaid with emeralds, its blade clotted with infidel blood, which was sweeping across the world a thousand years before some Virginia farmers got together to discuss theories of government? What was it that made that sword rise and fall, before the oil companies and the Israeli lobby, before arms dealers and neo-conservatives, and all the other crutches on which the realists hobble their lame revisionist history?

Uncle Sam did not raise the sword. Uncle Mohammed did, more years ago than anyone can count, and the sword has never been lowered since. As long as Mohammed is at the gates, Sam cannot put down the sword and spend all his time discussing monetary theory or social justice. Not if he expects to still be wearing his head by morning.

A war is not a dance, though there is some circling and some tricky steps. It is not a mutual agreement, but a historical collision. It does not take two to wield a sword. It does however take two to achieve a stalemate. It is this stalemate, a war that falls short of war, whether it is a Cold War or a War on Terror, that the anti-war movement hates and needs. It is this indefinite endless war that animates its thesis and sustains its ideology.

The Muslim world has chosen to live by the sword and the free world must learn to use the sword, if it is not to live under their swords. But there is a difference between these two swords, between the Sword and the Colt, which made all men equal, and the sword and the drone. It is the same as the difference between Sparta and Athens and between Mecca and Jerusalem.

There are nations and peoples that live by the sword, producing nothing of worth, living and priding themselves on their plunder while remaining deaf to their own worthlessness outside the realm of the sword. And there are nations and peoples to whom the sword is a tool, rather than a final answer, an implement which works alongside the hoe and the pen and the many other implements that make a society great.

A great nation does not live by the sword; it uses the sword to keep its way of life free from those who do live by the sword.

In such a society where many professions are possible, most free from risk of death, the man who picks up the sword, who pledges to hold the sword so that others may work, not only does not live by the sword, but also makes it possible for his entire society to live free of the sword.

The death of such a man is a tragedy for those who understand that the sword can only be opposed by a sword, and that freedom is won at the cost of resisting slavery, but is a cause for celebration to those who imagine that when the last of their countrymen who carries a sword dies, the endless war will finally end.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.


    First, BDS (boycott, divest, sanction) any project that the Ronald Ernest Paul is connected with.

    When it comes to "live by the sword",

    there is a sword on the saudi arabian flag,

    there are crossed swords over a highway in Iraq

    swords are used to behead people in islamofasicst regimes and terrorist gangs

    • JacksonPearson

      This comment was just another throughout his long career, of a long line of Ron Paul gaffes. He just doesn't know when to fold em, and disappear from American politics in his old age.

      Paul's very much aware that Special Forces like the Seals are exactly what they're advertised as, trained killers. I'm glad we have them, and wish we more of them scattered out world wide.


        ANOTHER MORON Paul?!!!

        HIt him where it hurts most – in his wallet.

        • JacksonPearson

          I don't think Ron Paul needs any more cash. He supposedly pocketed plenty of unspent cash between the 2008, and 2012 elections for a pretty good retirement, in addition to the retirement he earned while being a congressman.

          • 4_Constitution

            Check out his latest one JP.

            Ron Paul goes to the UN to DEMAND he get the rights to the domain names of which confiscates it from the owner who bought it five years ago.

            I thought he was against foreign entanglements and the UN?! It just comes down to one thing with this guy: money. I blame the 1,9 million people who wrote this guy in as one of the biggest reasons we lost and ended up with Obama maybe for life.

  • AdinaK

    Immoral equivalence, aka moral relativism, is killing the west. Those who are reflexively anti-war are part of the problem. Whether they are far left radicals or from the far right, the fact of the matter is that they are contributing to the west's downfall, chiefly by tying its hands!

    In fact, if not for their misguided and twisted constructs, the world would not be witnessing the US knee deep in its support of the Muslim Brotherhood Mafia, both inside and outside its shores.

    In other words, while the west's enemies live & die by the sword, the above "leading lights" feign the (im)moral high ground, all the while innocents are slaughtered around them. Averting their eyes won't absolve them of their crimes of omission, by refusing to come to liberty's defense.

    Pray tell, how would Ronnie and crew prefer to beat them back, as they infiltrate and penetrate on US shores too –

    Perhaps he recommends a fly swatter!

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel –

    • Asher

      I agree, the so called moral high ground is complacency, and a lack of determination to defeat our enemies, or usually paybacks for their states. Oddly the politicians think by siding with their enemies that they and their families will be safe..another big misconception.

    • JacksonPearson

      If any Washington politician had it back ass-wards on the Middle East, it's Ron Paul. But then again, Paul had a lot of Muslim money and support coming in during his presidential run which leaves very little explanation for his position.

      Plus, for an old established congress critter, he doesn't understand, or doesn't want to understand the "1973 War Powers Act," which was used in Afghanistan and Iraq. He continuously, and hypocritically carps about ALL of the Middle East wars being unconstitutional, while omitting the fact that our enemies first declared war on us, then attacked. Oh yes, and the first war was declared by Islam against civilization in the 6th century, of which continues against us in the West today…by the very same Islamic thinking people that Paul's accepting contributions from.

    • EarlyBird

      Where would you put yourself and 98% of others on this board, if not on the "far right"? Paul is in his own little universe, but he's hardly in what is conventionally "the far right."

      You don't think you've contributing to a stuffy conservative think tank, do you? You are on the fringes of the fringe.

      • Ziggy Zoggy

        Girlybird, how is defending America from islam's 1400 year old imperial war a "far right" practice?
        How are Paul's anti-Semitic isolationist policies anything but paleocon far right?

        You don't think you're sane, do you? You are on the galactic fringe of loony leftism.

        • JacksonPearson

          He's so far over the edge and stuck in goo, that he'd need a twenty foot extension ladder just to get back up on terra firma.

    • Drakken

      I am reminded that through out history that those who take the high moral ground are always buried in it, islam deserves not the sword, but the gun and the bomb, anything less is defeat at the hands of the savages.

  • FPF

    When the leftist and Islam supremacists smear conservatives like the Bible described "Who whet their tongue like a sword", they will eventually face the same fate as Ron Paul professed.

    People who are denounced as Islamophobic are in reality victimized by them.

    • EarlyBird

      There is a logical reason to fear Islamist terrorist psychopaths who pose a real threat, and so there is nothing "phobic" about that fear.

      The "phobia" comes with lumping every single one of the world's 3.5 billion Muslims into the camps of radical Islam, seeing a terrorist under every bed, and seeing every place they pop up as an existential threat.


        The "phobia" is present at every airport checkpoint, to prevent another 9/11, Pan Am 103, sneaker bomber, underwear bomber.

        • EarlyBird

          That's not "phobia," that's common sense.

          • Ziggy Zoggy

            You're averse to common sense.

      • Mary Sue

        No, that's what the Mainstream Media and the Identity Politics crowd would like you to believe "islamophobia" is.

      • Ziggy Zoggy


        3.5 billion muslims? Half the population of the Earth? Praise be to the moon god and his pedophile prophet! It is a miracle of imbecile conception! Bwah Ha Ha! No matter how many pigs and apes breed there will never be that many of you islamopithecines infesting the Earth. Try 800 million, tops and that's only because you live mostly in the geographical toilets that humanity shuns.

        ALL islamopithecines want their death cult to dominate mankind and that is a fact-as you exemplify. Cheerleading imperialism and terrorism is just as vile as picking up a sword or bomb.

        Islamopithecines have been trying and failing to conquer mankind and subjugate us for 1400 years now. When will you losers develop beyond the Stone Age?

      • Drakken

        There is no moral equivilancy between us westerners and the muslims of whatever stripe, period! Islam is always a threat and has bee since mohamed crawled out of the desert and screwed his first 9 year old, it is funny that the only way your going to wake up to facts is when they are cutting your head of with a dull rusty sword and you screaming but I have a COEXIST sticker on my Prius.

        • Ziggy Zoggy

          A "COEXIST sticker on my Prius." Heh, heh! I can see it now: Those dolts probably park them next to their signs that proclaim "This is a Gun Free Zone."

  • IRL

    "….the sinking of the Lusitania".

    Too bad thse civilians had to die. Their own cynical government used a passenger ship to send munitions to Britain. When he heard the news, I can imagine Roosevelt jumped with joy.

    The Cold War was caused by the US not grasping the threat of communism before it was too late. The de facto alliance with communism during the second world made it immensely powerful, war gave the world communist China, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, communist militias in South America, communist Cuba and a fifth column of the likes of Oliver Stone and Noam Chomsky. Thank you, America!

    Now, even the US population is starting to believe the KGB nonsense that the US is the root of all evil, and even elected their Marxist-in-Chief who apparently is against US hegemony and would like to see it replaced with the likes of Russia and China.

    Looks like you are about to get eaten by your own pet.

    • john butala

      Your response is incorrect and incoherent. For one thing, Woodrow Wilson was president during WWI. For a few other things those conflicts you seem to thing were started by the U.S. were started independent of the U.S. getting involved. Mao, Chiang Kai-Shek, and the Japanese were going at it before WWII….not the U.S. Communist China invaded Korea. We saved S.Korea from going communist. The French were fighting against the communists in Vietnam before we got there. You seem to think we started all the communist insurgencies instead of reacting to them. Stone and Chomsky are communists or communist sympathizers. They hate caplitalism (while getting rich off it). They're incredible hypocrites who saw nothing wrong with communist countries invading other countries. "War gave the world war" just doesn't make sense. Disease gave the world disease?

      • Larry

        Chomsky never ran across a mass murdering totalitarian regime he didn't like. Says it all. In the '50s he was in love with Stalin, in the '60s with Mao, in the '70s with Pol Pot, in the '80s with Khomeini.

        All through it he has had a love affair with the Castros, and now supports Chavez and the MB.

        Says a lot about Chomsky, says even more about the people who adore him and hang off every utterance.

      • IRL

        Sorry, I should have read it better before posting. It was the United States' support of the Soviet Union during the second world war that caused the spread of communism to eastern Europe, Asia, South-America and Africa.

        • Gee

          Total bolvine scatology.

          A guy named Joseph Stalin and the Communist Party were responsible.

          You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Noam Chomsky freely admits that he makes up his own facts just like you

          • IRL

            Your ally Stalin invaded Europe with American trucks, aircraft and boots.

            General Patton was right when he stated: "I understand the situation. Their (the Soviet) supply system is inadequate to maintain them in a serious action such as I could put to them. They have chickens in the coop and cattle on the hoof — that's their supply system. They could probably maintain themselves in the type of fighting I could give them for five days. After that it would make no difference how many million men they have, and if you wanted Moscow I could give it to you. They lived on the land coming down. There is insufficient left for them to maintain themselves going back. Let's not give them time to build up their supplies. If we do, then . . . we have had a victory over the Germans and disarmed them, but we have failed in the liberation of Europe; we have lost the war!"


            FIRST, in 1939, Stalin was any ally of national Socialist Germany.

            Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact

          • JasonPappas

            You have it right. Hitler and Stalin started WWII by invading Poland and dividing between them.

            We got a break when they had a falling out. We could play one against the other and we choose Stalin to help defeat Hitler. Afterwords we kept communism in check until it fell from its internal contradictions.

            We were key in ridding the world of totalitarianism. It took decades and all of our might. If IRL imagines we could be "pure" and fight them both together he has a screw lose. But you guys determined that already. Sorry IRL, your blame-America isn't going over here.

          • IRL

            "We got a break when they had a falling out. We could play one against the other and we choose Stalin to help defeat Hitler. Afterwords we kept communism in check until it fell from its internal contradictions."

            Communism was a much more dangerus ideology than fascism and nazism. Both of the latter were ideological reactions of the right, but what they reacted to and wanted to contain was communism. Without communism they would lose their puspose and, I suspect, would fall apart like fascism after Franco.

            Helping the disease of communism spread was a crime against humanity.

            If you think communism has fallen you are out of your mind. China is run by communists, Russia is run by de facto communists, Cuba is run by communists, Vietnam is run by comunists, etc. Yes, fewer states are run by it than in the past, but China is one of the most powerful communist states ever, and its strength is increasing.

            From the start communism had a stronger theoretical foundation than fascism or nazism, and especially social sciences in academia are therefore riddled with cultural marxism. Even Obama is certainly inspired by communist radicals, and these people have infected every western country with their own deconstruction projects. That is why there is no will and no ethics left even to even combat an iron age cult like Islam. And we owe it to you.

            The US should have marched with Germany on Moscow.

          • JasonPappas

            It’s hard to say what longevity Nazism would have had if it had not been defeated militarily. Nazism was far worse than other fascist or nationalist regimes. That said, I still agree with you that communism was and is far worse. Russia is no longer an imperialist threat but the China story isn’t over yet.

            During the Cold War we chose to align ourselves with many right-wing dictatorships. The cost of defeating either Nazism or Communism (in its first phase) without unsavory allies was too great. Unfortunately we also teamed-up with Islamist states. We were ignorant about Islam (and most people still are.) In retrospect I wished we hadn’t help Afghanistan.

            However, the revival of fundamentalist Islam would have taken place without our help. It is driven by internal considerations within the Muslim world. The spread of communism would have happen without our help as it too was driven by strong ideological forces (that still exist as you note).

            If we helped one devil to defeat another, we made a calculated decision. Even when I wish we would have remained neutral and fund neither side (as I wish we would remain neutral in Syria) our miscalculation isn’t the moral evil that Chomsky, Rothbard, and Paul would have us believe. I'm not unsympathetic to a less involved America … I only phrase it in prudential terms instead of the blame-America condemnation of the left and paleo-right.


            IRL idiotically said:

            "The US should have marched with Germany on Moscow."

            Only problem ignorant IRL, four days after Imperial Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and the US responded by declaring War on IP,

            YOUR national Socialist Fascist Germany declared War on the US, FIRST, BTW..

            The US responded by declaring War on your Fascist Germany.

            Look it up.

            BTW, During WW2, which side was Ireland on?

          • Ziggy Zoggy

            Yes, communism is a disease that has infected the West precicely because the Soviet union and Mao's China (also formed by pu$$ies who capitalized on Allied victories) were allowed to pick up their Empires and keep them.

            I sometimes think America and Britain won the battles but the commies won the Cold War. Time will tell but the insinuation of commie principles into Western society is very real and most people are to ignorant to even realize it-even most of the ret@rds who fervently practice it. Nearly every plank of leftism comes from the commies: Political correctness, open borders, multiculturalism, gun control, wealth redistribution, education as indoctrination, etc.

            Stalin and Mao should have been crushed in 1945.

          • IRL

            A treaty of non-aggression is hardly the same as an alliance. You are basically way off.



            They both WORKED TOGETHER to invade Poland and divide the spoils.


            Socialist Stalin had no problem with Socialist SHlTler until SHlTler broke the pact by invading Russia.

            Stalin wanted in on the invade and take over Europe party.

            You don't make a deal with the devil – and Stalin DID.

            Socialists try to sweep that uncomfortable truth under the rug, but the SHlTler/Stalin Pact was real history.

            There is LOTS more – use Google.

            Google Images "hitler stalin" and you'll see pictures of the time.

            Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact



            They worked together to invade Poland and split it into two spheres of influence.

          • Ziggy Zoggy

            Patton sure as Hell was right and Eisenhower and Truman were wrong.

          • Ziggy Zoggy

            IRL does have a point.

            America didn't cause the spread of communism but it did stupidly allow it. The Soviet union should never have been allowed to capitalize on the victory of the competent and noble Allies to sleaze into a shattered Eastern Europe and set up satrap satellites.

            Plenty of Americans wanted to smash the soviets immediately. Patton was a blowhard but he was right when he said "In ten days I'll have a war on with those Communist bastards, and I'll make it look like their fault." Instead, the war weary real Allies went home and allowed the commies to keep their ill got gains.

            Containment was a joke and it allowed the Russians to go nuclear. Allowing them to consolidate an evil Empire it didn't earn and didn't deserve was bad enough but refusing to nuke the pr1cks after they made their first bomb was idiotic.

            Containment did NOT make the world a better place and it never should have become a policy in the first place.

          • JasonPappas

            I have no problem with criticizing FDR and Truman (in the beginning) for being weak on communism. However, it's not our responsibility to save everyone from communism. Many nations failed to defend themselves against communist aggression. The fact that we had to ally ourselves with one predator to fight another is a sad fact of reality. We later allied ourselves with nationalist dictators that had plenty of blood on their hands. Our concern should be our fighting men and women.

            Note that IRL wanted us to ally ourselves with Hitler to fight Stalin. (IRL said: "The US should have marched with Germany on Moscow.") Obviously if we had done so there would be many who would have put the blood of 5-6 Jews and an equal number of Slavs on our hands (and the totals would have been higher.) So IRL isn't concerned about the victims of our allies. He has another agenda.

          • Ziggy Zoggy

            Jason, no and yes.

            Allowing the commies to flourish was a mistake we are still paying for and it may destroy us in the end.

            I also caught the reference to marching with Germany, and it has disturbing implications but hopefully IRL meant a post hitler Germany.

          • JasonPappas

            Apparently not (see below).

          • IRL

            "Note that IRL wanted us to ally ourselves with Hitler to fight Stalin. (IRL said: "The US should have marched with Germany on Moscow.") Obviously if we had done so there would be many who would have put the blood of 5-6 Jews and an equal number of Slavs on our hands (and the totals would have been higher.) So IRL isn't concerned about the victims of our allies. He has another agenda."

            Let me tell you this much. Many millions of different nationalities were trapped in the Soviet Union without wanting it. Many millions hated communism and would like to see it perish. Six million people in the Ukraine were starved to death by communists in the early 30s. Hundreds of thousands were put before firing squads and murdered – some of them for no other reason than the local commisar wanting to meet some quota, and not looking suspicious by finding fewer "traitors" than the next commisar.

            More than a million soldiers joined the Germans, despite Hitler's hatred for Slavs. That tells you everything you need to know about how much the local population hated communism.

            Trying to get rid of communism by invading the Soviet Union was the morally right thing to do. What I regret is that it was led by Hitler, instead of Britain, France and the US. It would be a very short war if that would happen and many million lives would have been spared.

            But in the situation at the end of the war, Germany being militarily defeated, yes, the US should have marched with the remainder of the German army towards Moscow. (Better late than never.)

          • JasonPappas

            "Trying to get rid of communism by invading the Soviet Union was the morally right thing to do. What I regret is that it was led by Hitler …"

            Getting rid of Hitler was also morally right and one can regret it was led (in part) by Stalin. If I were alive in 1941 I'd wish we stay out until they exhausted each other then finish them both off.

            Our concern is our defense, not foreign civilians. We didn't fight Hitler to save the Jews and Slavs nor fight Japan to save the Chinese and Koreans. We weren't the world's police and I wish we weren't today. I reject your calculus (millions killed by A vs. millions more killed by B) as a reason for us to choose sides. It's our people that we defend and sadly we sometimes need help.

            That being said, it was already clear that the Soviet Union was a threat to humanity. By the end of the 30s the evidence was overwhelming (as you note). There's no doubt that FDR was too generous towards the Soviet Union when their opposition to Hitler was already a fact. He did more than form an ad hoc alliance; he was a true believer that led an ignorant population to help a tyrant.

            After Churchill's Iron Curtain speech, Americans learned about communism and opposed its further expansion. Without America the world would have lost the fight against the totalitarian powers. Net net our contribution was crucial.

            Today, the American people are ignorant about Islam. We (i.e. Obama) have helped the Muslim Brotherhood take over the most important Arab nation (Egypt) and we're about to help them in Syria. Once again we are betrayed by our leaders, betrayed by our press (leaving us ignorant about Islam), and betrayed by our academics. The left in America has compromised our efforts and aided our enemies–then and now. If (or when) the American people wake up they'll realize they squandered opportunities and it will cost them much more to make up for it. Sound familiar?

          • IRL

            "I reject your calculus (millions killed by A vs. millions more killed by B) as a reason for us to choose sides."

            Sometimes humanism can be combined with a sound foreign policy. I find it annoying that some Americans view other peoples as somehow less than human.

            "After Churchill's Iron Curtain speech, Americans learned about communism and opposed its further expansion. Without America the world would have lost the fight against the totalitarian powers. Net net our contribution was crucial."

            Stalin had more tanks than the rest of the world combined, the largest air force on the planet and the largest army on the planet, running the largest empire on the planet with the most poisonous ideology on the planet.

            Great, more weapons to him was just what he needed.

            By 1945 it was too late to contain it. Half of Europe was handed over to Stalin, and marxism spread and took roots everywhere else. Its offspring, such as pacifism, political correctness, gun control, sencorship, third-world immigration, and an unrelenting hatred of conservative values and white anglo-saxon protestant males – is all cultural marxism.

            "The left in America has compromised our efforts and aided our enemies–then and now. "

            Seems to me you kept the ideology alive, and now it will eat you up from within.

          • JasonPappas

            Continental Europe was open to communism. In France and Italy communists often got 25% of the vote after WWII and so did many other nations. Almost nowhere has communism take root without the broad help of indigenous home-grown communists. In Easter Europe the communists often formed coalition governments before they took over. The Soviets used military might only when they had a sizable homegrown communist party to support. Even the last, Afghanistan, was a case of the Afghan communists asking the Soviets for support.

            Almost all Continental European nations had large communist parties. They subverted their own governments. It’s not our job to save Europe from itself … but we have. Did we make mistakes along the way … of course. Our leftists betrayed our interests. However, Europe was communists because it welcome communism or failed to maintain a unanimous opposition. And Arab countries today are becoming Islamist because they welcome a revival of Islam or are too morally weak to oppose it.

            We are not to blame for the internal corruption of foreign societies. Others have to fight for their own freedom–both ideologically, morally, and with insurgent opposition if necessary. Europe allowed totalitarianism to take root. Muslims allow Islamists to take root. Without internal support neither would happen.

          • IRL

            "Europe allowed totalitarianism to take root."

            I guess if you take a look at the map, you'd see that the areas where communist totalitarianism in fact did take root after the war was pretty much identical to the areas occupied by America's allies during the war – Stalin's Red Army.

            In short: Don't blame Europe for Truman's lack of intelligence.

          • JasonPappas

            The European nations were too small to defend themselves and indeed even welcomed authoritarian and communist governments into a coalition.

            The American founding fathers solved the problem that the Europeans failed to solve. In the “critical period” after the revolution, the founders feared that the newly independent 13 states would (1) fight among themselves like Europeans (2) be too small and easily picked off by imperial powers. They created the constitution to solve this problem: a consolidated nation to defend against future imperial threats yet a federal structure to allow liberty to thrive in each state. Europe was never able to do that. Most European nations are too small to be viable against major powers. They fail to maintain a resolve for independence and depend on the kindness of foreign powers like America.

            It’s not our job to liberate the world. Learn how to defend your own freedom. That’s what our founders did and they created a nation that has maintained the economic and military power to do just that.

            PS It wasn’t the we “wronged” Eastern Europe (although I wish we weren't so generous to Stalin as I note above) but that Western Europe got lucky. We (USA & UK commonwealth) liberated Western Europe and funded (Marshal Plan) its recovery so that we’d have allies.

            As you note the USA wasn’t threatened by Nazi Germany. The real reason we went to war was that we believed if we allowed the whole of Europe to become totalitarian we’d have no allies to face this evil in the future. We reasoned it was better to face it with the UK (and its commonwealth nations) and with the help of the other totalitarian devil (Stalin) than to deal with a totalitarian monstrosity ruling the whole eastern hemisphere.

          • IRL

            "and indeed even welcomed authoritarian and communist governments into a coalition."

            Like in Poland? If you only had known that Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill sanctioned the formation of a Polish provisional and pro-communist coalition government in Moscow, ignoring the Polish exile government in London. This was betrayl. Yes, Stalin had promised free elections in Poland, but the elections were won by the communists because of large scale electoral fraud and intimidation of political opponents.

            Blaming Poland for this communist coalition government is idiotic, since the people of Poland had nothing to do with it.

            "It’s not our job to liberate the world."

            Obviously not. When you join in the destruction of the strongest military power in continental Europe, what else could be expected than Europe being weakened and Stalin, and partly the US, going in to fill the gap.

            "We (USA & UK commonwealth) liberated Western Europe and funded (Marshal Plan) its recovery so that we’d have allies."

            After the USA and the UK bombed everything to pieces? Not even Stalin brought that kind of destruction of life and property along. I am surprised they could find *any* allies in Europe after stunts like that.

          • JasonPappas

            That last paragraph tells us everything we need to know about IRL. No further comment necessary!

    • Ghostwriter

      While I agree that the US isn't the root of all evil,you're not helping matters,IRL. People like Chomsky are slugs that have never really been held to account for their idiocy. You seem to forget that there was a guy by the name of Adolf Hitler who wanted to conquer the world. He would have come after us eventually. Stalin was a monster,no doubt,but so was Hitler. Get your facts straight before you comment.

      • EarlyBird

        Well said, Ghosty.

      • IRL

        "You seem to forget that there was a guy by the name of Adolf Hitler who wanted to conquer the world."

        No. If you had read Mein Kampf, you would know that Hitler wanted to conquer western Russia for living space and dismantle the Soviet Union. If you had read other writings by Hitler, you would know that Hitler wanted an alliance with Britain and also peaceful relations with the USA. How Hitler could have "come after" the USA across the Atlantic, even if he wanted to, is a question that puzzles me. Germany hardly had a navy, and much less a wish to conquer the US.

        Communism, on the other hand, wanted the world.


          IRL, How dumb can you be?

          Living Space???

          National Socialist Germany need "Living Space" in France, UK, Czechoslovakia, Belgium, Netherlands, North Africa, Italy, Hungary, Romania?

          You are a moron if you think that everyone is as dumb as you.

        • Ziggy Zoggy

          Cant argue with that.

          • Ziggy Zoggy

            Unless you actually think Hitler deserved to live.

    • PAthena

      The Lusitania was sunk by a German UBoat May 7, 1915. The President of the United States was then Woodrow Wilson, not FDR.

  • Joel
  • Joel

    Chuckie Hagel is MORON Paul lite.

  • MikeWood

    Daniel, what you say is so true. How do we get these idiots to see it. They are innoculated against truth!

  • Passer by

    "In the school of thought embraced by such students of history as Oliver Stone, Noam Chomsky and Ron Paul, over a thousand years of Islamic history hardly carries any weight compared to the doings of ARAMCO and the CIA."

    This is probably because many liberal/left, as well as libertarian people, are unconscious/humanitarian racists.
    Here is one definition of unconscious humanitarian racism:
    The one who thinks that the USA (or the West) is the Center of the World. He has an island mentality. If something is happening, it is because America is causing it. If something is not happening, it is because America refuse to let it happen. He is an unconscious racist. He thinks that only Americans can be fully responsible for their actions while nonamericans cannot (or can but only to a limited extent). If nonamericans did something bad, it must be the americans that caused them to do it.

    The message of the unconscious racist is that the problem is completely due to “us.” The other side doesn’t actually exist. It is too insignificant to have any history, worldview, ideology, or goals. The “other side” is merely a blank screen or mirror, reflecting back what americans do. The only thing that exists is "us" and "what we did". The others are too insignificant, so their actions do not matter or must be caused by "us". Unfortunately, this is a racist, too self-centered vision. It denies the others any history or mentality of their own. If the non-american is only a victim always, then he has no volition, no higher intelligence, and no ability to affect history at all.

    • EarlyBird

      "Here is one definition of unconscious humanitarian racism: The one who thinks that the USA (or the West) is the Center of the World. He has an island mentality. If something is happening, it is because America is causing it. If something is not happening, it is because America refuse to let it happen."

      You're right.

      But that standard would include many on the right as well, including many on this board. Their idea is that the US can and must control everything that happens everywhere. The Arab Spring was "allowed" to happen by Obama. He "failed" because he "let" the Arab Spring "happen." It's now Obama's fault, not Bush's, that Iraq is falling apart and into the hands of Islamists. As if we ever had the power to remake that culture and politics out of whole cloth by force of American will.

      Both the left and right who fall under your definition refuse to understand that humans are not objects, but agents of free will, and refuse to understand the limits of American power. We are neither the reason for all problems in the world, or the solution to all problems.

      • Ziggy Zoggy

        Girlybird, anybody to the right of Chomsky or Muhammad is a "right-winger" to you and none of the ideas you falsely ascribe to FPM and its board commentators have any basis in reality-just like every other claim you make.

      • Drakken

        Sh*tbird, you are no conservative, you support any claim th the west and the US are are fault for everything and that te muslims are just like us, complete stupidity and wishful thinking on your part, no wonder our education system is completely broken, your a new product of it.

  • Adam

    Iraqi insurgents named Chris Kyle the Devil of Ramadi and had a $20,000 bounty on his head. As a Navy Seal he should have remained anonymous, once he became high profile he put a target on his own back. Some Iraqi sniper just collected his bounty money and a former marine is taking the fall for it.

    • Charles

      You're an idiot!

      • EarlyBird

        Curious, Charles. What makes Adam an idiot? Do you believe he can't think right, doesn't have the facts, or you just don't want to face the facts he's given you?

        Objectively, Chris Kyle (RIP), did let his name and face be known, and therefore was named the Devil of Ramadi, and in fact did have a bounty put on his head, which is why he was killed.

        It doesnt' make someone "anti-Chris Kyle" or "pro-terrorist" to point to these facts, right?

        • Charles

          Conspiracies around every corner. Sure your toilet handle isn't attached to a detonator?

          • Ziggy Zoggy

            Charles, I think Girlybird's toilet handle is attached to a food processor!

        • Drakken

          Some deductive reasoning you have there, 2 plus 2 equals 8 by your reasoning, no wonder your wrong on most things.


      Adam, Please go to Aleppo Syria – paint a bullseye on your back.

    • jakespoon

      Wasn't there a yard full of witnesses that saw both men get killed by that nut. No Iraqi snipers around.

  • @historyscoper

    Modern leftists cling to modern history because they are too lazy to do the work to go back further. That's where their blindless to Islam comes from. By the time of the French Revolution the Ottoman Empire was already becoming the Sick Man of Europe, and was seen as no threat compared to the European monarchy they worked to get rid of. During the heady days of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin the Muslims were sideliners mainly trying to catch up with the West and avoid Christian conversion. When the caliphate was abolished in the 1920s the leftists thought that Islam was dead and all Muslims would become good Commie atheists. Now they're finding out the hard way that Muhammad still reaches out from the grave calling for the Great Jihad to resume, this time with nukes and other WMDs.

    It's hard work but the Historyscoper offers a course on all 1400 years of Islam's history free to anybody who takes the time:

    • EarlyBird

      Modern right wingers refuse to look at American deeds in the past 50 years, and so rely on fantastical jingoism to explain why Middle Eastern Muslims hate us. Case in point, Iran.

      By the 1950s, Iran had finally loosened the grip of British imperialism after England's collapse as a Great Power, and was developing into a modern nation, however wary of the West after its long ordeal. Mossadeq won power in a popular and fair election.

      For choosing to nationalize IRAN's oil for IRANIANS, rather than for English and US oil interests, he was overthrown in a CIA backed coup and replaced by the Shah who ruled brutally for decades. He was wildly corrupt, threw Iranians into immense poverty, and filled torture chambers and graveyards to overflowing with dissidents during his reign. His ability to maintain power was solely due to US support.

      Finally, a radicalized Iranian people – who had given up on politics as we know it as a governing force – overthrew the Shah, took over Iran and the rest is the history we're living.

      But right wingers will say its "because they hate us for our freedom." Duh.

      • EarlyBird

        Imagine, if you will, if after finally overthrowing the British, Americans elected George Washington. Overnight we find that King Louis the XIV had overthrown Washington, undid the Constitution, threw all of our Founding Fathers in jail and put in a puppet despot who brutally suppressed Americans, executed, tortured and jailed all opposition.

        Do you think we would hate France "for its great food" or because of their torment of America?

        We need to wake up and grow up about American history so we stop doing what the Greenfields want us to continually do.

        • Mary Sue

          Try again, Louis XIV would have had had no logical reason to hypothetically depose Washington. That makes more sense with Canada, though Canada had not the means to do so.

          It's also not applicable because the Western World doesn't generally have the same problem with Islamists that the Shah had to deal with. Do you think he was imprisoning people for no reason at all, for fun? Hell no. Even Saddam Hussein insisted after he'd been captured that he'd HAD to be brutal, in Iraq, or the place would have been out of control. You and I may disagree with the Shah's and Saddam's methods, but one can't deny they had a serious problem that they felt they dealt with it in the only way possible.

        • Ziggy Zoggy


          Imagine if hypothetical stories were true. If you can, then you're a hopeless half-wit. Try not to drool on you keyboard.

        • JacksonPearson

          Take a hard look in a mirror….That green gooey sh*t oozing out of your ears is stupidity.

          If you're living in America, then be thanks to God, that you're living in the freest, and most prosperous societies in the world.

      • Mary Sue

        Considering the Mullahs are 1000x more brutal than the Shah ever was, your argument loses something. Most of the people that could potentially even remember the Shah's rule are either senile or dead.

        Nationalized Oil…yeah, communism. And he was going to sell it to the Russians. Not good. During the height of the Cold War, they'd have been NUTS not to depose the communist Mossadeq.

        Do you realize that just about every regime out there in Muslim-land has blood on its hands regarding dissidents? Even Saudi Arabia. And yet nobody's going on about how horrible Saudi Arabia is or threatening to blow it up. Face it, the whole "oppression" thing is a smokescreen.

      • Ennis85

        First off Mossadegh was NOT Democratically elected. His party was elected and he was installed as prime minister in 1951, but when he illegally nationalized Iran’s oil industry in 1953 he dissolved the Parliament to prevent them from passing a no-confidence resolution that would have ended his prime ministership and led to a general election in which his party was almost certain to lose.

        The Iranian constitution was modeled on the English: The King (in this case the Shah) in Parliament. That is, the King convenes the Parliament, appoints the Prime Minister submitted to him by the majority of the Parliament and calls new elections when there is no confidence in Parliamentary leadership.
        When Mossadegh unconstitutionally dissolved Parliament and assumed dictatorial status, imprisoning the Shah in his palace and carrying on negotiations with Khruschev to align Iran with the Soviet bloc, the Shah then appealed to the international community and Iran’s chief allies, the UK and the USA for help.

        With regards to Oil(Mossadegh nationalized it) he was SUPPORTED by the US and the Shah. It was the popular thing to do, and the US wanted to force out Brit involvement. The result was not good at all for the British (who under PM Razmara would reluctantly make a 50/50 revenue deal)… the result was a Consortium of Oil companies producing the Oil for the new National Iranian Oil Company. The winners of this were Iran and the US. The Brits were relegated to the backseat.
        From there on The AIOC became BP. The Iranian Oil was produced in certain areas by a Consortium of US, Dutch, French and also (much diminished) British Petroleum. Meanwhile the Iranian NIOC was starting to develop other fields or contracting to other national oil companies. Iranian revenues soared. By 1973 Iranian oil was effectively in Iranian hands and the soaring oil prices made Iran immensely wealthy. Iran was even developing oil for other countries and took over the British role of "Guardian of the Persian Gulf". The Shah achieved gradually with success and tranquility what Mossadegh was trying to do amidst chaos.

        The Power question however was a different matter. Like the constitution required he was named by the Shah. As said before Mossadegh tried to topple the constitutional head of state and usurped powers (including Commander in Chief), most Iranians supported him on oil, but they would have none of his attempted power-grab (which was supported by the Communists).
        Mossadegh was driving the Iranian economy towards the abyss and allied with the Tudeh Communist Party. And yes, Communism had EXTREMELY a lot to do with it. This was 1953 (look up what happened during this year globally).
        Iran was just freed from Soviet occupation for 7 years… and Soviet troops repeatedly made incursions into Iranian territory for years after.
        The whole point of aligning Iran with the US was to stall the Soviets.

        Also the US didn’t “interfere” with Iran, but were invited by Iran in 1941, 42, 43, 46 and after specifically to reform their finances and military. This was widely popular in Iran, which back then was not at all authocratic, but a constitutional monarchy.
        Even Mossadegh turned towards the US for military and finacial help. The Americans didn’t force themselves upon them. Not at all.
        Mossadegh, as said, was illegaly USURPING power. He dismissed the Parliament, made himself head of state, closed down the press etc.
        They were pursuing their Cold War interests, helped the constitutional Iranian government and forced practically out the British.

      • Ennis85

        "was developing into a modern nation"

        and it greatly continued to do so after Mossadeq's overthrow.

      • Ziggy Zoggy


        "modern right-wingers" (those to the left of Chomsky and the ayatollah) have nothing to do with the 1400 year jihad that has been waged against humanity by the islamopithecines.

        Case in point: The America-last canard about America creating the mullahcracy in Iran.

        The only fact of your regurgitated screeds is that whoever pays you to troll is wasting their money.

      • Drakken

        Oh look! More lefty/progressive apologist nonsense and the west is always wrong and the 3rd world muslims are victims mentality at work, again!

    • Ghostwriter

      And again,EarlyBird,you make excuses for those who hate us. You seem to forget that many in the Middle East sided with the Nazis. Later on,they sided with the Communists throughout the Cold War. The phrase "Blame America First crowd" fits you like a glove.

  • @WolfyJam

    Daniel, you're the man. the muslims did indeed take up the sword and have been swinging it without remorse or regret for over a millennium. Hundreds of millions of innocents have died and with that advanced civilizations tottered and stagnated. Great societies like Persia and Eygpt never rebounded. Southern Europe and the Balkans became wastelands of terror and fear. Southern Europe recovered but the Balkans are forever traumatized (thanks to the Ottoman Turks). Using the sword, Islam decimated Zoroastrianism and Buddhism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Now the evil Bedouins and their followers are stalking us. the European high command and our government is in bed with them, too. No, we can never lower the sword. I'd rather die by the sword then live as a dhimmi under islam.


      I always get a kick out of this scene from Indian Jones Raiders of the Lost Ark

      Gun Beats Sword – Raiders of the Lost Ark 0:26

      • EarlyBird

        It's much easier to think of all of the world's 3 billion + Mulsims as scimitar wielding cartoons, rather than real people, isn't it? Easier to just say, "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out!"


          WOW! 3 billion Muslims.

          Just last week it was 1.5 billion.

          Paraqhrasing Richard Pryor on one billion in China, regarding Islam, someone is doing some serious screwing.

          Islamists are at killing people all over the world.

          That is a FACT.

          • EarlyBird

            Nope it's been about 3.5 billion around the world, for quite a long time.

            Yes, SOME very radicalized perverters of Islam are killing people all around the world. And THEY must be destroyed. THAT is a fact.

          • Ziggy Zoggy

            Nope it's been about 800 million around the world, for quite a short time and the population is dwindling, not growing.

            Yes, SOME very mainstream fanatics of Islam are killing people all around the world. And THEY must be destroyed. THAT is a fact.

          • Drakken

            Overkill is clearly under rated.

          • EarlyBird

            Oops. You're right, I'm wrong. It's about 1.5 billion, not 3.5 billion. We've only got a bit more than 6 billion people worldwide!

          • Lan Astaslem

            they multiply like cockroaches

          • Ziggy Zoggy

            7 billion, tard boy.

        • Ziggy Zoggy


          give the 3.5 billion islamopithecine whopper a rest. Not even you believe that useless attempt at psy-ops subversion.

          It's easier to think of the vile 1400 year history of islam and see them as the semi-erect hominids they are.

        • Drakken

          Well you go ahead and sing kumbaya to them and put a COEXIST sticker on your Prius, the rest of us will deal with the savages as they need to be dealt with, oh by he way, your welcome.

    • Indioviejo

      Good post. True even to the analysis of our government and the European leadership being in bed with the Satanic Cult. I fear that the ultimate power grab in this country may come from the military. And our elite leadership may prefer converting to Islamic totalitarianism in order to control the unruly masses. The ballot box no longer guarantees that our elected leaders are servants of the people. It is evident they are now the masters.

    • Daniel Greenfield


  • EarlyBird

    So, Paul is on the "far right" foreign policy-wise, and by implication, Greenfield and FPM represent moderate, sober, thoughtful conservatism? Huh?

    Actually, Greenfield and FPM represent the furthest departure from anything remotely "conservative" in foreign policy that one can imagine. His foreign policy is a paranoid, hyper-reactionary, nationalist scream against the reality that the US can't control every outcome everywhere to our preference.

    In Greenfield's world, the Iraq catastrophe either didn't happen, or the left is some how to blame for it. Every Islamist or worrisome regime everywhere is an existential threat which requires the full weight of US military power. There is never a cost to any such intervention, and anyone who points out that there is one is at best "soft on terror" if not in league with them.

    His is a recipe for American suicide, not security.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Perhaps you should actually read the article before commenting. It would tremendously improve the relevance, if not the accuracy, of your rants.

      • EarlyBird

        My post is completely relevant, but once again you have the good sense to attempt a dodge.

        You are the flipside to Paul's radical isolationism and Blame America-ism. You propose radical global US militarism, and refuse to consider how our actions may elicit a reaction in our enemies, as that constitutes, in your mind, "blaming America (or Israel)". That's as stupid as a boxer refusing to consider that by throwing a right, he may be vulnerable to his opponent's left.

        Where Paul says the US has only made mistakes, you write as if the US is incapable of making mistakes. Hence your refusal to acknowledge the neoconservative Iraq debacle, and your propagandizing for an identical one in Iran.

        But in fairness to you, you don't even pretend to be a thinker, just a propagandist for your preferred country, Israel.

        • Ghostwriter

          And you don't help yourself by bashing Israel all the time,EarlyBirdbrain.

          • EarlyBird

            Moron, Danny Greenfield, a good Israel Firster, wants Americans to go to war inside Iran, for Israel. Last I heard we were on the brink of fiscal disaster, and that wars are very expensive.

            You do the math.



            You are an appeaser of Islamofascism which makes you a dhimmi, Useful Idiot Infidel for radical Islam that is at war with people all over the world.

            Places like the UK, France, Spain, Denmark, Philippines, Yemen, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Syria.

            You can try to concoct harebrained scenarios to blame Israel, Zionists, but a read of the daily newspaper shows that Islamists are killing people all over the world – the daily News destroys your lame regressive ideas.

          • JacksonPearson

            The math is simple, you're exposing your antisemitism.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Your post assembles a Strawman and bashes him. That's good Media Matters work but not actually relevant.

          Your flaw as usual is to assume that those who disagree with you believe the thing is that is to the furthest extreme away from what you believe.

          It probably sounds good in your head but makes for a poor argument.

          • EarlyBird

            You sure write like an extremist.

            We do know that you believe we should wage war on Iran, no? That's a pretty radical concept. You have blamed Obama for the fact that Islamists are active in Libya, and for having "given away" half of the Middle East to Islamists, no? That's a pretty radical notion in as much as it requires you to believe that the US had/has the power to transform a whole culture thousands of miles away.

            If you have more moderate positions, lay them on me Danny, but you may lose your job at FPM.

          • Mary Sue

            You DO know what a Strawman Argument (Logical Fallacy) IS, do you, birdie?

          • Ziggy Zoggy


            I've been trying to figure something in my head, and maybe you can help me out, yeah? When a person is insane, as you clearly are, do you know that you're insane? Maybe you're just sitting around, reading the koran and Chomsky, masturbating in your own feces, do you just stop and go, "Wow! It is amazing how f***ing crazy I really am!"? Yeah. Do you guys do that?

          • JacksonPearson

            Do some research on the Muslim Brotherhood's reestablishing the Middle East Caliphate? You just might learn something?



          Your preferred country surrendered, unconditionally, to the US, UK and SU.

          WW2 Victory in Europe Day: Beaten Nazis Sign Historic Surrender (1945)

          I support the US and its real allies, which naturally excludes Saudi Arabia, home of 15 of the 19 hijackers of 9/11 and Muslim Brotherhood Egypt – home of the blind sheik of the 1993 WTC truck bombing.

          • EarlyBird

            Wouldn't that be neat if this was a conventional war where we could beat our enemies in clear battles with tanks and planes, and at the end of it all get them to unconditionally surrender to our demands, like WWII?

            Alas, it ain't that kind of war.


            Terrorists make life for everyone difficult.

            Islamofascism needs to be fought by Muslims.

            They clearly do not because they do next to nothing to fight islamism, terrorism.

            Look where osama bin laden was hiding – in plain sight.

            MUSLIMS have to destroy Islamism, Wahabbism, Salafism, Al Qada and the Muslim Brotherhood.

            There should be a clear threat of retaliation, that if any country suffers a WMD strike,

            MECCA will suffer a similar or worse fate – thus ending the Hajjj for all time..

            It's up to Muslims to destroy the cancer that is Islamofascism.

          • jakespoon

            My wife worked in Saudi Arabia for 6yrs, on 9-11-01,she called Riyadh to tell some of her Filipino friends that were there what had happened(they don't get much time for TV),well they hadn't heard about it ,but were wondering why all the Saudis were in the street celebrating and shouting"allah akbar". The proper scenario would have been,9-11-01 four planes piloted by saudi hi-jackers hit buildings in NYC and DC,9-12-01 the dust of Mecca is slowly sifting down across the arabian desert and their holy black stone is now radioactive fallout, Muslims worldwide are screwed. Instead,let's not try to offend the very people our attackers came from and are harbored by. All serious muslims are potential jihadis,there are some apostate muslims that could care less,but the ones that stick to the koran are just waiting in the wings.

          • KarshiKhanabad

            The nuclear obliteration of Makkah would be a tremendous boost to the overall health of the entire world. And most of the world's Muslims would not rise up in a gigantic spasm of jihadi revenge. Rather, they will stand dazed, confused, & unable to comprehend initially that they have been the mind-numbed denizens of a world of Islam built upon an enormous lie. How could `Allah the almighty' allow such a thing to happen? The entire police structure of world Shariah would collapse. That's when the true `Arab Spring' will really begin, starting with forests of mullahs dangling from poles, trees, & anything else usable as a gibbet.

          • jakespoon

            Sounds good to me.

          • Ziggy Zoggy


            I've been trying to figure something in my head, and maybe you can help me out, yeah? When a person is insane, as you clearly are, do you know that you're insane? Maybe you're just sitting around, reading the koran and Chomsky, masturbating in your own feces, do you just stop and go, "Wow! It is amazing how f***ing crazy I really am!"? Yeah. Do you guys do that?

          • JacksonPearson

            Don't confuse him with big words.

        • Drakken

          Your hypocracy knows no bounds! Your arguements amount to nothing but feelings instead of cold hard facts, do try again sparky. It is actually fun to read your blithering I feel therefore I am arguements for they are quite amusing.

      • JacksonPearson

        He's baffled by big words.

  • Indioviejo

    I have benefited from your site among others. Thanks.

  • Indioviejo

    Chris Kyle is a true American hero and should be an exemplary figure to American youth. Any criticism of the man is wicked. How many Americans serve? How many have given "the last full measure of devotion" so that the nation might live?
    George Orwell recognized men like him when he said: "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us."Mr. Greenfield does well in putting things in perspective. We are in a civilizational struggle and the future looks murky, but with men such as Chris Kyle out there manning the line, the barbarians will have a fight until the end.

  • Michael H

    You would be my foreign policy advisor if I were POTUS.

    We wouldn't have much to talk about though, as I think we were cloned from the same vine.

  • tanstaafl

    During the 1400 years of Islam, the jihad has killed an estimated 270 million infidels. Be warned.


    Daniel G.

    I strongly believe that MORON Paul is the ideological twin of the Lyndon LaRouche cult.

    LaRouche is too old so MORON Paul is his representative.

    The zombies who campaign for Paul have all the earmarks of a cult, like the Larouche cult.

    Lyndon Larouche and the New American Fascism

    • JasonPappas

      Nah, Paul is just following Murray Rothbard on foreign policy. Rothbard is Mr. Libertarian. Interestingly enough Rothbard was an ally of Chomsky during the Vietnam War. Rothbard was a great economist but his isolationism went too far causing him to cross the line into the absurd.

      I'm sure David's friend Ron Radosh could tell us about those days. Ron wrote (edited?) a book with Murray back in '72. Perhaps he could shed some light on what happened to Murray. (PS Ron like David Horowitz eventually saw the light.)


    The hate us because the US is top dog.

    Eurabia, formerly Europe hated the US before WW2, and especially after WW2.

    Whether it's because the US defeated the national socialists and imperial Japan, because of the popularity of American culture (Hollywood, music, fast food), technology, the socialists, the neo-commies hate the US.

    It's jealousy.

    • EarlyBird

      People don't give their lives in suicide bombings because of jealousy. Try again.


        Not suicide bombing, HOMICIDE bombing. Try again.

      • jakespoon

        How do you know?Insane people,led by an insane philosophy may do anything to anyone for any reason at any time. Jealously is just hate also,because someone has something someone else wants,and they can't stand that. People kill themselves over jealously every day.Example: murder-suicide-"If I can't have her(or him) no one can." The mullahs and their followers are insane.


          jakespoon, Excellent.

        • JacksonPearson

          "The mullahs and their followers are insane."
          Yes, that's because Muhammad was elliptic, and insane. He left them with a book full of pure hate.

      • Ziggy Zoggy


        suicide bombers do it out of hatred. Most suicide bombers are vicious punks and cowards who do it with the blessing of their contemptible parents. The ghoulish parents then get paid for sending their offspring to die and use some of the money to celebrate.

        You cant justify such vile behavior for any reason, much less blame it on America and dem Joos.

        Why don't you show the strength of your convictions by becoming a martyr? Then you can join your pedophile prophet pretender, p!$$ be upon him.

    • Ziggy Zoggy

      It's resentment. =D

      • Drakken

        Careful Ziggy, you'll give poor sh*tbird a sever case of the vapors and then he will have to visit his self esteem life coach so he can get his trophy for participating, oh gosh the horror!!!

  • Chris

    Here is the deal. The problem is….. "You can fool some of the people all the time, and you can fool all the people some of the time, and once the majority of the people are ignorant immigrants or a willingly ignorant sub-culture, you can fool those people all the time". This is what we have in the USA. The orientals cannot be fooled at all. The Blacks are complete fools for the most part. The Mexicans are fooled willingly because of desperation. The whites for the most part are split down the middle with fool / non-fool. This all adds up to a majority of people willing to be fooled by the "Democraps" all the time

  • Whitebuck

    More subjective status quo drivel! Left, Right, Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, etc…etc… You must first unlearn, and then and only then can you truly become enlightened. For you the mass are too polluted with your traditions, which are nothing more than learned prejudices. Shed your delusional realities and escape their Oligarchic induced fog. A piece or pieces of truth do not constitute truth or reality.

    • jakespoon


  • Mary Sue

    Your "they hate us because of the shah" thing doesn't ring true, because by and large the Iranian people are against the Mullahs, but can't do anything about it, and actually like the West. I don't think 20something Iranians give a rat's rear end about what happened with the Shah.

    Ok then if you know so much about history, do you know WHO the Shah tortured and imprisoned? What kind of people? What were their beliefs? Was it by any chance some of the precursors of modern-day terrorists?

    The Nazis also hated Jews, so that went hand in glove.

  • I M Simpleton

    This is one of the most intelligent articles I’ve seen on the internet. The Nobel Laureate in Chief knows all this, yet he allows the debate about our nation’s future and my grandchildren’s safety to devolved into name calling.

    The left have a smug intellectual dishonesty about them. We saw these tactics used for years during the Cold War. There is no moral equivalence between the elected and accountable American government having nuclear weapons and the Soviet dictatorship having nuclear weapons. Communist spies WERE infiltrated into the Manhattan Project and felt it was their duty to give Stalin the plans to build his weapons. This allowed one of the most evil thuggish dictatorships in history to oppress half the worlds population for another 40 years.

    Yet they coin the word “McCarthyism” as a synonym for government oppression. I bet high school or even college grads today have never heard of Klaus Fuchs or the Rosenbergs.


      How many high school or college grads heard of the hitler/stalin pact of 1939?

      Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact

      A Socialist "non-aggression" pact.

      So much for the claim that Socialism is good for the people.

  • Western Spirit

    These "realists" are really delusionists people living in and perpetrating a delusion, because real has nothing to do with them in any way shape or form.

    Their delusion feeds their need to feel special. Only they can see the "truth" and reveal what's "real". When actually what's real is that they are nuts, really truly nuts to anyone being realistic about them and what they "reveal".

    In my humble opinion they fell into error and missed the what's real boat when they rejected the Truth, other wise known as God, and followed the imaginations of their heart that needed to feel special and so special they are in their own imaginations.

  • mah29001

    wRONg Paul's not going to be pissed off that government takes money out of people's paychecks because he's coddling up with the same crowd of people who support redistributing the wealth.

  • Ziggy Zoggy


    Your canards have been thoroughly re-refuted, as always. Do you still want me to f*** you up?

    Stop beating off those straw men. It looks like you grew down.

    We either look at THEIR mistakes and how they impact the world, or we remain infants and blame ourselves-not that a jihadist troll like you is one of us.

  • SexyMarlin

    of course like your web site but you need to take a look at the spelling on quite a few of your posts. A number of them are rife with spelling issues and I find it very troublesome to inform the reality then again I’ll certainly come back again.

    • kaz

      look to your own grammar. your post looks like it was translated from chinese to english by a chimpanzee.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    The reality is there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism. What people mistakenly call Islamic terrorism is really violent jihad. The only similarity between violent jihadists and terrorists is they both like to use extreme violence and they both like to target soft civilian targets. However, while terrorism can be for any number of political grievances, jihad, on the other hand, is always and only holy fighting in the cause of Allah to make Islam supreme.

    Moreover, unlike terrorism jihad can also be non-violent. As a matter of fact, the vast overwhelming amount of jihad that takes place today takes place non-violently and by stealth and deception. Furthermore, for the most part it takes place completely undetected and unopposed because the vast overwhelming majority of non-Muslim people in the world today thanks to wide spread political correctness totally misunderstand Islam, including the writer of this article.

    Morally equating violent jihad as being terrorism conveniently takes the focus off of Islam and also forces people to focus ONLY on terrorism as opposed to violent jihad, which is what it really is. While at the same time causing people to be totally unaware of the many non-violent stealth and deceptive varieties of jihad that also takes place today astronomically far more relative to violent jihad and in which is also exponentially far more detrimental to our well being in the long run as well.

    In fact, one of the most dangerous forms of non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad that is taking place in the world today completely unopposed is mass Muslim immigration to the West including to America. As the notion that non-violent Muslims are so-called "moderate Muslims" is a political correct myth. In reality all Muslims are jihadists. Otherwise they are blasphemous apostates that per the dictates of Islam must be executed.

    Indeed, take a look at mass Muslim immigration throughout the world. I challenge anyone to point to just one place in the world where Muslim immigrants have actually assimilated and integrated into productive and contributing citizens of their newly adopted countries. Please excuse me if I won't hold my breath waiting.

    Islam is not a religion. At least it's not what we in the West consider religion to be and it should not be accorded the same status. Islam is a very aggressive form of totalitarianism and like Communism in the past its aim is to take over the world. In the past during the Cold War we didn't let millions of Communists migrate to our free countries because that would have been suicidal. However, today we are letting millions of Muslims that are really stealth and deceptive jihadists migrate to our free countries and that is totally suicidal.

    Hence, we should ban and reverse mass Muslim immigration ASAP before it is too late. Otherwise the insanity we see happening in Europe will also soon be happening over here in America as well in a matter of time. In fact, instead of doubling the size of the federal government and pursuing two senseless nation-building missions to lift up Muslims and democratize the Islamic world, which inevitably turned into the two biggest strategic blunders ever in American history, we should have instead banned and reversed mass Muslim immigration, as common sense dictates that zero Muslims living in America translates to zero violent jihad attacks. Just think of all the billions of dollars we could save that we are stupidly squandering away today just to accommodate Muslim immigrants. Not to mention the loss of precious freedoms. It's insane! Totally insane!

    • Western Canadian

      Yup, same old moron same old.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Yup, same old moron same old.

        You did it again, because you can't logically defeat my arguments. Indeed, you will never be able to over come that crummy Canadian education you were unfortunate to receive. Sucks to be you.

        • Western Canadian

          You don't make arguments, you babble like the ignorant and ill-educated ass that you always have been, are, and always will be. Others have pointed out how weak and moronic your 'arguments' are, but you are so egomaniac, on the same level as the average muslim, that you are blind to the real world, and to the major source of terrorism and bloody slaughter in the world today: The muslims that lie about terrorism the same way you do. Sucks to be a muslim like yoiu, abdul.

  • Kenneth Olsen

    This bizarre article careens wildly around from the first silly sentence. At least the sarcastic dismissal of Ron Paul's principled stands on the gold standard and internet gambling tip the author's cheating hand early on. But it gets downright comical when the high-falutin' concept of treason starts getting tossed around. Ron Paul has consistently advocated government policies that are based on the Constitution's severe limits. I'm impressed by the quantity of purple prose needed to rebuke a retired, consistently principled guy who saw fit to utter a bible phrase advocating peace. Perhaps he should have cited the scriptural warning not to take the shell-shocked to the rifle range. I'm sure he would have earned your praises then. Drone away.


      Hey Moron,

      The only people DUMBER than MORON Paul are the people who voted for him.

  • Kenneth Olsen

    P.S. Last I heard we were sending a bunch of flying swords to Egypt. Spare a small word of praise for Ron Paul's opposition to sword-mongering to the enemy.

  • Ziggy Zoggy


    you Paulbots are like cult members, aren't you? You think Der Paul can do no wrong and that his anti-Semitism is principled.

    Oh, I forgot. Singling out dem Joos and evil America but excusing islamopithecines is just calling it like it is. He used a Biblical quote so he's a swell guy advocating peace! He didn't mean to say that Chris Kyle got what he deserved, oh no. America is a meddlesome warmongering bully. We should all bury our heads in the sands of isolationism so the otherwise peaceful islamopithecines will be appeased. Sorry! You're realists, not fantasists or cultists! The 1400 year jihad of islam is just a figment of our imperialist imaginations!

    Drooling imbecile.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    The truth will set you free except at FPM. They deleted the truth, twice!

  • Kenneth Olsen

    I will grant you that it might be imbecilic to try and reason with those who seek to scapegoat Dr. Ron Paul at every opportunity. Paul possesses the qualities and princlpled approaches that mainstream conservatives pretend to have. That's why he's so admired by voters from across the spectrum, and that's why the writers and commentators here spend so much time and invective on vilifying him.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      With all due respect Paul is an unhinged self-hating loon. For instance, like a self-hating leftist moonbat he claims that America's interventionist foreign policies create terrorists. However, Islamic jihad is not terrorism, it's striving in the cause of Allah to make Islam supreme, and all Muslims, whether they are violent or not, are jihadists! Otherwise, they are blasphemous apostates that per the dictates of Islam must be executed. Moreover, Islam is not a so-called "Religion of Peace." Instead, it is a very aggressive form of totalitarianism that like Communism before intends to take over the world. Paul is a mentally incompetent idiot and his followers are self-hating mentally handicapped morons.

      Now, what's so principled about the suicidal misunderstanding of the reality of Islam?


      You'd rather side with MORON Pauls appeasement and isloationism.

      MORON Paul was born too late – his brain is in December 6, 1941.

  • nht333

    For once the lefties have a point, having a small number of obnoxiously sanctimonious supporters does not constitute a broad base of popular support. Just because ron paul supporters and those like them spam the internet with their invective against welfare queens (anyone performing public service, most especially military personnel) somehow keeping them from living out their Randian Utopia, (if you want to consider unchecked sociopathy a utopia) does not make them the majority in any sense.