Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Ted Cruz and Ronald Reagan

Rand Paul, Ron Paul

Rand Paul has a piece at Breitbart which Drew at Ace views as a slam against Ted Cruz. The dispute is once again over what Reagan would have done.

Reagan clearly believed in a strong national defense and in “Peace through Strength.” He stood up to the Soviet Union, and he led a world that pushed back against Communism.

But Reagan also believed in diplomacy and demonstrated a reasoned approach to our nuclear negotiations with the Soviets. Reagan’s shrewd diplomacy would eventually lessen the nuclear arsenals of both countries.

Perhaps Rand Paul can explain what the point of lessening the nuclear arsenals was, aside from the cost savings, considering the overwhelming destructive power on both sides.

Reagan certainly wasn’t deluded on the subject, but he understood that such negotiations helped keep American liberals and Europe on the right side. It was more about image than substance.

Rand Paul emphasizes that some Republicans accused Reagan of appeasement for meeting with Gorbachev. He forgets however that his father blasted Reagan as a warmonger in his resignation letter from the Republican Party.

“Knowing this administration’s record, I wasn’t surprised by its Libyan disinformation campaign, Israeli-Iranian arms-for-hostages swap, or illegal funding of the Contras,” Ron Paul wrote, while blasting Reagan for “indiscriminate military spending” and “an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy”.

While there’s always someone to the right of you, Rand Paul might acknowledge that Reagan was largely criticized for being too aggressive, not for not being aggressive enough.

Rand Paul writes, in a likely dig at Cruz, “I will remind anyone who thinks we will win elections by trashing previous Republican nominees or holding oneself out as some paragon in the mold of Reagan, that splintering the party is not the route to victory.”

That’s funny considering that minus the Reagan part, this was his father’s entire election campaign. Over and over again.

There is a time for military action, such as after 9/11. There is a time for diplomacy and the strategic use of soft power, such as now with Russia. Diplomacy requires resolve but also thoughtfulness and intelligence.

This is something Reagan always knew…

I also greatly admire that Reagan was not rash or reckless with regard to war. Reagan advised potential foreign adversaries not to mistake our reluctance for war for a lack of resolve.

Reagan was willing to negotiate, but he was also willing to use force. As a little reminder of that, Ron Paul criticized Reagan on Libya…

“The U.S. policy toward Libya further confirms our irrational foreign policy. Under Reagan we have been determined to pick a fight with Khadafi, defying him with naval and air maneuvers in the Gulf of Sidra. As we try to emphasize our right to navigate in international waters near Libya, we totally reject the territorial waters of Nicaragua by mining their harbors. The World Court rulings against the U.S. were ignored by the Reagan Administration…”

And on Grenada…

“The invasion of Grenada is hardly the victory the American people were led to believe.”

Not to mention Cuba

“Actually, I believe we’re at a time where we even ought to talk to Cuba and trade and travel to Cuba.”

Suffice it to say, Reagan did not agree.

After Reagan’s death, the Paul camp tried to reinvent him as a new Reagan. Considering Ron Paul’s foreign policy, the results were awkward at best.

Just about every Republican and Democrat, even Obama, has tried to claim the Reagan mantle, but Reagan’s foreign policy was deemed aggressive, interventionist and unconstitutional based on the political stands of the Pauls.

  • Adobe_Walls

    Reagan was one of the most successful presidents of the 20th century but he was only partly and temporarily successful. Ultimatly he failed to correct this republics course. Given that I’m not sure why he should be considered THE be all role model for all things conservatives need to accomplish.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Reagan didn’t fail. His successors who weren’t conservatives failed subsequently because they didn’t believe in what Reagan was trying to do.

      • Adobe_Walls

        Perhaps I should say his efforts ultimately failed. As did Newt’s temporary success in 94. All the good that was done has been undone. The left’s stranglehold on the fourth branch has increased and so does our decent into serfdom and darkness. If we cannot “shermanize” and then crush the fourth branch’s power we are ultimately doomed probably sooner rather than later.

        • pete

          prolly need to rein those public school indoctrination centers, too, no?
          .
          hey, whatever happened to those mequiladoras anyways?? did they go the way of the outlet mall?

        • The March Hare

          The left spends it’s time demonizing and smearing all gains by conservatives, or hijack gains such as Clinton and the left did regarding welfare reform. Then they work behind the scenes to undo as much as possible. The conservatives seem to just “live with” things the left institutes. That is how we just keep moving to the left. The left builds up the bureaucracy and packs it with leftists. That is who ultimately runs government. The Bushes would even appoint liberals to show how “fair” they were. The left smears everything the right does or says and the right talks about “a thousand points of light”. Is there really any wonder why the left has garnered so many followers? What has the most influence on the electorate?

      • The March Hare

        George Bush I was not who Reagan wanted as vice president. Bush was forced on him by the republican party. It was he who failed by not continuing all of Reagan’s policies and even following his own liberal policies.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          You are 100 percent correct. Thank you!

    • Daniel Greenfield

      I don’t think Reagan should be considered the model for everything, but can you name a more successful conservative Republican president since the FDR era

      • Adobe_Walls

        He is the only conservative president since FDR, which is the root of the problem. George H. W. Bush thought Reagan and those who thought like him were wingnuts. Reagan shared the same failings as many others of his time. Chief among them was trusting Democrats, considering to have the best interests of all Americans rather than their progressive agenda. Even then they were TWANLOC. Granting that he was limited by the politics of his time he should have attempted to drive back the fourth branch regulatory state. He most certainly would have failed to abolish the Department of Education. But in attempting to do so but trying to do so as a popular president would have made it thinkable.

    • NAHALKIDES

      It was only during his Presidency that Republicans enjoyed any true successes. The rest of the time, the Democrats were pushing the country to the Left, even during the G. W. Bush years of 2001-2006 when they were theoretically out of power. The reason: Reagan was a Conservative, and the last Conservative candidate for President the Republicans have run.

      • Adobe_Walls

        The left controls the fourth branch of government: they are never out of power.
        “Reagan was a Conservative, and the last Conservative candidate for President the Republicans have run.”
        His success was temporary. It didn’t ultimately alter our course. The fall of the Soviets which is entirely due to Reagan’s efforts was also only a partial success. The defeat of “big Communism” made the world safe for communists, millions of them.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    According to the Paul’s, America’s “interventionist” foreign policy, much of it emanating from when Reagan was in office, is the blame for the 9/11 violent jihad attacks. Not the fact that the sole fundamental purpose of mainstream orthodox Islam is the subjugation of the world into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia (Islamic totalitarian law) to ultimately make Islam supreme. As a matter of fact, in Islam the world is divided into the Dar al Islam, i.e., the realm of Sharia and Islam, and the Dar al Harb, the realm of disbelief and war, and the Koran clearly states that there can be no peace on earth as long as chaos exists, i.e., the Dar al Harb. Hence, at least to me, the Paul’s couldn’t be anymore self-hating and unqualified to lead America today or anytime in the future.

    • Gus Baker

      Is that so? Islam has been around longer than America so…Why is it then they weren’t bothering us until we forced the state of Israel on them? Why is it they weren’t bothering us until we overthrew Iran’s Democratically elected govt?
      Why is it they weren’t bothering us before we put bases on the Arabian lands?
      Why don’t they attack Switzerland?
      Terrorist attacks have INCREASED by more than 4 times since the invasion of Iraq, but you want to continue this ignorance that our govts actions in that region aren’t escalating the situation? No Jethro, I don’t “blame America”, I do blame our corrupt govt and blind stooges like you who worship at it’s feet.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Is that so? Islam has been around longer than America so…

        First of all, are you Liberty NC’s dumber brother? Self-hatred is a very debilitating mental disease isn’t it? By the way, exactly when did we force the infidel state of Israel on them you bigot? As a matter of fact, according to you kooks, just having the audacity to defend yourself by fighting back causes blowback! Thus, that’s a no, no in their book!

        Why is it they weren’t bothering us until we overthrew Iran’s Democratically elected govt?

        Wow…way back in the 50s we helped Britain reinstall the Shah who was the rightful ruler of Iran after Mossadegh, who had previously been appointed by the Shah and who was also secular, i.e., an infidel, had usurped his authority, but according to you Ron Paul kooks that somehow means we overthrew an allegedly democratically elected government. Listen you mental midget, why don’t you point to all the democratically elected governments in the Islamic totalitarian world, because there aren’t any, especially when you consider the fact that Islam is a very oppressive and rabid form of totalitarianism that masquerades as a religion.

        Why is it they weren’t bothering us before we put bases on the Arabian lands?

        Oh okay according to you self-hating kooks, we were attacked on 9/11/2001 because way back in the 1950′s, you know ancient history, almost 50 years prior, we helped the Brits over throw Mossadegh an infidel and who not only had usurped the Shah’s authority, but who also had nationalized the Iranian oilfields by stealing hundreds of millions of dollars of British assets in the process, or because we had the audacity to put bases on Arab lands after being invited to do so by Arab rulers. Islam had nothing to do with it whatsoever because according to you unhinged wingnuts, it is a “religion of peace”. If that’s what you mental incompetents want to believe that we were attacked because we helped remove Mossadegh, an infidel, from power in Iran 50 years earlier, then, by all means, be my guess you flake. By the way, we were attacked by Sunnis on 9/11/2001 who are the mortal enemy of the Shiites you moron.

        Why don’t they attack Switzerland?

        I hate to rain on your unhinged loony tune parade you mentally deficient moonbat, but as in most Euroloon countries across the pond, hardly a day goes by in Switzerland without some Islam related problems being in the news.

        Terrorist attacks have INCREASED by more than 4 times since the invasion of Iraq

        How many? Where?

        Sorry, but Muslims are not terrorists you moonbat, they are jihadists instead, as waging jihad (holy war) in one form or another in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims. Moreover, it is not like they have any choice in the matter either, as the price for non-compliance, i.e., blasphemy and apostasy, is very steep in Islam because it is death.

        but you want to continue this ignorance that our govts actions in that region aren’t escalating the situation?

        Wow you must live in a really small and incredibly myopic world. Take a look around the world you narrow-minded Ron Paul moonbat, everywhere in the world an Islamic totalitarian state borders an infidel state today, as in, for instance, Israel, India, Thailand, the Philippines, Chechnya, Somalia, Sudan, Nigeria, the Balkans, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum, we see both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad (holy war) being waged against the non-Muslim infidels. Indeed, like an anti-Semitic bigot you eagerly vilify and demonize Israel, but the fact of the matter is that all infidels in the world, including dumb ones like you, are the targets of Islam, as Israel’s problem, if you are an infidel, is also your problem as well, even if you are too mentally incompetent to figure it out.

        In any event, the sole fundamental purpose of mainstream orthodox Islam is the subjugation of all religions and all infidels into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia (Islamic totalitarian law) to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world, and that — you kook — is why were attacked on 9/11/2001. So stick your Ron Paul garbage up where the sun doesn’t shine kook.

        No Jethro, I don’t “blame America”, I do blame our corrupt govt and blind stooges like you who worship at it’s feet.

        Indeed, some of the dumbest, most mentally deficient posters I have ever encountered in all my time on the Internet are Ron Paul kooks. Where does he find all you unhinged flakes that he wrings for mucho deniro? Perhaps I should start spewing some really stupid crap and steal away his loyal and extremely dumb following and make some money at the same time.

        • Gus Baker

          What a chunk of babble

          “audacity to defend yourself by fighting back causes blowback!”

          Fighting back? That’s rich. I already gave numerous examples of where our govt has meddled in their business long before any terrorism began on US soil, you just refuse to hear anything that doesn’t suit your ignorant NeoCon nonsense.

          “way back in the 50s we helped Britain reinstall the Shah who was the rightful ruler of Iran after Mossadegh”

          First of off, I’d say whoever was elected by the people was the rightful ruler, second, it’s so funny how you don’t see that you are defeating your own argument here, since when is it America or Britains place to tell the Iranians who their “rightful ruler” is, it’s none of our damn business, get it? Of course you don’t,

          “why don’t you point to all the democratically
          elected governments in the Islamic totalitarian world, because there
          aren’t any,”

          Seriously? Wow.

          “Islam is a very oppressive and rabid form of totalitarianism that masquerades as a religion.”

          Most religions are, what’s your point? What has that got to do with me 1000′s of miles away here in America?

          “hardly a day goes by in Switzerland without some Islam related problems being in the news. ”

          You’ve got to be kidding me.

          “How many? Where?”

          http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/sep/25/usa.iraq

          “ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims.”

          Many say the same about Christians, there are over 1 Billion Muslims in the world, and growing, I’m pretty sure if what you are saying is true we’d all be dead by now, however, because of your ignorance you just might succeed in uniting them all against us and you may get your wish after all.

          As to your next chunk of babble, tell me why none of this was happening pre-WWII? As to Israel, ooooh call me a bigot eh, liberal much are we? Yeah, so funny how you guys think you’re so different, Progressives and NeoCons, at your core you are the same small minded children who can’t debate an issue so you play the race card.

          If you actually had any knowledge of Israel you would know it’s not Israel that people oppose it’s Zionism, many of the people of Israel very much oppose Zionism, not that I’d expect you to know anything about that. I bet you are also ignorant of the fact that over 30,000 Jews live in Iran.

          No Jethro, Israel’s problem is not my problem, America was formed in 1776, Islam was around long before then and they did not cross the ocean and attack, you want to blind yourself to what changed that fine, but it is you who are making terrorism worse. You are not going to stop random acts of violence by bombing and invading 3rd world countries, you only make it worse, I’ll be so glad when you Wilsonian liberals are dead and buried, of course, then we have to deal with snot-nosed millennials people like you have sent running into the liberals arms. .

          Every terrorist has been crystal clear as to why they attack us, not a single one of them has said it was because we wear blue jeans and listen to rock and roll, anyone who buys that nonsense has the brain of a fruit fly.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Very apparently, you are too dumb to realize how dumb you are.

          • Greg Rainbolt

            What an articulate response!

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Translation: The truth hurts! By the way, it also holds for you.

        • Greg Rainbolt

          You seem pretty full of war vinegar. You should enlist.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            You seem full of stupidity. Big deal!

          • http://www.nfl.com Right Wing

            You are a keyboard warrior like William Kristol who is all for sending others off to do the fighting while you sit “bravely” behind the keyboard as a chickenhawk who does have the guts to enlist and go himself. Back up you talk and enlist. If not, you are a gutless wonder. How noble is it to send the others to do the fighting?

            Here…https://my.goarmy.com/info/form/GetBrcFormRedirectByUrl.do?url=/info/send1

          • ObamaYoMoma

            You are a keyboard warrior like William Kristol who is all for sending others off to do the fighting while you sit “bravely” behind the keyboard as a chickenhawk who does have the guts to enlist and go himself.

            Man…you are so predictable and boring. I could care less about what that idiot Bill Kristol says or writes. The only reason you bring that idiot up is because you are trying to pigeon hole me in that same neo-con camp, but I challenge you to find any views of Kristol that mirror mine when it comes to Islam. He was a big advocate and supporter of GWB’s two fantasy based nation-building missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, I was pointing out to everyone that would listen that they would both turn into the two biggest strategic blunders ever in American history, and just like I said, they inevitably did.

            Back up you talk and enlist.

            Oh…not this adolescent nonsense again. Why don’t you act your age and not your shoe size moonbat?

            If not, you are a gutless wonder.

            You are stupidly assuming me to be a neo-con, but I’m not you moron. Neo-cons don’t like me as much as you Ron Paul kooks.

            How noble is it to send the others to do the fighting?

            Relax, I didn’t send anyone to do any fighting. Not to mention that I’m also against any and all fantasy based nation-building missions in any and all countries, Muslim and Non-Muslim alike. However, at the same time, I’m also not a mentally deficient self-hating loon like you and the Paul’s.

          • Alan Clark Jr.

            Enlist or shut the pie hole.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Man you dumb imbeciles are all brainwashed Ron Paul nutcases. It’s like you morons are all mind-numbed zombies that have been programmed alike to say the same exact infantile nonsense right on cue. Indeed, you are all too dumb to realize how dumb you are.

  • Habbgun

    The Pauls are known as fiscal conservatives but anyone willing to resort to narrative when explaining foreign policy will in the end resort to narrative when explaining economic policy. What will Rand Paul do when reining in the Fed (which should be done) doesn’t automatically send our economy into prosperity? What will the libertarians do when gay marriage and objectivism doesn’t create a real economy? They will do what the Leftists do. Blame everyone else and try to create the means of insuring their continued power.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      They believe that things work because their ideology says it should so…. Obama 2.0.

      • pete

        psst – i hear the libertarian faction was started as a disinformation/disenfranchisement campaign to splinter off from actual conservatism – just can’t remember where i heard it.

    • Gus Baker

      Just to clarify, only SOME libertarians support gay marriage, I don’t know how the narrative began that all libertarians support GM but we are as divided on it as the rest of the nation, I do not support it BTW. No, I won’t blame anyone, if I as free man make a choice and it blows up in my face, I’ll accept the consequences.

      • Habbgun

        I hear what you are saying. I used to like what the libertarians said but they played me for a sucker. Gay marriage being a perfect example. It was sold as the government simply doesn’t have a place in religious affairs so it will recognize a contractual agreement but what is holy marriage is left to religion. Now we find out that gay marriage is supposed to supersede religion and libertarians supported that all along and if they didn’t they sure do not speak up when the government expands its powers into laws that say you have to supply a gay marriage ceremony even if it violates your religious beliefs. You would think libertarians would be against government intrusion and intimidation of small business but no. As for foreign policy, libertarians are a disaster. They say governments can’t be trusted with power and will use force to get what they but they have no problems with narratives of American military power being the prime cause of problems in the Middle East and elsewhere. Human nature makes a strong defense necessary but somehow libertarians conveniently forget that and blame America and Israel when they stand up militarily.
        There are also the objectivists who are militant atheists and are against religion. I don’t trust the Pauls and as for consequences, we all share them. I do not need someone who says I made a bad mistake voting for Obama. I need people smart enough to vote for him in the first place. The same goes for the Pauls. I doubt either one will be a worthwhile president.

  • Shmalkandik

    Our invasion of Iraq how well has that done for the US?

    What ROI for the time, blood, treasure and inury to our constitution?
    Prudence dictates – remember that virtue – that we do not go abroad seeking dragons to slay.
    The USSR was a very different enemy that Islamofacism – our ICBM and ABM defense are irrelevant to it.
    Thus,, I suggest that our Grachii, the Pauls, were right – and are right, in-opposing this venture.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Our invasion of Iraq how well has that done for the US?

      Our fantasy based nation-building missions in Iraq and Afghanistan that inevitably turned into the two biggest strategic blunders ever in American history, were not the product of conservatism, as GWB and Karl Rove don’t have a conservative bone in their bodies between the two of them.

      Meanwhile, the Paul’s are self-hating loons that always gravitate towards blaming America first. Indeed, they are not qualified to be dogcatcher let along president of the most powerful country on earth.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      No one mentioned Iraq.

  • Aurelius

    Rand Paul has jumped on the amnesty bandwagon and has swallowed the hook baited by the leftoids. i.e., we need more diversity and inclusion in the Republican Party. Apparently, 30 million undocumented democrats awaiting amnesty will help the Republicans so he’s all for it. Right.

    He is Lindsey Graham in a different suit.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      That’s another reason I won’t support the Paul’s.

    • Erudite Mavin

      Lindsey Graham supports America and
      a strong National Security unlike Paul

      • ObamaYoMoma

        And he also doesn’t have a conservative bone in his mentally deficient body.

      • Jan

        How exactly is wanting to get involved in the foreign affairs of other countries that are no threat to our nation, start new wars, increasing spending, voting for the stimulus spending and bailouts, favoring a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and supporting the futile War on Drugs in any way represent “supporting America” and our “national security?” Lindsey Graham is one of the worst people in government today. Rand Paul actually has a vision and a plan. Graham has nothing good to offer.

        • Erudite Mavin

          You keep your self blind to both Rand’s push for amnesty and blind to the fact that this war was declared by Al Qaida 1996 not to mention bombing the World Trade Center 1993, killing Americans, bombing the USS Cole 2000 killing American Naval personal.
          And more Americans were killed by Radical Islam on 9/11 than at Pearl Harbor.
          Boston last year,4 killed, dozens had legs blown off on a street in Boston by Radical Muslims. Radial Muslim radicalized by Anwar al Awlaki killed 13 Americans at Ft. Hood, wounding over 30. the list goes on.
          Keep telling your self there is no threat, and Rand is not for Amnesty. What color is your unicorn on the rainbow ranch.

          • Liberty_NC

            The threat is real and further perpetuated daily by our insane foreign policy. Well, insane to anyone with common sense but if you’re one of the lucky few who make a fortune off of our ridiculous interventions and worldwide police actions, I guess it;s OK… Oh, and then, there are the silly cheerleaders like yourself who blindly support the ones making millions out of some sense of fear and or misguided patriotism.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            So according to you, it was America’s interventionist foreign policies that caused 9/11, not the fact that the sole fundamental purpose of Islam is to subjugate the world into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia (Islamic totalitarian law) to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the word. And I thought GWB was a moron when it came to Islam, but you self-hating Paulian loons take the prize. Not only that, but they also hate capitalism on top of it.

          • Liberty_NC

            It may be the sole purpose of radicals but for one who has seen the middle east and have know many from there, most are just farmers trying to have some kind of normal life until we inadvertently kill one of their children, mothers, brothers, etc. Then suddenly, you create a whole new group of radicals. All I am trying to say is it’s a self perpetuating process. If what you say about all Muslims is true, the only rational end game is to kill every last one of them as quickly as possible. Women, children, everyone. Is this what you advocate? BTW, thanks for the insults, they serve to substantiate your childish positions…

          • ObamaYoMoma

            It may be the sole purpose of radicals

            Dude…the only radicals that exist in Islam exist within the recesses of your unhinged mind, as all Muslims in the world are jihadists in one for or another since waging jihad in the cause of Allah in one form or another to ultimately make Islam supreme is a holy fundamental obligation incumbent upon all Muslims, and it is not like Muslims have an individual choice in the matter, as non-compliance, i.e., blasphemy and apostasy, are capital offenses in Islam. Moreover, your other arguments are so pathetic and Ron and Rand Paul like as to preclude me from even commenting, let alone trying not to laugh in your face.

          • Liberty_NC

            Instead of more childish insults, why not actually respond to my arguments and answer the question. Also, if what you say about ALL muslims being radical is true… how do explain we have not either been converted or killed yet? Given their numbers, if all muslims were united for the cause, as you have suggested, I believe we would not be having this discussion…

          • Gus Baker

            He can’t respond liberty, and he knows he can’t. Trying to talk to NeoCons about FP is like trying to talk to liberals about social programs, they have no answer so they just cry “racist” and “bigot”, same with NeoCons, if you don’t blindly support the govt on FP you must “hate America” or you’re “Isolationist” and ofcourse they don’t even know the meaning of those words.

          • Greg Rainbolt

            Exactly. Great analogy.

          • Alan Clark Jr.

            FP posters sound ALOT like StormFront posters…the racism ObamaYoMoma exudes is on par with a indoctrinated Al-CIAduh agent flying a drone to a wedding in Yemen.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Instead of more childish insults, why not actually respond to my arguments and answer the question.

            Okay, but it’s hard because your idiotic questions are so infantile and childish. Nevertheless, I will do my best. I promise. Almost.

            Also, if what you say about ALL muslims being radical is true… how do explain we have not either been converted or killed yet?

            First, are you sure you live on planet earth? If I said that although mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage to the infidel world has been occurring non-stop since the 1970s, and not one population of Muslim immigrants anywhere in the world has ever assimilated and integrated, it would probably cause you to blow a gasket and have a stroke. By the way, I said the opposite, that no Muslims are radicals.

            Nevertheless, Islam as opposed to being a religion is a very rabid totalitarian cult and extremely oppressive society. Hence, like all oppressive totalitarian societies with zero freedom, Islamic totalitarian society is incapable of producing anything on its own, and is thus completely dependent upon the West like a leach for everything it consumes and also produces from the production of oil to the purchase of basic pharmaceuticals. Indeed, although much of the oil in the world today originates from the Islamic Middle East, it is nonetheless not produced by Muslims but by imported Western contract workers instead.

            To say that Islamic totalitarian society is backwards relative to Western society is an understatement. Indeed, if not for the production of oil, which is a fairly recent phenomenon in the history of Islamic totalitarian society and which is done with Western contract workers that are imported for the task and not by Muslims, Islamic totalitarian society would still be living in the Dark Ages for the most part, as was the Muslims in Afghanistan when the Bush administration stupidly occupied it.

            Are you really so mentally incompetent that you could somehow possibly suggest that a rabidly totalitarian society that can’t produce anything on its own of any value, and not even its own food or oil, could possibly have already conquered and killed us all by now? Judging from the stupidity of your comments, you very apparently do. No wonder you worship the soil the Paul’s pee on.

            Given their numbers, if all muslims were united for the cause, as you have suggested, I believe we would not be having this discussion…

            I could care less what you believe. By the way, I have a pet dog that has a lot more brainpower than you.

          • Greg Rainbolt

            The entire world consists of bogeymen who are trying to kill us because we are free and our youth watch Britney Spears videos. The only way to be safe is to conquer the world, kill them all first, and dominate on a global scale as blood is spilled in order to make our politicians and defense contractors richer.

          • Greg Rainbolt

            That’s funny. I know a guy on a political forum whose wife is a peaceful Muslim like her whole family and they despise terrorism and don’t support the terrorists.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            That’s funny. I know a guy on a political forum whose wife is a peaceful Muslim like her whole family and they despise terrorism and don’t support the terrorists.

            And I know the Fairy God Mother too. Indeed, she’s my aunt! By the way, moron, with few exceptions, a Muslim female marrying an infidel is an automatic death sentence, unless it is for the purpose of stealth and deceptive jihad. Man how do the Paul’s find you suckers?

          • http://www.nfl.com Right Wing

            Oh, the fear mongering! We need to take them all out! They are coming for us! They hate us because we are free. We will not be safe until we committ mass genocide and rid the world of every last one of them!

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Oh, the fear mongering!

            Only morons like you try to enhance their own credibility by falsely making claims that they personally know so and so who happens to be a moderate peace loving Muslim. However, any Muslim female that so much as looks at a kafir infidel, let alone dates or marries one will die a victim of honor killing. Moreover, while Muslim males can marry non-Muslim females, the offspring of said marriage will always be Muslims. Indeed, Muslims never befriend kafir infidels because to do so is blasphemous and blasphemy in Islam is a capital offense. Thus, it couldn’t me more obvious that you are not only exceedingly ignorant of Islam and Muslims and an incredibly piss poor liar as well, but you are also exceedingly dumb to booth. Indeed, like I told the other guy, you are so dumb that you don’t even realize how dumb you are.

            They hate us because we are free.

            Not quite. They hate us because we are non-Muslim kafir infidels. Indeed, the sole fundamental purpose of mainstream orthodox Islam is the subjugation of all religions and all infidels, i.e., the world, into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad (holy war) and the eventual imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law, to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world.

            We will not be safe until we committ mass genocide and rid the world of every last one of them!

            Who is calling for mass genocide of all Muslims to rid the world of every last one of them other than you? Certainly not me! Indeed, I have composed a lot of posts concerning the best way to proceed to rid ourselves of this menace, but sorry mass Muslim genocide isn’t one of them. It’s amazing how you Ron Paul twerps all think so incompetently alike.

          • http://www.nfl.com Right Wing

            You must be some stormfront or rense guy who hates brown people.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            You must be some stormfront or rense guy who hates brown people.

            Oh…so we are posting under multiple names. I’m sure Frontpagemag and Discus will both be excited to learn that.

            Anyway, how? Do you see me bashing and blaming Israel and Jews because of the jihad (holy war) being waged against them perpetually by the Islamic totalitarian world through their proxies the so-called Palestinians the same way you mentally deficient morons do? By the way, moonbat, in case you haven’t quite noticed, Muslims consist of people of all different races and ethnics! So exactly how do you figure I must hate brown people?

            Let’s see, first you mentally handicapped losers tried to pigeon hole me into being a neo-con, since if you are not a Ron Paul kook, then that means you must be a neo-con. Right? Wrong! Now I’m some sort of “stormfront” or “rense” guy who hates brown people. Yup…there is a lot of brain power happening here, or more like it, lack there of.

            As a matter of fact, according to Ron and Rand Paul and you geniuses, of course, AQ, a Sunni Islamic organization who considers not only all non-Muslims to be infidels, but also all Shiite Muslims to be infidels as well, perpetrated the 9/11 violent jihad attacks on behalf of the Shiite infidels in Iran because of America’s interventionist foreign policy, i.e., specifically because the USA helped the UK oust Mossadegh, who not only had illegally usurped the Shah’s power, but who had also confiscated billions of dollars in oil production assets from the UK and the USA way back in the 1950s. Not to mention that Mossadegh was also a secular infidel, the kind that AQ loves to torture to death. Yet, according to the Paul’s and you idiots, that event, almost 50 years earlier, is what somehow eventually led to 9/11. Talk about far fetched pure utter stupidity!

            Of course, the Paul’s, exactly like the communists, where this piece of garbage originally emanates, hates capitalism because they always intentionally leave out the most important ingredient: that is when Mossadegh illegally nationalized the oil production in Iran, at the same time he not only broke numerous contracts that were entered into in good faith by the state of Iran and oil companies from the UK and the USA, but also confiscated and in effect stole billions of dollars in oil assets from those companies at the same time as well. Thus, the UK and the USA’s actions were completely justified given the set of circumstances, but to hear it in the Paul’s narrative, which is also the communist narrative, the UK and the USA were capitalist evil incarnate.

            Indeed, only extremely dumb ignoramuses could be so mentally deficient as to believe in that stupidity, but here you are, a testament to stupidity, as you morons nonetheless all still believe and embrace that nonsense to this very day. Thus, to say that you guys are mental and moral incompetents is an enormous understatement. By the way, it’s self-hating moronic losers like you kooks that give a bad name to true right-wingers and true conservatives.

          • Greg Rainbolt

            Exactly. And that is what Ron Paul and others are referring to when they say the drone bombings are actually creating more terrorists.

          • BrandonPolk

            Guess that depends on what brand of Islam you adhere to doesn’t it? I won’t pretend to have as much knowledge about Islam (as I am a devoted Christian) but I know that Shia are a bit more extreme in their eschatology than Sunni. Perhaps you are more informed about the differences in Islam than I am?

            In America, (and within Christianity) there are those whom have similar views. Let me ask you, who would you consider more extreme in their eschatological doctrine, Pentecostals or Methodists?

            It seems to me that everything in your previous statement could refer to Pentecostals (or other extreme Christians) who seek to impose (their version) of morality on society. This is no different than Muslims who would attempt to impose Sharia law on society.

            After reading your post, I was hoping that I could ask you some questions. Should the government intervene to purge society of extremist religions, either through violent or nonviolent means? Should this same standard be applied to Pentecostals (and other denominations that are typically associated with the Charismatic movement). Is Pentecostal doctrine just as extreme as Shia Islam doctrine? If not, then why not? If a person argues that the government should intervene because of radical religious doctrines, then how can this position be implemented (in light of the 1st Amendment)?

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Guess that depends on what brand of Islam you adhere to doesn’t it?

            Dude…there is only one brand of Islam: mainstream orthodox Islam, and why would you naively assume that Islam is actually a religion and then morally equate it with actual true faith-based religions, because it is not? It’s a rabid cult and strict form of totalitarianism. Further, it aims to subjugate the world into Islamic totalitarianism in order to make Islam supreme. Thus, your questions are off base, as this is a discussion about national security, not a ludicrous discussion of whether or not you believe some religions you disagree with should be outlawed. As for as the First Amendment goes, it doesn’t pertain to totalitarian cults masquerading as a religion.

          • Greg Rainbolt

            Did the founders put that in there as a sub-paragraph?

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Did the founders put that in there as a sub-paragraph?

            I have no idea what you are referring to, as I’m not a mind reader. However, I do know the Paul’s are notorious for quoting the founders out of context. For instance, when the founders warned not to get involved in foreign intrigues, it was because at the time the European continent was in almost constant warfare and our involvement at the time in their affairs would have only served to have torn the country apart, being that with the exception of the Indians, practically the entire country consisted of fairly recent immigrants. Nevertheless, the founders have never advocated national suicide as the Paul’s incessantly do ad nauseum.

          • Alan Clark Jr.

            So it was not OK to NOT get involved in tangled alliances of a wartorn Europe, but in your view its OK to get involved in a wartorn Mideast that has been in conflict longer than Europe has existed and it will in no way harm their view of us.

          • http://www.nfl.com Right Wing

            Yes, as long as he doesn’t have to go and can sit behind his keyboard rallying for war as an armchair General chickenhawk.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            So it was not OK to get involved in tangled alliances of a wartorn Europe

            At that time, no it was not in the young nascent country’s interests. Nevertheless, today the only thing that stands between a world dominated by freedom and a world dominated by totalitarianism is America’s economic and military might. Remove that obstacle, and BHO is doing his best, and it will be an open invitation to war as the various totalitarians will inevitably move in to fill the vacuum we leave behind. The problem is while all you Ron Paul kooks talk about how valuable freedom is, none of you blame America first moonbats believe it must be fiercely defended. Indeed, Rand Paul is running around today claiming that we can’t sacrifice liberty for security, but the reality is that without security, in time there will be no more liberty.

            but in your view its OK to get involved in a wartorn Mideast that has been in conflict longer than Europe has existed and it will in no way harm their view of us.

            Will you Ron Paul kooks ever stop trying to pigeon hole me as being a neo-con? Indeed, if I’m not a mentally handicapped Ron Paul nut case like you losers, then I guess that means that I must be a neo-con. Trust me, the neo-cons hate people like me almost as bad as you unhinged self-hating blame America first Ron Paul kooks.

          • Greg Rainbolt

            Alright, you’ll have to explain how the Pauls hate capitalism. I haven’t heard that one before, even from the most devoted neocon Paul haters. As far as interventionist foreign policies and 9-11, it is not that they caused it or that America is to blame. It is the reason why the jihadis decided to attack. In other words, it doesn’t take much to piss them off. Merely putting boots on their “holy” ground is enough reason in their minds to kill people. Bush 41 wanted to “forge a new world order” so he sent military forces to Saudi, who put boots on “holy ground.” Not only should we not “forge a new world order” and no conservative should support a new world order, but our government’s foreign policy provided the motivation for a sick twisted group to attack us.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Alright, you’ll have to explain how the Pauls hate capitalism.

            They hate capitalism when it involves America and other countries. Indeed, they are isolationists.

            I haven’t heard that one before, even from the most devoted neocon Paul haters.

            Get out of here you moonbat; I’m not a neo-con, in case you are too mentally deficient to figure it out.

            It is the reason why the jihadis decided to attack. In other words, it doesn’t take much to piss them off.

            You need to stuff that one up your backside you self-hating moonbat!

            Merely putting boots on their “holy” ground is enough reason in their minds to kill people.

            Like I keep discovering, most of the dumbest people I have ever run into on the Internet are all primarily Ron Paul kooks.

            Bush 41 wanted to “forge a new world order” so he sent military forces to Saudi, who put boots on “holy ground.

            That’s another one you need to stick up your backside moonbat.

            Not only should we not “forge a new world order” and no conservative should support a new world order, but our government’s foreign policy provided the motivation for a sick twisted group to attack us.

            You morons are not conservatives. Conservatives are not idiots. So quit bastardizing the term conservative you moonbat!

          • http://www.nfl.com Right Wing

            You have given me no answers and seem to be not interested in having any kind of debate or dialogue. You only respond with “moonbat” “kook” “stick up your backside” “mentally deficient” and “I’m not a neo-con”. Well, you very much are a neocon. The only question you answered was with a generality so you didn’t even answer that one. I asked you to explain how they are against capitalism and you reply they are against capitalism? How? And then you spew the isolationist mantra. Do you even know what isolationism is? How can someone against sanctions and for free trade be an isolationist? I don’t expect solid answers. I only expect insulting drivel with no substance.

          • Alan Clark Jr.

            Dont expect too much….he is just low IQ drone pilot. Scratch that….I don’t want to insult anyone who actually enlisted. He is a wannabe armchair general who thinks he has skin in the game since his dad served in WW2. He is a non serving chicken hawk who likes to watch the American Heroes Channel and dreams of storming a jihadi camp with his M60 screaming “Murica!!!! Fuck yeah!!!!”.

          • http://www.nfl.com Right Wing

            Yeah, as McCain, Obama, Graham, and their ilk send our youth off to foreign lands to bleed for corporate interests and these politicians line their pockets with blood money, old ObamaYoMoma will cheer on the sidelines with his pom-poms. He will put the “Support the troops” bumper sticker on his vehicle and say he did his part. What a warrior! There is no service award high enough to accommodate this guy properly.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            This rant shows you don’t know the difference between patriotism and nationalism. The Nazis would be proud of you.

            However, I do know that the Paul’s are incredibly stupid and that you are exceedingly dumb. Nevertheless, the Paul’s like you are neither patriotic nor nationalist. They are self-hating.

            Well, you very much are a neocon

            Of course, in the Paul’s incredibly myopic and exceedingly narrow view of world, if you are not a true conservative like them, then you are a so-called neo-con. Nonetheless, you moonbats are not conservatives. You are mentally deficient idiots and idiots are too dumb to be conservatives. Nonetheless, my views differ quite dramatically from the views of the standard run of the mill neo-cons, as they are almost but not quite as ignorant of Islam as you kooks are. Thus, please excuse me if I don’t partake in the brain damage of what the Paul’s ignorantly espouse since it is utterly absurd.

          • http://www.nfl.com Right Wing

            Again, don’t just beat the war drums as a cheerleader. Be a man and enlist. I would suggest you take this with you when you take the ASVAB…http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/asvab-for-dummies-cheat-sheet.html
            There is no way you would pass on your own.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Again, don’t just beat the war drums as a cheerleader. Be a man and enlist. I would suggest you take this with you when you take the

            Okay, so we are back now into believing I’m a mentally incompetent war loving neo-con again. Thus, anyone who is smart enough to dismiss the Paul’s as the mental midgets they are should automatically enlist in the military and man up. By the way, click on my profile, read my many posts, and show the readers and me where it is I’ve advocated for the idiotic fantasy based nation-building missions and insane democracy projects in Iraq and Afghanistan. You see moron, there is an obvious reason only a tiny minority of Americans are dumb enough to be members of the Paul kook brigade, and it isn’t because of intelligence.

            By the way, how many different names and false identities are you posting under?

          • http://www.nfl.com Right Wing

            I have reviewed some of your posts and do see you are quite critical of
            the Republican establishment. I am new to this forum and am not going
            to review through over a thousand posts, though. So, for the record,
            will you say you are not an interventionist? If so, this is good. For
            the record, even though I admire the Pauls, more so Ron than Rand, it is
            not about them, but about the liberty movement. There are things,
            mostly with Rand, in which I disagree and other things in which I
            agree. Maybe you and I agree on more than we disagree. We shall see.
            You would be able to get your point across more, though, if you
            presented your point of view without littering it with mud slinging and
            insults. This tends to reach people better.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Let me put it this way, I’m a Ronald Reagan type conservative and most of the nonsense the Paul’s ignorantly spew happened during the Reagan Presidency. In other words, unlike the Paul’s I believe in peace through strength, which means having an overall military presence in the world powerful enough to deter wars on a long-term basis. Indeed, in the long run it is far cheaper to always maintain a muscular military than it is to have to fight wars on both a monetary basis and on a human life basis. Thus, unlike the Paul’s vision of a military, the military I advocate for would be far more powerful, aggressive, and capable. Meanwhile the military the Paul’s advocate for would be an open invitation for war.

            As for as nation-building missions and fantasy-based democracy projects go, I’m totally against such nonsense. I prefer that we totally obliterate our enemies utterly and as fast as possible to set an example that will also send a very powerful message to our potential adversaries.

            As for as interventionism goes, that’s a stupid idiotic concept invented by self-hating/blame America first loons. Let me put it this way, we should act anytime it is in our national best interests to do so and not act when it’s not in our best interest. The operative word here is prudence. Nevertheless, we should not put the lives of our young sons and daughters at stake unless it is for the preservation of freedom and liberty for the folks back home.

            Furthermore, not acting on a preemptive basis when it is clearly in our national best interests to do so would be gross negligence and a dereliction of duty.

          • Greg Rainbolt

            It comes from the brainwashing of three hours a day of Hannity.

          • Gus Baker

            The world didn’t start in 1996, maybe you are unaware of that. No, I don’t “Blame America” you parrot, I do blame the American Govt and willfully ignorant people such as yourself. Most ME countries have no navy, no Air Force, and can barely feed their people, so tell me, who first crossed the ocean and fired the first shot – a ME country, or our corrupt govt?
            As for deaths, you have far more chance of being killed by some inner city gang than you do a terrorist. I can think of a laundry list of things that have FAR more chance of taking your life in a day than a terrorist, yet you want to hide under your covers from the Arab Boogieman like a little girl, so much for “home of the brave”. You might want to learn the phrase “I love my country, but I don’t trust my government.”
            As for Amnesty, I’m very much against Rand on this, however, pretty much every Repub I see has caved in on this issue, truth is the best time to deal with this problem, like many problems, was when Bush had EIGHT YEARS with a Rep Congress, but, we were to busy worrying about those dirt poor 3rd world countries thousand of miles away I suppose, I bet you voted for Bush twice didn’t you?

          • Erudite Mavin

            1993 World Trade Center Bombed, 2000 USS Cole Bombed., etc.
            The terrorist who flew the plan into the Pentagon lived in my City as did Anwar al Awlaki for over 4 yeas in San Diego.
            He assisted in radicalization of them here.
            Muslims killed on 9/11/01 more people than at Pearl Harbor
            Your libertarian – Neo Left propaganda is typical.
            Have dealt face to face with your type.
            You are scared to death to face the facts about radical Islam and their attacks and wars around the world.
            Your Ron Paul mantras are old.

          • Gus Baker

            I say 1996 you list two dates, 2000 and 2001, hmmm, that’s after ’96 isn’t it? You then list 93, OK, that’s one for 3, but if you had any comprehension skills you would have known my true question was about how this all began, you give 1993, OK, how about Iran 1953, Israel 1947, Arabian Peninsula 1990, Iran-Contra, Iran-Iraq War, any of these things mean anything to you, probably not.
            I love how you say I’m Neo-Left when everyone knows NeoCons are the liberals who latched onto Raegan when they realized the country was shifiting in his direction.
            Face the facts? What facts? I’m well aware there are crazy people in the world who would kill me if they could, I’m also aware I have more chance of dying from my toaster malfunctioning than I do from a terrorist, tho, thanks to blind fools such as yourself more and more people are hating my country and therefore me, everyday.

          • Liberty_NC

            Well put. What’s really sad is that less than 20 years ago, all these Neo Con zombies were decent conservatives. Amazing what conditioning can do in such short order.

          • Erudite Mavin

            Read what I posted about the Muslims fighting along side of Hitler’s troops, the Muslims continue the fight.
            Too bad you know nothing of history or facts.

            The PaleoCon Zombies are not conservatives.

            I worked at Reagan’s headquarters here when he first ran for governor. Met and talked with him. That is a Conservative.

          • Liberty_NC

            Would be happy to read the post but I do not see it here… Not sure what the Reagan comment is about. I thought he was great and campaigned for him here back in 84. However, if you think he’d be dealing with the ME the way we are now, you are deceived. What is truly conservative about bankrupting our country in the name of national security? What good does it do to protect us if our livelihood is reduced to nothing? As I asked Obamayomama earlier, seeing how you are consumed with fear of Muslims, the only rational end game for you would be to kill them all as quickly as possible. Is this your sentiment? It would seem this would be your ideal solution from your comments. IF your ideal solution for dealing with them is different, please share…

          • Erudite Mavin

            You are consumed with fear that Conservatives are exposing your libertarian cult.
            There are dozens of Military walking distance from be in the largest military hospital in the U.S. with legs and arms blown off by your Muslim friends.
            You just keep your head in the sand so you don’t get hit by reality

          • Liberty_NC

            You are the one consumed by fear my friend… I have tried repeatedly to have a rational discussion with you but you continually sink to insults and random comments that have nothing to do with what I have said so I give up. Good evening to you.

          • Greg Rainbolt

            McCain wanted our guys to fight along side these “Muslim friends” in Syria.

          • Gus Baker

            Yep, well, I think it was you who said at least most of them are old and will be gone soon, trouble is when you go to the liberals they have so many brainwashed youth, I’m 38 now, so I’m stuck between the two.

          • Erudite Mavin

            and I went back to 1930s and all you have to do is check out on line what I posted.
            If you don’t want to read, there are tons of photos and videos.

          • Greg Rainbolt

            Policing the world is old. It’s also expensive. It also spreads our forces thin and drains our resources. It also causes more harm than good.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          Dude…don’t look now but that mentally incompetent, self-hating, blame America first loon you support also advocates a pathway to citizenship for 30 million illegal immigrants. What are you Paulians smoking? Send me some!

          • Greg Rainbolt

            Yeah more Hannity rhetoric and talking points. How exactly do the Pauls blame America, by citing the reasons the enemy attacked us? Do profilers and police not investigate why a crime was committed? This doesn’t mean they are blaming the victim. Much of what the Pauls have stated regarding America being attacked has been taken from the CIA expert and head of the Bin Laden unit, Michael Scheuer. Don’t you think the guy in charge of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit would know something about Bin Laden? By the way, Scheuer is a conservative Republican who has never voted for a Democrat.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            How exactly do the Pauls blame America, by citing the reasons the enemy attacked us?

            First of all you kook, you are very naively assuming the reasons cited by the Paul’s for the attacks are valid, but they’re not. As a matter of fact, the reasons cited, i.e., American interventionist foreign policies, is not only utterly absurd, it is also extremely self-hating and amounts to always blaming America first. The same goes for Israel, as the Paul’s also ignorantly blame harsh Israeli policies and Israeli settlements for the jihad that is being waged against it by the Islamic totalitarian world through their proxies the so-called Palestinians.

            Nevertheless, the reasons Muslims attacked us on 9/11/2001 are two fold. First, because of PC multicultural blindness our politicians and federal workers on both sides of the political aisles made the mistake of allowing mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage that is really non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad (holy war) for the strategic purpose of mass Muslim infiltration and eventual demographic conquest.

            Thus, thanks to the migration of millions of Muslim stealth jihadists to America on the occasions before 9/11/2001, the 9/11 violent jihad attacks were not only inevitable, they were also probable. As Muslims never ever migrate to the infidel world to assimilate and integrate, because that would be extremely blasphemous and blasphemy in Islam is a capital offense. Instead, Muslims only migrate to the infidel world to eventually subjugate and dominate.

            Indeed, I challenge you are anyone else to cite just one case of Muslim migrants to the infidel world anywhere ever assimilating and integrating and then matriculating into contributing and productive members of their new host infidel society. As Muslim migrants first form Muslim enclaves that in time morph into Muslim no-go zones ruled by Sharia (Islamic totalitarian law) that are in effect tiny Islamic statelets within the larger host infidel states. Indeed, the government of France counted in excess of 700 Muslim no-go zones in France alone a few years ago.

            Second, the sole fundamental purpose of Islam is the subjugation of all religions and all infidels, i.e., the world, into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad (holy war) and the eventual imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law, to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world.

            Indeed, waging jihad (holy war) in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims in one form or another, i.e., either violently as in AQ, or non-violently by stealth and deception as in the Muslim Brotherhood.

            And it is not like Muslims have a choice in the matter either, as non-compliance with the tenets and obligations of Islam is punished severely. In fact, blasphemy and apostasy are capital offenses in Islam. Therefore, all Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another. Otherwise, they are blasphemous apostates that per the texts and tenets of Islam must be executed.

            With all due disrespect, those two self-hating blame America first kooks you admire are little more than unhinged lunatics. Indeed, the notion that AQ, which is a Sunni Islamic organization that not only considers all non-Muslims to be infidels, but also all Shiite Muslims to be infidels as well, would attack the USA on 9/11 on the behalf of Shiite infidels in Iran because the USA once helped the UK remove Mossadegh way back in the 1950s is utterly ludicrous. Not to mention that Mossadegh wasn’t even a damn Muslim, as he was secular infidel instead, i.e., the kind of infidel AQ loves to torture and taunt to death. It boggles the mind that these two kooks can be so stupid and at the same time dupe so many millions of low information moonbats like you. It’s truly amazing.

            Do profilers and police not investigate why a crime was committed?

            That’s ludicrous! What does that have to do with the 9/11 violent jihad attacks? The 9/11 violent jihad attacks were acts of war! You moonbats have severe mental issues.

            Much of what the Pauls have stated regarding America being attacked has been taken from the CIA expert and head of the Bin Laden unit, Michael Scheuer. Don’t you think the guy in charge of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit would know something about Bin Laden?

            Michael Scheuer is a mentally incompetent self-hating loon and unhinged Israel basher, just like the Paul’s and CIA chief John Brennan, who claims absurdly that jihad (holy war) is a legitimate tenet of Islam that involves an inner spiritual struggle. Yeah right, it is a legitimate tenet of Islam all right, but I’m afraid it involves a heck of a lot more than just struggling spiritually.

            Our entire federal government has been filled with self-hating mental incompetents for decades in case you haven’t figured it out. Why do you think we allow mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage that is really non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad for the strategic purpose of mass Muslim infiltration and demographic conquest? It’s because of the mental incompetent gullible useful idiots permeating throughout our government on both sides of the political aisle.

            By the way, Scheuer is a conservative Republican who has never voted for a Democrat.

            He’s no conservative! He’s a self-hating mentally handicapped loon like you! Conservatives don’t vilify and demonize the state of Israel because it happens to be Jewish. Only Muslims, Marxist Totalitarian Leftists, and mentally deficient self-hating Ron Paul kooks are dumb enough to do that.

            Indeed, in all my time on the Internet, the dumbest people I have ever run into are all Ron Paul kooks. Amazing

          • http://www.nfl.com Right Wing

            This rant shows you don’t know the difference between patriotism and nationalism. The Nazis would be proud of you.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            This rant shows you don’t know the difference between patriotism and nationalism. The Nazis would be proud of you.

            However, I do know that the Paul’s are incredibly stupid and that you are exceedingly dumb. Nevertheless, the Paul’s like you are neither patriotic nor nationalist. They are self-hating.

          • Brain Washington

            I have someone locating you for me now.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Like I would be afraid much less intimidated by a mental midget like you who is dumb enough to believe the most obvious of lies. You are nothing but an extremely gullible useful idiot and a severely mentally handicapped moron! Not to mention that you are about as mature as an adolescent pipsqueak . So up yours, you mentally unhinged moonbat.

      • Liberty_NC

        Your kind are slowly but surely disappearing from the scene. I long for the day when idiot Neo-cons are nothing but a bad memory. Anyone who is still foolish enough to believe that Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.. has anything to do with fighting terror or the security of us Americans here at home is surely blinded by a bloodthirst for brown people. Every time we use a drone to attack one or two, we kill about thirty innocents. Thus creating about three times that many new terrorist who really didn’t not care prior to that event… And the madness continues. .

        • Erudite Mavin

          Your king, the PaleoCons will be a bad memory when your type continue to enable Radical Islam being useful isiot

          • Liberty_NC

            Radical Islam is enabled every time we use a drone. Our foreign policy serves as their greatest recruiting tool.

          • Erudite Mavin

            You wish

          • Gus Baker

            I’ll keep this simple, let’s see if you can answer it:
            It’s 1945, WWII is over, most in the ME neither know, nor care much about us, most in America neither know nor care much about the ME – So, what changed all that? Which side first crossed the ocean and fired the first shot? Can you answer, I can.

          • Greg Rainbolt

            No, it’s a fact. If a wedding party is taken out, there are people who normally wouldn’t have a problem with the U.S. After their wedding party is turned into a funeral and their wife, son or daughter is killed by a drone, they then have a problem with the U.S.

      • Greg Rainbolt

        Lindsey Graham is for amnesty and also supports a foreign policy which weakens our national security. He wants to deplete our troops and resources by using them on global conquests rather than defending the United States.

        • Alan Clark Jr.

          He is also a closet homosexual.

    • Jan

      What in the world are you talking about? Rand Paul is nothing like Lindsey Graham. They don’t agree on anything. And Rand Paul has made himself clear that we need stronger board security. He has never supported Amnesty. Paul saying that we need more diversity in the GOP is not “liberal bait,” it’s a fact. The current state of the Republican Party is not promising. There is a reason we have decisively lost the past two elections. If you don’t change your approach after repeatedly trying and failing with it, yet still expect a different result, that is the very definition of insanity. That doesn’t mean that Paul or anyone else for that matter has to compromise on his principles to please the crowd. Quite the opposite. Rand Paul needs to keep doing what he has been doing, which is preaching the importance of smaller government, REAL spending and tax cuts, a sensible foreign policy, and abiding by a largely ignored Constitution. In no way, shape, or form is that “jumping a bandwagon” or using a “different suit.” Perhaps you should get your facts straight. RAND PAUL 2016

      • Erudite Mavin

        The Rand Paul Evolution: Rand Paul calls for ‘path to citizenship’ for illegals

        By Rosalind S. Helderman, Published: March 19, 2013

        The dramatic shift in the Republican Party on immigration continued Tuesday,

        as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a conservative tea party icon and possible 2016 presidential contender, endorsed an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws that would allow the nation’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants to obtain
        legalized status.

        “Immigration will not occur until conservative
        Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution.

        ===============

        Sen. Rand Paul: Illegal immigrants should be allowed to obtain legal status

        By Rosalind S. Helderman, Published: March 19, 2013

        Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a conservative tea party icon and possible 2016 presidential contender, endorsed an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws that would allow the nation’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants to obtain legalized status.

        =========
        There is so much more on Rand Paul and his amnesty agenda not to mention Rand is against E verify
        Then you have his dad Ron Paul who when in congress voted every time against bills that would fence the border

        • Liberty_NC

          That is because RP was smart enough to see what a big expensive, yet ineffective, debacle a fence would be. Once again, if you listen to Fox and Rush enough, you WILL become stupid and incapable of thinking rationally for yourself. Illeagal alliens do not come here because we do not have a fence, they come here because of all the perks. RP was not for the fence, he was more for turning off the perks that draw them… Once again, a real solution as opposed to a band aid.

          • Erudite Mavin

            When was the last time you were in the streets with other Republicans countering a march with over 50,000 Mexicans for amnesty.
            You are a keyboard commando, I counter the amnesty, Code Pinko, and Muslims in the streets..
            And, don’t tell me about illegals, I am sitting 15 miles north from the largest and busiest border crossing in the world, San Diego – Tijuana.
            I believe in strong border security unlike the Ron Paul idiot who voted every time when in congress against bills fencing the border.

            You probably never seen 5 Mexicans together in yor life and why you don’t have a clue. Your simple views don’t wash in the real world

          • Liberty_NC

            Do you disagree that turning off many of the magnets, such as health care, welfare, schools, scholarships, driver’s license etc for illegals would not cease more border crossings than your fence? The fence is nothing more that political propaganda. Until we change our policy of how we deal with immigrants that are here, no fence will stop them from coming in.

          • Erudite Mavin

            You are naïve.

            10s of thousands a year enter the U.S.

            to have their kids which makes them a U.S.

            citizen and thus they collect welfare, food stamps, MediCal, etc.

            Then you have the vast numbers who now have amnesty thanks to Obama’s 2012 Executive Order Dream Act Amnesty.

            Obama said he will finish his Amnesty Agendy by Executive Order if congress does not give him what he wants.

            BTW, One of our 5 congressmen here in San Diego got the triple fencing up several years ago for over 15 miles until the Democrats pulled the financial plug on it.

            San Diego shares a 60 mile border

            One of the border crossings here in San Diego

            http://www.aerialarchives.com/stock/img/AHLB4465.jpg

            http://sanysidrochamber.org/customcontent/members/admin/block_images/San-Ysidro-border-crossing.jpg

            BTW, the illegals come by panga boat, 25 per boat and land here on the 70 mile San Diego coast line on the beaches. The Coast Guard, BOrder Patrol, etc. are active on this.

            You can have your wishful thinking but Obama already has amnesty under way, also:

            The Rand Paul evolution: Rand Paul calls for ‘path to citizenship’ for illegals

            By Rosalind S. Helderman, Published: March 19 , 2013

            The dramatic shift in the Republican Party on immigration continued Tuesday,
            as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a conservative tea party icon and possible 2016
            presidential contender, endorsed an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws
            that would allow the nation’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants to obtain
            legalized status.

            “Immigration will not occur until conservative
            Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution.

          • Gus Baker

            You keep jumping back and forth between Ron and Rand, they are two seperate human being you know.

          • Erudite Mavin

            With the same mind set

          • Liberty_NC

            BTW I grew up on farms in the southeast so yes, I believe I past your quota of 5 in the same place a long time back. You may consider my views simple but I would wager your fence never gets built by anyone because talking about it gets to much mileage politically.

          • Gus Baker

            A fence? Man, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Look, I am as much opposed to amnesty as the next guy, but a fence is one of the dumbest ideas I’ve ever heard and only a Republican who truly fits the “dumb inbred” stereotype would even suggest it. You really think a fence, that will cost billions of dollars to build and billions more to maintain will stop illegals, ever heard of the Maginot Line, wait, what am I saying, ofcourse you haven’t.

          • Erudite Mavin

            On our 60 mile border with Mexico here in San Diego,
            among the largest and busiest border crossing in the world along with other port of entries we have fencing including 15 miles of triple fencing.
            Your Peter Pan libertarians don’t want border fences, just open borders.
            A military at the border would cost 100s of times the cost of fencing plus they would be targets just as the Border Patrol who now cannot fire back when huge rocks are thrown and are hit.
            the PaulBots use him and his propaganda just as a child
            does sucking their thumb.

          • Gus Baker

            Guess you missed where I said this eh – “I am as much opposed to amnesty as the next guy” Maybe if you weren’t such a lunkhead and listened you’d see I only said a fence was a stupid idea, I certainly never said I was for amnesty. I would dry up the entitlements for starters to take away their incetive to come here in the first place.
            Next we allow local municipalities to start enforcing the immigration laws rather than what our federal govt – Republican and Democrat alike – has been doing for years which is forbidding law enforcement from doing it’s job.

          • Erudite Mavin

            Guess you missed it when the Democrats have taken over the basic government framework decades ago.
            You have not seen over 50,000 Mexicans marching for Amnesty as I have.
            Anytime they come across a bump, they rally, the ACLU are there to back them up along with the usual left wing groups.
            You live in a world of theory, I live in a large city and in the world of reality.
            Just last week, the Border Patrol was told by the Democrats and ACLU, no firing back at Mexican rock throwers even when they hit you in the head with large rocks, because one BP did to defend himself.
            This is a different world from over 60 years ago. Democrat controlled government, Democrat Unions, Left Wing Public Schools, Radical Left Universities, Left Wing MSM.
            Decades of kids graduating from public schools and Universities have given us more generations of Democrat majority voters.
            The all or nothings sat at home or voted third party and enabled Obama’s presidency. There is no erasing the damage he has done both to the U.S. and his support for Radical Islam.
            You can keep yourself in the world of theory and keep your self oblivious to what we face

          • ObamaYoMoma

            The all or nothings sat at home or voted third party and enabled Obama’s presidency. There is no erasing the damage he has done both to the U.S. and his support for Radical Islam.

            In case you don’t remember, the illustrious two Bush administrations were as destructive to America as the Obama administrations have been, as like Obama, Bush grew the size, scope, and power of the federal government like a Dhimmicrat on steroids, he lied to the American people about the evils of Islam subsequent to the 9/11 violent jihad attacks, and then he is also solely responsible for the two biggest strategic blunders in Iraq and Afghanistan ever in American history. So excuse some of us if we are a little circumspect when it comes to voting for Republican Marxist Totalitarians.

          • Harrison J Bounel

            See you in Jersey.

          • Greg Rainbolt

            Don’t you have a problem with the rewards given to illegals? Ceasing these rewards would be much more effective and cost effective than building a fence, which would also keep us in.

          • Erudite Mavin

            I see it first hand and if you think over 11 million will walk away, you are more uninformed than I thought.
            Obama already signed his Executive order in 2012 for Amnesty for the Dream Act and said if congress does not give him more Obama will finish his Amnesty agendy with more Executive Orders,

          • Greg Rainbolt

            These are very good points.

        • Greg Rainbolt

          Why do you have to bring up Ron’s policies to address Rand’s policies? Are you not aware they are two individuals who agree on things and disagree on other things? Are you like the Obama supporters who brought up Bush policies to condemn McCain in 2008? Do you know why Ron voted against bills which would fence the border? Because fences would also keep us in. It’s bad enough we need permission to leave the country via a passport, but to fence an area in is not reflective of a free society, unless you thought East Berlin was free.

          • Erudite Mavin

            Having been in East Germany when it was controlled by the Communist in the early 1980s and sitting 15 miles north from the largest and busiest border crossing in the world, San Diego – Tijuana.,
            you cannot compare a Communist country placing walls, fences, minefields to keep the people from escaping and the U.S. having a fence to separate our country vs another country.
            Not only millions more from Mexico but South America and those from the Middle East who attempt to use Mexico to enter the U.S.
            Your neo Marxist view that American is not an independent country and believe in open borders
            to swell by 10s of millions more on welfare and moe crime.
            Your lack of real world knowledge and your cult like
            obedience to Ron Paul and his neo left views are what will give us Hillary in 2016 as it did Obama in 08 and 12 thanks to the all or nothing pures who sat at home or voted third party

          • Greg Rainbolt

            What neo-Marxist views? Do you even know what Marxism and Neo-Marxism are? Yes, we have an immigration problem, but the answer is to cease the entitlements, along with enforcing security on the borders via patrols or the military. The answer is not a fence. It is not cost effective and would do little to deter illegal immigration. Yes, it could resemble those countries keeping people in. How do you know it would not?

      • pete

        then there’s that whole “de facto AMNESTY” comment – thus, giving millions of America lovers pause for major reflection

  • Erudite Mavin

    Excellent article exposing the Paul’s.
    Their lack of knowledge of National Security
    and the reality of the enemy we face along with
    a Peter Pan outlook on the war the Muslims
    declared on America and the blame America and Israel
    agenda.

    Rand said
    “But Reagan also believed in diplomacy and demonstrated a reasoned approach to our nuclear negotiations with the Soviets. Reagan’s shrewd diplomacy would eventually lessen the nuclear arsenals of both countries”
    When Reagan went the diplomacy route, he did so with our Military – Weapons strong not to mention SDI. the soviets knew Reagan could back up his words
    with American Military.
    Paul would pull the plug further with our National Security and we would be the official door mat.

    • Liberty_NC

      We the people are the “doormat” now for flipping the bill for all this nonsense. You honestly believe our national security is at stake and trust our current or recent past leadership to protect us? All our leadership does is use fear and propaganda to keep up their profit games. Obama is currently “downsizing” our military on the surface. This gets conservatives all worked up about us looking weak. Meanwhile, for every underpaid serviceman or woman we send home, we hire more overpaid private contractors to replace them. Obama is nothing more than a bad continuation of GWB on foreign policy. He serves the same interests as his predecessors.

    • Gus Baker

      But ofcourse, you are an expert on FP I take it? By all means, wow me with your knowledge. What good has come out of Iraq? What’s ever going to be the happy ending in Afghanistan? What good came from overthrowing Iran’s elected leader in 1953? What good came from putting our bases in Saudi Arabia? How do you propose to keep paying for this military of ours that spends more than the next 10 nations put together? No my friend, your ideas are sending us right down the same path as the Soviets.

      • Erudite Mavin

        You are delusional. documentation and photos won’t change your mind.
        You are deep into the cult and drank to kool aid.
        As your Ron Paul said, America should not have fought Hitler to save the Jews. That is your mindset

        • Gus Baker

          First off, you’re taking his words out of context, second, even if that was exactly what he said, doesn’t mean I said it, how about you reply to what I said? You can’t, documentation and photos, of what? What documentation and photos would answer my question about our budget? Afghanistan?
          Apparently I was right about Saudi Arabia since our govt pulled out of there. You think we’re going to win in Afghanistan, that is exactly what Bin Laden wanted, to bog us down there just as they did the British and the Soviets, how’d it work out for them again? Not that I’d expect you to ever have looked into what Osama actually said was the motivation for his actions, I guess you know better than the man who actually did it eh?

  • Anukem Jihadi

    Rand Paul is a likable guy but I’d like him a whole lot more if he didn’t try to hijack the Reagan legacy. An attempt to lay claim to a deeper understanding of the Reagan era almost always indicates a deep insecurity that your opponent may appear more Reaganesque than you.
    People react negatively to this kind of thing instinctively I believe because in truth it’s not very Reaganesque at all.

    • Adobe_Walls

      I like Rand Paul right were he is, in the senate he can do more good than harm, here’s hoping for him to have a long senate career.

  • truebearing

    Paul fears Cruz, and Cruz fears the consequences of Paul getting elected. Cruz knows that Rand is a somewhat more strategically gifted, stealthier version of his father, but shares the same rigid ideology.

    Rand Paul has some very legitimate points, but none are in the arena of foreign policy. His support of Amnesty is as bad as his foreign policy. Rand Paul is a consequentialists nightmare.

    The job description of an American president includes foreign policy acumen and the ability to handle situations that are far more complex and serious than a school fire drill. You can’t refer back to the Paul Magic-8-Ball for the libertarian economically correct solution and expect success in foreign policy. Foreign policy, like military strategy, is a province for those who think with clarity, originality, agility, and confidence. Ideologues have no capacity for lateral movement, much less a convincing feint.

    If you want to know who to vote for, watch who the Left attacks the most. Cruz should be our nominee for a lot of reasons, and the Left knows it. Will the Right figure it out? I won’t be holding my breath.

  • ReturnOfTheFallen

    So a strong national defense, and a willingness to let diplomacy prevail, is somehow extremist? You know conservatives and progressives will both grow the government and the debt, and they only believe in small government and liberty when it fits into their world view. Republicans had Gov. Gary Johnson, a successful businessman with executive experience and a true small government, pro-civil liberties record, but they nominated the moderate democrat Romney instead. Between that and Obama’s nomination, a whole lot can be said about the voters in both parties.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      So a strong national defense, and a willingness to let diplomacy prevail, is somehow extremist?

      When the Paul’s say they believe in strong national defense, their idea of strong national defense is far nearer to Obama’s idea of strong national defense, than to Reaganite conservative’s idea of strong national defense.

      Reaganite conservatives believe in peace through strength and the kind of strong national defense that the Paul’s and Obama believe in is an open invitation for war. Indeed, it is far cheaper in the long run in terms of monetary value and the cost of human lives to maintain a strong national defense that deters war than it is to have to fight wars. The kinds of strong national defense the Paul’s and Obama advocate is a strong invitation for war.

      You know conservatives and progressives will both grow the government and the debt,

      You obviously don’t know what you are talking about, as conservatives believe in smaller and less government, otherwise they are not conservatives. Apparently, you are mistaking our last two Republican Presidents for being conservatives. However, neither one of them, the father or the son, had a conservative bone in their incredibly liberal bodies, which explains why they both grew government and involved us in needless wars like Dhimmicrats on steroids, and when I say needless wars, I’m talking about GWB’s two fantasy based nation-building missions in Iraq and Afghanistan that inevitably turned into the two biggest strategic blunders ever in American history, and Bush I’s and Bill Clinton’s jihad, as proxies for the Islamic totalitarian world no less, against our former Orthodox Christian Serb allies in the Balkans. Reaganite conservatives never would have involved the country and our troops in anything nearly so idiotic or asinine.

      they only believe in small government and liberty when it fits into their world view.

      That’s utterly absurd, especially when you see Rand Paul saying that we can’t sacrifice liberty for security. The reality is you can’t have liberty without security, because in time you will lose that liberty due to lack of security.

      Now it just so happens that I happen agree with Rand Paul that the federal government has become far too intrusive into our private lives, but lets use some common sense by banning and reversing mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage because it is really non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad for the strategic purpose of demographic conquest, as zero Muslims in America would translate into zero jihad in America.

      Thus, we could get rid of the gargantuan Department of Homeland Security and the gigantic National Intelligence Directorate that were created in GWB’s administration and if we were able to do that, then we could use the freed up money to reduce taxes or pay down the national debt.

      I know you don’t have a clue what I’m talking about, since you are a Paul acolyte, but trust me, as I’m no mentally incompetent, self-hating, and amnesty-supporting loser like Rand Paul.

  • Gus Baker

    OK, can any of you explain why everytime this “writer” wanted to attack Rand he used things that his FATHER said or did? Yaknow what clown, if you want to attack someone, attack them for THEIR actions and deeds.
    I’m not even saying I disagree with Ron Paul, I was a supporter of his, and I’ll support Rand as well, but you are pretty pathetic to try and attack a son for things his father did, I have all kinds of disagreements with members of my family, we all still love each other, but we are not carbon copies.

  • Xerxes0

    Border fences are pointless wastes of money.
    Effective laws preventing hiring illegal workers are needed.
    require children born in the US to have a US citizen parent or grandparent to get US citizenship.
    Most countries have this law.

  • Erudite Mavin

    So you think he received his rank as colonel out of a cracker jack box.
    He has been on the ground in Iraq and Afghn, many times, you haven’t.

    • Gus Baker

      “On the ground”, yeah, kinda like how the Pres makes a visit every now and then, he was no where near combat.
      As for how he got his rank, now I KNOW you’ve never been in the military with that statement. I was in 4yrs Army for the record, I’d suit up again if there was a credible threat to our country how about you chickenhawk?
      Just so you know, most of us hated Lindsey Graham after he tried that crap where he claimed he was a veteran of Desert Storm/Shield when he had never left the states.

      • Erudite Mavin

        Chicken hawk? Decades ago they did not allow women in combat

      • Alan Clark Jr.

        Yeah I remember that now….Desert Storm Vet here…91B Combat Medic… notice how the biggest cheerleaders for policing the world and killing people are civilians? Mostly Boomers with Buicks and yellow ribbon magnets and old McCain Palin stickers…: