Flashback: Ron Paul defends Hamas, says Israeli blockade an act of war

This clip that we posted last year demonstrates quite well the insanity of Ron Paul’s foreign policies. This interview took place back June of 2010, just days after the infamous flotilla incident in which Ron Paul came out against Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip saying that embargoes were an act of war, and charging that Israel was not permitting humanitarian aid in to the people that he described were “almost like in concentration camps”:

I think sanctions, embargoes and boycotts, preventing goods from going in, is actually an act of war. …

I think it’s absolutely wrong to prevent people that are starving and having problems that are almost like in concentration camps and saying “yes we endorse this whole concept that we can’t allow ships to go in there in a humanitarian way”.

I think it’s just terrible and I don’t think we should be part of it. Even though if we weren’t involved I would say nothing. So I think this would be a perfect opportunity to argue the case that, you know, “Israel, if you want to do this, you’re on your own. We’re not backing you up!”

What has he been reading, Palestinian propaganda? He’s not even educated on what is actually going on in the Middle East!

Then, when confronted with the truth that they were allowing humanitarian aid in, but were simply trying to prevent weapons from falling into the hands of Hamas, he defended Hamas as a legitimate government as though they should be allowed to get whatever weapons they want. Unbelievable!

Here’s a partial transcript and video:

I think sanctions, embargoes and boycotts, preventing goods from going in, is actually an act of war. …

I think it’s absolutely wrong to prevent people that are starving and having problems that are almost like in concentration camps and saying “yes we endorse this whole concept that we can’t allow ships to go in there in a humanitarian way”.

I think it’s just terrible and I don’t think we should be part of it. Even though if we weren’t involved I would say nothing. So I think this would be a perfect opportunity to argue the case that, you know, “Israel, if you want to do this, you’re on your own. We’re not backing you up!”

Imus argues that they are allowing humanitarian aid in Gaza, that they are just worried about weapons falling into the hands of Hamas and asks Paul if that’s a legitimate concern. Paul responds:

They’re an elected government. We have thousands of our soldiers dying to say that we want elections and we want democracy, so we finally get one in the Palestine and they elect Hamas, and then all of a sudden “oh no you’ve elected the wrong people!” …

Yeah they’re probably not the best people in the world. … This whole idea that we have absolute control over people in the Palestine and the Gaza and the West Bank, I don’t think that’s right.

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • Anonymous

    Why has Paul’s poll numbers risen lately, especially after his frightful performance in the last debate?

    • Anonymous

      This article that first appeared in the Czech Republic newspaper Prager Zeitung, April 28, 2011.

      “The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting an inexperienced man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of Idiots such as those who made him their President.”

      Just change the name to Ron Paul and the concept remains true.

      • Anonymous

        Meh, don’t worry, he won’t be elected anyways. Then you’ll have a good laugh watching all these kooks wailing and banging the floor like that video out of North Korea.

      • Anonymous

        We should all keep this in mind as we look across the lineup of globalists, schills and progressives the GOP foists upon us.

        • Anonymous

          Yes, your right sD, we don’t want an election like we had last time, mc Cain or obama….two-sides of the same coin.

    • Anonymous

      Because the village idiot has a few very savy followers who I think are doing something to manipulate the system. I really have trouble believing there are that many stupid republicans. If the Village idiot were a democrat, he would probably have more followers – becasue the democratic party is filled with vilage idiots who think like this clown. But republicans think on their own; that is why he could never get the republican nomination.

    • Anonymous

      They passed out tinfoil hats to all the Cain supporters.

  • Anonymous

    Once again he is just plan wrong. What he says is not supported by the facts. He has been in the House long enough to have made an impact if he could be a leader. Obviously he cannot lead so how does one expect him to be a leader as the POTUS.

    • Anonymous

      Thank you.

      I think he could continue to make an impact on elections by running and pulling other candidates to the right on domestic policy, but that only works if he doesn’t win. If he wins the nomination, lots of conservatives and repubs will vote for our Loser-in-Chief rather than risk Ron Paul’s foreign policy.

      • Anonymous

        If the race is between Paul or obama ….America will be doomed.

        • Anonymous

          dittos. It would go down in history as the election bewteen to two biggest idiots in the country.

  • Anonymous

    Darn good thing he is only 1/435th of the house of representatives, darn good thing his lunacy isn’t pandemic, and a darn good thing most of his propagandists are not contagious.

    • Anonymous


      A-Bad Joke

      • Anonymous

        Paul in addition

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul is a dipshit…

    • Anonymous

      He’s got his mouth on his rear end, and a butt hole where his mouth should be

  • Anonymous

    Sounds like something Jimmy Carter would say…

    • Anonymous

      Carter, like Hussein Obama, was acting on his marxist/progressive ideology which, like Hilter and the Grand Mufti, naturally allies with islamofacism.

      Ron Paul I believe is hopelessly and dangerously naive about islam. He applies a “one size fits all” non interventionist policy to these these genocidal islamic, sharia nations.

      Paul does not seem to grasp that is not intervention to stop a self-avowed mortal enemy from annihilating us. And by “us” I mean anyone who has not submitted to allah.

      • Jeff Rowberg

        Iran’s constitution has a surprising amount of explicit non-interventionism in it, and almost nothing that directly ties the behavior or goals of the military to fundamental Islam.

        There are certainly some people there who are completely nuts, and willing to nuke Israel or us regardless of any consequences if they had a good opportunity and financial backing. However, I doubt those people are the ones in power. There is no practical reason whatsoever that anyone intent on nuking us or Israel would have to wait for Iran to get their own nuclear weapons program up to par. There are enough fully built nukes in the region, in the hands of unscrupulous people, that it would be far easier, less of a hassle, and much more expedient to simply buy one, smuggle it to the target, and detonate it.

        If Iran were such an existential threat to Israel (or us), and if the Islamic fundamentalists were really so intent on our destruction or the obliteration of Israel at any cost, there is absolutely no logical reason people who are that caliber of crazy would still be waiting.

        • Anonymous

          We (non-believers) are the existential threat to isalm. Not because of anything we have or have not done, but because we exist. Isalm will never stop – it is their most elemental and sacred duty to conquer all nonbelievers and force them to submit to islam, sharia and allah, or kill us.

          Failure to understand this is the root cause of problems with our diplomacy, democratization and intervention. Failure to understand this while taking a non-interventionist policy will not change a thing. Islam wants and must destroy us. It is written.

      • Anonymous

        Ron Paul believes in group hugs and singing Kum By Ya. It has never worked in the oast and certainly will never work in the future.

        • Anonymous

          I clicked the Liked button by mistake. Sorry.

  • Anonymous

    gird your loins, boys . . . ron bots are in the wire. 3 . . . 2 . . . 1

  • Kinda surprised to see this reaction from the right. Paul is talking humanitarian non-intervention — a perfectly defensible position, albeit one I’m uncomfortable in sharing — and you folks insist on reading it as anti-Semitism.

    Look, if the Palestinian state is really gonna be a =state=, then the world (including Israel) has to treat it as such. Barring food and humanitarian relief aid intended for civilians from reaching that state is universally considered an act of war. Regardless of what right bastards run that state.

    If all Israel had done was inspect inbound shipments, there would be no legit objections. And, for the most part, that’s what they did. But not always. And those not-always incidents are what’s at issue.

    • Anonymous

      You may have mis-keyed politico.com, right?

    • They aren’t barring anything except for weapons. Get your facts straight before you try and defend Ron Paul. They are simply diverting ships to an Israeli port for inspections, and then allow it to go to Gaza.

      • Anonymous

        This has been Israels policy all along, the Turkish Prime Minister, Erdogan has threatened to provide armed cover for these flotillas at great danger to Israel. Erdogan has also made public statements that Israel has overstated the rocket attacks and the threat Hamas is to Israel. Ron Paul can not hide his anti-Semitism when he aligns himself with terrorist organisations that have Israels eradication as their stated intentions.

      • Anonymous

        Don’t even bother, Scoop. As one Paulbrain told me in another post:

        “Truth is treason in an empire of lies.
        Conformity with the scripture and seeking peace should be our first objective.

        It’s hard to refute the truth – isn’t it.”

        They’re all a bunch of loons.

    • Anonymous

      There is no humanitarian crisis, Israel lets aid through every day. In fact the Palestinians have been given BILLIONS of dollars over the years, there no reason why they shouldn’t be able to stand on there own two feet. The fact that they can’t is another reason why they are not fit for a state. The whole purpose of the block aid is too keep weapons out. Previous thousands of rockets were fired from Gaza over a 2-3 year period which lead to Operation Cast Lead which lead to this block aid. Since then the blockade has been effectively broken on Egypt’s side.

    • Anonymous

      I am not an expert on this, but my impression is that they are not a state yet, because they refuse to recognize the state of Israel.

      So we will treat them as a state only when they treat Israel as a legitimate state.

    • Anonymous

      There is and always has been a constant supply of all manner of goods into Gaza. Weapons inspections at ports and borders by Israel have never slowed it. There is no “humanitarian” crisis in Gaza.

      Every “government” and controlling body for the “Palestinians” has included the destruction of Israel in its charter.

      The flotillas were not “humanitarian aid”. That need was based on a lie propagated by the media that Gaza was not getting supplies or aid. They were a trial balloon to gain international symapthy to bypass the port cargo inspections that prevent, weapons and materials for attacks against Israel.

      The Leftists in America are part of this big lie. Paul just falls for it. Not sure which is worse.

      • Anonymous

        Good explanation. Also, the Israeli forces were given paint ball guns – the “humanitarians” brought their knives and lead pipes.

        • Anonymous

          Good point, P077.

    • Anonymous

      humanitarian non-intervention with hamas at the helm?

      What is Hamas?


    • Well it’s not a state, Gaza is in fact ruled by force currently, by an entity recognized as a Terrorist organization by the United States. Further, the UN’s own reports show that the blockade is entirely legal.

      Lastly, humanitarian aid, and food is not being blocked – the blockade was intended to barr weapons from arriving to a Terrorist organization which targets civilians as its goal. Million of tons of food and humanitarian aid is transfered to Gaza from Israel, almost every day in fact shipments travel. No one has ever starved in Gaza, but millions of children starve to death every year from hunger in many other places. Is Ron Paul championing their cause? The problem is that people like Ron Paul choose to be ignorant, and make absurd statements devoid of facts and defend the indefensible siding with a Terror organization over a stalwart ally of the United States.

    • Israel has never barred humanitarian aid to Gaza. When Israeli’s were forced out of Gaza, they left behind places of business, green houses, tools and materials in which to keep the area thriving. It was the “palestinians” who tore down anything left behind by Jews.
      Israel had and roads open to aid trucks, medical supplies and food. Yes, they were heavily guarded, but still allowed aid to enter Gaza. The flotillas were meant as aggression toward Israel, a theatrics only farce to show the world how “mean” Israel is. Parts of Gaza are wealthier than some places in the States- you mean to think that the people running things over there aren’t to blame for the poverty if they can take credit for the wealth? It’s not Israel’s fault that there is poverty there- they’ve bent over backwards to allow aid in, and all they get in return are rockets and grief from people like code pinkos and Bill Ayers who ride the flotillas looking for a fight.

    • KenInMontana

      So, a blockade of war materials, a blockade that has been recognized as legal by international law, is your issue? However, you seem to have no issue with the raining of rockets on civilian targets by this “organization”, which by the way, is an overt act of war according to international law as well as being “universally considered” as such. Is this what passes for logic in your world? I could go on but I find your argument hackneyed and full of shite, as well as being worth no more of my time.

    • Anonymous

      There will never be a Palestinian State. Israel will never allow it. To be recognized by Israel, Israel saysall they have to do is recognized the right of Israel to exist. We all know that will never happen.

  • Jeff Rowberg

    Reality Check just did a short piece related to this topic here:

    Whatever else you might believe, to say that Ron Paul “is not even educated on what is actually going on in the Middle East” is demonstrably unfair. His main position boils down to this:

    1. We have no right to tell another sovereign nation (including BOTH Israel and Iran) what they may or may not do, unless we are in a declared state of war and defending ourselves from aggression.

    2. We claim to support democracy, but repeatedly manipulate, complain about, or even overthrow duly elected foreign governments when they don’t do what we want.

    • Anonymous

      I think that’s all good and noble but in reality it doesn’t work because no one else is going to play by those rules.

      • Jeff Rowberg

        …which means that in order to survive, we must by definition cease being good or noble?

        You can definitely make that argument, but that thought process does not involve either liberty or prosperity. Historically, that line of thinking results in an over-extended empire that does survive foreign attacks, up until it collapses on itself due to corruption.

        • Anonymous

          Not at all.

          In order to survive we have to first recognize our true mortal enemy, their goal and their tactics. Terrorists and “islamic extremists” are but one tool islam uses against us – as are the CAIR attorneys, islamic infiltrators in the government, dhimmie politicians and “pious” muslim colonists building mosques in our midst

          We can and must remain both good and noble but we must defend ourselves.


        • A nation can remain good and noble, yet still have strength.

          • Jeff Rowberg

            I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. I think the point of disagreement is on the moment at which our strength should be used in a preemptive fashion.

            Obviously if we are attacked, we have every right to respond with as much force as necessary to defend ourselves and prevent further attacks of the same kind. Nobody will contest that point.

            But if we have not been attacked yet, how long do we wait before a preemptive strike based on risk assessment? How “sure” do we need to be that someone is going to attack us before we try to stop them?

            If someone is standing on the other side of the room with a menacing look on their face, do you shoot them? No.

            If they say they’re going to kill you, but continue standing there? Probably not.

            If they say they’re going to kill you, and they have a gun on their belt, but yet continue standing there doing nothing? Still, probably not.

            If they actually go for their gun? Then yeah.

            The analogy is not perfect. Guns are admittedly different from nukes in terms of destructive power, and the risk is much greater with nukes. Also, there is an extremely heated debate over what position Iran is in right now–do they even have a gun? Are they actually threatening us, or Israel, or both, or neither explicitly?

            Where you land in this debate seems to be based on what you think about the actual threat of Islam and exactly what’s motivating the potential attackers.

            It does seem a little unnerving to rely entirely on intelligence reports about Iran from the same group of people who blatantly lied to get us into the money pits that are the undeclared Afghanistan and Iraq wars though.

            • I can understand that- but we also have to remember that even if Iran hasn’t gotten nukes yet, they are still working on them, and they have friends such as Russia and China working on supplying them with weapons and technologies.

              I believe in restraint, and doing other things first before bringing out the guns- but it’s a good idea also to have the big guns on display behind you so those who may try to pick a fight can see before things get ugly, just how much fire power you’ve got.

              I’ve studied Islam for many years and know their ideology. They are a very patient people on the most part, but once you are in their jihad cross hairs, they will stop at nothing- no matter how long it takes. In the mean time, they may claim peace or they may claim friendship, but make no mistake, they will find a way to stab you with the other hand.

              • Anonymous

                I agree with what you are saying except one point. After reading the IAEA report that Bachman quoted, it is quite apparent that they have no information leading them to conclude that Iran is working on a non-peaceful nuclear program. We can assume that they are, but we also have a lot of people, everywhere, keeping tabs on materials and their ability to do it. So far, they don’t think they have what it takes.

                The other thing that struck me when reading the report is how open their programs were before we invaded Iraq in 03. Since 03, we have lost our ability to monitor their programs. As a neighbor of Iraq, and a US target of negative comments that would lead them to believe we might want a war with them, they have decided to end their cooperation with world leaders to monitor their nuclear situation. Although they did offer full oversight of their nuclear power productions including allowing others to store sensitive materials, but we turned them down flat and stepped up the sanctions.

                An objective viewer might tend to conclude that diplomatic solutions are not desirable by those who may want to conquer Iran. Our continued intervention in middle eastern sovereign nations might just ad credibility to that conclusion.

                Iran may consider secrecy to be their best tool. If someone is bent on war and an overthrow of their country, and diplomacy and cooperation is not accepted, secrecy affords them the ability to defend themselves via a bluffing mechanism.

                This can work to their disadvantage as well, but they are left with few options. Their ideologically insane president does not help their cause either. I would prefer that they had an internal rebellion to overthrow their leadership, but we have worked to stop this in the past.

                For me, it is not clear what exactly the US government is attempting to do, but leaves me to think that they simply want to take over another country. If we do invade them, it will be most interesting to see what happens to their oil. Will we simply seek to install a puppet government who will bow down to the world central banks and oil companies, and give up their resources in trade for fiat debt?

                Qaddafi was rejecting these powers, and it did not go well for him. As Paul said, Karzai is just a puppet as well.

                If you know of proof that Iran is working on a weaponized nuke, I would love to see it. I am open to new information. All I have heard so far is politicians making claims.

            • Anonymous

              If an islamist is standing on the other side of the room with a menacing look on his face he is eventually going to slit your throat or shoot you. It is just a matter of time.

              If the islamist says he is going to kill you, but continues standing it just means he hasn’t decided yet if he is going to slit your throat or shoot you.

              If the islamist says he is going to kill you, and has a gun on his belt, but yet continue standing there doing nothing it means he has figured out that you are not armed or afraid to shoot him, and is just waiting for you to bring a few more infidels to the slaughter.

              If he actually goes for his gun it is too damn late – you should have shot him when you had the chance.

    • Anonymous

      Here’s another short piece related to this topic:

      Those are Paul supporters on Wednesday, November 18, 2012.

      • Jeff Rowberg

        Humor noted!

        I appreciate your clearly reasoned rebuttals of the two points I raised. I always enjoy a challenging argument that makes me reconsider my own views.

        • Anonymous

          Thanks. Very much obliged.

          Of course, I can’t really supply a satisfactory rebuttal to your arguments, because, as we all know, Paulbrain, The Champion of Liberty’s positions are all pure rationality and logically ingenious while all us deniers are blind to the truth and brainwashed by the Zionist controlled media.

          • Jeff Rowberg

            We are not all the same any more than you are all the same. Please point out to me anywhere in my comments where I have been irrational or illogical, or where I have claimed anything negative about you personally, any supposed mental blindness, or even your bias.

            I expect in return only as much as I contribute to an argument, but I think that’s a lot more than you’re giving me credit for.

            • Anonymous

              You’re obviously new around here. Mr. JoelDick never argues issues – he just does the name calling and grunts a little.
              There are a few good apologists around here – sDee, Capitalist75, Brian Jones. However – KenInMontana is the best researcher.

              • Anonymous

                “And all my other RonPaul groupies. We’re all so smart. Hga Hga Hga…”

                You’re right, aPaulogist, I never argue issues when it comes to Ron Paul because it’s useless arguing with zombies. I prefer to save my energy discussing issues on posts about Obama’s economic and foreign policies. But of course, you Paulbrains never go there. You just read the posts about your beloved champion of liberty, or the ones where you get to bash the other candidates.

            • Anonymous

              I’m sure you’re a wonderful guy, and I meant no direct challenge against you. I am simply responding to a great many Paul supporters who are directed to to this site en masse by their online communities and spew Anti-Israel, anti-any-candidate-but-theirs, and anti-American nonsense. I’m fed up debating them, and I’ve found that the best way to respond to them is with childish, dismissive insults, because it puts them where they are least comfortable, away from their ranty, quasi-intelligent tirades.

              • I_am_a_lead_pencil

                “I am simply responding to a great many Paul supporters…”

                But why not respond to Jeff with something other than sarcasm?

                • Anonymous

                  Because I have no patience.

            • KenInMontana

              I would point out that you have taken a wrong fork here as the issue here is Hamas not Iran (at least not directly) and Israel’s blockade of war materials bound for Gaza. If we were to take an impartial and dispassionate look at this situation and the facts involved;

              1. We have an internationally recognized terrorist organization, Hamas, that has taken control of a territory (it has yet to be recognized as a state). An organization in whose charter calls for the destruction of an internationally recognized and sovereign state along with its people.

              2. Since coming to power this organization has committed repeated acts of war against that state and that state has responded legitimately within its recognized rights of self defense, albeit with varied levels of response.

              3. The blockade itself ,the purpose of which is the interdiction of war materials not humanitarian aid, has been recognized as legal by all relevant international organizations. This blockade, as has been previously pointed out, only results in the ships in question being rerouted to an Israeli port where the cargo is inspected, if found to contain no war materials it is then trucked into Gaza.

              The children of Gaza are not being starved by this Blockade (as many activists claim) nor are its people going without anything they need for day to day living.

              If you haven’t seen them, I would urge you to view the videos in these threads;



              An example of the type of thing that the blockade has prevented from reaching Hamas;


              If you really want to bring Iran into the picture, well the government of Iran has made no real secret of its support for Hamas, among other organizations that share Hamas’ end goal for the state of Israel. That support includes financial and material support aside form rhetoric. That support could indeed be found as an “act of war”, under international law, against the state of Israel. To go further with this however, would best be left for another thread, so I will leave that as it stands.

              • Jeff Rowberg

                I appreciate your presentation of your position, and the clarification with respect to Hamas vs. Iran. Assuming everything you wrote is correct, it’s very clear and seems impartial and informative to me at least.

                My partially informed knee-jerk response is that Israel is not always innocent of (sometimes very significant) wrongdoing, though I know Hamas certainly isn’t either. The U.S. has a history of unconditionally backing Israel no matter what they do, which makes me very wary of any claims that they are merely taking the high road. It is also hard to pick apart motives, correctly identify blame, and figure out who did what to whom in the whole Israel/Palestine conflict, which has been going on for far longer than we’ve been involved.

                That’s not a cop-out though, and I won’t pretend to be settled on that position. I will take a look at the linked resources and do my own research, but thanks for the reasoned viewpoint.

                • KenInMontana

                  I wasn’t intending it as a blanket defense of Israel’s actions in all cases. As far as the United State’s “unconditional” support of Israel in whatever they choose to do, I would point to our forces’ participation in the 1982 MNF mission. Our forces put themselves between the “belligerents” and in fact directly, physically prevented Israeli forces from further advancing into Beirut, in one case a US Marine checkpoint turned back an Israeli armored column from advancing into the city, in spite of the Commander of the column insisting to the contrary. No I am not inferring that they used force in this action, but they placed themselves into harm’s way so that the cease-fire could be implemented. In the end, many US administrations have consistently urged peaceful negotiations in order to resolve the many “issues” in the Middle East, and I believe that honest research will reveal that Israel has been a far more consistent good faith participant in these attempts than her adversaries have been. The US support of Israel’s right to exist and right of self defense is, in my opinion, legitimate and correct. Many have claimed that we have been “blind” in our support of Israel, however, the evidence is out there that shows that claim to be at a minimum erroneous, and at worse to be an outright lie, provided one conducts some honest research into the subject.

                • Anonymous

                  Interesting points. I know Israel isn’t perfect but I think the biggest mistake they continually make is that they do not spread the truth when they are smeared. For years they have let the media and their adversaries take the loudspeaker and broadcast disinformation.

          • I_am_a_lead_pencil

            “Of course, I can’t really supply a satisfactory rebuttal to your arguments….”

            So instead I’ll offer a childish bit of sarcasm.

            • Anonymous

              Wow! That’s clever! Turn my sarcastic line back on me.

    • Anonymous

      The 57 nations of islam have declared holy war on us simply because we exist and refuse to submit to allah.

      Violent jihad has not fared well against the Great Satan, but their stealth jihad is marching along with great success.

      Our democratization and intervention policies may have failed to face that reality, but it does not mean our enemy is not real.

    • Anonymous

      A good lie always includes elements of truth

      1. Iran is no threat to America? It seems RP wants to wait until Iran bombs America and Israel.
      2.Some element of truth in our involvement in other countries conflicts however, I seriously doubt that Europe would have been better off under Nazi rule.

      Please see links included below.

  • Anonymous

    Paul supported the Flotilla on grounds it was a human rights issue…

    Hamas Behind Flotilla

    Guess Which Countries Persecute the Palestinians?

    So why doesn’t RP talk about these persecutors of the Palestinians?

    Financial Links Uncovered Between Hamas and Gaza Flotilla Organizers

    Mike Church Post Show Show Ron Paul’s Dangerous Foriegn Policy

    Ron Paul: Israel created Hamas

    Watch: Ron Paul Says Hamas is a “Legitimate Government”

  • So I’m confused. I’m a Tea Partier, a constitutionalist Republican, and am no friend of Hamas — and I agree with everything Ron Paul said in this video. Am I missing something? Whoever wrote this article merely lambasted what Paul said without offering another viewpoint.

    • Anonymous

      The problem is Paul is misinformed on the humanitarian issue. Check my post above.

    • Anonymous

      I don’t think RP is a bad person but his foreign policy is dangerous to America.

      He obviously doesn’t understand that the people behind the flotilla were not interested in bringing humanitarian aid to poor Palestinians. The real goal was insidious.

      It seems ironic to me that RP holds a non-interventionist position as he is always talking about how America must stay out of the affairs of other countries yet he feels the need to express his displeasure about Israel’s response to the phony humanitarian aid presented by terrorist.

      Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance
      Author: Pamela Geller

      • I_am_a_lead_pencil

        “yet he feels the need to express his displeasure ”

        Absolutely. Expressing verbal displeasure with one nation using force on another is a good thing.

        • Anonymous

          Please include reliable links to support your assertion that Israel aggressively attacked innocent humanitarians.

          In the interim, please review the links that I posted, they explain the agenda behind the Flotilla. Israel was only protecting itself against terrorists disguised as providing humanitarian aid to the so-called down-trodden. I don’t recall RP speaking out against the terrorist groups when they set sail for Israel. The so-called humanitarians were given other countries by which they could have distributed aid to the Palestinians but the terrorist ignored the offers and defiantly went into Israeli waters. They intentionally provoked conflict and then blamed Israel when Israel responded.

      • Anonymous

        You are incorrect.  Ron Paul is strong on defending this nation.   Now you can properly fear that he will not defend another nation.  He will not defend the nations of the world!  

        Our military policy is insane!  We spend more on military than every nations in the world combine (If you add NATO because a good bit of their budget is from us).   Foreign Aid as well.  With all the spending for defense, wars, foreign aid we should be seeing fantastic results!  We been at it for 10yrs and we are still not safe.  Even the iraqi people more than 50% hate our guts.  What we are doing is not working.    

        Military spending vs other countries

        Foreign Aid

        Ron Paul’s military views

    • Anonymous

      You have to understand how Hamas operates. They fire rockets from the rooftops of civilians’ homes and when the house gets bombed they show dead bodies on television to spread propaganda about killing innocent women and children. They parade the same dead body to different locations to do the same thing. They load ambulances with weapons in order to smuggle them in. The same goes with flotillas. That flotilla was backed by American activists (such as Bill Ayers) that want confrontation so they can use the propaganda against Israel.

      How does Ron Paul get away with saying it is our business (what Isreal does) because we back Israel, yet what the enemy does to our allies (Israel) is none of our business? How can he say we should mind our own business about EVERYTHING then complain about what Israel does? Hey, that’s none of Ron Paul’s business, right?

      • Anonymous

        OMG! Here we go again!

        • Anonymous

          Lol, I still like you. You’re my freeend (friend).

    • Anonymous

      Good for you! Seeing everything objectively rational! Awesome!

  • Anonymous

    We (non-believers) are the existential threat to isalm. Not because of anything we have or have not done, but because we exist. Isalm will never stop – it is their most elemental and sacred duty to conquer all nonbelievers and force them to submit to islam, sharia and allah, or kill us.

    Failure to understand this is the root cause of problems with our diplomacy, democratization and intervention. Failure to understand this while taking a non-interventionist policy will not change a thing. Islam wants, must, destroy us. It is written.

    • Anonymous

      Exactly, and the left (along with Ron Paul) want to sit down at the table with them. Our relations will improve and they will leave us alone, because they are only mad at us because of our foreign policy. Not hardly. They don’t like our freedoms. They will…and ARE…using our tolerance and laws against us. Appeasement only has three possible results. Servitude, compliance, or death.

      What angers me a lot is the tolerance of the mosque at Ground Zero. It is a victory mosque plain and simple. They know we will allow it and they are laughing in our faces. They claim it’s to bridge the gap with the community and to show their sorrow for the loss of 3000 Americans, yet when the community loudly rejected the idea they refused to move. The left didn’t even see the writing on the wall then. That should have been an obvious indication they aren’t building it for better relations. If they were, they would have apologized and said we’ll respectfully build it somewhere else. If I had my choice I’d bomb it.

      • Anonymous

        “Appeasement only has three possible results. Servitude, compliance, or death. ”

        Thomas Jefferson figured that out real quick. Our politicians today are either allied with the islamists or just too damn stupid to figure it out.

        When Thomas Jefferson sat down with the Musselmen (aka Barbary Pirates, aka mulsims) who were attacking our trade ships, stealing our goods, and enslaving out sailors, he told them we were not their enemy and asked them why they did this. The muslims told him they were commanded to do this by the word of allah in the Koran. Jefferson was told there would be no negotiations. America would have to endure the attacks, or submit to allah by paying jizyah to their islamic masters.

        Jefferson realized this was not diplomacy. He came back and told Congress that we no choice but to pay the jizyah for a while, He got a copy of the Koran, read it, realized indeed that it was muslim’s holy obligation to force us into submission . When he became President he immediately built an offensive naval force, sailed over to the Mediterranean and blew their ships and their sorry asses out of the water.

        Problem solved.

        • Anonymous

          I’ve heard the left claim that Jefferson owned a copy of the Koran so he could study it out of respect so we could have better relations with them. This is how the left rewrites history. They make it up.

          • Anonymous

            🙂 of course it is what the Leftists do best – whitewash history along with 1400 years of violence and genocide from islam.

        • although I knew that already sDee, I like the way you teach history!

        • Jeff Rowberg

          This is an example of clear aggression (murder, theft) against US merchants. We tried to trade, they killed us and stole our stuff. In the same situation, it’s a pretty safe bet that Ron Paul would have done exactly the same thing. If you think not, I would genuinely like to hear why.

          What we have now is not nearly so clear, at least when it comes to attacking us. Would Jefferson have done anything at all if the problem had been only between, say, Britain and the pirates? I doubt it.

          The ineffectiveness of diplomacy may well still apply, but the circumstances of the attacks are not the same today.

          • Anonymous

            What Jefferson did a Libertarian leader may have done.

            But that was not my point. My point is that Jefferson recognized that it was not the Barbary Pirates who were the enemy – it was isalm itself. And that islam could not be stopped with escort ships, negotiations, trade agreements, diplomacy or by “just leaving them alone”. He recognized that appeasement would only strengthen them. He realized that no matter what we did not or did not do, that in their very essence, islam hated us for the very thing that made us great. He studied their law and their ideology and figured out that unless he eliminated them, they would eliminate him.

            My point is that islam has not changed. That our politicians including Ron Paul, are too naive, ignorant, afraid or corrupt to recognize what Jefferson did – that Islam is our mortal enemy. If we do not eliminate it – it will eliminate us.

            • Jeff Rowberg

              But certainly you must admit that Jefferson only wiped out the Muslims who attacked us, no?

              Your line of thinking seems to suggest that Jefferson should have made an attempt to eradicate Islam entirely, not just the Barbary Pirates who had actually attacked us. This he clearly did not do. He didn’t even try. Did he make a mistake? Or am I misunderstanding your position?

              • Anonymous

                We did not just stop at protecting our merchant ships and patrol for pirate ships. We attacked Tripoli. Piracy, looting, jizya, and slavery were the source of wealth for isalm. It took nearly 15 years and two Barbary wars with both Tripoli and Algeria, but yes we attacked them and weakened them so that that could not and would not attack us again.

                After the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, the first World Trade Center Attack and 9/11, we went after the terrorists. We should have also gone after the governments, royalty, and financiers who fund and protect them. We should have realized our oil money was funding it and made it the #1 national priority to find our own oil.

                Islam is now far more dangerous, far more organized and extremely well financed. It has openly declared war on us through violence and threats. The Muslim Brotherhood and other islamic groups are sweeping the world toward a powerful Caliphate. The UN is now aligned with the OIC. Islamist are infiltrating our government, military, law enforcement and courts with the goal of imposing sharia, regulations and court precedent. They have migrated into our universities with money, influence and marxist sympathizers. Rich countries like Saudi Arabia are buying mayors and building mosques which serve as the centers for jihad and hatred against America. Our diversity quotas are used toward islamic colonization with subversive immigrants who openly declare their hatred for America. Our media is complicit like a sick for of internal propaganda.

                Then Ron Paul (his comment about Bachmann hating Muslims was arrogant and naive) along with 90% of our politicians fail or fear to even acknowledge the grave danger we are in, let alone start fighting them. That is at best incompetence and ignorance – at worst treasonous.

        • Anonymous

          Great story sD. Our forefathers were so wise.

          • Anonymous

            No that point was taken out of context.
            They were attacking OUR trade ship and we acted on that. Not the French trade ship or Britons trade ships. Just like the Nazi was attacking our cargo ships.

            Show me where our fore fathers got involve in a war to help people or gotten involve in battles for our allies sake.

        • Anonymous

          They were attacking OUR trade ship and we acted on that. Not the French trade ship or Britons trade ships. Just like the Nazi was attacking our cargo ships.

          Show me where our fore fathers got involve in a war to help people or gotten involve in battles for our allies sake.

          • Anonymous

            We are not attacking Islam today. In fact, I see no clear agenda in the middle east except for sovereign conquest. Our strategies suck, and we accomplish little other than monetary and economic devastation to the US. We seem to be looking for more war, and Israel is much worse off than she was before we helped surround her with new enemies.

            We are probably making more enemies by bombing and occupying them than we would if we just came out and declared that Islam is a terrorist religion. Who cares who might be disenfranchised in the US by this. Speak the truth and let the chips fall where they may. Maybe then we could target Muslims in screening, and leave little old grandmas and five year old kids alone. For those Muslims in the US already, don’t break the law, or you are toast. Not to mention that we are watching “you”.

            But no, we have to listen to Bush and the rest talking about Islam being a peaceful religion. Bull crap. That was the beginning of me questioning Bush.

            • Anonymous

              Good Point. Keep it up!

              • Anonymous

                Thanks. I just thought of this as well: Under a Paul administration, the states could do whatever they wanted to in this regard, because the feds have no authority to interfere. No more lawsuits against the states, and no more interference in natural disasters like Catrina. (FEMA held back rescuers for several days) I could go on all day, but I am getting worked up.

                • KenInMontana

                  Care to clarify that statement or would you prefer I just commence firing?

                • Anonymous

                  Well, obviously the states could not pass laws persecuting Muslims without a constitutional conflict, so the feds would have to get involved and would have the right to.

                  As for the lawsuits against states that we are seeing now, I do not believe that the fed gov has the right to inhibit the states from dealing with illegal immigrants or possible terrorists coming across the borders.

                  As for Catrina, I have seen massive evidence and testimony attesting to the fact that FEMA held back the state and the local governments from going in and helping people. Paul would not inhibit the states right to do what they wanted to in this regard. Nor would he have military personnel confiscating guns from people who had done nothing wrong and didn’t get flooded out.

                  I suppose now you can commence firing.

                • KenInMontana

                  The first bit about Muslims is correct and a “given”.

                  As for the lawsuits, against the States. Yes, they are a gross misstep by the Federal Government, who totally missed the point that the States were making in passing these laws, which was essentially a dereliction of Constitutional duty on the part of the Federal Government. So yes, the lawsuits are a grave error on the part of this administration.

                  As to FEMA and the Katrina response, the would be “rescuers” were not, in fact State or Local Government responders, they were civilian volunteers coming in from all over the country. Their motives were pure and good, however it is arguable that just letting them “go in” would have, in all likelihood, done as much harm as good. I have participated in enough disaster relief to realize what a logistical nightmare it can be and more often than not the rescuers are in as much danger or possibly more than the victims they are rescuing. A lot of people are under a mistaken belief of just what FEMA is and does (much of it fueled by the likes of Jones and Noory). FEMA is a logistical management team, they do not have legions of personnel, their specialty is management, response teams rarely exceed 20-25 in the worst disasters. They are restrained by law from acting until requested by State officials (ie Governors) and then approved by the President. Once on the ground their job is to facilitate the deployment of available resources and direct requests to the appropriate agency. This is what ideally is supposed to happen, but as any veteran can tell you, “The best laid plans seldom survive first contact”. Granted the Katrina response was a “clusterf#@k”, that much is true, but a great deal of that blame lies as much with the State and Local authorities as it does with FEMA. New Orleans and Louisiana were indeed warned of what was coming and what the results would be. State and Local agencies were given resources years before Katrina and even informed of what the results of a level 4-5 storm hitting the area would be, they chose to ignore the warnings and squandered funds on items like a fountain in the courtyard of the offices of the local authority responsible for maintaining the levees.

                  What I saw in your initial comment of this “string” was what I read to be an assertion that States could conclude Treaties with foreign governments. (which is why I asked if you wished to clarify it first) I was going to point out that Article 1 Section 10 of the US Constitution severely restricts just what kind of agreements States can make with foreign governments.

                • Anonymous

                  Yes, indeed. Totally agreed on the states being restricted from foreign treaty agreements.

                  I saw several interviews and videos of local law enforcement being held back in the Catrina event. One such guy had a grandmother that died in a nursing home due to his being disallowed in. The local and state leaders seemed to have their hand out, and their criticism focused securely on the feds for not being their competent saviors. This struck me in no other fashion, but as a disgusting display of incompetent welfare junkies on the part of the local leadership.

                  I believe in self sufficiency as an American value. I expect nothing from others, and detest the act of force that is used to make everyone else in the country pay for people who should be smart enough, and self sufficient enough to deal with their own problems.

                  Aid given should be a charitably act done with free will from caring people. Many answered that call after Catrina. A friend of mine loaded up a truck and trailer and drove down there from Oregon. He told me the story when he got back. Lots of people were doing many things, even taking people in.

                  I would like to see all aid take this form, and the ability of government to use force to destroy our economy and freedoms as individuals taken away.

                  Oh well. I digress, as usual.

                • Anonymous

                  This kind of thing just freaks me out. Louisiana is asking for the national guard to help police deal with urban warfare.

                  I would ask one question: If we ended the drug war by legalizing drugs, then ended the welfare state, would this be happening?

                  Switzerland just legalized marijuana and stated that they did not want a failed drug war such as the US is engaged in.

                  I know that this is kind of a side note.

      • Anonymous

        Great Post, Kong.

        You really get it.

        About the “victory mosque”….
        I heard it said that they should be allowed to build a Mosque on 9/11 sacred ground just as soon as Christians and Jews can build churches and temples in Mecca and Medina.

        It seems to me that that would be a fair-exchange.

        • Anonymous

          I know. Christian churches get burned to the ground with people in it, yet they come here and expect us to be tolerant of them? I don’t think so. Not only is that irrational, it’s suicidal. It will be a cancer in our society that will try to influence government to be compatible with Sharia Law. The larger the foothold, the more demanding and forceful they will get.

        • Anonymous

          No he does not get it. He is talking about a symptom not the actual problem

      • Anonymous

        The left want to sell our sovereignty to the world and at the same time make it look like they are strong on national defense.

        You are focusing to much on the terrorist and not the civilians in those countries. I mean really we should be getting 70% or more of Iraqis loving this country and they hate us.

        It is not because of our freedoms either. Open you eyes were not free here.

        For the sake of argument let’s say Ron Paul is totally wrong on his foreign policies! Who is the greatest national treat today?

        Iran, middle east, or our own government

        Ron Paul will fix this threat by:
        1. Eliminating the personal income tax and replacing it with gov cuts.
        2. Eliminating the IRS and the FED Reserve
        3. Eliminating 5 departments of gov
        4. Unleash the energy markets not controlling it like others
        5. Cut $1trillion the first yr
        6. Watch our unemployment rate drop to 1% and gas prices fall under a $1 per gallon!

        • Anonymous

          “For the sake of argument let’s say Ron Paul is totally wrong on his foreign policies!”

          And we should just leave it at that.

          • Exactly! He may have some good ideas about the US economic situation, but as Bill Clinton ran on the “it’s the economy stupid” mantra, look how well that worked- he might as well have given Bin Ladin a golden key to NY City for all the good his non foreign policy gave us.

            • Anonymous

              Exactly, he has some good domestic ideas and they are conservative, I expect them the other candidates as well (except maybe for a couple). But I think his foreign policy is a problem. I wouldn’t feel much safer than I do with Obama, especially where he stands on Israel.

              • Anonymous

                What are you talking about?! We are not safe now. We have the TSA molesting passengers for sake of protecting us. The TSA been doing these outrages things since it was founded with the Bush admintration.

                Now we have legalize Marshall Law. Where is the outrage from conservative media! They are more outrage about there miss reporting of Ron Paul’s foreign policies than they are about informing us of tyrannical actions of our government.

                • Anonymous

                  Sadly, when the republicans are pushing bad legislation, the liberal minority are the only ones opposing it. When the liberals push bad legislation, the republican minority are the only ones opposing it. This way we get a show of opposition to keep us backing a particular party in a system that is ultimately one party. Here is one liberal not backing Obama and the republicans.

              • Anonymous

                Ron Paul has the BEST domestic policy of all the candidates for decades! Our national security threat is from our gov, Our debt, fed reserve. No other candidate is going to do anything about our real problems. Ron Paul will!!!! Don’t take my word for it, take rush Limbaughs word for it.

                • Anonymous

                  Barry Goldwater supports him. So do all these people.

                • KenInMontana

                  Considering Goldwater died in 1998, that’s a neat trick. Channeling the spirits of the dead now are we?

                • Anonymous

                  Jr. Sorry.

                • KenInMontana

                  Thought so, just making sure. 🙂 However unless he has done so again recently, wasn’t that endorsement from the 2008 campaign?

                • Anonymous

                  I didn’t even know who Ron Paul was in 08, so you may be right. I just saw the endorsement recently.

              • Anonymous

                Due to Islam being what it is, the wars in the middle east are not winnable. Force cannot be used to change their minds about wanting us dead. Therefor, if our currency collapses due to debt spending for wars, what does America look like then?

                Two choices. Get destroyed by socialist big government and war spending, or elect someone who will drastically change it. Is the risk of pulling out, worth saving our society?

          • Anonymous

            Now that is real cheap!!!!! It sounds just like the conservative media when they say insane things like “even if Ron Paul wins by double digits in Iowa it does not count” or “a win for Ron Paul is a win for Mittens.” Better yet my God can kick your god’s ass. It’s just as insane as listening to liberals hating on Palin

        • Anonymous

          Well, we don’t totally disagree. There are some things I like about Ron Paul.

          When we collapse, it’s going to be from within and not from a foreign enemy. However, we cannot ignore the foreign threats or that will change.

          You don’t have any arguments here with Paul’s position on the size of government and all the massive spending. I’d like to see him cut away….but there is a problem with that. He would have to do it very gradually and getting the Congress and Senate to comply will be a huge task.

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul’s favorite news source is Al Jazeera.

    I have a question for you Paulbots. If Bush would have fired hundreds upon hundreds of missiles into China and China responded with military action, who would you blame that on? Who is the aggressor?

    Of course you’re going to say Bush. So…why is it when Hamas sends hundreds of missiles into Israel and Israel responds by advancing militarily to wipe out that capability you blame the Israeli’s as being the aggressors? You blame us for supporting them, too.

    No matter what the situation is, Ron Paul and his servants blame the United States. For you Paulbots, exactly WHEN do you consider someone else the aggressor that is justifiable by military action? Because if they bomb us every indication is that you’ll say we deserve it.

    If my future protection is left up to Ron Paul and the Paulbots, I’m moving to Canada where I’ll be safer….and that says a lot in itself.

    • Anonymous

      A better anology:

      Mexico is firing 500 missiles a day and we can’t negotiate or fight back without the permission of the China gov. If our $ collapse because we don’t put a serous candidate in the White House that actually have a plan to deal with these crises and instead we play political games and put someone that will continue the same path were on than our $ collapse china will have a great deal of power over us.

      • Anonymous

        I like the analogy, but I’m not sure where Ron Paul fits in there. He wouldn’t ask China for permission do anything, because he wouldn’t do anything.

        I’m not knocking your analogy, but rather wondering what it has to do with Ron Paul’s policies. Are you saying that Ron Paul would ask China for permission to do something about Mexico? Please explain.

        • Anonymous

          My analogy is to show the position we put Israel in. Ron Paul is not weak on defense and will defend this country. Why do you think Ron Paul gets more than double the amount of military Contribution than all the other candidates combine. You think the military is bunch of PaulBots? Ron Paul’s plan is to drastically downsize the size and power of our gov. The knives are diffenitly out for him. Please research Ron Paul. If you do you will be a proud PaulBot like me.

          This is an excellent article that breaks down Ron Paul’s voting record on defense.

          • Anonymous

            I have been researching Paul some (I still need to get to Santorum tho 🙂

            I have nothing in common with the contemporary Democratic party which is nothing more than an assemblage of various hybrids of Marxists and common criminals. The GOP is becoming increasing irrelevant trying to convince us that progressivisim is really conservatism while they compete with the Democrats for power and money like a rival crime syndicate.

            That left me with Paul and Bachmann as the only ones who even talk about the root cause of the destruction of the Republic – big government.

            Even if I warm up to non-interventionism, Paul’s absolute and complete naivety about islam, our number one enemy, and his failure to recognize Israel as outside and above all conventional foreign relations, is to me a fatal flaw in judgement. To make it worse his recent cheap shot at Bachmann who actually gets it and has the courage to stand up against islamiszation, was inexcusable.

            • Anonymous

              The cheap shot was at Bachmann, Santorum, and Trump. It was in response to the cheap shots they made at Ron Paul saying he is weak on national defense. Bachmann does not hate Muslims just like Paul is not weak on defending this country. It’s funny Ron Paul made cheap shots at all 3 listed above but the conservative media has to focus on Bachmann. Thank You for taken an interest at Ron Paul. Keep researching an you will find that he is solid on national defense.

              • Anonymous

                It was not a cheap shot to say that Paul is weak on national defense. It’s a fact. You are saying that he intentionally told a lie about Bachmann (she hates Muslims) because he felt she lied about him. What does that say about his character? Additionally, Bachmann didn’t lie.

                Put your tail between your legs, whimper, and hope the world goes on without you = a strong national defense……sure it does. You’ll never sell that.

                • Anonymous

                  Facts have stubborn that of being true. The fact is Ron Paul’s foreign Policy is strong on defending this country. You will be correct on saying that Ron Paul is weak on defending the world.

                  Do some research and show me facts that since Ron Paul’s has been in congress his voting record have been to benefit our enemy’s and to destroy our allies. OMG it’s 2008 all over again with the conservative media.

                • Anonymous

                  One thing Ron Paul misses is that we have interests all around the world. We have allies and suppliers. We have trade we have to protect, so there doesn’t have to be an invasion to be an act of war.

            • Anonymous

              Paul would bring the military home, but to protect this country directly. He is not unaware of the problems with Islam, he just wants to protect the rule of law in the US so that our liberty does not suffer under a lawless ruling class.

              Our congress spits in the face of the constitution almost daily. The most recent proposed legislation is the NDAA, which specifically includes the homeland in its definition of “war zone”. This solidifies the right of government to imprison US citizens without charge, or trial. It also gives the military jurisdiction in the US over US enemy combatants. The Patriot Act more or less dissolved Posse Comitatus, but this bill solidifies it and gives the military specific jurisdiction over US citizens. Some say that this will apply to national emergencies including natural disasters. With FEMA being absorbed by Homeland Security, it gives many cause to fear that government is preparing for military control under martial law due to a financial collapse or any other thing that they deem necessary.

              We are inching toward a total loss of constitutional rights. I have read the executive orders that Kennedy put in place regarding continuity of government. They state that a total take over of society is allowed in banking, food production and distribution, telecommunications, and more. It also allows for the suspension of elections and the bill of rights until the crisis is over.

              These executive orders are signed and continued by all presidents. Ron Paul would let them lapse. He would sign nothing that was unconstitutional. He would not allow an unbalanced budget through.

              We have to ask ourselves “are the wars in the middle east worth losing our free society”? This is why Glenn Beck said what he did recently.

              • Anonymous

                He wants to use the military to protect us directly here at home? News flash….he can’t. The military may not be used for operations within the borders….not without martial law. His solution is to let the state police handle terrorism (terrorist activities and successful terrorist attacks). He gave an example using the Oklahoma City bombing, and (as Newt said) that succeeded.

                I’m kinda with you on the new legislation about detaining American citizens. It’s intended to deal with the home-grown terrorists or terrorists that have come here. It is well intended, but there is danger of abusing it by detaining political enemies (non-terrorist). I hope they put in enough safegaurds to prevent that because it will surely happen some day. We have a President that was willing to smuggle guns into Mexico in order to say “See !! Our gun shops are responsible for all the gun violence in Mexico !!” and to be able to force gun control. If we have a President that irresponsible then it’s hard to imagine what he’s capable of. I completely understand your concern about this.

                Ron Paul most certainly would continue laws and agencies that he considers to be unconstitutional. Even he is not that stupid. He would have to go through a long process of transformation at ending them. Good luck doing that and getting it through the Congress and the Senate. Ain’t gonna happen.

                There a a whole lot conservatives who like Ron Paul’s views on domestic issues and government. It’s his foreign policy that completely stinks and loses 95% of us.

                • Anonymous

                  Come on use your noggin. You know what he said. We will defend this country and not defend the world. We cannot afford spending more on military and more on foreign aid than all the countries in the world combine! That is Ron Paul’s policy.

                  Read Atlas Shrugged

                • Anonymous

                  I have a link to Atlas Shrugs…but I never seem to get there to read it.

                  Ron Paul said he would defend this country if we were invaded across our borders. We are on life support from the rest of the world via thier exports. We have a lot of interests to protect around the world.

                • Anonymous

                  Paul definitely couldn’t just walk in and change everything. His primary tool would be veto power, and letting hundreds of executive orders expire. He would have a lot to do with shutting down regulatory agencies and their tyranny.

                  As for the military being used to protect our border, I don’t believe that is a problem constitutionally. They just cannot be used to police US citizens. Under current law, they can, but Paul would never do it. Posse Camatatus was enacted in the later 1800s. 73′ if memory serves. The Patriot Act and the NDAA pretty much shut that down.

                  Paul has stated that programs to which people are dependent would not be shut down. He doesn’t have the ability to end SS anyway. Nor would he want to. I believe that he could reach his goal of $1T in cuts the first year though. Nobody else will go there. Not even close.

                  Its too bad that there isn’t anyone else who even gets close to Paul’s understanding or commitment to constitutional government and fiscal discipline. It would be nice to have at least one alternative.

                  I’m planning for a crash, so I obviously expect the worst.

                • Anonymous

                  I wish I could get behind Paul because I love his anti-government views on domestic issues. The federal government most definitely has ignored the Constitution and created programs that destroy it. Bachmann wants to shut down government agencies, too. We have to destroy half of government spending (without compromising national security) if we want to survive.

          • Anonymous

            Lol, I was trying to be nice when I said I liked the analogy because I didn’t want to admit that you totally lost me. Now it makes sense why your analogy made no sense whatsover when applying it to Ron Paul. But it makes sense applying it the way you did, although not logically.

            Israel does not have to ask our permission to protect herself. Bush was very strong on letting the world know that he would not interfere with it. As far as Obama, they won’t ask him for any kind of agreement, because he’s so anti-Isreal I think he’s right there along with Ackmadin..dipshit (lol). They know that if they want to protect themselves they can’t rely on Obama because he’s for the Palestinians.

            You don’t have to provide links because I saw them in your other posts.

            There have been times that we urged them to restrain themselves, but never did Bush demand that they do nothing or even try to stop them.

            Ron Paul’s solution is to let Israel take care of herself. Israel is our ally and we have to back them whenever possible. I’ll tell ya, I’d hate to be your friend while I’m getting the crap beat out of me by two-bit robbers!

            Like I said before, you can’t tell me that members of the military don’t have an ulterior (personal) motive to support Ron Paul. I don’t blame them. They have families they would like to be back home with, and no one wants to die in a war they disagree with. But when you sign up for the military you become government property and you don’t have a right to question your orders. If you don’t like it, don’t sign up. I respect, admire and thank our soldiers for what they do, but their opinions on politics are a different story. I feel for them, but you cannot tell me they support Ron Paul because he has the best foreign policy. That’s a bunch of bull.

            • Anonymous

              You can deny it like i did before but facts have a stubborn thing of being true. Wait after the iowa caucuses and see if Ron Paul have receive more than double the military votes just like Ron Paul gets more than double all the military contribution than all candidates

              Your analogy of you getting beat up and I just stand by is incorrect with what is going on today. We give $billions to other countries in the middle to protect Israel and than they use that money to support terrorist groups to attact israel. Besides remember the six day war they kick a bunch of nations int he middle east ass. They do no need our help. Just like we do not need the gov help to get out of this economy.

              I do not fear the middle east as a national treat. The national treat I fear today is from our gov and the fact that none of the other candidates have an actual plan to solve the problems other than Ron Paul!

              • Anonymous

                We have yet another agreement. We are funding states that are involved in terrorism and also want to see Israel destroyed. Pakistan. Them a-holes harbored Bin Laden for who knows how many years, all the while taking money from us to fight against terrorism. Then they have the gull to arrest the people that helped lead us to Bin Laden. It’s disgusting, and that is one thing I disagree with Bachmann on. She said they are giving us intelligence, but how reliable and valuable is it when we can surely bet our left legs the money we give them is funding terrorism somewhere?

                We just disagree on Ron Paul having a GOOD plan to solve the problems.

      • KenInMontana

        I would like to see documented evidence of the US Government actually preventing Israel from defending itself, other than expressing that we think that an action is ill-advised in a statement.

        • Anonymous

          So you think we give them as well as every country in the world $billions for good will.

          • KenInMontana

            I take it then that you cannot mount an argument or present evidence to support your assertion. Nice try, but at this point, fail.

            • Anonymous

              I have a wife and two kids and I own a pest control company. Im sorry I can’t always respond right away.

              Do you remember not that long ago palestine kept launching missiles at israel. Than Israel will send there tanks and troops and than we would put pressure on Israel to go back. This been going on for fifty years.
              Your not going to convience me on voting for anyone else. Iwas for Palin, than Cain and now Ron Paul is it! Newt and Mittens are a bunch of scumbags. They will not change the course this Nation is on. I do not fear the middle east but I am terrified of our gov. I wish to god that Obama is the problem. No it is not! I want the swamp drain and Ron Paul is hell bent on doing just that

              • KenInMontana

                No problem, I understand about priorities I have my own as well. That said, in regards to Israel’s responses to rocket attacks from Hamas, Israel has responded with everything from full blown ground assaults to putting a hellfire missile into a vehicle or through a target’s apartment window all the way to targeted assassination. They have proven themselves more than capable of choosing how they retaliate against those that would attack them, and I think this country could learn a lot from Israel’s examples,both good and bad. The fact the the US State Department sometimes “chides” the Israeli government for their chosen method of response is nothing more than diplomatic C.Y.A., done for the international press. Israel has always done things with a mind towards their own best interests first, and I don’t have any issues with that.

                As to trying to “convince” you who to vote for, well have you ever seen me tell anyone here on this board or on any other who they should or shouldn’t vote for? Go ahead, click on my profile and check my comment activity. I don’t care who you vote for, that’s your decision, likewise who I end up voting for is mine. I do my own research and base my decision on that. I respond to comments from others based on what they post, I research things I don’t know about and use as many different sources as I can find. I don’t rely on the talking points handed out or mouthed by a campaign’s supporters here or anywhere else. I enjoy engaging in adult discourse on a variety of subjects, no one learns a damn thing from screaming,frothing rhetoric, however in a reasoned adult exchange it is possible to learn things. In those exchanges we may learn something or we may confirm what we already knew. As to what we have been offered in the way of candidates this election, well let’s just say I am completely underwhelmed by all of them. However, that will not stop me from reaching a decision on which one I will “settle” on.

                • Anonymous

                  Both articals shows of the US restraining Israel from defending itself. You have a problem with Ron Paul’s foreign policy. It’s been 10yrs of bush’s policies. The citizens in the middle east should be favorable to us and their NOT. We are not safer.

                  Ron Paul is strong on defending this nation.   Now you can properly fear that he will not defend another nation.  He will not defend the nations of the world! He will be hell bent on defending this nation!  

                • KenInMontana

                  Once more from the first article;

                  “We call for all sides to exercise restraint. Provocative actions like this should be avoided. Israel, like any sovereign nation, has a right to defend itself,” the State Department said in a statement.

                  Apparently, you are reading things into this article that are just not there.

                  As to the Haaretz article, you obviously were not paying attention to the situation during the Gulf War, so I will lay it out for you;

                  1. The cohesiveness of the coalition against Iraq was fragile, the Western powers knew that there was a high probability that the Arab states of the coalition would drop out due to pressure from their citizenry if Israel attacked Iraq. Saddam knew this and it was precisely why he ordered scuds fired at Israel.

                  2. The US offered to place Patriot missile launchers in Israel to defend it from Iraqi scud missile attacks and asked Israel to restrain itself from attacking Iraq, Israel agreed to this on the condition that if the Patriot batteries failed to stop the scuds and its people called for action against Iraq, that it would exercise its right to defend itself , the Bush administration agreed to this and deployed the Patriot units. Israel restrained itself because they were asked to and they understood why, not because they were ordered to do so. Maintaining this agreement was precisely why the Coalition command made taking out launchers the highest priority.

                  3. The deployment of those Patriot batteries and crews is the only time the US has physically defended Israel. It is also the only time that US troops were ever deployed to Israel itself.

                  This statement puzzles me a bit, “Now you can properly fear that he will not defend another nation.”, first of all I’m not sure why I should “properly fear” anyone or anything. It appears now that you are saying that Ron Paul does not share George Washington’s view on foreign policy. You know the one, it’s the line that many of your fellow Paul supporters are so fond of misquoting and taking out of context. Surely, you remember it don’t you? Here, I’ll post it for you;

                  “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.” ~ Washington’s Farewell Address

                  The emphasis on that line is to point out the part that always seems to conveniently slip your minds. We have treaties with Israel dating back to 1951, the first treaty of friendship was drawn up in 1948 and ratified in ’51.

                  So, from what you have implied Ron Paul will not honor our solemn pledge, our word given to a friend and ally, and completely disregard the words of our first President and shame the memory of one of our founders that he is purported to hold in high esteem. (Just to demonstrate how extrapolation can be used against those who wield it so clumsily and carelessly)

                • Anonymous

                  Here’s a great article about Ron Paul’s military voting history and where he has stood in the past on defending America.

                • Anonymous

                  I tend to believe that the UN is the more obvious problem for Israel. Our involvement in the countries surrounding Israel seems to have had the biggest negative effect, as of late. Though we were paying these countries off prior to recent events for the sake of Israel, it seems that we have abandoned that pro Israel strategy, and assisted in creating a much less friendly neighborhood for her.

                  As I have watched Clinton and Bush try to broker peace agreements and road maps for Israel, I was perplexed by the ignorance of it all. First in trying to make a deal with Islamists. They don’t honor them as a religious rule. Second, due to US peace efforts, Israel has given up ground trying to appease the US’s efforts. Our financial support does seem to buy us power in the process.

                  I have no problem with the US supporting Israel’s ability to protect themselves. I would just rather see the churches and synagogues do it, rather than US politicians. I would support them in this way. As it is, people like Obama are in charge of the power and the process. If the people support Israel in this way, the politicians will see the support and pander to it diplomatically. Possibly even militarily if absolutely necessary.

                  Israel is in a position of being able to defend herself, and leaders there have made that statement publicly.

                  Foreign policy is the most complex, and contentious subject it seems. Domestically, the constitution is adequate, just not adhered to. This seems to permeate into foreign policy and come back in the form of tyranny.

                • What makes you think Israel is in a position to protect herself, by herself? And… why should she. We should protect freedom loving countries in the world from oppressive Nazi-like societies.

                  How do you recommend churches and synagogues help protect Israel? Sending them Bibles? Really how do you envision “Living Word Bible Church” or some such protect the country of Israel?

                  Israel deserves and should get 100% support from our state dept and our DOD.

                • Anonymous

                  In the 90s, Israel had more bombers than the US. They have 300 nukes. They are a militarized society and everyone is active from the age of 18 to about sixty. They say that they can defend themselves.

                  If we keep going the way that we are, we will be the Nazi-like society. Our freedoms are eroding quickly. Largely to our war on everything. Terrorists (a tactic), drugs (a personal choice), poverty (created by government), etc, etc.

                  If government pulled foreign aid, which is a use of force on American citizens through income taxation, many people would create funds and support Israel. Just as did happen after 9/11 and Catrina. When money goes directly to the cause, government cannot skim off what they want to further control and socialism. This is how a free country operates. Everyone has the choice, rather than government using force, which is all they can do.

                  The social systems are “forced” upon us. US support of things like the IMF are “forced” upon us. You see, if you don’t pay your taxes, a guy with a gun comes and hauls you off. This is not a free society. If you don’t pay property taxes, which renters do pay, you will be homeless. That is not a free country. The entire system is set up to “force” you to do what they want you to do.

                  In a Ron Paul world, you have freedom. No income tax. If the states start figuring it out, they will replace property taxes with sales taxes, road taxes etc. Schools should be private. If government doesn’t run it, it becomes cheap. If it is cheap, you can afford it, and choose your education rather than being “forced” to get their education.

                  Government is “force”. Under a constitutional government, you only have protection of rights and of borders.

  • OH…. Dear…. Lord…. Hamas, probably not the best people in the world… good grief. The man is demented.

    • Ru Paul belongs to a mental institution but RNC is so gutless to exclude him from the debates.

  • Ron Paul, your foreign policy will not stop Hamas from hating the Jews!

    • Jeff Rowberg

      …and that was never its intent. Its intent is to keep the U.S. out of the Israel/Hamas conflict on a government level.

      It might, however, reduce the amount of hatred that Hamas has towards the U.S., since we’d no longer be seen as an active accomplice (whether the “crimes” are real or not, their perception is the same).

      • Anonymous

        They hate us because we exist. period. The hate will not “reduce” one iota until you submit to allah or bear your neck to their knives. It is islam.

        • Jeff Rowberg

          Fundamentalism is a very powerful thing, I admit. (It can be incredibly frightening in Christians as well, even though there is no Christian commandment to “convert or kill” to be found in the Bible.)

          However, even if I hate you with the strength of a thousand burning suns just because you live the life you do in the house across the street from me, does it not seem logical that if you come over to my house uninvited and start hitting me with a baseball bat, I might hate you even more? And therefore if you subsequently stopped, I might hate you a little less?

          Fundamental Islam is dangerous. I agree on that point. But I think it’s unwise to completely ignore the effects of our actions in the Middle East as though they don’t matter at all. At the very least, there is a very large group of people who are Muslims, yet not inherently and automatically willing to jump at any opportunity for Jihad. These people take at least some convincing to leave their homes and families to go die in a fight they didn’t want in the first place.

          Many of the things we do in the Middle East, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel, serve as a tool of manipulation and motivation for the true Islamic fundamentalists to convert more on-the-fence types to their cause.

          • Anonymous

            There is no “fundamental” isalm. That a myth of the left and a misconception of people who view islam through a western prism of religious and cultural values. There is only one islam and it is inseparable from jihad and the mandate of death and submission of nonbelievers. Anything else you hear, read or see from them is deception – taqiyya.

            I believe our democratization and interventionism in the middle east was flawed because it did not fully engage the real enemy – islam. It was based on this false belief that the “terrorists” or al-queda or taliban are an aberration – an exception to islam. They are islam.

            They want this fight. They need no motivation from us for jihad – violent or stealth. They are commanded to do it and their leaders will always find or fabricate motivation for it.

            What did America have to do with Armenian genocide at the hands of the muslims? America did not even exist when the muslims flooded the floors of Hagia Sophia with the blood Christians in Constantinople. Islam has wiped out entire Hindu and Christian minorities in Pakistan long before we jumped in there. Islam has been, and continues killing tens of millions of infidels and kaffur. They massacred and attacked Chistians, Jews and Hindus long before the US existed, before we moved into the middle east, and still does it today in many other countries around the globe like Nigeria, Somalia, and Indonesia.

            What has changed in recent history is that these middle eastern nations, who had been slowing eroding, now have oil money, and use it to finance jihad and to breath life into their barbaric pre-feudal theocracy. They are enabled in Europe and America by all manner of quisling, opportunistic and ignorant politicians and media.

            We must stop sending them money by gaining oil and gas independence. Baby step number one.

            • KenInMontana

              Actually, if we look at the definition of Fundamentalism, “a movement with strict adherence to doctrine” and advocates adherence based on a view that doctrine should be followed and implemented literally, not interpreted or adapted. Then yes, we are dealing with “Fundamental” Islam.

              • Anonymous

                Agreed. I am a fundamentalist Christian, and those views apply to my interests for the whole world, as well as Islam does for Muslims. God being a non-interventionalist is my best example.

                I know that people are going to quote the old testament, so I will just remind them that Christians are in the new covenant.

                • Is your bible Star Trek’s Prime Directive? The new covenant of turning your cheek, yes. I didn’t read anywhere in the Bible where we should turn our back to our friends in need, or ignore evil.

                  I have ever read where God is a non-interventionalist. Have you read your New Testament lately? Did you hear Jesus saying to the people, “Ye vipers!” He uses a whip (*shock*) to cleanse the temple. Jesus was constantly trying to stir up the people.

                  Let’s talk about the good Samaritan. All the good, non-interventionalists, walked passed the hurt man. The Good Samaritan stopped and helped. Are you saying if he came across the man while he was being robbed he would have not intervened?

                • Anonymous

                  First of all, God has all authority and power. Yet he does not force himself on anyone. He allows us free will. Freedom to do well, or to do poorly. He allows us this, but also allows the consequence. Therefor giving us a natural correction. When nations go bad, and groups of people do bad things, they will inevitably destroy themselves. Based on the just war doctrine, we have the right to protect ourselves at home, and even go to the aid of another country if their peril is imminent, but we do not have the right to strike another before we are struck.

                  The good Samaritan was not chasing after the guy who beat the Jewish man in the ditch. He was simply helping a fellow “individual” who happened to belong to a group of people who hated the Samaritans. Nor was the good Samaritan spying on people, groping them in airports, or preemptively attacking people.

                  Many people believe that God’s word is good for all times, and does not change with the times. Therefor the “just war doctrine”, which is based on Christian doctrine, should apply in all times. I’ll leave that for you to research.

                  Jesus said that the greatest commandment is love. If you cannot apply these things to the world and its affairs, you are lacking as a Christian. We all are, by the way.http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+13%3A4-13&version=NIV

                  Christ said to love thy neighbor as yourself. If we deny the world this extension of principle, we have lost our ability to be a good neighbor to anyone. Therefor our Christian example is negated and we can do no good.

                  To serve as a good example, you have to deny yourself. Though we have the right to defend ourselves, the fact that we go out into the world and inflict massive harm on entire civilizations is only to serve our selfish need to satisfy our fears. The US government admits that 66k of 109k people dead in Iraq were civilians.

                  Fear is a lack of faith. Any country that lashes out at the world out of fear is lacking in the most fundamental factor in the process of salvation. Faith. We say “it is not good enough to defend ourselves at home”, and “God will not help us”. So we go out to strike before we are struck. This leads to death and destruction. The enemy retaliates, and we retaliate more so.

                  We will not be saved, as a country, so long as we hold on to this mentality. At some point we must repent of this fear, and have faith in God. Though I do not think that this will happen, I must still stand for what is right.

                  If you believe in prophesy, you should realize that we are at the end of times. In this time we can only stand for God, or play into the hands of Satan. All battles are of a spiritual nature. What side are we on? Are we standing for love, kindness, forgiveness, truth, faith, understanding, long suffering, prudence, and the like, or are we prideful, forceful, harsh, unforgiving, boastful, corrupt, etc.

                  Washington D.C. is a den of thieves. Would you believe everything they tell you? The bible says that we do not fight against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities. Only with the Holy Spirit will we be able to tell the difference between good and evil.

                • I agree we are in the end times. I think we should love our neighbor and our enemy as the scriptures say. But loving your enemy doesn’t mean we allow them to rape and pillage us or our neighbor. The greatest show of love is to strongly and emphatically point out evil and do all we can to destroy it. Sometimes, that means violence. WW2 is a good example. So is The Civil War for that matter.

                  We are the most merciful country and people in the world. But we will not survive as a nation if we arne’t constantly vigilent against evil (both individually within ourselves and externally with other people.)

                • Anonymous

                  I have no problem with assisting other countries or peoples. I just believe that it should be when we are formally invited, and not against others for whom we have no beef with. We stood by and let Russia go at it with the Afghans. Who was right in that situation? Why didn’t we jump in and help one side or the other? Letting other people in the world determine their own destiny is the best way. If those people are not willing to rise up against their own tyranny, then they will not see us doing it for them as having any value.

                  If France came in and fought our battles against Britain for us in the revolutionary war, we would never have had as strong of convictions about our freedoms. Not if we were not willing to fight them ourselves. Yes, they did help, but they didn’t run the war.

                  Iraq and Afghanistan are a joke in the sense that training Muslims to fight Muslims to keep order if we leave is an insanely ridiculous exercise in futility. In the end, we will be there forever, or we will have wasted all of those lives, and all of that fortune for nothing.

                  If these countries become a real threat, we should declare war, devastate their infrastructure and then leave. The next country that wants to become a threat will be facing the same consequence and therefor will not likely be a problem.

                • Anonymous

                  I forgot to add that, no, Jesus was not a wimp. Yes He did turn over the tables of the money changers. Primarily because He was the Son of God, and it was the house of His Father, and of worship, that was being desecrated. Yet He only did it once. Why? Why didn’t He go back time and time again? Why didn’t He call down the angels to put these people in line? Why didn’t He set up a security grid and overthrow the powers of His day?

                  The answer is that He didn’t come to force His will. He came to show us a better way, and to give Himself up as a sacrifice.

                • Of course he didn’t come to force his will. We have been so blessed by God with free-agency and the ability to choose good and evil. If God forced his will, by definition we would have no choice. But that agency cuts both ways. If a nation or a people use their agency to kill and murder and rape another people, then it is the right and responsibilty of the nation and good nations around it to stop the “evil doers.” This is NOT a Hatfields and McCoys situation. Israel and America (the west in general) has been attacked and attacked and attacked by a devilish idiology. It is our responsibilty to recognize that and respond apropriately

                • Anonymous

                  If we were to be honest and determine that Islam is the enemy of all other peoples, would it be a righteous thing to kill all Muslims? If you have an enemy that will not surrender, then you are still at war. The only decisive way to win a war is to identify the enemy and destroy them until they surrender. In this case it would require renouncing Islam and ending Muslim practices. Otherwise they go into detention camps or prisons, or we just kill the enemy on sight.

                  How do you propose we win this war?

          • I don’t understand your point. If my neighbor threatened to KILL my wife and children and I believe he intends to do it. I DON’T GIVE A DAMN how much he hates me because he will be in the ground. His children may hate me more, but they can burn in hell too, for all I care.

            If this neighbor wants to kill my friend, there is no difference.

            The devil, known as islamo-nazism, will manipulate our actions no matter what they are. They are EVIL! Ron Paul has no moral standing in this. He is flat wrong, along with all the other leftists out there.

            This idea of leaving our friends is so wrong! I do think Paul is anti-semetic. He thinks Israel should be destroyed. He’ll never say that, but his actions will inevitably cause that.

            • Tell me something-where in your Christian faith does it teach you to think like this? Is this how you understand the gospel and all that Jesus Christ stood for? An eye for an eye?

              • My Christian faith teaches me how to recognize evil in this world. It also teaches me to protect the weak and vulnerable from the bullies of this world.

                While it does teach me to turn the other cheek, it sure doesn’t teach me to turn my back on murderous thugs who want me, my family, and my friends dead.

                What does your faith teach you about evil Cheryl?

                • Anonymous

                  Satan has you convinced that returning evil for evil is good. This is not surprising, because the bible says that this will be the case in the end of times. That good will be called evil, and evil-good. If you know that you are in danger, then you would kill first, rather than leaving. There are many things that can be done other than what you stated. Not that it is right that you would be run out, but that it is wrong to kill another before he was proven the aggressor.

                • Wow Paulbot69! So help me understand… Jesus wants us to stand by and let evil go about it’s buisiness unfettered and Satan wants us to fight evil. Talk about calling evil good and good evil.

                  I don’t believe in returning evil for evil. I believe in protecting the good against the evil. And that’s my problem with Ron Paul. He simply does not understand or recognize evil.

                • Anonymous

                  Just because he doesn’t talk in those terms doesn’t mean that he doesn’t understand it. Most of what we hear from media and politicians is catch phrases and talking points that create a mentality within certain ideological groups. Conservatives didn’t use the term “evil” prior to 9/11. Now it is common.

                  Protecting others from harm is a good thing. I simply argue that getting someone before they get you, is not necessarily. Do unto others as you would have done to you. If you consider a scenario where someone else does to us what we do to others, you cannot say that it is something most people would accept. 60% civilian casualties in Iraq is a really bad thing. We are not taking care to get guilty people only, unless you want to consider all people in Muslim countries guilty.

                  If this is the case, then your war with Muslims will never end. The consequences to our country will ensue. Those very same natural consequences that are very predictable. Is it your desire to have all future American generations live under tyranny and poverty at home, and be fighting Muslims around the world perpetually?

                  Jesus is Good. We have to learn from that before we can ever hope to do good. We ignore genocide where it doesn’t matter to us, then take out countries who have oil because they come down on their own people.

                  If forcing all nations in the world to do good, rather than bad, is a good thing, then we should be in Russia, China, south Africa, south America, you name it. Why do we pick this region. Did we take out Afghanistan for Israel? Iraq? I don’t think so. That wasn’t even the stated purpose.

                  If there is righteous moral reasoning for our wars, then why do we not apply it equally?

                  Don’t worry, you will get to keep your wars.

          • One other point. You really shouldn’t be so careless comparing any form of Christianity to Islam. Name one serious Christian group who wants to kill and murder a freedom, loving people like Israel and then you can make the point.

            • America, she has legalized the killing of her most vulnerable, helpless citizens-Christian nation that she is!

              • What is your point, Cheryl? Did you even read what I wrote? Let me answer your question though:

                HELLO!!!!!! It is the CHRISTIANS who want abortion abolished in America. Surely you don’t think it was Christians who were in favor of legalizing it, do you??

          • Anonymous

            They plot to kill Americans and you sympathize with the enemy. Sorry, but what an idiot argument. Your argument is like saying if a girl wasn’t showing her cleavage she wouldn’t have gotten raped. Nice one. Appeaser.

    • Anonymous

      Bush military policies can not stop it neither so what is your point.

      Ron Paul 2012!!!!

  • Anonymous

    How is it possible that the leadership of the Palestinians have money to buy rockets but not enough food for their starving people? I understood that Mr. Paul wants to bring all the troops back to the U.S. and save the money invested in the Military for projects within the U.S. Why doesn’t he give this same advice to his friends Hamas and Hezbollah? Mr Paul is right now in a severe state of dementia and is enjoying his own stupid comments. He should really go back to the balcony of the grumpy old men in the Muppet Show.

    • They don’t have to buy food because America and Israel provides them with all the food they need. We are such idiots!

  • This communist douchebag Paul is a menace…

  • He’s also praising Wikileaks & Bradely Manning as Heros

    No shit…. see it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=soF2uIe8GPk

    The Iowa caucuses will be reduced to being a laughingstock if they nominate him

    • Anonymous

      Like I said in an above post, the polls aren’t accurate when you have these Paulogists flooding the polls. They have a right to say whatever but they can’t claim honesty. Paul is ignorant and naive. He is a nice Dr. I’m sure but a tongue suppresser is the only weapon he should have.

  • Anonymous

    Yawn……….a real scandal serously!

    Our gov is trying to control every outcome from every individual in this country to world affairs. What Ron Paul is saying our gov is doing way to much! People that can take care of themselves our gov is forcing dependency on. Likewise countries that can defend themselves we are Forcing dependency on as well.

    This a great artical that shows from his voting history were he stands on defending this country

    • I like him in Congress. Let him stay there. The President is PRIMARILY responsible for foreign affairs. He is not suitable for this position.

  • Anonymous

    pervect example of why I have dubbed Ron Paul the official GOP Village idiot. However, sometimes I wonder if that isn’t given other village idiots a bad name.

  • For the life of me, I will not understand why people do not see Ron Paul for the danger that this man is…..He is an isolationist with a 1960s style mentality that is trying to rationalize his policies in a 21st centiry world. The world has already had that type of ”Guns of August” thought pattern and it resulted in the first World War.

    Ron Paul’s ideas on foreign policy where America just retreats and leaves the rest of the world to sort is out will just cause HUGE power vaccums all over the world that will be perfect terrorist breeding grounds. It will create a more dangerous world for everyone….that will result in attacks directly on the USA mainland.

    What will you Ron Paul supporters say when the mushroom clouds begin appearing over US cities because we allowed Iran to have nukes and the smuggle on US soil and New York or Washington DC, or Miami, or Norfolk become a radioactive wasteland??? It is too late at that point. Also, what will you say when President Ron Paul refuses to intervene and help Israel and Israel launches Nukes out of desperation because the surrounding Arab nations launch a successful war on Israel pushing it to the brink of distruction?? What do you think Turkey and Russian responses will be when US made Nukes from Israel arrive on their cities??

    They will point their attack on the US that is what!!!

    Wake up people….Ron Paul is a credulous dangerous man that sees the world in the most insane of views. He thinks of Iran in terms of 1960s Russia, he believes if the United States leaves the terrorist alone they will leave the United States alone.


    • Anonymous

      Yawn……….a real scandal serously!

      Our gov is trying to control every outcome from every individual in this country to trying to control world affairs. What Ron Paul is saying our gov is doing way to much! People that can take care of themselves our gov is forcing dependency on. Likewise countries that can defend themselves we are Forcing dependency on as well.

      This a great artical that shows from his voting history were he stands on defending this country

      • Anonymous

        I must say that though I agree with your points for the most part, Israel does not have to take our money. Though it may have been necessary when they first started out, it has not been for some time. Although it could be argued that they have made policies that require our aid.

      • Those that fail to study history and recognize its patterns are doomed to repeat them. This type mentality has happened before and the smart ones are the ones that recognize them and work to avoid those past mistakes.

        Go ask Nevielle Chmaberland how his non-interventionist appeasment worked out in stopping world war two. There is very little difference between the two….you have Ron Paul saying if we leave them alone the will leave us alone. Tell me the difference between that and letting the Sudetenland go to the Nazis because that is what they wish and they will ask for no more???

        It is ignorant to equate a radical Islamic state with a mentality of Martidom bend on establishment of a World wide religious domination to that of the 1960s Soviet Union and say if we have the means to kill them they will stop. The Iranian Leaders do not look at the world that way. They see the death of their own people as necessary and they celebrate the death of their own people as glory to the cause of Islam. There is no negociation with these people. They want nulclear energy for one purpose and one purpose only….WAR. Once they get these weapons they will use them on Israel and then the USA. To think otherwise is a fools path.

        Ron Paul is a total nutjob when it comes to his ideas on world policy because being (1960s style) reactive is totally the wrong strategy to give to these people in the 21st Century. The Western Civilization must take a proactive to avoid the next world war and to think differently is just plain S T U P I D!

  • Anonymous

    I’m glad I am not a paulabot. He is defending Bradley Manning too ‘Paul has called Manning, a crossdresser with acknowledged mental problems, a “hero” and “patriot” for stealing government secrets and providing them to WikiLeaks.’

    Why is the GOP allowing him to run as a Republican?

    • Anonymous

      You know the Military has contributed more than double to Ron Paul than ALL the other candidates combine. I bet that Ron Paul will get more than double all the military votes. I guess the military is a bunch of PaulBot as well!

      • Anonymous

        No. Ron Paul fans blow up every survey there is. He isn’t ahead in any poll except for RonPaulIdiots.com. Ron Paulogists are dishonest when you guys get together and spam and flood polls. Iowa ain’t voting for crazy town. You guys are no better than the vote fixing of the Dems and Libs. You can’t win on merit so let’s fix the game right?

      • Anonymous

        I watched your youtube post and I can’t believe you actually fell for this. You really are stupid aren’t you? Can you find proof more believable or at least find a source that is not Russian? Geez you may have just as well picked PMSNBC.

  • Anonymous

    But seriously, RP loves Israel. No serious. He’s right there with the Arab nations to say ‘if only Israel just lets them kill all the Jews, there’d be no more problem and we could have peace.’
    Anyway, Ron Paul is a 100% Operation Chaos, IF his polls look good in Iowa, it’s because the Dems have pushed as many college trash OWS marxists to register Republican and skew the vote to make trouble. It’s all about helping obama, period.

    • Anonymous


      1. Eliminating the income tax and replacing it with gov cuts
      2. Eliminating the 5 departments!
      3. Cut $1trillion the first yr
      4. Eliminating the IRS and FED Reserve
      5. Freeing the energy markets from rules and regs without controls
      6. Putting our $ on a market driven gold standard
      7. Pro American defense policy on defending America and not defending the world
      Maintaining these Marxist creation is what all the other candidates want to do.
      Would Marxist really want promote these policies.

      • Take off your stupid lenses. He didn’t say Paul is a Marxist, he said that Dems are getting Marxists to vote for him because dems know he is a completely unsuitable for President. Deep in your heart, you know that too.

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul is not crazy, he’s actually right in his stances according to the Constitution and George Washington himself even said the U.S. would do well with free trade with all nations and alliances with none. Paul is also correct that our interventions in Iran have resulted in the consequences we face today see Carter late 1970s pulling the rug from under the Shah.

    With that said, Paul fails to recognize that we need to face those consequences head on or there will be even worse consequences than Iran being the #1 state sponsor of terrorism around the world perpetuating the 72 virgin theory and obviously that is if Iran gets a nuke to put their 72 virgin theory into practice and nuke Israel or a U.S. city to get the great war started so the 12th Iman will appear to save them.

    In essence if we lived in a perfect world where the U.S. never intervened in Iran in the past and followed George Washington’s advice, in that perfect world Ron Paul would make a fine President.

    Paul’s problem is he refuses to understand we don’t live in that perfect world, we can’t get it back and we did intervene in Iran in the past and there are dyer consequences if we don’t stop Iran from acquiring nukes in the present.

    Paul doesn’t understand Islam at all and I know this because he talks about POing a billion Muslims if we interfere with Iran’s nuke intentions. This is proof positive he doesn’t understand Islam because there are not one billion Shi’ite Muslims and Shi’ites and Sunnis have been killing each other for centuries over the 12th Iman interpretation. Iran’s religious zealots believe the 12th Iman will come save them at a time of a great war. Iran would love nothing more than to bring about the great war to bring about their savior and prove once and for all to the Sunni Muslims they are the correct keepers of Islam.

    Ron Paul has it bass-ackwards since there’s probably a billion Sunni Muslims who would cheer preventing Iran from acquiring nukes.

    • KenInMontana

      George Washington himself even said the U.S. would do well with free trade with all nations and alliances with none.

      Actually, that is closer to what Jefferson said in his first inaugural address, “Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none;”.

      What Washington actually said was, “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as
      little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.”

  • bobemakk

    Ron Paul, “the odd ball.” I just don’t understand how his son Rand Paul is so different, does he have the same mother or is he adopted?

  • grizzlybear71

    “Among the acknowledged rights of nations is that which each possesses of establishing that form of government which it may deem most conducive to the happiness and prosperity of its own citizens, of changing that form as circumstances may require, and of managing its internal affairs according to its own will. The people of the United States claim this right for themselves, and they readily concede it to others. Hence it becomes an imperative duty not to interfere in the government or internal policy of other nations; and although we may sympathize with the unfortunate or the oppressed everywhere in their struggles for freedom, our principles forbid us from taking part in such foreign contests.”

    President Millard Fillmore, 1850

    • KenInMontana

      A quote from one of the original “Gunboat Diplomacists”. You don’t find Fillmore as an embodiment of the foreign policy opposed by your candidate? Besides the fact that the quote blatantly contradicts Fillmore’s actions as President.

  • Anonymous

    You are misunderstanding ron paul’s statement. He is not defending Hamas as you claim and the terrorism, he is pointing out the absurdity of the united states continuing to mess with the internal affairs of other countries. As he stated in the video above, the united states have thousands of soldiers dying to get elections and democracy and then we finally get one and now the us is supposed to overthrow what the people chose? Yeah, that’s gone very well for us in the past. What he is saying is that the whole idea that the united states should police the world only creates more problems. In fact, research more into what Ron Paul says and you will discover that he is the definition of a true Zionist. The video you didnt show were the countless times he has repeatedly said that Israel should not have to ask The U.S. to protect herself. That the U.S. needs to leave Israel alone.They should be able to act as they wish regardless of what we think of them.

    Jeff Goldberg of the atlantic writes:
    “In one sense a true zionist, is a believer in two core values of the Jewish liberation movement. Jewish independence and Jewish self-reliance.”

    Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=–BQxhV17wQ