This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.

Meet Ron Paul’s ‘Jeremiah Wright’

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Print Friendly and PDF
papesmall

A bestselling author, speaker and commentator who likes presidential candidate Ron Paul’s “incredibly refreshing principles, ideas, qualities and character” might be the last person you would expect to blow the whistle on holes in Paul’s foreign policy prescriptions and assumptions behind them.

But that’s just what Joel Richardson does today in an exclusive and explosive commentary in WND.

In a WND column, Richardson writes: “Let me begin by making it very clear that there are a lot of reasons to love Ron Paul.”

“But despite the allure of Paul’s constitutional convictions, his perspective concerning United States foreign policy, radical Islam and the nation of Israel are an absolute deal breaker,” Richardson writes. “Paul’s emphatic trademark claim that the present rise of Islamic terrorism globally is the result of ‘blowback’ from American actions abroad is nothing less than ridiculous and an absolute insult to my intelligence. According to Paul, radical Muslims are not radical because they have drunk deeply from the trough of an expansionist, racist and murderous ideology, but rather because American actions abroad have brought about the natural response of resistance.”

Post Continues on www.wnd.com

Print Friendly and PDF
Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • Jon Sampson

    In order for him to be Ron Paul’s “Jeremiah Wright,” Ron would have had to sit under this man’s teaching for decades, and then disavow him only when the media discovers what has been going on. Until that is demonstrated, he’s just another naive individual who things Ron Paul’s foreign policies are dangerous, in spite of are better-qualified individuals siding with Ron Paul for his foreign policies.

    Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist. The Constitution is not dangerous.

    • Ben

      You make a valid point regarding the title of the article.

      However, you dismiss the substance. Does Ron Paul feel that “radical Muslims are not radical because they have drunk deeply from the trough of an expansionist, racist and murderous ideology, but rather because American actions abroad have brought about the natural response of resistance”? If so, and you agree, then there is nothing further to discuss. Ron Paul’s “reality” is based on nothing.

    • Martin Ridens

      One great propaganda tactic is to combine two different things. Ron Paul does believe our heavy handed, militaristic foreign policy causes some people to dislike us and may have contributed to the causes of 9/11. Does this mean he believes that is the only reason radical Islamists do some of the crazy things they do? Good question, but not an asumption I would make.

      This article makes a tenuous link between Ron Paul and Robert Pape and then proceeds to discredit Pape. The analogy between us staying out of Iraq and police officers staying in the precinct is another great propaganda tactic.

      My suggestion to all those who are interested enough in this election to come on here and post and hopefully think is, study propaganda. Study the communists, study the nazis, study the liberals and increasingly study the conservatives. Look for the assumptions, follow up on them and then follow up on the stuff you are following up on. Facts are elusive things but most great propaganda has some small basis in fact. The trick is finding it.

    • fubert bar

      You are exactly right. Anyone who believes that terrorism is ‘the result of ‘blowback’ from American actions abroad’, or that we radicalized Islam, (or that Islam is a religion of peace) – is simply ignorant of Islam and its perceived place in the world.

    • awakenow

      Ben, the reality is this. The hatred toward our government and its actions in Iran were not present prior to 1953, which is when Iran’s democratically-elected president, the people’s choice, Mossadegh, was removed via our effort to do so.

      Why did we want to replace him and put the Shah into office? Four words … oil and Great Britain.

      Great Britain didn’t like Mossadegh’s talk about nationalizing and controlling who got their oil, which was where Britain got a ton of their oil from … cheaply.

      In 1952, Britain came up with a plan to oust Mossadegh and they got us to go along with it.

      Mossadegh was replaced by the Shah of Iran who went on to kill a bunch of his citizens during his reign from 1953 to 1979, the year of the Iran Hostage Crisis, when he fled the country.

      Please do some online research about the “TPAJAX Project” and a man named Donald Wilber.

    • ChillaKilla

      Mossadegh was a commmunist and/or communist sympathizer at the time when Stalin was aggressively trying to expand the soviet empire. Perhaps along with petroleum interests and self-interests the US and Britain were looking toward a world free from the communist cancer at the time when the ‘cold war’ was rearing its head all over the world.
      The principal duty of a country is to look for the security and safety of its citizens. Would we have been better off allowing the soviets to capture the arab world and along with it the most important source of energy for the ‘free world’?
      Ronpaul is a misguided and irrational demagogue who has been lapping at the doorstep of ultimate human power -the US presidency- for a long time. This time his robotic supporters whose single-minded obsession has fueled Paul’s ambition can almost smell his ascension… but they will have to be content with smelling. The people of the US, hopefully will have better sense than to further this deluded octogenarian’s geriatric wet dream.

    • http://verizon Ann Rand

      Amen!

    • Jonathan Gartner

      Like anything yes it can. If it is not read in the context our founding fathers had in mind yes it is dangerous. Paul reads the Constitution in a very amoral manner. He reads without the ethics and morals our founding fathers meant to go along with the document. Ronald Reagan said it best from Matt 5:14

    • Martin Ridens

      And how long did you spend talking with Dr. Paul before you came to this conclusion? It really bugs me when someone thinks they know what is going on in another person’s mind.

    • http://verizon.net budman

      Mr. Sampson, who are you to say what this mans qualifications are to say what he does regarding Ron Paul’s foreign policy.
      I happen to agree with him and this is based on many years of study on people in the middle east, their government, culture, ethnic make-up, etc. I believe I could say I am far more knowledgeable than Ron Paul on this area. Ron Paul is playing a dangerous game if he believes he can talk with a President that is insane and the clerics there who are very militant. His only saving grace would be the internal conflict inside Iran now where clearly more than 50 per cent of the population there hate this regime. If you can understand one thing about this, I assure you if Iran does in fact obtain a nuclear weapon (I believe they already do); when they threaten the rest of the middle east as they clearly stated they will to include the destruction of Israel, this is what is going to happen. Russia, China, France, Britain and the United States will get into the mix immediately to protect their vital interests there and conflict on this will lead to a war there; more an economic struggle than armed action but that will occur as well with other countries in the middle having no alternative other than to oppose Iran’s push and remove their leaders from power. The Saudi’s are already doing this and expect others will be doing so with tensions rising there. If you believe prices are out of hand now, wait until this happens when the lack of oil drives the cost of everything beyond the ability of many to pay for it. Ron Paul would be unable to do anything about this and would be the fool he is regarding his foreign policy.

    • Martin Ridens

      So, the knowledge which causes you to believe Iran already has a nuke is the same knowledge which enables you to make these predictions which will come true once Iran gets a nuke but haven’t come true yet? Is that it?

    • Owaza

      Ron Paul’s Jeremiah wright are his own newsletters, filled for years with racist, anti-Semitic material that he claims he knows nothing about. Just like Obama sitting in Wright’s church for twenty yeas and never hearing a sermon. If Paul were to actually win the nomination, Obama’s campaign, the entire media, and every left-wing loon would pound away on his well-documented history and Obama would win in a landslide. Thank God this crazy little man has no chance of winning. And that’s the ONLY reason he’s not being gone after now. He can’t, and shouldn’t, win.

    • http://windstream reader

      I’m not making light of the reference to President Obamas having sat in the church of Reverend Jeremiah Wright for 20 years without having heard a sermon. But when you consider that the President has not heard much from a huge majority of American’s while in office , I have to wonder if he even hears his wife when she talks? I honestly wonder!

    • setpoint

      The Constitution is dangerous only to tyrants like Obama who are inclined to not protect and defend it against all enemies, public and private.

    • Lawlessness Brings Destruction

      Ron Paul is ONE part Conservative and TWO parts anarchist.
      Check out his Immigration Stances as reported by his campaign to NumbersUSA: https://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/2012-presidential-hopefuls-immigration-stances.html
      This is an issue that touches SEVERAL areas of American life and security.
      *Ron Paul does NOT support ending the jobs/welfare magnet for illegal aliens by ending their ability to enter the country illegally and get jobs. Illegal hiring is rife with tax evasion by both the illegal AND the scofflaw employer. This affects government/social services budgets, especially the ones illegals use.
      *He does NOT support attrition through enforcement OR punishing those who hire illegal aliens.
      *And he does NOT support ending unfair foreign competition for American jobs. The feds give out 1 MILLION+ foreign worker visas EACH YEAR. The majority of those are for LOW SKILL workers not the allegedly needed H1-B high tech workers, of which we have NO shortage of EITHER ONE within our own country.
      *The above is also a great conduit for covert terrorists to enter the U.S. Some of the 9/11 terrorists that were trained in the U.S. to fly aircraft entered on student visas.
      Overall immigration to the U.S. needs to STOP in keeping with giving Americans opportunities to work and strengthening national security.
      If Ron Paul were concerned about jobs and national security, he would support ALL of the above.
      Opposing these things on the grounds of “compassion” for the illegal alien is not true compassion. It is cowardice.
      There is NOTHING “wrong” or “broken” with our immigration laws and system; they’re just not ENFORCED. Lawlessness doesn’t = compassion. Immigration/hiring fraud are NOT a ‘race”. Enforcing the rule of law is NOT “racism”.

    • Hank is back

      You are mistaken. Simply because Ron Paul has refused to vote for bills that would have curtailed illegal immigration in a minor way, but were laden with unconstitutional provisions, and simply because Ron Paul does not support e-verify (which clearly violates the Thirteenth Amendment), and simply because he upholds the Tenth Amendment, the one-sided lobbying organization, NumbersUSA gives him a poor rating.

      If Ron Paul voted for Unconstitutional legislation that happened to have one or two good things in it on immigration, NumbersUSA would give him a better rating, but he would also lack credibility as a Constitutionalist.

    • ONTIME

      RP is a constitutionalist and a smart man but he is also 74 years old and has a tendency to ramble. This nation as long as it is a beacon of light in a world where freedom of thought and deed is hard to find will always have enemies who fear the spread of this ideology and will resist for as long as they can by any means…that’s why we are being attacked.

    • trackfodder

      Ron Paul is a Jew-hating nut that thinks we should legalize dope. Bless a Jew and I’ll bless you, curse a Jew and I will curse you.
      God gave Israel to the Jews centuries ago The “Palistinians” are a ragtag collection of what was left of the Ottoman empire from Syria, etc.They just decided they were a country and all Jews should be killed.
      Just wait and see what happens if/when the UN divides Jerusalim. If you are lucky to survive what usually happens within 24 hrs of messing with them, you might want to consider your Salvation and work for it.

    • Hank is back

      Ron Paul was alone in voting against a resolution to condemn Israel for actions it had taken to defend herself.

      The Bible does not say “Bless a Jew and I will bless you, curse a Jew and I will curse you”. Maybe the Talmud says that. But the Talmud was written by the descendants of the Pharisees.

      The Bible does say this however:

      “I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

      God was talking to Abraham. This promise holds for the spiritual descendants of Abraham, not the ethnic ones. Now ethnic descendants of Abraham are certainly included in the spiritual descendants. But simply being born a Jew by religion or ethnicity or nation does not make one a spiritual descendant of Abraham.

      Just who are these ‘spiritual descendants”?

      The faithful of the Old and New Testaments and modern Christians that adhere to God’s word, and add not their own. This would exclude the Pharisees and the Talmudic Jews, who reject the Messiah, his message, and replace it with their heresies.

      The State of Israel is nothing more than a plod of dirt. that does not mean that they don’t deserve to stay there, but only that they deserve no special treatment.

      Spiritual Israel, which is the true Israel, is simply another name for the faithful in Christendom.

      This is the orthodox interpretation of Scripture that has been accepted by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Copts, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, Methodists, Marionites, Baptists for centuries and millennia.

      Only in the last 50 or so years has this interpretation been partially overrun by the dispensationalists and charismatics and cultists who have been influenced primarily by the false prophecies uttered by Talmudists, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, and other heterodox and heretical groups.

    • Paul Wilkes

      Hank:
      Can you point me to a scripture in the Bible to support “Spiritual Israel, which is the true Israel, is simply another name for the faithful in Christendom.” I know St. Paul said we are “grafted in” but I find no support for excluding the unbelieveing Jews from Israel.

    • Hank is back

      If they are unbelieving then they are only ethnic Jews. I am sure that you agree with me that Christ is the ONLY way, truth, and life, and outside of Him n one can be saved.

      If I understand correctly, you are saying that unbelieving Jews, even if they are not saved, are still in a covenant with God, bound to the land that was promised to them.

      But it all boils down to how we define ‘them’. If by ‘them’, you mean ethnic Jews/ethnic Israel, I couldn’t disagree with you more. But if by ‘them’ you mean spiritual Israel, then you and I are on the same page.

      Two, among many, scriptural passages to justify this interpretation:

      Galatians 3:7

      O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you sufferb so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?

      Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justifyc the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

      Philippians 3:1-11

      Finally, my brothers,a rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you is no trouble to me and is safe for you.

      Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of Godb and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh— though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law,c blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

    • Paul Wilkes

      Ron Paul does not hate Jews. He hates the foreign aid that goes to Israel’s enemies. More than 4 times as much as goes to Israel. He believes we should pay off our national debt before we give aid to any country. I think that makes good sense.

  • awakenow

    Jon Samspon … agreed and what a total distortion aimed at continuing to fuel the nonstop “fear mongering” about Iran getting “the bomb.”

    Apparently, Mr. Farah and WND are now total sellouts to the New World Order crowd intent on pushing this country into another bankrupting war.

    Based on this article, we are to believe that Iran’s mission is to wipe out Israel, kill every last one of them because the Jews are the devil incarnate.

    I guess that explains why there are over 10,000 Arab “Jews” currently living in Iran?

    And, despite the rantings of articles like this, the majority of younger Iranians, who make up the majority of the population, are actually becoming more secular and reject the religious, fanatical, ravings of their leaders?

    Also, and this is perhaps the most important thing to keep in mind when reading this nonsense … this article totally disregards Israel’s ability to blast Iran off the face of the Earth should they even try to launch a nuke their way.

    Of course, we all know that Israel some 200 – 300 nukes, anti-ballistic weaponry, that is ready and waiting for just such a day.

    Ron Paul believes in backing Israel by recognizing their sovereignty and allow them to what they feel is necessary to protect themselves … which is what Israel wants to do according to their own Prime Minister, Bebe Netanyahu in a speech delivered before Congress this past May.

    Critical thinking skills are enormously important. Please use them, or this country will be drawn into yet another war and possibly the beginning of WW3.

    • Jonathan Gartner

      Good Lord what a dim wit read the quran and read history on what they plan to do moron

    • Ben

      “Critical thinking skills are enormously important.”

      Yes, they are. And I’m not saying you don’t have them. But your “reality” is one of your own making.

      Yes, there are dhimmi Persian Jews, dhimmi Syrian Jews, and Jews living as dhimmi in other Arab countries. It isn’t proof that Iran does NOT intend to use nukes on Israel. No matter. See my comment below.

    • Martin Ridens

      “It is impossible to wake someone who is pretending to be asleep” – Navaho proverb

      Thought you might like that, awakenow.

      But can continue to try.

    • awakenow

      Martin … yes, I do like that proverb very much and thank you for mentioning it.

      For me, this proverb provides all the more reason to keep trying.

  • http://patriotupdate.com Raymond

    I know this is off the current topic,
    please allow me to share this with you. Raymond

    Christians are being silenced all across America: in the political debate, the public square, the schools, the workplace, and even in the sanctuary of their own churches. Read these signs of the times:

    ➔ Christians threatened with prison for protesting the homosexual agenda.

    ➔ Employees of Fortune 500 companies fired for quoting the scriptures or forbidden to display family pictures in their office cubicles because they offend homosexual employees.

    ➔ Christian churches are being ordered by the government to perform lesbian marriages.

    ➔ “Anti-bullying” programs explicitly promote homosexuality in public schools.

    ➔ Municipal workers forbidden by the city to say “family values” because those words constitute a hate crime.

    ➔ Proposed federal laws supposedly aimed at preventing employment discrimination that would make discrimination against Christians the law of the land.

    ➔ Other “antidiscrimination” laws make Christian charities illegal.

    ➔ Secularist liberals in Congress seek to censor or bankrupt Christian broadcasters.

    ➔ The IRS “cracking down” on Christian pastors who oppose homosexual propaganda in schools, abortion on demand, or same-sex marriage.

    ➔ The real impact of same-sex marriage? Any criticism of homosexuality would be legally defined as bigotry. Christians who protest could lose their jobs, go to jail, or see their churches shut down by the government.

    ➔ The Christian haters are becoming an elite class of super citizens whose moral views are actively sponsored by the state while Christians are increasingly censored, penalized, and even prosecuted.

    • fliteking

      Top Notch Ray, good stuff.

  • http://www.patriotactionnetwork.net Shane

    Yes, Ron Paul is clueless when it comes to Islamic Jihad, and his foreign policy is a joke. Paul is the favorite American of the ruling elite in Iran.

    • Martin Ridens

      The entire world wants Ron Paul to win. We seem to be the only ones who don’t realize how thuggish our government has become.

    • http://windstream reader

      Mr. Paul could be worked with and could be a better president than President Obama. That in my opinion is his only credit. He might be a nice guy with some good ideas. But just as I told people before they elected the current president, this man isn’t your savior. He is a man and men have faults and they make errors in judgment . Never put too much faith in any man or woman as candidate for political office.
      Taylor Caldwell, said it best, “a person might be completely honest before they are elected and might remain honest for the first 4 years. Never let them have that 5th year because they don’t stay honest that long.”

    • Martin Ridens

      I know very few Paul supporters who idolize the man in the way people accuse us of. We see the country heading in the wrong direction for much longer than 3 years now. We realize government is not the solution, government is the problem and the problem keeps getting bigger and bigger no matter who we elect. We see in Ron Paul some small hope this will change.

      You seem to know how things work in DC. I’ve often said many go there with good intentions and then the statists tell them how things really work. Most politicians are smart and go along to get along. Ron Paul has been there for a long time and still hasn’t caved. He’s been marginalized rather than courted, though. We don’t know if his integrity would stand the temptations of the presidency but it’s worth giving him a chance. We already know what we’ll get with the other guys.

    • http://verizon Ann Rand

      Martin…. As usual, there you go spouting some more foolishness.”The world wants paul to win”… What a joke….. Possibly anyone who would like to see us become weakened might like to see that… You are too much!!!

  • Jason Brickley

    Maybe you’re ignorant of history with Iran and our black ops. Or arming mujahadeen with 3 billion in tax money to fight soviets, that then became the taliban. We have created all these problems with our interventionist warmongering since world war 2. Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ7Hz7WCQE8 exampes of blowback or http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=02f_1326045988 for some history on Iran
    Ignorance of history doesn’t excuse us from breaking the constitutional rules for declaration of war in the past, surely it hasn’t saved us from the consequences.

    Frankly this guy is an author not Ron Paul’s pastor, so your by-line is just utter tripe. Make valid salient points next time instead of loosely connecting bad logic points.

  • OttoKnowbetter

    There’s a lot of what Ron Paul says that I like, but there’s also a bunch of his comments that I don’t like. I figure he’d probably be an improvement over BHO as president, but there are other folks who would definitely be even better.

  • tod

    Dr.Ron Paul 2012 for the ONLY PROVEN HONEST(for Well Over 30 Years)Patriot running for President,PERIOD !!!

    • Jonathan Gartner

      Ron Paul the only whacko to serve for over 20 years in congress and pass one bill (one for a memorial in his own district) what a record

    • PE

      FYI: “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” –John Adams

      http://www.ronpaul.com/congress/legislation/111th-congress-200910/audit-the-federal-reserve-hr-1207/

      Currently Ron Paul is serving his 8th term as a Representative from Texas, a total of 14 years. In total, he has sponsored 464 bills

      105th Congress – 32 Bills Sponsored by Ron Paul
      106th Congress – 51 Bills Sponsored by Ron Paul
      107th Congress – 64 Bills Sponsored by Ron Paul
      108th Congress – 68 Bills Sponsored by Ron Paul
      109th Congress – 71 Bills Sponsored by Ron Paul
      110th Congress – 70 Bills Sponsored by Ron Paul
      111th Congress – 61 Bills Sponsored by Ron Paul
      112th Congress – 47 Bills Sponsored by Ron Paul

    • Martin Ridens

      You forgot the early years 1976-1977 and 1979-1985.

      http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billsearch.xpd?sponsor=400311

      There are some of his bills. A lot of tax reduction and crazy freedom stuff. No wonder he couldn’t get anything passed.

    • Jack

      Lot of tax reduction & freedom stuff….yeah, really crazy…

    • http://verizon Ann Rand

      Martin…. Just so you understand, I will be here long after windbag paul has taken all your money and retired.Have a grand day.

    • http://verizon Ann Rand

      And how many passed??? Delusional,as usual..

    • Martin Ridens

      Maybe you should ask your representative in congress why all of those bills didn’t pass, Ann. It seems you are way too busy trying to destroy any chance we might have to turn this country around. Stinking statist, yes, that’s what I’m calling you. Your rabid attacks and mindless jargon disgust me.

    • http://verizon Ann Rand

      Martin… I hope so. That is why I am here.

    • ald

      Oh, is that the STANDARD “PASSING UNCONSTITUTIONAL BILLS”?

      GET A F-ING CLUE!

    • Hank is back

      Passing bills means nothing. This country would be in better shape if we had just one percent of the bills on the record. Stopping bills, or attempting to stop them is a much more principled, conservative (in the truest sense of the word), and admirable thing to do.

      For as long as passing another law is considered an accomplishment in and of itself, this country is screwed.

    • just sayin

      If Ron Paul is honest, then he is incompetent as a manager in my opinion. Here is the fact. Please don’t blather on about NWO, Neo Cons and the like. Just make your determination which one he is and then temper your future comments using common sense rather than Mantra! His views that were written about in HIS newsletters for years with HIS name on them are scary. He claims that he did not know what they were writing for years. To me, that sounds like irresponsible management AT MINIMUM. How can someone who cannot even supervise his OWN newsletters manage international affairs and the US government. So IF he is honest, he is irresponsible and incompetent AT THE LEAST. My belief is that he DID know what was in his newsletters for YEARS and did supervise what went in there. THAT would make him patently dishonest by claiming that he did not know. What would the average person think if they were not a PaulBot or a cult member? My guess would be the latter but the former is possible. Which do you believe, since you claim he is the ONLY honest one? Is he irresponsible and incompetent or dishonest?

    • Martin Ridens

      Cut and paste much, do we buddy? I’m thinking this thread is foreign policy though.

    • ald

      Is MORMONISM A “CULT”?

    • http://verizon Ann Rand

      No, but Paulism is a cult. They should have to register as mentally disable.

    • awakenow

      Ann Rand, we all know that you do not believe in or support the Constitution. Otherwise, you would not be constantly, and bitterly, tearing down the one candidate who has always stood in defense of it.

      Ron Paul.

    • http://verizon Ann Rand

      JUST SAYIN….. Some of both.

    • Seth

      If you would like to know some of the truth, check out this article. http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter

    • http://verizon Ann Rand

      Tod… Ru Paul The only honest drag Queen… Been at it for 30 yrs..

  • http://patriotupdate libbylindy

    Ron Paul would be a good choice if we didn’t need to leave home soil. Outside this USA, he has ill thought out ideas. I can see I will never be a good libertarian if this is the way they think. He is a dangerous man to the USA. Go ahead and bebunk it, but can you really lie down at night and think you will be safer if Iran has enough nuclear weaponry to take out the US, because they need to feel “equal in power” to us? If you agree with him, then God help America! We have more problems than Ron Paul.

    • Martin Ridens

      Cut and paste much, do we libby? you getting paid by the post or by the hour?

  • enginersedge

    It was Newt who spoke up for the Christians when he spoke about active judges that prevent any Christian expression. VOTE NEWT

  • Ben

    Ron Paul would like to cut all aid to Israel and I suspect stop all arms sales as well. As a Jew and a Conservative I have no problem with this as long as Ron Paul holds true to the ideal of the US staying out of other countries business. And I suspect that if the Arabs started to slaughter all the Jews in Israel, Ron Paul would also not intervene based on the same principle. Nor would I have a problem with that.

    But, if Israel used it’s nukes on the Arab world, I feel Ron Paul WOULD intervene to stop the Israelis. This is based on nothing more than a gut feeling that Ron Paul feels the USA needs oil, not Jews. And that, I DO object to.

    • Lindy

      By stopping funding to foreign countries including Israel, Israel will then be free to stop giving money to those who wish their demise. Look up the money that Israel must give to her enemies. No longer would Israel be subjected to the demands placed on her by America because of the funding. There is more to this than most people know.

    • Ben

      As I said, Lindy, I have no issue with stopping of foreign aid to Israel AS LONG AS WE ARE WILLING TO PAY THE PRICE.

      Israel must be free to nuke the Arabs out of existence (if “attacked”) and by stopping the aid we also cut the leash by which we’ve been holding the Israelis.

    • Hank is back

      Ron Paul would not intervene in the affairs of a sovereign nation unless they first a) invaded us b) nuked us first c) seriously threatened to do either while being capable of such.

      I wish Israel would just get it over with and bomb her enemies. Not because I give a hoot about Israel, but because we should not be doing it for Israel.

    • Anumber1

      I have heard Ron Paul speak on the subject of Israel and from that I don’t believe he would object to Israel’s use of nukes upon belligerent Islamic neighbors. He said that his policy on Israel is to remove the constraints that the US has had on Israel for so many years and allow the Israelis to chart their own course without needing permission or approval from Washington.

    • Ben

      I have no doubt that you don’t believe Ron Paul would hold Israel back. I believe otherwise.

      Have a nice day.

    • Stan

      Ben,Ron Paul has also said that Israel is our friend,and if they asked for help and he were president,he would help.He just doesn’t think we should be everywhere all the time without being asked.

    • Ben

      Well, he’s also said that Palestinians are NOT a non-people (which they are) and that they are in a virtual concentration camp. As far as I’m concerned, to compare these bloodthirsty murderers to Hitler’s victims is an obscenity.

      I can appreciate that he says we shouldn’t be everywhere. But his statements about Israel and the so-called “Palestinians” indicate his true beliefs. And those are that he (and a number of his supporters, e.g., the neo-nazi he took a picture with) would gleefully watch the Arabs slaughter the Jews in the name of “not being everywhere”. I’m unconvinced that he would feel the same way if the Israelis used their nuclear power against the Arabs.

    • Stan

      Actually,I believe it was Newt Gingrich that made the palestinian non people statement,although I may be wrong,but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t Ron Paul.I will research that.

    • Ben

      Yes, Stan, Newt accurately said that the so-called Palestinians are an invented people. He is right, of course. After all, can you name a “Palestinian” leader before Yasir Arafat?

      But it was Ron Paul, along with the liberal media, who said that Newt was wrong and that they were a people. Based on what? They have the same language, customs, and even cuisine as other Arabs. There is nothing that differentiates them from the Arabs of other lands. So why are they a “people”? And, if they were truly interested in peoplehood and independence, why didn’t they ask for a state in Gaza and the “West Bank” when Egypt and Jordan controlled those territories (before 1967)? Ron Paul cannot answer those questions; I’m willing to bet all the other Republican candidates can.

      You may think this is all this is beyond the point; however, his attitudes towards the Arabs and Jews belie his commitment to non-interference in the Middle East if the Israelis were to defend themselves with nuclear weapons.

    • Grumpy old man

      Ignorance of the mans platform is the problem of most who demean Ron Paul and spout the media BS about how dangerous his ideas are. Bull Pucky!!!!
      He has never taken a government junket.
      He does not participate in the lucrative Congressional Pension Program.
      He returns a portion of his annual Congressional Office Budget every year.
      He has never voted to raise taxes.
      He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
      He voted no to the bankster bailout.
      He voted no to raising the debt ceiling and warned us against The “Super Congress” part of the legislation that resembles both An “ Enabling Act” and a “Politburo.”
      He has never voted to restrict gun ownership.
      He has never voted to raise Congressional Pay.
      To stand with the American people, President Paul will take a yearly salary of $39,336, equal to the average US worker’s salary. Instead of the current President’s $400,000 salary.
      He will cut One Trillion Dollars from the budget in the first year and balance the budget in three years.
      http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/Ron-Paul-plan-to-restore-America/
      He will Return Power to the States as set down in the 9th and 10th Amendments (Bill of Rights) to the Constitution.
      He never voted to increase Executive Branch Power.
      He will Reinstate The Constitution and Save The Republic
      He will END the unconstitutional FED.
      He will phase out the unconstitutional IRS beginning immediately
      He will secure the borders
      He will limit Big Government in your private affairs
      He will stop Illegal immigration and no amnesty
      He voted against regulating the Internet
      And being an ex military officer he has stated that he will strengthen our military at home and use our
      Air force, Navy and missiles to defend our allies and ourselves.

    • letsmakesureiunderstand

      Ben, I’d like to clarify a couple points:
      1) Ron Paul does not intend to cut off aid to Israel, he intends to cut of aid to EVERYONE. That is not anti-Israel, it’s pro-Israel, because we give 10 times as much money to Israel’s enemies as we give to Israel. The net result is better for Israel.

      2) The Arabs won’t start slaughtering the Jews. The Jews have proven that they can, and will, defend themselves and defeat invaders.

      3) Ron Paul WOULD intervene in the above circumstance — provide that the US people, through their Congress, declares war. He would go in and win. He’s said this repeatedly.

      4) It’s very inaccurate to say Ron Paul would intervene if Israel attacked its neighbors. In the early 80′s Ron Paul was the only person who defended Israel’s actions when Israel attacked Iraq’s weapons programs. Most of America was upset with Israel, but Paul defended her sovereignty and her right to take action.

      5) There is absolutely no basis for making the statement that “Ron Paul feels the USA needs oil, not Jews”. Ron Paul has never said we need to do X or Y — especially intervening in foreign affairs — for oil. He feels that America’s energy needs can be met by the free market, and the government does not need to get involved. Doesn’t matter if it comes from domestic or foreign sources. Could be oil, gas, wind, geo-thermal, solar, coal, or rats spinning a turbine wheel. Private businesses will figure out how to produce it, trade it, deliver it to consumers. And competition and consumer preferences will ensure the right mix of the above options.

      6) Ron Paul does not dismiss that there are radical leaders who indoctrinate young folks to hate America. He merely admits, as has our CIA, that our interventions have CONTRIBUTED to the resentment. It is a well-documented fact that our presence there is used as a recruiting point for the radicals.

      Mr. Richardson is blatantly mis-characterizing Ron Paul’s stance. It is obvious to anyone who thinks objectively about this situation, instead of through biased hyper-patriotic lenses, that the current situation could not be created 100% due to either one factor or 100% to the other factor. There are many contributing factors. Those who actually listen to Dr. Paul’s words know Mr. Richardson is playing the same game of falsehoods that the establishment candidates play. And they hope that you don’t educate yourself enough to know the truth.

    • http://verizon Ann Rand

      letsmake sure… This is all a moot point… A waste of time, for ron paul will NEVER be president, no matter how hard you try. Don’t be making any inauguration plans. it won’t happen.

    • Hank is back

      If you truly believe that, you lack credibility for continuing to argue these points. If Ron Paul will NEVER win, why do you take it upon yourself to destroy the man? Is it personal? Is this one of your irrational sadistic fixations?

    • letsmakesureiunderstand

      Ben, if you’re going to say something that you admit is “based on nothing more than a gut feeling”, maybe you’re better off doing some research before commenting.

      We all have a right to express opinions, and I don’t wish to stifle yours, but this debate is not furthered unless the opinions are well-reasoned and based on facts.

      Just a suggestion.

  • Lindy

    When you have former members of the CIA and other intelligence agencies backing Paul on “blowback” it is not something to be taken lightly. Our politicians, both past and present have made bad decisions which have come to bite us in the butt over and over again. We have backed leaders around the world when they served a purpose and when we used them long enough, then we turned on them. How long did we think this could go on without consequence, hence, blowback.

  • jflinn

    I am not pushing Ron Paul, but you absolutely need too see his predictions from 2002. Evey one of them came true. Was it pure vision? Or did the scummbags of Washington now about it but did not want to say anything because of corruption, because they did not care one bit about what he had to say thats for sure. Google Ron Paull 2002 predictions. Scary. He knew exactly what he was talking about.

    • Anumber1

      I’ve read an independent third-party review of current Republican candidates’ predictions and public statements about conditions from the time of about 2005 and earlier. Yes, Ron Paul’s warnings and alarms of that time now look amazingly prescient.

  • Liberty4evr

    The definition of Insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. So ask yourselves:” Which candidate will respect the Constitution and keep his Oath, Cut Federal Spending (not just a cut in the increase), Restore us to a sound currency, End Foreign Aid,Put AMERICA FIRST, get government off our backs and out of our pocketbooks and will do what he says he will do and has a track record to prove it??

  • Kathleen

    I like Ron Paul, I could listen to him speak and debate all day, but not for president. Huntsman will sell us under the table on a Saturday night, to China, he claimed at the beginning of the campaigning he would win, he didnt need Iowa, he said he would win or come close to winning in NH, Obama loves this guy, he has to go home.

    • cheryl

      The fact that Huntsman said obama was a great leader turned me off. You’d have to be stupid to think that obama was good at anything except lying and spending our money for his pleasure.

  • Jeronimo Dan

    I kind of think like Ron Paul, we’re into many countries and really none of them want us in their back yards. If we as a free nation had foreigners in our country and if they were armed, we’d be up in arms, within minutes. We don’t seem to be any where we’re needed, but only where we need the resources of who ever we occupy.
    Paul has some good points and we should step back and take look, as to how would we react if some nation invaded our country.

    • Stan

      Bad news,the dirty little secret is nato has forces in our country.

    • Stan

      Hey,I hate it too,but it is true.You can give me a minus but they are here and our government has given them land for their bases.

  • mark foster

    Our history shows that isolationiszm doesn’t work, that’s what helped Hitler kill as many people as he did. The world is a better place since we became the watchmen of the world. If we don’t except the responsibility then who will take our place, Russia, China or the middle east? Then our world will really change! America has been great because America has been good to the world. That is why God has blessed the USA!!!!

    • Martin Ridens

      Can we say this one more time, really loudly, Ron Paul is not an isolationist. Please stop regurgitating the propaganda from war profiteers who are making a ton of money off the blood and lives of our citizens and those around the world.

    • http://verizon Ann Rand

      No. Martin… He is a craven coward and so are you.

    • ald

      Take a class in ENGLISH, or shut up!

      You’re IGNORANCE IS SHOWING!

  • JackK

    Those of us who lived through Jimmy Carter and the Iran hostage crisis and Carters response to it and see how Carter learned nothing from the situation see how an idealogy can get us into trouble. When you make deals with the devil you lose,every time.

    • ald

      Are you implying that Ron Paul would’nt go get the hostages?

      He has CLEARLY stated that he would do EVERYTHING NECESSARY to get them back!

      Apparently you just mimic what the NEO-CON RINOBOTS SAY!

    • http://verizon Ann Rand

      ald… SURE he would!!! All by himself!… I can see that now. Montgomery Burns running across the desert…. Maybe Homer Simpson with him. What a pair!!

  • http://rebelforiam.com m. sharpe

    I actually agree with Rep. Paul.People around the world are ticked at Americans because we are ignorant of what is being done,or simply turn away.The world knows about the funny money,and wealth transfers.Support for dictators that are evil.They know what came out of Britton Woods.They know that the State of Israel and the House of Israel are not the same.They know that 99% of the world mess can be traced back to the “Monopoly Men”.Paul has it right-leave people alone-stop the wickedness and Socialism.

  • mark

    “Absolute deal breaker” — Sad but a Constitutionalist, who holds the forefathers’ vision of international engagement but non-inventionist in policy is “dangerous” and naive. This is typical of Evangelical understanding today. They asked us (I am a convinced Reformational Evangelical) to vote for Palin, Bachmann, Gingrich, Santorum, and now who . . . Romney? Why not the sole stable, faithful, believing, Constitutionalist evangelical–Ron Paul? Because he wants us to stop killing people immorally and stop invading countries without biblical justification (see the Laws of War)???

    • Hank is back

      Mark,

      I am also a Reformed Evangelical who supports Ron Paul.

      Any Traditionalist Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, or Episcopalian that does not agree with Ron Paul’s foreign policy has not heard of St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas (or Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Grotius, or Edwards), much less read them.

      BTW. Gettingrich and Sanatorium are not Traditionalist Catholics, contrary to what they would have people believe. They are both sellouts. The Catholic Church confronted modernity and lost, not because Catholicism was bad, but because its leaders are/were weak, and many of its followers are/were like sheep. Neoconciliarism has eaten up the Catholic Church since the 1950s to the point that would make Catholics during the Protestant Reformation praise the likes of Luther and Calvin by comparison.

      Hank

  • Heyoka

    Any doubt as to the truth of the commentator’s statement can be rectified by merely looking into the Shaw of Iran and his history. The US via sepcial interests, including the Muslim in the White House is calculated to favor elite agenda’s. THe fact that we get involved politically is evidence enough. George Washington admonished the People to not get involved.

    Washington, and just about every Framer with a classical education, knew the dangers of getting into the political policies of other countries. It involves us in ruinous wars and pay offs that steal the money form honest people to fund the interests of the dishonest. I don’t know if the commentator is just stupid or has an ego so large he cannot see simple truth. He probably has his own agenda. It would be interesting to see his political and financial affillations.

  • http://verizon Ann Rand

    Ru Paul for president!!!