November 14, 2007

The Ron Paul
Campaign and
it's Neo-Nazi Supporters

by Andrew Walden

Ron Paul's leftist revision of history, advocating open borders, blame America poison, wacko conspiracy theorist followers are dangerous to all Americans. Isn't much difference what Ron Paul's followers spew than Che Guevara's.

Most of his Cult followers as reported above and I have witnessed personally are despicable in their flaming rhetoric, slander, anti semitism and brown shirt tactics.

They ain't Conservatives and they sure ain't pro America! If there ever were political Cults one doesn't have to look any farther than Obama's, Lyndon LaRouche's and Ron Paul's Cults.

Any real American Conservative would drop Ron Paul like a hot potato.

If anyone wants to support and worship Ron Paul then Conservatives will see them where they stand. On the Far Left!

 

Ron Paul Is A Vicious
Anti-Semite and Anti-American
and Conservatives Need To
Wash Their Hands of Him

by David Horowitz


February 17, 2011

Thursday, February 17, 2011
To: Friends & Supporters
From: Gary L. Bauer

Special Alert

Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) has just introduced an amendment to end all U.S. aid to Israel.  The amendment could be voted on before the day is over.  I need your help right now to stop this ill-conceived proposal!

Please click here to quickly and easily send a message to your elected representative urging them to stand with Israel.

Don’t be deceived.  This Ron Paul proposal would not lower our budget deficit.  By abandoning Israel while its enemies are gaining strength, the risk of a major war in the Middle East would increase. A major war would cost the U.S. billions and billions of dollars as we have already seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The U.S. gives billions of dollars a year to foreign countries that hate us and regularly vote against us at the United Nations.  But, Israel votes with the U.S. 97% of the time.  They are a loyal ally that shares our values.  The aid they receive is used to buy military equipment from U.S. companies so the money comes back to us. Ron Paul’s proposal makes no sense.

Please right now go to www.cwfpac.com to tell your congressman to stand with Israel.

You may also call the Capitol Hill Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask for your representative’s office.  If you don’t know his or her name, give the operator your zip code and they will transfer you.  Tell them to stand with our most reliable ally Israel by opposing the Paul amendment to end all foreign aid.  Please take action now!




http://www.newsrealblog.c...wash-their-hands-of-him/

The Anti-Semites Who
Swarmed Us at CPAC
and the Future of the Right

The initial idea with the Freedom Center sending me out to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was so that I could network with other bloggers and organizations, recruit new writers for NewsReal Blog, and so that I could cover the conference (and what would be David Horowitz’s neutron bomb of a speech) for our publications. Parts one and two of that plan went along well enough, but part three — actually attending the speeches and panels — had to be dropped from my agenda when I realized what the situation was going to be for my co-workers. It became clear where I was needed most:  at our booth in the exhibition hall.

My colleague Jeff Wienir, our Director of Campus Campaigns, had arrived at CPAC a day before me to set up our area, including the Palestinian Wall of Lies, an 8′ by 8′ banner that will be sent out to student groups all over the country this spring. The Wall is our attempt to counter the anti-Israel “Apartheid walls” built every year on college campuses by leftist students groups and the Muslim Students Association (a Muslim Brotherhood front group if you weren’t already aware.) The plan was for him and Sara Dogan, our National Campus Director, to present the wall to the students and find more who would be interested in using it to combat the leftists and stealth jihadis on their campuses.

The problem we did not think of to anticipate: a vocal (though, thankfully statistically small) segment of the students at CPAC — and the adult participants too — are hostile to this mission.

Not realizing yet it would be necessary to help at the booth, on Thursday morning I took a brief break to go and meet some friendly faces from the blogosphere. Up at the Blogger’s Lounge I ran into wonderful people like Right Wing News editor/publisher John Hawkins, prominent blogger Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit, talented video master Lee Doren, and Mr. Hot Air himself Ed Morrissey. (I’d meet many more later that night at the delightful Blog Bash party thrown by Freedom Works’ Tabitha Hale and Liberty Pundits‘ Melissa Clouthier.)

When I returned Jeff gave me a startling report. At the Christians United for Israel (CUFI) booth two slots down from us a man had objected to the organization and said that “the Jews are the most oppressive people on the planet.”

As young people started flowing in as less-interesting speakers took the main stage Sara, Jeff and I started pitching the Wall of Lies to students walking through our row. Some responded in a cold, disinterested fashion, saying that they “didn’t believe in foreign aid” and others suggesting that perhaps our support of Israel was exacerbating the conflict and that if we just got out then perhaps the tensions would ease. Jeff, Sara and I deced on a new strategy:  ”Let’s not even bother to pitch the campaign to any students wearing Campaign for Liberty, Ron Paul, or Anti-War.Com buttons, stickers, or T-shirts.”

At one point later in the morning Seth Mandel, NewsReal Blog‘s associate editor in charge of our Right to Exist sub-blog came down to meet us and see the wall. His timing was fortuitous. Shortly after he came for his visit we were confronted by a man in his mid-to-late 20s — about our age — who was walking around with a stack of the paleo-conservative magazine The American Conservative, the barely-read rag founded by the infamous anti-Semite Pat Buchanan. (To see just how unpopular the publication is note its ranking as #100 on the list of top 100 conservative websites — easily beaten by many noted solo bloggers.)  Seth’s exchange with him got so in depth and heated that they eventually walked away from our booth to continue it for almost an hour. As their debate drew out I walked over to the two of them with my video camera and asked if perhaps they might talk a little bit on film. The Buchananite refused before saying a few choice words about how horrible our boss David Horowitz was. I asked him if he had ever read a single of David’s books. He admitted that he had not and had only read articles. When I pointed out the genocidal nature of our Islamist opponents the Buchananite countered by highlighting our own alleged history of genocide. I called him out for using arguments popularized by the neo-communist propagandist Howard Zinn. When the young man with his stack of magazines declared Zinn a historian worth reading finally I said, “You know it’s really pretty pointless for us to even talk.” He immediately agreed, took that as his cue to exit, and dashed out of the exhibition hall.

After CPAC I asked Seth about the exchange. He said,

“He can basically be boiled down to someone who asks questions but doesn’t answer them (or can’t answer them) and moves on very quickly when you’ve answered something well so he can try to catch you off-guard on something else. It felt a bit like giving a Middle East 101 lesson to a hostile class. You don’t get the impression that such a person is ready or willing to have a conversation, but is there to launch accusations. There’s a lot of anger there more than anything.

I always enjoy debates, especially on this subject, but there’s a sadness in meeting people who strike up debates without any sense of intellectual curiosity or honesty.”

This was just the beginning, though. Over the course of the afternoon and the next day Jeff, Sara, and I would be drawn into numerous debates, sometimes each lasting more than 20 or 30 minutes. We heard it all — some points nakedly anti-Semitic, others nonsensical, and some emanating from the talking points of Ron Paul. Was this really that important of an issue? Israel doesn’t have a right to exist. Israel is a “Nazi state.” It’s hard to be sympathetic for Israel when they oppress the Palestinians so much. People are starving in Gaza. The Jews don’t let the Palestinians go to the beaches in Gaza. All the Jews in Israel should just move somewhere else where they wouldn’t bother anyone — like Alaska. Israel should simply have never been created where it was. Part of the reason why the Palestinians are angry is because the Jews set up the trash service to pick up Jewish garbage every day but for the Palestinians they only had weekly trash pick-up. If you haven’t been to Israel and actually seen how the Jews bulldoze Palestinian houses and drag innocent families out of their homes then you’re not allowed to advocate for Israel’s right to exist.

In other words: the reaction to the Wall of Lies  at CPAC was identical to what one can expect in the coming weeks from leftists on our college campuses.

By the end of the day on Friday I was drained. Was this the state of the Right? Then I put things into perspective: no, this wasn’t really the Conservative Movement that Jeff, Sara, and I had experienced. It was just the fact that Ron Paul had bribed over a thousand students to attend CPAC to stuff the ballot box for the straw poll.

After dumping my belongings back in my room at the Marriott I hitched a cab for the apartment of Bethany Murphy — a friend on Twitter, occasional NRB contributor, and Seth’s girlfriend. Bethany had invited me and several other 25-35 year old, New Media conservatives for Shabbat dinner. Arriving and finding many familiar faces, a sense of peace washed over me as I could finally let my guard down and not have to worry about rebutting some misguided argument. Seth arrived shortly after I did and the party began after he performed a blessing. As Bethany served the tasty kosher food she and others had prepared, we began talking about the days’ events, the conundrum of the 2012 presidential election (it was the rare CPAC attendee who had a favorite candidate that actually had a chance at winning,) and the future of the Movement. I took the rare meeting of young,  rising conservative voices to get feedback for a project I’ve been working on: trying to define “Generation Y Conservatism.” How is the generation born from the early ’80s through the mid ’90s going to redefine and refocus the project to defend freedom? What are the common generational tendencies which unite us and will influence the Conservative project? Listening to Seth, Bethany, and others talk I found many of my own impulses and tendencies repeated almost verbatim. For example: a desire to transcend the the divides of the “social issues” by trying to get those fights focused at the state level. Attitudes toward abortion and gay marriage varied but all were in agreement that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and individual states should hash out the issue, likewise that the citizens of each state should determine how and if government should recognize same-sex unions in some fashion. (The whole controversy over GOProud’s inclusion at CPAC struck most Gen Y cons as overwrought and silly with both sides making unfortunate missteps — more a sign of the continued Baby Boomer influence on the movement than anything truly meaningful.) Economics and foreign policy questions also saw a similar unity in support of Tea Party-style shrinking of entitlements and a hawkish response to Islamist aggression.

This young conservative approach might not have gotten the media attention of the Ron Paul “revolutionaries” who yelled at Donald Rumsfeld as a “war criminal” but it was actually the more dominant political vision at CPAC and will only become more pronounced as Generation Y rises up into more positions of leadership and influence within the movement.






http://www.newsrealblog.c...the-future-of-the-right/

Rescue workers cover bodies alongside a bomb-damaged passenger train following a number of explosions in Madrid on March 11, 2004, just three days before Spain's general elections. Ten bombs tore through trains and stations along a commuter line at the height of the morning rush hour, killing 200 people and wounding 1,400 others in the deadliest terrorist attack in Spain’s history.

Question again to Ron Paul supporters:

Did all of these people die or get wounded because Terrorists have the moral cause to kill innocent people?

Of course their quick reply will be straight from the pages of the Communist George Soros's moveon.org.  

 
For the Ron Paul supporters' and those opposed to Ron Paul's Anti Semitism consideration:

I am not posting the article below to be Anti Arab or Anti Muslim but I have not lived in Spain to know this writer's perspective in their making judgmental statements against Muslims. But the overall profound truth is in this article is glaringly apparent and it is definitely a counter argument to any and all Ron Paul's propaganda which IS anti Semitic.

"If you're having trouble about the United States backing Israel read this. Something to Consider The following is a copy of an article written by Spanish writer Sebastian Vilar Rodriguez and published in a Spanish newspaper on Jan. 15, 2008. It doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate the message to the rest of Europe - and possibly to the rest of the world.

REMEMBER AS YOU READ -- IT WAS IN A SPANISH PAPER

Date: Tue. 15 January 2008.

ALL EUROPEAN LIFE
DIED IN AUSCHWITZ

By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez

I walked down the street in Barcelona , and suddenly discovered a terrible truth - Europe died in Auschwitz ... We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.

The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.

And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.

They have blown up our trains and turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime.

Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.

And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.

We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.

What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe ..

***********************************

The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000; that is ONE BILLION TWO HUNDRED MILLION or 20% of the world's population.

They have received the following Nobel Prizes: Literature: 1988 - Najib Mahfooz Peace: 1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat 1990 - Elias James Corey 1994 - Yaser Arafat: 1999 - Ahmed Zewai Economics: (zero) Physics: (zero) Medicine: 1960 - Peter Brian Medawar 1998 - Ferid Mourad

TOTAL: 7 SEVEN

The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000; that is FOURTEEN MILLION or about 0.02% of the world's population.

They have received the following

Nobel Prizes: Literature: 1910 - Paul Heyse 1927 - Henri Bergson 1958 - Boris Pasternak 1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon 1966 - Nelly Sachs 1976 - Saul Bellow 1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer 1981 - Elias Canetti 1987 - Joseph Brodsky 1991 - Nadine Gordimer World Peace: 1911 - Alfred Fried 1911 - Tobias Michael Carel Asser 1968 - Rene Cassin 1973 - Henry Kissinger 1978 - Menachem Begin 1986 - Elie Wiesel 1994 - Shimon Peres 1994 - Yitzhak Rabin Physics: 1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer 1906 - Henri Moissan 1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson 1908 - Gabriel Lippmann 1910 - Otto Wallach 1915 - Richard Willstaetter 1918 - Fritz Haber 1921 - Albert Einstein 1922 - Niels Bohr 1925 - James Franck 1925 - Gustav Hertz 1943 - Gustav Stern 1943 - George Charles de Hevesy 1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi 1952 - Felix Bloch 1954 - Max Born 1958 - Igor Tamm 1959 - Emilio Segre 1960 - Donald A. Glaser 1961 - Robert Hofstadter 1961 - Melvin Calvin 1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau 1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz 1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman 1965 - Julian Schwinger 1969 - Murray Gell-Mann 1971 - Dennis Gabor 1972 - William Howard Stein 1973 - Brian David Josephson 1975 - Benjamin Mottleson 1976 - Burton Richter 1977 - Ilya Prigogine 1978 - Arno Allan Penzias 1978 - Peter L Kapitza 1979 - Stephen Weinberg 1979 - Sheldon Glashow 1979 - Herbert Charles Brown 1980 - Paul Berg 1980 - Walter Gilbert 1981 - Roald Hoffmann 1982 - Aaron Klug 1985 - Albert A.. Hauptman 1985 - Jerome Karle 1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach 1988 - Robert Huber 1988 - Leon Lederman 1988 - Melvin Schwartz 1988 - Jack Steinberger 1989 - Sidney Altman 1990 - Jerome Friedman 1992 - Rudolph Marcus 1995 - Martin Perl 2000 - Alan J. Heeger Economics: 1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson 1971 - Simon Kuznets 1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow 1975 - Leonid Kantorovich 1976 - Milton Friedman 1978 - Herbert A. Simon 1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein 1985 - Franco Modigliani 1987 - Robert M. Solow 1990 - Harry Markowitz 1990 - Merton Miller 1992 - Gary Becker 1993 - Robert Fogel Medicine: 1908 - Elie Metchnikoff 1908 - Paul Erlich 1914 - Robert Barany 1922 - Otto Meyerhof 1930 - Karl Landsteiner 1931 - Otto Warburg 1936 - Otto Loewi 1944 - Joseph Erlanger 1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser 1945 - Ernst Boris Chain 1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller 1950 - Tadeus Reichstein 1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman 1953 - Hans Krebs 1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann 1958 - Joshua Lederberg 1959 - Arthur Kornberg 1964 - Konrad Bloch 1965 - Francois Jacob 1965 - Andre Lwoff 1967 - George Wald 1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg 1969 - Salvador Luria 1970 - Julius Axelrod 1970 - Sir Bernard Katz 1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman 1975 - Howard Martin Temin 1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg 1977 - Roselyn Sussman Yalow 1978 - Daniel Nathans 1980 - Baruj Benacerraf 1984 - Cesar Milstein 1985 - Michael Stuart Brown 1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein 1986 - Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini] 1988 - Gertrude Elion 1989 - Harold Varmus 1991 - Erwin Neher 1991 - Bert Sakmann 1993 - Richard J. Roberts 1993 - Phillip Sharp 1994 - Alfred Gilman 1995 - Edward B. Lewis 1996- Lu RoseIacovino

TOTAL: 129!

The Jews are NOT promoting brain washing children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths of Jews and other non Muslims. The Jews don't hijack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics, or blow themselves up in German restaurants.

There is NOT one single Jew who has destroyed a church.

There is NOT a single Jew who protests by killing people.

The Jews don't traffic slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels. Perhaps the world's Muslims should consider investing more in standard education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems. Muslims must ask 'what can they do for humankind' before they demand that humankind respects them.

Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and Arab neighbors, even if you believe there is more culpability on Israel 's part, the following two sentences really say it all:

'If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence.

If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel ..."

Benjamin Netanyahu

General Eisenhower Warned Us It is a matter of history that when the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found the victims of the death camps he ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead. He did this because he said in words to this effect: 'Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses - because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened'

Recently, the UK debated whether to remove The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it 'offends' the Muslim population which claims it never occurred. It is not removed as yet.

However, this is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving into it. It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended. This is a memorial, in memory of the, 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians, and 1,900 Catholic priests who were 'murdered, raped, burned, starved, beaten, experimented on anrman people looked the other way.

Now, more than ever, with Iran , among others, claiming the Holocaust to be 'a myth,' it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets.

How many years will it be before the attack on the World Trade Center 'NEVER HAPPENED' because it offends some Muslim in the United States ?"

The proof of Ron Paul's Anti Semitism is that the Ron Paul supporters reading the above will get very nauseas, very angry reading it and it will be replied to with the most hateful vitriol imaginable.

Because truth is a very detestable substance to Anti Semites!

The Hypocrisy of
Congressman Ron Paul

by Jeff Dunetz

Ron Paul has rarely been on my radar. Sure there were the anti-black/ anti-Semitic Newsletters which were published under his name (which he claimed he never read). And yes there were those really whacko public statements like; the federal reserve was behind Watergate, that Lincoln was wrong to push us into a Civil War over slavery, or his assertion that condemning the HAMAS terrorist rocket attacks promotes violence. But those items only suggest that the Texas Republican Congressman is a bigot as well as a bit of a lunatic, which not bad by today’s congressional standards.

Ron Paul is believed to be a “fiscal conservative” and if you ask him he will tell you that he has never voted for an earmark. That statement is 100% correct. What Paul does is to make sure that the earmarks he wants are put into a bill, and then he votes against the bill. Its the best of all possible worlds. He gets to bring home the bacon on a local basis and makes the anti-earmark claim on a national basis.

In fiscal 2009 Ron Paul sponsored or co-sponsored 23 earmarks totaling $80,775,750 ranking him the 33rd highest out of 435 representatives. (source: Open Secrets):

Last April Paul appeared on Neil Cavuto’s
Fox News show to defend his earmarks.

CAVUTO:Congressman, the rap is that you’re a porker, that — that a lot of pork, $73 million-plus, went to your district. Is that true?

REP. RON PAUL, R-TEXAS: Well, it might be. But I think you’re missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.

The Congressman believes that the earmarks are just fine as long as he is open about them. It reminds one of the Gangster Big Julie, a character in the musical  Guys & Dolls, who best line in the play was

“Well, I used to be bad when I was a kid, but ever since then I’ve gone straight, as has been proved by my record: Thirty-three arrests and no convictions!”

These earmarks may very well be legitimate programs, but by specifying the location and the recipient of the program there is no thought given to “is this the most efficient place to house this program?” Money can be sent to a place that does not have the best resources or personnel to implement the earmark, causing a program to be more expensive than if it were done in someone district of a different congressman.

Paul may be very transparent about the hypocrisy of requesting an earmark then voting against the bill (because he knows it will pass), but his twisted logic doesn’t make it any less hypocritical.

Whenever I post something negative about Ron Paul (which is just about every time I post about him), I get the NASTIEST comments and emails. He doesn’t have a lot of supporters but those that do are very well organized and support him do so with a passion. When I saw them at CPAC, Paul supporters reminded me of those wide-eyed cult members that used to panhandle at airports.  That wasn’t particularly bothersome, after all people should have some passion. Problem is Ron Paul does not represent himself truthfully. Along with his history of being a “drooling crazy” type and a bigot, the man is the typical Washington DC spin-master, saying one thing but doing another. He has a good script but frankly we have all seen that movie before and it got old a long time ago.







http://www.redstate.com/j...of-congressman-ron-paul/

Is the news media
treating Ron Paul’s
presidential campaign
unfairly?

Ron Paul

The Republican congressman and 2012 presidential candidate was shut out of the Sunday public affairs shows this past weekend despite his neck-and-neck second place finish to tea party favorite Michele Bachmann in Saturday's Ames, Iowa straw poll. He was likewise excluded from most of the second-day newspaper headlines about the preliminary political contest, leaving some news watchers to question whether Paul is receiving unfair treatment from the mainstream press.

"Ron Paul just got shafted," Politico's Roger Simon wrote on Monday. "Why didn't Paul get the same credit for his organizational abilities as Bachmann did for hers?"

"This pretending Ron Paul doesn't exist for some reason has been going on for weeks," said "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart in a segment Monday night that skewered coverage of the libertarian-leaning candidate. "How did Ron Paul become the thirteenth floor in a hotel? ... Even when the media does remember Ron Paul, it's only to reassure themselves that there's no need to remember Ron Paul."

Paul's spokesman, Jesse Benton, told the congressional newspaper The Hill Monday night: "It is a travesty that Dr. Paul was ignored after his near statistical tie and historic vote total. However, in our view, the networks could quickly and easily rectify this situation by having him on the coming week."

In an e-mail to The Cutline, Benton said the campaign had "seen an increase in media attention because so many American's have been outraged, and rightly so, by Dr. Paul's dismissive treatment. Citizens from across the country have been reaching out and demanding that the media cover Dr. Paul. And it is helping."

It's a bit early in the week for the networks to have lined up their guests for their Sunday shows. But Paul got some airtime on Fox News Tuesday afternoon, appearing on "America Live" with Megyn Kelly, and on CNN Monday night, sitting in with Piers Morgan. (He has appeared frequently on both Fox News and CNN since entering the race in May.)

As for MSNBC, "We have a standing request into the Paul campaign for the candidate or a surrogate," a spokesman for the network told The Cutline. "A surrogate was booked on Monday, but backed out. We were told that Paul was not available."

Betsy Fischer, executive producer of "Meet the Press," said in an interview with The Cutline that Paul declined an invitation to appear on the post-straw-poll edition of the show when it was extended to him three weeks before the event. Will another invitation be extended in the future? "We have no invitation pending, but we certainly wouldn't rule it out," Fischer said.

Likewise, "We look forward to having him on 'This Week' in the future," said Heather Riley, a spokeswoman for ABC News. A spokeswoman for CBS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Some commentators, meanwhile, are dubious about the notion that Ron Paul is somehow "getting screwed," as Salon's Steve Kornacki put it, by the news media.

"Those who believe Paul is getting a raw deal seem to assume that there should be a direct relationship between a candidate's straw poll performance and the level of media attention that candidate receives as a result," Kornacki writes. "The problem is that the straw poll isn't really about the literal order of finish. It means different things to different candidates for different reasons."

He continues: "The experience of 2008 demonstrated that it's very easy to exaggerate the breadth of Paul's support -- and that his views (particularly on foreign policy) are so far outside the GOP mainstream that the party establishment will go to great lengths to make sure it doesn't expand beyond his base. That still seems to be the case today."

Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune agrees.

"In short, no, he will never be president of the United States and no, he is not a plausible contender for the GOP nomination, so those who are covering the campaign don't feel obliged to pretend otherwise," Zorn writes.

For Paul's part, he doesn't seem to be letting the lack of coverage slow him down. When asked by Politico's Simon about the "media blackout," Paul replied: "It did disturb me, but it was not a total surprise. The result at Ames was significant; it might well have propelled us to the top tier. The media cannot change that."

In this afternoon's Fox News appearance, Kelly asked Paul flat out if he feels as if the media is ignoring him.

"Sure. Yeah, they are and we need to ask them why," he replied. "I mean, what are they afraid of? We're doing well, we're certainly in the top tier, we did well in Iowa and we have a good organization, we can raise money. But they don't want to discuss my views because I think they're frightened by us challenging the status quo ... because my views are quite different than the other candidates', so they would just as soon us not get the coverage the others are getting and they will concentrate on establishment-type politicians."






http://news.yahoo.com/blo...-unfairly-190149609.html

Ron Paul's
"noninterventionism"
fraud

"The Muslim world is not fooled by our talk about spreading democracy and values. The evidence is too overwhelming that we do not hesitate to support dictators and install puppet governments when it serves our interests. When democratic elections result in the elevation of a leader or party not to our liking, we do not hesitate for a minute to undermine that government. This hypocrisy is rarely recognized by the American people. It’s much more comfortable to believe in slogans, to believe that we’re defending our goodness and spreading true liberty. We accept this and believe strongly in the cause, strongly enough to sacrifice many of our sons and daughters, and stupendous amounts of money, to spread our ideals through force. -- March 28, 2006

There are long-term consequences or blowback from our militant policy of intervention around the world. They are unpredictable as to time and place. 9/11 was a consequence of our military presence on Muslim holy lands; the Ayatollah Khomeini's success in taking over the Iranian government in 1979 was a consequence of our CIA overthrowing Mossadegh in 1953. These connections are rarely recognized by the American people and never acknowledged by our government. We never seem to learn how dangerous interventionism is to us and to our security. -- April 6, 2006

I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the Shah -- yes, there was blowback. The reaction to that was the taking of our hostages. And that persists, and if we ignore that, we ignore it at our own risk. If we think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we’re rich and we're free, they come here to attack us because we’re over there." -- May 15, 2007

Now, who is the author of these statements? Some liberal like John Kerry or Dennis Kucinich? Maybe some anti-American filmmaker like Oliver Stone or Brian de Palma? Or perhaps some militant Islamist from a group like CAIR?

No, the author is America's most prominent self-professed libertarian: GOP presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. And his growing public profile finally merits the small spotlight of my attention.

Dr. Paul (he's an M.D., as well as a congressman) has become the nation's foremost proponent of a foreign policy of U.S. "noninterventionism." This view holds that past American policies abroad have been immorally aggressive against other nations, provoking them to "react" against us in understandable, if not always justifiable, ways. By this interpretation of history, which parallels that of the communists and Islamists, America has been the great disturber of international peace. We are ever creating enemies where none really existed before. We did it during the Cold War; we've done it in the Middle East; we're continuing to do it today.

Dr. Paul's libertarian prescription? If only we'd stop meddling in the "internal affairs" of other nations and bring our troops home, the world would be a better, safer, healthier place. Al Qaeda and other terrorists, having no further reasons to hate us, would either become peaceful or aim their aggressions elsewhere.

Now, I'd like to point out an interesting parallel between this common libertarian view of America's foreign enemies, and the common liberal view of America's domestic criminals.

The same sort of arguments advanced by many libertarians, such as Rep. Paul, to "explain" the anti-American actions of foreign terrorists, also have been offered by liberals to "explain" the heinous acts of common criminals. Read any sociology or criminology text, and you'll find endless laundry lists of "causal explanations" for crime: poverty, neglect, poor parenting, lousy schools, poor "socialization," inadequate pre-natal care, hunger, disease, bullying, racism, police brutality, social stigmatizing, untreated psychological disorders, victimless-crime laws...you name it.

And in both cases -- foreign and domestic -- it's always American culture, society, and/or policies that are the toxic "root causes" underlying the actions of those who attack us.

Just as many libertarians like Paul treat the actions of al Qaeda and other terrorists as "blowback" for the sins of American society against them, liberal social-science professionals treat the actions of home-grown criminal thugs as "blowback" for the alleged sins of American society against them. These bloody acts are never the terrorist's or the criminal's "fault" (responsibility), you see; rather, they are all our fault, for "driving him" to do his dastardly deeds.

You may remember that during the Cold War, precisely the same sort of "explanations" were offered by liberals and, later, by left-libertarians such as Murray Rothbard to lay the blame for Communist aggression at the West's (especially America's) doorstep. It was our imperialist provocations around the world that were "driving" the Soviet bloc to "respond" by conquering and butchering millions, building weapons of mass destruction, constructing the Berlin Wall, etc. It was our economic and cultural "imperialism" that was driving indigenous peoples everywhere into the arms of the communists.

I defy anyone to draw a rational, meaningful distinction between such "explanations" for criminal or terrorist aggression, and "excuses" for it. After all, "causal explanations" for human actions aim at exonerating the actor for committing them, by treating those acts as if they were not under the actor's conscious, volitional control, but as if they were instead deterministically driven "responses" to external provocations or "causes."

Just as I reject the liberal "excuse-making industry" that denies volition and rationalizes the acts of criminals, I am totally fed up with the disgraceful foreign-policy perspectives of those libertarians who portray the United States as the causal agent of every evil on earth -- thus rationalizing the atrocities of foreign terrorists and despots.

Ron Paul has become the most visible exponent of that malignant view of America. In my mind, his "blowback" excuse for 9/11 -- and "excuse" is exactly what his "explanation" amounts to -- is sufficient to completely disqualify him for any American public office, let alone for the role of commander in chief of the U.S. military.

For example, Paul repeatedly cites as aggression U.S. government actions that helped to topple and replace the Iranian regime of Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953. However, Paul rarely mentions these days (as he did on Dec. 3, 2002) that the U.S. and Britain did so "to prevent nationalization of Iranian oil." Instead, Paul's account of the extremely complex events transpiring within Iran in those days are reduced to a simplistic fairy tale of U.S. imperialism against a "democratically elected leader," a superficial fantasy that grossly distorts the full truth.

For one thing, it was not "Iranian oil" being nationalized, but that of the British company that had drilled for it, and which had it stolen by the Mossadegh regime. Mossadegh refused all subsequent diplomatic efforts by Britain to broker a deal to peacefully regain that expropriated property; indeed, in October 1952, he declared that Britain was "an enemy." Later, this pillar of "democracy" resigned in 1952 when the Shah denied his demands for broader "emergency powers"; he was reappointed by the Shah only when street demonstrations by his supporters threatened to overthrow the government. Back in power, Mossadegh then systematically began to communize the Iranian economy.

All this took place in the context of our Cold War with the Soviet Union, which had been plotting to extend its influence in Iran, via its puppet, the Tudeh Party, in order to gain control that nationalized oil. At the same time, U.S. intelligence agencies and the Eisenhower administration worried that Mossadegh was getting dangerously close to the pro-Soviet Tudeh Party.

Was it therefore unreasonable or wrong for the U.S. and Britain to take action to topple a dictatorial, increasingly leftist regime, in order to regain that stolen property and, more importantly, to protect American national security interests? Can this 1955 action in defense of private property and against totalitarian Soviet expansionism reasonably be blamed as the "cause" of "blowback" much, much later -- such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard takeover of the U.S. embassy in 1979, 26 years later? or the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, 40 years later? or even the destruction of four U.S. airliners, the Twin Towers, and part of the Pentagon in 2001, 48 years later? Or is that "blowback" charge mere excuse-making for Islamist thugs and cutthroats?

The manipulative use, by Paul and too many libertarians, of vague, undefined smear terms such as "interventionist" and "neocon" permits them to blame the U.S. government for virtually anything it does in our legitimate, long-term self-defense, anywhere in the world. Actions to thwart coercive threats, such as forging defensive alliances, are "interventionism." Helping other nations counter a growing peril from a declared U.S. enemy nation (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Iran, etc.) is "interventionism." Sometimes, even trading with adversaries of dictatorial regimes (e.g., trading with Taiwan, an enemy of China) is "interventionism."

The only "moral" alternative they imply, therefore, is a de facto, hunkered-down pacifism: a steady retreat by the U.S. from any interactions in the world -- lest we diss some backwater bully, cross his arbitrarily declared boundary lines, offend him for his subjective notions of religious or cultural blasphemy, or thwart his laughable claims of "national sovereignty."

Part of the sloppy thinking at the root of "noninterventionist" lunacy is the tacit equation of individual rights with "national sovereignty" -- and also the equation of "economic interventionism" (against peaceful individuals) with "political interventionism" (against despotic regimes). Philosophically, these twin equations are completely bogus.

Only individuals have rights or "sovereignty"; and only those governments that recognize the individual rights of their own people have any legitimate claims to exist. Dictatorships thus have no "rights" or "sovereignty." Likewise, the concept of economic "interventionism" -- developed by the Austrian school of economics to describe coercive governmental interference with free individuals in the marketplace -- cannot be equated with political "interventionism" against governments, especially against dictatorships.

Ron Paul (along with those libertarians who agree with him) therefore completely misunderstands the philosophical foundations of individual rights and freedom. The mere fact that he and his backers sanctimoniously claim such lofty language does not mean that they are true defenders of individual rights and liberty. That is clear from Paul's stands not just on foreign policy and national defense, but on such issues as immigration and abortion, where he ironically takes what can only be described as "government interventionist" stands.

For a detailed look at Paul's warped foreign-policy perspective, sample his commentary "The Blame Game," where he declares, "There was no downside when we left Vietnam." No downside? Here he blithely evades the wholesale butchery and the enslavement of millions that transpired after our ignominious retreat from Southeast Asia -- and the consequent, devastating loss of America's credibility, both as a military power and as a reliable ally. Add to this Paul's infuriating use, in the same commentary, of the word "empire" to describe U.S. foreign policy aims -- which claim, contrary to all historic facts, rationalizes the bogus charges raised against America by communists and Islamists, giving aid and comfort to these enemies of the U.S. Add to this also Paul's indiscriminately declared hostility to "war" as such, which (regardless of his protestations) can only translate into a de facto pacifism and isolationism.

Is this foreign-policy outlook realistic? Not since about 1789.

The relentless advance of communication, transportation, satellite, and weapons technology has simply obliterated the geographic "isolationism" that was still largely possible at the time of America's founding.

When a plot hatched in remote mountains in a backward nation like Afghanistan, with conspirators drawn from places like Saudi Arabia, can bring down iconic buildings in New York and Washington, DC --

-- when Chinese rockets can "blind" in outer space the U.S. intelligence satellites that we depend on for our nation's defense --

-- when Iranian rockets and subs can threaten to shut down international shipping lanes, thereby interfering with free trade --

-- when Islamist terrorists and despots can shut down at whim international traffic in a commodity as basic as oil, etc., etc.

-- it is no longer possible to pretend we can draw any meaningful national-defense line at the water's edge. Those days are long gone.

National defense today requires the ability and willingness to project credible power globally, in direct protection of the very trade, travel, communications, and contacts among peoples that Ron Paul and many other libertarians declare to be the pillars of international relations and peace.

Without the forward projection of U.S. military power -- through foreign bases (which implies alliances), naval-carrier battle groups, special ops forces, advanced military aircraft, and first-rate intelligence agencies (which means an effective CIA, NSA, etc.) -- the "foreign-trade-and-travel" model of foreign policy prescribed by Dr. Paul and many libertarians would be revealed for the ridiculous fantasy it is.

Well, then, is this foreign-policy outlook principled?

What "principle" does it cite? A vacuous "noninterventionism" that clashes with the proper defense of U.S. interests and the individual rights of Americans? As his coercive positions on abortion and immigration underscore, Ron Paul doesn't even grasp what the principle of individual rights is all about. His is the traditional, platonic view of "natural rights" shared by many other libertarians, which tacitly equates anti-government positions with pro-liberty positions -- as if they are the same.

They aren't.

Okay, but is Ron Paul dangerous? Not politically: He hasn't a prayer of winning the GOP nomination, let alone the White House (though he could throw the general election to the Democrats if he decides to run as a third-party candidate after the primaries).

However, Ron Paul -- or, rather, what he represents -- is dangerous philosophically.

In an essay titled "The Anatomy of Compromise," philosopher Ayn Rand wrote: "When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side."

Ron Paul's public equation of vital and valid principles -- such as "individual rights," "liberty," and "free markets" -- with intellectual trash-talk about American imperialism, anti-immigrant border fences, the fetus's "right to life," and the de facto pacifism of "noninterventionism," only confuses and discredits those critical principles in the minds of millions. This is dangerous, because it obliterates the true meaning of the key moral principles that should undergird our politics and laws.

The resulting confusion -- if unchallenged -- will set back the cause of reason, individualism, and capitalism for decades to come. And that's not something we can afford as we confront the ongoing Islamist threat to our way of life. To win that war, we require, above all, moral and intellectual clarity. That clarity is something the candidacy of Ron Paul imperils, demonstrated by his following among self-proclaimed champions of individual liberty.

To paraphrase an old joke, then:

Ron Paul is my second choice for President.

My first choice is anybody else.




http://www.freerepublic.c...cus/f-news/1933229/posts