Ron Paul says our unfairness to Palestinians led to 9/11 attacks

on 209 Comments

The only presidential candidate to talk about human rights in Palestine is of course, Ron Paul, who said that it helped foster the 9/11 attacks, during last night’s Republican debate, picked up at NBC. (Thanks to

“Most of the danger comes by our lack of wisdom on how we run our foreign policy,” and he repeated a statistic he uses on the campaign trail in Iowa: “We’re under great threat, because we occupy so many countries. We’re in 130 countries. We have 900 bases around the world. We’re going broke. The purpose of al Qaeda was to attack us, invite us over there, where they can target us. And they have been doing it.”

Paul went on to claim that al Qaeda has committed “more attacks against us and the American interests per month than occurred in all the years before 9/11” — because the U.S. is “occupying their land.” …

Paul didn’t retreat from his position. “This whole idea that the whole Muslim world is responsible for this, and they’re attacking us because we’re free and prosperous, that is just not true. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have been explicit… They wrote and said that we attacked America because you had bases on our holy land in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians fair treatment, and you have been bombing…”

At this point, Paul was interrupted by a chorus of boos. He tried to talk over them, pleading with the audience to understand his position.

“I didn’t say that. I’m trying to get you to understand what the motive was behind the bombing, at the same time we had been bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for 10 years. Would you be annoyed? If you’re not annoyed, then there’s some problem.”

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

209 Responses

  1. yourstruly
    September 13, 2011, 1:36 pm

    the audience in florida booed but more important is what the reaction was from the millions of people viewing the debate

    • Ellen
      September 13, 2011, 1:41 pm

      “Immediately following the debate and the boos from the crowd, the Paul campaign sent a Tweet highlighting that Paul has raised more money from members of the military than all the other campaigns –- including President Obama –- combined.”

      • lysias
        September 13, 2011, 2:40 pm

        I am a retired naval lieutenant commander, and in the last cycle Ron Paul was the only candidate I donated to.

      • Justice Please
        September 14, 2011, 2:48 pm

        And with good reason. The service men and women know that to the other candidates, they are wholy expendable and will be used around the globe at the first possible instance.

        They know that with a president Ron Paul, they can instead return safely to their loved ones.

    • Charon
      September 13, 2011, 2:11 pm

      Yep. Florida is a very strange place anyways. I drove to Disney World down i-75 and couldn’t even count the number of extreme religious billboards. They started toward the end of Georgia, but in Florida there was like one every 100 or so feet it seemed like.

    • Potsherd2
      September 13, 2011, 3:04 pm

      That would be the same audience that cheered for letting a man die because he has no health coverage rather than providing free medical care.

      Here’s what no one is saying, not even Paul, the reason why Paul is ignored and slighted by the media and constantly called unelectable – he’s the only candidate who hasn’t pledged allegiance to Israel. And the powers that control the US media won’t allow any such candidate to be considered for the office.

      • Citizen
        September 14, 2011, 5:50 am

        Not to mention Wall St hates Ron Paul, for good reason.

    • DICKERSON3870
      September 13, 2011, 5:56 pm

      RE: “the audience in florida booed” ~ yourstruly

      MY REPLY: When Ron Paul started out with “[m]ost of the danger comes by our lack of wisdom on how we run our foreign policy”, there was applause (most likely from people in the libertarian faction of the tea party).
      But as he begins talking about 9/11 terrorists having been motivated by our foreign policy you begin to hear some boos.
      Then he begins identifying the aspects of U.S. foreign policy that motivated the terrorists, and when he refers to our always supporting Israel no matter what they do, the boos (most likely from people in the the fundie faction of tea party) really increase.
      This highlights the libertarian/fundie divide in the tea party.

      P.S. Nicole Sandler has a nice debate review at ‘Radio or Not’.
      LINK – link to

  2. POA
    September 13, 2011, 1:44 pm

    Heres the bottom line with Ron Paul;
    No matter how you feel about his advocations and policy recomendations, he is virtually THE ONLY candidate out there that comes from a convicted and heartfelt stance, rather than feeding you partisan doubletalk that is a complete and utter line of SHIT.

    Kucinich comes in a close second as far as conviction goes.

    That is precisely why these two politicians are routinely ridiculed and demonized by the posturing frauds that are paraded in front of us as “representative” of Presidential material.

    • Charon
      September 13, 2011, 2:16 pm

      Exactly. If people don’t want to vote for the guy because of his stance on abortion, they’re doing it wrong. Abortion has nothing to do with running a country, a meaningless partisan issue which is completely designed to give the illusion that candidates are different. Paul is a constitutionalist, advocates auditing the corrupt Federal Reserve, wants to end the wars and stop foreign aid, even wants to end the illegal Federal Income Tax (which was never ratified), among other things like abolishing the Patriot Act and eliminating the big brother surveillance stuff. If somebody favors Perry over Paul because of Jesus-related issues, they’re also doing it wrong. I’m voting for Paul and if he doesn’t make it I’m not going to vote and Obama will win again anyways. Mormons? In my White House? It’s more UNLIKELY than you think.

      • pineywoodslim
        September 13, 2011, 9:02 pm

        The Supreme Court has long held that the federal income tax was properly ratified.

        The argument you raise is one that is raised over and over again by tax protestors who have learned that from some Saturday seminar at the local holiday inn “Pay no taxes, Learn how” at $100 a pop.

        Another similar argument is that no individual has income because the US went off the gold standard and the dollar is worthless.

        You make good points but you lessen them with the tax protestor argument.

        If you disagree with the SCt’s decision, the federal courts are open for business 8:30 to 5 pm, five days a week.

    • seafoid
      September 13, 2011, 3:44 pm

      The president has to be a sociopath. You can’t get the funding needed to win the presidency without being the candidate of the suicide machine that is the US economy.

      • Chaos4700
        September 13, 2011, 7:07 pm

        I’d like to think the cycle of disgust in the US will hit a boiling point sooner than later and a third party candidate like Ron Paul (and let’s face it, the Republicans only let him into their debates because they can’t afford not to have him in their caucus) will win the Presidency, regardless of the money involved.

        But I’m not sure we can count on that happening ever. I still don’t understand why “Coke or Pepsi” mentality prevails in the US, and why ads still work. Maybe it’s a failing of mine but it’s hard to perceive that so many Americans are still that stupid that paid ads still work on them. Our culture is literally drowning in advertisement — I think probably to the point that more capital in the US economy goes to marketing than it does manufacturing now… manufacturing is now less than 10% of the US economy and I’m not sure how much marketing represents. It’s hard to fathom that so many people lack the immune response I’ve built up to pretty much everything that shows up in a newspaper or on a television screen.

      • POA
        September 13, 2011, 8:51 pm

        I think these dictatorial pieces of crap have actually corrupted the voting process to the degree that even if we reach a boiling point, we will be unable to vote in those that would change the statrus quo. If you have followed Bev Harris and her activities, efforts, and findings, you realize that computerized vote fraud isn’t a conspiracy theory, its a provable fact that it can be done, and likely already has been done.

        Then, when you have an Attorney General, that is little more than a whore to whatever President happens to have given him his position…..

        Well, you get the idea.

      • seafoid
        September 14, 2011, 7:29 am


        I saw a graph in the Financial Times. Total ad spend in the U.S. was $155 bn last year IIRC

    • seafoid
      September 13, 2011, 5:01 pm

      Paul really nails the American Empire

      link to

      He’s really dangerous for Israel.

      • gazacalling
        September 13, 2011, 6:59 pm

        You’re right seafoid.

        Paul’s strategy in every debate is to bring back nearly every question to foreign policy spending at some point. His weakest answers are when he doesn’t do this.

        It’s been awesome to watch. He’s doing yeoman’s work, speaking truth to power.

      • Kathleen
        September 13, 2011, 7:21 pm

        yep he kicked it up last night

      • seafoid
        September 14, 2011, 1:24 am

        He said to Santorum in Iowa “You’re like the rest of them. You represent the status quo. I don’t “.

      • Chaos4700
        September 13, 2011, 7:11 pm

        I remember back in 2004, I and several of my more politically-minded friends got together in my best friend’s apartment to watch one of the major Republican debates, ostensibly to heckle and laugh at it.

        Ron Paul was the only candidate who made a positive impression on me. And it wasn’t just his conviction to the truth where it really matters in American politics, it was his decorum. He was the only candidate who didn’t speak out of turn and who didn’t badger the moderator by speaking on and on and on after he was informed his time was up.

        In other words, he was polite. Which is a distinctly un-Republican trait.

      • Antidote
        September 14, 2011, 9:56 am

        “Paul really nails the American Empire. He’s really dangerous for Israel.”

        Jeffersonian Paul is dangerous for the American Empire. It is not at all clear whether the American Empire is good or bad for Israel, or, for that matter, for America. Paul apparently doesn’t think so, and neither do I. Bi-partisan support for unnecessary wars (and for making enemies by unconditionally supporting Israel) is inevitable without major economic, financial and political reform in the US. From a book review on FDR’s New Deal and its affinity to Italian and German fascism):

        “Schivelbusch concludes the book by recalling John T. Flynn’s great pamphlet of 1944, As We Go Marching.

        Flynn, comparing the New Deal with fascism, foresaw a problem that still faces us today. But willingly or unwillingly, Flynn argued, the New Deal had put itself into the position of needing a state of permanent crisis or, indeed, permanent war to justify its social interventions. ‘It is born in crisis, lives on crises, and cannot survive the era of crisis’. . .Hitler’s story is the same.’. . .Flynn’s prognosis for the regime of his enemy Roosevelt sounds more apt today than when he made it in 1944. . .’We must have enemies, ‘ he wrote in As We Go Marching, “They will become an economic necessity for us.’”

        link to

        See also Raico

        link to

      • Austro
        September 14, 2011, 8:07 pm

        I don’t think so, they are able to behave badly because the USA will always stand by them, give them money and military aid and veto those annoying UN resolutions. If they had to make it on their own they would behave better towards their neighbors.

    • Citizen
      September 14, 2011, 5:57 am

      POA, I could not agree more. DK & RP are viewed by the rest of congress as Martians. And our MSM caters to this view always. Every military family I know thinks RP is the only candidate that tells it like it really is. They should know; too bad that’s only 1% of the population, and chicken hawk imperialists wrapped in the flag and/or bible hold sway. They call it “American exceptionalism” but the only exception is the subject 1%.

      • Austro
        September 15, 2011, 11:28 am

        It only takes 6%….

  3. annie
    September 13, 2011, 1:45 pm

    “They wrote and said that we attacked America because you had bases on our holy land in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians fair treatment, and you have been bombing…”

    “…to the degree foreign policy will play a role, it looks like Republicans — the entire party — will hinge their attack on President Obama’s differences with Israel. “

    The good news is that Obama’s mild demurral re Israel and the panic over the Arab spring means that prominent American Republicans and Democrats are finally going to talk about Israel openly.

    flush it out flush it out

    • iamuglow
      September 13, 2011, 2:02 pm

      There was an article I just read somewhere about some ‘emergency comittee for Israel’ putting up billboards in NYC for Obamas visit about not supporting Israel enough.

      I think thats wonderful.

      Put the issue out there. Let Americans talk about it. It can’t stand up to scrutiny, so please, lets talk about it.

      • annie
        September 13, 2011, 2:12 pm

        i agree. i have been waiting soooo long for an election season where israel was the focus. let the people hear the argument and learn. decide for themselves. BRING IT ON.

      • American
        September 13, 2011, 4:00 pm

        I so second that!…Been waiting for it for a long time. Hope it gets put on stage.
        Americans should be educated on and involved in the fight over their government abdicating their American interest.
        If our corrupt immorality on I/P can become the symbol for all the other ways our government betrays the country..then we will start getting somewhere on Israel and all the rest of the special interest corruption.

      • POA
        September 13, 2011, 9:34 pm

        “Americans should be educated on and involved in the fight over their government abdicating their American interest”

        Trouble is, no one is going to argue for the truth. You think they’re gonna let Paul do it??? Ain’t gonna happen. They’ll exclude him from the forefront, demonize him, and, if necessary, kill him.

        If Israel becomes an “issue” during the campaigns, the only “issue” is going to be who is the greatest supporter of Israel. THAT is the debate that will be shown to the ignorant misinformed masses.

      • Citizen
        September 14, 2011, 6:03 am

        My instant thought too, POA. Wolf Blitzer could have followed up on what Ron Paul said about our misguided foreign policy, but of course he did not. MSM time will instead focus on telling us Ron Paul is not a viable candidate, or they will not, or barely not even mention what he says related to foreign policy. Blitzer asked all the Repub candidates if they favored auditing the Fed–except RP, the guy who is responsible for the 1st partial audit of the Fed the MSM has yet to bring to the attention of the American masses.

      • PeaceThroughJustice
        September 13, 2011, 2:38 pm

        “Put the issue out there. Let Americans talk about it.”

        I wish I could be as optimistic. But the way I see it all that has happened is that one of the parties had doubled-down on its pro-Israel position, making it even more explicit, and the other has not retreated from the same pro-Israel position it’s always held. Remember that 81 congressmen just came back from Tel Aviv. It’s their job to sniff out where the power lies, and if it didn’t lie there they wouldn’t have gone.

        How are Americans going to talk about it when there’s been no change in the structure of our media? Figures like Ron Paul will be easily silenced as “not serious” or “crackpot” (or “antisemitic”), just as they’ve always been. Unlike issues like the economy, where Americans can look at their pocket books, on foreign policy they get their opinions from the talking heads, from the elites.

      • iamuglow
        September 13, 2011, 4:46 pm

        You’re right of course that both parties are publically are over the top with their support for Israel, perhaps more so than ever.
        But for all the public declarations, it may be, as someone else on this site said, ‘a mile wide and inch think. There is whiff of desperation in it, as they are reacting against the changing opinion, not going along with it.

        The structure of the media has changed due to the internet, hasn’t it? A decade ago I can recall reading about the ongoing intifada. There was no context in the articles, no human interest stories, but there were photographs. Haunting photos of children throwing stones at tanks.

        On the internet there was very little about I/P back then. Most of sites about I/P were tinged with real or imagined links to white supremacy groups. Today, that’s changed a thousand fold. Anecdotally, I see more and more informed comments about I/P on all sorts of sites whenever its brought up.

        The war on terror and Iraq have something to do with it too. They may have been good for Israel when they began, but now Americans associate them with our own decline and yet there is our ‘ally’ Israel, still pushing for a conflict ‘Iran’. I’m optimistic that eventually the silent majority will become so large and disconnected from the official position of the govt, that more and more influential people will take the risk and speak out…

        Fingers crossed.

      • Citizen
        September 14, 2011, 6:05 am

        You better double cross them. I’ve discovered that the people you want to inform don’t want to be informed about the I-P AIPAC connection; they avoid informative web sites like the plague and constantly send to their email lists every possible item on Muslim terror and government corruption and idiocy–except when it involves our special relation with Israel. If you try to give them factual information they either cut contact with you ASAP or imply you are obsessed with Jews, and Israel when there’s much more important things to digest, such as Obama’s a Muslim.

      • Bumblebye
        September 13, 2011, 3:19 pm

        Some group needs to put up the alternative billboards – that Senators and Congress don’t support AmericanS enough! They support Israel, foreign wars, corporations, the wealthy and banksters. Never the people who elect them!

      • American
        September 13, 2011, 4:04 pm

        Agree, that should be done.

      • iamuglow
        September 13, 2011, 4:48 pm

        It would be good to try, cause I’m sure ClearChannel or whomever would try block it if it mentioned the word that cannot be spoken…


        A blank billboard with just that word would be powerful enough IMO.

      • MRW
        September 13, 2011, 6:24 pm

        Use QR Codes in 2012.

        Online QR Code generator here:
        link to

        Buy the permanent labels here: link to

        You can also search for blank tamper-proof labels.

      • Citizen
        September 14, 2011, 6:11 am

        And what usually happens when an alternative billboard is put up on a wall or the side of a municipal bus?

      • Austro
        September 15, 2011, 1:37 pm

        A photo – before and after of the USS Liberty on the billboard could also be a powerful message.

  4. eljay
    September 13, 2011, 1:51 pm

    >> At this point, Paul was interrupted by a chorus of boos.

    The people booing must have “common sense” which tells them that Ron Paul is wrong and that terrrrrists really do hate Amurrika for its freedoms and democracy and justice. And if they – and Ron Paul – don’t like it, we’ll just kill ‘em all (and let gawd sort ‘em out)!

    • Charon
      September 13, 2011, 2:30 pm

      Ha! There is a scene in Borat where the character addresses a rodeo and says “I hope you kill every man, woman and child in Iraq, down to the lizards!” and people actually cheered. The scene was real, the character obviously was not. With an unofficial (because it’s so high) death toll of over 1.4 million dead in Iraq, mostly civilian and over half children, I wonder how these people justify the US as being the good guys. Especially when DU munitions are used. “The price we pay for our freedoms and such” right? Smoke those terrorists out! Because Iraq was such a threat to the USA. They had non-existent WMDs and suitcase nukes of course. Just like Iran and Syria have now. They must’ve traded them

      • Citizen
        September 14, 2011, 6:14 am

        And don’t forget all those Iraqi kids who suffered due to a decade of US sanctions before Shrub Jr attacked, the ones Madeline Albright referred to when she told us “it was worth it.” We were happy prior thereto for a decade when our buddy Saddam was killing all those young Iranian boy soldiers defending Iran too, as was Israel.

  5. iamuglow
    September 13, 2011, 1:54 pm

    The timing may be right this year.

    There is so much cynicism towards the govt and anger at the ongoing decline of the US, that maybe, just maybe, Americans are ready to face reality.

    • DBG
      September 13, 2011, 2:18 pm

      Americans want the focus to be on our country, the lack of jobs, the failed wars, and the excessive debt we have. Screw Israel and Palestine, this election needs to be about America.

      • lysias
        September 13, 2011, 2:43 pm

        Four years ago, Ron Paul was about the only candidate speaking sense about those failed wars and that excessive debt.

      • Citizen
        September 14, 2011, 6:19 am

        Most Americans just don’t get how our foreign policy, especially our blank check and UN veto affect them; they like to think they are practical and common sensical, but they don’t realize all politics are local especially when it comes to Israel. Establishment AIPACERs count on this lack of sophistication. If they had to return to 1973′s lines at the gas pumps, they might wake up, but I doubt it; most didn’t make the connection back then either. They figured Arabs were just greedy so they could buy more camels and Mercedes cars and harem girls.

      • iamuglow
        September 13, 2011, 2:58 pm

        Why did we get in those failed war in the first place?

        You can’t focus on what’s good for America without talking about our ME foreign policy and you can’t talk about that without I/P.

      • Shingo
        September 13, 2011, 4:04 pm

         Americans want the focus to be on our country, the lack of jobs, the failed wars, and the excessive debt we have.

        That would explain why Mitt Romney was so concerned that Bachman was attracting more Jewish campaign contributions than he.

        Americans might want the elections issues to focus on the “country, the lack of jobs, the failed wars, and the excessive debt”, but the lobby will insist that Israel is front and centre.

        Screw Israel and Palestine, this election needs to be about America.

        Yes,  ban AIPAC and end all aid to Israel.

      • split
        September 13, 2011, 4:14 pm

        She spend few months working on kibbutz , Romey didn’t ;) ,…
        Bachman was attracting more Jewish campaign contributions than he.

  6. Avi
    September 13, 2011, 1:58 pm

    Is there video of the exchange?

    • lysias
      September 13, 2011, 2:43 pm

      There was an audio clip on this morning’s Democracy Now!.

      • lysias
        September 13, 2011, 2:57 pm

        And the boos were very audible indeed.

      • Avi
        September 13, 2011, 3:10 pm

        Thanks. I’ll check the clip.

      • Citizen
        September 14, 2011, 6:20 am

        Yep, they were. The tea party audience got their belated insight thanks to early Ron Paul followers as to the economy’s root monetary and fiscal problems, but those who have been the leaders in the tea party movement have ignored Ron Paul and his followers on foreign policy tie in and the rank and file tea partiers remain ignorant on this to this day. The MSM and Israel First think tanks and pundits aim to maintain this schizophrenia in those who carry the flag “Don’t Tread On Me.” Those proud righteous folks don’t even realize they remain sheeple to Israel, Wall St, and the industrial complex Ike tried to warn them about. They don’t even see Washington’s farewell warning about “foreign entanglements” in their government’s “special relation” with Israel. The fundy portion of course think God commanded them to be Israel’s flunkies or they won’t go to heaven.

      • Austro
        September 15, 2011, 1:40 pm

        Why do people in Europe know what is going on (although they can’t say much) and we are ignorant? Does the media manipulate or is it that we are just preoccupied with other issues and don’t care?

  7. AngelaKeaton
    September 13, 2011, 2:44 pm
    • Avi
      September 13, 2011, 3:22 pm

      Some observations:

      1. It’s interesting that the boos came when the whole issue of Islam came up.

      2. Santorum sounds like he has the wisdom of a door knob. I take that back. Door knobs fulfill a useful function, Santorum doesn’t.

      3. It seems like “Jihadist” is merely code for “Muslims”, all 1.6 billion.

      4. It’s a strange concept that one’s actions could not have consequences. The myth that “They attacked us because Their way of life is anathema to Our way of life” is a convenient escape from reality. Each presidential candidate should undergo a psychological evaluation, lest the Oval Office become occupied by a delusional halfwit.

      • gazacalling
        September 13, 2011, 6:54 pm

        Avi nails it again.

      • Shingo
        September 13, 2011, 7:09 pm

        Each presidential candidate should undergo a psychological evaluation, lest the Oval Office become occupied by a delusional halfwit.

        Unfortunately, being a delusional halfwit has become part of the job description, which is why Obama is doing such a bad job.

      • Austro
        September 15, 2011, 1:46 pm

        Are you are suggesting he could do a good job? Perhaps he takes so many breaks and plays a lot of golf so he can avoid making descisions. I believe he has a short attention span and doesn’t like long meetings, perhaps a little Ritalin with his hamburger lunches to help him focus?

      • Chaos4700
        September 13, 2011, 7:14 pm

        Door knobs fulfill a useful function, Santorum doesn’t.

        Google “santorum” some time. Truer words were never spoken. (Thank you Janeane Garofalo!)

      • Citizen
        September 14, 2011, 6:41 am

        Avi, yes indeed. Even the final public version of the 9/11 Commission expressed the generic conclusion that foreign policy always has blowback (after the specific motivation findings were edited out of the conclusion, the very same findings Ron Paul expressed and was booed for explaining & which actually remain in the Commission’s public version, more or less, but not in its conclusion). Santorum sounded reasonable and objective compared to many of the candidates but he lost it all when Ron Paul told the truth about our foreign policy; he seemed actually astounded RP would say such a thing. Santorum just totally blurted out the hasbara code message; seems to me he’s thought about how to distinguish himself form the other candidates by becoming more balanced in this thinking, but he never thought he had to look into the Israel issue because its a case closed no-brainer to him.

  8. split
    September 13, 2011, 2:49 pm

    Ron Paul is right , here’s transcript of Osama bin Laden’s speech ,…

    link to

    • Walid
      September 13, 2011, 4:24 pm

      Split, we can’t buy into everything we see on TV. About that Bin Ladin message released 5 days before the Bush Jr re-election, it sounded more like a last minute sales pitch to get Bush reelected than something of substance. It was telling the Americans the spooky things they needed to hear to reelect Bush. I didn’t see it anywhere that Bin Ladin actually came out and said “I did 9/11″ and who attested to the authenticity of the tape other than the State Dept?

      As to a earlier December 2001 tape, again with no direct admission of any sort about having actually destroyed the buildings:

      “… On December 20, 2001, German TV channel “Das Erste” broadcast an analysis of the White House’s translation of the videotape. On the program “Monitor”, two independent translators and an expert on oriental studies found the White House’s translation to be both inaccurate and manipulative stating “At the most important places where it is held to prove the guilt of bin Laden, it is not identical with the Arabic” and that the words used that indicate foreknowledge can not be heard at all in the original. Prof. Gernot Rotter, professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the Asia-Africa Institute at the University of Hamburg said “The American translators who listened to the tapes and transcribed them apparently wrote a lot of things in that they wanted to hear but that cannot be heard on the tape no matter how many times you listen to it.”[9]

      Some members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth believe that the man in this videotape is not Osama bin Laden at all, citing differences in weight and facial features, along with his wearing of a gold ring, which is forbidden by Muslim law, and writing with his right hand although bin Laden is left-handed.[10]

      link to

      • split
        September 13, 2011, 5:05 pm

        Here’s another transcript of bin Laden’s speech on AlJazeera, almost identical like the previous one that supports R. Paul’s claim and pointing to our unconditional support of a bully, and a reason for payback.

        link to

      • Avi
        September 13, 2011, 5:46 pm

        To the best of my knowledge, bin Laden never claimed responsibility for the attack.

        The only time a “bin Laden” claimed responsibility was in that grainy video in which this guy appeared. Viewers were told that the man in the video was bin Laden.

        In addition, if the US didn’t know where bin Laden was in the last 10 years, then what is one to make of the fact that on January, 28, 2002 CBS News reported that bin Laden had received dialysis treatment at a military hospital in Pakistan several days earlier.

        Then there is the alleged CIA visit of bin Laden in July 2001:
        link to

      • MRW
        September 13, 2011, 6:31 pm

        Or, that around December 21 or 26 2001, Fox News reported bin Laden’s death. And so did an Egyptian paper.

    • Antidote
      September 14, 2011, 8:37 am

      Excerpts from the Sept 11 Timeline (on Wikipedia):

      10:15 (approximately): The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine is reported to take responsibility for the crashes, but this is denied by a senior officer of the group soon after.

      8:50 to 8:55 (approx): Howard Stern reports live on his radio show that something has happened to one of the Towers. He states that it was clearly a terrorist attack. This was mentioned within the first five minutes after the first plane hit. The name Osama Bin Laden came up within a half hour of the first impact. Sometime around 10:00 Howard made a remark to the effect that those buildings won’t stay standing.

      9:17:02: CBS News correspondent Jim Stewart in Washington mentions that in the intelligence community, Osama bin Laden is a probable suspect.

      9:52: The National Security Agency intercepts a phone call between a known associate of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and someone in the Republic of Georgia, announcing that he had heard “good news”, and that another target was still to be hit.

      9:55: A CNN correspondent mentions Osama bin Laden as someone determined to strike the US.

      10:05: Andrea Mitchell, reporting on NBC from outside the Pentagon, reports that Osama bin Laden may have been involved in the attacks.

      12:41: Senator Orrin Hatch tells CNN, “Both the FBI and our intelligence community believe that this is Bin Laden’s signature.”

      4:00: National news outlets report that high officials in the federal intelligence community are stating that Osama bin Laden is suspect number one.

      8:30: President Bush addresses the nation from the White House.[26] Among his statements: “Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts,” “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve,” and “The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts…we will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”
      As Bush speaks, members of Congress tell CNN that during private briefings with senior administration officials, they were told that the administration had enough evidence that it was “confident” the attacks are the work of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist network.

      9:00: President Bush meets his full National Security Council, followed roughly half an hour later by a meeting with a smaller group of key advisers. Bush and his advisers have evidence that Osama bin Laden is behind the attacks. CIA Director Tenet says that al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan are essentially one and the same. Bush says, “Tell the Taliban we’re finished with them.”

      11:30: Before sleeping, President Bush enters into his journal: “The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today…We think it’s Osama bin Laden.”


      New revelations re the Bush admin’s chaotic response to the 9/11 attacks, and the continuing cover-up :

      “Most striking of all is the revelation that an order by Vice President Dick Cheney was ignored by the military, which saw his order to shoot down aircraft as outside the chain of command. Instead of acknowledging the order to shoot down civilian aircraft and carrying it out, NORAD ordered fighters to confirm aircraft tail numbers first and report back for further instructions.

      Cheney’s order was given at “about 10:15″ a.m., according to the former VP’s memoirs, but the 9/11 Commission Report shows United flight 93 going down at 10:06 a.m. Had the military followed Cheney’s order, civilian aircraft scrambling to get out of the sky could have been shot down, exponentially amplifying the day’s tragedy.

      Far from sending fighters to chase after the hijacked aircraft, as Bush administration officials have repeatedly said they did, the new audio tapes paint a picture of bedlam and unpreparedness.

      Withheld from the audio released by Rutgers was a high-level meeting held by top administration officials, where they discussed continuity of government measures to be implemented if the president were to be killed or a mass casualty event were to occur. In Cheney’s memoir, he claims to have ordered a staffer to hang up on that meeting when a technical glitch caused a degradation in audio quality. Instead of going directly there to participate in discussions about how to sustain the government, Cheney decided to watch television news.

      9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean has said most of the investigation’s materials are classified for no apparent reason, and urged that the National Archives release the 9/11 files to the public as soon as possible. He’s also suggested that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) tried to impede the investigation when it turned towards al Qaeda intelligence gathering methods.

      As many as 92 tapes of terror war captives being tortured by CIA operatives were later destroyed. Officials suggested these recordings depicted torture sessions with terrorism suspects Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Nashiri. Along with the tapes, detailed records of the CIA’s so-called “torture flights,” showing the planes, destinations and even the passengers, were also destroyed.

      Attorney General Eric Holder announced in June that after a lengthy investigation, a probe of the CIA’s interrogations during the Bush-era would not proceed.”

      link to

  9. Dan Crowther
    September 13, 2011, 3:10 pm

    I give Paul credit for calling BS on the “they hate us for our freedoms” nonsense. I really do.

    But I’ll leave it at that.

    • Bumblebye
      September 13, 2011, 3:26 pm

      I remember Richard Perle on Question Time (a weekly political Q&A prog) over here (UK) playing that card very soon after 9/11 and being torn to shreds by the audience. It happened to a variety of neocons on other programs – radio & tv – causing a bit of a ruckus and claims of ‘anti-Americanism’ on your side of the pond.

      • Doctor Pi
        September 14, 2011, 8:49 am

        The range of possible debate in “respectable circles” is wider outside the US than inside it. In fact to paraphrase Chomsky it takes extraordinary discipline to go around saying that the US is a beacon to the world and the US is the best country to live in the world. Europeans don’t go around saying this stuff.

    • Walid
      September 13, 2011, 4:31 pm

      “I give Paul credit for calling BS on the “they hate us for our freedoms” nonsense. I really do.

      But I’ll leave it at that”

      Dan, Ron Paul is an OK guy but to latch on to the “911 was done because of the Palestinians” is BS too but not on the part Ron Paul but on the part of those manipulating the timely writing and releases of those tapes. Bush was taking Bin Ladin and his myth out of mothballs whenever he needed to and this part about the Palestinians is just as bogus.

      • Dan Crowther
        September 13, 2011, 5:23 pm


        I dont think the Palestinian issue is the sole reason for the attacks ten years ago, but I do think its part of the reason. As stated by Atta, Bin Laden and many many others.

        Im not a Paul supporter myself, but I do agree with him sometimes.

      • Citizen
        September 14, 2011, 7:13 am

        Ron Paul said it blowback was due to US foreign policy treating Palestinians unfairly, our occupation around the world, with 900 bases, and our bombing over there for so long now–he missed the implied support of Arab despots at the expense of their own people.

      • thetumta
        September 13, 2011, 10:30 pm

        Palestine is Slavery and the Spanish Civil War rolled into one in a large issue for a big part of the world, that’s getting larger. We have been and are so on the wrong side of this issue in USA. I’m not sure we can recover at this point, but if some how we can, we better grab the opportunity. It’s going to unravel very,very fast, like a falling tower. Next week. Maybe the General Asembly will save us with Resoution 377,

  10. split
    September 13, 2011, 3:11 pm

    I believe that he’s the only candidate that didn’t participate in AIPAC’s Convention and an ass-kissing trips to Israel ,…

  11. BillM
    September 13, 2011, 3:16 pm

    The booing is interesting. The gist of what Paul is getting to — limit foreign involvement to both limit the size of the budget and the size of government — is exactly in line with what the Tea Party supposedly believes. Having him booed for that message suggests that the Republican Party may well be regaining control of the Tea Party (which for a while looked like it was breaking free and going rogue).

    • Citizen
      September 14, 2011, 7:17 am

      The guys who took over as main spokesmen and chief organizers of the grass roots tea partiers never connected the dots you allude to, BillM, and they’ve never done so to this day for their followers. That’s why they booed.

  12. seafoid
    September 13, 2011, 3:59 pm

    Israel wakes up to a nightmare where there is no US to impose its will on the world. Welcome to POLITICS , Israel. We hope you enjoy your stay!

    link to

    Diplomats in the UN said their support for the Palestinian statehood bid stems from fear of revenge from Muslim and Arab nations loyal to the Palestinian cause. Sources said some countries will support the Palestinians not because they believe in their cause, but because Muslim and Arab countries may take punitive measures against them when they will need support in the Security Council or in bids to be appointed to important UN bodies.

    Ha ha ha

    • Citizen
      September 14, 2011, 7:20 am

      Imagine if an overdue revision of the UN Security Council ensued and that veto-powered Council had a more representative demography suitable for 2011.

    • Real Jew
      September 16, 2011, 1:43 am

      “Sources said some countries will support the Palestinians not because they believe in their cause, but because Muslim and Arab countries may take punitive measures against them….”

      Isn’t that the biggest crock of s*** you ever heard in your life! It’s a little odd that they didnt disclose their “sources”. These pro Israel clowns will say absolutely anything to discredit the UN bid.

      Despite all the uncertainty surrounding the Pals’ UN bid, whether it’ll be beneficial or harmful to the cause, I can say this: I havnt seen the pro Israel camp feel this threatened about anything in a long long time. They are sh****g their pants about it and trying everything in their power to stop it. And in my opinion, anything AIPAC views as a threat is definitely good for the cause

      • Citizen
        September 16, 2011, 8:39 am

        What the Jewish Israeli is worried about, and Bibi even said it publically recently, is that Israeli officials may be subject to be treating as war criminals in various countries and hauled before international criminal court. Not only would this impact Israeli diplomacy, it would harm Israel’s greatest concern (despite its constant boasting of being above international law and being proud to stand alone): Not good for Israel’s public image. This means not a “nation among (civilized) nations,” but a recognized rogue state, the black sheep in the international community.

  13. seafoid
    September 13, 2011, 4:02 pm

    Ron Paul’s other son Sean tells Israel it needs to get busy and support the
    Palestinian state in this moving video

    link to

    Shake that settler thing, Israel.

  14. Shingo
    September 13, 2011, 4:08 pm

    Be prepared for the media to go from ignoring Paul to attacking him completely.

  15. American
    September 13, 2011, 4:15 pm

    I wouldn’t expect Paul to get applause in Flordia.
    Florida is a big Jewish enclave, and mostly older pro,pro Israel Jews anyway….naturally they don’t like him.
    Every politician assumes from the git go they have to cater to the Flordia Jews on Israel.
    But at the least Paul stands out from the crowd.
    He’ll get an entirely different reception out in the heartland.

    • DBG
      September 13, 2011, 5:14 pm

      I don’t think there are many Jews in the teaparty movement.

      • American
        September 13, 2011, 6:44 pm

        I was talking about Florida voters.
        Florida has a heavy concentration of Jews and especially older Jews who are extremely pro Israel.

      • Citizen
        September 14, 2011, 7:27 am

        I live in Florida, but not on the eastern coast. Florida is full of rednecks. My experience indicates most native Floridians wouldn’t know a Jew if they were talking to him or her. And even if they did, they’d project onto him or her cunning business savvy and admiration for same, while simultaneously thinking Jews were OK because they fear the Muslims too and Israel is “our” best aircraft carrier in the ME. After all, Sharia law is creeping into our courts and they want to take away baby jesus from us. Just saying, that’s the other side of Florida. Add that to your equally realistic vision of Florida, American, and the composite is clearly pro-Israel right or wrong.

      • American
        September 14, 2011, 12:03 pm

        Yea I forgot about the red neck or good ole boy section of Florida.
        Most of my experience/ time spent in Florida was on the east coast and in Miami/Coral Gables visiting friends and trips to Key West.
        A little story from a few years ago—I had a Jewish friend , now deceased, whose sister had moved to Flordia and came back to visit him occasionally. One time when he took her to the airport to fly back he called me to chat while they waiting for her plane and put her on the phone to speak to me. In the chit chat I asked her how she was doing , if she was enjoying Flordia and blah,blah,blah. This little old lady who was at least in her late 70′s launched into a political rant about how the Cubans are ruining Flordia, how they were trying to ‘run everything’ and how terrible it is.
        Everyone has someone…LOL.

      • Citizen
        September 14, 2011, 2:06 pm

        Yeah, American I thought that’s where got your main impression of Florida. I know, my sister lived in Miami, then Coral Gales for years, and her daughter still lives over there–if I had to guess, the little old lady was likely Jewish; there’s more than enough Cubans there to give the equal large dose of Jewish folks there a run for their money. Most native-born Floridians view Miami & metro area like an Iowan or Indian local views NYC. I can say from experience that there’s a big cultural & atmospheric difference in the poorer more townie Florida of the natives and the wealthier more citified Florida of the transplants from up North. Of course, having lived in both types of areas, I think there are pros and cons to living in each. I feel the same about the relatively night and day regions of Ohio, Illinois, and NY, where I lived too in both rural and metro areas.

      • annie
        September 14, 2011, 2:44 pm

        This little old lady who was at least in her late 70′s launched into a political rant about how the Cubans are ruining Flordia, how they were trying to ‘run everything’ and how terrible it is.

        ha! this is funny. my sister was a designer in miami and coral gables (very prestigious nightcluds and hotels). she raised her kids there for about 1/2 there childhood before moving back to calif. she said it’s a latin town and living there for her would always be as a minority. anyway both her girls chose to go back there for college and live there. they are 1/2 chilean themselves and thrive off that latin culture. california was dull to them compared to miami.

      • lysias
        September 14, 2011, 2:51 pm

        The debate was in Tampa, which I don’t think has many Jews. It’s 16% black and 22.5% Hispanic, but I don’t imagine too many members of those groups would attend a Republican debate.

      • Citizen
        September 14, 2011, 3:54 pm

        Plenty of Jews in the Tampa Bay metro area. Way more than you suggest. Lots of Scientologists too, especially in nearby Clearwater, which also has a sizable Jewish community. Not many rednecks, but other whites abound. That debate audience came from all over the place.

      • Citizen
        September 14, 2011, 3:59 pm

        In 2010, 31,320 persons live in 13,500 Jewish households in Pinellas County.
        28,200 persons live in 11,750 Jewish households in Hillsborough County.
        10,100 persons live in 4,350 Jewish households in Pasco County.

      • Chaos4700
        September 13, 2011, 7:15 pm

        Which one? The one that was manufactured by Dick Army and the Koch brothers?

      • thetumta
        September 13, 2011, 10:40 pm

        Do your homework! They don’t miss any opportiunties.

  16. dbroncos
    September 13, 2011, 5:19 pm

    Right now, Ron Paul provides the best chance for any meaningful discussion of I/P to take place. Without Paul, the remaining candidates will limit the discussion to who loves Israel more, most and mostest.

  17. American
    September 13, 2011, 5:56 pm

    Ron Paul is crazy? (he might be sorta)
    BUT look at this crazy woman!
    Too funny for words.

    Rep. Myrick Cancels 9/11 Appearances Over Mention in Liberal Think Tank’s Report
    Center for American Progress Notes Myrick’s Anti-Muslim Leanings, Hilarity Ensues

    by Jason Ditz, September 12, 2011

    Rep. Sue Myrick (R – NC) cancelled all of her public appearances for 9/11 yesterday, remaining at home because she was convinced Iranians were plotting against her, claiming her name turned up in a “threatening Iranian state newspaper article.”

    Well, not exactly. She told the Charlotte Observer that, but the actual article appeared on the website of PressTV, the Iranian state television station. Hawks were making hay about this “hit piece” for weeks, claiming that PressTV was encouraging attacks on Rep. Myrick and the others, who Rep. Myrick didn’t want to mention.

    But let’s mention them anyhow: Reps. Peter King (R – NY), Sue Myrick, Paul Broun (R – GA), Allen West (R – FL), Renee Ellmers (R – NC) and Michelle Bachmann (R – MN). Oh, and lets mention who actually wrote the “hit piece,” since no one else appears to have been willing to take the 5 minutes it took find the source.

    So whodunnit? Osama bin Laden? Some radical Islamo-fascist Ayatollah? How about high profile liberal thinktank The Center for American Progress. The less scary but decidedly funnier truth is that the article which PressTV ran was copy-pasted from a PDF report available on the liberal think tank’s website.

    In fact, readers of might have already heard about this report, because the day before PressTV did their copy-paste magic, Eli Clifton, one of the co-authors, appeared on Antiwar Radio to tell Scott Horton all about it.

    So, to sum things up, Rep, Sue Myrick, who spent the last several years rambling on about Islamic “infiltration” into the US government and demanding people stand up to the perils of Muslim interns, missed her 9/11 photo ops yesterday because Eli Clifton et al mentioned her name in a policy report. Funny how things work out.

  18. American
    September 13, 2011, 7:08 pm

    Oh lord!….it’s gets crazier and crazier.

    Sharia Law is NOT Closer to America than it Appears… Part IV: This Club has an Exclusive Membership
    Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

    At Salon’s War Room, Justin Elliott brings a report on a Lebanese American who is trying to establish a Republican Muslim club in FL. As SST readers can no doubt imagine, this has been met with, shall we say, skepticism by some Republicans in FL (there are even more, and more inflammatory, links in Elliott’s reporting, I’m not putting them here, if you want to click through to Salon and then click through fair enough). Apparently the fear of a MUSLIM AMERICA is so upsetting to some Americans that it has garnered Governor Perry some negative campaign publicity from everyone’s favorite Islamophobes and deep thinkers, as well as a Muslim running for a GOP spot in VA’s House of Delegates from one of the same deep thinkers. It has even led the Orthodox Jewish Candidate trying to hold Congressman Weiner’s seat in NY for the Democrats to trail in the race, and combined with concerns over Democrats (because of President Obama) not being supportive enough of Israel has led Mayor Koch to endorse the Republican Candidate. And what really gets me is that the guy who wants to form the Republican Muslim club indicates in Elliott’s report that he agrees with Congressman West on many of his views, not just those on Islam. That’s after Congressman West sent him a less than pleasant letter, as a reply to a letter asking him to stop demagoguing on the Islamaphobia and shouted him down at a town hall meeting earlier this year (video at the latter link, as well as Elliott’s report). This reminds me of Hannah Arendt’s remarks about Leo Strauss: “he wanted to join a party which wouldn’t have him because he was a Jew.” And that’s the irony in America ten years after the events of 9-11: Muslim Americans have, in many ways, become the Jewish Americans of the late 19th to mid 20th Century America…

    *Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College. The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Army War College and/or the US Army

    • Citizen
      September 14, 2011, 7:35 am

      Damn, American, that was a valuable comment and your conclusion is so true.

  19. southernobserver
    September 13, 2011, 7:11 pm

    It isn’t clear to me whether Florida is really all that different from the rest of the US. Still, isn’t this the state of which Brian Griffin once said “somewhere, Jeb Bush is eating a puppy’

    • Citizen
      September 14, 2011, 7:39 am

      Florida has a lot of seniors on retirement who came from up North, as well as natives. That does not translate into their on foreign policy, but it does mean they are well aware of how Obamacare negatively impacts them–they don’t like redistribution of income from their social security checks, medicare, or, medicare advantage program. For most, they are on a fixed income and they have had no SS Cola increase for a number of years now; they also feel they paid into SS all their working lives and its not fair to call that an unearned entitlement, and they feel the same about medicare, which they pay a premium for monthly; many pay income taxes on their SS income to boot. If the Republicans are more pro-Israel than the democrats it’s almost irrelevant to them, at least if they are not Jewish. If they are Jewish, just one more good reason to get rid of Obama. Get the picture?

  20. Kathleen
    September 13, 2011, 7:35 pm

    Phil Sent you and email about this last night during the Republican debate. Glad you picked it up. Paul has been taking a beating elsewhere for telling the truth.

    I made it on Talk of the Nation today with Dorie Gold. Second time I have been able to ask Gold a question. He is one of the best spinners going.

    folks I encourage other folks to call into these shows. Way to get the facts out there and try to ask challenging questions I have mentioned Mondoweiss numerous times now on public radio programs and Cspan’s Washington Journal. Did not get that plug in today.

    Always too bad that one does not get to respond to the person you have asked the question. They always get the last word
    Israel Feeling Increasingly Isolated from Allies”
    link to

    Anna (my middle name) from Parkersburg West Virginia. Really was in Parkersburg just 30 minutes from Athens.

    • Kathleen
      September 13, 2011, 7:43 pm

      Akiva Eldar the other guest with Dorie Gold

    • PeaceThroughJustice
      September 13, 2011, 9:30 pm

      Nice job Kathleen. I think you pitched your question just about perfectly. Like you say, they’ll always have the last word so all we really can do in situations like that is remind people that they can go out and read for themselves. Get them to be active rather than passive.

      But I just couldn’t bring myself to listen to the rest of the show. Listening to NPR is like drowning in cotton candy. :)

    • American
      September 14, 2011, 11:43 am

      yep…good job kathleen!

      • Kathleen
        September 14, 2011, 4:19 pm

        Have gotten through to these national shows literally hundreds of times the last 11. Started calling like mad when the US supreme court selected Bush.

        Always keep in mind this is a way to get information out to millions of folks. Generally I like to get a piece of information out (this time encouraging others to go read the report themselves) mention a few websites (sorry did not get the Mondoweiss piece in) and then ask a question. Often I try to get too much in. Wanted to toss out how the US Support for Israel no matter what they do has (really always has been) a negative for US national security. Wanted to mention how former CIA head of the Bin Laden unit Micheal Scheuer and many others have been addressing this and warning us.

        Next time. So would like the opportunity to respond to what Dore Gold lies about

  21. Aref
    September 13, 2011, 7:42 pm

    Let’s not forget that Ron Paul is a racist and fascist. Palestinians do not want the support of the of his likes.

    • Shingo
      September 13, 2011, 7:51 pm

      No Aref,

      Paul is neither a racist nor a fascist.

      The US constitution is the antithesis of fascism.
      Opposing the occupation of other states and considering their grievances is hardly racist.

      • Chaos4700
        September 13, 2011, 8:12 pm

        It’s hard to imagine describing, as a fascist, somebody who genuinely wants government out of the business sector. Now there are other reasons to disapprove of Paul, but the notion that he’s a fascist is absurd.

        That’s not just an insult to fling, people! That word actually means something tangible, politically!

      • Aref
        September 13, 2011, 9:56 pm

        Yes Chaos fascist is one who wants government at the service of corporations and capital–i.e “butting out of the business sector” like you put it. He wants to eliminate minimum wage and is all for unbridled capitalism and unregulated business. What do you call that? It ain’t egalitarian and it ain’t progressive that’s for sure.

      • Chaos4700
        September 13, 2011, 11:56 pm

        You do know that what Mussolini did was nationalize most of Italy’s industry, right?

      • Doctor Pi
        September 14, 2011, 9:02 am

        And the corporations loved him for it.

    • Kris
      September 13, 2011, 8:11 pm

      How is Ron Paul racist? He is against our wars overseas, which are directed mostly against brown-skinned people, and he is against the War on Drugs, which is a war against poor and black or brown people. Paul would pardon all non-violent drug offenders and free them from prison; most of these people are black or Latino.

      • Aref
        September 13, 2011, 10:02 pm

        Kris look at the link below.

    • marc b.
      September 13, 2011, 8:56 pm

      he isn’t a fascist, aref, but i get your drift. i can’t join in the enthusiasm of the thread over r.paul, the nutty randian.

      • thetumta
        September 13, 2011, 9:36 pm

        So vote for a Demo/Republican. At least you know what you’ll get again.

      • thetumta
        September 13, 2011, 10:04 pm


      • marc b.
        September 14, 2011, 9:04 am

        tumta, reading aref’s commentary below, i may have reason to question his bona fides, however my concern about paul stands. i could be tempted to vote for paul depending on the circumstances of the next election, but i’m more likely to abstain from casting a vote for president. presidential politics is such a cesspool of money, dishonesty, and double-dealing, that i am not certain that casting my vote is anything more than suspending my disbelief in order to be part of the magic act, investing in one bit, while the important stuff occurs elsewhere.

    • straightline
      September 13, 2011, 9:49 pm

      He’s not a racist or fascist. If you want a label he’s an old fashioned libertarian. That’s surely not socialism – national or otherwise. He wants small government – and weakened connections between business and government – and modest foreign policy. Since when was that compatible with fascism. While I would find him less liberal than I’d like he looks a lot better than most of the other serious contenders from either party at the moment.

      On some things he’s very sensible – on others -like the economy – I’d worry.

  22. Kathleen
    September 13, 2011, 8:08 pm

    Dore Gold addressing the expansion of illegal settlements: “you are talking about a tiny amount of land, does not compromise anything. ”

    Dore Gold’s comments on Talk of the Nation today would sure be great for a thorough fact checker.

    Dore Gold acts like he is telling folks something new that settlement expansion is not negotiated in the Oslo agreement

    • Citizen
      September 14, 2011, 7:51 am

      Dore Gold should just give up that tiny amount of land since the Israelis already have taken 78% of the land & keep grabbing more, settlement by settlement. Gives new meaning to the world “compromise.”

  23. Aref
    September 13, 2011, 8:28 pm

    Shingo, he is not opposing the occupation of other peoples land because of a principled stand for justice and against imperialism. He is opposing because of his belief that America is first. He is against abortion and therefore against the freedom of women to choose. He is all for unregulated and unbridled capitalism and unrestricted free market in other words he is all for turning workers into slaves of the corporations. He wants government to be at the service of corporations. In his view government has no social role to play (other than ban abortion for instance). This is fascism–look up the definition. We Palestinians are not desperate to find allies in such people. Let’s stop and think a bit. Not every critic of the relationship between the US and Israel is a friend of the Palestinians or is really for the liberation of Palestinians from Israeli occupation. Let us be a bit selective in who our friends are. I understand that some in the US are desperate to hear someone questioning the “special relationship” between the US and Israel but let us not succumb to emotions and be aware of where people actually stand on other issues. I am not advocating support for either of the Republicrats. But Paul is not the alternative and is not a progressive by any stretch of the imagination.

    • Shingo
      September 13, 2011, 9:55 pm


      Shingo, he is not opposing the occupation of other peoples land because of a principled stand for justice and against imperialism. He is opposing because of his belief that America is first.

      The two positions are not mutually exclusive Aref. He has said that occupition pisses people off, and repeatedly cited that it would piss Americans off to have foreign armies occupying the US. He is adamently against imperialism and has stated that it is immoral and unconstitutional.

      In order to sell this idea to middle America during a presidential debate, he’s obviuosly going to focus on the liabilities for America, rather than the victims.

      He is against abortion and therefore against the freedom of women to choose.

      False. He is personally against abortion but believes it’s for states to decide the legality and t the freedom of women to choose. Contrary to your claims, he wants th government to have no part in the matter.

      He is all for unregulated and unbridled capitalism and unrestricted free market in other words he is all for turning workers into slaves of the corporations. .

      Rubbish. He is for free markets, but if you knwo wnything about the Australian Scholol of economics, a true free market would not turn workers into slaves because a healthier economy creates more job demand.

      He wants government to be at the service of corporations.

      Absolute rubbish. This is the antithesis of his policies. He has voted against the bail out, TARP, government contracts, and every sweetheart deal for corporations.

      We Palestinians are not desperate to find allies in such people.

      You Palestinians need to educate yourselves a little better become you make such erroneous comments.

      Not every critic of the relationship between the US and Israel is a friend of the Palestinians or is really for the liberation of Palestinians from Israeli occupation.

      True but irrelevant. The fact is that the US has never been a friend of the Palestinians and getting the US out of the way is in the best interests of Palestinians. Israeli occupation would end without US support, so in that regard, Paul is by far your better option.

      Seriously Aref, if you’re still deluded enough to believe that the US is stil the key to solving your problems, then I doubt you’re even a Palestinian.

      • RoHa
        September 13, 2011, 11:06 pm

        ” if you knwo wnything about the Australian Scholol of economics, a true free market would not turn workers into slaves because a healthier economy creates more job demand.”

        I think that’s the claim of the Austrian school of economics.

        The Australian school of economics is best summed up like this:

        Americans: Seem to think that poverty and failure are morally suspect.
        Canadians: Seem to believe that wealth and success are morally suspect.
        Brits: Seem to believe that wealth, poverty, success, and failure are inherited.
        Aussies: Seem to think that none of this matters after several beers.

      • Shingo
        September 13, 2011, 11:43 pm

        Thanks Roha.

        I sent that from my IPhone. F&$ing auto correct!

    • Shingo
      September 13, 2011, 10:07 pm

      This is fascism–look up the definition.

      Fascism is the ideoalogy of a union between coroporations and state. Paul is completely opposed to that.

      The US Constitution and Bill or Rights are antithetical to fascism.

      Fascism advocates the creation of a totalitarian single-party state, which is antithetical to democracy or a Democratic Republic.

      Fascism promotes violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality. Paul has voted against all wars while in office.

    • homingpigeon
      September 13, 2011, 11:37 pm

      Greetings everyone, the pigeon is back. Been gone studying for some exams.

      The discussion of Ron Paul triggers me. Aref, Habibi, whatever you feel about Libertarians they are not fascist. As a libertarian, my main complaint with Ron Paul is that he remains in the republican party. (The internal libertarian debates about this mirror the the internal socialist discussions about whether to set up a separate party or try to infiltrate and work within the Democratic party).

      Habibi, I’m a libertarian because of Palestine. Here are some libertarian principles that might attract you.

      We do not believe in the right of the state to choose friends and enemies for its citizens. Even if the entire country is Zionist, I am not and this should be respected.

      We believe in property rights. The confiscation of Palestinian orchards offends us.

      We are against state to state foreign aid. It is bad enough that our income is confiscated to support the criminals in Washington without having to support numerous other governments. The fact that an entity claiming one tenth of one percent of the world’s population receives between one quarter and three quarters (depending on how the numbers are crunched) of US foreign aid is most offensive.

      We are against the laws of eminent domain. Israel uses eminent domain to confiscate Palestinian property.

      We are against all military alliances with foreign states. The one with Israel is the most troubling of all of these.

      We are for the separation of religion and state and support the notion that there should be no “religious test.” The state of Israel by definition requires a “religious test” for full citizenship and this gives us pause.

      Our most controversial belief is that immigration should be open. While this is a well developed concept without the Palestinian issue, for me it is all about Palestine as well. America sneers at Palestinians for failing to accept an immigrant minority declaring statehood and then expelling the indigenous majority. How dare they have the audacity to forbid anyone to come to this country to work and join our society? How foul that they would turn away the St Louis during WW II and send Jewish refugee immigrants to their fate. How evil! And to the extent you are an immigrant or the son of an immigrant we say “Ahlan wa sahlan wa alf marHaba ya Habibi.”

    • Shingo
      September 13, 2011, 11:47 pm

       Doubt all you want Shingo I know who I am.

      That was never on dispute Aref. The point is that WE now know a little more about who you are.


      I have no doubt that the US is A key to the solution and I have no idea where you jump to the conclusion that I don’t. 

      However, I am not naive enough to believe that a fascist libertarian like Ron Paul is the answer either.

      Actually, he would be the first to agree with you. It’s always bedbugs position that the US should have nothing to do with the IP conflict. Had you listened to his arguments, rather than try an inject your AIPAC talking points (fascist indeed)  you would have heard him argue  that the US should not be the world’s policeman.

      I am just astounded at the fact that so many self-described “progressives” support such a bigot and believe that his personal views do not matter because he would not act on them.

      I wish I could say that I am just astounded at the fact that so Hasbara trolls think that such lame arguments would go unchallenged.

      So what you are dating is that Paul is trying to won office by alienating the Jewish vote, even though he’s a committed Zionist.

      What your saying is that he harbors a secret agenda to grow the government, throw money at corporations, start wars, expand the empire, all the while campaigning against those who are already declaring the commitment to all if these!

      Talk about schizophrenic!

      Our foreign policy is not distinct and separate from the domestic one.

      True, and it just so happens that  shrinking government and cutting government spending is consistent with ending empire.

      Both are driven by the same ideological framework of capitalism and its ultimate expression imperialism.

      You’re conflating (confused) fascism with capitalism.

      You cannot be anti-imperialist and pro capital and pro free market.

      You can if you know anything about them. You see Aref, the only reason we have an empire, is because we haven’t had to pay for it; or rather, we haven’t had to pay until now. If Bush had paid for the Iraq war with taxpayer money (ie. raiding taxes) as opposed to ringing it up on the credit card, we would never have had one.

      . The notion advanced by Adam Smith that a capitalist society would do good because wealth will be generated and shared has been proven wrong many times over.

      Again, you’re conflating a welfare society with capitalism. It’s obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of the 20th century that there would have probably been no wars had there been no central bank.

      As to the Palestinian issue I simply wish that everybody stops telling us what the f&%$ to do.

      If you were really that determined to put an end with “everybody” telling the Palestinians what to do, you wouldn’t be so concerned with what “everybody” is saying.

      We do not need lessons from anyone all we need is that people for once listen to what we have to say and not lecture us.

      Oh is that so? Cough. Yeah, I can see how abortion rights in the US must really be at the top of the list of concerns for you “Palestinians”.

      Wink wink!

      Give me a f&#$!ing break and stop your condescending and patronizing attitude

      How about you give us a break and drop the phony facade. Come clean about your AIPAC affiliation

      You’ll feel better afterwards, I promise.

    • Chaos4700
      September 13, 2011, 11:55 pm

      Shingo, he is not opposing the occupation of other peoples land because of a principled stand for justice and against imperialism. He is opposing because of his belief that America is first.

      And… that’s… a bad thing? That Ron Paul believes in American ideals and puts those first, and those ideals tell him the wars are wrong and need to end in spite of how much money the American corporate/political elite class are making off of them?

      You seem to think what you’re saying is a mutual exclusion. It isn’t.

      • Shingo
        September 14, 2011, 12:33 am

        That Ron Paul believes in American ideals and puts those first, and those ideals tell him the wars are wrong and need to end in spite of how much money the American corporate/political elite class are making off of them?

        Very good point Chaos. George Washington himself warned about entangling alliances and becomming too enamoured with other states. The problem this country has had is leaders who have not put the country before all others. If US presidents had done that, they woudl have cut Israel loose a long time ago.

    • split
      September 14, 2011, 1:36 am

      I suggest you read the Bill of Rights and an Amendments ,…

  24. Aref
    September 13, 2011, 8:38 pm

    Why progressives should be extremely cautious with Ron Paul.
    link to

    • thetumta
      September 13, 2011, 9:53 pm

      You should definitely go to Aref’s link. It speaks for itself. Roe versus Wade isn’t going anywhere. Settled law. I don’t think Aref is progressive at all. More of the same Democrat subterfuge, I think. Let’s see how the Democrats vote in the UN next week. Ron Paul has made it perfectly clear how he would vote. We all know what’s in the broad National interest. What will the Democrats do now?

      • Shingo
        September 13, 2011, 10:12 pm

        I have read Aref’s link thetumta,

        And it’s a very poor article. I am not sure whether Aref is progressive or otherwise, but I do know that no self respecting Palestinian would believe that American progressives are the key to Palestinian liberation.

        He sounds like a Daily Kos devotee.

      • thetumta
        September 13, 2011, 10:48 pm

        I got played, yet again. We definitely need an ignore button on this site. Yes, I know it’s Anti-Semitic somehow, it must be? Phil this is your question as I tired of being suckered by these Hasbara artists. The courtesy of a reply would be appreciated?

      • annie
        September 13, 2011, 11:10 pm

        He sounds like a Daily Kos devotee.

        yeah, i expect a lot of that troll action to be headed our way, trying to degrade our site.

      • Aref
        September 13, 2011, 11:24 pm

        Again Shingo you just go assuming things and throw them out as fact. I have not read the Daily Kos once. SO you see you are just self absorbed in your own crap that anyone who disagrees with you is immediately some nut or some right winger or a zionist or this or that. I am a marxist and a socialist who believes that Ron Paul and his ilk are fascists. You want to argue about at an intellectual level that is fine but obviously all you can do is just throw accusations labels left and right without basis. I am done with your mediocrity and self-absorbance and navel-gazing. Have a good night.

      • Chaos4700
        September 13, 2011, 11:45 pm

        I am a marxist and a socialist who believes that Ron Paul and his ilk are fascists.

        That’s nice. I’m a socialist and a Progressive who actually knows what the word “fascist” means, and Ron Paul isn’t a fascist. I’m probably voting for him next election cycle because — hey, what do you know? — the Democratic Party has COMPLETELY shut Progressives out of the conversation.

        I object to a lot of Ron Paul’s politics, but you know what? A) He is the only one with ANY moral convictions whatsoever to human rights who is given any serious air time at all (albeit minimally) in the media, ergo, he’s the only third party candidate that isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of being President; B) He will end the wars and dial back the American war machine. And that MUST be done, above ANYTHING else; C) He’s a civil libertarian. I’m gay. He’s far more likely to take my rights seriously, because Obama and the Democrats (excepting Nancy Pelosi and a dwindling liberal corner of the party) obviously never will.

      • annie
        September 13, 2011, 11:49 pm

        i smell a hasbrat dressed up in palestinian marxist clothing. time will tell.

        how creative/not

      • Chaos4700
        September 13, 2011, 11:53 pm

        Gah, I’m trying desperately not to assume that, in spite of the smell. Am I being too optimistic?

      • Aref
        September 14, 2011, 12:05 am

        annie, I had a lot of respect for you for being an advocate of Palestinian rights. I still do for that work but I suppose that I was wrong about the person who resorts to innuendos and denigrating someone else whom they know nothing about just because they dare to speak their mind. All I said is that Ron Paul is a fascist and progressives should be wary about jumping into supporting him. That has nothing to do with where he stands on Israel or Palestine and I have serious doubts about the extent he really supports the Palestinians. How is that Hasbara? Do I have to unquestioningly support any first one who comes and claims to support the Palestinians? Suppose it was David Duke do I have to agree with him? All I am saying is that we should have some critical thinking and not respond to emotions and act out of desperation for wanting to hear the right words. If you and others want to support Ron Paul, please do, that is your choice and that is your prerogative. But I also have the right to express my point of view without fear of name calling. I guess I expected too much but I am not sorry for expressing my views and my opinions because that is what democracy is about. Although this experience with the Ron Paul fan club has confirmed my opinion that if you do not agree then you are an imposter, a fraud, or who knows what and that is not fascist behavior but the true democracy of the Ron Paul fan club–not much different than the Bush fan club by the way.

      • Aref
        September 14, 2011, 12:30 am

        Chaos, I agree with you that the Democratic Party has shut progressives out. They have been bought and paid for by the corporations and as for the Israel Palestine issue they are the puppets in hands of the pro-Israel Zionist lobby. I fully agree. But not supporting Ron Paul does not mean that I advocate the continuation of the current policy of unconditional and unquestioning support for Israel, does not mean the continuation and expansion of imperialist wars around the world and more importantly it does not mean that the alternative is the Democratic party. Heck I did not vote for Obama in 2008 (and not for McCain either just to avoid now being labeled as a repug). No matter how hungry we are and wanting to hear the right words about Israel and its Apartheid policies let us be careful and critical about those uttering those words. That is all I am saying. I do not agree with the libertarians and I do not agree with Paul on many issues and cannot support him and will support him. But again the alternative is not the Dems or the Repugs. What about the Green party? They are clear on where they stand on the wars, on Israel and Palestine, on gay and lesbian issues on social justice and many other issues. I simply do not trust someone who has the support of the John Birch society and who claims that his personal views will not affect his policies. It is like saying journalists are objective. It simply is not possible. Maybe some believe it is and that’s fine. I don’t. If you want to vote for him all the more power to you if you are doing that because you are convinced and have done the research. I am not going to tell you what to do. However, what I expect that my opinion is respected for what it is and not being crucified and called names just because I express an opinion which might not be popular here.

      • annie
        September 14, 2011, 12:33 am

        david duke?

        hm, that rings a bell. care to elaborate.

      • Taxi
        September 14, 2011, 12:37 am

        Aref it’s not your point of view here that’s in doubt (well that’s another funny story altogether), but it’s your claim to Palestinian citizenry.

        We’ve seen your movie before, bought the T-shirt that said ‘My Name Is Robert Werdine And I’m From Bint J’beil, South Lebanon”.

      • annie
        September 14, 2011, 12:45 am

        hey taxi, since it’s a 9/11 thread i thought heck, let’s get serious! here’s my new favorite documentary on 9/11. it’s comedy.


      • Shingo
        September 14, 2011, 12:45 am

        All I said is that Ron Paul is a fascist and progressives should be wary about jumping into supporting him.

        You can say whatever you like Aref, but when you excercise that privelage, you also accept the consequences. So you said that Ron Paul is a fascist and we’ve all taken you to task for making such a bogus allegation. That was us expressing OUR right.

        That has nothing to do with where he stands on Israel or Palestine and I have serious doubts about the extent he really supports the Palestinians.

        Now you’re contradicting yourself. You argued that because you believed him to be a racist and a fascist and opposed to abortion, that he would not be a friend to the Palestinians, as if to imply that any of us expect any US president to fulfull that expectation.

        What’s more, you have made text book assumptions about progressives and tried to push what you expected would provoke a knee jerk response (ie. abortion). I am still awaiting your explanation as to what progressives and abortion have to do with the Palestinian movement.

        All I am saying is that we should have some critical thinking and not respond to emotions and act out of desperation for wanting to hear the right words.

        Righ Aref, us poor deluded and aimless souls need a hasbra troll to give us direction and point out the obvious. Noy only are you a fraud, you’re also insufferably patronizing.

        But I also have the right to express my point of view without fear of name calling.

        That’s not how freedom of speech works. None of us have that right. We all have a right to express a point of view. None of us have the right to demand how others respond to our views.

        That notion is rather…fascist.

        But then again, that’s what we’ve all come to expect from Zionism.

      • Aref
        September 14, 2011, 1:01 am

        Taxi, and what is your connection to Palestine may I ask since you are questioning mine?

      • Aref
        September 14, 2011, 1:11 am

        Shingo, I was not responding to you so butt off. I am not responding to your idiocies and stupid BS. Have a good night.

      • Shingo
        September 14, 2011, 1:20 am

        No matter how hungry we are and wanting to hear the right words about Israel and its Apartheid policies let us be careful and critical about those uttering those words.

        Yes, Aref would rather the topic not be discusse at all. You see Chaos, a true friend of the Palestinians would simply keep it to himself.

        I simply do not trust someone who has the support of the John Birch society and who claims that his personal views will not affect his policies.

        Aref thinks it outrageous that an American political advocacy group that supports anti-communism, limited government, a Constitutional Republic supports Paul. In his mind, it proves Paul cannot be truested. Of course, Aref is arguing that becasue the John Birch society is further to the right than Paul, that this makes Paul a right wing extremist.

        Aref also thinks that Paul cannot be trusted with hsi persona views, even though his main personal view is that the Federal government has no business interferring in people’s personal choices.

        However, what I expect that my opinion is respected for what it is and not being crucified and called names just because I express an opinion which might not be popular here.

        The key to not being dissapointed is not having expectations. Like I said, you have the right to express yourself, and so does everyone else.

      • Shingo
        September 14, 2011, 1:25 am

        I don’t care whether you respond to me or not Aref. You’re a liar and a fraud who’s been expsoed, so your opinions are of no relevance to me.

        I am excercising my right to expression by pointing out the BS and niconsistencies in your pathetic propaganda and I will continue to so long as you are on this forum.

        That is my right, so no, I will not be butting off.

      • Shingo
        September 14, 2011, 1:26 am

        No one is questioning your connection to Palestine Aref.

        We know what yours is – we call it occupier.

      • Taxi
        September 14, 2011, 1:27 am

        I love Palestine. That’s my connection Aref.

        It’s love.

      • Chaos4700
        September 14, 2011, 1:44 am

        Look, Aref, I’m perfectly fine with you not voting for Ron Paul and I’m perfectly fine with you persuading other people not to vote for Ron Paul. It’s the part where you call him a “fascist” when, clearly, he isn’t, that I object to.

        A perfectly reasonable case for NOT voting for Ron Paul can be made without using terminology that doesn’t apply.

      • Shingo
        September 14, 2011, 1:51 am

        SO you see you are just self absorbed in your own crap that anyone who disagrees with you is immediately some nut or some right winger or a zionist or this or that.

        Nuts, right wingers and Zionists maeke bullshit statments, as you have done, so there’s grounds to assume you are one those things.

        I am a marxist and a socialist who believes that Ron Paul and his ilk are fascists.

        And you have based yout argument on false statements about his policies and positions. In spite of the fact that he has spoken out against fascism (marriages of businesses with governments), and voted against any laws which serve such arrangements, you insist that he secretly supports them.

        Either that, or you have no idea what fascism is.

        Here is Ron Paul stating plainly that corporatism is fascism
        link to

        If you’re going to make false statements, then you’re going to be rebuked. If you don’t like it, stop posting comments. You have not demonstarted any capacity for having an intellectual debate. You are reading from a list of talking points without having done any homework.

        You might be done with me, but I am certainly not done with you.

      • Shingo
        September 14, 2011, 2:02 am

        I think you are givign aref too much of the benefit of the doubt.

        He came out originally with the claim that ron Paul would be bad for the plight of the Palestinians, which is every bit as rediculous as the “fascist” accusation. When the fascist argument failed, he then came out with the abortion angle, then the gay angle, then accused him of being pro corporatist.

        All of these argument are blatantly false. The guy is a troll.

      • Emma
        September 14, 2011, 7:06 am

        Completely agree. And for these reasons I am voting for Ron Paul in the Republican primary in my state. I urge others to do the same. Many states have open primaries. People need to think strategically and tactically and imagine the impact it might have on the political dialogue to voice support for an anti-war candidate, even one with whom we do not completely agree.

        Here is Ron Paul’s statement opposing the House of Representatives’ grotesque resolution supporting Israel’s attack on Gaza in 2008:

        “I am concerned that the weapons currently being used by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza are made in America and paid for by American taxpayers. What will adopting this resolution do to the perception of the United States in the Muslim and Arab world? What kind of blowback might we see from this? What moral responsibility do we have for the violence in Israel and Gaza after having provided so much military support to one side?”

        link to

      • Citizen
        September 14, 2011, 8:45 am

        Ron Paul is a Libertarian. Aref, you don’t seem to know what Fascism is.
        You also need to read Marx. And you also don’t seem to know anything about what distinguishes a racist. Some commenters have already pointed out some reasons why Ron Paul is not a fascist or anything resembling the names you called him. I won’t bother you with more since you have yet to respond to their comments but instead you have merely repeated your accusation that RP is a fascist. It’s hard not to conclude without more analysis from you that you are not a plant trying to grow RP enemies because he alone of the POTUS contenders speaks the truth about the consequences of our current heavily unbalanced special relationship with Israel and our support of Arab tyrants so long as they don’t get critical of Israel’s actions.

      • Donald
        September 14, 2011, 8:58 am

        “It’s hard not to conclude without more analysis from you that you are not a plant trying to grow RP enemies ”

        Aref is wrong about the definition of fascism. Paul isn’t a fascist. I’ve never looked into the racism charge, but if it’s wrong it is still possible for someone to believe it, because it’s a charge that is very common–I’ve seen libertarians who agree with Paul’s foreign policy who believe the racism charge, right or wrong.

        In short, it’s incredibly easy to believe that Aref is wrong without thinking that he’s a plant. You just have to avoid the common Mondoweiss tendency to leap to the conclusion that people with other viewpoints are paid agents, closet Zionists, or the like. In real life people commonly hold all sorts of views, some of them incredibly foolish, and they do it for free and in all sincerity.

        Incidentally, I’ve also seen this paranoid style at other blogs, though the details vary. At some liberal blogs some people can’t absorb the possibility that one could despise both Democrats and Republicans in good faith–I’ve seen radical lefties accused of being paid Republican agents.

      • Shingo
        September 14, 2011, 6:26 pm

        In short, it’s incredibly easy to believe that Aref is wrong without thinking that he’s a plant.

        I understand the point your making Donal, but it’s not the fact that Aref is wrong that’s the problem, it’s his sleazy and disingenous arguments. I’ve had major debates with Keith and others commenters on this forum about Paul and never did I suspect their motives, becasue their argument were coherent and logical.

        Aref on the other hand, reached for the abortion and racism boilerplate to try and stir animosity towards Paul, and argued that his stance on abortion and free markets would be a set back for the Palestinians. needless to say, he has refused to explain what abortion has to do with the I/P conflict.

        Nevertheless, I do admit to being suspect about those like Aref, who claim to be Palestinians speaking on behalf of Paesltinians. I am ever more suspect of those who claim to be the representatives for a cause. The Palestinians on this forum that I respect, like Taxi and Haytham, refrain from such grandstanding.

        On top of all this, it strikes me as Orwellian that a self professed Plestinian sympathizer would seek to attack the one law makier who has consistently been the only politician to give voice to the plight of the Palestinians, in the face of great hostility.

        His motives can only be questioned.

    • Shingo
      September 13, 2011, 10:02 pm

      Why progressives should be extremely cautious with Ron Paul.

      Pure garbage. Adele Stan has done a very shoddy hit piece here based on blatant dissinformation. For example, Paul only said recently that gays should have the right to be married, whether he likes it or not. He has never proopsed that the issue of abortion should be decided by the government.

      Why are you, as a Palestinian, still holding out false hope that progressives are the solution to the I/P conflict?

      • Chaos4700
        September 13, 2011, 11:49 pm

        Yeah, I mean, I’m sorry to say this but Progressives don’t exactly exert any influence on American politics. We’ve got Rachel Maddow (who’s only liberal on certain issues…) and a couple of other commentators on MSNBC, and then a couple of sits in the back of the room in the House that will never ever never be called on again now that Nancy Pelosi is no longer Speaker, and that’s it.

        We have no pull, no say, almost no media attention that isn’t conveniently written off by shills like Witty, hophmi, DBG, etc.

        Progressives don’t decide jack shit in the US, except for what we’re eating for breakfast. (For those of us lucky to be employed, anyway.)

    • Kathleen
      September 13, 2011, 10:11 pm

      There is no way I would ever vote for Ron Paul based on his attitude on domestic issues. But on US foreign policy he has my vote. He is consistent

      • Citizen
        September 14, 2011, 8:49 am

        Kathleen, I suggest you get to know more about Ron Paul’s take on our monetary and fiscal system. He’s much more educated on those areas than Obama or the rest of the Republican contenders, who I noticed have been borrowing sound bites from his long stance on these matters.

      • Kathleen
        September 14, 2011, 4:29 pm

        He is and his audit the Fed stance is righteous. Just can not follow his get rid of the Dept of Education, medicare etc etc. Loses me and many others.

      • Citizen
        September 15, 2011, 6:58 am

        Kathleen, Ron Paul’s technical objection to the welfare programs is that they are not authorized by the express words of our Constitution, which spells out what is authorized to be done by the federal government, that is, what goals are empowered to be done by that government. Roosevelt started our current “nanny state” by latching onto the vague phrase “general welfare.” (Similarly, in terms of a lot of current corporate welfare: the Commerce Clause).

        Ron Paul would first slash spending on warfare, and then transition out many welfare programs, keeping the current benefits for those already with a lot of accrued benefits or skin in that game, but allowing young folks to opt out and buy their own insurance. Why? Because we are bankrupt; nothing is being done about it except borrowing more from other countries, a burden on our children and their children from birth.

        All The Fed can do is print more money; which it has been doing non-stop right up to the present. This can only lead to ever higher inflation, which is an indirect tax on all of us–we are doing what the Germans did in response to the unbearable debt they had due to the French & English punitive Versailles demands in 1918–print more fiat money (backed/based by/on no solid collateral–surely you are aware Germans ended up having to take a wheel barrel of paper mark bills to the store to get a loaf of bread? In this sense, economically, monetarily, fiscally, we are now in our own Weimar Era. RP pretty much sums up his macro thinking here: link to

        From transcript of Ron Paul with Mike Wallace of Fox News:

        “You talk a lot about the Constitution,” Fox News’ Chris Wallace noted Sunday. “You say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional.”

        “Technically they are,” Paul insisted. “There is no authority. Article 1, Section 8 doesn’t say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution — liberals are the ones that use this general welfare clause.”

        “The Constitution and the court said slavery was legal, too. We had to reverse that. So, I tell you. Just because a court in ’37 went very liberal on us and expanded the role of government, no, I think the original intent is not a bad idea,” Paul opined.

        A constitutionalist president’s budget should, inter alia, do the following:
        1. Reduce overall federal spending
        2. Prioritize cuts in oversize expenditures, especially the military & foreign aid
        3. Prioritize cuts in CORPORATE welfare
        4. Use 50 percent of the savings from cuts in overseas spending to shore up entitlement programs for those who are dependent on them and the other 50 percent to pay down the debt
        5. Provide for reduction in federal bureaucracy and lay out a plan to return responsibility for education to the states, to the local level
        6. Begin transitioning entitlement programs from a system where all Americans are forced to participate into one where taxpayers can opt out of the programs and make their own provisions for retirement and medical care.

        There’s a reason why neither POTUS or the Republican candidates other than RP get the admiration of the informed young and informed military families. And why both MSNBC and Fox News ignore RP or insinuate he is a nut case, not viable presidential material–he would shake up the current bipartisan sham raining band-aids on our big open spurting economic wound. Good reason why both Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich like Ron Paul. Unlike Obama, RP is the real deal, a root change champion.

      • Woody Tanaka
        September 15, 2011, 7:54 am

        Ron Paul’s theories of the constitution are fashionable among some percentage of the population, but they are minority views about interpretation. He, and people like him, want to pretend that the Federal Constitution is a document which grants extremely limited powers to the federal government. It’s not. It sets out very broad, but technically limited subject matter, (“setting aside” or “preserving” (or whetever term you prefer) much for the states,) but it grants the federal government maximum power within those areas, subject to little other than the other provisions of the Constitution and the democratic process.

        The government doesn’t HAVE to exercise that power, (and more often than not should not do so) but that does not mean that it does not have the power.

        And, indeed, after the passage of the Reconstruction Amendments, the whole thing cannot be viewed from the perspective of the intent of the 18th C. founders, anyway, because those Amendments (the 14th Amendment, especially) changed the very structure of the government in such a fundamental way that to claim it is fundamentally different from that which preceded the passage of those Amendments is only a slight exageration.

        At any rate, the combination of “the general welfare” clause in Art. I, Sec. 8, and the necessary and proper clause and commerce clause (to a limited extent), gives the Government the power to set up a welfare and social security system. Whether it SHOULD do so is a debate worth having, but, in my mind, Paul’s insistance that it has no power to do so makes him look like an ill-informed kook.

      • Shingo
        September 15, 2011, 8:36 am

        Ron Paul’s theories of the constitution are fashionable among some percentage of the population, but they are minority views about interpretation.

        They are fashionable because all other theories are failing and a growing percentage of the population is considering whether it is time to try something new, rather than the old.

        The government doesn’t HAVE to exercise that power, (and more often than not should not do so) but that does not mean that it does not have the power

        Not when it comes to personal liberties it doesn’t, and that’s where the government has little or no power under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

      • Woody Tanaka
        September 15, 2011, 9:18 am

        “They are fashionable because all other theories are failing and a growing percentage of the population is considering whether it is time to try something new, rather than the old.”

        The other systems of constitutional interpretation aren’t failing. They’re still going along, as strong as they ever were, because theories like Paul’s about the constitution aren’t legal theories, they’re political arguments. He’s trying to get people to adopt his position by convincing them that that alternative is unconstitution, not necessarily because what he advocates is wise, although I’m sure he believes it is wise. (But, as a progressive, I see no wisdom in a let-the-guy-die attitude that some [not necessarily Paul followers] seem to favor these days.)

        The problem is that the people he’s talking to do not, by and large, have the training, information and education to make a competant judgment on his views on the constitution. And those who do, such as the Federalist Society folks, generally fail to acknowledge that theirs is just one among many theories of constitutional interpreation, and a minority one, at that.

        The problem is that the American electorate wants to talk about having a small government, so long as it is the other guy’s project or benefit or department or thing that gets cut. If we’re bankrupting ourselves (and we appear to be choosing to do just that), the reason is six decades of criminal “defense” spending, not social welfare. But try selling THAT to small-government Republican types.

        “Not when it comes to personal liberties it doesn’t, and that’s where the government has little or no power under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.”

        Well, its a balancing-between-personal-liberties-and-government-power issue, not an exclusion-of-power issue, but that’s picking nits. But even in this paradigm, the question would be whether the form of the chosen by Congress to address the general welfare question is proper, and not whether Congress had the power to address the general welfare question, which is what Paul seems to suggest is the problem.

        For example, the current talk about the “Obamacare” mandate question is one that I can see a court saying, essentially, “it would be completely and uneqivocally legal and constitution for the government to tax every person an amount equal to the cost to provide them medical coverage AND to require them to enroll in a government program for the receipt of medical care. If that is so (and it most probably would be constitutional, under the general welfare, commerce and necessary and proper clauses, regardless of whether it would be wise or not) then what is the difference between that and requiring them to just buy insurance and cut out the government middle man?? I don’t see any personal liberty distinction between the two.” I’m not saying that I’d agree with that reasoning, but it is more akin to the kind of reasoning Courts often rightly employ.

      • Citizen
        September 15, 2011, 11:28 am

        Progressive Era folks commenced the metaphor of the Constitution as “living law,” adaptable as needed at any time and place. The Constitution is not a machine, but it is what influential Americans do with it. Harvard’s legal professor Lawrence Tribe has been the key legal scholar for this POV. At the Jurisprudence level (not a requirement when I was in law school, but a 4 credit hour elective), legal scholarship, macro legal theories merge with politics. 9 unrepresentative, unelected people always determine what is constitutional at any given time. The democrats milk the “general welfare” phrase, the republicans milk the “common defense” phrase.
        Further, both sides in the corporate business class milk the Commerce Clause, and so on.

        “If we’re bankrupting ourselves (and we appear to be choosing to do just that), the reason is six decades of criminal “defense” spending, not social welfare. But try selling THAT to small-government Republican types.”

        It’s as arguable to say six decades of social welfare spending (and increasingly, borrowing at interest, e.g., from China) has put us on the verge of Bankruptcy.

        Truth is both massive spending/borrowing for welfare and warfare has accomplished our current precarious economic condition. Massive scamming in both areas continues with little effective controls.

        ““Not when it comes to personal liberties it doesn’t, and that’s where the government has little or no power under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.””

        Actually the government has acquired quite a lot of power enabling it to infringe on personal liberties. Fertile fields are in new “basic rights” and in less of those rights, e.g., in “homeland security.”

        And yes, “its a balancing-between-personal-liberties-and-government-power issue, not an exclusion-of-power issue…”

      • Citizen
        September 15, 2011, 11:42 am

        Neither Big Government nor Small Government zealots actually think much about the impact of their proposed and/or passed legislation on the whole of WE The People. Proportionate to income and wealth, it seems to me those taxed the most are also the salaried working and lower middle classes of Americans who get the least from government spending–they have the least ways to avoid taxes either by way of showing no or low income or by maximal use of tax loopholes. The IRS Code is a giant tome showing the matrix of redistribution of an average worker’s income to the official poor and medium to filthy rich.

      • Shingo
        September 15, 2011, 7:29 pm

        The problem is that the people he’s talking to do not, by and large, have the training, information and education to make a competant judgment on his views on the constitution.

        That goes for just about everyone, including those that are not listening to him. As for whether Paul’s views represent a minoroty, I suspect that this is largely what the media would have us believe. I would guess that more than a minority are opposed to the wars we are in, the existence of 1000 military bases, bank bailouts etc.

        The problem is that the American electorate wants to talk about having a small government, so long as it is the other guy’s project or benefit or department or thing that gets cut.

        That’s certainly true of the right, which explanis their disconnect between advocating small government while endorsing ever icreasing military spending. Those on the left generally don’t have a view on the size of government.

        If we’re bankrupting ourselves (and we appear to be choosing to do just that), the reason is six decades of criminal “defense” spending, not social welfare.

        Fair point, but the biggest component of “social welfare” spending is health care, which by and large, has balloned becasue health care is so obscenely expensive. Adn the reason it’s so expensive is because the market is rigged.

    • Kris
      September 13, 2011, 11:35 pm

      Aref, we in the U.S. can be certain that either a Democrat or a Republican will be elected president in 2012. Either way, we can expect to suffer, big time. However, Ron Paul is the only potential candidate in either party who advocates:

      ending the foreign wars, ending the Patriot Act, ending NAFTA and GATT, etc., ending the War on Drugs, ending the two-tier justice system, and ending the corporate control of our government, and ending our “special relationship” with Israel.

      Ron Paul is the only candidate who doesn’t get corporate contributions. The corporations fear him, and the corporate media methodically marginalizes him, as they are today, in reporting that Paul said an uninsured, injured person should be left to die, when in reality, Paul didn’t get a chance to answer that question at all.

      I think we should stop letting our overlords play the “divide and conquer game” with our lives. We are in the same sinking boat as the “rednecks” (many of whom support Paul) we are encouraged to disdain, yet we identify with the guys on the yachts. Wasn’t it “rednecks” who were beaten and killed fighting the great battles to organize the unions? Which side are we on, anyway? No, Ron Paul is not a fan of unions, Medicare or Social Security. Neither are Obama or any of the other Republicans. I’m just saying we need to stop identifying with our oppressors, and make common cause where we can with the people we have been encouraged to despise and ridicule.

      We in the U.S. are bound to suffer, whoever is elected in 2012, so I’m not hoping for much. All I want is for the U.S. to stop killing people all around the world, and to stop facilitating Israel’s slow-motion genocide against the Palestinians. That’s why I’m going to vote in the Republican primary for Ron Paul. If he were nominated, things MIGHT change. Certainly the political discourse in this country would change.

      Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, and Bernie Sanders seem to like Ron Paul; maybe we should take a closer look:

      link to
      link to
      link to
      link to – Ron Paul on ending the War on Drugs
      Ron Paul and Ralph Nader — link to
      Ralph Nader on the new political dynamic of an alliance between Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul on cutting the military budget and corporate welfare –
      link to
      link to

      • thetumta
        September 14, 2011, 12:15 am

        Why are we responding to Aref. His comments speak for themselves. The only Republican/Democrat candidate he opposes is Ron Paul. I’m sure he approves of the snake oil salesmen from Texas who has already pledged to Israel. He hasn’t mentioned a word about any of the other candidates, not one. Hasbara Central. If it was Yahoo or MSM, I’d just put him on ignore. This site needs an “ignore” switch?

      • Antidote
        September 14, 2011, 11:24 am

        “Why are we responding to Aref…..This site needs an “ignore” switch”

        I’m ignoring this comment.

      • Aref
        September 14, 2011, 12:57 am

        Kris, let me begin by saying that I truly appreciate your thoughtful comment and resorting to name calling and assumptions like some did here. Yes Ron Paul says the right stuff about the wars about Israel Palestine and about other things. However, I am wary of him and his libertarian beliefs. I am pro union and pro worker. I am against unbridled and unregulated corporations and business. I am against NAFTA, GATT and turning other countries into sweatshops to fatten the pockets of CEOs and shareholders but I do not believe that free market is the answer to strong regulations and control of capital. I am a supporter of either the repugs or the dems in fact I think they are the same party with different faces. I have warned about Obama in 2008 and unfortunately many here who now have become completely disillusioned with him at the time were tooting his horn as if he was the messiah. I do not identify with the oppressor and have been very outspoken against the establishment and in particular to uncover the illusion that the dems represent the progressive side of American politics. There are many aspects of Ron Paul beliefs that I cannot and will not support just because I refuse to be inconsistent with myself. As I said I am a socialist and the closest thing to my beliefs is the Green Party–that is who I voted for in 2008 if you want to know. Yes they have no chance of winning this election but I refuse to play the “electability” game. The reason is that I believe a big part of the problem in the US is the fact that people have become too complacent by being certain that it either a repug or a dem who will be elected and so they hold their nose and cast teh ballot for whom they believe is the least bumb. People have lost sight of the fact that it is after all their votes that get politicians in power. Many believe that the politicians say things to get elected and that they won’t act on them once in office. That may in some cases be true but not always and so I vote for those with whom I agree and resonate politically not out of fear and not because of emotions and not because I know they are lying to me to get elected. I do not think Ron Paul is someone I can agree with on the personal belief level or political level and that is why I cannot support him.

      • Shingo
        September 14, 2011, 1:23 am

        I do not think Ron Paul is someone I can agree with on the personal belief level or political level and that is why I cannot support him.

        No one is asking you to, but if you insist on labelling him a racist and a fascist, you will be held to account.

        That’s the price that comes with free speech.

      • Aref
        September 14, 2011, 1:27 am

        I am sorry there are a few typos and missing things above. I wrote “and resorting to name calling” and I meant and NOT resorting to name calling. I also wrote “I am a supporter of either the repugs or the dems” and I meant I am NOT a supporter….

      • Citizen
        September 14, 2011, 8:57 am

        Aref, so you believe that Big Labor has no downside in terms of impact on our society and economy as a whole? And that Marx would agree with you if he were alive today?

      • Chu
        September 15, 2011, 11:51 am

        Thanks Kris.

    • Shingo
      September 14, 2011, 12:57 am

      Here’s Ron Paul (aka the homphobe) on gay marriage.

      Here’s Ron Paul (aka the fascist) on coroporatism being a movement towards fascism.

      Here’s Ron Paul (aka the religious nut) on abortion.

      • Kris
        September 14, 2011, 1:36 pm

        Thanks, Shingo, these are excellent links.

  25. thetumta
    September 13, 2011, 9:32 pm

    Some of the audience booed, it was the Tea Party Express Inc. after all.
    I think this might sober some people UP next week? Also from

    link to

    Good Bye Dollar!
    Hej! Tumta

    • annie
      September 13, 2011, 11:08 pm

      tumta, we wrote about Veto a State, Lose an Ally the other day on the post “Jordan and Saudi Arabia sound warnings on blocking Palestinian statehood”.

    • Taxi
      September 13, 2011, 11:51 pm

      Thanks tumta. I especially enjoyed the commentator Jeff_Davis with his great little gems. Responding to a comment that stated that it’s not in our best interest to choose israel over Saudi Arabia as israel has no cheap oil, Jeff_Davis wrote:
      “”Our best interests”? Who is this “our”? Any American politician who wants to get reelected must do what’s in his or her best interest, which is support Israel unto the last American dollar (such as it is) and the last American drop of blood.

      What astonishes me is the vast legion of right wingers who seem to be okay with this. Kinda like those Islamic suicide bombers. Except in this case the suicide vest is being strapped on to the most powerful nation on the planet, and not for the sake of that nation or its predominantly Christian majority, but for the sake of a bribed and bullied US political class and its boss, Israel.

      Are there ANY Americans who aren’t Stepford Israelis?”

      • Citizen
        September 14, 2011, 9:01 am

        Yes, and less remember the Golem story. These days it’s sporting one of those little crossed flags lapel pins and the story isn’t finished by any means.

  26. thetumta
    September 13, 2011, 9:43 pm

    When was the last time you heard anything true from a Demo-Republican?
    The people watching last night heard something other than lies for the first time and some boo-ed. Had to be a shock for many. New experience in my time in this country. Many of Ron Paul’s views are problematic, some aren’t, but speaking the plain truth needs to make a come back and he’s the only one campaigning on it.

  27. CactusLand
    September 13, 2011, 9:47 pm

    Aref, I beg to differ. Ron Paul is not a racist and a fascist, he is a decent Christian man with convictions. How can a person be a Christian and support the Israeli apartheid state? The answer is it can’t be done, and that is the great slight of hand. The Christian right is in bed with the Neo-Con right, so Kristol, Podhertz, Krauthammer etc.. get in bed with Bachmann and Santurum on Israel, securing the far right for Israel… then, on the liberal side, the NYT, LA Times, The New Yorker, etc.. slam the Christian Right for their social/ religious ideas, but look the other way on the Zionism of Cantor, Schumer, Lieberman etc…

    You end up with a country that is only Christian in a fundamentalist, apocalyptic sense. The cultural mainstream has been completely de-Christianized… Why doesn’t the New York Times, The New Yorker, etc.. attack Zionism with the same vigor it attacks fundamentalist Christianity?

    Until people realize this, we are condemned to live a great hypocrisy. This articles deals with the topic of how and why.

    link to

  28. thetumta
    September 13, 2011, 10:08 pm

    I think we all know who Aref is? Phil really needs to get a block comments button so we don’t have to be suckered by this Hasbara. Even Yahoo finance comments has this functionality and it’s needed there even more so.

    • Shingo
      September 13, 2011, 10:34 pm

      Who do you think Aref is thetumta?

      I am beginning to think he might be another Robert Wierdine prototype.

      • Chaos4700
        September 13, 2011, 11:52 pm

        We’re really jumping the gun here, guys.

        Though I’d be lying if I said this wasn’t… you know… reminiscent of past encounters of situations like you’ve described.

  29. thetumta
    September 13, 2011, 10:18 pm

    Aref would make Trotsky proud. Actually Freud’s nephew. This Hasbara artist has played us all in responding to him. He has one objective, Israel. He couldn’t care less about any other issue. Like Saim Habain and OSB, he has one issue, Israel. Put him on ignore. Oh, that’s right Phil we can’t put him on ignore? Perhaps you’ll fix that?

    • Shingo
      September 13, 2011, 10:53 pm


      Atef hasn’t played us, he’s outed himself. I think we are right to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

      There wil be many more like him coming to MW, but that’s no reason to become paranoid and distrustful of every new face they comes along. Like Aref, they are their own worst enemy.

      I think what gave it away was Aref’s argument that abortion rights in the US had anything to fo with the plight of Palestinians.

      • thetumta
        September 13, 2011, 11:32 pm

        Point taken.

      • Citizen
        September 14, 2011, 9:06 am

        This site will see more Atefs if Ron Paul gets some real attention in the MSM; in fact, the more his campaign makes the news, the more Atefs will arrive here and on other net sites to try to stop him by easy slurs.

  30. thetumta
    September 13, 2011, 11:23 pm

    You could be the King of Kenya, He thinks he’s a Marxist as well. I wish I could cc this one as the rest of us who think he’s a Grouch Marxist.

    Hasbara. All the Marxists(and the rich feudals ) have have left Palestine except you.

    I guess you never met any Marxist that really tried it. Capitalism is the foundation of any successful Socialist society, Marxist, Stalinist or whatever, they all know that. Could you be a Zionist Marxist, how amusing!
    PS All the Marxists I know spent time on the Kibbutzes decades ago and they know they got played. Maybe your parents?

    • Shingo
      September 14, 2011, 12:02 am


      When you report back to your Lukud handler (Ronert Weirdine perhaps), you might want to suggest they ditch the talking point on Paul and abortion. It’s become a dead giveaway, akin ro the rants about Darur and the Kurds.

    • Citizen
      September 14, 2011, 9:16 am

      So, Aref claims to speak for the workers of the world, claims therefore to speak in behalf universalism. Matspen anyone? Question is, does Aref want to turn folks into Bolsheviks or, like the neocons, want to have us all drink Pepsi or Coke with a Big Mac in a psuedo-demo-plutocratic society? Or is he really after what he thinks is “good for the Jews?”

  31. thetumta
    September 13, 2011, 11:57 pm

    Nothing paranoid as his dialog speaks for itself. It was nice of you to come to his defense though. Perhaps Phil should upgrade the site to include agree/disagree tallys on comments. I’m still evaluating Phil(How’s that for paranoid) as there is huge money behind this issue and it’s about to go critical. Next week.
    And we have the Israeli diplomatic staff presenting lectures this week at local fundamentalists churches this weekend. Perhaps I’m a little paranoid, but I did live in the Middle East and South Texas for many years. I’m very familiar with fundamentalists. Thank God they dress differently or I couldn’t possibly sort them out.
    As for the benefit of the doubt, it’s often a luxury of the young, to their chagrin. I think the case is clear here.

    • john h
      September 14, 2011, 3:08 am

      >> “And we have the Israeli diplomatic staff presenting lectures this week at local fundamentalists churches this weekend.” <<

      How quaint. Israeli diplomas and funnymentals sure deserve each other. Both in fantasyland having a love-hate relationship and using the other "for the greater good". I wonder who will blink first.

  32. Aref
    September 14, 2011, 7:04 am

    link to Ron Paul at the John Birch Society.
    link to Ron Paul at the Tea Party Convention.

    • Citizen
      September 14, 2011, 10:33 am

      Thanks for the videos of Ron Paul explaining his views, Aref. It’s clear his views are educated ones, and well-thought out in substantial detail. He traces the roots of our system problem going back to Wilson’s Era, when the IRS and Fed Reserve were created and a platform for “nation building” was set up to go to war overseas to “make the world safe for democracy.” Informed folks likely know that Wilson himself is on record saying he made those mistakes, all of which he said were his biggest errors as POTUS. RP goes on to say it’s not wise to ignore Washington’s farewell address regarding foreign entanglements, nor Ike’s farewell address regarding the military-industrial complex. If Wilson were alive today he’d agree with RP.

      RP goes on to tell us the Fed Reserve chief is more powerful than our POTUS because he can print money and he determines the money supply.
      (Old patriarch Rothschild would absolutely agree.) RP says inflation is a tax on the public, which it is. RP defines a “patriot” as a person willing to stand up to his/her own government when that government is wrong. The same ilk who ruined our system during Wilson Era have kept it up, giving us US PO, Amtrak, TARP, and now they want to give us medical care. Government is too big for our best interests. The people have allowed this, including wars without end, ever since our government initiated it because taxes have been avoided by borrowing–but now Americans finally increasingly realize we have reached the end of our ridiculous credit rope. Currently there is a civil war going on between those who get free education, food stamps, medical care, etc, and those who work for a living. People wonder will the Big Corporations get it all now? Should the legislators interfere in your life to protect those they think are too stupid for their own good? Keynes was wrong. You can not protect individual liberty (itself with the goal of reaching the high tip of the Maslow Triangle), which is the goal of good government, without protecting all human life once it is identified as such.

      This intellectual stream of thought makes RP a racist, fascist? How so, Aref? RP also says he’s not an isolationist, but a citizen who knows the difference between militarism and defense. How fascist is that?

      • Kris
        September 14, 2011, 2:02 pm

        The more that people learn about what Ron Paul really says and does, as opposed to the propaganda put out by the corporate bosses, the more people tend to like him. I myself am also very influenced by the fact that Ralph Nader likes Ron Paul.

        Nevertheless, even though I know that Ron Paul is the only Repub/Dem candidate who says he’ll end the wars and actually speaks out against our “special relationship” with Israel, it was hard for me to put the “Ron Paul for President 2012″ bumper sticker on my car.

        I had to give myself a firm pep talk, and ask myself if avoiding social ridicule (I live in a “liberal” community) is more important than trying to save all the people who will certainly be killed by the U.S. if Obama or any of the other Repubs wins in 2012.

        I had to ask myself why I have no problem with wearing my homemade button everywhere (except work) ( superimposed on a photo of a bleeding, screaming, Palestinian little girl are the words: “Your taxes at work. Israeli soldiers killed her family. This is what Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians looks like.” It’s a very large button.) , but felt uneasy putting the Ron Paul sticker on my car.

        Maybe it’s because the truth about Israel is now out in the mainstream, and most people seem to like my button, but the propagandists are working overtime to discredit and marginalize Ron Paul, the only non-corporate, non-war candidate with a chance to shake up our national discussion and stop the killing.

        It is very hard to see through the constant spin that surrounds us, and remember that identifying with the oppressors (who are trying hard to discredit and marginalize Ron Paul) is a fool’s game. (Surely we all remember how this worked in junior high school: the “popular” clique would gang up on some kid who was different, and somehow the rest of the kids, who weren’t even in the powerful clique, would disdain the hapless victim, too.)

        If all we can accomplish is getting Ron Paul elected as the Republican candidate, by voting in the Republican primaries, that will be a huge step toward breaking the silence in our corporate-controlled media.

  33. Chris S
    September 14, 2011, 7:43 pm

    Please consider sending a message by voting for RP in your state’s primary. That means registering as an R for a day if your primary is closed. I won’t tell anyone. Promise.

  34. AmericaFirstforaChange
    September 14, 2011, 10:01 pm

    Ron Paul was spot on with what he said. Especially when you listen to former CIA Bin Laden unit head Mike Scheuer via the following youtube:

    911 Motivation and Media Betrayal:

    link to

    Why They Attacked US on 911 (scroll down to comments):

    link to

  35. thetumta
    October 19, 2011, 10:31 pm

    9/11 was what? 10 years ago. You think they’re done with us? They’ve been one step ahead for a very, very long time. Frankly, I’m worried we’re done for as they appear to be 10 steps ahead now. You think Barry was a mistake, a progressive misstep? I afraid we’re going to be just 10 days too late this time for the last time. You don’t always get a do-over even in America.

  36. ethansath
    November 7, 2012, 8:06 am

    This is an interesting perspective to US being at gunpoint of terrorists. For the boos you got, It is clearly reason vs. blinded patriotism. I can’t say which point of view is right but this is definitely something to think about.
    Custom Chemical Labels

Leave a Reply