Loony Ron Paul Blames "Neocons" For Ground Zero Mosque Controversy & "Unconstitutional Wars" & Blames US for 9-11 (Video)
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, August 24, 2010, 4:37 PM
Sounding more like a far left loon than a Republican Ron Paul blamed the evil “Neocons” (codeword for Jews) for the Ground Zero Victory Mosque controversy and the unjust wars in Iraq and Afghanistan…
And, once again he blamed US foreign policy for the 9-11 attacks.
Sick.
Mediaite reported:
It’s been said before, and it will probably be said again: Ron Paul is not your typical Republican politician. Appearing on AC 360 last night, fill-in host Sanjay Gupta sought comment from the former Presidential candidate on the controversy surrounding what many are calling the “Ground Zero Mosque.” Paul made clear his frustration in blaming the whole of Islam with the acts of a small radical sect, and compared to the bombing of the Murrow building in Oklahoma City by Timothy McVeigh.
Paul was booked because of a statement he released last week regarding what he called the “Demagogy of the NYC Mosque,” the full statement of which can be read after the following video clip. The heart of that statement, and his appearance on CNN last night though, can best be summed up by the following rough transcript. Paul said:
Al Qaeda was responsible. Several hundred al Qaeda existed at that time. Maybe there are still several hundred more. That doesn’t mean the whole Muslim religion should be indicted. That was my complaint. McVeigh probably was a Christian, and he bombed the Oklahoma Federal building. Does that mean a Christian church can’t be built near there, and Christianity is to blame? I don’t like that broad brush. That doesn’t mean we should destroy the whole concept of the Muslim religion, if they can bring this out, whether the Mosque is stopped or not, the implication here is that Islam caused 9/11, not a narrow branch of the al Qaeda. To me, that is crucial, because it deals with our foreign policy, it deals with — even in that clip earlier on, Madeleine Albright admitted, she said, well, 500,000 people are killed so be it. If that’s what it takes. So is the Muslim have justification for their worries and concerns.
Here’s Ron Paul on the Ground Zero Victory Mosque:
In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.
They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers from in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.
The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we’re supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.
The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11. (not true)
Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.
This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.
There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?
If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.
It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society—protecting liberty.
The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservatives’ aggressive wars.
With that commentary he would fit right in at Daily Kos.
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
Busted!… Obama Headlined a DEMOCRAT SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA Event in 1996 **FLIER**
Published May 24, 2012 at 8:46 pm - 91 Comments
sliderblaze commented:
this guy puts the fruit in fruitcake
Spike commented:
See Ronny,that why You never get elected!
Joanne commented:
The left continually spews this nonsense that Timothy McVeigh was a Christian, when he was an atheist. They always bring up the same example, because there is no other, and they can’t even tell the truth about it. Christians do not blow up buildings in the name of Christ, but muslims blow up anything in the name of Allah, and there is a word for it – Jihad.
Islam’s prophet is a pedophile, and this is the guy they aspire to emulate. Something is seriously wrong with this picture.
If there are muslims who do want to be a muslim any longer, they should leave Islam – oh that’s right, they can’t because other muslims will kill them if they do. Tell me, where is the freedom of religion in that, although they demand to be given the right to practice their ‘religion’ and build a mosque at Ground Zero.
Saint commented:
When 65-75% of the people in the U.S. (or was it new york? I Forget) oppose the mosque, we call that a majority. If all said people were neo-cons, or sympathetic to conservatives in general, the Democrats would not be a significant local/ or national party.
Waterboard Botox Pelosi commented:
Paulbots are no different than ObamaBots. Ron Paul is basically a “blue dog Democrat”. I hope his son isn’t nearly as loony as him once he gets elected for KY’s senate.
bill-tb commented:
I guess common sense is now loony?
Chippy commented:
This is why his son bothers me. He could me a stealth kook like his father. I hope I am wrong.
donh commented:
Ron Paul’s face is even morphing into a creepy resemblance to Dennis the menace Kucinich. This is disappointing . You can be critical of nation building in muslim lands and wasteful spending without joining the democrat alliance with Islam.
Tjexcite commented:
Ron has gone so far right he came back on the other side of the circle in the loop where buses don’t run to be a far out radical of both sides.
AuntieMadder commented:
Ron Paul’s website links to Sorcha Faal articles. His articles also cite Faal often.
There is no such person as “Sorcha Faal, Russian academic” “Sorcha Faal” is actually David Booth, an American computer programmer “Sorcha” is alleged to be a Russian academic but there is absolutely no record of anyone with such a name in Russian academia. These periodic eruptions have absolutely no basis in any kind of fact or reality and are typical of the nonsense bespangling the internet.
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/sorchafaaldisinfo15mar08.shtml
Here are some of the articles written by “Faal” prior to Sept 24, 2007:
-US President Orders Military To Begin Jailing All Civilian Protestors To War
-Putin Orders Russian Military Forces To Attack US Forces During Iran Invasion????
-Pravda: Imus Fired After He Threatened to Reveal 9/11 secrets
-US ‘Shoot on Site’ Order Issued For Escaping Americans
This is the type of “news” that Ron Paul trusts and cites. He, therefore, can’t be trusted any more than the next indiscriminate fear-mongerer.
Joe College commented:
Someone should tell this guy that Thomas Jefferson had to go to war with the Muslims (Barbary War) because they were terrorizing our citizens and our commerce.
squeaky commented:
13 or 15 floors doesn’t make for a non-descript islamic center. a battle of the wills that they don’t want to lose. once constructed do the the
compliant dimmi dummies think that they’ll be
able hold the property holders to the original intent. one of many small battles. what a difference a little less than a year makes……..
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33894877/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
Greg commented:
Living in the southern part of ron pauls district, I pray each election that the Demo’s will run a viable candidate. Paul’s a loon ignores the district and does nothing for south texas or the US. The district is jerrymanderred along 200 miles of coast most parts less than ten miles wides when population is included. He is the reason I as a republican donate and advocate the dem oposition canidate. If the dem’s had an ounce of sense they would promote a viable alternate
OneSTDV commented:
He’s a “conservative”?!?
He’s a liberaltarian who would gladly take up arms with Muslims.
Apparently, to Dr. Paul, one can’t admonish our prescence in the Middle East without expressing sympathy towards those poor, oppressed Palestinians and Muslims who want nothing more than to conquer and extirpate the West.
Great post BTW. Hit all the major points I was thinking of when I came across this article.
TXBitty commented:
bill-tb
August 24th, 2010 | 5:18 pm | #6
I guess common sense is now loony?
Describe common sense.
bg commented:
++
HEY LE LOON RON RON..
YOU AIN’T SEEN NOTHIN’ YET!!
==
DaveP. commented:
When peopel ask me why I feel that Libertarians can’t be taken seriously, I tell them: “Ron Paul”.
…oh yeah: and the guy who painted with his chin beard, who the Libertarians ran against GWB Sr. But mostly Ron Paul.
brooklyn commented:
Yep, I agree with sliderblaze.
Hoping his Son is not as nutty.
This is a great example of some problems with FASHION. Conservatism is not fashion. It sticks with basis.
During the time when many were growing with fears over Iraq, Ron Paul’s delusional Isolationist Sophistry appealed to some. They should have stayed with proven Reagan Doctrine – which GW Bush was bravely using.
Today, we have a new Ally in the heart of the ME, Iraqis fighting on Our side. If only the Democrats were not in control now to blow it all.
Anyhow, Ron Paul is a real regret, and some should think more clearly, instead of just jumping on a bandwagon. Fashion is often a fools game – self destructive in every way.
sjjjd commented:
Does Paul have a wife? heard there is a stoning party at Pakistan and perhaps later this summer in Iran, if his wife wants to get someing totally Islamic. I’m sure they can find a crime of hers.
Gman commented:
Someone needs to tell this D-bag that Mcveigh didn’t bomb the OKC building in the name of Jesus. So that argument of his is pretty much pathetic.
If he can show a recent act where Christians in the name of Jesus blew up a building and killed thousands of people then maybe he has a point. I am just guessing he wouldn’t be able to come up with an example.
Will commented:
One question, why do anyone take him seriously?? People like him should never have been a candidate in elected office much less a Congressman in any party.
Opus #6 commented:
Ron Paul is a libertarian? Well he won’t find much liberty in most muslim countries. And his wife will find even less.
B Davis commented:
The real concern is that Rand Paul is as much a nut-job as his father. The apple does not fall far from the tree. And if he is not…then with a father like this, who needs enemies. Ron Paul should have STFU a long time ago. Now he is just a pathetic contemptible jackass, burning his son as he goes down in flames.
JimBT commented:
Hopefully, with this latest rant, the Paulites will wake up and see just how deranged this lunatic really is.
Hello? Anyone home?
bg commented:
++
I – S – L – A – M – O – P – H – O – B – I – A
Jasser: I’ll first tell you what it is not- it’s not Islamophobia. If anyone is to blame for the existence of the concept of Islamophobia, if it even exists, it is Muslims who have been unable to articulate a manifestation of Islam which is free of a political state which threatens the sovereignty of the states in which Muslims reside. I don’t subscribe to the existence of the notion of Islamophobia because I believe that we are in just the beginning of a global conflict of political ideologies (Islamism vs. Americanism), and the conflation of “Islamophobia” is intentional by Islamists to deflect Americans and the free world from the necessary debate of political ideologies.
==
TexasPatriot commented:
Ron Paul is right. No reason for foreign occupation
Pat the First commented:
This is why I wouldn’t vote for Rand Paul.
wanumba commented:
Ron Paul has NEVER sounded like a Republican. The LEAST the GOP could do is demand a REASONABLE plus (+) or (-) RANGE of adherence to the GOP platform required to be able to call oneself a Republican.
Even if it was with a 50 % tolerance +25 or -25 Ron Paul wouldn’t qualify. See his supporters? Trenchcoats! Skateboards!
And his polling is one guy running 36 hours of poll spamming. Say what?
Rob Paul is a total construct who exists to enable the DEMOCRATS.
The GOP needs to have some in-house discipline and toss these Democrat ticks out. McCain is worse, he gets more Democrat legislation passed than Ron Paul and the lesser frauds.
Toaster802 commented:
I thought Ron Paul had it right about his domestic policy, while I disagreed totally with his world view. The last straw was him backing the Barney Frank military budget, which guts our force projection while re-aligning our military into a police force. Wake up people, the fourth Reich is at hand.
Ladue Pundit commented:
Ron Paul’s basic problem is a hatred of Jews.
“TexasPatriot
August 24th, 2010 | 7:19 pm | #28
Ron Paul is right. No reason for foreign occupation”
Are you speaking of Iman Rauf’s occupation of lower Manhatten? Didn’t think so.
Here’s another “explanation,” folks, of why America was attacked on 9-11: we deserved it. Right, Patriot? Did the men at the Alamo deserve it, also?
This has always been the Ron Paul line. And Israel should give their country to Hamas and Hezbollah.
If nothing else, the GZ mosque issue has brought the kooks out front and center.
thetimman commented:
I suppose calling Ron Paul a loon is easier than engaging in logical debate, but it sure makes me doubt whether you could refute him if you tried a more reasonable approach.
Ohhh– he’s LOONY. Now I’m convinced.
donh commented:
Here is a picture of Dennis the menace…. http://www.clevescene.com/images/blogimages/2010/02/11/1265923116-kucinich.jpg
Here is Ron Paul…. http://thelegalbroadcastnetwork.squarespace.com/storage/Ron%20Paul.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1259009492906
If Ron were to dye his hair black it would be hard to tell them apart. You can see it in the eyes and that chin grin , a pathetic CLOWN. It is the same face you see in Laurel and Hardy…. http://www.movie-blast.com/images/laurel-and-hardy.jpg
toughluck commented:
He’s looney. Following the constitution is bat sh#& crazy too. Religious freedom, nuttier than squirrel sh*!. Never ending wars and deficit spending, creating a nationalist movement to demonize all muslims in order to strike iran. Now thats the new America!! Collectivism!!
Dr. E. Robbins commented:
I take Ron Paul seriously and I am a doctor.
It wasn’t until my son started talking to me about Dr. Paul and as pragmatic and dismissive as I am at times, he finally convinced me to examine him through his YouTube videos and I found myself waking up from a bad dream realizing that I was the fool all along for supporting the likes of John McCain and falling in the Sarah Palin love fest hysteria.
It is very easy to understand Congressman Paul’s message for it resonates what is great about our nation and unites people from both political parties and I am a true believer that Ron Paul can win in 2012 if the other rigid souls like myself stop listening to the chatter from talking heads in our media and start to do a great deal of soul searching to see the brilliance in his philosophy.
Let me explain to you that Ron Paul was right about the economic collapse as he had warned the people for years about the housing and our current asset bubbles. Each time he has spoken, his wisdom embodies a sense of humility and reason that will overcome the grasp of evil that has controlled us by playing on our basic emotion of fear.
I find myself constantly reading blogs every single time an article is written about Dr. Paul just to achieve a greater understanding of the pulse of the people and oftentimes I am humored hearing words like “isolationist” when describing Dr. Paul’s foreign affairs even though his ideas has been supported by more active members of the military than all other candidates combined during the 2008 Presidential campaign. Surely if his ideas were so far-fetched as those who attempt to marginalize Dr. Paul claim he would not have such a broad spectrum of support from members of our armed forces. I’ve learned that when reading posts and articles, those who claim Ron Paul is an isolationist instead of a non-interventionist, they are either manipulated by those in our media into a frenzy or they are ignorant to the distinctions between those two words or they are attempting to marginalize him because they fear his voice of reason will unite people instead of dividing us across a wide array of minor differences that really don’t mean much in the whole scheme of life.
What amazes me most is how my fellow Republicans sing the praises for Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and John McCain even though their voting records are highly inconsistent to conservative ideals and in years past, we would have called them socialists or economic interventionists. I am deeply sorry for supporting McCain this past Presidential race and in hindsight, I am glad he lost for it has allowed a much needed fracture in the GOP base to occur and new voices to resonate a more reasonable tone. In regards to Sarah Palin, I could not vote for her either. There is one thing that will not settle well in America and that is anyone who quits in the middle of a game and in her case, she resigned as governor of Alaska which shows me she doesn’t have the depth of character to handle some of the most pressing needs in American history.
Isn’t it time that we start facing the facts and deal with reality? Should we continue making the same mistakes over and over again while expecting different results? If you ask me, I am very humbled and optimistic that once people start pushing aside the insanity of repeating the same old mistakes and start searching for truth by not accepting what Rush Limbaugh says as gospel, we might start moving forward in solving our problems in a more reasonable way that not only helps Americans, but also shines a light of hope for the world to see.
Ron Paul is clearly the best choice we have and I welcome you to the peaceful rEVOLution that can bring about real and lasting hope for mankind.
toughluck commented:
Oh yeah, he hates jews too. He didnt read the 9/11 comission, or what the CIA said about “Blowback” from meddling in the middle east. ohhh yeah…He’s nuttier than a port-a-potty at a peanut festival.
Shawn commented:
I encourage anyone who has negative opinions of Ron to actually read up on him. I once despised Dr. Paul because he seemed like a loon, but I wasn’t really well informed about his beliefs. Trust me, if you read his works with an open mind, or even watch videos of him on youtube, I’m sure you’ll find yourself in agreement with many of his beliefs. After all, he is the most conservative member of congress.
BS61 commented:
Every time that I believe that Libertarian’s are not that different from Republican’s – Ron Paul proves me wrong!
There’s plenty out there on the web, of what the Quran says, so do your own research.
The fact that Alex Jones is a huge Ron Paul fan, makes me the opposite! I’ve watched score of tapes and I don’t believe what he says about Jew’s being responsible for 9/11. I’m pro Jew!
BS61 commented:
Shawn – I agree with Ron Paul’s views financially, and to end the Fed and a bunch more. Where he loses me is the anti-war part – I was a Dem and totally against the war. However, I’m now better informed on the hate for American’s, so I do feel that it’s justified for us being in the war – same as when Jefferson went to war with the troubling Muslims. I just disagree on that – which is a huge thing!
Shawn commented:
@BS61
I don’t give any credit to 9/11 conspiracy theories, and neither should you.
As far as foreign policy goes, I understand both sides and it’s really one of the most complicated issues facing the nation today. Personally I believe that our foreign entanglements will do more damage to our country than good in the long run. Yes, we have good intentions, but those intentions don’t exactly translate well to everyone in foreign countries, many of whom are trained to hate America based strictly on our occupation of their country. And don’t forget that each life we take has an impact on someone, whether it be the family or friends of the victim. In short, it just perpetuates the violence by fueling terrorists’ hate by giving them the ability to demonize the west.
Also, try to look at it from an economic perspective. Our nation’s deficit is already overboard, and we cant afford to expand the war any further. It will be impossible to make any serious cuts in our budget without analyzing our military expenditures. I do hope you give this comment some thought. I’m not a loon, I’m just worried about our country’s future like most of you are.
Doctor commented:
I’ve been down to the mosque site and there are two gigantic buildings and 3 blocks between the world trade center and where this thing is going in. It’s such a non-issue. All I know is the Rockefeller family is funding the Imam and this is just drummed up fuss to divide our attention from the 13 trillion dollar deficit and growing.
This blog is ridiculous. We are the party of keep the government off our property yet we want government to step in and prevent private citizens to build on their property?
I don’t support a mosque anywhere cause I’m not Muslim but I also don’t equate Islam with terrorism.
Hell the Church of England was the government until King Henry wasn’t afforded a divorce. Christianity and the crusades have just a shady past as representatives of Islam have today. Also as a protestant I would not want anyone from the Catholic denomination to represent my religious views. I’m sure there are denominations of Islam that the terrorists subscribe to that equal the Branch Dividians who shouldn’t reflect views of all Christians.
bertogem commented:
Ron Paul remains a symbol of hope for America to change from its current self-destructive course. I don’t agree with everything he says, but he is an ally to the cause of recapturing the soul of America. Division among opponents of the current regime –think of Farah v. Coulter– can only aide in the self-destruction of our nation. Calling Ron Paul a loon is wrong, plain and simple…
republicanmother commented:
Gotta agree with the Doctors here, been trying to tell everyone that the Rockefellers and the central banksters are behind this whole distraction. Yes, Islam is a conquering cult system, but who do you think is financing them? Think about it people! A lion’s share of radical Islamic funding comes out of Saudi Arabia – but we’ll never, ever so much as talk bad about them officially, much less invade.Why? Cause the banksters already own/control them.
Ron Paul gets more military support than any other US congressman and that tells me all I need to know.
Reaganite Republican commented:
Ron Paul is a dangerous fool, and his movement a grave threat to national security- the sooner it dies, the better. I’d take George W Bush over Ron Paul in a heartbeat~
Linked at Reaganite Republican:
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-go-out-and-vote-for-some-fool-whos.html
TXBitty commented:
He’s a loon on this issue.
The issue is building the mosque at Ground Zero, not wheather someone has a constitutional right to build a mosque. Out of curiosity, how many protests have there been for the 100 mosques already in New York?
It’s a broad spectrum of people, INCLUDING Muslims that don’t want the mosque built at Ground Zero.
“McVeigh was probably a Christian?” Wonder what his thoughts are on Manson.
Catholics didn’t cause 9/11.
As for some of the Ron Paul followers that compare opposition of building the mosque at Ground Zero to the Salem Witch Trials and the McCarthy era, you are out of your mind.
You want to suppress freedom of speech in the name of freedom of religion? Interesting.
mackykam commented:
He obviously despises Jews. Does anyone think the cause may be that he was circumsized as a child, feels short-changed and misses his foreskin?
donh commented:
The Paul Bearers are in damage control ! I want to thank Mark Levin for getting the word out on Ron Paul. This position on the Ground Zero mosque proves everything Mark has said about the man. Clearly Ron’s isolationism is built on a foundation of deeply hidden Mel Gibson style antisemitism. He probably hates the Fed too because the banking system is run by jews. Get the Doctor drunk and you will see.
BS61 commented:
Thanks Shawn – I still care less about people hating us – they have for years, and will even if we stop fighting them. I believe that Islam is a threat to us, however, I do agree that we don’t need the military everywhere they are now, and I do believe other countries should build up their own defenses.
Rhinestone Suderman commented:
Shawn, some of us have read up on Ron Paul, and know his views on things.
That’s precisely the reason we don’t support him!
(Ah, I see the Paulbots are gathering!)
Rhinestone Suderman commented:
Doctor, please name two denominations of Islam that reject Jihad, support the nation of Israel and don’t support instituting Shari’a law in place of “man-made” legal systems.
Rhinestone Suderman commented:
Wanumba, the problem, as I see it, is that there is no organized Republican party—in fact, there is no real conservative movement, anymore.
The fiscal conservatives don’t want the social conservatives around; the former are conservative on financial matters, but don’t really like all that old-fashioned religion, and morality, and stuff—and don’t tell them they can’t import illegals, to work for them! That’s free enterprise!
The Libertarians have never really been conservative (or Republican), though they sometimes get lumped in with them, and have a hard time focusing on real problems, such as open borders, militant Islam, etc.—and their belief that the Free Market can solve all mankind’s problems is naive, at best.
The port-and-Cigars Republicans just want to keep getting re-elected, and get along with their wealthy liberal friends; they have R’s behind their names, but they’re really not much different from the D’s. The last election, they gave us John McCain. ‘Nuff said.
Then you have the loons, like Ron Paul, and Pat Buchanan, whose political philosophies all boil down to, “It’s all the Jews/Neo-cons fault!” There are the Randians, who want the world to be run according to the novels of Ayn Rand, and—once again—wish all those troublesome, “alturistic”, “mystical” social conservatives would just get lost; and—I don’t really see much of anybody else.
There is, sadly, no real Republican/conservative movement.
toughluck commented:
Yeah….hes crazy. The constitution is crazy and looney. Sound money is for the tin foil hat crowd. END THE FED, pshh thats jew hate talk. Finally now the neo-cons and Obama can agree on more war. Yes! More war, more no bid contracts, less liberty!!! I love how safe we are after we passed the patriot act. I cant wait to be stripped search when i get on a plane. Thomas Jefferson would agree we need to have entangling alliances. We need to give up more liberty. Its American!
toughluck commented:
We should not tolerate the muslim faith. No mosques, anywhere!! Matter of fact we need to put them in segregated, designated area, away from all of us. Aha..Then maybe we can put them in a camp..hmmmm this sounds familiar.
TXBitty commented:
toughluck
August 25th, 2010 | 9:15 am | #53
Islam is compatable with the constitution? You may want to ask your man, Ron Paul why he supports shari’a law. Nothing like supporting a government within a government, eh?
Rhinestone Suderman commented:
Actually, toughluck, it sounds like a load of—well. . .
Snarckasm is not going to make anybody suddenly change my mind and support Ron Paul. Yes, yes, we know; he’s wonderful, he’s the messiah, he’s America’s best hope, not to mention the mention the greatest thing since sliced bread; he’ll save us from the neocons, and from those perfidious Juden, too! (Hmmmmm, now this REALLY sounds familiar!)
toughluck commented:
Im not worried one bit, because while everyone was sleeping or obsessing over palins stockings, The good doc was speaking to the youth from campus to campus all over the country. We’re gonna be in charge soon enough and all of your unconstitutional rhetoric will be null and void. So keep parroting the talking points it wont matter in the end.
TXBitty commented:
toughluck
August 25th, 2010 | 9:50 am | #57
Tough talk, from a sheep.
Rhinestone Suderman commented:
“We’re gonna be in charge soon enough!”
Memo to Tough; this is America; you, and these “youths, from campus to campus, all over the country” aren’t the bosses of us. Neither is your Fearless leader, Ron Paul. In fact, that idea is pretty unconstitutional, in itself!
Hmmmmm, a Fearless leader type, with a group of youthful followers planning to take power, and take charge of the rest of us underpeople ! This sounds familiar too!
(Gee, and the Paulbots wonder why don’t like them, and why we don’t support Ron! Not with talk like this we won’t, chummers!)
toughluck commented:
We follow the constitution, the rule of law, not Ron Paul. You see thats what you don’t understand. And never will. You cant destroy an idea whose time has come.
Jerry C commented:
#42 Doctor
“I also don’t equate Islam with terrorism.”
“Christianity and the crusades have just a shady past as representatives of Islam have today.”
You’re either a lying muslim or a dumb dhimmi. Islam=terrorism. If it weren’t for the crusades response to muslim incursions, you’d probably speaking arabic.
Regardless, at the end of the road of islam is one choice: muslim or death. But here’s a verse that comes to mind:
Matthew 10:38-39 (KJV)
38And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
39He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
Brian Frank commented:
Ron Paul would be the best man for the 2012 presidency, everybody else against Obama would be just DESIGNATED LOSERS, like Juan McCain!
Shawn commented:
How do you plan to halt the construction of this mosque? Do you support the government coming in and forcing them off the property?
Granting the government power like that is a slippery slope. Even if it begins as something good, imagine what it could become, especially in the hands of Obama and his cronies.
What if a church or synagogue is springing up in an area largely populated by muslims, and they all start whining about it? The government, with its newfound power, is probably going to be very eager to flex its muscle.
This whole thing is a messy issue, but I don’t want to give the government any chance to grow.
TXBitty commented:
Hey toughluck, is that you on the video cursing out the holocaust survivor? Sounds just like your posts.
toughluck commented:
Calling someone an anti-semite because they want to follow the constitution? That old chestnut has been used ad nauseum. Get some new material. Maybe you should read about individualism vs collectivism and try to stick to the issues. Remember when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Enough said my job here is done. RON PAUL 2012!!!!
Rhinestone Suderman commented:
Shawn, there was a church near Ground Zero; St. Nicholas Orthodox Church. After 9 years, it still hasn’t been rebuilt, and probably never will be. So far, all the government muscle flexing seems to be in favor is Islam.
And, yes, we will go on “whining” about this mosque, and about Imam Rauf’s support of Shari’a law (which certainly is unconstitutional), as well as who is providing the financial backing for it, and greasing the wheels for its rapid approval, etc. This is our right, under Freedom of Speech. They may have the legal right to build it; we have the right to criticize them for it, and protest this exploitation of a site where Americans were killed on 9/11.
Shawn commented:
I don’t care if people voice their opinions, and never said anything against that, I just don’t want the government involved.
Also, how is throwing up a mosque going to put us any closer to Sharia law? The government stepping in and infringing on religion would do more for Sharia than building a mosque.
Let’s say this mosque is built, what’s going to happen next?
ProIndividual commented:
I’ve been reading, and I see alot of so-called conservatives advocating liberal foreign policy (Wilsonian), religious bigotry, and closed border policies. And yet, they remark we, as those on the very far right of libertarianism, are the ones who are liberals, and isolationists. Closed borders, religious intolerance, lack of support for property rights (key to that “magic ” Free Market we seem to cling to, along with our God and guns), lack of support for 1st amendment Rights (especially speech you do not like!), and yet we are liberal isolationists? Really?
Seems to me, we are to the right of you all. And it also seems to me you are the isolationists…unless that means using the military, which makes sense since isolationist nations are often outwardly violent. So give up the comparison of isolationism and liberalism to noninterventionism and libertarianism. We are easily to the right of neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, and social conservatives. For one good reason: we don’t seek to use government when it’s something WE happen to like. We seek to solve problems without government, even when it’s not the easy, fastest, or the most perfect answer. The ethic of respecting Natural Rights, which predate this country (hence why the Rights we have are not granted by government or the Constitution, and hence why government, and no institution for that matter, have Rights; only powers and authorities derived from the “consent” of the governed), are not negotiable to arguments of “the good of the collective” or “safety before liberty”. We know Rights are only of the individual, and any attempt to trample those Rights of all peoples everywhere on Earth (God did grant them, so borders don’t count in Rights, hence “in-alien-able”…see that word “alien”, yep that’s right) is just an attempt to benefit the collective at the sake of the individual. Tyrany.
If your budgets are overblown due to illegal immigration, end the collectivist programs. That’s why they fail, they are reliant on Ponzi like investment in the future. If the movements of Free People somehow overload a budget, your budget is statist, collectivist, and welfare. As Milton Freidman said “you can’t have open borders in a welfare state”. That doesn’t make it okay to trample individual Natural Rights because of irrational nationalism, belief in imaginary lines (that change time to time BTW) that government create out of thin air with no regard to terrain or geography, or xenophobia…or worse. Movement is a Natural Right. It’s that simple, negative Rights are the rights to be left alone…what government may not do to you. Positive Rights (which no self respecting conservative believes in) are to what you are entitled. You are not “picking my pocket, or breaking my leg” (Jefferson) to cross a line and get a job. Their is no entitlement in WORKING. If your welfare, hospitals, or education is overloaded…it’s because it’s COLLECTIVIST. End the program that is leftist by nature, end of problem, Natural Rights respected and upheld. And drugs? You know the drug war is a failure, not to mention not found ANYWHERE in the Constitution. So end it. Quit thinking it’s okay to call yourself conservative and yet use government to parent adults. You’re a tyrant, not a good steward of public decency.
Finally, I’m tired of the fake idea that “neocon”, short for neoconservative, a political philosophy born out of the 1960s shift of liberals out of the Democratic Party into the Republican Party (the middle of the roaders being “neo-conservatives”…new conservatives..get it?) is somehow a racist anti-semetic term. It CAN be code for racist neo-fascists, for Jew, I agree…but those national socialists tend to not enjoy libertarian anti-statist Free Market philosophy. So quit accusing libertarians of it. It’s not logical at all.
To prove this I’ll define libertarian, individualism, conservative, paleoconservative, neoconservative, neoliberal, liberal, classical liberalism, and statism.
Libertarian: is advocacy of individual liberty; libertarians generally share a distinct regard for individual freedom of thought and action, as well as a strong opposition to coercive authority, such as that of the state. (Ron Paul is a decent, not perfect example)
Individualism: is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that stresses “the moral worth of the individual”. Individualists promote the exercise of one’s goals and desires and so independence and self-reliance while opposing most external interference upon one’s own interests, whether by society, family or any other group or institution. (Thomas Jefferson was an individualist…”rugged individualism” is often called America’s unique political philosophy)
Conservativism:is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and opposes rapid change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to “the way things were.” (A good example is Barry Goldwater, now considered libertarian, or even liberal, as he predicted he would be. Barry Goldwater still bears the name “Mr. Conservative” because of his unflinching regard for the Constitution)
Paleoconservatism: is a term for an anti-communist and anti-imperialist political philosophy in the United States stressing tradition, civil society and anti-federalism, along with religious, regional, national and Western identity. (Great examples are “Mr. Republican”, the great Robert Taft, a man we conservatives built a statue to in Washington, and a guy from a long conservative Dynasty from here in Ohio, and Pat Buchanan.)
Neoconservativism: is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using modern American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries. Consequently the term is chiefly applicable to certain Americans and their strong supporters. In economics, unlike paleoconservatives and libertarians, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a welfare state; and, while rhetorically supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes. (Great examples are George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Lyndsay Graham, John McCain, John Boehner, and most of the commentors on this page.) Notice they want to export liberalism, at the point of a gun. Because they were liberals, or would be if not old enough, in the 1960s. Reagan himself was Democrat that switched during this period…to support Barry Goldwater for President, among other reasons. The term neoconservative was used at one time as a criticism against proponents of American modern liberalism who had “moved to the right”. Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist, coined the current sense of the term neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy. According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent neoconservatives were driven by “the notion that liberalism” had failed and “no longer knew what it was talking about.” The term “neoconservative” was the subject of increased media coverage during the presidency of George W. Bush, with particular focus on a perceived neoconservative influence on American foreign policy, as part of the Bush Doctrine. The term neocon is often used as pejorative in this context.
The first major neoconservative to embrace the term, Irving Kristol, was considered a founder of the neoconservative movement. Kristol wrote of his neoconservative views in the 1979 article “Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed ‘Neoconservative.’”His ideas have been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine. Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled “The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan’s Foreign Policy” (because Reagan was known to not want to INVADE the Soviet Union and spark NUCLEAR WAR). Kristol’s son, William Kristol, founded the neoconservative Project for the New American Century.
Nearly every influential neocon was a far lefty at one time, some admittedly were communists in college.The neoconservatives, arising from the anti-Stalinist left of the 1950s, opposed the anti-capitalism of the New Left of the 1960s. They broke from the liberal consensus of the early post-World War II years in foreign policy, and opposed Détente with the Soviet Union in the late 1960s and 1970s.
Michael Lind,
“Neoconservatism… originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry (‘Scoop’) Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves ‘paleoliberals.’ [After the end of the Cold War]… many ‘paleoliberals’ drifted back to the Democratic center… Today’s neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists.”
Think long and hard about a political philsophy that you defend and identify with. You may never have been on the left, but many of the ideas you subscribe to are. Do some reading, I promise you’ll find this true.
Neoliberalism:is a market-driven approach to economic and social policy based on neoclassical theories of economics that maximise the role of the private business sector in determining the political and economic priorities of the state. Essentially capitalist, or mixed economy liberals, who are statists, rather than libertarian or anarchist liberals. (Great example, the Clintons)
Liberalism: is the belief in the importance of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the separation of church and state. (An example of this is Dennis Kucinich, and his pocket Constitution, and provision to the healthcare Obamacare bill that allowed States to opt out…the only Constitutional part of the whole thing BTW)
Classical Liberalism: is a political ideology that developed in the nineteenth century in Western Europe, and the Americas. It was committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets. It drew on the economics of Adam Smith, a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law and utilitarianism, and a belief in progress. Classical liberals established political parties that were called “Liberal”, although in the United States classical liberalism came to dominate both existing major political parties. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the 18th century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy required as a result of the Industrial Revolution and urbanization. Notable individuals who have contributed to classical liberalism include Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. There was a revival of interest in classical liberalism in the twentieth century led by Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and other economists. The phrase classical liberalism is also sometimes used to refer to all forms of liberalism before the twentieth century. And some conservatives and libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government. The fact is, most of our founders were Classical Liberals, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Left and Right Classical Liberals, if you will. Classical Liberalism no longer exists (purely a term for pre-20th century liberal ideology), but if it did, it would look very much like libertariansim and paleoconservatism combined. Neither anarchistic, nor statist, always in favor of the individual, but pragmatic. Most of all never compromising in principal, no matter how abstract. Classical Liberalism ended where conservatism began, chronologically speaking. Many regard classical liberalism as today’s conservatism or the famous line “classical liberals are conservatives”.
Statism:Statism (or etatism) is a term assigned to political movements and trends that are seen as supporting the use of states to achieve goals, both economic and social. Economic statism, for instance, promotes the view that the state has a major and legitimate role in directing the economy, either directly through state-owned enterprises and other types of machinery of government, or indirectly through economic planning. It may refer to the ideology of statism that holds that:
Sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state. The concept of statism, which as seen as synonymous with the concept of nation, and corporatism repudiates individualism and exalts the nation as an organic body headed by the Supreme Leader and nurtured by unity, force, and discipline.
The term statism is sometimes used to refer to state capitalism or highly-regulated market economies with large amounts of government intervention. It is also used to refer to state socialism or co-operative economic systems that use the state, through nationalization, as a means of running industry. Great examples, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Keynes, and any other tyrant or liberal economist you can think of.
I hope this clears up the misunderstandings of definitions in the political philosophical realm. We cannot debate if the titles we use to label ourselves are misunderstood. I may lean libertarian, you may lean neoconservative. But it does no good to call people “Jew-haters” just because they have a good vocabulary in political philosophy. And if you don’t know that neoconservative is a philsophy born of hardcore liberal leftism, then stop calling people “liberals” who outflank you on the “right” everytime. Because we DO know this fact, and realize who is really on the left, you are not fooling us at all. If you hate when the Tea Party is called racist, then consider not calling libertarians racist…because we kinda tend to be the least racist members of Tea Party…BTW.
So in conclusion..neocon is not necessarily a racist term, but should have a negative (liberal statist) connotation nonetheless. It’s deserved.
Put that in your historically leftist pipe, and smoke it
Rhinestone Suderman commented:
Because everybody knows what a communist, leftist website Gateway Pundit is!
/Sarc.—of course.
(What’s going to happen next if the mosque is built, Shawn? I don’t have a crystal ball, but, considering that the Imam behind it wants to bring Shari’a law to the U.S. . . . it’s not gonna be good.)
Shawn commented:
The only way Sharia law can enter the country is if we abandon our constitution. Sadly, we’ve been losing touch with it over the past 100 years.
Shawn commented:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDayBNDAq78&feature=player_embedded
toughluck commented:
Thanks Shawn, couldnt have said it any better. Constitutional Conservatism at its best. Ron Paul 2012!!!
Shawn commented:
I would like to see in detail why you Ron Paul is out of touch. All I’ve read so far are just ad hominem attacks.
Toughluck commented:
These leftist statists should be praising obama here. This blog is a joke no one here is educated on their history or a conservative. A bunch of parroting idiots I say. I haven’t heard legitimate debate yet. Just a bunch of dimwits trying to find the best way to use loon and Jew hater in a sentence… Pathetic.
cp commented:
The Oklahoma bomber never shouted “Jesus is great!” when he carried out the bombing. The terrorists shouted “Alla hu ak bar!” or whatever when they bombed the twin towers. Ron Paul is an grumpy, fear mongering, lying piece of s…!