Glenn Beck debunks the Ron Paul crazy

Posted by The Right Scoop on January 6th, 2012 in Politics | 320 Comments

Ron Paul always asks people “have you ever read the reasons about why they attacked us?” and then proceeds to blame the 9/11 attacks on bombing Iraq for 10 years and other nonsense. Well Beck decided this morning to re-read the words of Osama bin Laden on the air on why he attacked us and it absolutely disproves everything Paul is arguing in this regard. It is exactly what we’ve been saying all along, that it’s about submission of the infidel to Islam.

Go ahead Ron Paul fans, have a listen:

—

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

Anonymous

Paul may be an isolationist, but the Founders weren’t http://bit.ly/tcaRRQ

Ron Paul claim of ‘blowback’ completely debunked: Terrorism and the New American Republic http://www.dojgov.net/Liberty_Watch.htm

Islam’s Uninterrupted History of Forced Conversions http://bit.ly/n6CvPO

Islam, peaceful Islam, is about destruction of all Kafir civilization http://bit.ly/nVoSOo

What Islam Isn’t By Dr. Peter Hammond http://bit.ly/62aHxu

Islam Permits Lying to Deceive Unbelievers and Bring World Domination! by Dr. Don Boys http://bit.ly/KIwW1

To Get Ron Paul’s Insanity, You Have To Understand Libertarianism
“Libertarianism is to authentic conservatism what Barack Obama is to 19th century liberalism” http://bit.ly/vBBvkk

http://twitter.com/Winston80 Winston

Ru Paul is an anti-American crazy moron man.

K-Bob

I wouldn’t say he’s anti-American. Unfortunately he is “post-American” in the same way that Obama is the first post-American President.
http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

And still people will vote for him. Is this a dream?

Anonymous

I don’t agree with Pauls extreme position on libertarianism either. You don’t have to be a racist, statist, or jingoist to be opposed to unbridled, unrestricted do as you please liberty. We have to recognize the basics of our constitution that being Natures Law and Equality with Representative Government, Seperation of Powers and Limited ( not free-for-all) Government.

Anonymous

To Get Ron Paul’s Insanity, You Have To Understand Libertarianism
“Libertarianism is to authentic conservatism what Barack Obama is to 19th century liberalism” http://bit.ly/vBBvkk

Anonymous

Thank-you very much, what a teriffic article.
K-Bob

Paul left the libertarian movement a while ago.

Anonymous

Let’s face it. The American way has always been live and let live. Or, if you F with us, we will kill you all.

Anonymous

Semper Fi!

Anonymous

Darn tootin’, Semper Fi. You probably already know I borrowed that from General (Chaos) Mattis, in his speech to Iraqi Tribal Leaders.

” I come to you with tears in my eyes. I have brought no artillery. We come in peace, but if you F with us, I will kill you all.”

Anonymous

Mike, you are so RIGHT ON!!

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

Ron Paul is an appeasing isolationist. To call him non interventionist is just twisting of the word appeaser. Ron Paul is running pretty much on one issue and playing on one sentiment and that is ending the FED. Other than that one piece of his plan the rest of his domestic plan is pretty weak. Yes I know all you RonPaulBot he wants to cut 1 trillion from the budget and he wants to eliminate 5 departments. But how is he offsetting the impacts of those changes. How is he???? From that point forward his domestic policy becomes vague and weak.

Foreign policy wise Ron Paul is 100% clueless! THe USA has not been bombing Iran for 10 years Mr. Paul how do you claim that hatred?? Radical leaders of Iran want Nuclear weapons….you say let them have it. What do you think they will do with those weapons??? How safe will that make Israel if Iran does get the bomb?

Ron Paul believe that if ”we leave the terrorist alone, they will leave us alone” and he still believes the same thing today. I got news for you Mr. Paul there is no negociation with Radical Islamist…they believe in only one thing…they win and kill the rest of the World or they die.

As to Glenn….Hey Glenn….does that mean your are changing your mind about supporting Ron Paul over Newt?? Care to change your tune about Newt?

There are two Conservatives now in the Race……. Santorum and Newt….the others are RINO Romney (Obama lite) and Nutbag Ron Paul….

The choice is simple…you back the Conservatives and put another person in office that will continue the Reagan Doctrine. Its that simple!

Anonymous

Dr. Thomas Sowell:

Republicans Voter’s Choices http://bit.ly/sYlZLY

The Past And The Present http://bit.ly/u7IUJP

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

With the new National Polls showing Romney 27%, Santorum 24%, Gingrich 18% you could be right. However, I think in the end it will come down to a choice between Santorum and Gingrich.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

That’s a South Carolina poll ^^^^

National GOP Poll: Romney 29%, Santorum 21%, Gingrich 16%

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

I stand corrected. Thanks. I cut and pasted the wrong one.

This is the correct poll figures.
Romney 29%, Santorum 21%, Gingrich 16%

My apologies.

Anonymous

21% plus 16 %… uh… that’d be 37% right…?

Ah… if it only worked that way.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6KRHXVK5ZCSWJ5GJQ5Z6GIJICA Dax

Romney is polling below 30% everywhere while the rest of the anti Romney votes are spread out over 3 or 4 other candidates. Once everyone is out of the race but 2, we will see how popular Romney really is.

Anonymous

Correction– There are two activist government conservatives running: Newt & Santorum, one conservative light aka Romney, one libertarian aka Ron Paul, and one limited government conservative that has served under and maintained said government as an executive… aka Rick Perry.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

New South Carolina poll has Perry at 5%, the only prayer Perry has is if Santorum fails like the others have, so there’s still a chance but wow it ain’t looking good right now http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/south_carolina/election_2012_south_carolina_republican_primary

Anonymous

Since the Santorum vetting has just begun, it’s very possible Santorum takes a fall. Second, Santorum was at 7.7% days before the Iowa win. Thirdly, Santorum received a 25% win by living in Iowa. Does he plan to live in NH or SC or FL too? Fourthly, he did what Perry did not do… protect Iowa’s ethanol subsidies.

Anonymous

also 50% of the voters who voted for Santorum said Abortion was there #1 issue. WAKE UP IOWA Abortion is not the #1 issue in our country right now. ITS THE DEBT! $15 trillion and counting.

K-Bob

I’m not a hard-core pro-lifer, but you must realize that to those who have decided abortion is murder, money is way down the list of importance. So from their point of view, asking them to “wake up” is like telling farmers that they should get up at 7am.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

Humm I thought I heard he was against ethanol subsidies. I don’t think he needs a strong ground game in those states like he did in Iowa, that helped get him the tv exposure that is need, and that’s where Perry is being ignored worse Ron Paul.. There is still some days where Perry could make some noise before January 21st

Anonymous

Sadly, Santorum is for subsidies, tariffs, and progressive corporation taxation. Here’s the voting guide that was passed out in Iowa. http://t.co/oYyAT0vS
Look where Perry sits on all of those charts. No wonder Iowa didn’t like him.

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

No real vetting has been done to Rick Perry either….He killed himself in his first debate with all his gaffes….There was no reason to vet him because of his quick drop in the polls after that….

Anonymous

Perry, not vetted? Is this your first election? The guy has been an open book for 12+ years. The vetting began since he announced. Just look at the press on him in August and September.

If the public can forget Santorum’s whining and petulance in the early debates, there is a good chance the public will forgive Perry’s initial missteps.

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

Nope….the walking gaffe machine took himself out of the running at the first debate. Do one has paid much attention to him since. Look Rick Perry has a huge warchest and make all the nice slick ads and Patriotic commercials he wants to….but he cannot escape his record! He is also polling so low that only snails can look him eye to eye.

I like Rick Perry’s positions on Social issues…no arguement there but I also liked GW Bush’s as well but I would not want him back as President either. However, if I was given a choice today of Rick Perry or Mitt Romney…I would vote Perry in a heartbeat and twice on Sunday. But Perry is no Conservative in the total sense and has alot to answer for that the Democrats will pound him about.

You can’t spin the deficit spending and bloated Texas government during his tenure. Also, calling yourself a deficit hawk while adding almost 2 billion in debt to the Texas debt in 2011 is very hypocritical.

There are better alternatives and those are Santorum and Gingrich and I would choose them over Perry anyday, anytime. Sorry to burst your bubble but I do not want a GW Bush clone that supported Al Gore for President.

http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

Damn, I am glad you are a minority. Many labels fit you, but that is redundant. Have fun voting for Obama, there may be gun play.
http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

Wrong. I am not in the minority. But you PerryBot most definitely are in the minority.

http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

Yeah, 12 years as the head of Texas, is nothing. You know nothing about Texas politics, for sure. Turning over stones, get real. DEMs have been fighting him for 15 years. The media, the liberals hate him, not because of his skills, but because of his beliefs. If you really think the debates were not rigged, you need another 4 more years of Obama. Or, maybe even 40 years, will not make you a decent USA citizen. I know, you regret 1776, now is your chance.

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

PerryBot….I think you have damaged your harddrive because you are talking nonsense. I could care less about Texas Politics because it is pretty much the same across the nation. I am sure you will disagree but the format is the same even though the style maybe different. I think it great liberals hate him…that means he is doing something right. I can assure you that Progressives and Liberals hate Santorum and Gingrich as well but you are so blinded you cannot see that one.

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

Ummm….last time I checked Rick Perry never served in Congress so how can he vote for Federal ethanol subsudies???

My point is that you have no idea what Rick Perry would do in Congress and my guess based on his record in Texas he would have voted for it because he is a GW Bush big government big spending politcian who is strong on being a social conservative.

Anonymous

Please wake up and smell the corn… http://t.co/oYyAT0vS

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

Again, Rick Perry has never served in Congress so your statement (even though you erased it) was false misleading and just plain not true.

http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

Keep up your hopes, like the Perot supporters. Oh well, freedom was just a dream anyway? Right?

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

Rick Perry is no limited government less spending guy! Rick Perry is just another GW Bush big spending big government politician. He may be a social conservative but that is were it ends!

Perry increased the size of the Texas government by 24% during his tenure. He also has never had a balanced budget. In fact, in 2011 he added another 15% to the ourstanding debt of Texas by almost 2 billion dollars. These are facts that you Perry supports are overlooking.

A large part of the economic problems the nation is having are due to the spending policies of the past 40 years and GW Bush was a big contributor.

Why would be want more of the same??? What Rick Perry says and what he has done are 180 degrees from each other. You don’t have to believe me….I base my decisions in FACT just read the OFFICIAL state of Texas Comptrollers 2011 report yourself. That proves it!

http://www.window.state.tx.us/finances/pubs/cashrpt/11/texas_annual_cash_report_2011.pdf

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GFZ4NQSAULWUMOKXDI4Y7YJGZU Eric

Krieger, I wish you would stop it with this one-sided analysis of the TX budget. Do you even live here? I did this analysis for a poster on NationalReview when Perry got into the race in the fall. The bottom-line, show me someone that has reduced the budget while their state has expanded. I compare TX to IN since a lot of people praise Mitch Daniels. The numbers don’t lie….

Texas spending 2000 $49 billion
Texas spending 2010 $90 billion

TX spending in 2000 adjusted to 2010 dollars is $62.3B.
Compared to 2010 spending, it increased 45%.
You might say wow. I might say, ok, but TX population also exploded in that time.

TX population in 2000: 20.8M
TX population in 2010: 25.4M
Hmm, so the population grew by 22% and budget grew by 45%. Ok, now it is starting to make a little more sense.

Why don’t we compare it to another state? How about Indiana? Everyone loves Mitch Daniels and praises for his fiscally conservative nature.
I
N 2000 spending: $20.9B (in 2010 $)
IN 2010 spending: $26.9B
Hmm, a 28.5% increase. Is Mitch Daniels “Big Government” too?

Wait, let’s not forget about people….
IN 2000 population: 6.08M
IN 2010 population: 6.48M
Uh oh… only a 6.6% increase.

But even that doesn’t tell the whole story. Why don’t we look at state expenditures per person?
TX 2000: $2,988 (in 2010 $)
IN 2000: $3,442 (in 2010 $)
TX 2010: $3,564
IN 2010: $4,149

Indiana spend 16% more per person than TX, and IN has nowhere near the illegal population that TX has and those people aren’t even factored into the population #’s.

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

You say; ”Why don’t we compare it to another state?” because another state is not what Rick Perry is running. He is running Texas and running into the poor house. Mitch Daniels?? Last time I checked, Mitch Daniels is not running for President and Rick Perry is running for President.

Mitch Daniels is not being a hypocrite by saying he is a fiscal conservative and Rick Perry is saying that and it is a lie because his record of being a GW Bush clone speaks volumes about the way he would govern the nation.

So, why don’t you quit trying the change the subject and spin it away from the facts that Rick Perry is a big spending big government politician. His record proves it and the FACT don’t lie!

Anonymous

When you don’t play the game with integrity, you do your candidate a disservice.

Perry has had several surpluses. http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Images/items/TexasFinance_money.png
BTW, how do you excuse Santorum being a part of all those federal deficits while senator? Was he running the country into the ground?

The rain day fund balance has gone up and up. http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Images/items/TexasFinance_Rainy.png

Texas government per capita has shrunk under Perry. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/capita-govt-workers-declined-perrys-texas-created-1m-new-jobs-says-bls-data

And while Texas did accept some stimulus money, it did reject other money. In all cases, Texas is still a outflow state, i.e. $$$ to fed exceeds monies received.

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

Your push of distortions of facts do greater disservice than my simple pointing out the huge glaring hypocracy of your candidate. I am not doing anything less that alittle research and if he were clean then I would be supporting Rick Perry.

But the facts say different and since you want to be blind….let me help you see alittle light about your Rick Perry. Trust me, if I can find all this out with a simple fact checking don’t you think the mean ol democRATs will find it out and more???

It is simple to call Rick Perry dishonest and a hypocrite about his claims of being a budget hawk and fiscally sound….because it isn’t true.

All the State Controllers figures during his time in office never said there was more coming in than going out. I think that is called deficit spending the last time I checked.

As to your saying ”Perry has had several surpluses.”

Easy…its called creative accounting….2+2 does not equal 3 it equals 4!

For example;

The Texas ”Balanced Budget” Amendment/Law/Act is a big huge Political cover-up because the only way to get it through the legislature was to rig the accounting practices changing the way the State Budget is accounted.
It does NOT include special projects, a large portion of school funding (i.e. it is magically removed from State budget), it ignores a growing population and delays payments on bills (accruing more interest) coming due via a rollover accounting process perpetually deferring actual impact until the next legislative session and the next defers to the next and the next (another accounting trick that just kicks the can down the road while the debt is not paid and more interest accrues). It also contains provision that sweeps pet projects into an unfunded liabilities fund that also magically will fall outside of the State Budget (i.e. a huge black hole) and not be accounted for in that years budget. The balanced budget amendment also does not contain any provisions for the 31 billion in State Debt already incurred and this debt is also magically transported into a general unfunded liability fund where interest accrued does not fall under the State Budget. Lastly, Texas under Rick Perry took 6 billion in Federal Stimulus money in 2011 that also accrues interest and must be paid back. (its also an accounting trick that is not included in the 31 billion outstanding debt….therefore actual true Texas state debt is 37 billion)

As Governor Rick Perry approves the budget and is the head of the State that makes him the one responsible.

You then state ”
The rain day fund balance has gone up and up.” and ”Texas government per capita has shrunk under Perry.

I suggest you look at how Rick Perry is running the State of Texas and I think you will be shocked. But if you are still having problems finding the information….I will be glad to email them to you because I am unable to post them on The Right Scoop for some reason but, they are alot more all over the Internet….use Google Search and easy to find.

Lastly, you said ”And while Texas did accept some stimulus money, it did reject other money. In all cases, Texas is still a outflow state, i.e. $$$ to fed exceeds monies received.”

SOME MONEY????? I call 6 billion in Federal stimulus in one year (2011) alittle more than some money. I call it being on the government ”tit” (pardon the language) while running the Texas debt up higher and higher every year.

Face it….Rick Perry is a big government big spender with strong socially conservative positions just like GW Bush.

Anonymous

You don’t live in Texas. Do you? Of course not. You think the balanced budget requirement enshrined in Texas’ constitution in 1876 was passed in July 2011. Glad to see you took that out of the your copy/paste hatchet job.

You do not understand budgeting or Texas.
http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

kamiller42,

Let see….definition of balanced budget – A budget for which expenditures are equal to income. That is the definition from investopedia which matches internet dictionary, businessdictionary, and my accounting textbook from college.

So, if you have annual income received equaling annual expenditures that is a balanced budget. Also, if there is a true balanced budget from 1876 as you so proudly state then there should be no 31 billion in state debt because with every year being a balanced budget there is no debt to carry over.

The only hacket job is the crap you are trying to push! This is gimmick accounting that in the real world people would go to jail, the IRS would shut them down and freeze bank accounts because of investor fraud.

As you say, ”don’t play the game with integrity, you do your candidate a disservice” look who is talking and what you just said. Did you really mean what you just said? If this is the way you think is right then, your the one with no integrity and neither does your candidate!

Why don’t you ask yourself where did the 6 billion in 2011 stimulus money go and why does Texas still have an almost 2 billion dollar deficit on top of the stimulus money??

I work in the financial markets for a living professionally I know accounting and finance but you obviously do not.
Anonymous

“Also, if there is a true balanced budget from 1876 as you so proudly state then there should be NO 31 billion in state debt because with every year being a balanced budget there is no debt to carry over. ”

Yup. You’re not familiar with Texas government and budgeting.

When Texas has a budget shortfall, it MUST find a way to fill it. Its Constitution requires it. The shortfall can come from unexpected new revenues, budget cuts, or sometime federal funds, which for Texas isn’t bad because it’s constantly an outflow (to fed funds exceed fed funds received) state. In the end, the budget is balanced.

So where does the debt come from?

“Although the state of Texas requires a balanced budget, this does not include debt relating to bonds for highway construction, water utilities and other items. Some of this debt is owed directly by the state, but most of it is owed by local municipalities.”

As I stated in the other thread, debt is incurred when a “loan” via a bond is taken to build infrastructure. Texas had tremendous growth and it has required spending some money to accommodate all of these new residents. It’s good debt which will start paying off when the new residents engage in economic activity.
http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

That my friend is called lying….you say just because the Constitution requires the State to have a balanced budget means it can just write away the debt and sweep it under the rug so the Politicians can claim they balanced the budget. You also say ”sometimes Federal funds” well that money must be reflected in the annual reports and does impact the States Balance sheet but according to you it Magically dissapears. That is called fraud.

I understand budgeting and deferred bonds. Bond and Special projects with cost and bond retirement schemes that extends past current fiscal planning are made as line items that show a projection of completion wiht cost and interest being applied to those fiscal years. So, yes I understand the budget process. You obviously have not read anything I have posted because if you did you would be raising holy crap with Rick Perry. The process Rick Perry now has in Texas is now one where every future elected body will just deferr to the next and so on and so on and so on….That is called KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD!!!

Through the Rick Perry school of magical accounting those very line items were magically taken out and accrued interest on State Debt (as well as the actual debt owed) it is just erased from the State Budget along with annual School funding budget and anything else the politicians felt like so Rick Perry can say they have balanced the budget.

Also, how do you explain the 6 billion in 2011 Federal Stimulus money that Rick Perry asked for and accepted from the Federal Government??? Where did it go? Why is it not reflected in the State Budget?? What interest rate is the State paying, how much is it paying. Under what conditions does the State repay the loan?? You don’t know the answers to these because it magically dissapeared and is not reflected in the State Budget for 2011. That is dishonest!

This is the exact reason the USA is in the situation it is in now. Because we have politicians like Rick Perry that pull this kind of crap causing a national 15 trillion dollar national debt. I got news for you…at some point people stop buying state bonds and the state bond rating drops and then your state becomes insolvent….

One day real some Texas will have to pay the Devil and your fake ”Balanced Budget” won’t help. Texans will find themselve saddles with huge state income taxes (I know you have no State income tax but you will) and your property taxes will skyrocket in order to pay for all this hidden deficit spending and interest that is magically invisible now.

That is how Rick Perry governs Texas and that is not what the nation needs nor can it afford. Big government, big spending politicians that act very patriotic and are really socially conservative while spending the nation in to a huge depression followed by hyperinflations the likes have not been seen since the 1930s is NOT THE WAY.
http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

You can fool some of the people all the time. I think that raps you up. I think you live in south Dallas. I think you hate the USA. Well, good luck. If Perry wins, your rent will go up, and you will actually have to work.
http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

Poor PerryBot has lost his way….too bad the truth is making you afraid.
http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

Biggest lie I have seen, since Gobbles said, Nazis are the purest, greatist people in the world. Face it, every lie disproved. If Perry become POTUS, all your dreams of becoming the next NBC headliner, are gone.
http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

I got news for you PerryBot your Saul Alinsky smear tactics won’t work. All your smearing does is actually show people how bad ”some” people in Texas really are. If you really are from Texas then you are doing your state a true disservice. I really pity you.

http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

truth hurts don’t it?

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

Yes it does…the truth that Perry is a hypocrite and spending the State of Texas into the bankruptcy is really sad.

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

You say; ”Why don’t we compare it to another state?” because another state is not what Rick Perry is running. He is running Texas and running into the poor house. Mitch Daniels?? Last time I checked, Mitch Daniels is not running for President and Rick Perry is running for President.

Mitch Daniels is not being a hypocrite by saying he is a fiscal conservative and Rick Perry is saying that and it is a lie because his record of being a GW Bush clone speaks volumes about the way he would govern the nation.

So, why don’t you quit trying the change the subject and spin it away from the facts that Rick Perry is a big spending big government politician. His record proves it and the FACT don’t lie!

Anonymous

Perry is a tax raising RINO.

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

Fiscally….yes. Socially….no. Pro Defense….no he is more a hawk than dove.

Immigration….yes he is a dove.
Anonymous

Overall, business taxes went down. Rick Perry has made plenty of tax cuts.
http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/09/Tax-Cuts.pdf
http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

CPAguy is a liar and a thief.

Anonymous

I’m having a hard time with the concept of Santorum and Newt being conservative. Unless of course you consider someone like George W. Bush to be conservative. Then it would make sense.

Anonymous

One question then… Who is your ideal conservative in this race? If you have one I’d like to know who it is. If you don’t then I would suggest we stop trashing two MOST conservative candidates (while not perfect) we have unless you want Mittens the liberal Republican to go ahead and get the nomination. We have to get the most articulate conservative with some balls who can take on Obama front and center! Nit picking, looking for this “perfect conservative”, only plays into the establishments hands, and gets us people like Dole, McCain and yes Bush! Mitt ain’t it, Huntsman ain’t it, and RP sure as hell ain’t a conservative. So you’re left with Santorum, Newt, and Perry. So you’re gonna have to pick someone from there.

Anonymous

How do you feel Santorum, Newt, and Perry are different from people like Dole, McCain, and Bush?
http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

Come on, he picks Obama.

Syn Holliday

China is being isolationist for not having military bases and troops here, but perhaps one day they will come to their senses.

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

Exactly how long has China been on the world stage as a ”power”??? How big his their navy?? Last time is checked it was this year (about 2 months ago) they got their first carrier and the rest of their navy is just Coast Guard. Also, how many oversees Chinese manurfacturing or Financial Companies are there? Last time I checked….NONE!

As to being Isolationist….ask the Tibet or the Daliama if China is isolationist. How about the South Koreans.

http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

Sslowly I will break it to you. Hong Kong is now Chinese. The USA owes China 1 trillion dollars. Tibet is now Chinese, as most of Asia. Like N Korea, just becasue the name is not China, does not mean it is not China. China now scares Russia. China is the #2 economy in the world. Wake up and smell the roses, before they too are Chinese. Also, China and Iran are pals.

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

I got news for you….Hong Kong has always been Chinese or maybe you don’t read history and know that Hong Kong was under a long term British treaty/lease to remain under British rule until 1997 when the lease ran out and the British handed it back to China per treaty. Oh, I forgot you are too busy reading your ”Rules for Radicals” book on how to be a jerk and mist history class that day.

As to China and Russia…China has always scared Russia even from Tzar times before Red China and Mao. Yes, you are correct that China is the second largest economy in the World and bets are they will be #1 in less than 10 years and the US dollar will become like the Rubble based on the current direction of the FED and the US Government on Spending.

Now as to you point. It escapes me. But since you are using Saul Alinsky tactics you probably don’t have one. No Surprise.

But it was a good mental exercise for me to remember history anyway.
Syn Holliday

Heheheh, we borrow from China to pay for troops in Australia to protect ourselves from China.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1480582681 Bill Cismar

China has indeed been isolationist for decades. All the better to oppress their population. Plus the fact that they couldn’t afford to project their interests globally. And that has indeed changed. They now have an Aircraft Carrier and are building stratigic airforce capabilities to go along with their already expanded internet and space efforts.

The world has always had a global power. When it wasn’t the US it has led to conquests and domination and the rise of Empires and oppression, as well as world wars. When the US is no longer the Global power in the position of leadership, someone else will be, and we’ll be forced into either another global conflict or submision.

That is reality. That is life. Deal with it.

Hiding under the bed with the curtains drawn and the lights out wont change that.

Syn Holliday

But when you’re broke and you get to the point where you have to borrow from the country you’re trying to protect yourself against, I think things have gone too far.

If every super power country opened the curtains and turned on the lights as the U.S. has, there definitely would be change.

Anonymous

What are your thoughts about Perry hanging in there?

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

No real decision has been made in the Perry camp only the one comment about coming to South Carolina and that was done by a Perry Staffer through his offical twitter account.

Rumor has it he will come to SC but it will be to endorse someone and campaign for them not to continue to run. Atleast that is what FOX News is reporting.

Anonymous

Perry and the campaign have already committed to SC. There is even a Facebook page setup just for the campaign in SC with pictures of the campaign signs they are handing out over there.

Perry is going to SC to endorse someone… Rick Perry!

Anonymous

He isn’t my top choice, but could be. I am just glad to hear that he is sticking it out. The only downside is that it can dilute the conservative vote. Right now, I just want conservatives to stay and idiots like Huntsman to leave.

http://twitter.com/dicentra63 Dicentra spectabilis

As to Glenn….Hey Glenn….does that mean your are changing your mind about supporting Ron Paul over Newt??

When he said he’d vote for Ron Paul over Gingrich, he was engaging in hyperbole to emphasize how bad he thinks Newt would be as POTUS. He has also been pretty clear that he believes Ron Paul would do well in the financial arena, but that he’s a total nutter about foreign policy.

Care to apologize to Newt and the TEA Party for your comment on being a racist insult???

That comment was sarcasm and hyperbole. You heard him talk to Napolitano on a Friday (when he was exhausted and his delivery was flat), yet he’d already said something similar on his radio show earlier in the week. That time, he loaded up the “race card” with caveats and explanations that OF COURSE the Tea Party isn’t racist, it’s just that Newt is such a big-gubmint “conservative,” the only real difference between Newt and Obama must be race, right?

He wasn’t insulting Tea Partiers for being racists: he was insulting them for not recognizing an obvious Republican Progressive.

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

No he wasn’t. He was dead serious when he said it. So much so he said it 3 times on the air. As to Ron Paul the only thing I have heard Glenn Beck say is about Paul’s thoughts on the FED. I have heard him say nothing more about any other domestic positions on Ron Paul. All though I must admit I no longer listen to him like I used to after he made his insults to Newt, Conservatives, and the TEA Party.

Glenn was and still is dead wrong about Newt Gingrich. Newt is a Conservative….You don’t have to believe me…just listen to Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Hermann Cain say Newt is Conservative and the FACTS bear it out clearly.

Again Beck needs to apologize to Newt Gingrich for the lies and distortions he has been pushing because they are just not true, period!

http://twitter.com/dicentra63 Dicentra spectabilis

No he wasn’t. He was dead serious when he said it. So much so he said it 3 times on the air.

He thrice said that he thinks Tea Partiers are racist if they prefer Newt?

There’s a difference between “dead serious” and “flat delivery”; the Napolitano interview came on a Friday at the end of 25 hours of live programming and all the stuff that goes with it.

He’s explained ten thousand times that he was expressing incredulity over conservative enthusiasm for Newt, and then explained IN EXCRUCIATING DETAIL, ON A BLACKBOARD, why he thinks that Newt is a Progressive with an R after his name.

From The Blaze:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/beck-explains-his-criticism-of-progressive-gingrich-plus-the-truth-about-his-views-on-the-tea-party/

From The Stu Blog:

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/blog/stu/does-glenn-beck-really-think-that-tea-party-members-are-racists/

You are of course free to disagree with Glenn’s conclusions, but to insist that Glenn is flat-out lying about Newt is inaccurate.

You don’t have to believe me…just listen to Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Hermann Cain say Newt is Conservative and the FACTS bear it out clearly.

I am perfectly capable of evaluating Newt’s record for myself: please don’t drag out argumentum ad populum as evidence. The FACTS tell me (and Glenn) a different story than they do you, and that’s inevitable given that we’re not a hive mind.

Support Newt if you like; I don’t care. But don’t distort Glenn’s meaning or intent because you’re mad at what he says about your candidate.

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

I don’t have to distort….Glenn Beck does a fine job of doing his own distorting….

http://www.facebook.com/people/Ricardo-Galvan/100001729378103 Ricardo Galvan

So not only are you an anti-Perry propagandist, you distort Glenn Beck also? It seems you dislike anti-progressive conservatives with small government convictions.

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

I guess you don’t watch video…there is Glenn Beck in his own words saying he is a Libertarian not a Conservative or a Republican. His words not mine.

Libertarians are not Conservatives because Libertarians believe in no government and are as close to anarchy as they come. I do believe in regulation of drugs, strong military, less intrusive but efficient government, Separation of Powers for the three branches of Government, States Rights, and freedoms guaranteed by the Consitution.

I do not believe in no laws, no regulation, no structure, small to no government, a small regulated militia for military and defense.

I think you better do some self evaluation of where you sit on the specrum because if you are that far to the right you are getting close to an anarchist and nowhere near being a Conservative that want to preserve Traditional Society.

But I forget you are a PerryBot so it is hard for you to see anything objective.

Anonymous

Glenn isn’t the enemy. He has a microphone and he thinks Gingrich is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I don’t agree, but I agree a lot with Beck. I’ll continue to listen to him. He is a great moral voice in an increasingly immoral world.

I think Gingrich and Santorum suffer from actually spending time in Congress. These folks take numerous votes on numerous things for numerous reasons. On its face, some of the votes or actions don’t make sense. However, it is easy to take it out of context.

The truth is that both of these men are patriots. Both of these men seriously want to help this country, and they should be respected for that. That’s just my opinion. I’m sure plenty will disagree. As for now, I’m backing Rick Santorum. I think he is a strong voice for families, he is knowledgable and tough on foreign policy, he is consistently conservative, and (equally important) I know he will seek advice on his knees.–That is also what makes me happy about Rick Perry.

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

I don’t have to distort….Glenn Beck does a fine job of doing his own distorting….

http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

Are you posting from a mental hospital?

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

no. but I bet you are.

Anonymous

Welcome back, Dicentra. Haven’t heard from you here since you last ran damage control for Glenn. Good to see you’re still around and still have the same talking points.

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

lol…..yeah they are pretty lame.

Anonymous

Yep, she used every excuse (reason) in the book except the one he should have used (‘Oops, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean what you people heard.’). It’s okay,

I’m of the belief that she is on the Beck staff and is responsible for dampening the outrage that happened then. That’s fine. Doesn’t change anything at all.

Las1 said it all and no more needs to be addressed to her. Kudos, Las1. (scroll down to see his responses).

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

lol…. You mean a hack for Glenn Beck how nice.

http://twitter.com/dicentra63 Dicentra spectabilis

Pretty awful for me to be intellectually consistent, isn’t it?

http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

no one respects you, except you. Really sad.

Anonymous

Criticism of Ron Paul is correct, however, calling Romney a RINO while Newt, who openly has over 20 years of FDR worship, completely supports GSE’s like Fanny and Freddie, thinks it is fine for government to ‘lead the way’ with regulations to ‘shape’ social policy, and has stated that he is “a Wilsonian politic”, doesn’t really fit the bill as a ‘conservative’ to me.

So I have to ask, what is a ‘conservative’ to you?
http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

Trouble trouble, boil and bubble. Twist away, as each of your heros bite the dust, you cling to the belief, one evil is preferable to another. Just vote the records, not the promises.

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

Hello PerryBot….care to explain?

BS61

Yes! I have not listened to GB since that awful day!
Anonymous

just curious. Do you know the difference between “you’re”(you are) and “your”.
I guess not dummy.
Anonymous

Just curious. Do you understand that there is a difference between “your” and “you’re”? Apparently not. How about left and right or up and down?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Jim-Barrus/100001263336300 Jim Barrus

I have been saying Paul is an isolationist since I heard his comment about not worrying (my word) about other counties making the bomb. I am glad to see others feel the same way. we were in isolation mode before Pearl Harbor. Since 9/11 how can we be go into isolation mode?

Anonymous

Glen Beck, So according to you. We should attack all Islams? Since Islam is against everyone that doesn’t “believe”.

Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Sudan, Algeria, Morocco, Iraq, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Uzebekistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Kazakhstan, Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, Senegal, Tunisia, Guinea, Somalia, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Sierra Leono, Liibya, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Chad, Lebanon, Palestine, Kuwait, Albania, Mauritania, Oman, Kosovo, The Gambia, Behrain, Comoros, Qatar, Western Sahara, Djibouti, Brunei, Maldives, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus & Mayotte:

Are all Islamic Countries. SHOULD WE BOMB THEM ALL??? HOW THE HELL WILL WE PAY FOR THAT?

Anonymous

No, that’s not what he said, moron. Listen again if you can wrap your microscopic mind around it.

Anonymous

I did Let me retype it for you.
“There are only 3 Choices in Islam in dealing with “non-believers”, 1. Willing Submission (conversion) 2. Payment of the Jizya (like a tax) or 3. The Sword for it is not right to let an infidel live.”
So should we start attacking all Islamic Countries?

Amy

So you went from ‘Glenn Beck says we should attack all Islamic countries!’ to stating the Islamic reasons for killing infidels and and construing it to mean ‘Glenn Beck says we should attack all Islamic countries!’ Interesting tactic…

I believe I heard him say distinctly that if we are attacked we should attack. That those who are Islamic radicals are not going to sit down and talk – and be rational.

Anonymous

Here’s the Logic:
Glen Beck said all Muslims believe in the 3 things when it comes to infidels (anyone who doesn’t believe Islam). Infidels must Submit to Islam, Pay to be a non Believer or DIE. Therefore if we don’t want to become Muslims or Pay them off we Must kill them all before they kill us.

Anonymous

I’m still waiting for the logic that you impute to Beck, that because of these three conditions from the Koran 9:29 btw, somehow Beck’s saying attack them all. You’ve failed to convince me the first time and this time also. I’m unsure you can pull it out of your hat another time as well. But I’m hopeful.
Amy

You are quoting GB stating what Muslims believe but that still doesn’t equal ‘Glenn Beck says we should attack all Islam Countries!!’ NO WHERE in his dialogue did he say we should attack a country for being Islamic. He was debunking Ron Paul’s theory that we can rationalize with radical Islamic countries because they hold to the belief that we as infidels must either become Islamic, pay them money or die.

But alas, I think that this logic might be lost on you ~
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QQO7GTBNY5LU7OGGN3NH5LMOAY TimA

Stop beating the dead horse, man. Your point is moot, and you are putting words in the man’s mouth. He distinctly said ‘attack if we are attacked.’ If you are american, you should know by now that we are pinch-hitters. We are NOT imperialistic, and we do not attack anyone WITHOUT DIRECT CAUSE.

Anonymous

I’m 100% in favor of going to war then there is a clear reason for going to war and when the war has been declared by our congress. Then we should take the enemy out ASAP and come home, let them rebuild their own nation.

http://www.facebook.com/david.masiwchuk David Scott Masiwchuk

How good did that work with Germany in WWI?
http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

Seems the looting of post WW1 Germany by France has escaped your attention. They removed even factories. We rebuilt Geramny after WW2. That was pretty good for 50 years. We never seem to win the peace. Why can’t we just beat them, and protect them from looters?

http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

Nope, strike one. Koran states that and has for 2000 years. Funny, no one but you has come up with that. Is that nazi reasoning?

http://twitter.com/dicentra63 Dicentra spectabilis

Look.

The topic of this clip is why Ron Paul is wrong about the jihadi’s motivations. Beck held up Ron Paul’s explanation and then explains why Paul’s answer to that question is totally wrong.

By citing the Three Choices In Islam, Glenn is saying that the jihadis are motivated by reasons internal to their cultures and their religion and their history, not by the minor provocations that the jihadis cite for Western consumption (and which Ron Paul and the Left uncritically buy).

Everyone knows that most Muslim people and majority-Muslim countries don’t give a rip about presenting The Three Choices to non-believers. But those who do, and who are in power (such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Ahmadinejad and the Taliban) are a danger to us and must be dealt with directly, not appeased or pacified, because they’re not interested in living alongside us in peace.

Anonymous

The point has to be made that the “Islamic Extremists” – not a country btw – are able to recruit a lot easier because we are on their land, killing their citizens.

http://twitter.com/dicentra63 Dicentra spectabilis

How did we get on their holy land, i.e., Saudi Arabia?

Answer: The Saudis invited us to build our bases there when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1991. Osama bin Laden, fresh off his defeat of the Soviets in the late 1980s, offered the services of his Mujahedin to the Saudis but he was rebuffed, and that really torqued him off. That’s why he went back to Afghanistan, fell in with the Taliban, and declared war against the U.S.

because we are on their land, killing their citizens

That’s jihadi propaganda, aimed at gullible Westerners and other useful idiots.
OBL is more incensed about our bases in SA than anyone, and furthermore, the jihadis don’t give a rip about dead civilians; they’re pretty blithe about killing indiscriminately themselves.

Besides, we’re not in SA anymore, so why even bring it up?
http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

When did NYC become Iraq? Rationalize all you want, Bush did the right thing. no more 9/11′s. Same ole, hit us, we hit back, hard. Wanted to add, most Iraq towns are manless. Something must have scared them off.

K-Bob

These debates are rancorous enough without making it personal. Dial it back, please.

http://black-avenger-1.livejournal.com/profile VirusX

What are “islams”?

Furthermore, you’re a liar. He never said we should go out and attack islam, though islam has waged war against us, for centuries. Ask any Marine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

Paulnut.

Anonymous

He said there are 3 choices for the Infidels (US) under Islam.
Submit, Tax, or Death.

KenInMontana

Under Sharia, yes, those are the options.

http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Trioli. How old is that song, isn’t Tripoli in Muslimville? Semper Fi!

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

The problem is Islamic Radicals are in positions of power and indocritnate at such an early age. Name me one Christain nation that teaches their children math by using word problems like this…..”If there are 12 Jews on a bus and you plant a bomb that kills 9 of them how many are left?” That is an actual word problem from a Jordanian and Paletinian elementry school math book.

How do you negociate with a country that teaches its children to kill the infidel at any cost? You can’t! I am not saying kill them all or bomb them but you will have to use the only negociation tool that you have with people like this and that is to negociate from a position of strength. That is done by keeping your forces always in a position where they can apply pressure over there and not retreat and fight only a defensive war. You cannot win a war when you are just playing defense. Vietnam proved that one. You have to be willing and more importantly making sure your emeny know you have the power to destroy them at will. Not that you will do it but show you can if provoked.

That is called proactive….not reactive…following Neville Chamberlands playbook is the foundation of the Ron Paul school of foreign policy. That will NOT work!

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

Here is another one about indoctrination:

Fox News reported.

The news network, which was able to obtain translated copies of the recently-printed books from the Institute for Gulf Affairs in Washington, DC, said that the books teaches ninth graders that the annihilation of Jews is imperative.

“The hour (of judgment) will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them,” one part reads. “There is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”

The reviewed editions were printed for the 2010-2011 academic year. Another book teaches 10th graders how to cut off the hands and feet of a thief.

“This is where terrorism starts, in the education system.” Ali Al-Ahmed, director of the Institute for Gulf Affairs, said, noting that the books were financed by the Saudi government.

In addition to coaching kids to kill Jews and amputate body parts, the text books depict women as weak and irresponsible. Moreover, al-Ahmed said the textbooks call for homosexuals to be put to death “because they pose a danger at society, as the Saudi school books teach.”

This goes really deep and will take a long time to resolve….Again to retreat will be viewed as weakness and further embolden the terrorists.

Anonymous

So lets start attacking ALL the Islamic Countries of the World that hate Jews and Christianity. But then does that make us any better then Islamic Extremists?

Anonymous

I throw a BS flag on you. That was a pinhead statement. What we should do is outlaw islam entirely in the USA and outlaw mosques until Saudi Arabia allows Christian churches and Synogogues.

I fear I’m wasting my breath on you. You won’t get it till it’s YOUR plane crashing to earth in a field.

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

I 100% agree with you….GREAT POINT! If Christian nations cannot have a Church in an Islamic nation then Muslims cannot have a Mosque in a Christian nations.

I know it won’t work because the ACLU and all the Liberals will pitch fits but it’s a great idea!

Anonymous

Sorry to tell you, but Freedom of Religion is how America got started. To say that we should out law any religion is anti-American. We cannot expect all countries to have the same laws as us. This is what makes America great, our FREEDOM.

Anonymous

The new conservatism doesn’t mind taking rights from people. Neither do the liberals. On liberty, there is only one party.
K-Bob

The only “new” conservatives I’ve seen in many years are the anarcho-libertarians who keep claiming they are actually conservatives, and all the conservatives are neocons.

No one is buying it but the leftists.
Anonymous

It is interesting that you would use the term “anarcho-libertarians”. This conveniently implies that libertarianism is directly correlated somehow with anarchy. I think that it is safe to say that most people view anarchy as synonymous with “chaos”. This is also a convenient assumption. Anarchy worked for the American Indians for a long time. It is the modern day industrial society that makes this impractical. Libertarianism is most closely related to what the founders believed in. “Liberty and justice for all” with a truly limited government with very specific enumerated power. This was their preference to anarchy. A necessary evil.

Today’s conservatives do not have this view of government. They support a powerful federal government that can rule your liberties to be old fashioned, outdated, and alienable. Though the constitution was designed to be amended, I do not believe that it was intended that it would be amended to be contradicted. Nor redefined to allow government to infringe on our rights and promote a steady growth in the use of force to legislate away personal choice.

Therefor libertarians will naturally have a founder’s view of conservatism. One that is closely related to protectionism, without reverting back into anarchy.

I don’t have a problem with someone saying that they support big government. Then again “big” is a subjective term. One person may see $1T in debt spending as big, and another, as small. One person will see overall taxation at 45% as big, and another, as small.

What bothers me is the contradiction between political rhetoric, and their actual behavior. When conservative rhetoric is discredited by their own behavior, it tends to diminish the label “conservative”. So then, a libertarian being the most conservative right down to the point of just avoiding anarchy, has a hard time accepting the term conservative being applied to policies that clearly favor debt spending, corruption, unequal justice, and the like.

I suppose that it should be no surprise that libertarian principles will be viewed as extreme by those who believe in government intervention in the personal lives of citizens, and overseas. Free market capitalism is no longer in play, therefor someone who supports the system that we have, will also view libertarian economic policy as extreme. This is mostly due to the fact that federal government regulation is also considered to be only necessary in extreme cases by the libertarian. Such as environmental hazards.

To each his own. We will get what the country keeps voting for. Those who are happy with it should enjoy it while they can. As for me, I will keep advocating for the reduction of the federal government back to the point of only having the power to arbitrate between two entities or states, and protecting our borders. Not that i have any grand illusions of success, but it is the only way that I can participate.
K-Bob

Libertarianism itself is not connected with anarchy. but many misguided anarchists have adopted libertarianism as an excuse for it. This is what an anarcho-libertarian is, and is why Ron Paul is not a Libertarian, any more than Obama is a libertarian.

So the rest of your comment is based on a misconception of how Conservatives view libertarians. Doctrinaire Libertarians get along with well with doctrinaire Conservatives, as long as abortion is left out of the argument. Only the anarchist and libertine blends of libertarian thinking cause problems. And they cause problems for Libertarians and Conservatives alike.
http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

Seig heil!
K-Bob

No more Godwin rule stuff.
http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

How many colonists beheaded people? How many colonists believed that women should be equated to cattle? How many colonists believed that any religion that was not theirs those people should die? How many colonists went to England and blew up buildings killing 3000 people?

I bet you the answer is none.

How many colonists believed in the rights of man, freedom of expression, religion, and that all men were created equal by God?

I bet the answer is all!
http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

And. 13, you would be dead wrong. Before 1776, the British imported 165,000 African slaves to America. In as late as 1840, Americans were being killed, by Americans, only because of their religion. These same colonist were drowning suspected witches. Why don’t you stick to the good stuff they did, and get away from your dreams. A free country of men, was born, free from tryanny of most countries. Free press, until about 1960. Free to move, until about 1865, taxes. The lesson is clear, either fight for your freedoms or lose them. This media is not free. It is now ‘edited’, and ‘monitored’. Still, we have it until we elect a men who will stop even that. If you allow a weak Paul, you may not even be able to tell your grandkids what freedom was. Time to think of your kids, and not your idealic world. Stick to records, and not ‘interpretations’. Black is black, and, your dreams nor your wisdom, can change nary a word or letter.
http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

Nope! As you said….”the British” and I don’t recall ever reading where the American colonist beheaded any British Captures Civilians or Soldiers. (exception was maybe on the battlefield during battle) and it was most definitely NOT mainstream as an accepted practice.

As to witches are you saying witchcraft it a religion? Please tell me how many Muslim did the Colonist kill in the 1700s , or Catholics, or Lutherans, or Buddists because of their religion? Answer: None as a Nationally accepted practice.

Was their slavery…yes. Was is a point of extreme contintion among the Colonist…ABSOLUTELY!
http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

Obviously you know neither history nor the bible. British swords were used for beheading. Witchcraft is worship of the devil. Literally all non christians were killed, in 1776, if you tried to open a church. I am gald you caught my post. Did they keep records, you bet your bippy. Check Catholic Colony repressions.
http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

I agree!! Freedom of religion was one of the main reasons for the USA. So how can it be so hard to understand why we should beware the Islamic nations that force a State Religion and kill anyone that does not convert to their religion??
http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

Ju need to read a bit more. 13 Christian religions started this country. they said no government religion. Many religions have been outlawed, even murdered off. Even Jews were refused admittance in WW2. You do not have the freedom to destroy this nation, or even plot to. Sorry to burst your ballon.

Anonymous

Would you kick Muhammad Ali out of the country? What about Kareem Abdul-Jabbar? Just curious.

http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

It ain’t gonna go away. No consessions, no retreat. Stop giving them money. Quit buying their oil.

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

Sure it can. With patience all things are possible and as long as you are applying the proper pressure (via US Military) the easlier it will become and the less force you will have to use. You attitude denotes circular reasoning.

No retreat…correct keep up the pressure militarily. No concessions….maybe if they give real verifiable ones like allowing freedom of religion and equal rights. If you only give them the path you want them to take (via concessions) then you can pretty much get them to move in your direction.

Stop giving them money….quit buying their oil…..ABSOLUTLEY!

Anonymous

I completely agree that their word problems are hateful and wrong, But we cannot afford and have no right to police the world. Refer to my list of countries above. Where do we go after Iran, What country is next? Palestine, Jordan? Will this never end. Why do we not try diplomatic talks?

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

Yes. The world does have the right to produce a stable world and I got news for you Sparky….The USA is part of the world……a big part.

I_am_a_lead_pencil

Sounds to me like his answer is yes – we will go after Palestine and Jordan…but I’m guessing Syria is after the inevitable Iran war.

http://twitter.com/dicentra63 Dicentra spectabilis

Don’t you know how many decades we’ve already spent trying to negotiate between Israel and the Palestinians? The Palestinians don’t want to live alongside a Jewish state in peace: they want to drive the Jooos into the sea.

Iran similarly wants to vaporize Israel, not negotiate.

You might as well try to negotiate with a mother bear whose cubs you’re bothering.

http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

So, some sanity lurks there. to 13Krie.

http://twitter.com/dicentra63 Dicentra spectabilis

Glen [sic] Beck, So according to you. We should attack all [Muslims]?

Sounds like you don’t speak English as a first language. No shame in that, but it might impair your comprehension of what Glenn meant.

Bomb all Muslim countries? Whatever for? Most of them are not causing trouble in the world. Most Muslim individuals are not causing trouble. Most of them are Muslim by birth, not by conversion or conviction, and they are content to live their lives according the Islam that they prefer. Others are devout Muslims. Most of them are not interested in forcing anyone to convert to Islam.

Neither Glenn nor anyone in this country has a mind to bomb or otherwise harm those Muslims.

Unfortunately, there is a perpetual sickness that inhabits some Islamic countries. Whether it originated with Islam is debatable; probably it stems from an ancient barbarism that has dominated the Middle Eastern desert cultures for millennia. It involves violence as the way to choose the rulers, and it also involves the common (but not universal) tendency for Muslim children to be sexually abused and thus deeply enraged and humiliated.

Put that together with the common tendency of all human societies to be ruled by tyrants, and you’ve got some enormously frustrated people who cannot understand why the Warriors of Allah live in technologically and economically backward stink holes while the Israelis and the Americans (controlled by Jews, as many Muslims believe) prosper and innovate.

For many Muslims, the humiliation is too great to bear, which is why Muslims who go to Western universities become so easily radicalized: they can see that the Infidel has done many great things and the Muslims hardly anything, and it moves some to revenge to expunge their humiliation. Obviously, the filthy Joooos have done filthy things to stop Muslims from taking their rightful place in the world, as the only True Believers and the only ones fit to rule.

Furthermore, the deep rage and/or humiliation that inhabits the soul of the sexually abused is easily redirected by evil men who want to use that rage to further their own power-seeking. Sometimes, these evil men will rape some poor soul, then tell him or her that the only way to purge their shame is to become a suicide-vest-wearing martyr.

Muslims who are hell-bent on subjugating and humiliating all non-Muslims are the ones we need to defend against and, if necessary, drop bombs on. They are not interested in negotiation except insofar as it gives them time to prepare more attacks against the Great and Little Satans.

They are determined to dominate; they are motivated by a will to power that finds justification in Islamic custom and scripture (properly interpreted or not), and they have lost so much of their humanity that they’d gladly load up a baby or an old woman with TNT to take out a half-dozen Jooos.

Ron Paul buys the line that they’re only mad at us because we’ve provoked them, but he is dead wrong. Their reasons for their hostility toward us go back centuries, and they’re endemic to their own cultures and beliefs (some Islamic, some not so much). “Islam has bloody borders” is an old saying, and unfortunately, it’s not said in vain.

Our hearts go out to those Muslims who have no wish to harm anyone for any reason. They are often the first victims of the fanatics and thugs, who deem them “insufficiently Muslim” to be allowed to live.

I wish there were a better way to help heal Islamic societies besides the extreme chemotherapy of war, but there is not, and it breaks my heart.

http://twitter.com/JTVolkens Jeremy Volkens

Epic post. Bravo.
Anonymous

Be a light to the world. A city set on a hill that cannot be hidden.

Or, we could just ‘light up’ the ones interfering with the oil we want.

Anonymous

I hope you’re not smoking a cigarette in that field of strawmen you just created.
Anonymous

People don’t seem to apply this logic to their argument. On one hand, they say that Islam is the threat, but terrorism is the war. They support fighting a tactic, but say it is because of the religion. They refuse to see the religion as the enemy. If Islam is the real threat, then attack it. The presidents running the wars have both said that Islam is a peaceful religion. As long as this is the case, we will never win. Our enemy isn’t even defined.

As you said, “we should attack all Muslim countries”, if we want to solve the problem. To do this right, we must declare war on the real threat, and attack it wherever it acts out to snuff it out. This isn’t going to happen, so we will just fight wars in the middle east where the oil, gas pipelines, and lithium deposits are.

We don’t care about he genocide in Libya that we paved the way for. We don’t care about African countries that don’t have oil, but have Muslims killing hundreds of thousands. We don’t care about Israel who is now surrounded by her enemies due to our intervention.

By the way, Beck and his buddies apparently don’t know what a “no fly zone” is. We go in and bomb them so that they cannot physically take to the air. When they said that we were just enforcing a “no fly zone”, and not bombing them, they were wrong. Newt Gingrich recently said “a no fly zone is an act of war”. He was correct. So are sanctions. When you cut off food, energy, and trade, then bomb the crap out of someone, it is an act of war. We start these wars before we ever go in and take them out. Who’s “no fly zone” were we enforcing in Iraq? Does Glenn Beck approve of taking orders from the UN? Barry does.

Professor Why

What’s this? Beck is going after the man he’d vote for 3rd party over Gingrich? Say it isn’t so… (Where’s your apology for calling Tea Partiers who would consider voting for Gingrich in the primaries racists, Beck? Still waiting, but not holding my breath.)

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

It won’t happen because Beck has too big of a narcassist and his ego would never allow him to do that.
Anonymous

I’m still waiting as well. I’m beginning to have concerns about Beck. Has he ever explained his “your a racist if you vote for Newt over Obama” comment. I have yet to find it. If someone has it, please link it here.

But just his stridency and shutting down of Stu, for example, is beginning to be such a turn off. Is there anyone around him willing to take him aside? Or is he now so engulfed with “yes men” that he’s an island unto himself. Man, to see his behaviour lately is just so discouraging.

http://twitter.com/dicentra63 Dicentra spectabilis

I have yet to find it. If someone has it, please link it here.

You didn’t look very hard, then; it’s only on Beck’s web site. Besides, it got linked here back in the day, and people didn’t accept the explanation then because it was more fun to be outraged.

From The Blaze:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/beck-explains-his-criticism-of-progressive-gingrich-plus-the-truth-about-his-views-on-the-tea-party/

From The Stu Blog:

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/blog/stu/does-glenn-beck-really-think-that-tea-party-members-are-racists/

If you get all uptight because Glenn himself didn’t write those articles (even though they include clips of him talking), then I don’t know what to say to you.

Anonymous

Thanks… I didn’t think to look on his site, even though I’m a subscriber. I’ll look at them.

Oh and P.S. yup… you got me … I find it fun to be outraged. Thanks for the gratuitous assumption.

http://twitter.com/dicentra63 Dicentra spectabilis

people didn’t accept the explanation then because it was more fun to be outraged.

You were obviously excluded from “people” because you didn’t see the links when they were posted here. So don’t be taking offense when it wasn’t aimed at you.

Also, it is too fun to be outraged. That’s what the Internet is FOR.
http://twitter.com/dicentra63 Dicentra spectabilis

people didn’t accept the explanation then because it was more fun to be outraged.

You were obviously excluded from “people” because you didn’t see the links when they were posted here. So don’t be taking offense when it wasn’t aimed at you.

Also, it is too fun to be outraged. That’s what the Internet is FOR.

http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

How low mankind has fallen!

Anonymous

Ok… listened and read… It’s just what I thought, and vaguely heard from somwhere else. it’s all clear now… clear as mud. It’s a dreadful and peevish and childish response.

Glenn is so full of hubris that he doubles down with his justification for the comment and pretends the issue is something else. So he continues to fight the windmills of “Glenn Beck thinks Tea Partiers are Racist.” Some people for sure are suggesting that he’s accused the Tea Partiers of being racist. I have followed Beck for years… I know that’s not what he’s doing. But he used the race card in a way that a conservative should never do… even if he was trying to make a point. Instead of apologizing for his arrogance and high and mighty behaviour… he doubles down.

He made a clumsy ill thought out remark and made it sound really bad. But because of his pride and arrogance, instead of coherently explaining his ill formed comment, he plays all offended and lashes out at everyone who questions him on this.

So for me, NO Beck is not accusing the TP’s as racist, he was just dumb and stupid and his pathological narcissism won’t allow him to bend. I tell you, this problem is only going to get worse for Beck unless he wises up.

http://twitter.com/dicentra63 Dicentra spectabilis

his pathological narcissism

If you’re referring to Narcissistic Personality Disorder (and your choice of “pathological” implies that you are), you need to know that one of the fastest ways to rule out NPD is to look at how someone reacts to criticism: NPDs cannot ignore it nor can they respond gracefully. (See: Obama’s @AttackWatch and other efforts to rebuke every minute criticism.)

Glenn hires people (Stu, Pat, Brian Sack) to make fun of him, and no one is better at mocking Glenn than Glenn. NPDs can’t bear to be mocked or criticized; instead, they lash out in “narcissistic rage” and try to destroy or at least humiliate their critics.

Furthermore, NPDs are unable to successfully complete 12-step programs because they lack the ability to admit that they’re wrong, nor do they have any insight into their actions.

Lastly, NPD crystallizes in the late teens, so if you don’t develop NPD then, you can’t develop it later.

Glenn is therefore not NPD. He might have a huge ego (which you need to start up and run a new media empire; Breitbart and Rush likewise have big egos). He also might be letting hubris get the better of him, but his failure to apologize for “playing the race card” is not evidence of that.

But he used the race card in a way that a conservative should never do… even if he was trying to make a point. Instead of apologizing for his arrogance and high and mighty behaviour… he doubles down.

Why should a conservative not mockingly imitate the Left’s idiotic pronouncements about the Tea Party? Why should the rhetorical misbehavior of the Left set the rules for what we can and cannot say?

Glenn didn’t say or do anything wrong: He did not play the race card (it was just a phony), regardless of how it may have sounded to others. All that weekend I Tweeted Glenn and others on his staff, begging him NOT to apologize, because there’s nothing to apologize FOR. Clarify, maybe, but failure to properly interpret his words on our part doesn’t constitute guilt or even bad judgment on his. (Of course, my Tweets are entirely responsible for his behavior.)

He didn’t “double-down,” he explained and clarified, and unless you can find evidence that he thought his words were ill-chosen, and then decided to stick with them out of stubbornness, you should reconsider whether he “doubled-down.”

He also did not accidentally tell the truth and then later walk it back to stop the criticism. He clearly said “bring it on,” not to those on the Right with hurt feelings but to those on the Left who maliciously misinterpret him constantly. He’s not going to give them the satisfaction of apologizing just because they’re howling in outrage.

Nor should he. Nor should anyone who enrages the Left. They’re not worth it.

Anonymous

“criticism: NPDs cannot ignore it nor can they respond gracefully…can’t bear to be mocked or criticized; instead, they lash out in “narcissistic rage”"

Sounds like this describes Beck’s reaction here. If you are incapable of seeing that Beck has evinced a character change for the worse, then nothing I can say will convince you. But others are voting with their feet and walking out on him.

I’m still a fan of Beck, have been for a long time and look forward to the kind of work he did at FOX, but criticism is due, especially when he lectures TPers, or any other Beck fan for that matter, that they should know this progressive stuff by now.

I don’t invest myself in him, even as a fan, but as evidenced in you somewhat rambling post, you most certainly have. Maybe you would like to consider stepping back from your outrage at my criticism and consider that maybe, just maybe, that the criticisms from his loyal fans are valid.

In true Beckian parlance… ” I’m just sayin’, you know”

Professor Why

Silly me, I was using “Glenn Beck apology to Tea Party” and “Glenn Beck apology for race card” in my internet searches… I guess I should’ve used “Glenn Beck justifies use of race card on Tea Party” instead…

Anonymous

RONULANS ATTACK!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHA. Look, any serious person already knew this stuff. These people belong to a culture, and subscribe to an extreme version of a belief system, that allows them to stone a woman to death for driving, or daring to read a book, publicly hangs gay people, beheads their enemies, and supports fathers killing their daughters for becoming to westernized, and they’ve been doing it for centuries…but YA, somehow we’re the A-Holes causing violence.
I ask my buddy, who supports RP, what the hell good is it going to do if RP can get the economy going (BTW anyone of our candicates will do a much better job than Obama) the day a nuke or a dirty bomb goes off in a major American city?
“YA we got rid of the Fed, too bad half DC is laying in rubble”

I_am_a_lead_pencil

Or:
“what the hell good is it going to do if (fill in other Republican name here) can keep us safe if his economic fixes aren’t as drastic as is needed and the debt bubble goes off and the dollar implodes?”
Anonymous

I’ve made this point here before. After a Ron Paul administration and implementation of his whacky foreign policy objectives, there won’t be an America left to fix.

K-Bob

You pinpoint exactly why I would feel compelled to vote Obama if the only other choice was Paul, and I would forever be the enemy of those who made such action necessary. I only arrived at that decision in the last few weeks after toying with the idea that maybe four years of Paul would be survivable, and we could emerge from it in better shape.

After all, much of what he prescribes would be good medicine. But a doctor who cures the disease and leaves the patient in the hands of a determined beheader isn’t much of a doctor at all.

Obama’s administration must go. His marxist approach to economics is detroying our nation. But Paul would be worse. An enabler of nuclear war is very bad medicine, indeed.

Anonymous

Ron Paul would not “enable” nuclear war. It is enabled right now, and has been for many decades. We are more likely to see nuclear war with Obama or Romney or Santorum or Gingrich in the White House than with Ron Paul.

Do you really think Iran would attack Israel with a nuclear weapon? Do you really think they’d even get the chance to?

K-Bob

Ron Paul would enable nuclear war more than Obama has, and that’s a fact. Such a war has not been enabled for many decades, it has merely been “possible.” No one has been willing to test the resolve of the US on that issue. With Paul, they will take his position as a full green light to launch a nuclear attack.

None of the other candidates, including the progressives–and including Obama himself–would take the stance Paul has taken. Not one.

Paul, like his insane foreign policy, stands alone.

Anyone who believes Iran wouldn’t nuke Israel the first chance they got should not be allowed within 1000 miles of the ability to make US foreign policy.

K-Bob

You pinpoint exactly why I would feel compelled to vote Obama if the only other choice was Paul, and I would forever be the enemy of those who made such action necessary. I only arrived at that decision in the last few weeks after toying with the idea that maybe four years of Paul would be survivable, and we could emerge from it in better shape.

After all, much of what he prescribes would be good medicine. But a doctor who cures the disease and leaves the patient in the hands of a determined beheader isn’t much of a doctor at all.

Obama’s administration must go. His marxist approach to economics is detroying our nation. But Paul would be worse. An enabler of nuclear war is very bad medicine, indeed.
Anonymous

It seems that you believe that Islamic terrorist have the ability to annihilate the US. If the only way to protect ourselves is to have our military in every country in the world forever, then how is it that we can do this?

Those who study economics tend to support Paul due to their understanding of what the real, imminent threat to our security is. That would be a currency crash.

Have you thought about what that would mean to this country? We have no industrial base, or resource production to fall back on. We would lose the only advantage that we have, financially in the world. (world reserve status)

The rest of the world economies would fail, due to the dollar collapse. The Fed is bailing out Europe right now, which is compounding our currency crisis. Our politicians are making plans to cut back on proposed budget increases, which means continued devaluation of the dollar, on top of our military debt spending.

Until you wrap your head around this reality, you will not be able to make a reasonable argument against Paul’s alternative to perpetual war, which is secure our borders and rebuild our country.

K-Bob

“It seems that you believe that Islamic terrorist have the ability to annihilate the US. If the only way to protect ourselves is to have our military in every country in the world forever…”

It seems you began with a rather common straw man.

You don’t need to be stung by every hornet in the nest to know it has to be dealt with.

Anonymous

I don’t think that most people who disagree with RP’s foreign policy want to consider that he is not weak, but that he just has a different way of going about things.

If you get stung by a hornet, then you go get a can of whoop butt, and eradicate the threat. You don’t look for survivors and nurse them back to health while helping them rebuild the nest.

Say the nest was hanging on the corner of the house. You get stung and realize that you have a problem. There are many ways to deal with the threat.

One that resembles our foreign policy:

You get filled with fear and panic. You jump in the car and go down to the ACME store. You pick up a flame thrower and fill it with highly flammable liquid. You rush home and jump out of the car and run to the corner of the house. You then torch the enemy, but you also burn down the house. The problem is that you didn’t kill all of the hornets. Many got away, and they flew off and started building new nests. You become obsessed, and go to all the countries, I mean houses, around you. You torch every sign of a new nest. Your thirst for the death of these hornets has consumed you, and you don’t even realize that your house has burnt down.

One that resembles RPs foreign policy:

You get stung, and it hurts. You back off and make sure that you are not under threat of being stung again. You sit down and evaluate the situation to determine how big the threat really is. You consider the possible solutions, and rule out doing nothing. You consider the cause of the threat, and determine the quickest, and least expensive options. You go to the store and pick up a can of hornet whoop butt, and return. You spray the nest starting at the entry hole so that they cannot escape. You saturate the nest until you are sure that you will have no survivors. You leave the nest hanging so that others will return and see that the nest has been destroyed. They leave and do not come back.

K-Bob

The problem with your comparison is that it requires a repugnant, factually incorrect distortion of our current situation. This is why so many Conservatives are fed up with Paul. It’s all distortion, all the time.

Anonymous

This is why your moniker is just so appropriate.

You rambled on here thinking the economy is the only issue in the box. I believe otherwise. No amount of demonstrating the very real serious foreign policy dangers facing America is ever going to convince the closed mind of a Paul supporter.

I hate to characterize it any other way, but no other conclusion presents itself: once brainwashing completes it’s ghastly task, only an epiphany can scrub the robot like Ron Paul hard line from its false consciousness. Paul’s grasp of the issues is a one-dimensional view in a multi-dimensional world and his followers fall in lock step behind him.

Anonymous

The economy absolutely is not the only issue in the box. Destroying your home involves a lot more than the economy. The very foundations of our home are being eroded under the guise of national security. This is a much bigger issue than the economy. Economically speaking, the “economy” shouldn’t even be the real focus. Our monetary system is the real hazard, and the bad economy is just a symptom.

These issues are much bigger than the wars, because they undermine the liberties and the future of Americans at home. When the eventual effects of these policies finally come to fruition, nobody will give a crap about terrorists in the middle east.

Anonymous

When the eventual effects of these policies finally come to fruition, nobody will give a crap about terrorists in the middle east.

Sorry paulbot69… you can comfort yourself in that self induced delusion… I prefer reality and will prepare and will prepare by voiting for someone who understands these deadly foreign policy implications… not for a Ron Paul who lives in a veritable fantasy land… a deadly delusional and traitorous one at that!

When Islam comes knocking, and comes knocking hard (on all fronts both terror, global governance, national shariah implementation and culturally), no fiscally responsible policy from a Paul led administration is going to compensate for his unpreparedness and fantasies about Islam and foreign policy.

I won’t throw a bunch of URLs at you because too many people do that and it’s not fair. But I will provide them… just say the word. The information is available, it’s even in the headlines… you have no excuse. If you are not even willing to concede an interest and at least do a cursory look at the authoritative and authentic texts and practices and global implementation of Islamic teaching, then further dialogue with you is pointless.

Anonymous

Time will tell us what the real threats are.

http://www.facebook.com/david.masiwchuk David Scott Masiwchuk

Yes the real threats are radical Islam and idiots like Paul who dont wish to believe it cause he hates his own country.
Anonymous

If you want to flush your currency and rights down the drain to fight Islam in the middle east, it is your right to support that. I don’t think that the terrorists will have a problem with your position. Our ability to wage war will eventually be severely diminished.
http://www.facebook.com/david.masiwchuk David Scott Masiwchuk

KI am sure when my family is murdered I will be happy I saved a dollar in taxes and ignored a threat.
Anonymous

I understand your interest in protecting your family. I just believe that we are giving that right up here at home. Unless we secure our liberties, we will end up with government as the real threat to our ability to protect our families. They use terrorism to strip our “inalienable” right to do so.

If our currency collapses, we will lose everything. Even our ability to feed our families. As we lose our individual sovereignty, we will see our national sovereignty go to the central banks and the global controllers who hold the new world reserve currency. We will find our troops working for them directly.
Anonymous

David… what you are witnessing here is the eclipse of reason. So you go ahead and protect and defend your family regardless, because nothing you can say, not even pointing a gun at their heads will stop them from saying black is white. That’s the level of moral and intellectual contamination we are dealing with here. And it’s so discouraging.
Anonymous

Time will NOT tell us what the real threats are, but common sense will. And it appears neither is on YOUR side.

But just say the word, and I will give you the URLs so you can inform yourself.

Anonymous

Paulbot69… I’ve dropped this here.

Heck, I’ll go ahead and do for you what you refuse to do yourself.
Here’s a URL: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/01/letter-of-an-ex-muslim-to-the-critics-of-pamela-geller.html

This may perk your interest… it’s very interesting letter from an ex-Muslim who converted to Libertarianism… of all things!

He calls Libertarianism a sort of religion, and says he worships at the throne of Freedom. He’s being totally honest. I’ve highlighted for you a few quotes from him. It will wet your feet in understanding that Islam, amongst its adherents, is an all pervasive and deadly ideology invading the West and designed to subjugate the west and subsumes ALL other ideologies which would naturally include Ron Paul’s fiscal and foreign policy Libertarianism.

Since you wont’ take it from me, a conservative Christian, then take it at least from one of your own.

Here’s some quotes from him.

“ all the Jihad networks use community intelligence to protect themselves, to select people, to gain logistical support, etc. This is common sense, yet most people never mention it because they fail to see how compact and military-style the Muslim community is…

…If you knew how tight is the intelligence network of the Islamic communities around the globe, you’d shiver much more than you do when you learn about the existence of this or that jihad training camp…

…But when it come to Muslims, you find always the same problem: they don’t know what RECIPROCITY means…

…I could speak for months about classical Islamic texts that would leave you — and the average uneducated Muslim — without words, showing you aspects of Islam and the workings of the Islamic community that you didn’t even imagine… extist, because what you are seeing and confronting now is just the tip of the iceberg, believe me!

So Paulbot… before you invest yourself even more heavily in Ron Paul ideology.. educate yourself about the overwhelming malignancy of Islam’s designs on the West. Until you do, you will continue to wander in the fog of Ron Paul’s foolery.

Anonymous

I have been aware of this for some time. I understand, as you do, what our government does not, in practice. The difference is that you may believe that our government is interested in fighting the real threat, whereas, I do not. Which makes the wars un-winnable. Therefor the enemy is actually winning, and we are falling right into their hands.

If they attack us because we are free and prosperous, then they are succeeding in their efforts to destroy those things. The irony is that only we can destroy our freedom and prosperity. So this makes their campaign to destroy our society from the inside a much smarter tactic than we can come up with against them.

This is why liberty and free markets with little to no regulation are “more” important than having troops in the middle east. Not to mention that 150k troops cannot destroy the ideology.

The ideology can, and will destroy itself. At very least, it will never prosper to the point of having any real power, unless free nations subjugate their willingness to give up their own liberties for the sake of supposed safety. As we are doing, and have done for the last 100 years plus.

We are a socialist/fascist nation in practice. This did not come about as a result of Islamic threats to our nation. It came about because we abandoned our core principles and ideology which is the antithesis If Islam. This is what weakened us to the point of being vulnerable to them.

Leaving our borders open, and sending our troops overseas, is not a good way, pragmatically, to protect ourselves. As our abandonment of a sound constitutional currency threatens to destroy our economic future for decades to come, we pass laws continuously which put us at a disadvantage concerning both security, and liberty.

How do you suggest that we avert these realities, while defeating Islam, and continuing the same economic and legislative agenda that we have had for many decades by both parties?

I could provide just as many links showing how we have supported radical Islamic rule in the middle east since at least 1953, and in many countries. The facts always support the assertions that we have used the Islamic radicals to fight proxy wars with Russia and China. This is why our CIA funded and helped create the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was recently used and supported by us to overthrow two more countries and install Islamic rulers. It isn’t the first time.

http://thenewamerican.com/history/world/7377-bin-laden-a-al-qaeda-us-govt-creations

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-terror-group-benefit-libya-weapons/story?id=14923795

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8861608/Libya-Al-Qaeda-flag-flown-above-Benghazi-courthouse.html

If you want Romney, then support the other guys.

Time will tell whether or not this strategy will help save our country. I don’t believe that our currency will survive five more years of screwing around with the budget and fighting multiple wars.

Apparently, we are both fairly entrenched in our ideas about what will work. Your claim that my ignorance, or unwillingness to do research is not valid. I would suggest that I have done much more research on our financial system, and understand exactly why it will collapse.

Anonymous

The difference is that you may believe that our government is interested in fighting the real threat, whereas, I do not.

Ironically I agree with you there. Certainly Obama has NO interest at all in fighting the real threat.

The ideology can, and will destroy itself. At very least, it will never prosper to the point of having any real power, unless free nations subjugate their willingness to give up their own liberties for the sake of supposed safety

The opposite of what you say IS the currenty reality.

We are a socialist/fascist nation in practice.

Not yet… talk to old Soviets and people who lived under these systems. But elements are creeping in for sure, it’s just that I avoid the Paulite anarcho-libertarian interpretation of the issue as extremist.

I have done much more research on our financial system, and understand exactly why it will collapse.

This is one of the problems with rigid Paulites… the assumption that nobody else knows how bad the economy is, or the damage currently being done and that Ron Paul is the only answer. Well his answer is doomed to fail because he is only willing to deal with one thing… and that is fiscal policy… pretending that fiscal policy will kill two birds with one stone… helping national security at the same time. That’s where he wrong.

Because I agree (for the most part) with Paul’s fiscal ideas, I would vote for Paul in a heart beat if he had a rational foreign policy. There… I’ve come half way… but I was always half way from the beginning. But since all his “America’s an empire” BS is Chompsky leftist nonsense, I could never vote for the man no matter how great he is on fiscal policy.

So if you know all this stuff (apparently) about Islam, why are you still supporting Paul? I suspect it’s because you are young and somewhat brainwashed or you still don’t get Islam.

Anonymous

It is a matter of priority. Our government will not change their tactics, and therefor we lose. After witnessing and studying politics and human behavior for the last 22 years as an adult, I have determined that our course will not change before we collapse without a sudden radical change in all policy. After calling it right for the last few years, I have a certain degree of confidence. When I see that RP has the same ability to predict future events based on history and human behavior, I find him appealing as an agent of change.

The bible is an excellent teacher of human behavior. It is also prophetic. Though I believe that we will not avert world government and loss of sovereignty, I still choose to oppose it on principled ground. This is mostly what RP’s campaign is all about.

You will get one of the others. At least for a few more months. No matter who wins after that, you will see the same progression that has been taking place for the last 100 years.

Time is a great teacher, but the beginning of knowledge is the fear of God. Without humility and repentance, no nation, or people, will gain this knowledge.

Don’t let the devil deceive you into thinking that Islam is your biggest enemy, because the devil has a foothold in D.C. and in global powers. Islam will not rule the global empire, it will just help it by being an agent of chaos. America’s empire will fall, and a global leader will emerge.

Anonymous

Without humility and repentance, no nation, or people, will gain this knowledge.

My feeling is that a third great awakening is the only answer.

Don’t let the devil deceive you into thinking that Islam is your biggest enemy, because the devil has a foothold in D.C. and in global powers.

Devil Foothold in D.C. – check (truer woids never spoken)
I am unsure if you have any idea how much Islam is referenced in the Bible, without it actually being called Islam. You may revamp your assertion if you but knew. Check out Walid Shoebat on this if you are sceptical.

Islam will not rule the global empire, it will just help it by being an agent of chaos.

Shoebat again… if in doubt, Islam IS the Anti-Christ system… check him out. Actually I’m shocked how many people have difficulty with this concept.

America’s empire will fall, and a global leader will emerge.

America an empire! That’s pure Chompsyite/Paulite blather. Understand what real empires are. A non-empire superpower is the apt definition. Again I defer to Levin… “”If we were warmongers and imperialists and conquerors, do you think those inbreds who run those countries in the Middle East would be running those countries in the Middle East?”
Anonymous

Americans do not subscribe to imperial rule directly, but the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us of does. Wikipedia covers imperialism pretty well, but it is a subjective term as is “conservatism”.

I have watched a series of youtube videos of Wallid Shoebat. Some of his biblical references appear to be slanted toward his assertions of Islam being the anti-Christ system.

The bible clearly teaches a revised Roman empire. I believe that the new religion will be that which is being formed now in the movement that says “all paths lead to god”. I have seen all major religions accept this, except for evangelical Christians. The abomination of desolation will break the peace, because he will claim to be God.

The anti-Christ system, also referred to as the “great prostitute”, I believe is the world financial system that will fall and give rise to the anti-Christ. You can watch a documentary on youtube called “The Money Masters”. This will show how the banking system works, and how it is taking down country by country and putting them into submission through use of predatory lending. The military industrial complex is used on those who do not submit. Such as Iran, who has their own central bank. We have supported dictators in the middle east, until they didn’t play ball anymore. This is not a topic you will hear of on the news, or from D.C.

All of our assassinated presidents were going against the central bankers at the time. This is why I do not believe they will let RP succeed. If he did, he wouldn’t last long. Check it out for yourself. (money masters) Lincoln turned down the bankers money and created the green back. JFK used executive order to usurp the central bank.

I learned a lot from Wallid, but don’t buy into it all. I like the guy in general, but always remain skeptical. Especially when some of his history doesn’t make sense. Psych-ops do exist. Their intentions are to fool the target and distract from reality.In this case the target could be could be western evangelicals. I don’t know anything, but don’t underestimate this system.
Anonymous

BINGO… you hit it on the head.

You have a Euro-centric eschatology based on the belief of a revised Rome.The Bible does not “clearly teach a revised Rome”. It teaches a revised empire… the Ottoman Empire which encompassed portions of the old Roman Empire. This Revised Rome idea has been in fashion for years and has failed as an explanation for the events that are happening right now. I know that eschatology… I was steeped in it for years. And the belief that suddenly, out of thin air, will appear an all encompassing and bewitching “new agey” religion to mesmerize the masses and usher in the beast, is not in keeping with what I believe is Biblical, Middle East, centered eschatology. And that all-encompassing religion IS Islam.. and it didn’t just suddenly appear. It’s been on the scene for 1400 years and it is ready made and is sweeping the world. This failure to identify Islam as the beast system will be the undoing of many Christians. I know of precious few Christian churches that even acknowledge this. And this is exactly how the beast likes it. There is just so much to say on this, but limits here constrain.

Had you read, the simple letter I referenced, you would even see that from the Muslims parallel eschatology to Christianity, that Christians will be drawn into worshiping Allah and will be enjoined to engage in a war against the Jews. You are dangerously close to this paradigm.

From this above point I just made, I must zero in on your slavish and misguided adherence to a Paulite foreign policy belief that will ensure that the world will indeed join in a war against Israel. You have so bought into this idea that you have completely ignored the injunction to bless the Jews. And blessing the Jews does not just mean saying that, “God will look after them and we don’t have to do anything.” By saying this, I have stated before that you are leaving Israel to the beast to do whatever he wants… and that is the Ron Paul position. And as a Christian, I feel I must warn you that Paul’s position is NOT a Christian one… and I further must say that if you think a bit about your position vis-a-vis Israel, that you really should confess and repent. You have bought into a belief and ideology of Ron Paul, that is definitely not a Christian one.
Anonymous

I’ll tell you what. I am going to dig into this and see if it holds water. I don’t follow “people”, I look into things for myself. Because I have studied the traditional view, it will have to be accurate for me to accept it.

I do believe that modern Christianity has been infiltrated, doctrinally speaking.
Anonymous

You’re a decent guy (or gal) paulbot69. You’ve taken my punches gracefully and for that you have my respect. I’m getting impatient seeing Israel being thrown under the bus by Christians no less, who should know better by simply reading Romans 9,10 and 11.

I’ve been in this eschatology stuff for a long time now… and have been into this Islam stuff long before it became fashionable. Although not as long as Robert Spencer.

I’ve followed the mainstream escatological view since the 1970′s when I became a Christian. It’s just so depressing to think that the same stuff is being pushed without one shred of reference to Islam. It’s down right scary. I discovered the Islam connection, before I ever heard Shoebat, from a guy (I’ll have to dig it out of my files to give you a reference) who was dating prophetic timetables from the Babylonian captivity up till now. He made the connection to Islam right off the start including references to the Patriarch of Jerusalem during the time of the erection of the Dome of the Rock in 692 ad. connecting that to the abomination of desolation.

I tell you right off… Islam is being given a free pass in the secular and in the liberal Christian world. Those who nail Islam… we’re the bad guys. But if you listen to Muslim converts to Christianity… they are a wealth of information. Ignore them at our peril.

And if you want to know what 666 means… just say the word.. I’ll send it. p.s. it is not a number.
Anonymous

I am struggling a bit to envision the Islamic anti-Christ system broker a peace agreement with Israel, and let them build the temple next to their Mosque. Is this how you envision it? I thought that the anti-Christ was supposed to be a neutral party that brings the religions together. It doesn’t seem like the fundamentalist Muslims would go for this, but maybe that is the point. The religions may very well be watered down by then. Christianity is well on its way. Especially in the western countries.

I haven’t given the 666 issue much attention. I do recall Shoebat going over it, and I remember it being an interesting alternative. I don’t remember well, but I seem to recall that he believes that it will be something worn on the wrist, or forehead. I don’t plan on being here, but I am sure that we would know it if and when we saw it.

It would be interesting to hear how the dome of the rock was tied to the abomination of desolation.
Anonymous

Paulbot69 guy… you’ve been so good. I admire you. I thank you for your back and forth. Kudos to you my good friend.

Listen, I don’t pretend to know all the ins and outs of the issue. What I have observed that what is evident is that there are problems with the accepted Western based eschatology. The standard eschatology teaching is that the West produces the AC, through the papacy with Rome the centre of a global government. I always accepted this idea because after all, when I was younger I reasoned, they knew their Bibles more than I, and besides everyone believed it.

So I read the standard West based eschatology. I did notice over the decades that this eschatology was very poor at predicting and explaining current events. After 911 I began to read other stuff fingering Islam, then I read Joel Richardson’s stuff, then I read up on Islam and their very scary Islamic eschatology which was the mirror opposite of what Richardson and Shoebat reveal about Christian eschatology.

And one of the most frightening statements I ever read was that the AC through his false prophet (the Muslim Jesus) will convert weak and unknowing liberal and nominal Christians to Allah and will get them to engage in a war against Israel. Now do you see why Ron Paul is a menace on foreign policy. The other thing that just bugs me about standard Christian eschatology is its hopeless acceptance of defeat and domination of the world by the AC. Shoebat illustrates from scripture that that scenario is false. There are countries (from the West) that will fight the AC, and that the AC will NOT unify the world. As Christians we can be in an army to fight the AC. There now… does that not do your heart good. It certainly did mine.

Watch this series by Shoebat… I know it is long… so I don’t mean to put this on you… it is about total 3 hrs in length… you can watch at your leisure.
Start with the A series then move on to B and C.

I’ll catch up with you in some other posting.

Good man!

Anonymous

TO RIGHT SCOOP. PLEASE READ!

I am sick of all of the Ron Paul hate around here. I am a long time Right Scoop fan, but this is getting on my nerves a bit. I love Israel, and I hope we will always have their best interest at heart, but we cannot continue to have military presence everywhere just because we feel like someone “could” be bad or evil. You will never get rid of evil. If you are a Bible believing Christian, then you know that Israel will be ok. They don’t need us to do their bidding for them, because they have God. Ron Paul is a Christian, and he knows why they hate us, but you have to be living under a rock to think that our military presence over there doesn’t tick them off even more. Ron Paul never said that we are solely responsible for the 9/11 attacks, but we do fuel the fire by being over there.

Now, concerning our country, we ABSOLUTELY HAVE to deal with our spending and debt. If we don’t, then America as we know it is ruined. There is only one candidate that will make the necessary cuts, and you continue to bash him and ruin his chances. Romney will NOT help our debt, Santorum will NOT help our debt. There is only ONE that will. Can we spend less time bashing a fellow Christian(Ron Paul) because his views are slightly different than yours on a very minor issue?
I am curious what your thoughts are on this. Thanks.

Drew

Ron Paul on his faith….
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/statement-of-faith/

Anonymous

I think the debt issue should be called entitlement spending. THAT is the problem. Look, Ron Paul reminds me of Ross Perot. Maybe he should be treasury Secretary but when it comes to foreign affairs and islam, he will get thousands of Americans killed. Those are the unadulterated facts and why he takes such heat. He isn’t off a little bit on his isolationism ideas. He isn’t even in the right county.

Anonymous

I see what you are saying, but American are dying now while overseas. At the same time we are actually over there, soldiers are dying AND Islam is still rising, and getting closer to a total takeover of the middle east. Please fill me in on how we handle the middle east situation. If they are planning on killing us, and they are accomplishing their goal WITH our presence, then how is bringing our troops home any worse than just continuing what we are doing now.
No one ever presents a solution, they just complain about Ron Paul’s solution. I don’t agree with Isolationism, but the way we are doing it obviously isn’t working. I hope that makes sense.
Your thoughts?

Anonymous

The detail that civilians miss is that military men and women know the risk and go anyway to defend their families and friends. A military death in defense of our way of life is not the same as an innocent civilian.

Anonymous

Interesting perspective. Thanks for that.
Just curious, What exactly do people in the military believe is our mission in the middle east, and do you think we are being successful?

Anonymous

Good questions. Warriors “over there” wish that we were permitted to pull a Sherman on the middle east. Convince them that messing with us is far too costly in terms of people and money. We also believe that they deserve it. We have seen that side of islam that will convince anyone that they should be eradicated and no we aren’t being successful due to our politicians. Once we destroy a city we shouldn’t rebuild it for them.

Anonymous

As a Paul supporter, this is my argument as well. Fight to win, and get out. Leave your enemies devastated so they won’t recover quickly. When they do, maybe they will have a little rebellion of their own against their religious tyranny.

http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

And, then protect them. so someone just as bad doesn’t come in. Peace keeping forces, is not a oxymoron.

Anonymous

I have very high respect for anyone who joins the military to help with our defense. I get frustrated, though, over the few that refuse to go where they are told because they don’t agree with the conflict. When I hear parents or soldiers complain becuase they didn’t sign up for combat I get kinda pissed. You know the risk, and if you’re not willing to take that risk then don’t sign up.

A Paul supporter was saying that the soldiers have a better aspect of the war than the President who sits at his desk and knows nothing. I am disgusted by this because this is just the opposite of the truth. The soldier cannot see the entire aspect of the war. The war has to be “led”, and I am disgusted by Paul supporters that claim the President doesn’t know what’s going on. The soldier doesn’t have the inside scoop of world affairs and cannot determine for himself what wars to volunteer for and which ones to sit out. The President is the commander, and even though there’s nothing wrong with offering an opinion, a soldier still must do as the President demands.

Anonymous

The president does know what is going on. I might also believe that he doesn’t have the same perspective on war if he has never fought in war and seen it for himself. Therein lies the inherent possibility that he may simply be ignorant of the human effects of the orders he gives. If he is not ignorant to these things, and goes to war quickly and easily, then he is lacking.

Anonymous

Which is why conservatives like for their candidates to have military experience. To know what it is like for men and women to go through and to also know the importance of the soldier and to not be afraid to use them if necessary. Bush had massive respect for our troops and deeply cared about them and their families. He has been documented as crying at a soldiers bedside and visiting soldiers in the middle of the night with no mediea present. Obama, on the flip side, had a scheduled visit to a wounded soldiers’ hospital and when the media was refused entry he also refused to go in. He left and went to play basketball (I believe). He has zero respect for the soldier. He has given out medals but actions speak louder than PR stunts. I am glad that those heroes got those medals, though.

Anonymous

http://irregulartimes.com/solvingveterans.html

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2007/03/06/10845/morin-bush-va/?mobile=nc

I hate to point it out, but I remembered these things and had to look them up. We have spent trillions overseas in the wars, but don’t seem to put much emphasis on real care for the vets. Bush didn’t seem to do any better, and his rhetoric, though convincing, was not backed up with funding.

I don’t believe that military service is required to have a good understanding of the effects of war. A good understanding can simply come from being able to put yourself in other people’s shoes, and then realizing what happens in these wars. Right now, Americans don’t seem to do that very much. The amount of civilians killed is disproportionate to what a traditionally acceptable level would be. The effects on our troops extend far beyond their physical injuries. When they come home, and wind down, they start realizing what reality is, and many become anti-war.

Obama is a disgusting man, no doubt.
Anonymous

“The amount of civilians killed is disproportionate to what a traditionally acceptable level would be.”

Are you saying that we are killing more innocent civilians than what has been acceptable in the past (traditionally)? Are you serious?

The amount of collateral damage is lower than it’s ever been.
Anonymous

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/warlogs/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wikileaks-109000-deaths-iraq-war/story?id=11949670

If you are referring to the bombs that ended WW2, I would agree. Otherwise, I would consider the level of decent against the civilian death toll in Vietnam as an indication of a traditional view of civilian deaths. As well as the public disgust generated by the tactics of people like Hitler, Stalin, and the British in the revolutionary war. Or even certain groups of people in the civil war. I believe that history shows us a pattern of rebellion by the general public against those who use the kind of tactics that result in civilian deaths.

Our current enemy is one who is largely a part of the civilian populations. Fighting a war against “terrorists” is going to generate a high number of civilian deaths. This perpetuates the recruitment of the “terrorists” into lethal action against the aggressor. Civilian deaths are regarded by all societies as unjust, even those who believe that infidels deserve death, and especially when it is their own people.

As I was saying, all you have to do is put yourself in their shoes. If a society is under harsh dictator rule, and a foreign nation comes in to dissolve that rule, but ends up staying and raiding the homes of the people, they will tend to view those who end up killing their civilians in this effort as unjust aggressors. I know that I would. If my family, or my neighbors, were killed by these tactics, I would become a “terrorist” and fight back. Even if that meant that I was going to go to their homeland and do a bunch of damage. I would draw the line at the point that innocents were involved.

I do not dismiss the concept that a society is responsible for the actions of the ruling class. Especially in a democratically elected ruling class society. Ether way, the real power always exists in the populations of any society, as they usually outnumber the ruling class. Yet, there are always those who dissent against the ruling class and their tyranny.

I don’t think that a traditional acceptance of 60% civilian casualties is reasonable to consider, in general.

I_am_a_lead_pencil

Yet he’s the only one actually proposing to cut government enough to make any meaningful difference. Understand the fiscal road we are on people. Going forward at a slower pace (what the rest of the GOP pack actually is proposing) is still heading toward oblivion. Obama has ensured we are speeding there. Simply slowing down is not going to cut it.

FUNDAMENTAL (nod to Newt) changes are needed. When you are heading toward an eventual actual economic collapse band aids will no longer work.

Anonymous

For this election cycle I believe that taking control of congress, both houses is more important than the president but I agree, Newt is my current choice for just that reason.

Anonymous

We are heading for a very contentious GOP convention this summer. Ron Paul is not going to go away, as people who support him don’t leave him. He will continue to raise millions and millions of dollars. He will continue to accumulate delegates, especially since the GOP changed the rules and installed a proportioned delegate system this cycle. Ron Paul is going to go into Tampa with a LOT of delegates. I doubt he will have enough to secure the nomination before the convention, but I doubt anyone else will either.

So…the convention will be epic. Some sort of deal will have to be struck. Normally, you might expect some sort of deal with one becoming the VP for the other. However, that is not going to happen in this case. Ron Paul, at 76, is certainly not interested in being the President of the Senate for the next 4 years.

This leads me to an interesting idea…Say Romney or Perry has more delegates than Ron Paul, and instead of taking the VP slot, Rand Paul was offered the position. Would Ron Paul accept this compromise? I don’t know. Would Rand accept the position? Probably. Would Ron Paul voters vote for Romney or Perry with Rand as his VP? Don’t know. What if Romney or Perry also agreed to make Ron Paul his Treasury Secretary? These are the kinds of things that could come up this summer.

Anonymous

If Ron Paul was made Treasury Secretary, I would cry for Joy.

Anonymous

Is there anyone in the Right Scoop forum who would object to a Treasury Secretary Ron Paul?

Anonymous

If there is, we need to hack their account and delete them. lol
http://twitter.com/JTVolkens Jeremy Volkens

Nope. That’s exactly where he belongs.
Anonymous

Nope. I like his monetary views. Just keep him away from national defense.
K-Bob

Most conservatives were saying for months on end that Ron Paul would be the right person for Sec. Treas. or as FED Chair. Major writers and talkers have all said so at one time or another.

The problem is that recently, the level of anger at his followers and at his simple refusal to lay off of unwise comments about 9-11, Israel, and Iran have made so many Conservatives angry, that they have stopped thinking about him in any office at all.
K-Bob

Most conservatives were saying for months on end that Ron Paul would be the right person for Sec. Treas. or as FED Chair. Major writers and talkers have all said so at one time or another.

The problem is that recently, the level of anger at his followers and at his simple refusal to lay off of unwise comments about 9-11, Israel, and Iran have made so many Conservatives angry, that they have stopped thinking about him in any office at all.
Anonymous

Ron Paul would not work out in that position with any of the other candidates as president. If he took it, he would not last long. I tend to believe he wouldn’t because he knows that he would not be able to serve in the capacity that the administration would want. He may have even said as much at one time.

http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

After the first ballot fails, all delegates are free to vote as they see fit. Then, we will see the fur fly. VE shall see!

http://twitter.com/Winston80 Winston

Ru Paul is neither a Christian, nor a Conservative. He is a neo-confederate big government asshat.

Anonymous

Again, more insults with no facts. Bravo.
Anonymous

Man you raelly are out of touch with reality arent you ? Big government Huh? man you need to go educate yourself before you go spouting your ignorant mouth off!

http://hashmonean.com saus

US presence around the world is part of the USA ensuring its own interests. Has nothing to do with Israel or ‘doing Israel’s bidding’. The two issues are totally unrelated. US soldiers are not posted in any significant numbers in Israel, never have been, America has never fought a war for Israel either, nor has a single US soldier ever been called to fight for Israel. Here in Israel we have our own soldiers, they fight and we pay a high price defending ourselves, nor does America do ‘Israel’s bidding’.

I appreciate the support but these views you have posted are both incorrect, and also ideas and notions that are used to discredit and harm Israel, they are falsehoods.

Anonymous

I agree with you 100%.
Allow me to briefly clarify why I tie those 2 issues together, even though they shouldn’t be tied together.
Most people here in America that worry so much about the rise of Islam are also they people that hold Israel in high regard. Its a Christianity issue.
They reason Christians have such a hard time with the thought of the troops being pulled out of the middle east is because they fear we will no longer be “protecting” Israel, even though they don’t realize that we aren’t in the middle east for Israel, we are there for our own good, as you correctly stated.
Thanks for your comments.

On a side note, I checked out your website and it looks pretty interesting. I’ll bookmark it and check it out from time to time.

http://hashmonean.com saus

I appreciate your clarification, and there’s something to what you are saying. There is currently a massive Christian exodus going on in the Middle East, Christianity is being threatened on all fronts in the Muslim world but everyone is being silent.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4171336,00.html

Even in areas Israel once controlled, now under the Palestinians – Christianity is now being threatened. Because many of these Christians are Arabs they are reluctant to tell the truth, they side with fellow Arabs rather than speak openly of the freedoms they enjoyed under Israeli rule, and the changes they now experience. I don’t blame them per say for siding with the Arab cause, but the result is plain to see. Chrsitians are fleeing the Middle East and staying silent despite the obvious root cause. Islam.

Anonymous

I agree, but I think Obama’s anti-Israel stance emboldens the terrorists and makes Israel less safe. The U.S. needs to supply Israel with whatever defense equipment it needs to help defend herself. Last I heard, Israel did not have the capability to take on a mission to destroy Iranian nukes on their own. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but we need to provide Israel with everything it needs.

The current U.S. President is a blight in our history and I think he needs to go on a second apology tour. He needs to apologize for his support of radical Islam and for turning his back on our allies. In my opinion, he is not an American at all.

http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

My take is, Israel is preparing an Iranian strike. Yes, they can. Will they? Will Obama order a strike against Israel?

Anonymous

Did you know that one of Obama’s advisors said we should shoot down any Israeli jet headed for Iran? Of course, that was when we were stationed in Iraq. But the mindset of that idea still remains. I’m not so sure Obama wouldn’t strike Israel afterwards. If he does, there’s going to be hell to pay here at home.

http://hashmonean.com saus

We’re in agreement on most things. But more than the military equipment, what’s really lacking as you pointed out is a true ally on the Presidential level. Obama touts his closesness with Israel, but it’s a sham. He’s an appeaser as you said of radicals. He has put his faith in the Islamic world more than into US allies. I believe he sees himself as a bridge to some mythical fantasy he has where the whole Islamic world will enter some sort of western golden age as opposed to the brutality, lack of freedoms, religious intolerance it exhibits today. Frankly, he’s a fool.

K-Bob

You mistake truth for hate. Scoop lays out the video and unless you have proof it’s been doctored somehow, you must accept that it is what it is.

The folks who stop by to comment are representing only themselves. When it comes to “hate” (if we have to call it that), just remember that contentious debate is something many Paul Fans love to engage. We try to keep the worst flames out of it, but Ron Paul and his followers insist on trying to occupy the label of “Conservative” while telling all conservatives they are NeoCons and warmongers.

This would be like a group of white, rhythm-challenged rednecks from Howell joining an AME Church in Detroit to “show them how to sing gospel.”

Anonymous

Please don’t take this as insulting as it may sound, but people who have facts in their corner are the ones most willing to debate.

Also, when it comes to freedom, you either believe in it or you don’t. I don’t understand how you can say you are against leftist big government policy, and then turn around and vote for anyone who would irresponsibly spend money or engage in war that can’t be won. Any one that says Reagan or Bush are conservative are not informed on what it means to be conservative.

K-Bob

That’s exactly the problem you make for yourselves. Assuming that folks on the right, in general, somehow are not prepared with facts. The clearest distinction between right and left that I have ever seen is in the willingness to do one’s homework.

People on the right read. A lot. And make lists. Of facts.

So the Ron Paul folks coming here to tell us to go do our homework makes them look petty, immature, and ignorant. That’s not a personal attack, it’s a simple fact. And one which could easily be corrected by them if the chose to do so.

(BTW, nice example of the One True Scotsman fallacy, there.)
K-Bob

That’s exactly the problem you make for yourselves. Assuming that folks on the right, in general, somehow are not prepared with facts. The clearest distinction between right and left that I have ever seen is in the willingness to do one’s homework.

People on the right read. A lot. And make lists. Of facts.

So the Ron Paul folks coming here to tell us to go do our homework makes them look petty, immature, and ignorant. That’s not a personal attack, it’s a simple fact. And one which could easily be corrected by them if the chose to do so.

(BTW, nice example of the One True Scotsman fallacy, there.)

KenInMontana

The “No True Scotsman” does seem to be a frequent favorite, does it not?

K-Bob

A real commenter wouldn’t write that.

heh.

You’re correct, of course. Man! Disqus keeps throwing errors tonight. Doesn’t matter which site I’m on, either. It’s all disqus. Everything is fine till you hit “post.” Of course, that’s where all the trouble begins, anyway.

Anonymous

We have debated the term “conservative”, and largely determined that it is an inadequate term without another word prefacing it. Your last comment is a bit arrogant, due to the fact that you are assuming that your definition is the only one. Look up “conservative” on Wikipedia, and you will find a large list of variations which include conservative definitions that include liberalism, and even constitutional conservatism.

Unless you are more specific, your point is mute.

http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

And, your point is moot, argg. You have assumed for me, error #1. Anytime, one must join words together to discribe something, is illiterate, to be nice. Semi black, don’t get it my friend.

http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

My take is just the opposite, thusly, here. Debaters are usually the ones lacking facts. They have a crude idea, and are amadant it is the only one. Thus we have two sides, the ones who have already studied the problem, and those who have not. What you learn from long study, is rarely completely one way. Nazis thought they were free. Romans thought they were free. Many use the broad term, and have no idea what they say. All freedoms come with cost. Like free you cannot shoot someone. Your post also confirms your idea of conservatism varies greatly from the norm. Reagan and Bush are conservative ideals. It seems you are on the outside, looking in. Good luck!

Anonymous

You obviously have never looked at the spending of Reagan and Bush. Not conservative AT ALL on that.

Anonymous

Wow, and I thought the Ron Paul fans would be mad ’cause Scoop had 4 Rick Santorum threads in a row and was ignoring Paul. Go figure.

KenInMontana

If you have been a longtime fan of the site, then you would (in all honesty) know that the “hate” you are complaining of, goes both ways. That is the reality of the situation, it’s what happens when highly partisan, adamantly positioned individuals collide, a fact of politics and a fact of life. In all frankness I have seen more “stubbornness” out of Paul supporters than of those that support the other candidates when it comes down to the question of, “Will you support the eventual GOP nominee, if it turns out not to be your candidate?”, by as wide a margin as 3 to 1, who state that if Paul is not the nominee they will withhold their vote. That’s fact, I moderate here and I see it constantly as I check the threads a couple of times a day.

Speaking for myself only, I have yet to decide on a candidate due to the fact that I don’t feel any of the field “fit” my “ideal” of a candidate (Yes, I know there are no perfect fits). In the end, I will likely pull the lever for the GOP Nominee whomever it turns out to be. As important as this Presidential race is, the races for Congress are even more important as that is where the real power lies and if we choose and elect our representation there wisely, even if the “unthinkable” happens and Zero is somehow reelected, he would be effectively “neutered” politically and we stave off self-destruction a bit longer and work on a better field for the following election. However this being a primary I expect uncompromising, hard nosed rhetoric and even a certain amount of zealotry as the candidates and their supporters seek to define their positions and highlight their differences, and that is all well and good. Once again though, the attitude that seems to rear it’s head, “I will not vote if my choice is not the choice”, in my view, is immature at the least, dangerously selfish, unAmerican and even unpatriotic at worst. If you do not vote, you have no standing in complaint. Voting is a right, a responsibility and a duty, I have no time, sympathy and little tolerance for those who would participate or advocate that type of “asserey” (I know that it’s not a word, but believe me I am exercising a lot of restraint here).

I have a specific list of qualities I look for and so far “Cinderella” has not shown up. My list fluctuates depending on the issues at hand, but only so far as the order of priorities. At this point no one candidate meets all of my requirements, a few come close, but, sadly those that come close have glaring deficiencies in what I consider important areas. Like it or not, we live in a time of “global reach” in almost every facet of life both politically as well as socially. That’s not a “globalist-one-world-government” view, it is a cold hard reality, to deny it is to dwell in a fantasy world that will likely cost one and our nation, the ultimate price. Another “fact of life” is that the chief executive of this nation has to work with the opposition, there is no way around it, if any solution is going to stick there is going to have to be a certain amount of compromise involved. Hard nosed, “my way or the highway” attitudes only lead to problems, not solutions, as evidenced so plainly by the current administration. That is my own position and I can take the “heat” of disagreement with it, as many here have differing takes on the subject at hand and reasoned mature debate is part and parcel to forums of this nature.

In closing I would offer this, IF, as you claim, you are a longtime fan, you would be aware of the political “leanings” of the owner/publisher of this site. You have the option of staying or going, that’s your choice. If you stay then you should be mature enough to take “the heat” of having what may be an unpopular position. If it is getting on your nerves, then perhaps you should take a break and reconsider your choice of forums, again your choice, but to expect or demand that “Scoop” change his forum or his view to suit your preference, is unrealistic and a tad self centered. Think it over and decide, it is still a relatively free country.

Anonymous

Well, I respect most of what you said. I don’t like your “take your ball and go home” threat. There is no place for that, and I genuinely like this site. So lets stay away from that, please.

I really only have 3 things to say about your comments.
#1. We are in a financial disaster in this country, and the only way to get out of it is to make a U-turn with our budget. Only one person will make the necessary changes that we need. If that is the case, and I don’t think anyone can deny that Ron Paul is the strongest candidate on the economy, then voting for anyone else would be a disservice to the country, and THAT would be un-American.
#2. What got this country in the mess it is in, is the word “compromise.” How do you compromise the fact that we HAVE to spend less, and we HAVE to cut our deficits. ANY compromise in that area is disastrous. “Compromise” is getting us legalized gay marriage. “Compromise” got us Obamacare. “Compromise” got us a huge government. “Compromise” got us legalized murder with abortion. “Compromise” got us 15 trillion dollars in debt. Respectfully, sir, I don’t agree that compromise is an option.
#3. Electing someone because they are the most electable person, and not because you believe they can do the job correctly is the opposite of what this country needs. If we don’t elect someone NOW who will fix our economy, it will be too late. Therefore, if we put someone in the White House who will not do this, then we are done. The economy is the most important issue, and nothing else is even close.

Curious what you think.

(Please don’t interpret my comments as having attitude. I am genuine in all I say.)

Anonymous

“I don’t like your “take your ball and go home” threat. There is no place for that, and I genuinely like this site. So lets stay away from that, please…“–Drew24

Wow, speaking here as a third party (as he doesn’t need me to defend him), I’m surprised to hear you say that. It sounded to me like he was being very polite and trying to be helpful to you. I saw no threat there at all. Please rethink your thought process.

Just remember, if eating Tacos gives you heartburn, don’t condemn the cook if he recommends you back away from them for a bit. Just go get some Tums.

KenInMontana

Just remember, if eating Tacos gives you heartburn, don’t condemn the cook if he recommends you back away from them for a bit. Just go get some Tums.

LOL, I like that analogy, well said. I may even borrow it at some future point.

http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

Gosh, I am saying. Sometimes, the taco isn’t the problem.

KenInMontana

First off, I made no threat, directly or implied, if that is what you chose to read into it, well frankly, that’s not my problem.

As to #’s 1 & 2, so you believe Ron Paul (if elected) will be able to wave a magic wand and get all parties to go along with what he directs to be done? Let’s see how does any thing get done in government (aside from having a like-minded supermajority in Congress) why, through negotiation. A negotiated agreement implies compromise, anything else is by fiat (there’s a familiar word).

Couple of nice strawmen there throwing in “gay marriage” and abortion, I’ll just set those aside for the moment because they are irrelevant to my point. Do you understand the function and purpose of a Constitutional/Representative Republic? How it differs from a Democracy? Because it does not seem to me, that you, sir, have quite the grasp on it that you think you do. One of the primary purposes/functions of our Republic is to protect the rights of the minority from the whim of the majority.

Let’s turn to what “compromise” has actually given us shall we? How about the Articles of Confederation? A compromise. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights both were born and shaped out of compromise. Still think “compromise” is a dirty word? I believe it to be a neutral word, the context defines it. Our Founders, those which Ron Paul supporters seem to delight in trying to use as a club, compromised on a great many things to give us a Republic and pass down to us those documents that define the ideal of what it is to be American and an American Nation. Let’s look at something a bit closer to “home” in regards to compromise, marriage. Key to a successful and “happy” marriage is based on the ability of the married couple to “come together”. Gee, that sounds strangely like compromising does it not? The key to being a successful leader is the ability to hear all sides, work out a solution so that the enterprise continues to move forward, sounds like some compromising might be involved there as well.

There is a time and place to be uncompromising, but working out solutions between two entrenched ideologies requires a leader who can work out compromises to get things moving forward, if a leader lacks that ability, well then all you get is another familiar word, gridlock. Then nothing gets accomplished or solved with the exception of the fact that the death spiral has begun. Therein lies my biggest hesitation and misgivings when it comes to Ron Paul as President, I do not see or detect that ability to lead in him. Leading zealots is easy, we have plenty of historical proof of that, leading a republic is hard because it requires an ability to bring opposites to a compromise.

Briefly, to address “gay marriage” and “abortion” and how you equate them to compromise.

First, I do not think that the government has any place in “defining” marriage or sticking their noses into it. I have addressed this issue here as for my thoughts on the matter; http://www.therightscoop.com/santorum-booed-in-nh-after-gay-marriage-discussion/
It’s towards the bottom of the first page currently, if you care to read it, as it is a bit lengthy to go into here, as well as being off topic.

Abortion, I am not going to delve too deeply into this subject either as it is off topic as well and would likely “hijack” the thread as it is an emotionally charged subject (to put it mildly). That said, by compromise in relation to that subject I can only guess that you are making an incorrect assumption on Roe v. Wade, what that decision addressed and ruled on was a Texas law that was deemed by the court to be too ambiguous too be enforceable, striking down that particular law. It neither legalized abortion nor did it prevent the State(s) from passing their own laws banning it. It affects one law in one state that’s it. I would encourage you to look up the decision and read it, all of it. Unfortunately, too many people (like yourself) have not.

I have only this to add in closing, just to head off any mistakes in where I stand politically speaking. I am not, a Republican, Libertarian, or Democrat; I do not precisely fit the label of what many interpret as a Conservative, and I am most certainly not a Liberal. What I am is a Constitutionalist, an American Constitutionalist and a strict one at that. In who I support for President I am an undecided with the exception that I am firmly Anti Obama. Make of that what you will.

http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

Hang together or hang seperately. Fence sitters lose wars. We are at war. Choose a side, and fight for it. 1776 taught us, if you have a right to liberty, you must stand together. Working in USA politics for many decades has forced me to admit, alone, I can do nothing. I join, I organize, I vote, I count votes, I carry banners. I do not sit and watch TV, as others work. Then, one day I was old. The new lads seem to not care. Independents, rebels, are not even the foam on a wave. You will get what you deserve. You might just think a minute about what you deserve. I guarantee the DNC has a long term plan, and it will destroy your liberty. I like to think, at least my claw marks are on the long slope to tryanny, here.

KenInMontana

You mistake me, sir. Just because I chose not place a (R) or (D) behind my name does not make me a “fence sitter”. Up until a couple of months ago it was not required as we had open primaries here, although now I am forced to choose whether or not I should compromise my principles and register as a “Republican”. I “chose a side” many years ago, that side was and is the US Constitution and the ideals it stands for, something the politicos in both parties long ago abandoned. So do not presume to lecture me with slogans and talking points. You won’t find any “claw marks” on that slope left by me, you can follow the bodies, as I will go down, if I go down, fighting on my feet.

Anonymous

I guess even though I have a degree in Government/Political science, I am dumb. I guess because I am a business owner and day trader, I am dumb with finances. You can pretend to know all you want, but until you realize there is very little difference between Clinton, Bush, Obama, Romney, McCain, etc etc etc, there is no argument here.

Thanks for your time.

Anonymous

Well, most certainly, having a degree does not, by right make you smart. Being a business owner and day trader, also, doesn’t, by nature, make you smart with finances. I know a lot of very stupid degree holders (they come out of our colleges every year) and a lot of broke day traders (the market is littered with them).

So, I’m not really sure where that equates to politics and I guess, then by nature, that would mean that there is an argument there, somewhere.

KenInMontana

Well I was going to respond but, it looks like you covered it all.

http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

Wow, a genuine nut!

http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

I got news for you Sparky….Ron Paul is running for the Presidency…not local mayor. This is called the big time and Ron Paul’s Insane foriegn policy is why he is a nutcase. Ron Paul is also dishonest in the way he says one thing then backtracks. Perfect example is how he preaches about how all the others are bad for taking earmarks but he puts earmarks in bills as well….over 300 billion in 2011 alone. Then after he loads them full of pork he votes against the bill knowing he will be in the minority so he can hypocritically said I voted against it. He also makes millions of dollars on his newsletters and then says he know nothing about what is in them while saying he is the editor.

I got news for your the editors job is to read what is to be printed and sent out for completeness and message. To say you don’t know what is said in your own newsletter that carries your name is nonsense. He ain’t squeaky clean…as a matter of fact he is pretty dirty.

Back to his kooky foreign policy; Who in the right mind says this…..

“If we leave the terrorists alone, they will leave us alone.”
“Osama bin Laden was our good friend because he was a freedom fighter”

That is isolationist or appeasment talk. That has been tried twice in the world and PROVEN to be bad….

Also, other than Ron Pauls ideas other than the FED there is really nothing about his domestic policy that is all that inovative or detailed. Once you get past I want to fire Bernanke, abolish the Fed and 5 other Government agencies his ideas are very vague…..light on detail and short on fact. Also, there is no explaination about the impacts of abolishing these departments there impacts on the citizenry or how he plans to offset the loss of services or what remaining departments will pick up the slack.

”If you can’t take the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen!” — Harry Truman.

Anonymous

Oh man, you called me sparky, that means you MUST be right.

Go ahead vote Romney into office. In a couple of years, when you are pulling your hair out because we are defaulting on some of our debt, and we see our debt go from 15 trillion to 20 trillion, I want you to remember how dumb you are for not voting in someone who is fiscally smart.

Romney was an absolute disaster as governor. Enjoy your new president……Sparky.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_CEIVCJOJU3JJBFIWTB7EMP7ZJE FillmoreBrown

Beck sounds Angry and grumpy Mr. Whiny Pants
http://twitter.com/Winston80 Winston

It is a waste of energy and time to reason with insane people.

Anonymous

I agree.

Anonymous

HEY RNC POST THIS IN AN AD IF YOU HAVE ANY BALLS!
Anonymous

Actually, Glenn Beck wasn’t precise about Islam’s “three choices for unbelievers”, since chapter 9 verse 29 of the Qur’an only applies to “people of the book”, ie. Christians, Jews & Muslims – It isn’t a blanket protection for all other kinds of unbelievers.

It may even be argued that chapter 9 verse 5 abrogates chapter 9 verse 29, meaning that Muslims do not have to offer “subjugation as a dhimmi” to Christians and Jews, but can instead just offer them the options to “convert or die”, just like other types of unbelievers.

But yes, Glenn Beck is spot on about how OBL spoke to other Muslims and how he spoke to Westerners. All we got was the propaganda that was intended to fool naive and ignorant Westerners like Ron Paul. The Islamic texts sanction and mandate warfare against unbelievers, but OBL would only ever say it to Muslims, and usually only in Arabic so that it would be as hard as possible for Westerners to know the truth.

Anonymous

but but.. chapters 8 and 9 are the last chapters written… yet you’re saying vs 5 of Sira 9 abrogates vs 29. Islam sure is full of surprises. Will the Islamic insanity ever end? (sarc.)

Anonymous

Yes, but as far as I know 9:29 was written earlier than 9:5, hence 9:5 abrogates 9:29 since there is a contradiction between 9:5 instructing Muslims to offer conversion or death to unbelievers, and 9:29 instructing Muslims to offer conversion, subjugation or death to Christians and Jews, but only conversion or death to other types of unbelievers.

Either Allah wants Muslims to offer conversion or death to Christians and Jews, or Allah wants Muslims to offer conversion, subjugation or death to Christians or Jews. 9:5 coming later than 9:29 suggests that the offer of subjugation was abrogated.

Historically, Muslims did offer subjugation to Christians and Jews, even after Muhammad’s death, but it seemed like it was “optional” for Muslims, and they would be more likely to offer subjugation in lands where Muslims were a minority and did not have the power to offer conversion or death, without being resisted by the populace.

http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

The Koran has been translated to English for centuries.

Anonymous

Yes, but people aren’t interested in reading it to learn what it sanctions and mandates, and even if they were then they’d be put off by the way it was written, or put off by the varying interpretations and different translations.

Furthermore, Muslims in the West (eg. CAIR) are actively engaged in a campaign to make Islam seem peaceful – One example is how they’ll go on about how “there is no compulsion in religion” (2:256) without mentioning the VERY important fact that 2:256 is abrogated by 9:5 which make it clear that there is indeed compulsion in religion, given that Muslims are instructed to offer conversion or death to unbelievers.

Anonymous

There were two callers that have been posted.

The calm and rational Ron Paul caller
http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/01/06/the-tale-of-two-ron-paul-supporters-best-paul-supporter-to-ever-call-into-radio/

and the typical ‘irate and if you don’t agree with me’ Ron Paul caller
http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/01/06/the-tale-of-two-ron-paul-supporters-the-typical-ron-paul-caller/
http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

I think we can safely say that the spooky little hobgoblin from Texas is finished. Beck finally gets it with Ron Paul and is hammering away at him. Beck mentioned the other day that he has been getting “death threats” from Paulbots since he started denouncing him and his crackpot policies.

Stay classy, Paulbots.
Anonymous

“Pray to the one and only true saviour our Lord Jesus Christ for with God all our enemies will be eradicated through his LOVE .”

Anonymous

We need more war, not Christian example.

I do find it interesting that most conservatives seem to ignore God’s promise to protect Israel when her enemies come to destroy her. Faith requires that we believe God. The problem is that if we recognized this, we wouldn’t be talking about Iran threatening to annihilate Israel as a real possibility.

K-Bob

That is a totally corrupt view of “faith.” You have to plant the cops and harvest them, they don’t just fall on you plate already prepared for consumption.

Anonymous

The bible actually says that “God” will protect them. Old Testament prophesy describes exactly how. The reason that God does the protecting, is because the whole world comes against Israel. This includes the US, if we are even a player in the world by then. The bible says that there will be ten kings that rule the world. Many believe that this will be ten regions, or Unions. The North American Union is not a conspiracy theory. I believe that the US will fall economically and be absorbed into Canada and Mexico as the NAU. If this is one of the ten biblical kingdoms, the US will no longer have sovereignty, and will be thrust into a war against Israel. The bible does say that two of the ten kingdoms go against the anti-Christ, so maybe the NAU will be one of them.

The way I see “faith” is that which we believe enough to act on. Though we should always support Israel as a nation, we should also believe the promises of God. When we speak in terms of Iran nuking Israel, it is contrary to God’s word.

Though we have helped make biblical prophesy come true. Recently in Libya and Egypt, we helped surround her with her enemies. If you mean that we should sow the biblical seeds of prophesy, then I agree that we are.

K-Bob

You’d get farther if you’d stop rewriting what people wrote. Doesn’t disguise it when you add “if you mean,” in front of it.

Even those who struggle at writing generally “mean” what they wrote.

The point I made was that faith doesn’t mean “wait for God to manifest.”

Christine Prystash

Actually sometimes, more than we would like, we ARE to wait for the Lord. But it takes WISDOM, found by reading scripture, to know what he is saying.

Psalm 119:166
I wait for your salvation, LORD, and I follow your commands.

Psalm 130:5
I wait for the LORD, my whole being waits, and in his word I put my hope.

Psalm 130:6
I wait for the Lord more than watchmen wait for the morning, more than watchmen wait for the morning.

Proverbs 20:22
Do not say, “I’ll pay you back for this wrong!” Wait for the LORD, and he will avenge you.

Isaiah 8:17
I will wait for the LORD, who is hiding his face from the descendants of Jacob. I will put my trust in him.

Isaiah 26:8
Yes, LORD, walking in the way of your laws, we wait for you; your name and renown are the desire of our hearts.

Isaiah 30:18
Yet the LORD longs to be gracious to you; therefore he will rise up to show you compassion. For the LORD is a God of justice. Blessed are all who wait for him!

Anonymous

He’s right except he says that we are in peril as long as we are dependent on Middle Eastern Oil. The other guy says that it doesn’t matter and I agree with him. They want us dead because we are infidels and it has nothing to do with oil. However, becoming energy independent would definitely reduce the wealth being used to target us.
http://profiles.google.com/ajtelles Art Telles

Who to believe –
The infidel Paul or the “top rung of the ladder” true believer bin Laden…

- – - – - – - – - -

“Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them
ultimately revolve around one issue—one that demands
our total support, with power and determination, with one voice—and it is:

Does Islam, or does it not,
force people by the power of the sword
to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually?

Yes.

There are only three choices in Islam:

[1] either willing submission [conversion]; or

[2] payment of the jizya, through physical, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; or

[3] the sword — for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live.

The matter is summed up for every person alive:
- Either submit,
- or live under the suzerainty of Islam,
- or die.”

–Osama Bin Laden
(The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 42)

- – - – - – - – - -

PS. Who is the “infidel”?

The believer in Allah or the believer in Yahweh?

From the Allah(ist) point of view -
the infidel is the believer in Yahweh, the God of Abraham and Sarah and Isaac and Jacob (renamed Israel) and Moses and David and Jesus

From the Yahweh(ist) point of view -
the infidel is the believer in Allah, the crescent moon god of Abraham and Hagar and Ishmael and Muhammad

So, a question to ask the “don’t insult MY religion” islamic jhiadistic supremacist is, who are you calling infidel, infidel?

Art
Anonymous

Were we bombing them in 1784?

In 1784, Congress authorized American diplomats John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson to negotiate with the Muslim terrorists. [18] Negotiations proceeded, and in 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson candidly asked the Ambassador from Tripoli the motivation behind their unprovoked attacks against Americans. What was the response?

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet [Mohammed] – that it was written in their Koran that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners; that is was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise. [19] Given this “spiritual” incentive to enslave and make war, the Muslim attacks against American ships and seamen were frequent.

By the end of Adams’ administration, extortion payments to the Muslim terrorists accounted for twenty percent of the federal budget.
C laire

and yet GB said that he would vote for Ron Paul over Newt Gingrich

Anonymous

I think it is because Gingrich really has no understanding of our economic situation. He supported the policies that got us into this mess. Beck at least understands that Paul is the only candidate who saw this economic mess coming and is the only one who can get us out of it.

Anonymous

I think some of you would benifit from hearing about Islam from someone who grew up in it and has studied it and REJECTED IT. Please read it is worth the read. I was directed to this website from another and found this information very compelling.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/01/letter-of-an-ex-muslim-to-the-critics-of-pamela-geller.html

Anonymous

three other excellent sites:

Welcome to Islam-Watch
http://www.islam-watch.org/

Creeping Sharia
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/

Jihad Watch
http://www.jihadwatch.org/

Ken Caudll

Oh my.

Ron Paul is crazy because he doesn’t want to send Americans to kill Muslims because they’re Muslims.

And, of course, he’s an isolationist because he doesn’t want to kill our potential trading partners.

Yeah, that’s it.

I don’t know why those crazy, wacko, nutjob supporters of his can’t see that.

Anonymous

He’s crazy for not wanting to defend America from islamist–who want to destroy us. It’s not a secret you know….they say it every day in about a 1000 different ways!

Anonymous

Paul believes the number 1 role of the Federal Government is national security. Please stop letting Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck take Paul out of context.

The logical progression of saying “they” attacked us because of something in the Koran is that we will have to kill all Muslims in order to be safe. Is that really the road you want to go down? The U.S.A lived peacefully in the world next to Islam for hundreds of years, and they did not start attacking us until we began placing combat troops and equipment in their holy lands. Please take just a few minutes to look at the data.

Professor Robert Pape has compiled one of the only databases of every suicide terrorist attack since 1980 (the phenomenon of suicide terrorism did not exist before then).

While the phenomenon of suicide terrorism did not really exist before 1980, there were 383 attacks in the World between 1980 and 2003 and then about 1,800 attacks after March of 2003 when the Iraq war began. The empirical evidence links 95% of all suicidal terrorist acts to a secular and strategic goal of compelling democratic states to withdraw combat forces from the terrorists’ homelands. This data really has to drive the foreign policy debate. If we don’t understand the threat, how can we stop it? Please watch this lecture by Professor Pape explaining the data:

If that data doesn’t convince you of their motivations, maybe I can appeal to your emotions with this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY

K-Bob

No, that’s not it.

Anonymous

Glenn loves to rewrite his history, so he’s just like Michelle Obama in that regard. He was damn near endorsing Ron Paul a couple weeks ago. He said he’d vote for Ron Paul over Newt Gingrich, EVEN 3rd party. Thus Beck flushes his ‘credibility’ down the toilet. Now he back tracks and rewrites the facts.
The truth has no agenda, but Glenn Beck does. That is, he supports Mitt Romney. He timed his out-of-the-blue and over the top libelous attacks on Newt just as Newt was clobbering Romney in the polls. The SAME time Romney unleashed millions and millions of $$$ of attack ads (along with Barack Obama’s Trojan Horse fool, Ron Paul), was the same time Beck targeted Newt. Mission accomplished as far as Beck is concerned.
Beck can barely bring himself to criticize Romney for *ANYTHING*, he actually tried to say Mitt is conservative compared to Newt, laughable. The GOP and DC establishment love Mitt and hate Newt. Wall Street, K Street and the DC ‘conservative’ pundits love Romney, and hate Newt. But Beck says Newt is the ‘establishment’s’ candidate. Who has the money? Newt is on a shoe string budget, Mitt has virtually unlimited cash.
Now Beck tries to hide behind Rush Limbaugh? Laughable again. Rush has been clobbering Romney for months, Rush is crystal clear who the establishment wants and who they hate.
Now compare Newt’s record to Santorum, You tell me where the policy differences are? Split some hairs if you wish. Fact is, Newt, Bachmann, Santroum, Perry, ALL are about 95% the SAME on the issues and CONSERVATIVE. The rest is just style, skills, experience etc.
The MODERATE to LIBERAL , aka RINO, names are Romney and Hunstman. And the establishment LOVES either of those 2. 100% guarantee Huntsman will endorse Romney btw. Then there’s lib-freak Ron paul, Obama’s water carrier.
You can pick which Conservative you like, the only ones left are Newt and the 2 Ricks. I think we’ll see Santorum collapse, he was just the last man standing and Romney and paul didn’t have time to trash him in Iowa, now they will.

Anonymous

Right on!

Thank God we still have some sensible Americans out there that see what’s going on.

After Beck’s calling us racist and stating he would vote for Ron Paul if Newt was the nominee, I stopped watching and listening to Beck. He’s turned into a narcissist like Ann Coulter.

http://www.facebook.com/david.masiwchuk David Scott Masiwchuk

I seldom listen to Glenn anymore cause I am starting to think he wants a Obama second term cause it would be good for his bottom line but I was listening when this was on…He is dead on but Glenn needs to wake up some. He might not like the nomination but if he loves his country he will vote for who ever is not Obama. I am sorry but standing principle and watching your country burn sounds righteous but if you can slow down the fire consuming it that gives you more time to save it why the hell wouldn’t you do that?

Anonymous

Please please please take a minute and look at the statistics. I know what the Koran says, but in our current state of affairs, we can reduce the threat without having to bomb every Muslim country: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4HnIyClHEM

http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

There you go again, Beck! OBL was just repeating the Koran to you. This is the basic Muslim faith. You have expounded on a basic tenet of the Muslims. If not Laden, then some other Muslim will be saying it on national TV. All Muslims want, and pray for this. And, it will not stop tomorrow, despite all your hopes. So, what you gonna do? Oil companies around the world, gave this wealth to the Muslims, thinking they were going to do as they had around the world. Wrong. They just took it, as easily as they will cut your throat. Now, they use this wealth to continue their 5000 year war. If you want to survive, you better make some tough decisions. I suggest, drill now, ban Muslim oil. Ban ALL foreign oil drillers in the USA. As to oil field equipment, there are many US companies that can reopen. Or, just roll, over. If you want peace at any price, you will get it, in the grave.
BS61

Well, I’ll admit to not having listened to the clip. But didn’t GB say that he would vote 3rd party for Ron Paul?!!

I really learned alot and liked him when he didn’t talk politics.
Anonymous

Glenn you have an agenda? Getting a Morman elected? I wish you hadn’t gotten sick when you did so my preacher could have given you THE Gospel like he did one of your cameramen who accepted the Lord right there on the set. I don’t know what’s happened to Glenn Beck.
bobemakk

I was a big fan of Glenn Beck when he was on FOX. And most all of his predictions have come to fruition. Glenn said that Obama will be re-elected and that scares the living hell out of me.

Romney is too moderate. And if Ron Paul or Trump runs on a third party ticket, they will guarantee an Obama win. I still support Gingrich. The lamestream media is trashing Newt for “historical” baggage. All politicians have baggage if we dig deep enough, but the lamestream/left socialists won’t expose democrats, they love the big zero/Obama. Newt has made his mark with his “Contract with America,” a contract he fulfilled that no other politician can match.

God Help US!
Anonymous

Well, I’m surprised that Beck debunk Ron Paul’s theory of why we were attacked on 9/11, but I digress.

I would recommend reading Ann Barnhardt’s explanation, which I believe you’ll understand clearer. She does agree with Beck’s analysis, but she corrects him on the meaning “suzerainty” word.

Anyhow, here’s Ann’s explanation:

“I HAVE TO LINK TO THIS BECK CLIP
POSTED BY ANN BARNHARDT – JANUARY 6, AD 2012 5:59 PM MST
I was utterly disgusted when Beck accused anyone who would vote for Gingrich over Obama of being racist a few weeks ago. Utterly disgusted.

But, I have to post the link to this Beck video clip from today, because I agree with every single word. Every single syllable. Every single phoneme. Fair is fair.

Many of you put signature footers at the bottom of your emails. I would recommend putting this Osama Bin Laden quote on your emails, on your websites, where ever. Post this quote on ANY thread that a RonPaulbot tries to hijack. Because at the end of the day, this quote from Bin Laden himself is the absolute simple quintessence of the totalitarian political system that is islam. Here it is:

“Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue—one that demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice—and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: [1] either willing submission [conversion]; or [2] payment of the jizya, through physical, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; or [3] the sword — for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die.”
–Osama Bin Laden
(The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 42)

Beck mis-read the word “suzerainty” as “scrutiny”. Wrong. “Suzerainty” is a French-origin word (“suzerain”) that means “overlordship”. Google it and look it up for yourself. Bin Laden uses exactly the right word in this context.

Please note that Bin Laden confirms my premise that islam is NOT a religion, but a completely earthly totalitarian political system:

“force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually” “payment of the jizya, through physical, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam”

Thank you. Musloids do not give a flying flip if you actually believe any of their pseudo-religious crap. Hell, only the inbred mentally retarded ones actually believe any of that nonsense themselves. Why don’t they care if you actually believe any of it? Why are they satisfied with mere physical submission without any spiritual “submission”? Why are they satisfied with “infidels” merely paying a tax (jizya)?

BECAUSE IT ISN’T A RELIGION AT ALL. Islam isn’t about “allah” or “paradise” or “prayer” or “spirituality” or how human beings should relate to one another or how human beings should relate to a “god” or the eternal fate of the human soul. THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT ANY OF THAT. Islam is about acquiring physical, earthly territory and installing a totalitarian government over the earth that provides a cadre of “elites” masquerading as some sort of “clergy” with massive decadent wealth and as much twisted perverted sex as they want, including homosexual and heterosexual pedohilia, ephebophilia, concubinage, incest, bestiality and necrophilia. There is nothing new under the sun. They want power, they want money and they want sex. The “religious” aspects are a stone-cold con, which Bin Laden himself declared in no uncertain terms.

Spread the word.”

http://barnhardt.biz/
http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Dunne/100000731756119 Mike Dunne

Glenn has gone off the rails on a crazy train!
Listening to that over the top, hyperbolic rhetoric, at the end of that clip, was like listening to a Democrat trying to stop Social Security reform, saying “The Republicans are trying to KILL OLD PEOPLE!!!”

Texas heat melting his brain?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Marks/1266358046 Paul Marks

Where Ron Paul is right, Glenn admits he is right. Where Ron Paul is mistaken it is shown how he is mistaken.
http://twitter.com/Seanmj63376 Sean Johnson

This is great what Beck is doing but he and Ann Coulter gave this asshat Paul ligitimacy in their attempt to trash Newt. They are the reason why he went from a fringe canidate to the problem he is today. Sorry Beck, you can’t put the gennie back in the bottle.
Anonymous

Glenn, you seem upset.

You don’t seem to understand that RP wants to ‘legalize the constitution’. That SOLVES the energy problem AND the security problem.

Who cares what RP personally thinks about Islam. He won’t fund the Islamists through the UN like everyone else will.

Glenn, I like you a lot, but you need to have more faith in what FREE Americans can accomplish. We can do things like, gasp, arm our pilots, which alone would have saved us from 9/11. (But, take a guess who prevented us from doing that!)
Anonymous

Beck is on target with this one.
Anonymous

Am I correct in hearing that Beck said he would vote Ron Paul over Newt?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Chuck-Beeler/100001587242768 Chuck Beeler

I agree with the oil argument. I am somewhat mystified how we allowed Iraq to ink huge oil deals with China and only one for the U.S ( I believe Exxon). China, which isn’t Islamic, is buying resources around the world and is eating our lunch… and then we pull out of Iraq? What was the real purpose of invading that country? To give it to the Iranians? I think it is well and good to protect our strategic interest but we’ve got to have a better plan then invade a country and allow our economic rivals to get the benefit.

We do need an intelligent energy policy. What we don’t need is a bunch of politicians who want to dictate the terms based on their profit potential for themselves.
Anonymous

He’s talking about CIA reports morons!!!!! Our own government has written intel reports about “Blowback” ever heard of that term? Apparently not…anyhoo if you wanna rule the oil in the middle east, which IS the reason we are there, everything revolves around economics…deny it if you will, but you would be wrong…. If you wanna be an empire boyz and girlz you gotta go Roman. And just how did the Romans rule the crazies for so long? Hmmm? They killed them without fear of political reprisal. Now that may go against your so called Judeao/Christian Morals, but it is the reality under which we live. And the reality under which the entire world has lived in, well since the begining of time. The Bible is a pretty good historical source document on WAR.. maybe we should all better educate ourselves on the true nature of the Heathans of the Middle east. So Go-ahead all powerfull Neo-con chicken hawks and embroil Amerika in another war….No big deal right… Money is plentiful? Oh wait but now we have that issue of “what is money?” to contend with….hmmm how inconvenient …. well I guess thats what inflation is for huh? But don’t worry Amerika your leaders will lead you to the genocidal promise land so that you can continue to have your $3.50 /gallon gasoline. I mean afterall it was written in the scriptures was it not????????
http://www.facebook.com/people/Otto-Hoffman/100002067436459 Otto Hoffman

“Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue—one that demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice—and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: [1] either willing submission [conversion]; or [2] payment of the jizya, through physical, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; or [3] the sword — for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die.”
–Osama Bin Laden
(The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 42)

http://www.facebook.com/david.masiwchuk David Scott Masiwchuk

But but but where is the “We attack cause America bombed Iraq for 10 years” like the great and Holy Paul said?

Anonymous

It’s right here David: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4HnIyClHEM

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_CCFJJ55JAC4JN4HKHMYUNIQI5Q PatrickC

As a new Ron Paul supporter, I will humbly ask this group to simply keep an open mind and think for themselves. So, Glen says that our rationale for occupying the middle east is that we should be protecting oil and our lifestyle? really? This is very Roman Empire like talk, except the U.S. is now Rome. Wow. Have we really gone that far?

http://www.facebook.com/david.masiwchuk David Scott Masiwchuk

You need to read some history……Find out what happens every time a coward like Paul gets his way.

Anonymous

It’s right here David: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4HnIyClHEM

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7UYXQ4HDXDW4MB7LVKSVYSSHSA Thinker

Jesus, would ya’ all grow a pair already? We stood up to the Soviets for decades and you’re freaking about an Islamic splinter group? Here’s a plan, let’s bring the troops home. Welcome them all back as the heroes they are. Let them rest and regroup. Then, if a country tries to ACTUALLY attack us, unleash the full might of our armed forces, kill them and come back home again.

Who gives a sh-t on Earth about Osama and his speech? Seriously! “Oh. Oh. Osama said it was a holywar.” Do they use some sort of holy-bullets that we can’t deal with? Some holy-shield that stops drones with smart bombs and cruise missles? Not that I’ve read about.

Bring the troops home. Let them get to enjoy some of the peace that we get to. Let the FBI and CIA do their jobs – which is to prevent terrorist attacks and/or apprehend the terrorist criminals. They’ve been doing well so far.

In the mean time, if any of the t.v. and talk-radio “did-not-non-servi-cons” would like to enlist and help protect us, by all means, there must be a military recruiter not too far from your studios.
http://www.soopermexican.com Soopermexican

Thank goodness he’s pointing his craziness at other crazies for once.
Anonymous

I wish Glenn would interview Michael Scheuer, the former CIA agent who was at one time in charge of tracking Osama bin Laden, and Professor Robert Pape, who has compiled one of the only databases of every suicide terrorist attack since 1980 (the phenomenon of suicide terrorism did not exist before then).

While the phenomenon of suicide terrorism did not really exist before 1980, there were 383 attacks between 1980 and 2003 and then about 1,800 attacks after March of 2003 when the Iraq war began. The empirical evidence links 95% of all suicidal terrorist acts to a secular and strategic goal of compelling democratic states to withdraw combat forces from the terrorists’ homelands. This data really has to drive the foreign policy debate. If we don’t understand the threat, how can we stop it? Please watch this lecture by Professor Pape explaining the data:

Perhaps Glenn could interview the hundreds of active duty servicemen who have contributed more to Ron Paul than all the other Republican and Democratic candidates combined (in recognition of Paul’s understanding of the threat).

Lemmingsrnotusdamnit

Go ahead and keep ignoring the obvious stated goals and actions of Islamists. Putting your head in the sand will make it all go away.

Don’t believe what they say to themselves and their own people. Just ignore it.

It will help you sleep.

Anonymous

Even if I were to concede the point that the terrorist threat is Islam itself, what is the foreign policy that results from that conclusion? Do we have to bring back the crusades and kill every Muslim for our country to be safe? I just don’t understand where you are going with your point.

Our country went almost 200 years without a terrorist attack committed by a radical Muslim on our soil. So what exactly has recently changed that makes them want to come over here and kill us?

I do not concede that Islam itself is the threat, but even if it were, the data would still suggest that while Islam might be the fuse for the bomb, the militaristic presence in their holy lands by Democratic governments is the actual spark that lit the fuse.

Lemmingsrnotusdamnit

When a shark smells blood, what do you think will happen? Use your head. Wishful thinking isn’t a solution to anything. Leaving them alone won’t work.

Michael Roche

http://youtu.be/jlgav80cpbg

http://youtu.be/aRnsNxBZo94

Anonymous

I find it amusing that Glenn Beck supports Madeline Albright’s view that the death of 500,000 Iraqi children was a good thing and did nothing to bring about 9/11. How the deaths of those who had nothing to do with any aggression were sacrificed by the sanctions that were put on Iraq. If he truly thinks that these deaths did not stir up anger against the U.S. than I truly must think that the drugs that Glenn has taken over the years has actually damaged his logical thought.

Lemmingsrnotusdamnit

What in God’s name are you talking about? Any suffering in Iraq was caused by Saddam and his horrid and corrupt regime. Plain and simple. You are a fine Paulbot zombie.

Michael Roche

Youtube USA blowback

Anonymous

Glenn Beck wants to save us from Islam but, then will send us to Goldline for a good screwing.
Michael Roche

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=usa+blowback%2C+playlist
Mark Branham

the great thing about Islam is that it is what ever you want it to be. If you want to assign to Islam the nutjobs like bin laden, that’s what you will get from all of Islam. I’ve met some muslims who think about bin laden just as I do. ALL religions are cursed with an element of whackjobs, just look at the evangelicals that defile christianity.
http://www.proform-coupons.com/ BeauOnTheJob

The foreign policy is the only real hang up I have with him – I’d like to hear more from his own mouth on the subject
Anonymous

If Obama has neatly placed America in its coffin, which Republican candidate will nail the lid shut?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Br-Lortz/100001235203172 B.r. Lortz

hey Glenn…I don’t know who your side kicks are but the Alinsky rule #5 ridicule of Dr. Paul did not help your case. Why don’t you understand the our economic mess is directly tied to our foreign policy? and could you yell “kill me” little louder as i am not scared yet. thanks, an x-fan

http://www.facebook.com/david.masiwchuk David Scott Masiwchuk

Glenn is right though. Paul is not. History proves it.

Glenn Beck debunks the Ron Paul crazy

awesome meter

subscribe to us

Places of Interest

Admin

archives

required viewing