Neturei Karta in New Hampshire

Ron Paul shakes hands with Neturei Karta leader Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss in New Hampshire

Ron Paul shakes hands with Neturei Karta leader Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss in New Hampshire. Badge reads "A Jew, not a Zionist"

I’ll be uploading my regular article later today, but this was too good not to post:

Members of the anti-Zionist Neturei Karta, the same ‘Orthodox’ Jews that were paid by Yasser Arafat and who traveled to Iran to meet Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, called upon the Republican presidential hopefuls in New Hampshire to “support the Palestinian people by rejecting support for Israel as an independent state.”

Poor Ron Paul. He probably thought this photo-op would improve his tattered image among Jews!

Technorati Tags: , ,

12 Responses to “Neturei Karta in New Hampshire”

  1. Robman says:

    I’m sure Ron Paul knows exactly who these people are.

    I’m equally sure Ron Paul really doesn’t care what Jews think of him, but if he can encourage anti-Israel Judenrats to support him as a propaganda ploy to convince others that he’s not an antisemite, fine.

    I have little doubt that Ron Paul is a closet Nazi, and is the sort of person who’d have read “The Turner Diaries” and thought it was a great book.

    He has no chance of getting the Republican nomination, let alone winning the presidency. However, as sure as night follows day, I expect him to declare an independent/third party candidacy, so as to fracture the Republican vote and ensure Obama’s re-election.

    He will do this in order to screw Israel.

    Yep, that’s right folks. The same guy who, in a heartbeat, would accuse a Jewish American like me of being “unpatriotic” for my support of Israel, will greatly increase the chances of re-electing someone who is opposed to him on just about every other issue you could think of, from tax policy, to monetary policy, to gun rights, to gay rights, to affirmative action, to the role of government in the economy, you name it…just to screw Israel.

    He’ll saddle us with another four years of the most corrupt and incompetent president in modern history – maybe in the whole of our history – just over Israel.

    And people like him accuse folks like me of being “Israel-centric”!!

    Readers in Israel, thanks to Paul, prepare yourselves for another four years of Obama.

    I’m not saying it is a sure thing. I think it is possible that the GOP nominee, if he runs a skillful campaign, can defeat both Paul and Obama in November. But it is going to be tough. I’d say the chances are maybe 55-45 in favor of Obama’s re-election, due to the Paul factor.

    I’ll even go so far as to predict a specific date when Paul will declare his independent candidacy: April 20.

    That’s Hitler’s birthday.

  2. juvanya says:

    Robman, that had to have been the most irrational and prejudiced thing I have ever read.

    Its highly doubtful that Paul knows who they were. He seems to not know enough about the conflict at all and who really knows who these goons are. I didnt know about them for the longest time.

    Ron Paul certainly does care what people think of him, but Jews are only 2% of the country and perhaps 5% of the electorate, insignificant outside of NJ, NY, and FL.

    If you think he is a closet Nazi, you are absolutely retarded because theres nothing to base that on. Nazism is a socialist collectivist ideology. Ron Paul is a libertarian individualist.

    He has a good chance to become the nominee once a few hurdles are cleared. He is currently second in delegate and vote count. SC will add to this. After Florida are a number of caucus states he could very well win. Its doubtful he will declare a third party run because it will make things difficult for Rand and will damage the message, altho he did poll at 14%. He can do more by taking his delegates to the convention and modifying the platform. Hes not out for blood and that shows how ignorant you are about him.

    Now you are getting irrational that he will sabotage the American politics to screw over Israel. He does not have any vile hatred of Israel and if you used one of your two brain cells, you would know that Ron Paul defended Israels bombing of Osirak and defends their right to bomb Iran.

    Youre insane.

    Unless Ron Paul is the nominee, Obama is going to win regardless of whether Paul runs third party, which he wont. And 55-45, what does that even mean. You just pulled it out of your smelly ass.

    Ok now you really show your profound ignorance and prejudice. You know absolutely nothing of Ron Paul and have the ranting venomous rage of a racist on the order of…Hitler himself.

    You make me ashamed to be a Jew and a Zionist.

  3. juvanya says:

    Enough of this! This picture is about of representative of Ron Paul as these pictures are of Israel:

  4. juvanya says:

    Enough of this! This picture is about of representative of Ron Paul as these pictures are of Israel:

    There is absolutely no evidence that Ron Paul is antisemitic and if you think that, you have no idea what youre talking about.

  5. Vic Rosenthal says:

    Gentlemen — Aggressive debate is OK. More personal attacks (e.g., “smelly ass,” etc.) will cause me to delete the comment and put the user on moderation. There will be no more warnings.

  6. Robman says:

    OK, Juvanya.

    Ron Paul has received support in the past by an outfit called “Stormfront”, which is a known neo-Nazi organization.

    I am well aware of the differences between Libertarianism and Nazism. I use the “Nazi” term a bit loosely here, I admit, as regards Ron Paul’s outrageous and often demonstraed antipathy towards Israel, as well as his sympathy for Israel’s enemies, who in fact do have many actual historical links with the Nazis (e.g., Arafat’s mentor, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during the WW2 and immediate post-WW2 era, openly collaborated with the Nazis).

    Ron Paul has among the worst voting records in Congress on Israel. This is amply documented. This is not because he is simply ‘against foreign aid’. He has voted in favor of aid to the Palestinians. He seems to be rather “selective” in his professed isolationism.

    That is true, he did defend Israel’s Osirak raid. That was 30 years ago.

    Yes, he “defends” Israel’s right to bomb Iran. But he’s also been quoted as saying, “…and suffer the consequences”. Read: in the wake of the retaliation carried out by Iran and her proxies, under a President Paul, Israel can expect no backing from the U.S. whatsoever. That means no new aircraft to replace losses, no spare parts, no munitions. You might counter that Israel’s military is so vastly superior that she wouldn’t need that…but you’d be wrong. Israel needed and received substantial resupply from the U.S. even during the ’06 Lebanon war, and that was nothing compared to what she’d need in a war dealing with Iran. Unless Israel used nuclear arms – Do you want to see that? – as long as the conflict remained conventional, Israel would badly need U.S. support. And wouldn’t get it. SO, if Paul were president, unless Israel were able to secure another strategic partner on the level of the U.S. – hardly likely in the time frame needed to deal with Iran before it is too late – then Israel cannot make her move WITHOUT WMDs. Which means, due to the pressure of world opinion, Israel wouldn’t move. BUT, according to Paul, they can go right ahead and hit Iran if they think that’s what’s best….

    [Sidenote: Obama probably won’t provide resupply to Israel either, but he’d at least keep forces in theater in order to contain the related conflagration, which indirectly helps Israel. He’d have to do this just to protect his – Obama’s – REAL “buddy”, Saudi Arabia. Israel is counting on this U.S. support, if it comes to that, even if reluctantly given. Of course, Paul would withdraw from the region, and not even do that, making an Israeli conventional strike all but untenable.]

    Israel is hardly unique that way, in terms of needing U.S. support, among American allies. South Korea also counts on U.S. support in dealing with North Korea – we have 28,000 troops on the ground there to ensure this. North Korea is highly belligerent, but even they don’t go around talking about “wiping South Korea off the map”. This costs the U.S. some $20 billion a year, seven times what we provide to Israel, and they thank us by running up massive trade surpluses against us. Funny, how we rarely hear Paul talk about this. I’m sure if asked, Paul would also say, “Oh yeah, we need to get out of Korea, too”…but this does not seem to be his priority. Pulling the rug from under Israel is, however.

    I’ve seen the footage from back in ’09, he freely commented to an Iranian journalist that the Palestinians in Gaza were living in conditions akin to a “concentration camp” (you ought to see the shopping malls and resorts they have there…really!). He scoffed at the idea of the Palestinians being the aggressors, since they were, per him, “only making homemade bombs”. Well, the 9-11 hijackers only had utility knives! I guess that means WE were the aggressors on 9-11, huh? He said the only reason the Israelis acted militarily against Gaza was because ‘they know that we’ll back them up every time’…not a word about the literallyl thousands of rockets and mortars that had been fired at Israel from Gaza up to that time, in a matter of weeks leading up to Israel’s action.

    Paul has often blamed Moslem antipathy towards the U.S. as being based on U.S. policies, such as our basing of troops in Saudi Arabia. But we base troops in Korea, in the UK, in Japan…would that mean that we should expect and excuse Japanese terrorism leveled at the U.S.? Is terrorism justified against us because of our “unbalanced” support of Israel? Then why don’t we see North Korean terrorists attacking us because of our “unbalanced” support of South Korea? By the way, that is how you treat people you call your “allies”…you FAVOR them over your – and their – ENEMIES. Usually that’s why we call them “allies”, because we face the same enemies. And believe me, the only difference between the U.S. and Israel on that score, is that for Israel, Afghanistan is RIGHT NEXT DOOR.

    Ron Paul has been serving in Congress for 35 years. He has been exposed to these issues for literally decades. He has run for president more than once. Foreign policy is the most central responsibility of any president. Ron Paul’s frequent commentary on this topic – particularly concerning the Middle East, and by the way, no one held a gun to his head to go talking to that Iranian journalist, feeding their propaganda -indicate a great deal of personal passion for the topic.

    Given the above, to include the responsibilities of the office he seeks, his long experience in D.C., and his demonstrated interest in the topic, there is absolutely no excuse whatever for his incredible ignorance regarding the same. To write off his outrageous views and commentary as mere ignorance is itself outrageous. His behavior and views clearly indicate an intense bigotry against Israel, completely outside of rational considerations of genuine national interest.

    The European Union’s own working definition of anti-Semitism includes a clause that identifies as anti-Semitic judging Israel in a pejorative way according to a unique set of standards not applied to other countries. Paul is clearly guilty of this, and the congruence of his views with the standard talking point positions of the most bloody-minded and radically Jew-hating, anti-Israel elements on the planet clearly mark Paul as a vicious anti-Semite. That you do not see this, or refuse to see this, makes a mockery of any credibility you may claim you make to being a “Zionist”, except perhaps in the most ill-informed sense, bordering on being delusional. Who are you kidding?

    At any rate, if you’re so sure of yourself, “Juvanya”, I’m willing to make a little wager with you.

    Vic can be the intermediary.

    $100 says Ron will run third party/independent. If you are right and he doesn’t, I’ll send a money order to Vic and he can send it to you.

    If he does, you send a $100 MO to Vic and he fowards the same to me.

    Are you game? Or are you just talk?

    Believe me, that is one bet I’d be VERY happy to lose!

  7. juvanya says:

    Yes he has received support by Nazis and white supremacists. So what? That doesnt make him a Nazi. He has massive youth support and is within 6 points of Obama on the youth vote. Does that make him a youth?

    He does not have antipathy towards Israel and there is nothing wrong with sympathizing with an enemy. Im pretty sure the Torah and even Talmud command us to do this. Sympathy is not agreement. And I am aware of the links. Im well versed in Modern Zionist history.

    I would argue he has the best voting record. He votes against the aid that enslaves and cripples Israel. He votes against the UN and other international groups that threaten Israel. He has not voted to aid the Arabs. That would be a complete contradiction. I dare you to provide proof for such and absurd and libellous claim. Its completely against his mantra when he is saying that he would cut aid to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the PA is part of the foreign aid he wishes to cut. And he does not profess isolationism! He professes non-interventionism. I dont understand why people continue to batter on about this. Its completely wrong.

    It may have been 30 years ago, but its still relevant today, especially when he says the same regarding Iran. He is noted for his decades-long consistency with changes only made after long thought and consideration (eg. the death penalty). Paul wouldnt back Israel and thats a good thing. Unlimited backing of Israel can make Israel do risky things that are not thought out. There needs to be a counter-incentive to impart critical thinking. Secondly, the US government does not control the arms export sector, especially not under President Paul. If Israel and Boeing or whatever contract to replace parts, he has no problem with that. This would force Israel to economize better (which would be better for international relations) and also work at home to improve its credit rating and economic standing. Israel would need to borrow more and have more reserves. Israel would have to liberalize its economy further to do this, which will work greatness I imagine you can see. The economic strength will bring Israel further strength in the world. You may counter that this means Boeing could sell to Iran and Hamas also. However, between the expected public opposition and a likely veto proof majority, this can be prevented easily without the president. Boeing wouldnt even try it. A quick note on Iran, why are former Mossad and Shabak head saying a direct strike on Iran would be foolish and useless? (mostly a rhetorical question)

    I think Obama would resupply, but thats a separate issue. And his buddy is Saudi Arabia? You cant really beat these pictures:
    Whos the real buddy to the Saudis?? Paul would withdraw from the region, but that has no bearing on Israel. Israel has gotten by and done better on far less. And now Israel is vastly superior in terms of military capability. Also, your assume Paul would completely pull out the rug in one day. No, it would take several years and Israel could adjust.

    Does Korea count on US support or does the US impose support in order to oppose Chinese and Russian power? North Korea wouldnt last long in a war against Korea and China and Russia have incentives to prevent such a conflict, especially China, who doesnt want 10 million starving refugees. China, Korea, and Japan actually have a growing working relationship and an outlined plan to work together to contain any North Korean threat. This terrifies those who want America to rule the world, that three conflicting parties could work together and form an Asian Defense Pact. Massive trade surpluses on their end is actually a good thing for us. We get all these great goods and products, they get paper money. A negative trade balance is actually a good thing. I can explain this out or refer you to economist Frederic Bastiat, who explains it very well. And finally, Paul does frequently cite Korea and Japan and Germany as places we need to leave. Actually, he never mentions Israel at all. His neocon opponents and the media mention Israel in regards to him more than he does. You need to do more research, my friend. Any clip of him talking about the US troops overseas will focus on “900 bases” and he mainly talks about Germany, Korea, and Japan.

    Yes, I know the Press TV interview. There is a problem in the libertarian community about information sourcing. They tend to follow alternate and independent media, which is generally controlled by Marxists. He is sorely mistaken on the history of Israel and I think this is due to a lack of proper education (its not hard to be swayed by the Arabs) and I hope one day Ill get 5 minutes to speak to him about this and give him The Case for Israel to read or something. On 9/11 specifically the US did not aggress, but broadly from the 1953 coup in Iran onward to Lebanon, troops in Arabia, bombings in Sudan, Iraq, etc make the US the aggressors unfortunately. Im not supporting the 9/11 attackers and neither is he. Also, the CIA and 9/11 Commission have agreed with him on why 9/11 occurred. Unlimited US support for Israel could have made Cast Lead messier than it would have been without as much US support. US support could be the reason we withdrew from Gaza in the first place!

    Rightly so. American policy is to blame for 9/11 and Muslim hatred. Wouldnt you hate a country that bombed your country to heck regularly, invaded you several times, occupied your land for absolutely no reason, and supported an oppressive regime over you while claiming that they supported democracy and freedom? I know I would be. Paul never said it was justified. He said it should be no surprise after what the US has done. If North Koreans even knew that we heavily favored the South, they probably wouldnt care. And if they did care, they cant leave the country anyway. Well the US is expected to be neutral towards peoples and they were not enemies until American policy made them enemies. You cant argue backwards in a circle. And check a map. Afghanistan is neither anywhere near Israel, nor is it a threat to Israel. In fact, taking out the Taliban hurt Israel by taking away one of the two main counterweights to Iran.

    It doesnt indicate anything. Yes he has personal passion about American military involvement. Thats painfully obvious, but he has little passion about Israel other than that its a recipient of money that would be better off back in American hands (which any sensible person agrees with).

    Honestly, take a look outside your cave and youll see that virtually everyone, including a good portion of Israelis are completely ignorant of the history of Israel. His behavior and views indicate nothing of the sort. He barely mentions Israel unless asked, and he was asked frequently, so he mentions it frequently. You have an irrational paranoia (ANTISEMITES EVERYWHERE!! AHHHHHHHHH!!!!) that does no good for our people and will doom us forever.

    He barely mentions Israel unless asked. He has no sick obsession with Israel. He condemns all aid unequivocally. The media acts like Israel is some sacred cow that cant be touched, which is offensive to me honestly. He applies the same standards for every country. Look at his rhetoric about the US. He heavily condemns US actions, moreso than he does Israel. If he were asked about another issue, he would probably speak about it, but he never is, so why would he talk about something no one is asking about and he doesnt feel is relevant to being president. He wouldnt mention Israel at all if he werent constantly asked.

    I can tell who an antisemite is by their rhetoric generally and anyone with a brain can tell that Ron Paul is most definitely not an antisemite, between his working with Jews, admiring Jewish thinkers, NOT condemning Israel constantly. Honestly, if he were really anti-Israel or anti-semitic, you would hear about it at every turn. Antisemites cant control their hatred. Look at David Duke or the Stormfronters. Its Jew this, Zionist that. Herman Cain is a Jew to them. etc etc. I am a Zionist. A real Zionist, in the tradition of Jabotinsky-Begin-Netanyahu (1st term)-Feiglin. I care about defending my own on my own, without obsessing over what others say. Zionism is about self-reliance and self-defense of the Jewish people. Youre the delusional one who is bordering on insanity with your vicious, bigoted, and completely uninformed statements about Paul.

    I will give you credit for not obsessing over the newsletters he didnt write and had virtually zero involvement over. You are indeed trying to prove your case conclusively, but you are completely wrong.

    $100 is a bit outside of the range my income would like at the moment, altho I am quite confident I would win and that $100 would be nice to wave around. I could back it tho. I would definitely put money that he wont drop out on Hitlers birthday the 20th of April. We also need a confirmation date: 26 June, the last primary would probably be a good day.

    The bet being $100 whether Ron Paul drops out and forms an independent or third party bid for President of the United States by the 26th of June 2012. Robman in favor. Juvanya against. If he drops out before the 26th of June, but does not form such a bid, I would still win.

  8. Robman says:

    On July 7 of last year, Paul was one of only six members of the House to vote against HR 268, which threatened to cut off all aid to the PA unless they continued to pursue a diplomatically arrived-at, two-state solution.

    In other words, based on the language of the bill, he was, in effect, voting to continue sending aid – $550 million a year – to the PA regardless of what they did.

    Dennis Kucinich, that other great friend of Israel in the U.S. Congress, voted the same way as Paul.

    Your opening argument above is silly.

    Yes, Paul has a lot of support among the collegiate set…which only helps me prove my case. The Saudis dump untold hundreds of millions of petrodollars every year in colleges and universities throughout the U.S., endowing “Chairs of Middle Eastern Studies”, or funding “Middle East Studies” departments, where they choose the books, and who teaches.

    How do you suppose Obama got the attentions of the likes of Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi?

    Have you been on a major U.S. campus lately, or in pretty much any Western country, for that matter? Ever hear of a thing called “Israel Apartheid Week”? Do you have any clue as to how viciously anti-Israel academia has become? I saw the beginnings of this effort in terms of it getting underway in earnest as a college student in the early 1980s…and I’ve seen it grow exponentially from there.

    Here in the small midwestern city where I live, we host a public state university. During the ’06 Lebanon war, the university put on a live televised appeal from the Lebanese leadership, decrying Israel, attended by our local member of Congress.

    During the ’08 campaign season, the local college newspaper ran a column by one of their regular editorial writers, who expressed extreme disappointment over Obama’s campaign stop at AIPAC, lamenting the prospect of Obama not being sufficiently willing to ‘hold Israel to account’, and for this reason, he was no longer going to actively campaign for Obama. Yep…the economy is in free fall, but the most important issue in the campaign, according to the school newspaper, was the urgency of putting the screws to Israel. He ended the column by mentioning a scheduled appearance by John Mearsheimer at a nearby major university, and did anybody want to tag along with him?

    I could come up with all sorts of examples. Books have been written, most notably by the Lebanese American scholar, Walid Phares, about the corruption of academia by anti-Israel interests.

    So, that the youth vote supports Paul, somehow does not surprise me.

    Your defense of Paul in terms of support he’s received from neo-Nazi elements, and to that I’d add your inadvertantly brought up youth vote that is veritably brainwashed to hate Israel, reminds me of the lame defense Obama supporters brought up back in ’08, accusing Obama’s detractors of engaging in “guilt by association”, as if this was supposed to represent a valid defense.

    Um…yes, associations DO matter. As President Khali-…oops!…Obama has subsequently proven in spades.

    Ever apply for a security clearance? I have. They do a big background check. For a reason. Even prospective employers check references, and consider the caliber of the same, for a reason.

    Why do such groups support Paul, Juvanya? You think this is a random occurrance?

    I’ve seen a lot of postings by Paul supporters. A lot. I wouldn’t characterize you as being anti-Semitic or anti-Israel (…I think, though your dismissal of my concerns as resulting from “paranoia” are a bit suspect, given the obvious anti-Semitism of our times…I mean, do you read Vic’s columns at all or are you just looking for any that talk about Paul so you can pounce on them?).

    However, even if you are not anti-Israel or a Jew hater, you’d be one of only TWO Paul supporters I’ve ever seen post at length who were not. One other on a site I frequent is a gentile supporter of Israel who argues that even if Paul is personally anti-Israel, it doesn’t matter, as he’d get out of Israel’s way…kind of similar to your line of reasoning.

    Virtually every other supporter I’ve seen in places like The Blaze or Townhall, just to name a couple, can’t seem to get through two paragraphs without disparaging the “Israel-firsters”, and without making some reference to how dandy everything would be for the U.S. if we’d just stop supporting those Zionists who control our foreign policy, blah blah blah. You say real anti-Semites can’t control their Jew hatred…well, I don’t know how true that is across the board, but I can certainly tell you that the overwhelming majority of Paul supporters I’ve seen on the web sound just like the outright Jew-haters you describe above.

    Paul has also attracted the gushing support of very high-profile, rabid Israel bashers, such as Pat Buchanan and Michael Scheuer.

    Why does he attract such people, Juvanya? What does that say about Paul? What do they see in him? What do they expect?

    Of course, Paul can’t talk openly that way. Just like Obama had to lie through his teeth during the campaign season of ’08 about his intentions towards Israel..that turned out to be every bit as bad as his worst detractors, me included, predicted.

    Where is Paul asked about Israel “frequently”? I’ve seen next to none of this in the general media. No, it is on websites like this one that his true colors on Israel have to be revealed, because the national media largely ignore this issue, or gives it only passing coverage…but when Newt Gingrich speaks the truth about the made-up nature of the “Palestinians”, Greta Van Sustren on FOX accuses him of “pandering to the Jewish vote (all 1.7% of us, who will generally not vote for Gingrich anyway).

    The media treats Israel like a “sacred cow” that “can’t be touched”????!!!!! What planet are you living on, Juvanya? With the PARTIAL exceptions of FOX and the WSJ, EVERY OTHER national-level print and broadcast news source, in terms of coverage on Israel, might as well be Al Jazeera. No, if anything, it is precisely because of media demonization of Israel that Paul is NOT taken to task on this issue in most outlets.

    I’m not arguing in a circle, and I don’t know where you get that. You make the bald assertion that the U.S. is expected to be “neutral”…expected by whom? You? We align with countries that share our demonstrated political/cultural values, against those that are pursuing an agenda that is antithetical to the same. That is the general pattern, with a few notable exceptions for the sake of expedience…and we see how these work out (e.g., the expedient alignment with the USSR against Germany subsequently and predictably went sour as soon as the war ended).

    The Islamic world as centered on SW Asia/NE Africa is a dying civilization. That is because they have never seperated church and state. Their societies are built around a political economic model that is medieval, that is absolutely obsolete. They are falling farther and farther behind the rest of the world, and they’d have to adapt to the modern world, except that the free money they get from the sale of a commodity that they didn’t even develop themselves enables them to continue with their decrepit, barbaric society, where women are kept unemployed and illiterate, where female circumcision is commonplace, where “honor killings” of women are rampant, where child molestation is institutionalized, where beheadings are a form of public entertainment, where gays are executed, where there is NO freedom of religion or expression, etc..

    IN this society, the clerics are the de facto ruling class. They are completely unequipped to rule their countries in a manner that would allow them to thrive and compete in the modern world, but they call the shots and the dictators and kings who ostensibly rule these societies rule at the pleasure of the clerics.

    Bush #43 had it kinda sorta right when he said they “hated us for our freedom”. Not exactly. 200 years ago, they didn’t care about our freedom, and wouldn’t today, were it not for influences like the Internet, trade, etc. Their ruling class – the clerics – however backward they may be otherwise – have rationally concluded that if Western cultural influences go unchecked, their legitimacy will be mortally threatened. And like any threatened ruling class at any time or place in history, they will fight tooth and nail to defend their power and privelege.

    They can’t really confront us militarily, as we understand this, in conventional terms. They don’t stand a chance. They can’t compete with us economically; even the oil weapon is of limited use, as this is the basis for their economies (the ones that have it; the ones that don’t have NOTHING).

    So, to defend their rule, they do three things:

    1) They stir up their population – particularly the males – with fear and loathing for the Infidels, the West, Israel, the Jews, etc. In other words, they grow terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. They use the anger and frustration that many feel against their inept rule and channel it outward…which comes at us in the form of the 9-11 types, the “foreign fighters” we see in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. (By the way, did anybody bother to tell the members of the 9-11 commission that to the Islamists, and particulary to the Iranian leadership, the U.S. is the GREAT Satan, whereas Israel is only the LITTLE Satan?)

    2) They use the money from their oil – many billions are available, they can only spend so much on palaces and concubines, and they sure don’t really care about developing their own countries – to corrupt our media, our universities, and our government (their stooges made up a large portion of those serving on the 9-11 commission, by the way… A Saudi democracy activist I once met in D.C., one Ali Alyami, told me point blank that “the Sauids own this town [D.C.]”…amazing how you accept that 9-11 commission nonsense so uncritically, Juvanya). In this way, they undermine our ability to properly identify the threat they represent, so that we can’t even summon the will to defend ourselves.

    3) They make sure their own political leaders – the kings and the dictators – toe their line. Any who are not sufficiently faithful to the same, who are too “independent” in terms of encouraging reform, Westernization, etc., are disposed of. Look at what happened to the Shah of Iran, to Sadat (for genuinely pursuing peace with Israel), and most recently, to Mubarak.

    That is the enemy we are fighting. Withdrawing from the world, “making nice” to them, essentially appeasing them as Paul pretty much suggests, will only embolden them and exacerbate the problem. That is pretty much what Obama has been doing, and we see the results.

    You completely miss my point about Afghanistan. My point is that Israel’s enemies – Hamas, Hezbollah, the PA/PLO – are cut from the very same cloth as our enemies in Afghanistan. Even as some of them come from different religious factions (e.g., Sunni versus Shia), even as they fight among themselves, the ideology is basically the same, the tactics are the same. Israel has the EQUIVALENT of Afghanistan, right next door. Get it now?

    You talk about being in favor of Israeli “independence”. That sounds very nice, but it flies in the face of geopolitical reality.

    The fact is that Israel would have lost in 1948 without material support from the USSR, and under-the-table support from sympathetic elements in the U.S.

    Israel agreed to engage in the Sinai Campaign in ’56, at the behest of UK and France, so as to secure modern arms that the U.S. under Eisenhower would not provide Israel at that time (and Israel welcomed the excuse to get rid of the fedayeen terrorists that were molesting her from that quarter in any event).

    Israel could not have met the mortal challenge posed by the UAR in ’67 without the arms she got as a result of the relationships she secured with the UK and France due to the events of ’56.

    Israel would have been defeated in ’73 without U.S. support.

    That was Israel’s last “existential” war. Iran threatens another today. Facing down Iran will require a military effort that will likely be more challenging than any Israel has ever mounted. She is stronger today than in the past, but the challenge is very great as well.

    ANY small, besieged country needs major power allies. If Denmark were surrounded by states that pledged to wipe her out, wouldn’t recognize her right to exist, etc., no matter how advanced she was technologically or prosperous economically, her limited geographical size and population would REQUIRE her to secure outside support.

    Israel cannot operate outside of such fundamental geopolitical realities. Please don’t invoke “divine” intervention…Where was G-d in 1942? I trust in the IDF at the end of the day.

    …And at this moment of grave military challenge, Ron Paul wants to cut off U.S. support. But he’s not anti-Israel, no no no. And all the rabid, foaming at the mouth Israel haters who enthusiastically support Paul, they just don’t see how truly PRO-Israel Paul is, as you, with your special insight, tell me he is, Juvanya. Puleeeeze….

    You mention Paul’s “ignorance” concerning the Israeli-Palestinian situation, hoping that you’ll get five minutes with him to hand him a copy of “The Cae for Israel” or somesuch. Dream on, Juvanya. I can’t believe you persist in this line of reasoning, “He doesn’t know better”. Yes, there are many people, and even Israelis among them, who are not sufficiently knowledgeable about Israel’s history or the history of the conflict. But I say again, Paul has no excuse for such outrageous ignorance, if that is what was really at play here. In 35 years as a Congressman, given his past presidential runs, given the statements he has made about the Middle East, he’s had ample time, lived through ample history, and has had copious opportunities to become conversant on the subject in a responsible way. Indeed, given his actual and aspirational responsibilities, past and present, he has had, and has today, a very serious OBLIGATION to become informed on this issue in a responsible manner. He has clearly chosen not to, and this indicates an equally clear agenda.

    Now, to our bet:

    I wasn’t setting a date for the bet. My April 20 date was tongue-in-cheek, and was not meant to be the basis for a bet.

    I don’t see the need to set the date of June 26th. Even if he intends a third party run, it is not axiomatic that he’d declare immediately on the heels of the last primary. He might vacillate, or at least appear to vacillate and hold off for a bit. Remember back in ’92, Perot was in, then he was out, then he was in again.

    My bet is simply that he’ll run third party/independent in 2012. I can wait until this fall to collect, I don’t need to win this summer. With that in mind, I’ll even offer a further provision.

    If he declares, but subsequently withdraws before the actual election, then I’ll call it a draw. So, even if I win, you really don’t have to come up with the dough until election day. Can your budget handle that?

  9. juvanya says:

    Sorry its been a busy week. Vic, can you notify Robman about this. I dont get notifications about posts, so I imagine he doesnt either.

    HR 268 appears to be a meaningless non-statutory resolution. Paul always votes against those. It didnt threaten to cut off aid, it “urges the administration to consider suspending assistance to the Palestinian Authority pending a review of the unity agreement”. I admire your attempt to prove it, but you are simply wrong. If there was an actual bill stripping aid, he would vote for it.

    Yes and its not fully clear why, altho perhaps it is because we want to have a country intact, we dont want our friends sent off to war, we dont want Muslims coming here to kill us in revenge, we want to have a future. Again you have a good hypothesis, but it doesnt square with reality. That is absolutely true about Saudis funding all of that, however this all breaks down when you learn that virtually all Middle Eastern students DO NOT support Ron Paul. I am friends with many of them, pro-Israel and anti-Israel. The pros tend to support Romney or Gingrich. The antis tend to support Obama and really dont like Paul. Me, Im a poli sci major that wishes I was a chemistry major. And I can assure you Paul has few fans in poli sci.

    Its unclear what Obama was. Theres evidence he was a CIA agent. Theres evidence he was deeply involved in Marxist college activism.

    Why yes I have been to one. I go to one and yes they had Apartheid Week here. Im well aware of it all and even predicted its arrival a year before it came. I can assure you that pretty much everyone involved in that is a dyed red socialist who hates Paul (altho I probably could convince them if I tried).

    I dont like AIPAC personally. I think they hurt Israel more than help it. But thats a separate issue. Im very knowledgable about all of this. I am probably one of the best defenders of Israel in my generation, altho I havent put it to as much use as I could, and now I cant because of an undercover position I hold.

    It may not surprise you, but your reasoning is all wrong. Almost all his support comes frome the right wing, few of whom give two damns about any of that Marxist crap. Yea, youll find people in M&W and that stuff, but most Paul supporters just dont care beyond ending the aid.

    Guilty by association is not a valid argument at all. Is the wife of a murderer a murderer or at all complicit? No. None of this would stand up in any court. Paul receives support from all kinds of people who want the status quo to be broken. The neonazis think he will help bring about a white revolution or something. I have no idea. Or maybe they like that hell leave them alone to form their own little white nazi enclave, which in all honesty let them. You cant beat them into submission. Let them have their own little naziland and we can all avoid it and theyll starve to death.

    Yes, there are deranged Paul supporters, but that means absolutely nothing. He supports freedom, so people who are rejected by other groups will flock to him. And yes I am a long time reader, more recent commenter, and I have commented on several other articles. Look around a bit. I am not a conventional Zionist. I consider myself very far right wing. My picture can tell you where I stand at a minimum. I think Israel needs independence from the US and dont trust the US at all regarding Israel.

    I am in fact pro-Israel in the sense that Jews have the right to live there and defend themselves. Same as Paul. But I dont support much of the government (because most of it is socialist). I am critical, if not in opposition to the IDF, not because of what they allegedly due to Arabs, but because they lie to their soldiers and demolish Jewish homes. The fact that I have the Irgun logo as my picture should make clear that I am pro-Israel. As for Judaism, I am Jewish and have never hated Jews, even when I rejected Judaism to some extent (Ive since become more Jewish). The only Jews I hate are the elite Jews that control and destroy aspects of the economy and control and destroy politics. The likes of Krauthammer, Kristol, Soros, Wolfowitz, Bernanke, Krugman and others. None of them are even Jews, but they are identified as Jews in the public sphere and this hurts us and endangers us. Of course there are deeply antiSemitic Jews (I met one at my college), and they are often the most vicious and vile. That supporter would be correct. Its just like if Paul is racist, who cares. He plans to end the racist drug war. The racist drug laws and allow minority families to not be torn apart by a few mistakes. I dont think Paul is anti-Israel or racist. He might be critical of Israel, but this appears to be due again to lack of education.

    The term Israel-firster is wrong. Most of these people I like to call America-onlys. They want America to rule the world and use Israel as a military base. Do you like being used? Paul no doubt has a lot of antisemitic supporters and those people you see likely have some antisemitic trends. I can usually tell who is and isnt. I have a friend who talks about Israel Firsters, but will attack the PA and Russia just as much. He actually supports Israel bombing Iran because it would remove nukes from the world. But Paul says none of this, and only talks about Israel when asked. He simply mentions ending all foreign aid in one sentence in a speech (if at all), and then goes on about his main issues: sound money and ending the wars.

    I suspect the attraction is that they are stuck on the notion that Israel controls US policy and Paul would bring an end to that. They have a lot of mistaken assumptions that will absolutely prove wrong. They think Israel will have to stop supporting Jewish homes across the green line if the aid is cut, but $3 billion is what? 5% of the budget?

    If David Duke couldnt keep quiet in the gubernatorial race, an antisemitic Paul wouldnt be able to keep quiet here. I honestly doubt the relevance of the Obama associations. The fact that he has killed thousands of Muslims and expanded US hegemony over the Muslim world makes that claim absolutely absurd. Back to Paul, something would have come out somewhere, but Paul has consistently not given a damn unless asked and then he gives some criticism of Israel, that is wrong, but not quite unreasonable.

    What do you mean not frequently? Are you deaf and blind? He was asked dozens of times last year about whether he would maintain aid to Israel because the idea of cutting ALL aid was such a shock. Look at the Wikipedia article for the Republican primaries, it mentions how the media brought it up. Nothing is shown on the websites because you have yet to show a single shred of proof that Paul is deeply anti-Israel or anti-semitic. Some of his supporters may be, but they constitute a minority, and are not relevant to his views.

    The media is very odd. They will cover the wars from an anti-Israel perspective, but then make a whole big fuss about Obama and AIPAC, Paul and the aid. Anyone who says the media is biased left or right has no idea what theyre talking about. The media is all about money making and stirring up controversy and getting viewers. Yes, there are trends: FOX on the right, CNN on the centre left, MSNBC on the left, but broadly its all about money. There is nothing to take Paul to task on about Israel. He hasnt done one damn thing anti-Israel in policy.

    Yes you are arguing backwards. You claim A is our enemy, when US policy is what made them enemies. The world expects the US to be a neutral party, not favor or interfere with either side. The US came out of the Cold War as the big man in town that everyone liked pretty much. Even now, virtually everyone loves America the concept and Americans the people, but abhor the American government and its murderous actions from 1945 onward. We dont align with countries that share our political cultural values. Thats bullcrap. The US has supported brutal murderous dictators across the world and continues to do so, even going so far as to put them in power and arm them. The centrist and democratically-elected secular Mossadegh was thrown out of power by a CIA, yes American CIA, coup and the ruthless Shah was put back into power in 1953. The Iranians thanked us for that in 1979 (NOT because of Jimmy Carter) and continue to hold that against us today. 1954, it happened again in Guatemala (30,000). 1963 Diem in Vietnam (4 million). 1973 Pinochet in Chile (5000). 1977 in El Salvador (70,000). The US funded Osama and the Taliban. 1981 the Contras in Nicaragua (30,000). 1982 Saddam Hussein in Iraq. 1983 Iran (millions both). 1988 Noriega was put into power and then taken out by the CIA (3000). 1990 the US told Saddam he could invade Kuwait, then invaded Iraq and reinstalled the more oppressive Kuwaiti dictator. 1998 Bombings in Sudan. Bombings and the sanctions in Iraq (500,000). Yea Robman, they hate us for our freedoms. Are neoconservatives really this ignorant about history. I mean you want to talk about not knowing things and not being taken to task?

    If the Muslim world is collapsing, what are you worried about?

    1. Well aware.
    2. Unfortunately so. I dont accept the 9/11 commission uncritically. But its one of the only credible sources out there. Its not irrational jabbering like RARARARARTHEYHATEOURFREEDOMS.
    3. The Shah of Iran wouldnt have been deposed if the US had left the democracy in place. There was no Islamism in that country until the US supported a brutal regime, which collapsed, and the only alternative was Islamism. Even today, its very secular among the lower tiers of society. The Islamists just control a powerful country, so they appear to be more significant than they are.

    But imagine if Irans democracy was left in place, it would still be there today, and it would bolster Turkeys, just by the existence of two Muslim democracies in the region. And Iran, Turkey, and Israel would work together to contain Arab Islamism. How about that? One change in policy in 1953 and none of this stuff we deal with today would exist. Even Iran under the Islamists wanted to take out the Taliban, but the US said no.

    That may be the enemy the US is fighting, but it is the enemy the US created. Where were the terrorist attacks to be found against the US in the 1950s if these people hated us so much? Nowhere, they loved us! Its not appeasement at all and its going to happen sooner or later because we the people of America are sick and tired of your wars that are bankrupting this country. $15 trillion in debt, racked up with a lot of warmongering. Yes, social programs caused that too. We simply cannot afford it all. The debt cripples the economy. The inflation destroys the lower classes. Sooner or later, it comes to an end, the troops come home, and there might even be a revolution here and you better pray for your life because you are one of the chickenhawks who supported this monkey business. And bullshit, Obama isnt doing anything of the support, he is expanding US hegemony into more countries: Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Uganda, South Sudan, Nigeria. I dont know what biased crap youre reading, but Obama is butchering and oppressing Muslims in ways Bush could only have dreamed of. He should be your favorite president. He has done absolutely nothing to promote a Muslim agenda.

    It doesnt fly in the face of geopolitical reality. Israel is vastly militarily superior to the entire Middle East, even without nuclear weapons. 1948 was fought with all kinds of things and I have no problem with companies selling or individuals donating money and weapons to Israel. I personally would probably give a few million, altho Id condition it on market reforms.

    56 probably should not have been fought, but thats a separate issue. Israel can buy weapons. It doesnt need to rely on donations. You are assuming I and Paul want the US to cut off everything to Israel. You also have no idea how military sales works. Militaries dont buy from “the US”. They buy from Boeing, Raytheon, and Remington. Paul would have no problem with these companies selling weapons to the IDF.

    And Israel would not have been defeated. Thats nonsense. Israel said to the US “Let us be rearmed, or we will nuke Damascus”. Israel didnt want to resort to that, so it restocked that way. You are essentially denying God by saying Israel needs US support, so what kind of Jew are you really?

    Iran is hardly a threat. Its all talk and no cookies. I dont even think they have nukes and are waiting to be bombed so they can cry to the world that they never had nukes. But even if they did, they wouldnt be able to do much with them. The strike on Iran is aleady planned out between Israel and the Saudis, if necessary.

    Thats nonsense. Israel is beseiged in a sense, but has a back door open to friends and allies who trade with it. Youre confusing independence with isolationism. I just mean that the US shouldnt interfere with or favor Israel. Whenever it favors Israel, it will want a favor in return.

    1942 I assume the Holocaust. I used to ask that same question. There are any number of explanations. Perhaps He was angered that Jews were not listening to the calls of Zion. Perhaps He was angered further that Jews willingly accept oppression instead of fighting back. Perhaps it was years of sin and not following the laws. There is no point in being a Jew or supporting Israel without some semblence of the culture or religion. Not necessarily belief in God, but the understanding that this is important to who we are.

    The $3 billion is a minor part of Israels budget it can accommodate fairly easily for. Israel is far, far more powerful than the threats it needs to deal with at present. Im not denying there wont be a small drop in the short term, but it will be accommodated quickly. And if market reforms are introduced, the GDP can expand further and the IDF will have more money to buy things and will be more capable. And the fact that Paul opposes ALL aid shows he is not singling out Israel at all.
    Even Israeli economists say the aid should end:

    He has a perfect excuse. Hes a US Congressman concerned with domestic issues only, and bringing the troops home. He doesnt know the nuances of every little conflict, like Im sure you dont know the nuances of South Sudan or Nigeria or China. He may have had ample time, but he has not had ample reason. He ran for President of the United States, not President of the World. You may argue that they are effectively the same thing and that is exactly the problem with the way the position is treated. He has no reason to become informed on the issue because it has almost absolutely nothing to do with restoring liberty to the US.

    Yea that can work. I will accept it and look forward to the $100.

  10. Robman says:

    I don’t have too much time for you, Juvanya, but a few points for now.

    First, a little link for you:

    The above link is from an Internet news source by/for the African American community, “News One”. Not a major venue, but the article is credible, replete with quotes and photos. An acquaintance of mine independently verified the claims made.

    Once again, your argument attempting to cast doubt on the validity of “guilt by association” makes no sense. If a guy commits murder, and his wife had no knowledge of his intent to do so, along with the crime itself, then of course she would not be complicit. But that is not a valid analogy to what I’m saying.

    If the wife of the murderer knew, prior to the marriage, that he planned to kill someone, and even married him BECAUSE of this, and then helped him do it, then she’d be an accessory, could be prosecuted as such, and guilty as hell.

    You engage in an elaborate and baseless rationalization for the support Paul gets from open racists and neo-Nazis. They are free to support anyone they want. No one will stop them. Why do the choose to support Paul? Is this some random occurrance? Do you suppose they are having some kind of mass hallucination in which they believe he represents their agenda, when in fact – according to you – he doesn’t?

    What do they expect from him? Why have they been led to have such expectations?

    Why are some of the most rabid, shrill, anti-Israel commentators enthusiastic supporters of Paul, such as Pat Buchanan and Michael Scheuer? You suppose they are merely hallucinating? I don’t think Pat Buchanan ever dropped acid. You think they like Paul so much because Paul is merely “clueless” about Israel?

    You say Paul has not done “one damned thing” that is anti-Israel. Well, he’s got among the most anti-Israel voting records in Congress. Not that his point of view is reflected in legislation – votes such as his are usually a small minority. That is what is in his power to do as a member of the House of Representative, and he does it.

    Paul’s antipathy for Israel was quite clear in that interview he gave to Iranian TV, that I referenced earlier. He clearly went out of his way to do that. If his only concern were domestic poilcy as you claim, why did he do that?

    I’d refer you to the January 20 edition of the WSJ, in which there is a column by one Kimberly Strassel, entitled “What Ron Paul wants”. What he intends to do, per her column which included quotes from Ron Paul himself, is to collect delegates and influence the GOP platform. On domestic policy? On getting rid of the Fed? No. ON FOREIGN POLICY. What she mentions in her column is putting more restrictions on the president’s ability to wage war without the approval of Congress, and taking out elements of the Patriot Act, such as roving wiretaps. And if he doesn’t get his way – he says he is not going to compromise on his demands at all – then he was unclear as to what he would do then. The clear hint is that he’d run third party.

    It seems to me that this campaign of his represents quite a lot of trouble to go to, merely to put more teeth into the War Powers Act or to end roving wiretaps.

    The RNC recently adopted a resolution supporting a ONE STATE SOLUTION to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In other words, they are supporting Israeli sovereignty over the whole of J&S. I’d bet this is what Paul is really after. Just watch.

    As to what happened last year, I was well aware of the big media flap last January over Paul wanting to cut all foreign aid, and how he was buggered by the media into talking about Israel. That was RAND Paul, not RON Paul. I even got a letter to the editor published in my local newspaper in response to that coverage. Get your Pauls straight, Juvnanya.

    No, I am not arguing backwards. You are thinking backwards.

    Yes, they hated us in the 1950s, too. Ever hear of a chap by the name of Sayed Qutb? He was a founder of the MB. He died in an Egyptian jail in the 60s, but in the 50s, he spent time here in the U.S. He is to Islamist terrorist ideology what Marx was to communism.

    The history of Islamist terrorism against the West is a complex subject, which you don’t seem to understand very well, as you seem to very uncritically accept Paul’s ‘blame America first’ silliness. I’d recommend to you Paul Berman’s “Terror and Liberalism” to better understand this issue.

    I’m well aware of the support the U.S. has given less than savory regimes. I’ve lived through a lot of that history. I never said we were perfect. The most glaring example of our hypocrisy on that score is our present and historical support for Saudi Arabia. But compared with our historical and present competitors, we still look pretty good overall (e.g., China and Russia’s defense of Assad in the UN).

    On this topic, one case in point is very interesting. Back in the early 70s – as opposed to the early 50s in the case of America’s interference in Iran – primarily for the sake of assuring ITT access to cheap copper, we overthrew Allende in Chile and installed Pinochet, a brutel dictator. He was since deposed; Chile is now a free democracy. Using the logic of Iran – or Ron Paul – one would think the Chileans would be hopping mad at us, calling us “The Great Satan” and the like…yet they seem perfectly willing to let bygones be bygones, and to sell us as much salmon and wine as they can.

    Maybe that’s because post-Pinochet Chile considered it to be a rather stupid policy to maintain a rabid hostility to the U.S. based on the policies of long past U.S. administrations, headed by long dead leaders.

    Did you ever consider the possibility that Iran’s leaders merely drum up hostility to the U.S., based on events of the early 1950s, so as to distract their population from their utterly inept rule? That this whole concept of “revenge” is just b.s.? But that would undercut the basis of Paul’s foreign policy, so I guess you can’t see this, can you?

    You think Iran’s nuke program is all hooey? So, why don’t they come clean and get the sanctions lifted? By all accounts, their economy is a REAL mess right now. This is not helping the stability or the legitimacy of the regime at all. They seem to be willing to make their people suffer an awful lot over a nonexistent or exaggerated nuke program. They also seem to pour a lot of their limited resources – they have an economy the size of Ohio’s – into the development of medium-range missiles that would be useless militarily if they were not armed with nuclear warheads.

    Yes, I know Obama has killed a lot of Muslims. Whether he has killed more than Bush, I don’t know about that, but I’ll accept Obama has killed plenty. So what? Muslims kill plenty of Muslims. Seems they kill each other more than they kill anybody else. Looking at recent events in Etypt, they can’t even have a soccer match without killing each other.

    Obama extending “American hegemony” to the Middle East? Wha..??? And he is accomplishing this how? By withdrawing from Iraq and pretty much leaving them open to subversion as an Iranian sattellite? By negotiating America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan and leaving that country to the Taliban once again? By aligning himself with the MB throughout the region….is “American hegemony” going to get those 19 Americans out of Egypt who are now facing trial? Rotsa ruck with that, pal. Obama makes Carter look like a tower of strength and resolve by comparison. Oh, wait…you probably weren’t even born yet when Carter was president, were you?

    You theorize about what Obama represents. Let me tell you.

    I was born within two months of Obama. I attended schools of comparable prestige to the ones he attended, during comparable time frames. When he was at Columbia, I was at U of Michigan, Ann Arbor. When he was doing his community organizer gig, I was serving in the U.S. Army, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO. Which reminds me…you ever serve in the military, college boy? You who have the chutzpah to call me a “chickenhawk”? Mind your manners, before you open your trap.

    Back to topic…when Obama was at Harvard, I was at U Chicago, earning my MA in International Relations. While I was there, I met Obama’s good buddy, Rashid Khalidi, who was a guest professor for one of my classes. He was a world-class jerk, besides. He went on to raise $70,000 for Obama’s first Senate campaign…this from a guy who has spent the whole of his adult life – to include a stint as the press agent for the PLO – demonizing Israel. I somehow don’t think he went to all this trouble for his buddy, Barack, just because he thought he was a swell guy, or wanted national health insurance for the U.S.

    I had countless roommates, classmates, profesors, and assistant professors, who thought and talked like Obama. I had a lily-white housemate from Wisconsin, a Ph.D candidate in American history, who might as well have had an “Obama chip” planted in his brain. I never knew Obama personally, but I knew his sort well. They were – probably still are – a dime a dozen in the graduate liberal arts programs at major universities everywhere. The only things that were exceptional about Obama is that he was black, and that he apparently had charisma and was a good speaker. That’s about it.

    The Saudis & Friends poured billions into our universities, to raise crops of Obama-like clones, particularly coming out of prestigious universities, so that they could go on to get plum jobs in the media, the government, or to perpetuate the same nonsense in the university system. It has worked well. That’s why despite his incredibly sorry performance as president, the media does not hold him to account at all (and it also accounts for a lot of the anti-Israel bias in the media besides).

    When Obama broke from the pack and showed promise, Saudia & Friends threw their influence behind him. Even so, despite being able to outstpend McCain by at least two to one, despite Bush being a political albatross around McCain’s neck, despite near total backing by a sympathetic media, for the three weeks after the GOP convention leading up to the crash, McCain held a solid lead in the polls. He was clearly on track to win. SOMETHING had to be done. Then came the crash…how convenient.

    America had a lot of vulnerabilities that contributed to the crash, but the timing was very curious, don’t you think? And now, one Kevin Freeman has put out a book on this curiousity, that lends evidence to the idea that the timing of the crash was deliberately engineered.

    No, I don’t think Obama was working for the CIA. Obama is a brainwashed, far liberal left academia twit with a healthy dollop of “f*** you whitey” thrown in for spice, courtesy Rev. Wrong (and Michelle). He’s a programmed, anti-Israel Saudi Manchurian candidate political cruise missile whose sole mission is to shove the Saudi Peace Plan down Israel’s throat, or failing that, to destroy the U.S.-Israeli “special relationship”. It may not be that “special” anyway – I’m well aware of the extent to which the U.S., historically, has often behaved as less than an ally to Israel – but the U.S. had, up to Obama, helped Israel at critical times and critical ways that no one else would. Cutting the U.S. off from Israel is clearly a major objective of Saudia and other anti-Israel actors.

    And by the way, I’ve probably forgotten more than you know about international arms transfers. NO, Israel cannot simply buy from Boeing or whomever without U.S. government approval. Arms transfers MUST be approved by the U.S. government. For example, Israel wants new Apache helicopter gunships, and the Boeing F-15SE “Silent Eagle”…and Obama has said no way, Jose, to both. I’m sure Boeing would be delighted to make these sales, but they can’t.

    Ever notice how Obama is in fact willing to compromise on just about any other issue? His extension of the Bush tax cuts was blasphemy to his base. But in concrete policy terms – empty platitudes aside – he never budges one inch on Israel.

    Perhaps the Bad Guys figured Obama would need only one term to accomplish his “mission”. Let’s face it: It must have been hard for them to find a brainwashed Israel hater whom they could finagle into the Oval Office, who ALSO could otherwise run the U.S. effectively. Bibi put up a lot more resistance than they expected. Now, Obama needs another term to “finish the job”.

    Given his sorry record, Obama probably could not get re-elected in a normal election. Once again, SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE.

    They haven’t corrupted the GOP to the extent that they have the Democratic Party…at least not yet. They don’t have an electable candidate in the GOP who can ensure that, European-style, no matter who gets in, is going to be anti-Israel.

    The next best thing would be a foil. ENTER RON PAUL. He’s already made it clear to Kimberly Strassel of the WSJ that his main focus of influence is foreign policy, not returning the U.S. to fiscal solvency, as so many of his supporters believe. He has not spelled out what he’ll do if the GOP refuses to be bullied into adopting his platform positions, but as he has not pledged not to run third party, the “or else” he has in mind is pretty obvious.

    He’ll run third party in an attempt to ensure that the most anti-Israel president in history remains in the White House. Of course, he’d rather that he were in the White House, but I think he’s realistic enough to realize that he isn’t getting there. So, Obama will be the next best thing, per his priorities. And, where the $$$ is concerned in terms of what he needs to do this…I’ll bet the same SW Asian interests that were so supportive of Obama on this score, would be more than happy to help Paul.

    Um…How do you like being used, Juvanya?

    Look, you can be a parrot for Paul and continue to repeat baseless assertions that conform to your preferred world view, such as “the world expects the U.S. to be neutral”. You can repeat that Paul has some credible excuse for being completely clueless about the Middle East. Your saying it does not make it so. Don’t expect me to take your assertions of this nature seriously. Don’t expect anyone else to, either. Your Bronze Medal class mental gymnastics on this score are not impressive here.

    You are indeed an “unconventional Zionist”. I’ll give you that. You are obviously rather bright and well-informed on some issues. You are also very immature intellectually.

    I’d advise you to finish your education, get out and work so as to gain more perspective outside of academia, generally “grow up” a bit (lose that smug, snotty attitude of yours in particular), and then maybe we can have a more serious conversation ten years from now.

  11. Robman says:


    Of course, I accept that you accept the terms I laid out for our bet.

    I really do hope to lose that one. Your $100 would be cold comfort to me if a third party Paul run really does derail the GOP nominee and give us four more years of Obama, though his run may not definitely result in that outcome.

    I also believe it is entirely possible that Paul will run and then later withdraw, in which case we’re even.

    Watch what happens.

  12. juvanya says:

    Well, the campaign is “hiring” volunteers for June primaries, so it seems quite unlikely that he would drop out. There is too much to lose by doing all of that. It would harm Rands chances in the future, of a growing movement. And on top of this, the campaign claims to actually have a plurality of delegates. Ive heard 97 to 57 for Romney. The caucus results are straw polls. What really matters are the delegates, which Ron Paul supporters became at the caucuses because Santorum and Gingrich didnt really have any operations to bring out supporters to become delegates. Romney had to some extent, but we shall see. Saturday is the big day. We might win Maine!