Breaking News
A Ron Paul Moment
Blaming America — and who else? — on Larry King Live.
A few days ago, I was on Larry King Live on CNN. the topic was terrorism and specifically the Christmas Day aerial bombing effort by a self-described Al Qaeda agent of an airliner near Detroit.
One of the other guests was Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. He said, at least as I understood it — and I could be mistaken — that the real fault for this terror attack lies with the United States for provoking al Qaeda by “occupying their land” —this is a paraphrase. I expressed shock at this line of approach. Rep. Paul — as I recall — said again that the U.S. was causing these attacks by our being “occupiers.”
I said this line was something like “the tired old anti-Semitic line.” I said this because in my long experience, those who talk about the U.S. “occupying” Moslem lands soon go to criticism of the U.S. for helping Israel — a line long associated with Rep. Paul, as I understand, and again, maybe I am misinformed — and then to biting criticism of Israel and then to bitter comments about Jews generally.
I was about to add that I was sure that Rep. Paul was not going that far. But Rep. Paul became so upset that I could not get in a word.
So let me say right now that if Rep. Paul says he is not taking that line, and is not an anti-Semite, I believe him, good for him and I am happy to know him.
That is what I would have said if I had been allowed to talk. Happy New Year.
About the Author
Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu. He writes “Ben Stein’s Diary” for every issue of The American Spectator.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (963) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Ben Stein
More Articles From Breaking News
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/30/a-ron-paul-moment
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 12.30.09 @ 6:33AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : A Ron Paul Moment [spectator.org] on links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ret. Marine| 12.30.09 @ 6:43AM
Ron Paul, while his intentions seem to be geared towards a strict interpretation of our Constitutional Laws, is a fighter first and foremost. I understand the need to not mingle into the affairs of other Nations but, draw the line when it comes to this type of rhetoric. We are not occupiers of their land, we are there on a mission to kill and keep this Country safe from the makers of evil, muslim extremist. I also do not believe him to be an anti-semite. I have always found our mingling with others affairs to be troublesome, in the context of supporting totalatarian regimes, I support his decisions. I do find it hypicritical for this current administration, and previous D-administrations, taking the stand upon relying upon their oil for our future. It would seem we have all we need for our consumption on and off our shores but rely upon the vipers nest of the M/E to satisfy our requirements.
Blame the D's for this? you betcha, they are responsible for the larger mess this country finds itself in because they infact, interfere with our will and right to drill on our own shores and not rely upon the vipers nest in the M/E. It would seem they are hell-bent upon a mission to make dependents out of all of us for their political existence. This is why I find them to be so disturbing in their political discourse. They are the traitors they make themselves out to be and in most recent times only prove their intentions with loud mouths. It's time they are called out for they are, no good SOB's.
Keith | 12.30.09 @ 7:24AM
You are brainwashed and your mind is completely devoid of American history where war is concerned.
How many times does an American have to be told that "False Flag Operation"s have occurred before EVERY WAR the United States has entered. TO SELL THE WAR TO CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. A good read for the retarded of American history where was is concerned is "War is a Racket" by General Smedly Butler. George W Bush s granddaddy, traitor supreme Prescott Bush, tried to hire General Butler to use 500,000 American troops and overthrow FDR. THIS IS A FACT. Prescott Bush also was a money man through Harriman Brothers out of New York, sending money to Hitler to help spread fascism throughout Europe.
ANOTHER FACT. The Rockefellers sold Hitler iol, Ford (American) sold him trucks...So when you come with this patriotic "We need to go there and murder 2 million third world innocents to protect America forgive me if it rings REALLY HOLLOW. The elite have been playing people like you for fools since time immemorial. They create war to reap all of your tax funded treasury. The sad part is you never wake up to these realities. A further research of our history in the middle east would bear out the fact the CIA out of the USA has supported murderous dictators there and stolen the resources of these people for 100 years. Till you smarten up save your BS patriotic rhetoric, it doesn't play well to the realistically informed. READ YOUR HISTORY.
flacracker| 12.30.09 @ 7:32AM
Keith, you're first sentence is a total turn off. Insulting someone is no way to get them to listen to your point. Try again. Happy New Year.
ckpac| 12.30.09 @ 7:10PM
flacracker, that's the best you can do? An ad hominem, condescending comment like that? Everything Keith says is true and factual, do a little research. Actually, do a lot of research and find out how much you've been lied to.
I'm sure you won't, though, because that would reveal truths which would prove far too challenging to your heavily ingrained belief system. Prove me wrong. Do the research.
Happy New Year.
Phil| 12.30.09 @ 10:24PM
I don't think it was an "ad hominem, condescending comment" at all. I think it was constructive criticism. Whether Keith is right or wrong, his first line was a turn-off. flacracker makes a good point.
Franklin| 12.31.09 @ 8:52AM
How quickly the subject changes..? brainwashed or totally turned off, the U.S. TROOPS ARE OCCUPIERS and until we acknowledge this we are destined to invade and occupy more countries. JUST TRY TO IMAGINE FOR ONE MINUTE THAT THE CHINESE INVADED THE UNITED STATES EIGHT YEARS AGO AND CONSTRUCTED DOZENS OF PERMANENT MILITARY BASES, but the Chinese continue to tell us that they aren't occupiers and they are here to help us..?
Ryan| 12.30.09 @ 8:19AM
Read yours, and not just a couple of year time-span.
Simply because all the wealthy people in the US in the early 20th century were social darwinists doesn't mean that everything was a false flag operation...which you are using too generously. Yes, there was tacit support for Hitler from certain people in the US in his early days, but that ended once they realized how big a monster the guy was. US foreign policy was taking a wait-and-see approach with Hitler and Stalin. Hitler's invasions sealed the deal.
Ford put its efforts in supporting the US after that. He didn't support Nazism once the war got going.
Yes, there was a coup attempt, and it failed and hardly anyone was prosecuted. They picked the wrong general.
Those weren't false flags.
Ron| 12.30.09 @ 9:16AM
"but that ended once they realized how big a monster"
That, my friend, is the whole point. Do we ever stop to consider the unintended consequences of our foreign policy? No we don't. We just know we are the good guys and whatever we choose to fight against is evil.
We are the good guys and we would like the Shah to be in power in Iran. The Shah oppresses his people to the point of revolt and we are shocked with the Iranian hostage crisis. Why don't they see we are good?
We are the good guys and we want to help defeat the evil Soviets. So, we hire and train all the radicals and criminals from the regions countries to fight in Afghanistan, actually had criminals released from prisons, the radicals locked up because of their murdering ways. We arm and train them to fight. Bin Laden was a key ally. What happened? Don't they understand we are good?
Saddam, you are our friend. Go and fight Iran and we will let you claim the spoils of war. After a decade Saddam decided that was to difficult, a much easier target would be Kuwait, but Saddam forgot, it is we who are good and we who decide.
It is a never ending litany of foreign occupation, meddling in the affairs of other nations. We can do these things if we choose because we have the wealth and the mite. But, when we do these things we must understand we create enemies.
As our wealth and military mite wane in the upcoming years we are in for some rude awakenings. Seems so simple to understand and yet we are a nation of fools.
Ryan| 12.30.09 @ 9:26AM
So what is the alternative? Allow the Soviets to run roughshod over millions of people? Allow Militant Islamists footholds to do the same?
Yes, just about every occasion we do these things we create enemies, and were short-sighted in not realizing it (particularly during the context of the Cold War). It doesn't mean the causes aren't worth fighting for.
Jay| 12.30.09 @ 10:34AM
Yes, but we didn't bomb the Soviets nor did we occupy their territory. We stood our ground whilst barley lifting a finger. Although, as Much as I admire and respect Ronald Reagan, he did in fact assist the people we are now fighting against. You said it yourself: "Yes, just about every occasion we do these things we create enemies". That is a problem. It motivates extremist to attack our homeland. It’s like running up and punching random people in the face while arrogantly thinking that they’ll never hit you back. Well we got hit back on 9/11/2001, and yet now instead of intellectually thinking about why this happened we are now spiting on them while swinging our fists. We just recently had someone slip through the cracks in Amsterdam, and before that we had more in NY. Soon it'll be common place to hear about these attempted attacks and my fear is that eventually we'll become a police state - especially if another 9/11 occurs (which also becomes more likely as the number of attempts go up). Also you said this: "It doesn't mean the causes aren't worth fighting for". I disagree whole heartedly. Our soldiers are not cannon fodder to be used to protect allies that are now capable of handling their own diplomatic or militant affairs. Divorces are up, suicides are up, Fort Hood shooting, etc. Wars are suppose to be quick, decisive, and violent. They shouldn't last a near decade to eliminate or "disrupt" a handful of terrorist that are in fact GROWING in numbers. This whole escapade has been an utter failure if measured by cost, loss of life, and the time it took to have such limited “success”. We have lost over 5,000 troops (God knows how many civilian contractors). and hundreds of thousands – if not millions of displaced or killed Afghani, Pakistani, and Iraqi citizens. We had our own Revolution (with perhaps a little help from the French at the end) so let the Middle East have theirs if they so choose, but the amount of resources we give them now should be severely, if not completely, cut for the preservation of our own nation. No empire has ever lasted.
Mountain Beaver| 12.30.09 @ 11:07AM
Amen! U hit the nail on the head. I do not think anyone in DC ever looks at these issues intellectually or historically. I do not even recognize our country anymore.
ChuckD| 12.30.09 @ 2:25PM
To assert that the sole reason Muslim extremist target the west is our so-called occupation of their territory is absurd. And most of the analysis written here is monday morning quarterbacking.
Amin Al Husseini was the grand mufti of Palestine and a former army officer for the Ottoman Empire. He was exiled from his homeland by the British in the early 1930's for his terrorist activities. The British occupied the territory now called Palestine (It has never been a country.) because of their conquest of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman, or Turkish Empire had allied themselves with the Austro-Hungarian empire and engaged in a purely imperialistic war for control of the Berlin to Baghdad route.
Hence Britain, though no good guy, by right of conquest from another, not so good guy, the Ottoman empire, decided that the Jews should have a homeland.
So they established a mandate and created a colony which after a lot of bloody terrorist activity on both sides became the State of Israel.
Meanwhile the grand mufti, Amin Al Husseini, high tailed it to Berlin and teamed up with Eichmann to formulate the final solution. For his outstanding efforts in this area, he was sentenced to forty years by an extension of the Nuremberg court in Yugoslavia. He escaped and was allowed to remain free in Egypt at the request of the US.
The State Dept was in the middle of the cold war and wanted to stay friendly with Egypt. It didn't work, Egypt went commie anyway. Amin founded the Muslim Brotherhood and helped his nephew Yassar Arafat start up the PLO, which is now Hamas.
That is why Muslim extremists are also known as Islamo-fascists. They have the same agenda the Nazis did, conquer the world and destroy the Jews.
The unsubstantiated number of deaths due to the Iraq War tossed around by those above are ridiculously high, even by liberal sources. The Iraqi gov. put the death toll of Iraqi civilians as a result of the conflict as of Dec 2009, at 100,000.
"That is a problem. It motivates extremist to attack our homeland. It’s like running up and punching random people in the face while arrogantly thinking that they’ll never hit you back. Well we got hit back on 9/11/2001, and yet now instead of intellectually thinking about why this happened we are now spiting on them while swinging our fists."
The above is the most unhistorical analogy I've ever read.
The hit us at Lebanon, 22o Marines murdered,
Little or no US response
Number of terrorists increased due to encouragement from US lack of response.
They hit us at WTC1, 1993, six people killed, no US response. Number of terrorists increased due to encouragement for US lack of response.
They hit us again on the USS Cole, 19 Americans Killed. No US response, further encouragement of terrorist enlistment and activity.
They hit us again at the Khobar Towers, hundreds killed or wounded. No US response, further encouragement for terrorist activity and enlistment.
But you say "We have to stop killing the terrorists who are killing us or they might kill us."
We finally hit back after 9/11. We are all a lot safer for it, too.
Craig| 12.30.09 @ 6:20PM
"The hit us at Lebanon, 22o Marines murdered,
Little or no US response"
And ChuckD continues this way.
What you fail to notice is that why were we in Lebanon? Why were we in Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries in 1993, and so on?
Does Russia still deal with Afghan resistance? No, because they're no longer in Afghanistan!
Speak to any War on Terror vet. We're really not helping. The longer we're there, the more problems we're going to cause.
If the United States wants to win the war against these Muslim countries, it has to fight a real war, bomb the living crap out of everyone, and kill a whole lot of people...remember WW2 anyone? You cannot surgically fight a war...you can only keep one brewing for decades, i.e. Iraq 90s-10s, Vietnam 60s-70s, and so on.
Something tells me we cannot afford to kill everyone of our enemies, nor is it moral to do so. Bring the troops home and let's focus our efforts back on America and not these foreign countries.
P.S. As proof of the government screwing up more than it helps, guess who provided the bombs in the 1993 WTC attack? The FBI: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10.....blast.html
ChuckD| 12.30.09 @ 2:25PM
To assert that the sole reason Muslim extremist target the west is our so-called occupation of their territory is absurd. And most of the analysis written here is monday morning quarterbacking.
Amin Al Husseini was the grand mufti of Palestine and a former army officer for the Ottoman Empire. He was exiled from his homeland by the British in the early 1930's for his terrorist activities. The British occupied the territory now called Palestine (It has never been a country.) because of their conquest of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman, or Turkish Empire had allied themselves with the Austro-Hungarian empire and engaged in a purely imperialistic war for control of the Berlin to Baghdad route.
Hence Britain, though no good guy, by right of conquest from another, not so good guy, the Ottoman empire, decided that the Jews should have a homeland.
So they established a mandate and created a colony which after a lot of bloody terrorist activity on both sides became the State of Israel.
Meanwhile the grand mufti, Amin Al Husseini, high tailed it to Berlin and teamed up with Eichmann to formulate the final solution. For his outstanding efforts in this area, he was sentenced to forty years by an extension of the Nuremberg court in Yugoslavia. He escaped and was allowed to remain free in Egypt at the request of the US.
The State Dept was in the middle of the cold war and wanted to stay friendly with Egypt. It didn't work, Egypt went commie anyway. Amin founded the Muslim Brotherhood and helped his nephew Yassar Arafat start up the PLO, which is now Hamas.
That is why Muslim extremists are also known as Islamo-fascists. They have the same agenda the Nazis did, conquer the world and destroy the Jews.
The unsubstantiated number of deaths due to the Iraq War tossed around by those above are ridiculously high, even by liberal sources. The Iraqi gov. put the death toll of Iraqi civilians as a result of the conflict as of Dec 2009, at 100,000.
"That is a problem. It motivates extremist to attack our homeland. It’s like running up and punching random people in the face while arrogantly thinking that they’ll never hit you back. Well we got hit back on 9/11/2001, and yet now instead of intellectually thinking about why this happened we are now spiting on them while swinging our fists."
The above is the most unhistorical analogy I've ever read.
The hit us at Lebanon, 22o Marines murdered,
Little or no US response
Number of terrorists increased due to encouragement from US lack of response.
They hit us at WTC1, 1993, six people killed, no US response. Number of terrorists increased due to encouragement for US lack of response.
They hit us again on the USS Cole, 19 Americans Killed. No US response, further encouragement of terrorist enlistment and activity.
They hit us again at the Khobar Towers, hundreds killed or wounded. No US response, further encouragement for terrorist activity and enlistment.
But you say "We have to stop killing the terrorists who are killing us or they might kill us."
We finally hit back after 9/11. We are all a lot safer for it, too.
goldhorder| 12.31.09 @ 9:40AM
Really ChuckD. LMAO. It was the muslims who finally hit back against our agression. Funny...I don't remember hearing about muslim terrorist attacks in history before the Carter Doctrine. Certainlly not before the creation of Israel. Your head is buried in patriotic BS.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo.....13012.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine
Ryan | 1.1.10 @ 3:15AM
You failed to mention America's desire to rule the world. Wanting to rule the world isn't limited to Muslims. People from every religion and every powerful civilization have desired this.
Manuel| 12.30.09 @ 6:11PM
Absolutely correct. I find it highly hypocritical that American "patriots" are so quick to demonstrate their interest in the wellbeing and freedom of Muslim nations. The truth is most of these people have been brainwashed by the media to support this line of thought. America has been drained by all these war efforts which ultimately are not even proving to be of any advantage to the common American citizen. The only ones that seem to be profiting for this are corporations and Israel´s hegemony in the middle east. For all the so called patriots I say, wouldn´t it be much better if you kept your army at home protecting the nation from any attack on it´s sovereignty? Would it be much better to strengthen immigration laws so you wouldn´t get undesirable peoples in your streets? Imperialism is benefiting everyone but the regular American citizen, and ironically enough these are the ones most brainwashed to be supportive of it.
zack| 12.30.09 @ 6:38PM
Yes, we should have allowed the Soviets to overextend themselves even further and bleed themselves out even faster, leading to their system crumbling even faster. In order to rule, you need the consent of the governed.
Rebecca| 12.30.09 @ 10:06PM
The last time that I checked, it was not the responsibility of our military to protect all countries from muslum extremists, or protect them from anything else for that matter. Show me all of your proven evidence of this activity that warrants our involvement. I know that you won't have any because you simply rely upon what you are told by the media. We need to stop accepting what the media, and our government is stating as fact, and demand details, and solid proof. It seems that this country goes to war without batting an eye. Our military deserves better, and so do the citizens of the United States.
laurie| 12.31.09 @ 12:14AM
Rebecca, i concur with your statement. my guess....there are a bunch of chickenhawks commenting on here, willing to lay down the life of someone else's child to fight this never ending war. pride will be the downfall of any moral credibility of the conservative movement, because we cant admit we were wrong to continue to support these wars that bring us nothing but misery, death, and the loss of liberty. it takes guts to admit you were wrong, or that you were fooled.
Ret. Marine| 12.30.09 @ 8:21AM
The issue here is interference with another Nation, not the means to get at it or who was involved in the process. I do not dis-agree with some of your statements and am aware of history as much as others. I am still going to insist because of knowing the history of the sad sack dem's involvement in preventing our own resources to be sough after. Stick to what I said not what you read in between the lines.
Ian| 12.30.09 @ 5:42PM
To use a broad stroke of the brush and blame democrats is misguided folly. You should know better than that.
Turn the tables for a minute - if the USA was being 'occupied' by foreign soldiers would you not retaliate? Would you not strike out at the occupiers? Like it or not the US is an occuping army - end. If you are unable to see that you are brainwashed or ignorant.
Democracy at gun point does not work regardless of the ostensible sincerity of the effort. Actually American democracy does not work in America - it does not take someone with great powers of observation to see that and trying to extend the lie that is American democracy to others at gun point is a moral and social affront to anyone with a conscience.
Truesoldier| 12.30.09 @ 6:01PM
The problem with the so called retalliation line that has been used in regards to the undy-bomber retalliating for the strike in Yemen is that his plane ticket was purchased before the strikes in yemen. Just as the retalliation lines that the terrorists in Yemen are striking back due to the US involvement in Iraq is false as many of the Yemen detainees at GITMO were picked up on the battlefield of Afghanistan prior to going into Iraq. Just like the false accusation that there were no terrorists in Iraq prior to our going into Iraq. If you beleive that nonsense then explain the roughly 3500 members of the PMOI ( a terrorist group that has been on the State Dept list since the 90's) were captured in Iraq at the begginging of the war?
Rockwellian| 12.30.09 @ 6:35PM
re:Truesoldier
It doesn't matter when the underbomber's ticket was purchased, as long as it was within the past century or so. We've been meddling in the Muslim world since then. Their culture teaches them to plan for many decades before they strike back.
In some places, it is actually considered helpful to use the information gathered from the interrogation of criminals. The state department would do well to take the terrorists at their word. And Americans would do well to consider how we would appreciate a foreign country blasting into our borders and setting up their own puppet government. We sure as heck aren't democratic or free anymore. Don't believe me? Try leaving the country with all your money.
dino833| 12.30.09 @ 11:11PM
You've reached a new realm of idiocy, congratulations.
Ian| 1.2.10 @ 11:07AM
@dino833 - thanks for that substaintial contribution - you have reached a new realm of useless commentary - better to be silent and thought a fool then to type your tripe and remove all doubt
Pat| 1.3.10 @ 2:45PM
Truesoldier,this war in Iraq that I supported has worked against us.Bush said he would not be a nation builder.Then what do you call what he tried? ?These 2 muslim groups will never get along and the last admin should have known that.As for the other war,we didn't get Ben Laden ,even though it was a good effort.We can't go into Pakistan therefore the last admin should have withdrawn.Why have they not attacked us here?Why should thet when they keep small groups in these places and bleed us financially.Face it,these new objectives can not be accomplished,period,end of story.
Le Cracquere| 12.30.09 @ 9:03AM
"How many times does an American have to be told that 'False Flag Operation's [sic] have occurred before EVERY WAR the United States has entered.[sic]"? Until he stops giggling at you, one supposes. Good luck with that.
Ian| 12.30.09 @ 5:45PM
Gulf of Tonkin - proven documented lie that cost thousands of American lives - false flag
Guatemala coup - documented proven lie - cia false flag
Deposing the Shah of Iran - documented lie -
the military industrial complex has undue influence over government and you.
Daniel| 12.30.09 @ 9:10AM
Keith, have you been forgetting to take your medication again?
Jonny Muffin| 12.30.09 @ 12:44PM
Dan,
Clearly you haven't forgot to take your daily dose of neocon laced medication. Word of advice - STOP taking the 'medication' and find your way back to real conservatism, the clarity is refreshing.
loulou| 12.30.09 @ 2:04PM
uh, Keith--you're a bit mental.
You forgot to mention Joe Kennedy who was a big time Hitler enthusiast.
Dai Alanye | 12.30.09 @ 4:12PM
Gee, it certainly is difficult (especially since I quit reading after the first hundred rants) to pick out the top paranoid or Ron Paul supporter. (Please excuse the repetition.) Certainly Keith deserves notice, as do Soylent and Unpolished Patriot.
And yet, this leaves out my favorite targets, Bob and Toddard.
As for the bulk of you—excluding the few rational voices—try to read more than one history book, and try to differentiate between propaganda and balanced presentation. Overall, this has been one of the most pathetically ignorant discussion threads I've seen on Spectator.
ian| 12.30.09 @ 5:49PM
thanks for the update on history - are you telling us that there is more than one history ? Try to differentiate between propaganda and balanced presentation? LOL
signed michelle malkin
bob | 12.30.09 @ 6:56PM
if anyone should recognize propaganda.
dino833| 12.30.09 @ 11:23PM
Well said, there are so many young morons commenting on this thread that are regurgitating some leftist propaganda they were spoon fed by some wanna-be 60's radical loser who has tenure at the state university. They only know history from some text book and the mouth of the professor...they haven't lived it and don't know what they speak of.
ian| 1.2.10 @ 11:16AM
cool - being young makes you a moron - blathering on with right-wing propaganda spoon fed to you by republican smear masters is very meaningful - you'll notice that an attack on someone because to their age is not an argument of any relevance - lame
Alan Brooks| 12.30.09 @ 5:36PM
Keith, go to the Ron Paul site, not AS.
Let it be.
Get back to where you once belonged.
poptoy| 12.31.09 @ 12:22AM
Keith, could I see your facts? This is not a put down but I would like to see your facts or at least your documentation. All of what you wrote does interest me. Thanks.
Skippy| 1.4.10 @ 5:56PM
http://www.newworldorderreport.....-Know.aspx
2Anglico| 12.31.09 @ 10:42AM
"Facts" made up in a pipe dream. Have another hit on your bong.
blakmira| 12.31.09 @ 4:14PM
Thanks Keith -- I see you understand that War is a Racket.
The snotty Ben Stein and the others on here sneering at Ron Paul are all warmongers and chickenhawks. They are easily hoodwinked and fooled by those in power who profit from war and think it's the patriotic thing to do. They have intense hatred and fear of 'foreigners,' which makes it so hypocritical when they throw out racist accusations.
They also instantly believe all the False Flags! lol What fools these pro-war people be!
fubar| 1.1.10 @ 3:11AM
Fact: Wallace Stegner (who afterwards founded the Creative Writing program at Stanford) was paid by ARAMCO to write a history of the early american oil industry in Saudi Arabia (originally to be published in Life Magazine!). Stegner lived in Jordan over the course of several years (this was BEFORE Israel become a US client/puppet state), did much more detailed research than either ARAMCO or Life Magazine anticipated, and discovered that US security forces had attacked native arab pro-democracy oil workers who were revolting against the injustices of Saudi royalty (who "sold out" to the oilogarchs).
ARAMCO didn't want the dirty facts of their sponsorship of STATE TERRORISM against pro-democracy oil workers to come out, so they forced Stegner to write a "whitewashed" version of the history and seal the real documents for 50 years.
Guess what? Stegner's son, who is a professor at UC Santa Cruz, authorized the unsealed documents to be made public a few years ago, and also to be scrutinized by professional historians.
Ben Stein is an idiot, and should go back to making shill TV commercials that rip off consumers for the further benefit of the Corporatist plutocracy.
The western colonial powers started meddling in the middle east long before Israel existed: the Great Game (geopolitics) between western colonial powers in the 1800s.
The Muslim world had long since become rigidly orthodox and internally corrupt and weakened when the western imperialist powers started occupying the middle east in the 1800s.
As David Brooks explained several years ago, muslims still "burn with shame" that "uncivilized" european barbarians had, due to some vast screw up in the order of the universe, become vastly more wealthy and powerful than the more godly muslims, and were able to dominate muslim lands.
Solution, part 1: the western imperial powers need to apologise and atone for their misdeeds in the middle east (and elsewhere). This would include really supporting "democracy" in the middle east. And withdrawing support for
Part 2: the whole muslim world needs to evolve and somehow join the modern and more democratic world. This requires that support for fundamentalists be stopped.
Kestrel| 12.30.09 @ 7:43AM
Well it is all in the eyes of the beholder. I am sure you would consider it an occupation -- if it was happening here. The fact is that the Middle East is filled with repressive regimes that combine state/religion to control the people. Civil War and insurrection is happening all the time. Islam is divided into several factions that will never live together, as long as the State and religion are so closely tied. If we take sides and prop up current regimes or install puppet regimes -- we become the enemy. Be patient, Radical Islam will die a slow death as the people learn they have traded one repressive regime for another.
If we stay out of the fray -- and are still attacked, then that is the time to serve justice at the end of a spear.
Regimes come and go -- they still need $$s to survive as a State -- so the oil issue is bogus. The billions we have spent to maintain access to the oil in the Middle East could have be spent on far more productive endeavors.
old white guy| 12.30.09 @ 11:01AM
islam is the problem. it will not die a slow death. it will slowly work towards killingl us but it will not fade. 1400 years of conflict with islam must prove that by now.
Michael from SC | 12.30.09 @ 11:08AM
You sound like a biggot for sure. The problem is not a religion. The problem is the US empire interfering in other countries, propping up unpopular foreign governments and occupying other people's lands. It's the Feds, not Islam, that is the problem.
Ben from PA| 12.30.09 @ 1:45PM
I'm not sure this qualifies as a bigoted statement. I would argue religion and the State have contributed immeasurable death and destruction on the world. What I find laughable is when xtians criticize Islam while ignoring the Church's despicable past. But that being said, the situation in the Middle Easy is only worsened by our involvement and continued occupation.
KyMouse| 12.30.09 @ 3:39PM
Ben, I have only a moment to reply to your comment -- please go spend a day at the nearest branch of the Salvation Army before you say too much about the "despicable" past of Christianity. I could mention a lot more, but have to run.
And the word is "Christians," not "xtians." I've never met anyone who answers to the name "xtians," have you? How would you pronounce it -- "Ex-tians" or "Kye-tians" (as in the Greek "chi")?
please| 12.30.09 @ 6:44PM
The X was always the symbol for Christ in history. (It's a cross, get it?)
Women and slaves who were not allowed to learn to read and write signed their names with an X to show that they were Christians. Plus, ink was expensive. Everything was abbreviated.
Xmas = Christmas
Xtians = Christians
And every religion has a despicable past. We could all benefit from accepting the reality of our bloody history and working toward a better future.
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 5:54PM
Athiest folks have also contributed. Those Celts were a savage bunch. Again it is one group that forces their will on another group for resources, etc. Religions are supposed to espouse peace and love, so something other than religious reasons must be at play.
fubar| 1.1.10 @ 3:30AM
As a Druid, I object to your ignorant smear. Celtic spirituality was devoted to bringing the great Kosmic forces of the divine feminine and male into harmony within the warm embrace of the great circle of life and light.
The early high church exterminated the Gnostic christians (see the Nag Hammadi texts) who understood the connections between ancient mystic wisdom (including that of the divine feminine) and the real message of Christ. Afterwards the high church became a tool of military and political empire. The male-sky-gods of Abraham had their blood and wars again for 1,000+ years.
And so it continues.
The lunatic right wing fringe of "christian" fundamentalists are big supporters of Israel became they think that an Israeli state is needed for Rapture.
Ron Paul is correct to insist that the lunacy of the unholy fundy-neocon alliance be brought into the full light of day.
It is an ambarassment to the tradition of the constitutional republic that such insanity has been allowed to be perpetuated for filthy lucre and the disgusting profits of the military-industrial complex and its geopolitical puppets.
dino833| 12.30.09 @ 11:28PM
Wow!! The anti-american sentiment here is shocking. Our schools have failed us miserably. I can only hope that Michael from SC was educated outside the USA, if not, YIKES!
Conrad| 12.31.09 @ 12:31AM
its not anti-American to know our history. i know the truth makes you uncomfortable......but if you take your big boy pill maybe you will find the fortitude to face the truth and then maybe do something to reverse the course that our gov. has taken rather than be a war on terror cheerleader.
Our founders would be ashamed at our foreign policy.
war is peace
war is peace
war is peace
fubar| 1.1.10 @ 3:44AM
dino833,
Michael from SC states something obvious to any moderately educated, rational, objective person that has even superficially studied the long, desultory history of western imperialism in the middle east.
Fact: there are almost no examples of successful USA meddling in the middle east.
Ron Paul is correct to insist that american imperialism is one of the major factors that has fueled "terrorism".
Ron Paul is correct to insist that the unholy neocon-fundy alliance that the right wing lunatic fringe gave birth to is a tool of the plutocratic Corporatists (military industrial complex) that want to destroy the foundations of the american republic and constitutional liberty.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"
Samuel Johnson - great anglo scholar
shaggydave| 1.4.10 @ 5:19AM
re mike from SC
Ever heard of Andalusia? Charles Martel? You got a point when you say interventionalist foriegn policy makes us a target but Islam has a long history of warfare and conquest. Not imperial conquest as in western europe but in the name of a caliphate or the religion of islam.
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 5:51PM
You sound like an old white guy that has let the sun settle a bit to long on the neck portions of your body. Islam is not the problem per say although I shudder to think of a world full of burkas instead of bikinis. The problem is one group that is powerful imposing their will on someone else who is weaker.
njoriole| 12.30.09 @ 3:32PM
Kestrel: "Be patient, Radical Islam will die a slow death" In what fantasy world is that? Radical Islam, and all the misery it entails, is on the march, precisely because we have the inate tendency to dissemble, compromise, etc. Ok, maybe the average Muslim will finally have had enough with the jihadists after seeing their bloody, oppressive ways (eg, the Anbar Awakening, when the Sunnis teamed up with the US in fighting the AQ monsters in Iraq). But all we get with that passive posture is a lot more blood, for no discernible gain. Remember, when the Sunnis in Anbar threw in with us, it was precisely because we were there (that is, "occupying" land). I don't think any of the Anbar tribes would have revolted against AQ without us being there, and THAT is the main point.
clarification from njoriole| 12.30.09 @ 8:19PM
Please explain to me exactly why the Anbar tribes have an obligation to revolt against AQ.
Also, please list all the times in history that non-interventionist, capitalist nations have been involved in bloody conflict.
Lee| 12.30.09 @ 9:29AM
You're right in much of what you say about Democrats. It's just that Republicans are worse.
Tom| 12.30.09 @ 11:10AM
Hard to say one is worst than the other. They are part of the same 2 headed bird of prey.
Michael from SC | 12.30.09 @ 11:05AM
The US is not occupiers? Of course it is. The US now has hundreds of foreign military bases, interferes in the internal affairs of dozens of sovereign nations has put puppet government after puppet government in power throughout recent history. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and is now involved in Yemen and Somalia as well. This is an empire. Let's face it. It's nothing like the beacon of liberty it was designed to be by better men than the goons who currently run the US empire.
Soylent| 12.30.09 @ 11:10AM
Do you live in some kind of factual vacuum?
Iraq was created after world war I by arbitrarily carving up the map of the region, creating a country called Iraq that encompassed a bunch of cultures that hate each other. The importance of the oil resources of what was to become Iraq was recognized even before WW1.
It has been nearly a century since Iraq was created; during this time it has been occupied by Britain and/or the US for almost half those years.
Saddam Hussein was a CIA asset before he rose to power in Iraq. The US supported Saddam Hussein all through his worst attrocities. Saddam Hussein was seen as a bulwark against Iran and as a strong-man who could keep his unruly country toghether by brute force. Saddam did not fall out of favour with the US until he invaded Kuwait.
You stopped short of deposing Saddam during the first Gulf war because you thought he had learnt his lesson and would cooperate with US interests.
When it had become clear that Saddam could not be coaxed into supporting US oil interests it became necessary to depose Hussein and replace his function as dictator with a US occupation. Iraq is still not a stable country and it might splinter into 3 or more regions, reflecting some combination of ethnic and pre world-war 1 boundaries.
Iraq had absolutely nothing at all to do with 9/11; it was just a convenient excuse to go into Iraq.
---
The 9/11 attacks cost millions to plan and perform. They did billions of dollars in damages and cost thousands of lives. The US government's (supposed) response to 9/11 cost TRILLIONS of dollars(much of it in unfunded liabilities to veterans) and killed more americans than 9/11.
Bush and Obama should hang for treason against the people of the United States.
david a dudenhoefer | 12.30.09 @ 11:39AM
"we are not occupiers, we are on a mission to kill..."
Does this read like the America I thought we were, not even close. How would we respond if another country buit bases on our soil, in the name of peace and fighting "terorism"? Who gave us the keys as being the worlds police dog? Where in the Constitution (OUR LAW-if that means anything anymore) does it give authority to invade, to depose elected officials, adn yes occupy? What example do we set, when we take the positition of "do as I say, but don't do as I do"
In other words, we are a nation of laws...but only when it suits us. Interventionism (not to be confused with isolationism) has been the one common thread in all of our conflicts, we better take a cold hard look at this. "Only the fool travels down the same path and expects to reach a different destination".
Finally, BEN, I do not accept this crap your laying on us now. It is far from an apoligy, and all of us heard what you said, it was quite clear. Shoot the messenger and avoid the issue. Your credibility is all but gone.
Grant| 1.2.10 @ 9:01AM
The more of the violent jihadis we kill outside our shores, the fewer we have to fight within them. There are only two possible reasons for failing to proclaim this truth:
1. Ignorance of the nature of the threat. (Their own words: "We love death the way you love life.")
2. Hatred of Jews.
PhilB| 12.30.09 @ 11:50AM
Ret. Marine: First, if you do not realize the history of Afghanistan, you do not understand current Afghanistan. The U.S. was happy to dump millions of dollars onto Afghan freedom fighters while they were fighting the Russians, but did nothing once the cold war was over. We were happy to give them weapons and train them to fight the Russians (arguably on our behalf) but we did nothing to clean up the mess like we did in Japan and Germany. We helped wreck Afghanistan but declined to help clean up - we're like the party guy that throws up in your living room, passes out on the couch and leaves in the morning without so much as a "My bad" - except our anti-tank missiles and bunker-buster bombs did more than just leave a bad stain on the carpet.
Second, don't blame this just on the Democrats for that would be truly narrow-minded and naive. For one, there are plenty of Republican waterfront-property owners who have prevented off-shore drilling from "polluting the beauty" of their ocean vistas. (Look up the politicians who have voted against off-shore drilling - you might be surprised by the Repub's you find.) For another, plenty of Democrats have kept the ball rolling in the Middle East by continually voting to fund both the Iran and Afghanistan wars, so the war is not some Republican pet project. Third, do not for a second think that only the Democrats are continuing to set policy that prevents us from becoming more oil-independent - there are PLENTY of Republican politicians, lobbyists, operatives and businessmen who are making much bank from the current Middle East oil situation and are more than happy to maintain the status quo.
Lastly, I would have thought a Marine would have more self-restraint than to start name-calling people who don't subscribe to your political point of view. You lump all the Democrats together, when in fact there are many Republicans taking the same course you described (are only the Dems traitors and SOBs?) and some Democrats fighting tooth-and-nail for oil independence.
I appreciate you served in the military. I appreciate the service the military provides when it focuses on defending this country. But I don't appreciate the narrow-minded name-calling and hyperbolic rhetoric labeling all who disagree with your political stance a traitor. To disagree with and openly challenge the decisions of our leaders is a foundation of American freedom and democracy --- to brand someone a traitor for words and not actions is decidedly not.
When are we going to wake up and realize that these people don’t hate us for our freedoms, that they don’t hate us for our materialism and that they don’t hate us because we’re “infidels?” They hate us because we’re messing around in their backyard and interfering with the political machinations of the entire area. I'm mean, honestly, wouldn't Americans be ticked off if the Afghanistan Intelligence Service funded "resistance groups" to violently overthrow the mayors of a few big cities and the governors of a few states? Wouldn't we be incensed by another country meddling in our internal affairs and labeling civilian casualties as "collateral damage?"
Let's be the bigger country, admit we made a mistake and walk away from meddling in the Middle East. Have the CIA quit overthrowing leaders, have the military quit blowing up villages and leave the Afghan people to govern themselves and maybe we can finally stop the violence and save a few bucks in the process.
acudoc| 12.31.09 @ 1:08AM
Well said!
Charles| 12.31.09 @ 4:39AM
You thought a marine would have self restraint? You obviously haven't been around many marines...
And why is there only one person actually commenting on the topic of this thread; mainly that ben stein's lack of credibility is almost as insulting as his backward logic?
Or perhaps this is all a ploy to distract us from the real issues...namely our passivity towards a government that is destroying us economically?
anannymoose| 12.30.09 @ 1:00PM
May suggest that you read Michael Scheuer on this very subject. We have had troops in, or meddle in the affairs of every country in that region.
This nonsense has transcended party lines since the beginning of the Republic. It has proven very difficult to avoid foreign entanglements and imperialism since even Jefferson's time.
fubar| 1.1.10 @ 3:53AM
anannymoose,
Exactly.
TJ was a BIG buddy of Napolean! lol. TJ supported Napoleon's attempt to put down the slave revolt in Haiti. (thus the Lousiana purchase) Talk about "entangelements"!
Vic Bailey| 12.30.09 @ 2:55PM
Semper Fi, Ret. Marine, You as usual have missed the whole point this country has caused NOTHING, This Socialist government HAS CAUSED EVERYTHING. Can you not read between the lines, do you remember the oath you took, to protect this COUNTRY( not government) against ALL enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. Our own government has become the enemy, power and greed has taken over, they are uning the Constitution for toliet paper and NOBODY seems to care. Bama is getting 1 million troops ready for a civil war, according to USNORTHCOM, against we the people!!! Who's side are you going to be on, We The People or the government's?
Ret. Marine| 12.31.09 @ 5:48AM
Nice try, but next time get your numbers straight, first off there are approx. 225-305,000 combat ready troops assigned to the USNORTHCOM at any given time, for certain reasons, not the million you stated. Why do I know this, well because as an X-Commander of ( ) you can rest aassured I am in the know about why these troops are on stand-by, and it's not to use them against the American population. Yes the Oath I took some 37 yrs. ago still has revelence in my life, as an Officer in the United States, I am subejected to recall at any time, just because there is a Ret. behind my name does not exclude me from my duty to Protect the Constitution, nor does it exclude me from knowing the difference between a traitor and a Partiot. Call me whatever you want and ponder for a moment who you are assigning blame to and who it is you don't know and why? Happy New Year.
Ret. Marine| 12.31.09 @ 5:48AM
Nice try, but next time get your numbers straight, first off there are approx. 225-305,000 combat ready troops assigned to the USNORTHCOM at any given time, for certain reasons, not the million you stated. Why do I know this, well because as an X-Commander of ( ) you can rest aassured I am in the know about why these troops are on stand-by, and it's not to use them against the American population. Yes the Oath I took some 37 yrs. ago still has revelence in my life, as an Officer in the United States, I am subejected to recall at any time, just because there is a Ret. behind my name does not exclude me from my duty to Protect the Constitution, nor does it exclude me from knowing the difference between a traitor and a Partiot. Call me whatever you want and ponder for a moment who you are assigning blame to and who it is you don't know and why? Happy New Year.
Cathy| 12.30.09 @ 3:37PM
You need to read more History and certainly about Ron Paul. If the U.S. wants war, then it should declare war and win the war. Congress won't though. Ron Paul is the most inclusive Rep in Congress. All he asks, and I do as well, is that they live and follow the oath they took when they went to Washington to the Constitution and its values. There is NO declared war. Declare the damn war then go win it.
Former Marine| 12.30.09 @ 5:56PM
Retired Marine, you need to google the folowing:
1. Dead In The Water - The Sinking of the USS Liberty (video)
2. Israel Charged with Systematic Harassment of U.S. Marines ( General R.H. Barrow charged that Israeli troops were deliberately threatening the lives of Marines serving as peacekeepers in Lebanon)
Google:
Ret. Marine| 12.31.09 @ 5:58AM
Been there and have the book's in the library, hint, just because some writes a book does not make it the truth?
Joe Meadors | 12.31.09 @ 2:39PM
Re: just because some writes a book does not make it the truth?
Couldn't agree with you more. Unfortunately few who have read Jay Cristol's screed would.
You may be interested in another USS Liberty book that hit the stores last June. http://www.jamesmscott.com
Warmest regards,
Joe
Joseph L. Meadors
USS Liberty Survivor
Director of Operations
USS Liberty Veterans Association
Tel: 202-596-9964; Fax: 425-675-5646
http://www.usslibertyveterans.org
Dean | 12.31.09 @ 11:33AM
I'm very tired of people accusing doctor Paul of being an anti-semite. Simply opposing zionism as a political position does not simply mean hatred for Jewish people. It is irrational to say so. But, Ben Stein is implying Ron Paul is an evil bad guy here. Stick to making pro-intelligent design movies, Ben, your better at that than issuing political "commentary" which is laden with subtle ad hominems toward Ron Paul's character.
md| 12.31.09 @ 2:42PM
we are occupiers and trouble maker. stop fuking with these people and see how fast shit calms down. its all politics and money thats driving everything middle east.
Jesse| 12.30.09 @ 6:47AM
Its almost as painful to see Ben's words in print as it is to listen to him speak. That was weak as far as apologies go even in the political sphere. The last thing anyone needs to be wasting time on is worrying if the Good Doctor is racist in anyway. Ridiculous slander at best.
Ben has stressed my eyeballs, maybe I just need some visine.
ellen| 12.30.09 @ 6:55AM
To be against foreign entanglements is not to be an anti-semite. Ben Stein needs to give a real apology, not some formulation where, if Ron Paul can prove himself, Ben will be his friend. Good grief. I thought they WERE friends!
Bill Goode| 12.30.09 @ 7:08AM
Ben Stein STILL doesn't get it! Congressman Ron Paul does not have a anti-semitic bone in his body. He simply wants the US military out of Iraq, out of Afghanistan, out of Yemen, out of Saudi Arabia, out of Pakistan, etc, etc. George Bush didn't get this. Barack Obama isn't getting it. And now Ben Stein doesn't get it either. The Arab people simply do not want our military occupying their countries. We have been occupying them since World War II. It was the British and French before that.
The Arabs don't have fighter jets and bombers and aircraft carriers and intercontinental missiles and battleships to attack us with as in a conventional war. So they capture our commercial planes and fly them into buildings. It's been a very effective means of carrying out a war. It's not the Arabs that are terrorists. The United States military has been terrorizing the Middle East for sixty years while the British and French were doing it before that. What we perceive as terrorism will continue until that point is understood by the United States government. United States withdrawal from the Middle East is the first step to ceasing what is perceived as Islamic terrorism. Ron Paul keeps reiterating this point and Ben Stein just doesn't get it. I guess he needs to read up on his history.
Monte Halperin| 12.30.09 @ 9:13AM
Let's make a deal: We get out of the above listed lands if Muslims get out of airplanes.
hailey| 12.30.09 @ 10:37AM
muslims have been trying to make that deal for awhile, only they want us to stop first . . .
Wow| 12.30.09 @ 10:55AM
Nearly every sentence here is wrong.
- The Arabs do have fighters and bombers capable of damaging our allies or our interests. Iran is testing very sophisticated missiles with very long range.
- In my lifetime, US involvement in the ME has been rescuing Kuwait (and Saudi Arabia) from Saddam, rescuing Afghanistan from the Russians, deposing Saddam (who paid a bounty to the families of terrorists and could not verify he had no WMD), and hunting Taliban/Al Qaeda AFTER 9/11.
Protecting our citizens and our interests comes first. I don't care if a bunch of ignorant, illiterate jihadis feel insulted by it or if their governments use the US as a scapegoat instead of fixing their own countries.
nicrivera | 12.30.09 @ 11:17AM
Wow wrote:
"- The Arabs do have fighters and bombers capable of damaging our allies or our interests. Iran is testing very sophisticated missiles with very long range."
Iranians are not Arabs. Iranians speak Persian (an indo-European language--just as English is), not Arabic (a Semitic language).
I realize this doesn't change your overall point, but it's mistakes like these (calling Iranians Arabs) that make the rest of the world believe that Americans are completely ignorant about the rest of the world.
Bjorn| 12.30.09 @ 11:44AM
Also, the Muslims would say that protecting the House of Saud or Kuwait is helping prop up criminal corrupt regimes, not "helping" Muslims. Therefore, it is you whose sentences are wrong, Wow.
Soylent| 12.30.09 @ 11:31AM
"In my lifetime, US involvement in the ME has been rescuing Kuwait (and Saudi Arabia) from Saddam, rescuing Afghanistan from the Russians, deposing Saddam (who paid a bounty to the families of terrorists and could not verify he had no WMD), and hunting Taliban/Al Qaeda AFTER 9/11."
And in MY lifetime US involvement in Iraq has been to use Saddam Hussein as a CIA asset. To support Saddam Hussein's rise to power as a bulwark against Iran and as a brutal dictactor to keep Iraq from splintering along ethnic or pre-WW1 boundaries. To take Iraq off the list of terrorist supporting nations allowing Saddam to buy among other things anthrax for "research purposes", "pesticide precursors" for nerve-gas and the Osirak research reactor suitable for weaponsgrade plutonium production. To lend Iraq billions of dollars to buy all these things. The US supported Iraq all the way through its worst attrocities; the 1988 nerve gas attack on the kurds was not followed by a single word of disapproval; rather the US increased its support for Iraq with heavily subsidized agricultural products. US support for Iraq continued right up until the beginning of the Iraq-Kuwait war. Iraq was left in power after the first gulf war because the US thought he had learned his lesson and would rather have Saddam Hussein in power as long as he supported US oil interests. When Saddam did not comply and cruel sanctions that killed ~500 000 Iraqis did not help it was deemed necessary to depose Saddam and occupy Iraq with US troops until someone loyal to the US could be installed; 9/11 offered a pre-text to go into Iraq, which the US public would not otherwise have supported.
Albert| 12.30.09 @ 2:14PM
You are not protecting me by invading or occupying Islamic countries. Occupation fuels insurgency. Second, at a trillion dollars and counting, you have greatly undermined our financial security. Now go back to Hannity and Limbaugh so they can wash these home truths from you mind.
zack| 12.30.09 @ 6:46PM
You have a selective memory. The US props up the dictator in Egypt Mubarak. We prop up Israel. We prop up the Saudis.
These acts are not popular amongst many in the Middle East. We need to stop meddling and take care of our own country. America First.
AdamPeart| 12.30.09 @ 7:11PM
I've disagreed with so many comments, I'll just randomly pick yours to reply to. Mistake one: Persians, not Arabs, have fighters and bombers (old rusty bucket Russian migs, or old rusty bucket American rigs that we sold to them.) Arabs for the most part have rocks, TNT, and again, weapons we've sold or given to them. Iran, despite the propaganda your unfiltered mind has absorbed, are not suicidal. Their interest is ours: self preservation. Why wouldn't they militarize with the world's largest war machine running around the region, a corrupt UN that places sanctions on them to the degree where thousands starve, and an avowed enemy mere hundreds of miles away with nuclear capability? Worrying about Iran is like you being afraid of a six year old. And what do you consider "our interests" after all? And do you think terrorism is something new? Terrorism has, does, and always will exist, yes? So I'll assume that you promote the notion of "perpetual war for perpetual peace." Ever read any Orwell? And that said, just curious, have you ever had a conversation with a real-life Iranian or Afghani? Or do you just form your opinions of entire nations of people based on information supplied to you by your beloved government masters? You despise the people that hate you based on the propaganda fed to them by Mullahs, yet you yourself are guilty of the same crime. To not humbly accept this would make you a great hypocrite.
Your lifetime is very short in relation to American/Mideast history. To base your opinion on such a short period of time is very errant. Kuwait was angle drilling and essentially stealing Iraq's oil. Saddam attacked them. His ego led him to reclaim Kuwait. Saddam was a meglomaniac that started telling his American handlers to go jump in a lake. We didn't care for him trying to break free of US control, so we bombed him. We "protect" Saudi Arabia because we owe them hundreds of billions of dollars for starters. As we are now learning (and have been for eight years now) that the Afghans didn't need "rescuing" from the Soviets- we're just as bogged down as they were. We were longtime bedfellows with the Taliban (we actually helped put them into power- so when you talk about their human rights' injustices our hands are not clean), our CIA CREATED Al Queda in the 80's, and we still haven't brought/nor "found" former CIA asset Osama Bin Laden to justice for 9/11. In fact, to this day the FBI hasn't even charged Bin Laden with anything to do with 9/11.
We're not protecting our citizens, we're furthering endangering them, like the stirring of a hornets nest- we will be stung. I will agree with you that our "interests" are being protected. Sadly "our" interests are most often "their" interests. And who are "they?" Those who profit from war. "They" rely on gullible dolts to believe everything they hear on the 6 o'clock news for they know that the dolts are also too lazy to discover the truth for themselves and will accept ANY lie as truth if enough people say it (WMD's for example.) Your last statement is priceless: Their governments use the US as a scapegoat? And we don't use "them" as our scapegoat to rape constitutional liberties from our OWN citizens and increase OUR government control over the people? You're right, they should fix their own countries, AND WE SHOULD FIX OURS. It's called leading by example, not leading at the barrel of a gun. You should try being a little more introspective before wagging your self-righteous finger at the world you don't understand, for the world you live in is obviously very small indeed.
EndtheFed | 12.31.09 @ 9:53AM
Exactly!
Best comment yet.
It is very refreshing and reassuring to know that at least one or two people drawn to this site have some degree of rational understanding. Isn't it annoying how these pro-war people always drag out the same arguments despite how absurd they are, or how many times they have been proven wrong? Their misunderstanding is blatantly clear when they say things like "nonintervention is isolationism". The truth is treason in the empire of lies.
Ron Paul | 12.30.09 @ 7:12AM
Obviously I'm a fan of Ron Paul and I found this apology acceptable. Let's get back to the business of discussing weather it's in our Republics interest to be waging war in so many different countries, stiring up so many enemies. Because when you do so, you better be prepared to lose your freedoms to fight the current war on terror. The only way out of this war is to change our foreign policy. Period.
Vortex124875| 12.30.09 @ 7:27AM
Give me a break! Ben Stein you stink of anti-semitism because it is you that hates semetic tribes. Ron Paul supports and defends all semetic tribes, all peoples of all colors and all races. He is a defender of freedom whose only anti- prefix is anti-big-government! He is a patriot, a friend, a doctor, a father, grandfather, and the only person in congress looking out for me!
The reason people hate you enough to do something is because you are in their face. I guess nobody ever through rocks at Montgomery Blair High School football team`s bus for beating them on home turf. Guess Ben never learnt that lesson.
Unpolished Patriot| 12.30.09 @ 2:34PM
What idiots like Stein hope the rest of us are too stupid to figure out is that Israelis are not Semites. The term Semite refers to descendants of Shem- one of three sons of Noah. Since we all are descendants of Noah, it really shouldn't matter which son we're descended from anyway, but they try to claim that they are the descendants of Shem and are hated for it. Reality, one of the known descendants of Shem was Abraham. Abraham had two sons- Isaac and Ishmael. Ishmael is the father of the Arab nations (way oversimplified, but necessary for the Ben Stein's of this world). Isaac is the father of two sons- Esau and Jacob, Jacob later being named Israel. Esau is the father of the Edomites (a middle eastern tribe, but I'm not sure of their present day equivalent) and Jacob (Israel) becoming the father of Israel. So, as a minimum, all Arabs, Israelis and most middle easterners are Semitic tribes. If you hate Arabs, then you are an anti-semite. To complicate things, after the Babylonian exile, all Israelites became so mixed with other tribes and other religions that there is no Jew or Israeli today who can honestly and legitimately tie their lineage back to any of the original 12 tribes of Israel. Todays Jews are descendants of nomadic gypsy tribes who stumbled upon the Jewish religion, adopted it for themselves, and found it politically expedient to claim to be Israeli and seek- for the first time ever- their own land.
Gina Giardino| 12.30.09 @ 7:28AM
Who in the heck is Ben Stein? And who cares what he says?
S.L. Toddard| 12.30.09 @ 9:22AM
Ben Stein is a semi-famous actor and MTV game-show host.
Gina Giardino| 12.30.09 @ 10:21AM
My point exactly
Glen Litsinger| 12.30.09 @ 4:15PM
LOL! Excellent, Gina.
S.L. Toddard| 12.30.09 @ 9:39AM
Also, I think it is important to consider that Ben Stein was literally born in Washington DC, the son of a presidential adviser, grew up in a Washington suburb and is now "living in Beverly Hills and Malibu". He is a rather typical American elite. Such placeless, deracinated cosmopolitan elites, having no loyalty to any place or people, cannot be expected to understand - let alone love - their fellow countrymen who are tied by bonds of love and friendship to their homes, their towns and neighborhoods. Ben Stein simply does not understand America, which is why he is outraged when Americans love *their* home first and best - he does not understand that love, having no home of his own. Washington? Malibu? MTV? Hollywood? Beverly Hills? Is that the real America?
I think we all know the answer.
Jeff in PA| 12.30.09 @ 1:03PM
You're defending a man who sympathizes with the would-be murderer of 200 innocent Americans, and Ben Stein is the one who doesn't "understand- let alone love- [his] fellow countrymen"?
S.L. Toddard | 12.30.09 @ 1:11PM
I have no idea who you are referring to. I don't know of any American that "sympathizes with the would-be murderer of 200 innocent Americans".
Glen Litsinger| 12.30.09 @ 4:18PM
He's referring to Ron Paul. Which, of course, proves his ignorance.
zf@umich.edu| 12.30.09 @ 6:49PM
If I can sympathize with an ignorant fool like you, I can sympathize with a terrorist - at least enough to understand their motivations.
zf@umich.edu| 12.30.09 @ 6:49PM
If I can sympathize with an ignorant fool like you, I can sympathize with a terrorist - at least enough to understand their motivations.
annica2 | 12.30.09 @ 11:08AM
he was also a speech writer for anti semitic richard nixon.
George Jones| 12.30.09 @ 4:52PM
Who the heck is Ron Paul?
D. D. Soldrat| 12.30.09 @ 4:59PM
He is a unknown actor who had a cameo role in the movie Bruno. Apparently like a turd he attracts a lot of flies.
acudoc| 12.31.09 @ 1:33AM
Ron Paul is a statesman never known to level an ad hominem attack against someone in a debate on an important topic.
Leanne| 12.31.09 @ 3:26AM
Looks as though D. D. Bought-and-Soldrat has a big worry about Ron Paul LOL, big enough to become scatological.
Martin Hill | 12.30.09 @ 7:30AM
Ben Stein, what if Paul or anybody, for that matter, had criticized U.S aide to israel? Are you contending that anyone who 'dare' criticize that or Israeli policy is by definition an anti-semite? Why don't you address Shulamit Aloni's admission that Jews use the "anti-semite" label as "a trick" and distraction from the issues, which you have obviously done. Shame on you.
Aaron G.| 12.30.09 @ 7:35AM
I watched this episode and thought Ben Stein was way out of line for this weak and ignorant statement. What Ben and other war mongers don't seem to understand, is that most Americans don't want to use our military force in crazy ways (e.g. supporting and training Bin Laden in the 80s, overthrowing Iran's democratically elected leader - see more here http://academic.evergreen.edu/.....tions.html).
Aman| 12.30.09 @ 7:36AM
More like a "Rudi Guiliani moment".
During the presidential debates Dr. Paul stated the same exact "they follow us here because we're over there" message - only to be attacked in similar fashion by Rudi.
Mr. Guiliani indicated he was a foreign poilcy expert because his city was attacked on 911 (just like Palin because she lives close to Russia, etc.)
Dr. Paul knows this stuff because he's studied history, reads a lot, and has even written his own book on the subject.
Blowback is real. We've seen it and will continue to see it until the day we're finally broke and are forced to pullout from the middle east and elsewhere around the globe.
George| 12.30.09 @ 7:43AM
I like fat comedians. I still have memories of Peter Schiff putting this buffoon in his place. Hyuk.
Richard Baker| 12.30.09 @ 7:54AM
Ron Paul, it seems to me, forgets to support our friends in Israel as a matter of course. Spare me the Washington and "entangling alliances" rhetoric, which were actually Mr. Jefferson's words. GW spoke of the ideal but his administration established relations and entanglements with many countries because we were all alone in the world and needed friends. Try to keep what these men said in the context of events in their time.
Chris Mallory| 12.30.09 @ 11:16AM
It seems to me that if our "friend" is always picking fights in our name and begging for handouts, he isn't much of a friend. More like the out of work brother in law who you wish would just go away. I don't wish any harm to any citizen of Israel, but I also don't think that they deserve one dime of American tax money. If you want to help them, start a charity and send them your money.
annica2 | 12.30.09 @ 11:18AM
believeing in defending "our friends in israel" is like the belief in defending your crips or bloods gang brothers, or your friend in high school, forgetting there are millions of other people you could also be friends with if you opened your mind. commerce and diplomacy is the key to that in foreign policy, not occupation. remember, here in the u.s., slavery was legal for over a hundred years and we were segregated until the 1950's, even the 1970's in places like north carolina. it didn't take a military to come blast us back and forth with bombs, keeping our country in the third world for progress to happen. countries with islamic law cannot progress unless we leave them alone. their families, markets and all.
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 4:49PM
Israel a nation that continues apartheid in the occupied territories is a friend? I guess we have lost our moral compass on so many fronts that this makes sense.
NOMOREWARS_FOR/BECAUSE OF ISRA | 12.30.09 @ 7:58AM
Ben Stein, Apologize to Ron Paul:
http://tinyurl.com/BenSteinApologize
Of course US support for Israel's brutal oppressions of the Palestinians was the primary motivation for the tragic 9/11 attack (and the earlier attack on the WTC in 1993 - simply look up 'Israel as a terrorist's motivation' in the index of James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book) as conveyed via the following youtube video with over 440,000 views as it includes an exchange with Lee Hamilton of the 9/11 Commission?:
US Support for Israel Gorilla in the Room (that Ben Stein doesn't want to touch!):
http://tinyurl.com/npvwbh
NOMOREWARS_FOR/BECAUSE OF ISRA | 12.30.09 @ 7:59AM
Ben Stein, Apologize to Ron Paul:
http://tinyurl.com/BenSteinApologize
The following is the youtube referenced above:
What Motivated the 9/11 Hijackers? See testimony most didn't:
http://tinyurl.com/5nlhs6
Pingback| 12.30.09 @ 8:02AM
Ben Stein Apologizes To Ron Paul | Ron-Paul.Us links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
NOMOREWARS_FOR/BECAUSE OF ISRA | 12.30.09 @ 8:03AM
Bottom line to the Afghan quagmire:
http://tinyurl.com/yjwdlw6
"Sit Down!" The Power to Silence the Truth about 9/11 Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7EB1FxENxQ
Don| 12.30.09 @ 8:05AM
Want out of Foreign entanglements?
The solution is quite simple:
Drill for our own Oil and Natural gas, both in the US proper and offshore. This will only need to be a 'bridge' until we can get state of the art Nuclear plants up and running.
Drill in ANWR.
Use "some" tax revenues to nurse along alternative fuels such as wind and solar.
Currently, the power they produce is a joke.
It will take a LONGGGGGGGG nurturing of that to get it going.
Nuclear power is the key, bridged for the next 20 years by domestic drilling.
Why is this such a difficult concept and why have we not done it?
The money we send to the likes of Saudi Arabia merely fuels their assistance to hate spewing madrassas and ultimately, our own destruction.
Problem solved.
No strategic need to be in the Middle East.
Drill here. Build many more clean, safe, enviro friendly nukes HERE....Develop electric cars charged at night by safe,clean, efficient nuclear power. The "need" for Middle East oil drops sharply, not to mention any dependency on Venezuela and Russia. The End.
Abe Silversteinowitz| 12.30.09 @ 10:10AM
What? You want USA out of the Middle East? WHAT ABOUT ISRAEL, YOU SCHUMCK??
You sir are an anti-semite. Israel is the most important country on earth, the seat of real humanity, the world's last best hope, and Jews are God's Chosen People (Gods on earth). USA must help Israel fight its enemies!!! Oy, the anti-semitism on this board turns my stomach, my suffering Jewish stomach! (Maybe I should call my congressman and ask for more hate speech laws....)
Adam| 12.30.09 @ 4:43PM
LOL!!!!!!!!!
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 4:47PM
Don't you mean cruelest country. It makes me angry to see what they havedone and continue to do to the Palestinians.
Jimbo| 12.31.09 @ 5:39PM
Ben: By Palestinians do you mean those nice people who brainwash their children to become suicide bombers? Those people who have declared for years that their goal is to "drive the Jews into the sea"? Aren't these the people who send thousands of rockets into civilian neighborhoods with the express purpose of killing Jews? Oh yes, lest we forget, these are those same people who were literally dancing in the streets upon hearing the wonderful news about 9/11. These folks make the Nazis look like Girl Scouts! Better watch out Ben, after they run out of Jews to kill, they might go after you and even Ron Paul.
zack| 12.30.09 @ 6:52PM
Not that I'm against domestic drilling, but you do realize that oil is fungible and a global market and it doesn't really matter where we get our oil from. We don't need to invade countries to secure oil - these countries will sell us their oil voluntarily. The reason we invade is to give certain corporate interests a leg up on the competition.
fubar| 1.1.10 @ 4:17AM
Stewart Brand, founder of The Whole Earth Catalog (1960s), speaks at the TED conference to advocate "Four Environmental Heresies".
http://blog.ted.com/2009/07/stewart_brand_p.php
http://www.ted.com/talks/stewa.....esies.html
NOWARS_FOR/BECAUSEOFISRAEL | 12.30.09 @ 8:07AM
Ben Stein uses the anti-Semite 'Trick' (see youtube linked via following URL) against Ron Paul who was spot on with what he conveyed on Larry King the night before last:
The Trick:
http://neoconzionistthreat.blo.....trick.html
Ben Stein, Apologize to Ron Paul:
http://tinyurl.com/BenSteinApologize
Melvin| 12.30.09 @ 8:09AM
People please keep in perspective, in how the face of war changes. We didn't fight WWI the same way we fought the the War Between the Sates. We didn't fight the first Persian Gulf War the same we fought this one. And the reasons that we commit to war have changed right alongside the conflicts.
I wish I could be independently wealthy so I could study and research till my hearts content, but if memory serves me correctly President Eisenhower warned us about the military
industrial complex. I interpret this as those powerful forces within private industry and government who wish to keep us in a constant state of war because it is profitable.
Former NC Senator John Edwards was vehemently opposed to this war and voiced his displeasure publicly, but when the camera was turned off he was purchasing defense related stock faster than a Scud missile.
I don't know if the present conditions warrant that analysis but it sure looks like it does.
On the flip side of the coin the Muzzies aren't entirely blameless in this either and maybe for the same reasons, and religious zealotry is a effective tool to control the illiterate to do ones bidding such as packing yur draaws with PETN.
War is supposed to be fought when all lesser means of diplomacy have failed and there is no other option left to resolve the situation.
It doesn't send a very good message to the men and women in the field when the President cannot even begin to bring himself calling a terrorist a terrorist.
I guess wars will cease when the people who fight them decide not to show up on both sides.
JaimeInTexas| 12.30.09 @ 12:29PM
Originally it was the military-congressional-industrial complex. But Eisenhower cut out the congressional part due to following political advice.
fubar| 1.1.10 @ 4:21AM
congress ..... defense pork? shocking. :)
Ryan| 12.30.09 @ 8:15AM
Woohoo! Not even 9am and the Paulites are out in force.
I do agree with one sentiment - Stein was jumping the gun FAR too quickly (as many Jews do) in claiming anti-semitism.
Everything else the Paulies state on foreign matters, I heartily disagree with. Muslim extremism won't end if we leave the Middle East to its own devices. It's true we didn't do the job over there properly, but believing that religious extremism ends when we go away is naive.
Clay| 12.30.09 @ 10:01AM
Ron Paul doesn't argue that extremism would go away if we leave, he argues that it's growing because we stay.
He's right. Read "Dying to win" by Robert Pape, if you're interested in ACTUALLY understanding the motives behind Suicide terrorism.
Blowback's a bitch.
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 4:46PM
They kill us because we kill them and screw with their internal affairs. Operation Ajax sure has created splendid relations with Iran. Mossadegh probably would have been better than that whole Theocracy thing.
D. D. | 12.30.09 @ 8:14PM
"They kill us because we kill them and screw with their internal affairs. "
Is this a Bruno reference?
Sarah| 12.31.09 @ 12:25AM
Is DD short for "Dumb - Dumb?" You only spew rhetoric without any substance.
Ben| 12.31.09 @ 5:54PM
Right, by the way that movie did crack me up. Felt sorry for the way a 73 year old man was tricked though.
Josh | 12.30.09 @ 7:20PM
"Muslim extremism won't end if we leave the Middle East to its own devices."
I agree. However, you are more likely to be struck by lightning or suffocate in your sleep than die at the hands of an extremist. It's not worth the trillions of dollars, loss of life, devaluation of our currency and weakened economy.
By bombing parts of the middle east that had never attacked us, our collateral damage encourages new recruits. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Meddling in the affairs of other nations and building permanent bases on their soil only increases the chances of radicalizing these people to the point of suicidal blowback.
PJ McFlur| 12.31.09 @ 1:14AM
Sure was smart for us to fund both sides of the Iran/Iraq conflict, radicalize a bunch of muslims, overthrow their elected leaders.... and then kill a million of them.
You are correct. It wont go away.
'Blowback'
Bob| 12.30.09 @ 8:19AM
All of you seem to be missing the point. Neither Paul nor Stein is correct. We are fighting "terrorists" who have no home country. They are in Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and even Germany and the U.S. Fighting a conventional war against a distributed enemy makes no sense. Realistically, our support for Israel has more to do with getting intelligence than it does with who owns the land. Most of our terrorist intelligence comes from Israel and that is why we support it so much.
And Don, drilling in ANWR won't do much as total U.S. reserves are in the range of 3% of the world. We do have a huge supply of natural gas and coal (and there is no such thing as "clean coal"). That said, you are right about nuclear. The issue there is where you are going to store the spent fuel. We built a facility in Nevada for that purpose, now we should use it.
S.L. Toddard| 12.30.09 @ 8:39AM
"All of you seem to be missing the point. Neither Paul nor Stein is correct"
Bob, it seems you yourself are missing the point. Whether or not Dr. Paul's foreign policy is sound (and I believe it is), his assertion that we are occupying Muslim lands, and that doing this increases the hatred that leads to terrorism, is NOT "anti-semitic". Ben Stein's slander is baseless and utterly unsupported, in this piece or elsewhere. It is immoral and wrong - though typical.
Jamie| 12.30.09 @ 8:22AM
If Ron Paul had called Ben Stein a dirty Jew and the apology from Ron was:
"So let me say right now that if Ben Stein says he is not taking that line, and is not a dirty Jew, I believe him, good for him and I am happy to know him. "
would Ron be getting off the hook?
Nope. And neither should Ben Stein.
beermotor| 12.30.09 @ 12:03PM
Ben Stein, YOU BEEN WTFBBQPWN3D!
Dude's a total joke.
DJ| 12.30.09 @ 1:38PM
ZING! Logic is a bitch! Ain't it, Ben?
S.L. Toddard| 12.30.09 @ 8:24AM
The neoconservatives have twisted political discourse in America to the extent that the term "Orwellian" no longer does it justice - Ben Stein now claims that recognizing the truth (that we are occupying Muslim lands) is to reveal oneself as an anti-semite! Close your eyes, people - whatever you do, do NOT acknowledge that we are occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. To do so makes you Hitler. Why is that, you ask? Because Ben Stein has noticed that some of the people who acknowledge that we are occupying Muslim lands also – GASP! - criticize Israel, and to criticize that particular nation-state is (according to Ben Stein) "anti-semitic".
It bears repeating: to acknowledge that America’s military is occupying Muslim lands is “anti-semitic”, according to Ben Stein. To acknowledge – as did Donald Rumsfeld’s Task Force in 2004 (link below) – that the "underlying sources of threats to America's national security" are "American direct intervention in the Muslim world", America’s "one sided support in favor of Israel", and "the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan" makes you (somehow) a Jew-hater, according to Ben Stein. If you acknowledge - as did Donald Rumsfeld’s Task Force in 2004 – that “Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies” then you will be tarred by Ben Stein and his ilk as a quasi-Nazi.
Pay no mind to Ben Stein. His first loyalty is to an alien state on the other side of the globe. He is part of the P.C. Thought Police goon squad, and if he catches anyone criticizing or failing to show obeisance to that alien nation-state that commands his first loyalty he will tar you as a Jew-hater, he will subject you to a Two Minutes Hate, he will slander you, he will play the race card with more expertise than Al Sharpton, he will use all the tools at his disposal to crush any inclination you might have to keep America first in your hearts.
Re-read the piece: it consists of nothing but that lone slander. Its sole purpose is to slander Ron Paul as an anti-semite, along with anyone else who acknowledges that we are occupying Muslim lands and anyone who agrees with the Task Force Donald Rumsfeld tasked with assessing the effects of American foreign policy. You would think such a serious accusation would be accompanied by proof, or at least *some* evidence. Well, you would think wrong. It is foul calumny, naked, underhanded slander, backed by zero evidence. That is how blithely neoconservatives toss that term around – as it is meaningless to them, so it becomes meaningless to everyone else. Let him blather on – Ben Stein is irrelevant. Ben Stein’s comrades had their chance at the helm and ran us aground, stranded us in two wars, cost us the lives of thousands of American soldiers and left the economy a smoking ruin. So utterly have they been discredited that to watch them continue to shriek “anti-semite!” and “appeaser!” now thankfully evinces pity more than anything else. There is a reason they will slander anyone who acknowledges the truth: the truth is anathema to neoconservatism.
It is fine that Ben Stein is a disloyal American – but don’t let his P.C. thuggery frighten YOU into being disloyal to YOUR country.
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/rep.....cation.pdf
Madtekwriter| 12.30.09 @ 12:13PM
The link you included is dead--please update.
S.L. Toddard| 12.30.09 @ 1:28PM
Sorrry, Madtekwriter - it was online this AM. It had all 111 pages in pdf. Perhaps it is an issue with the website. I will post again if I can find another copy online.
Leeanne| 12.31.09 @ 3:39AM
[to S. L. Toddard]
Very well articulated.
Jamie| 12.30.09 @ 8:25AM
Win Ben Stein's Apology:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=238859634632
jamey| 12.30.09 @ 8:26AM
i side with Dr, Ron Paul. If we were not forcing our agenda down third world countries then my guess is that we would be less likely to be attacked i dont think that you can dispute that its just common sense
Martin Hill | 12.30.09 @ 8:44AM
One more thing Ben Stein. I agree with you on one thing. The 9/11 attacks weren't 'blowback' for U.S. foreign policy. Ron Paul is wrong about that. The 9/11 attacks were a flase flag, "inside job" operation by the U.S. and Israel, and the wicked satanists who comprise the highest levels of the U.S. government. 100 story buildings don't fall down in ten seconds. It's all about the 'new world order'. You know it's true. Are you a bohemian grover or a freemason, Stein? Repent now.
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 4:43PM
I doubt that 911 was an inside job. Officials may have ignored things on purpose as they might have stood to profit, but I wouldn't dare make that accusation. Remember the CIA, DoD, Pentagon, etc. profit from conflict. Everyone has to justify their existence as well as funding. If we had world peace, these entities would be pretty useless. Regardless, our foreign policy does create enemies, and Ron Paul is absolutely correct.
bill clymer| 6.13.10 @ 3:04AM
I am appalled, Is Ben saying that the actions of the US are Jewish/Israeli actions?
bill clymer| 6.13.10 @ 3:04AM
I am appalled, Is Ben saying that the actions of the US are Jewish/Israeli actions?
Jimmy| 12.31.09 @ 12:15AM
You seem to me to be a plant posing as a Paulite in order to discredit them.. to be fair, the Paul movement has unfortunately attracted a lot of nutso 9/11 nailbiters and blame-israel-first for everything from military largess to overregulation in federal highways, but this is just a smidgen too much to take seriously. A freemason? Repent? Satanists? Whoo wee.
Leanne| 12.31.09 @ 3:45AM
LMAO check out "Jimmy" rushing in to reinforce the absurd official version of 911, through the use of any means possible including personal insult. Hilarious. I would cherish the opportunity to see how he holds up in a debate with any member of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth.
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Darryl Schmitz| 12.30.09 @ 8:55AM
It is good to see those of us who consider ourselves "conservative" getting beyond the simple-minded "Paul is nuts/quixotic/etc" and finally beginning to debate what he has fought his entire career for us to consider: What does it truly mean to be "conservative"? Do we belong on the right wing, or do we belong in the Constitutionalist libertarian wing?
fubar| 1.1.10 @ 4:34AM
neocon = crusader = jihadist
(same cr*p, different religion.)
Q: "what is the difference between a neocon, a jihadist, a pit bull and a hockey mom?"
A: "one of them wears lipstick."
(sometimes it really is just that simple.)
Tim| 12.30.09 @ 8:56AM
Wow.
JimH| 12.30.09 @ 9:12AM
Obviously there are some people in the world who will hate and attempt to harm us regardless of where we are. Minding our own business and keeping our troops home, from Korea and Europe as well, provides less provocation and opportunity for these wanna-be martyrs. If the money spent on Iraq and foreign deployment in general had been spent on the development of nuclear and space based solar power (see the Japanese) we would not be having many of the financial difficulties we are having today. That being said, I fully support what our expressed policy following 09/11 that if you attack us or actively support those that do, we will destroy you. I wish we had truly kept to it. That does not mean that after we stick around and try to build some model democracy.
William R| 12.30.09 @ 9:04AM
What our CIA says about the Middle East and terrorism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA
Tenn Slim| 12.30.09 @ 9:07AM
Opine
1. Ron Paul lives,breathes and creates controversy. His FP is pure 100% Isolationism. He has little or no concept of FP realities.
2. WW1, WW2, Korea, Viet Nam, ALL were expressions of a need to keep the USA Free. Free from various insurgences, free from out right totalitarionism, free from overwhelming dictatorships. True enough, there are and will be always, folks eager to take advantage of the events to make a buck.
3. In the final analysis, USA Ordinary citizens decide the issue. W/O our approval, the above US Citizenery would never have been involved. HISTORY is more than a biased review, seeking to prove a point. HISTORY is citizen driven events. We came D... close to a Coup De Tat during the LBJ and Nixon years, in this country, cause the University SDS folks sought to overthrow the Guvmnt. HISTORY is multifaceted. Simply reading it is not enough. YOU have to have been there.
4. Today, we are living in HISTORY of our own making. The past 50 odd years of apathy, ignoring reality, has led us to this point. HISTORY is made every day. IF we allow HISTORY to make our days, then we fall into the trap of not being decisive, being apathetic, being w/o reality. LOOK AROUND, READ, WRITE, COMPETE, for goodness sake. HISTORY is being made at our expense. We have OBNA driving the USA Electorate like sheep right over the abyss.
WAKE UP FOLKS, HISTORY is made daily.
end
Semper FI
William R| 12.30.09 @ 9:25AM
Ron Paul is hardly an isolationist. He is a non interventionist. You should study up on the subject!
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 10:09AM
If Ron Paul was in Congress back in the 30's and 40's, he would say we should stay out of Europe and let the Nazi's and Soviets fight for the spoils. He clearly does not get what radical Islam is all about, it has nothing to do with our "occupation" but their desire to destroy western civilization along with Jews and Christianity, you should study up on the subject. In short, Ron Paul is nuts and illogical when it comes to foreign policy and so are his fanatical followers.
KCKent| 12.30.09 @ 10:35AM
Umm...Todd,
We did stay out of the conflict in Europe, for years, until we were attacked, and even after some small attacks at sea. (Well, the Bush family was doing good business with Hitler, so we couldn't mess that up). The conflict went on for years and we even gave Hitler the benefit of the doubt as he was killing innocents because he was fighting "terrorists". And, "let the Nazi's and Soviets fight for the spoils"? Are you saying we fought WWII just to get "stuff" by stealing it from Europeans. That's is the thinking of emperors and tyrants, not protectors of freedom.
You should read up on terrorism. Throughout history and the world 99% of suicide terrorism is a response to one thing - occupation of a home land by a foreign power. If the Muslims in Iraq hate Christianity and Judaism so much why were there Christian churches and Jewish Synogogues? The Christmas "bomber" SAID the reason he did it was blowback for our bombing of Yemen and killing of innocents. We acted first, and his radical group responded. Seems you might be the illogical one.
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 11:04AM
As soon as you said the Bush family was doing business with Hitler, I know I am dealing with a real nutjob. What innocents are you referring to in Yemen? You are an idiot
Chris Mallory| 12.30.09 @ 11:25AM
So every Yemeni is a blood thirsty terrorist? There are no innocent women and children? There are no goat herds only interested in living day to day? Are you saying that Yemenis are not human? They are animals to be killed for sport? Very simple, if the muslims hate us and want to kill us, DON"T let them come here. Close immigration from every country. Problem solved, no more "students' blowing up airplanes.
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 12:44PM
I was referring to those terrorists that we killed in Yemen, they are not innocent just like those we hold in custody in Gitmo are not innocent. The problem is Chris is that they are already here. In the Buffalo area, there is a rather large contingent from Yemen and you may remember about a terror cell of immigrants from Yemen being arrested in the area here 4 or 5 years back. Do you suggest that we deport every Muslim and not allow Muslims in America? Obviously that will never happen in a free country.
KCKent| 12.30.09 @ 11:32AM
Please...I threw in the Bush thing as a side, sort of tongue in cheek and to show some relativism to the corporate angle of war. (And, it is well documented that Bush's grandfather and family were providing Hitler with oil and fuel for his war machine). Obviously, all you can do is cast insults instead of responding - typical Neocon/Neocommunist behavior. The "underwear bomber" and his handlers said it was a response for killing innocent people in Yemen, not me. If you look at photos in foreign press - there were children killed in the Yemen bombings as we launched many navy-based missiles at broad targets. My guess is that the children and the random civilians blown apart by the missiles are what they are talking about.
Or, do you think every single person and five-year-old in Yemen wants to kill us? If so - who's the nutjob?
Schvenzlerman| 12.30.09 @ 11:54AM
Prescott Bush's assistance to the German Steel Trust and other Nazi armaments manufacturers has been well documented. The Roosevelt administration confiscated shares he, the Harrimans and Nazi Party members owned in several corporations that were trading with Nazi Germany many months after the Trading with the Enemy Act had been enacted by Congress and the Presiden. Prescott Bush was certainly not alone, but he knowingly gave aid and comfort to the enemy and was thus a traitor who should have been shot. That he was not merely proves that the elite usually get away with murder. In his instance, the murder of our troops by a Nazi war machine that he illegally helped finance.
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 12:50PM
What is your documentation? Noam Chomsky? You think maybe the American people would have been made aware of this if it was true when they ran for President? I bet Dan Rather would have ran with that if there was a shred of truth to it (he didn't need any for his other story but that didn't work so well for him or CBS). Nothing but pure conspiracy theory bullshit. Joseph Kennedy on the other hand was a well documented anti-Semite and Nazi supporter.
Kit| 12.31.09 @ 12:46AM
Here you go. WASHINGTON TIMES / ASSOCIATED PRESS good enough for you?
http://www.washingtontimes.com.....534-8149r/
How about the UK Guardian?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl.....ndworldwar
Jake| 12.31.09 @ 12:43AM
Hey Todd, Denial isn't a river in Egypt. Read Gen Smedley Butler. Do you know how to do a google? Do a google on Prescott Bush. Give it a try, who knows what you can learn.
Leanne| 12.31.09 @ 3:50AM
Oooh KCKent,
you have gotten Todd so angry now that he has no choice but to start doing some serious name-calling ...pretty much the standard neocon debate strategy !
Please don't hit him with any of the copious documentation about Prescott Bush or I fear he may have a stroke.
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 11:20AM
You know who was a big supporter of Hitler? Joseph Kennedy that is who (fact) so quit with the Bush family-Hitler lie. What does my statement about the Nazi's and Soviets fighting for the spoils in Europe have to do with our reasons for fighting? They did steal and pillage and we fought and defeated the Nazi's to save freedom in Europe (at least Western Europe from the Soviets). Are you a Ron Paul nut or some dumb lefty Obama sycophant? Hard to tell the difference when it comes to foreign policy with the two of you.
KCKent| 12.30.09 @ 11:43AM
You said: "If Ron Paul was in Congress back in the 30's and 40's, he would say we should stay out of Europe and let the Nazi's and Soviets fight for the spoils." So, you made the reason for going to Europe "the spoils". You can't take it back now.
You also pointed out that both the Kennedy's and the Bush's supported Hitler. Wow, imagine that, Republocrats and Demoblicans following the same policy while making sheep like you believe in the false left/right paradigm. Too easy.
I am neither a "Ron Paul nut" or a "lefty". I am a patriot and a Constitutionalist Conservative. It is the Neocons that are "lefties". Don't be shy - check out the reasons Cheney and Rumsfeld left the Democrat Party and started the Neocon movement with Mr. American Communist Party Himself, Bill Chrystal - the Democrats were not left-wing enough.
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 1:02PM
I explained my quote so that any fair minded person could accept it but you are not one of those people. When your arguments are as twisted as asinine as yours are, you have to twist other peoples words to make yourself look better. Yeah you got it, Bill Kristol (Bill Chrystal is the actor you assclown) is the leader of the American Communist Party.
Quartermaster| 12.30.09 @ 11:47AM
It is an uncomfortable fact that Prescott Bush did do business with Nazi Germany. That doesn't mean he was a Hitler supporter, although Joe Kennedy certainly was.
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 12:58PM
You know if there really was anything to the story of him being a Nazi supporter or collaborator at all, Dan Rather and company would have made sure we knew every single detail about it. Or did the mass media decide to cover up for the Bush's? You have to be an idiot like KCKent to believe that.
KCKent| 12.30.09 @ 1:07PM
Moron, I never said George Bush Jr. was a Nazi supporter, his family was a business partner and thus supporters. Nice try again. You must have learned how to cover your lack of intellect from Ben Stein. It is you who went straight to name-calling instead of actually responding - and you still are focused on a tiny bit of my original post instead of addressing the real issues. Another Communist trick.
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 1:55PM
You think I don't know that? Of course they would tar him personally if his grandfather was involved like you say but its a bullshit conspiracy theory. When you start you post with such crap, you will get called out on it here. The real issue for you seems to be that America is the bad guys and the terrorists are the good guys that we have unfairly picked on. Do I have you right?
lol wut?| 12.30.09 @ 1:58PM
Toddy-boy, want a little denial with that ignorance?
It's well documented that Prescott Bush was involved in nefarious deals with Nazi business interests, so much so that his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act. Fact of the matter is, the Bush Dynasty was funded by Nazi cash. Only a glance into the US National Archives would have told you that.
Such knee-jerk emotional reactions will make you look foolish, Todd. Let alone sticking your fingers in your ears petulantly exclaiming, "La-la-la, nuts!" either.
lol wut?| 12.30.09 @ 2:04PM
Excerpt from...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl.....ndworldwar
Three sets of archives spell out Prescott Bush's involvement. All three are readily available, thanks to the efficient US archive system and a helpful and dedicated staff at both the Library of Congress in Washington and the National Archives at the University of Maryland.
The first set of files, the Harriman papers in the Library of Congress, show that Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder of a number of companies involved with Thyssen.
The second set of papers, which are in the National Archives, are contained in vesting order number 248 which records the seizure of the company assets. What these files show is that on October 20 1942 the alien property custodian seized the assets of the UBC, of which Prescott Bush was a director. Having gone through the books of the bank, further seizures were made against two affiliates, the Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation. By November, the Silesian-American Company, another of Prescott Bush's ventures, had also been seized.
The third set of documents, also at the National Archives, are contained in the files on IG Farben, who was prosecuted for war crimes.
A report issued by the Office of Alien Property Custodian in 1942 stated of the companies that "since 1939, these (steel and mining) properties have been in possession of and have been operated by the German government and have undoubtedly been of considerable assistance to that country's war effort".
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 2:23PM
I see you see the commie rag Guardian as your source, tells me where you are coming from. Just explain to me why exactly Dan Rather and the media never made a big story about this if your sources are so legitimate? Explain that one to me if you expect me to take it seriously.
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 2:19PM
Show me a legitimate source and please explain to why Dan Rather never explained this to us? A Big media conspiracy to get Bush elected? Get real Mr. Conspiracy Theory nutjob. You say its well documented but I don't see any legitimate documentation.
lol wut?| 12.30.09 @ 2:54PM
Haha! Maybe if you took Dan Rather's flaccid manhood out of your mouth for one second, you'd use logic rather then such ad hominem laden guttural vomit of mental surrender. Toddy-boy, can't argue a point so he resorts to calling people commies and nut-jobs. Like Mr. Rather is the end-all-be-of journalism and truth! What a joke you are!
Documents: Bush's Grandfather Directed Bank Tied to Man Who Funded Hitler
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0.....4,00.html#
Actual Document from the US Archives
http://hnn.us/resources/Bush Documents0012.jpg
It just goes on-and-on-and-on. But go ahead and delude yourself, Todd. It must of been the commies, some craaazy conspiracy, or those pesky kids! Haha!
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 3:19PM
You are clearly an idiot. I think Dan Rather is a disgrace to journalism and he clearly hated George Bush (see 2004 election) so I ask you why he would never really brought this up if it would be very damaging to the Bush family. Because he would have been fired even sooner if he did because it is a fiction invented by far-left wackos (the attempt to portray Bush's grandfather as a collaborator with the Nazi's). So a bank he was a Director of had some business dealings with Germany in the 1930's but he had nothing to do with those dealings personally. I read the Fox story and it was the owner (Fritz Thyssen) who initially supported the Nazi's as preferable to the commies but changed his mind when he realized what Nazi Germany was really all about. Certainly no worse than Joe Kennedy and he spent 4 years in a Nazi prison so I guess Hitler didn't much care for him. So in the end, it is a non-story. Anyways, people like Ron Paul would have told us to ignore the Nazi's and let him kill all the Jews because it wasn't our business right?
lol wut?| 12.30.09 @ 3:44PM
"Anyways, people like Ron Paul would have told us to ignore the Nazi's and let him kill all the Jews because it wasn't our business right?"
WTF?! You are clearly the idiot, Toddy-boy. Stop with your inward Freudian projections. The mirror is right there, pick up and take a long hard look. Seriously, that is one of the most ignorant "what-if" story I've heard. But, I suppose that's what emotional reactionaries with no intellectual arguments do: make completely asinine assumptions that have no basis in reality let alone fact. Someone calls you out on your BS and all you can do is have a tantrum calling people commies, lefties, loonies, ad naseum.
"So a bank he was a Director of had some business dealings with Germany in the 1930's but he had nothing to do with those dealings personally."
Prescott Bush was lucky, nothing more.
From the Fox News Article, if you would have read on...
"No charges were brought against Union Banking's American directors. The federal government was too busy trying to fight the war, said Donald Goldstein, a professor of public and international affairs at the University of Pittsburgh.
"We did not have the resources to do these things," Goldstein said."
Quite a non-story, right. Nothing to see here, move along. Only (insert random insult) people posting here.
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 4:14PM
If it was such a scandal and such a disgrace to the Bush family legacy, why did Rather not ride that pony instead of his false document story? Yes it doesn't include George Bush himself was his Senator Grandfather a Nazi collaborator? Dan Rather would have a hard-on for that story like you wouldn't believe if there was really anything at all to it.
I am not making any Freudian projections, I am making a legit point about when is foreign interventionism justified? To Ron Paul supporters, the answer seems to be about never. There is a direct parallel between the Nazi's and radical Islam in that they both want Jews exterminated yet you think we have no responsibility to try to prevent another holocaust. In fact, people like you want to finger Israel as the problem and make excuses for the terrorists and I find that sick.
I didn't call you a commie, just noted that The Telegraph is a far-left (commie) newspaper that hates Israel and that is a fact.
ChuckD| 12.30.09 @ 3:58PM
"If the Muslims in Iraq hate Christianity and Judaism so much why were there Christian churches and Jewish Synogogues?"
The Christians in Iraq have had their population reduced by one half, either by forced immigration or death. The Christians in Syria, Pakistan, and other Muslim nations are held in dhimmitude. They must not preach against nor criticize the Koran. They are only allowed menial jobs and must pay a tax for being a nonbeliever. The Janjaweed terrorists in Darfur have killed millions of Christians and other non believers.
I don't know... | 12.30.09 @ 10:45AM
I think it's nuts to claim "they hate us for our freedom" or they "want to destroy western civilization" personally. When you believe such things you truly throw logic out the window.
Further, you have to deal with the 80/90's US propaganda that was being dished out on the Islamic countries "older" generation being concerned about their youth copying western culture. How could they want to "copy" our culture 10/20 years ago but now they are "radical" jihadists?!? Any utter fool can see the idea that they "hate us" for the above is disingenuine at best.
There is also the nasty evidence of repeated commentary by "terrorist" leaders saying they are retaliating for crimes committed against them by the US and Israel. Including occupation(by the US, not just the "Palestine situtation")-Check. CIA meddling in regimes promoting social unrest(Iran)-Check. The supply of nuclear arms and weapons to their #1 enemy(Israel)-Check. Economic sanctions causing death through starvation/poverty and lack of access to medical supplies(Iraq & Iran)-Check.
I could go on and on, but what's the point?!?! The NEOCONS will say a one liner like "they hate us for our freedom". Bleh....friggin idiots.
We are doomed to $7.00/hour flunkies oogling our wives/families at the airport scanner, asking us a million benign questions, adding hundreds of dollars to plane ticket fares, picking through our possesions all the while treating us with the respect of invading cockroaches...all so we can "protect" our freedom...lol...I couldn't write this stuff in a fiction novel.
Go on believing that "they hate us for our freedom" while you justifying what little is left being stripped away in the name of "safety". You are nothing close to a patriot. You are a wimp. You are a non-thinking wimp.
Until there is some focus on the big picture you idiots will worry about the mundane things like airport security, "behavioral" monitoring and multitude of other Orwellian ideas to "preserve" your freedom.
You sir and your NEOCON friends are the kooks.
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 11:11AM
Your name is appropriate because you don't know what you are talking about. Do you actually know what these Islamic radicals teach in their Mosques? It ain't about love, peace and tolerance. It's about how radical Islam is the only true religion and everyone else are infidels and it is their duty to kill them or enslave them and they are committed to it. Its not about them being oppressed or poverty or any of that rubbish. If you don't understand that by now, you are an idiot and no doubt an Obama supporter.
William| 12.30.09 @ 11:30AM
As someone who wouldn't have voted for Obama if he had held a gun to my head, let me jump in here. Everything I don't know... said is correct. You're acting lile an ignorant, uneducated neocon that lets Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity think for you.
Furthermore, a little food for thought since you so seem to want to so slavishly follow Republican conventional wisdom. Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit and a KNOWN REPUBLICAN would also agree with everything I don't know... said.
Try opening a book instead of listening to talk radio for a change.
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 1:11PM
So its those damn Jews in Israel "stealing land" from the innocent Palestinians that is the problem is it? The radical Islamists are just really "freedom fighters" against Western Imperialism? Gee and I foolishly thought they just followed their precious Koran which tells them to kill infidels and you will go to Paradise with many virgins. I guess I should just accept it as a great religion of peace and that America and Israel is to blame for everything. I read many, many books and read the Wall Street Journal and National Review along with the Spectator along with other stuff. You forgot to mention Mark Levin, I really like listening to him as well.
William M| 12.30.09 @ 3:35PM
I didn't realize that there was a William R until after I posted that first comment. Anyway...
I just realized something. The average neocon is an anti-Semite. Arabs are Semitic people. Arabic is a Semitic language. Neocons are the modern equivalent of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, except they only EXPELLED the Jews from Spain. You, on the other hand, want to see Arabs (not to mention Persians, since they're ethnically closer to Europeans and the people of the Indian subcontinent and speak an Indo-European language) MASSACRED. I understand now.
National Review and War Street Journal? Really? When you could be reading Chronicles or The American Conservative?
As for nationally-syndicated talk radio, it's all worthless. Left wing and right wing. The only time it's worth listening to is when Walter Williams is subbing for Rush Limbaugh.
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 4:22PM
Yes, I want Islamic radical suicide bombers killed before they kill others so I guess that makes me an anti-Semite right? I support the right of Israel to exist, does that make me an anti-Semite according to your definition? War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength and Israel is anti-Semitic
Nice Hack job| 12.30.09 @ 4:41PM
Why don't you stop characterizing everybody elses opinion and work on explaining yours? Let's take your example of what people ascribing to Koran believe. Let's look at the Old Testament and use your same technique. That makes Jews and Christians homo hating polygamists that want to eat the flesh of their sons and daughters. Yay!
Even better: "..you must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Stone them to death for trying to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. Then all Israel shall hear and be afraid, and never again do any such wickedness. (Deut. 13:6-11)"
So you see, I now have justification to kill anyone I want if I'm a "believer"and they are not....hmmm...no wonder the Jews and Christians are so bad. Let's wipe them off the face of the earth!!!
So you see Todd, maybe things are a bit more complex than your stupid black and white characterizations. Maybe people (yes, Muslims, Arabs, et all are PEOPLE-just like Americans) have enough common sense and compassion to do something other than what ancient text from a different time/age tell them to do. Although, just like Islamic radicals....I'm sure you find some crazy Christians hell bent on using whatever reason is convenient to kill people they perceive as a threat...in fact you happen to find a lot of them in our government(both Rep's and Dem's)....cause they LOVE the power.
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 5:23PM
Please inform me of any recent Christian suicide bombers or Army Psychiatrists who have participated in mass murder in the name of God? None that I am aware of. Do you know what kind of man Mohammad was that the Muslims revere? A warlord who personally enjoyed killing infidels and enslaving enemies but other than that, not much different from Jesus Christ. Pull your head out of your butt, it is the ideology stupid.
Food for the fool| 12.30.09 @ 6:02PM
For the same reasons listed above, the "ideology" is not the problem-it is much bigger and complex. It is the loss of the will to live initially. Things that contribute to that:
Psychosis, which is brought about often by stress. Like the stress of having your family killed, or the stress of being unable to make a living, etc. et al.
"Religion" is a convenient path to justify your reasons for killing others...but there are many other reasons depending on your exposure culturally. Using Timothy McVeigh as an example, his hatred of government drove him mad to the point of killing hundreds. (and he was a Christian! bonus!)
The echoing you hear is your voice reflecting off the walls of your rectum Todd. All I hear is muffles.
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 6:51PM
Did it occur to you that their religion that wants to live by 7th century barbaric ideals has something to do with their wretched situation and is not our fault? Do you know what Sharia law is actually like? People would have in better under the Soviet Union or Red China. Ask yourself what kind of religion holds a wicked murderer and warlord like Mohammad in such high regard? So using the Timothy McVeigh was a Christian bogus argument? Did he say he was doing in for God and because he thought Jesus wanted him to blow up the building? Do you know any Christians that support his action? Plenty of Muslims will justify mass murder for Allah but I don't know any Christians that do. Why did this Nigerian Muslim want to blow up the plane? Must have been that stress from being so poor and not being able to make a living right? What a freaking moron you are to spout that nonsense.
Zack| 12.30.09 @ 7:05PM
Todd,
The US govt. does not have my permission to use my money (as collected in taxes) to fund these invasions overseas. If you want to go on a crusade against Islam - do it on your own dime and risk your own ass. I don't want to see one more of my dollars spent or another American soldier casualty pursuing this ridiculous meddling foreign policy. We should bring all of the troops home and defend our borders (and airports) properly.
More Food| 12.30.09 @ 11:24PM
I don't know many Muslims "justifying" mass murder. Why don't you give me a list? Do you have radical Muslim friends? I'll bet the list of Muslims wanting to kill Christians is just as long as the list of Christians in(and outside of) the US gov't wanting to kill Muslims.
Obviously you haven't read the news lately, as the press uncovered posts by the Nigerian underwear bomber on Muslim forums decrying his "loneliness", "Isolation", lack of family life and not knowing where to turn for answers. Again, religion being a convenient sleigh for his self destruction. You are the freaking moron. We can go back 1500 years into Christianity to find policies of mass killing endorsed not only by its leadership...but by the masses "practicing" it. You can start under Constantine when he made Christianity the state religion in Rome...which no made everyone else conform or be put to death! (Surprise, surprise! The "Christians" at the time-their ancestors having been fed to lions for sport as well as being crucified, etc. did not "find" it's voice in protesting these abominations), How about the Crusades? We can go on and on, but I have an idea that Jesus would never condone the killing of Muslims just because less then 1% of them are crazy and might hurt an Americans. Remember "turn the other cheek"? I think you don't. How about thou shall not kill? (or murder under most translations)
You are a hypocrite. You are also a coward. Sacrificing liberty on the alter of security.
WTF| 12.30.09 @ 10:20PM
Have you checked out Moses' rap sheet? Both religions have murderous ways and a lot of condoned rape and immoral activity going on.
Ken| 12.31.09 @ 1:02AM
Orthodox jews worship their god "Molech also called Moloch." You are confusing the state of Israel with the Kingdom of Israel. www.comeandhear.com is a good place to start. Read Elisabeth Dillings writings if you care to learn. The hatefilled Babylonian/jewish Talmud is the main regulation code that they go by and NOT the Torah. These individuals are christian haters and they have nothing in common with Jesus Christ christian ideology. Not all jews worship this entity, but 3rd temple building jews do.
fubar| 1.1.10 @ 4:55AM
"Please inform me of any recent Christian suicide bombers "
Oklahoma city?
In fact, lunatics on the neocon-fundy right wing fringe provide a lot of support to Israel. The "reason": the fundies believe that Israel has to exist, and expand to the east, for the Rapture to happen.
As such, there is a large christian movement in the USA that supports and funds state sponsored terrorism for purely lunatic religious reasons.
So much for "separation of church and state" and the foundations of the constitutional republic.
concerned| 12.30.09 @ 7:43PM
There you go Todd, everyone who does not agree with you is anti-semetic or anti-Isreal. Maybe you are on to something though. Maybe it is the Jews. More correctly Khazars or Ashkenazi Jews, who have no jewish bloodline. Maybe there are some people out there, like oh I don't know the Rothschild Family that has been financiers and provacators of most wars in least the last 200 years, who don't have the world's best interest at heart. Maybe there are people who actually thrive and profit off of funding conflict after conflict. Maybe these same people own the media distribution companies to dish out their pro-war and socially divisive propaganda, which you seem to be finding extra delicious these days as you go back for seconds and thirds. I honestly could not care any less if Isreal conquers and enslaves Palestine or vise versa. I do wish for those people to be in power of their own destiny without interference from outside. Allowing these cold blooded bankers to play these games with so many lives is... well, we should all be ashamed of ourselves. I am not afraid of terrorists and the government should not be afraid for me, especially when their solution involves mortgaging our children into slavery for the very banks that advocate and aggravate the so called conflict. I am more likely to die fishing than by a terror act. Bring our troops home. All of them. Then we can rebuild our relationships with the people.
Estiban| 12.30.09 @ 10:45AM
You seem to know all about WW2, and about those evildoers who want to destroy western civilization. Maybe you got an "A" in History class. In case you want even more education, read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Churchil.....ewrockwell
Albert| 12.30.09 @ 2:19PM
Some more illogical Hannity and Limbaugh reasoning. The rag tag dust covered bandits hiding in caves can by no stretch of the imigaination be compared to Hitler and Stalin. I wear my fanatical support for Ron Paul as a badge of great honor. He cured me of my apathy and saved me from this tunnel vision that blindly follows the neocon agenda.
The Misesian | 12.30.09 @ 10:21AM
"Opine
1. Ron Paul lives,breathes and creates controversy. His FP is pure 100% Isolationism. He has little or no concept of FP realities."
Please do some actual research on Dr. Paul's foreign policy stance and avoid merely repeating television personalities' sound bites. Ron Paul believes in "peace, commerce, and friendship will all nations, entangling alliances with none." This is hardly a policy of isolationism, which incidentally requires economic autarky as part of an isolationist position. Obviously, congressman Paul is completely against economic protectionism.
William M| 12.30.09 @ 11:38AM
By definition, Rep. Paul can't be an isolationist because he's not a protectionist.
The last time a soldier died for our freedom was in WW2. Arguably, if one believes that we goaded the Japanese into attacking us, that could be pushed back to the American Revolution.
The average Joe doesn't have a say in a single thing political. As long as the Jim Coopers and Kay Bailey Hutchisons of the world occupy the halls of the Capitol, then the American people don't really have a voice.
Your point about SDS is interesting, I'll admit. I must make a note to ask one of the history professors where I go to college about that as he was a member of SDS.
And speaking of reading... You have no room to talk. You don't even know the difference between a non-interventionist and an isolationist.
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 4:39PM
We are broke and most of the world fears us if not outright hates us. Those 50 years that you mention have been anything but apathetic. Remember we attack someone new every other year or so.
Semper Fi
Albert| 12.31.09 @ 11:34AM
"Opine
1. Ron Paul lives,breathes and creates controversy. His FP is pure 100% Isolationism. He has little or no concept of FP realities."
Ron Paul wrote a book on foreign policy. Why don't you read just twenty pages of that book. Then come back and repeat your statement that he has no concept of FP policies. I'd like to read the book you wrote on foreign policy, so I can compare notes. No book? How about a short essay? No? Mmmm... figures.
Melvin| 12.30.09 @ 9:09AM
Can someone tell me in a short statement, why doesn't our Legislative Branch declare war anymore?
James| 12.30.09 @ 9:13AM
Why should they pay any attention to that part of the Constitution when they don't to any of the rest of it? They pay a bit of lip service to it once in a while but they don't mean it.
Melvin| 12.30.09 @ 9:18AM
We should pay attention James, because when we throw the Bastards into the abyss we will have to know to have history not repeat itself on us.
S.L. Toddard| 12.30.09 @ 9:19AM
"Can someone tell me in a short statement, why doesn't our Legislative Branch declare war anymore?"
Because to do so would be to accept responsibility for their actions. We do not elect men with that sort of courage any more. And the American people are no longer jealous of their liberties, and do not insist that their government abide by the Constitution. As such, we got - in place of a declaration - an "authorization" for the use of force. That gave the Dems that greenlighted the disastrous war in Iraq some measure of deniability, which they used to the fullest, dishonestly claiming they did not greenlight a war but only authorized for "as a last resort."
What it comes down to is this: we are a cowardly people, ruled by a cowardly elite.
Truth to Power| 12.30.09 @ 12:32PM
Exhibit A has spoken.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.30.09 @ 12:54PM
Melvin,
Yes I can. It goes back to the early cold war realization that intercontinental bombers could be here with nukes before congress could even get their socks on.
Later, with intercontinental missles in play...it was even more crucial to act quickly in defense in order to have a credible deterrent. A combination of laws and reality took over. I seem to remember the "War Powers Act", but don't recall when it was actually passed.
You are welcome
James| 12.30.09 @ 9:10AM
Ben Stein was wrong to accuse Ron Paul of being an anti semite. While it is true that Ron is against foreign aid to Israel, it is also true that he is against foreign aid to any nation. If I am remembering correctly that is a long held position. And since the government has no constitutional authority to rob Americans to give to the crooks who run other countries, Ron is correct. He took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not to dole out money in foreign aid and other unconstitutional ventures.
Le Cracquere| 12.30.09 @ 9:13AM
Scroll up and read. These are the hangers-on that Ron Paul attracts. These are the hangers-on that Paul won't echo word for word, but somehow can never be moved to repudiate. Ben Stein was too kind.
Leeanne| 12.31.09 @ 4:04AM
"Scroll up and read. These are the hangers-on that Ron Paul attracts."
I just followed your advice, Le Cracquere.
And what I saw was that the posters on this page who support Ron Paul were head and shoulders above the others in terms of intelligence, articulateness, and self-restraint.
Go ahead;
do a count merely of the incidents of name-calling ...it won't harm you to consult empirical evidence just this once.
Le Cracquere| 12.31.09 @ 10:30AM
Since this thread continues to grow, a precise COUNT of the names bandied about seems close to futile. Still, I'm not sure it matters--if the names fit one side aptly and not the other, it scarcely matters how many get flung from which side. Also, should I count every occurrence of "neocon," or lump them into a single heading? Or should I be more broadly descriptive, and simply file the overwhelming majority of the Paulist imprecations in this thread under their intended referent of "J-O-O"?
Jimbo| 12.30.09 @ 9:37AM
Stein did not call Ron Paul an anti-semite, he said that his comment about the US occupying "their" land as a cause of terrorism was a typical line uttered by antisemites, which is true. Paul has many supporters who are antisemite and even Neo Nazi and has not made enough efforts to distance himself from them. He has made unfair criticisms against Israel (America's best ally) and the Pro Israel lobbies in the US but I don't remember him criticizing the more extensive and more powerful pro Arab/anti Israel lobby nor any of the Muslim countries who not only attack Americans but oppress their own people. As a Congressman, Paul ought to know that there is a war going on and any attempt to make phony excuses for terrorist behavior on the part of our enemies is an affront to America. It may take some digging to come up with facts that prove Paul is a Jew-hater, but there is more evidence that he hates America!
Red Phillips | 12.30.09 @ 10:24AM
Jimbo, how is Israel America's best ally? What has Israel done for us? Better than England? Better than Canada? Better than Australia? On what basis do you make this statement?
"the more extensive and more powerful pro Arab/anti Israel lobby"
Jimbo, are you serious? Put down the crack pipe and back away.
"there is more evidence that he hates America!"
Paul wants America to return to the constitutional republic intended by the Founders. This is hate?
roo2| 12.30.09 @ 11:35AM
Jimbo: "his comment about the US occupying "their" land as a cause of terrorism was a typical line uttered by antisemites, which is true. "
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan never belonged to the Jews, nor has Israel stationed bases in these places. Ron Paul was only speaking in regards to OUR bases. That Ron Paul says we should stop giving them propaganda fodder for more terrorists has nothing to with the being anti-Semite. Stein was clearly race-baiting because he could no longer argue the point. Remember, this is the same guy who worked for an actual, proven, Jew-hater Richard Nixon. Stein showed himself to be utterly without scruples and a racist himself, because he expects special and preferential treatment because of his race by playing the Jew Card.
Jimbo: "Paul ought to know that there is a war going on"
It's sad to see that your only litmus for patriotism is doing and believing what you are told. Use some critical thinking and demand that your representatives ACTUALLY FOLLOW the Constitution, ESPECIALLY when it comes to declaring wars!
Jimbo: "any attempt to make phony excuses for terrorist behavior on the part of our enemies is an affront to America"
So the 9/11 Commission's report that the attacks were "blowback" are phony? Ron Paul was only saying what he has warned us about for 20+ years, but was finally admitted in the 9/11 report.
Jimbo: "It may take some digging to come up with facts that prove Paul is a Jew-hater"...
Dig this Jimbo, Ron Paul got into politics because he was able to see the connections between an idiotic monetary policy (supported by Keynesians like Stein and his REAL anti-Semite master, Nixon) and its consequences; foreign entanglements, endless war, imperialism, indebtedness, totalitarianism, and ultimately its collapse. He was able to see all of this because he befriended many 20th century Austrian School economists who were mostly and coincidentally JEWS. No other politician has been a bigger friend to the Austrian School of economics than Ron Paul.
Secondly, this is Ron Paul on racism in general:
"A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.
The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.
Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations.
It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government “benevolence” crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence – not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty."
Jimbo: "there is more evidence that he hates America! "
On the contrary, all you've proven is how incapable you are of understanding our Constitution and real freedom. Or that you are too cowardly to demand that we follow the Constitution and defend the liberties of other Americans. If I had to bet who would defend my freedom and civil liberties better--between Ron Paul and a cowards like you--it would be easy to see you aren't the real American you want to seem like.
Jimbo| 12.30.09 @ 3:00PM
Roo2 - Paul has taken to blaming the victim for 9/11 and other terrorist attacks and makes excuses for those terrorists when in fact, these brutal attacks were unprovoked. For a Congressman to make light of these victims and those who fight them is tantamount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
The U.S. does not occupy any area in the ME, we are in those countries at the invitation of the established governments (two of which are democratic because of us). Indeed, the US has done more to protect muslims than any anyone.
The Jewish state of Israel has a right to their land and to defend themselves against attack. Anyone who believes otherwise must be a Jew-hater. Anyone who gives support to their enemies who have publically stated that it is their goal to "drive the Jews into the sea" is not a friend of the US.
Since their creation in 1948. the Nation has been America's most valuable and supportive ally. Check their voting record in the UN - it is the most pro-American of all. Israel has proven an invaluable help in our winning of the Cold War against the now defunct USSR, yes more than Canada, UK and Australia. Having a Pro American nuclear power with the 3rd largest air force in the world in a strategic area like the ME was a thorn in the USSR's side and a great help to us. They also had one of the finest intelligence organizations that helped us also. That was the overwhelming opinion of of the Defense Department at the time.
Many of Paul's supporters are clearly antisemites and Paul has done little to distance himself from them, much like Obama who sat in Rev. Wright's church for 17 years listening to his anti-Jewish drivel and not dumping him until recently. Go to Paul's site and read the stupid comments about Zionist conspiricacies, the dominance of the Jewish lobby, ad nauseam. Why doesn't he block these people?
fubar| 1.1.10 @ 5:13AM
Israel was not a big US ally in 1948. It was a French ally earlier, and I forget the details right now, but the USA and Israel didn't become *close* until sometime until the mid 60s.
There was a LOT of shuffling of the pieces on the complex geopolitical chessboard in the middle east through the 40s/50s, due to shifting cold-war alliances, rivalries amongst european powers, and so forth.
The zionist lobby has brainwashed a lot of people on the lunatic/neocon right wing, and Ron Paul is right to expose the corruption and rot that has resulted.
Margie| 12.30.09 @ 12:05PM
You are correct~
In 2008 R. Paul stood alone in voting against the Gaza Bill HR 951 which condemned the Palestinian's constant rocket attacks on Israeli holding both Iran and Syria responsible for “sponsoring terror attacks.”
Paul calls himself one who stands on "principle" in order to justify his anti-Semitism.
He is a fraud!
Margie| 12.30.09 @ 12:07PM
My post was a reply to Jimbo's
Margie| 12.30.09 @ 12:45PM
Actions speak louder than words.
Israel is our ally.
The hatred espoused by you all here toward them is very clear.
And toward Ben Stein.
I hope you come to your right minds before it's too late.
Ben| 12.31.09 @ 12:29PM
Israel dehumanizes Palestinians daily. Nuff said.
Margie| 1.1.10 @ 1:24PM
Ben,
By that statement you PROVE that you are a liar. Is that really what you want to be?
fubar| 1.1.10 @ 5:25AM
Margie,
You and Ben Stein are projecting your own hate (at selling out your authentic spirituality to the american plutocracy/Corporatist state) on Ron Paul and his supporters.
there is a very radical, very violent, pro-Israel movement (and lobby) that has hoodwinked the lunatic right fringe in the USA into thinking that if they support US sponsorship of Israeli imperialism, that the Rapture will result.
Right wing pro-Israel jewish lunatics have sent numerous death threats to Rabbi Michael Learner, a progressive critic of rabid right-wing Israeli war politics.
The radical violent, dangerous, right wing in Israel will try to terrorize and kill even its own, Jewish, people when they challenge the insane war mentality. Much less threaten Ron Paul with endles lies.
Margie| 1.1.10 @ 1:22PM
Hey fubar~
I'm not sure you're just a liar, or deceived, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt ok? Look, I don't hate anyone but I DO hate despicable liars~got that?
When you Paulites tell me I am anti-American because I support Israel's right to exist as a FREE Nation, that's what I hate OK? Because that's a lie. Your Toddard guy has, from day 1 of me posting here these types of accusations.
Anyhow~ I know what I am and Who I believe in. God will certainly (and does) let me know when I am wrong...and I am a lowly sinner saved ny Grace.
Now.. I know that you are very wrong in what you are saying, above.
I believe, that you sir, are insane in your thinking. I think you are very, very hateful toward Israel, and towards anyone who doesn't think like you do.
Israel is a freedom loving nation and as Americans who love freedom we ought to at least acknowledge Her right to exist. Ron Paul voted against that simple acknowledgment and that's why he is a fraud, proving his "dislike" for Israel, which you all seem to harbor in a most extremely hateful way. That is SO wrong!
Thankfully there aren't enough of your type of thinking people to make a difference.
S.L. Toddard| 1.4.10 @ 8:17AM
"When you Paulites tell me I am anti-American because I support Israel's right to exist as a FREE Nation, that's what I hate OK?"
Marge, please cite where anyone has made that accusation - that you are "anti-American" because you support "right to exist as a FREE Nation" . I support Israel's "right to exist as a FREE Nation" as well. That alone does not make someone anti-American. What makes one anti-American is putting Israel's interests before America's.
KCKent| 12.30.09 @ 12:17PM
Margie,
Ron Paul doesn't believe in political posturing, nor does he believe that the US has the authority to condemn another soveriegn nation. That is called principle. What good did that bill do?
Also, you may have missed the whole "truth" thing in your Neocon brainwashing funk, but it was admitted that the Israeli attack happened first and not as a response to rocket attacks. This, of course, came out after all your hero-worship representatives in Congress condemned the wrong nation. Way to go! Who's the fraud again?
Red Phillips | 12.30.09 @ 12:23PM
Margie, he voted against it because America shouldn't be taking sides. We should be maintaining scrupulous neutrality. It is a strange world you live in where being neutral means you actually hate one side.
Margie| 12.30.09 @ 3:32PM
"No one can serve two Masters."
There IS no neutral.
You either love freedom (for ALL) and if not then you are an enemy to it. Friends of freedom look to help and promote the freedom of their allies, not pick and choose out of chosen prejudices.
By voting against that Bill, he chose his side. He chose to vote AGAINST Israel, our ally. That is clear.
Zack| 12.30.09 @ 8:58PM
Margie,
If you love freedom for all, you cannot support enslaving the American people to pay for the propping up of dictators around the world. Let's start by re-invigorating freedom here at home and serve as a shining city on the hill, before trying to spread freedom through the barrel of a gun.
Margie| 12.30.09 @ 10:38PM
I wish you Paulies would quit with the dishonesty in your posts.
Quit lying to yourselves and quit lying to us.
I do not support what you say.
Goodbye.
Ben| 12.31.09 @ 12:30PM
Dishonest Marge ditto your comment back at ya. Replace Paulies with whatever you call yourself.
Margie| 1.1.10 @ 1:07PM
Happy New Year ol' Benny!
By the way Ben, I'm voting Republican, especially in the upcoming 2010 elections.. gotta make sure we get some freedom loving, free enterprise promoting, strong Military Defense, Constitution abiding, decent men into office.
Take care Ben. Have a great year!
Margie| 1.1.10 @ 1:11PM
Hey Zack,
Happy New Year to you, to!
Yes, I'm all for that shining city on the hill~ that's us the U.S.A. Made great by those who love and FIGHT for freedom! That's why I'm making sure to vote for Republicans especially in these next elections. Why? I'm going to help make sure we vote the current bums out. We really need to see FREEDOM loving, PRO MILITARY you know, a STRONG Military Defense individuals in office. Not cowards, right?
Have a Happy New Year Zack!
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 4:36PM
I used to support Israel until I read of their settlement expansions, West Bank demarcation, herding of Palestinians between fences, water diversion to their settlements away from the Palestinians, and their cutting of food and energy from the Palestinians as collective punishment.
That said I am an America first type. We need to cut aid from Israel until it does what is morally upright. That goes for our aid to the Arab nations too.
It appears that you have no idea where hate comes from, and the history of it in that part of the world. Too bad really. Americans obviously need a history lesson including yourself.
zack| 12.30.09 @ 8:56PM
Ben,
You are on the right track. As a Jewish Ron Paul supporter, I strongly believe we need to cut off all aid to Israel AND every other country permanently. How can we justify sending billions abroad when the money is needed here at home? What about the waitress earning $10 an hour being forced to pay towards the billions we send each year to prop up the Egyptian regime? It's blatantly immoral in my opinion. Let us keep more of our money, and if we want to donate as private citizens to countries or causes abroad let us do so.
Albert| 12.30.09 @ 9:48AM
Extract from the Financial Times:
[Stein, Hanity, Levine, et al, take note, they are not killing us because we are free, or because they are psychos. Why is it so difficult to understand what Kuchinich so eloquently stated: "Occupation fuels insurgency."]
Osama bin Laden
Published: December 28 2009 02:00 | Last updated: December 28 2009 02:00
*Grew up in Saudi Arabia with a father of Yemeni origin and a Syrian mother.
*Fought with the Mujahideen after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979
*Set up a support network for the Mujahideen in the Pakistani city of Peshawar. In 1988, he named this al-Qaeda ("the base" in Arabic).
Became a critic of the Saudi royal family after they invited US and western troops into the kingdom in 1990, following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait…
His words "Our religion is under attack. They kill and murder our brothers. They compromise our honour and our dignity and, dare we utter a single word of protest against the injustice, we are called terrorists" May 1998.
"America has fallen into the quagmires of the Tigris and Euphrates. Bush thought that Iraq and its oil were easy spoils. Now, he is in a critical situation, praise God. Today, America has started to cry out and crumble before the entire world" October 2003
Pingback| 12.30.09 @ 9:59AM
Ben Stein Gets in More Trouble « LewRockwell.com Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Jim Brown| 12.30.09 @ 10:11AM
Ben Stein is an Israel firster
Jeff Cambeis| 12.30.09 @ 10:30AM
Ben is a hack. He could have easily watched the video on YouTube or Cnn to get a direct quote but he chose to the paraphrase to himself sound better.
The bomber said he wanted to attack us because we kill innocent people when we bombed Yemen. Ron Paul quoted him.
Ben needs to understand when we, bomb, invade and occupy countries that inspires terrorism.
Ben should take all his money and pool it with that of his sympathetic friends and start fighting these wars himself. That is American capitalism. He wants to use to government to force people to do immoral things, like executions and is bad as forcing the American people to do abortions.
Flibbity| 12.30.09 @ 10:15AM
Happy New Year is the new "f*** you"?
Haven't you guys learned that trying to smack Ron Paul down when he touches a 3rd rail of politics is the 3rd rail of the Paulites? Given how quickly your apology came, I guess maybe you're getting close. ;-)
Way to stand your ground, there, Benny.
Red Phillips | 12.30.09 @ 10:15AM
I am very disappointed that Ben Stein played the "anti-Semitic" card. It seems very out of character for him. Compared to a lot of mainstream conservative commentators Ben Stein is closer to right on many issues. Unlike the Lincoln worshiping neocons, he openly has been very critical of Lincoln and stated that Lincoln's invasion of the South was unwarranted. He deserves some residual paleo respect for this, even if he has diminished his paleo cred by going PC and dropping he A word.
But the video of Paul and him went viral, and I am sure that he is feeling the heat. That is what forced this pseudo-apology.
But one things that puzzles me is that this is nothing new from Ron Paul. He has been saying it since the campaign and catching heat about it from interventionist "conservatives" all along. Was Ben Stein really unaware of this? Was this really new info to Ben Stein? If so, where has he been the last 3 or so years? Where was he when Paul had a similar conflict with Rudy? Does he not read the magazines he writes for? Or is he feigning ignorance? If so, to what end?
There seems to me a certain pose to the Stein/Giuliani righteous indignation "you couldn't possibly mean" response. It would be nice if the interventionists would actually counter some arguments instead of engaging in childish theatrics.
fubar| 1.1.10 @ 5:34AM
Red Phillips,
Ben Stein is in a media bubble. He is a tool of the plutocrat Corporatists. He was busy thinking about how to make a TV commercial with a Shaqtus in it. lol.
Mark| 12.30.09 @ 10:16AM
Ben, how can you deny that the main motivation for terrorists is our occupation of Muslim countries and our support for tyrannical governments? This is not to justify any terrorist attack, but just to explain why they occur. You should read some books by Michael Scheuer, former head of CIA's Bin Laden Unit, who agrees with Dr. Paul on this.
The Misesian | 12.30.09 @ 10:29AM
What is most disturbing, although perhaps quite amusing in some respects, is the notion that Dr. Paul is "blaming America" (as if the government was the entire nation rather than a corrupt band of alleged representatives) when attempting to provide a rational argument as to what motivates retaliatory strikes against the United States.
Were China to topple our representatives, replace them with puppets to the Chinese government, build military bases upon US soil while also placing the Chinese Navy in the Gulf of Mexico it is an almost complete certainty that US citizens would engage an any violent type of activity to oust the intruders/invaders with whatever means are available at their disposal. The absurd hypocrisy of those who deny this right to everyone else but themselves is extraordinary and extremely disappointing.
Mike| 12.30.09 @ 8:06PM
It is SOP and always has been.
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." ~Herman Goering
Pingback| 12.30.09 @ 10:18AM
Ron Paul “They’re Terrorist Because We’re Occupiers” links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
ARMY AIRBORNE VET| 12.30.09 @ 10:18AM
Ron Paul is a well read knowledgeable individual.
Ben Stein is a failed economist and B movie actor who promotes the Neo-Conservative movement of a murderous Empire around the globe.
rt| 12.30.09 @ 10:20AM
Rep Ron Paul is a KOOK! Please change your party to a D. You have no place in the party.
KCKent| 12.30.09 @ 10:45AM
Ahh - Sheeple.....So amusing. Go back to sleep now little lamb.
"The two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.... But either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will have none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies." - Carrol Quigley, Bill Clinton's mentor, part of the Chicago School that groomed the Bush family, and a CFR insider 1966
ARMY AIRBORNE VET| 12.30.09 @ 10:46AM
A kook? Wow, rt your a real deep thinker.
clairy| 12.31.09 @ 12:48AM
Well, at least he didn't call him a "cook", as I've seen similarly minded people post in the past.
Vic Bailey| 12.30.09 @ 3:15PM
There is not an open mind in the house or senate except for Ron Paul, the people we are fighting have done nothing to us, the ones that have, they can't find. They need to bring the Servicemen and women home and let the CIA go do their job on the ones that have done the bombing to us. Our government doesn't care about the people or the border would be closed, and they would QUIT trying to be Regime builders, it will bite us in the butt again. History REPEATS itself.
And rt, the parties ARE the problem, when neither will do ANYTHING to protect out Constitution or our rights!!
Chris Bieber| 12.30.09 @ 4:01PM
this cowards monosyllabic hurled epithet is quite typical of those conditioned Pavlovian neocon dogs who slaver when the American GOVERNMENT, its actions and its "allies" are challenged....they hope to get invited to the Heritage Fdn parties...or get a good seat on the O'Reilly show.......
utter depraved obliviousness....unable to grasp concepts of freedom and noninterventionism let alone Constitutional duties and LIMITS.
Ben Stein and this hapless shill ought to form a club..........
fubar| 1.1.10 @ 5:39AM
Ron Paul is a LIBERTARIAN. why would he join the D. party nanny-state crowd?
You, like most Rs of your type, are nice people, but a bit simple.
Ron| 12.30.09 @ 10:21AM
Shame on you Ben Stein!!!!!! You really do owe Ron Paul a real apology not your latest neocon rant.
howiehardcore| 12.30.09 @ 10:25AM
Hey Ben, I like peanut butter sandwiches. You know who else liked peanut butter sandwiches? Hitler. Does that make me a Nazi? Your logic is idiotic. Your IQ is low.
JCR| 12.30.09 @ 10:30AM
Ben Stein is very confused between Israel and semitism; seems that anyone that does not support the current US policies of massive support for the State of Israel is an anti-semit; not so far!!! There are Jews who cannot stand the State of Israel, which betrays all their religious beliefs.
The same kind of dishonest shortcut exists when Ron Paul is taxed of hatred against America; he does not hate America, he just hates the current American State, the Republican government, the Democratic Republican (and the Fed of course).
Ron Paul is the only honest politician in Washington. That's probably enough to scare Mr Stein.
Vic Bailey| 12.30.09 @ 3:34PM
Ben, what about Israel attacking the USS LIBERTY and even knowing it was an American ship? They killed 34 people including naval officers, seamen, two Marines and one civilian, and wonded 171 crew members and they were in INTERNATIONAL WATERS. They did it on purpose. They paid $97,ooo for each man killed, $97,000 for each wonded man, and $6 million for damage to the ship? Kind wern't they? They should fall off the face of the world, they are more corrupt that our socialist government, except for Ron Paul and a few others with some morals.
Joe Meadors | 12.31.09 @ 2:30PM
I'd be interested in learning your basis for the $97,000 per killed and wounded figure. I didn't receive near that amount. As for Ron Paul, I've contacted him a couple of times in order to elicit his support of our call for a Congressional investigation of the attack and he doesn't even give us the time of day. Some patriot he is.
Warmest regards,
Joe
Joseph L. Meadors
USS Liberty Survivor
Director of Operations
USS Liberty Veterans Association
Tel: 202-596-9964; Fax: 425-675-5646
http://www.usslibertyveterans.org
fubar| 1.1.10 @ 5:43AM
you are navy.
Ron Paul was USAF.
dennis| 12.30.09 @ 10:36AM
I was just plain turned off by your "anti-semitism rant," Ben Stein. Now, after giving us the above entry, it's clear that you truly are a sphincter muscle.
Nathan| 12.30.09 @ 10:39AM
Ben Stein has been repeatedly proven horribly wrong in his purported area of expertise -- economics. Why should we listen to his warmongering, anti-freedom foreign policy rhetoric? One year before the economic devastation of 2008, Stein was arguing that the economy was in good shape and that the big banks were solvent. Now, he's pulling out the tired argument that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms, not because the U.S. military has occupied, bombed, and overthrown various governments in the Middle East for decades.
It goes without saying that terrorists should be captured and punished, but to continue the very practice -- occupying Middle Eastern lands -- that inspires terrorism defeats the alleged purpose of the War on Terror. The U.S. government's constant bloody interventions in other countries merely creates more terrorists. Despite what this country's many brainwashed warmongers of both democrat and republican political persuasions want to believe, the U.S. government cannot bomb terrorism out of existence. It can, however, stop the practices that provoke and create terrorist organizations in the first place. Such a logical and reasonable policy would not constitute, as the Sean Insanitys of the world would argue, "letting the terrorists win" but would save a lot of American lives and freedoms.
Anonymous| 12.30.09 @ 10:39AM
Shame on you Ben Stein!
*Of course* you understand that terrorists are caused and driven by policy-- both ours and these so-called "allies" (Yemen, etc...). Your effort to change the subject by implying that Ron Paul was somehow anti-jewish was crass and wrong. Of course, being wrong is just par for the course with Dr. Stein:
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww.....index.html
You owe a serious apology.
Albert| 12.30.09 @ 10:41AM
People who call Ron Paul a KOOK are devotees of Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Reilly, three kooks that make the three stooges look like Nobel laureates.
$1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of deaths, wounded, injured and displaced and who is winning this war. Who has spent less than $5 million and suffered minimal casualties? If you are looking for kooks, look no further than those who support this sacrifice of blood and treasure to fight a war against a ragtag band of outlaws hiding in caves, hardly deserving the cost of a flyswatter.
Dennis Kuchinich: Occupation fuels insurgency - not rocket science.
Pingback| 12.30.09 @ 10:42AM
Ben Stein v. Ron Paul « ShallowTime links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
TJF| 12.30.09 @ 10:43AM
Poor Ben Stein. He slanders Congressman Paul and now wants to be the victim?
This is about a bad of an apology as there could be.
Nathan| 12.30.09 @ 10:44AM
It is, of course, ironic that Ben Stein accuses Ron Paul of antisemitism when Stein was a speechwriter for Emperor Tricky Dick Nixon, avowed hater of gays, interracial babies, and Jews.
Bob Roddis| 12.30.09 @ 10:47AM
1. Note that Stein’s pathetic smear is so leftist in style. What does every leftist do when losing a debate on affirmative action or welfare reform? Scream RACIST RACIST RACIST.
2. Stein never heard Ron Paul’s argument before? To paraphrase Chevy Chase doing Gerald Ford, “If I’m so dumb, how come I’m on TV?”
Independence Hall| 12.30.09 @ 10:49AM
I wish Ben Stein would be much more careful before he starts tossing around such serious accusations. He should attempt to educate himself and actually learn something regarding the subject on which he speaks before he does so. In this case he acted recklessly, without justification, and should be ashamed of himself.
It is not possible for Mr. Stein to be more wrong than he is in this situation. In the case of Congressman Paul and Mr. Steins accusation of anti-Semitism, he is categorically, totally and utterly wrong. Mr. Stein needs to offer Congressman Paul a real apology. I also want to make it clear to anyone that reads this message, that any product or programming that Mr. Stein is associated with has lost my business until Mr. Stein does offer a complete and sincere apology. I do not believe you could find anyone who is less of a racist, or less likely to judge by the group or ethnicity, than Congressman Paul.
Additionally, there is nothing anti-Semitic about supporting a foreign policy that would allow Israel to stand on its own two feet and for the US to withdraw for actions and policies that entangle us in conflicts in which we should remain at arms length. Mr. Stein is paranoid and mistakenly believes anyone who suggests US policy has contributed to the resentment felt toward this nation by residents in the Middle East is anti-Semitic. Israel is a sovereign nation. The US is a sovereign nation. We can talk to one another and trade. There is no reason we should be the foundation upon which their security rests, nor should the US be in a position to have a veto of the actions and policies of the Israeli government. To endorse such a policy is not anti-Semitic and Ben Stein knows it. Like patriotism, changes of being a racist or anti-Semite are the last refuges of those who are cowards and have no reasonable argument capable of supporting their opinions.
Mark| 12.30.09 @ 10:50AM
I should also mention that Ben Stein is full of it when he thinks Dr. Paul's argument is that the "fault lies with the United States." Congressman Paul has been clear that the blame for terrorism always lies with the murderous thugs themselves. However, he is trying to say that it is bad policy to never study why a person commits a terrorist act.
I wonder, when detectives are looking for a motivation behind a man who kills their wife, and finds out it is because she cheated on him, would Ben Stein and company think this would be blaming the wife for being murdered?
Gary Halpin | 12.30.09 @ 10:52AM
I meet Ben Stein about 10 years ago at one of the first Freedom Fests in Las Vegas. He gave a fantastic speech on how hypocritical Hollywood is. But lately, and this episode on CNN, I've lost all respect for him. He is simply a Statist and neocon who tries to use economics to come across as smarter. But those of us who understand the Austrian School of thought can easily see through his charade and ignorance. But I'm glad I can now write off another warmonger I don't have to listen to as life is just too short.
Phil - Chicago| 12.30.09 @ 10:52AM
The neo-con boobery truly cannot even buy a clue, especially if they took Stein's financial advice. You neo-con boobs need to think of first principles - what is the motivation for conflict amongst those who attack the US? Is it because perhaps we bomb their women and children? Is it because we perhaps have occupied their country for decades? Is it because our shifting needs also shifts support from one regime to the next so that they cannot know what the hell we are doing from one presidential term to the next?
Its truly pathetic that war-mongering neo-con boobs cannot grasp the fundamental fact that our intervention in overseas wars of aggression has caused endless and fruitless conflict. How many more years of war will it take and how much treasure will you confiscate from your own people before you say enough? How much torture and murder will you commit before you say enough? How many women and children slaughtered in their own homes will satisfy your lust for violence?
And neo-con boobs think they have any moral justification to be heirs to those who actually did die for freedom? Our forefathers would spit in your face, as they did a long time ago when they fought for freedom for themselves and their families.
And neo-con boobs think they are intellectual heirs to the classical liberals in history? They are, in fact, modern day nationalists that support the state in every war or aggression as long as blood flows freely from those 'over there..'
El Zarcho| 12.30.09 @ 11:01AM
I don't give a rat's fat tail end what their motivation is. I care about my nation and its interests, and if that means pissing off a few mullahs, boo freaking hoo.
It's sad that you're unacquainted with reality to the point that "wars of aggression" is your term for our current military conflicts.
Are we gaining more land or resources? Are we colonizing the Middle East? Have we taken one drop of oil? Whatever you think our purposes are, the only goal we "neo-con boobs" care about is the safety of our nation, its allies, and its interests.
If you don't get that, go ahead and stay confused.
William M| 12.30.09 @ 11:51AM
So, then, you're for perpetual war for perpetual peace. Your line of thinking creates new extremists, meaning the soldiers you pretend to support are instead consigned to die in the desert 10,000 miles from home because the pro-war crowd either doesn't understand that point or actually WANTS to keep creating boogeymen to fight. Between these two lines of thinking, I'm starting to think that the pro-war crowd lies squarely in the latter. In other words, they don't care about the troops, their safety, or our safety as a nation, only the murder of thousands that our government radicalized in the first place. All of this, for the benefit of the military-industrial complex.
Clairy| 12.30.09 @ 12:08PM
So I take it you are currently enlisted, proud to risk brain damage, amputation or death because of your conviction that any such loss will benefit persons you don't know, in countries that are not your own? And you don't mind that the US is bankrupt? Oh, and you believe you will prevent the next underwear bomber?
Most loud-mouthed neo-cons believe losing limbs or portions of the cerebellum are jobs for lesser Americans (whom they support emphatically, of course...from the safety of their comfortable homes). Glad you're not one of those cowards.
Phil - Chicago| 12.30.09 @ 12:28PM
If you dont understand your enemy then you are doomed to failure. Sun Tzu. The fact that you dont care about strategy is evident - this is true of all neo-cons however. There is more to strategy then application of firepower.
The fact that we have military bases on the land within 160 different countries, that we confiscate treasure from our citizens to pay for this, to a greater degree than every other country combined, and that we have a military presence on every continent on the planet does not make a imperialistic statement to you? Please... take the neo-con talking points to your war-mongering Hannity's and Limbaugh's...
If one cared for the safety of our own nation, then how come illegal immigration is not enforced at the border? Again, the demonstrable fact is that there is no incentive for the state to actually defend the border, but indeed, to try to intervene in wars of aggression on people in other countries. Murder, torture, the destruction of foreign lands is what it is about.
I mean c'mon, even Hollywood had it right? "Two classic mistakes - one, to get involved in a land war in Asia, two, never bet with a Sicilian when death is on the line..." (Princess Bride).
And yet you want to pursue a war of aggression in freaking Afghanistan? The insanity of the neo-con never ceases to amaze me.
Matt| 12.30.09 @ 6:13PM
It's most amusing that you purport to care about your nation and its interests, yet you clearly support the current status quo...because the view from outside the US is that your country is going down the toilet fast, economically and morally. The days of American supremacy are drawing to a close. A few years ago it would have worried me, but now all I can say is "Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out".
Iowa Chris| 12.30.09 @ 10:54AM
How is the government justified in stealing money from the productive elements of our society to give billions in military aid to a repressive, nuclear armed Israel? How can an allegedly free people stand to have trillions more stolen from them to invade, bomb, occupy, and destroy two nations thousands of miles away? More than a million dead in Iraq, hundreds of thousands in Afghanistan, trillions of dollars spent to destroy billions of dollars in personal property, roads, bridges, schools and churches, a military-police state functioning lawlessly in Iraq and Afghanistan--and Ben Stein is aghast that some people in this country refuse to pimp this garbage. Our own military has suffered greatly with thousands dead, thousands more crippled, tens of thousands more mentally crippled, suicide rates outpacing battlefield casualties and an entire generation of young men brutalized by what they have seen and done. We have been bankrupted by the war profiteers and our freedoms have suffered greatly at home. We are in a hell of our own making and Ron Paul has chosen to say so...for this reason, I suppose, he must hate the Jews. Ben Stein is a laughable hack and I only wish I still had a chance to win his money on Comedy Central.
El Zarcho| 12.30.09 @ 11:06AM
Yes, Israel is so oppressive that there are currently 13 Arab members of the Knesset. How many Jews are in Egypt's, Jordan's, or Syria's governments? Does Israel execute gays, or forbid women from school, or any of the other atrocities common in Arab states? It seems to me you have a funny idea of what "repression" is.
You'd also better find a real source for your "more than a million dead" statement. Credulity is cute in a child, but alarming in a citizen of voting age.
iowa Chris| 12.30.09 @ 11:24AM
"More than a million dead" English medical Journal The Lancet
Israel Repressive: "The Palestinian death toll in the Gaza Strip has risen to 854 and more than 3,650 injured as the Israeli offensive entered its third week.
The air and ground attacks continued on Sunday with Israeli aircraft bombarding different targets in the strip and ground forces advancing further into the outskirts of Gaza City." --Al Jazeera
"Civilian deaths in Gaza put Israel under huge pressure to halt attacks
Israel is under mounting international pressure to halt its offensive in Gaza after scores of Palestinians were killed in buildings sheltering civilians." --Uk Telegraph
I know they dont murder people at the rate that the US government does but I think Repressive applies...and...I am not impressed that they have a few "minorities" in their government. Unlike most neo-conservatives (how are you guys different from the leftists?) I dont consider "racial diversity" among the ruling classes to be the defining characteristic of a free people.
Schvenzlerman| 12.30.09 @ 12:05PM
Iowa scores!
Sonic| 12.30.09 @ 10:56AM
Ben Stein, you need to take time off for some serious reflection. I hope you will come out on the other side man enough to make a sincere apology. While you're at it, please study up on Austrian economics, because you seem to be about as lost on economics as you are on foreign policy. Best wishes.
BenWithoutMeds| 12.30.09 @ 11:02AM
Ben you must have forgot to take your meds, what did Dr Paul say that made him or his remarks anti-semitic? And you come here seeking solace among your fellow war mongers for your unsubstantiated remarks?
US troops in 140 countries and "we're not occupiers"?! The day Americans are willing to accept Russian or Chinese troops, tanks and military bases on their soil is the day they should expect others to tolerate theirs.
Richard| 12.30.09 @ 11:02AM
What Ben Stein did was shameful. All too often the same is done to people much less able to fight back than Ron Paul. If an average guy with a middle level job is called "anti-Semitic" his career can easily be over, even, or especially, if the charge is false. Many of those who use this insult know how damaging it is and use it for that reason against people they know are innocent. It used to be an anti-Semite was someone who hated Jews. Today, it is someone who disagrees with someone who happens to be a Jew.
Leeanne| 12.31.09 @ 5:02AM
"If an average guy with a middle level job is called "anti-Semitic" his career can easily be over, etc..."
Yeah but the thing is, they have abused it [the "antisemitism" accusation] now nearly to the point of neutralizing it.
And the ironic part is - as pointed out in a couple of prior posts - that those who call the shots in the Israeli regime are NOT even "Semites"at all. They are converts to Judaism, from eastern Europe. And though they utilize the Genesis quote about the Holy Land belonging to Abraham's descendants (which they are not) it's done very cynically because the vast majority of them are atheists.
As you can see though,
a portion of America falls for it.
The genuine semites are the people native to that area of the world ...the ones whom the eastern European occupiers trample and from whom they steal.
Mark| 12.30.09 @ 11:04AM
Also, this "blame America" line needs to be clarified.
Dr. Paul is not blaming America for anything. He does blame those in the American Government who pursue reckless policies, and he also blames terrorists who attack us despite their motivation.
There is nothing wrong with looking for motivation behind crimes. In fact, any government that is committed to counterterrorism should want to know this.
Martin| 12.30.09 @ 11:10AM
Right! There's a big, big difference between America and the scrofulous poltroons in Washington DC. Loving America and all it stands for does not mean you have to love the policies of the buffoons in Mordor on the Potomac.
Luther| 12.30.09 @ 11:06AM
Why does Ben Stein continue to get airtime? His track record as an economist is abysmal, he's intellectually lazy and resorts to ad hominem attacks when his position is weak (which is about 100% of the time) and he has never, as far as I know, had an original thought. All I can figure is that it must be his athletic good looks that get him on these shows, because it sure isn't because of his debating skills.
Joe| 12.30.09 @ 11:12AM
The reason Ben Stein continues to get airtime is because our main stream media is largely Jewish-owned and controlled. The media owners allow Jewish neocons and other Jewish supporters of Israel to get all the airtime needed for pro-Israel propaganda. Here we have an unfortunate situation where a tiny monirity (Jews are barely 1.6% of the US population) controls TV networks, print media, holywood.
Luke | 12.30.09 @ 11:06AM
If you want to actually "fix" terrorism, you're not going to do it by just killing all of the terrorists. That's not how it works. You have to address the underlying problem. Why do these terrorists hate us? Is it because they're psychos, as Ben says? Do they just hate our freedom?
The reason they hate us is because of our foreign policy. For years and years, we have meddled in the affairs of the Middle East. We've overthrown governments, occupied sovereign nations, and basically butted into conflicts that were none of our business. There are plenty of evil regimes all over the world. We don't invade or bomb all of them. But, if we did, there would be terrorist factions all over the world plotting against us. It's common sense.
Calling Ron Paul anti-semitic was very low, Ben. You know that isn't true. The fact is, we dump billions of dollars into Israel. Israel has no incentive to make peace, because they know the United States has their back. Anyone that questions why we're giving foreign aid to Israel is labeled an anti-semite. Of course, that's entirely false. Why are we giving foreign aid to any country? We're running billion dollar deficits year after year. We're 14 trillion dollars in the hole and we can't pay it back. We can't afford to fund our own government, much less other governments. Get a grip.
Andrew Rule| 12.30.09 @ 11:07AM
Way to go Ben! Cry wolf for anti-semitism so when the real thing comes along no one listens.
Tim| 12.30.09 @ 11:07AM
Ben Stein is a fraud and a well known mole of Israel. The rest of the world understands, and speaks openly, why the Arabs and Moslems hate us. The main reason they hate us is because of our financial and military support of Israel which allows that country to occupy and colonize Palestinian lands. The Moslems feel helpless, and because they do not possess sophisticated weapons, they resort to terrorism. The Jewish Lobby of course does not want Americans to hear the real reason, so they continue to peddle such myths as "they hate us because of our freedom" or "they hate us because they are terrorist." Due to a complete stranglehold of our media by the Jews, a fraud like Ben Stein has easy access to promote pro-Israel lies. In this case, Larry King who is Jewish is enabling Ben Stein.
Tim| 12.30.09 @ 11:48AM
Ach du lieber!
Beau| 12.30.09 @ 11:10AM
Stein is making the term anti-semite meaningless, which will only hurt Israel and the Jewish people at some point. To criticize US, or Israeli, foreign policy is not anti-semitic. Those that claim so are using cheap, unintelligent tactics and seem incapable of debating the facts. Agree or not with Ron Paul, but he is principled and consistent, which is much more than I can say for Republicans or Democrats.
Pingback| 12.30.09 @ 11:10AM
Ben Stein Calling Ron Paul Anti-Semitic - Page 4 - Sherdog Mixed Martial Arts Forums links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
RonPaulinator | 12.30.09 @ 11:11AM
Ron Paul was right, again!
JamesH| 12.30.09 @ 11:12AM
Ben Steins reaction was wrong primarily in 2 ways.
1.) It was ignorant - saying that people who try to harm us are simply psychopaths and that we should not even consider what their motive might have been, will never get us out of our problems.
2.) It was a spit in the face to those fighting true-antisemitism - if people like Mr. Stein keep calling everything they happen to disagree with anti-semitism, the term will start being discarded as a tired label that will no longer be taken seriously.
Quartermaster| 12.30.09 @ 11:59AM
"the term will start being discarded as a tired label that will no longer be taken seriously. "
We are already at that point. Same with the word "racism," which has also been overused and dreadfully misapplied.
Aaron| 12.30.09 @ 11:18AM
Ben,
I'm definitely glad to see you don't really think Ron Paul is anti-Semitic, but I'm still deeply saddened you would accuse his argument as being such without much thought -- even though it was in the heat of live television. Yes, people naturally skew all facts around their personal feelings, but Ron Paul seems to me to be a rare man who believes in the ideals of liberty at a very individual level, so for you to group his well thought out common sense position on foreign relations with that of a dull collectivist's anti-Semitic feelings is very insulting to both him, and all lover's of liberty, including myself. I accept your apology, but I hope you've learned a lesson in the dangers of thinking collectively rather than individually and we can move forward united for liberty.
mark| 12.30.09 @ 11:18AM
Its like having cops in your house to protect you from burglers. Being in other countries does not protect you from them. Securing your borders and keeping them out does. They might like you a lot more if we do as they do by not meddling in our affairs and government. Things are way out of hand here and some decent do unto others as you would have them do unto you lifestyles and policies need to crop up in a big way.
Aaron| 12.30.09 @ 11:22AM
Ben Stein must be one of those who support wild conspiracy’s along the lines that our CIA does nothing but spread lies. Per the CIA and I quote " The main driving reason why these terrorist groups have such hatred towards our country is a direct result of Blowback. Blowback is defined as unintended consequences of the United States foreign policy’s." But I guess they are just crazy huh? CIA don’t know shit huh benny?
JJ| 12.30.09 @ 11:24AM
You have officially made yourself into a joke Ben. Sad day.
DaNang Marine| 12.30.09 @ 11:27AM
I think Henry Makow is speaking of Illuminati goats like Ben Stein and other similar types when he says: "Mankind has taken a wrong turn and appears doomed. The political, cultural and economic elite are either dupes or willing agents of a Satanic conspiracy of cosmic proportions."
Chris in VA| 12.30.09 @ 11:28AM
In a moment of honesty -- albeit unintended - Mr. Stein reveals the shallow character of his own tawdry assertion. "the tired old anti-Semitic line" is indeed tawdry and fatuous -- and has been gaily tossed off by Mr. Stein and his fellow supporters of the debasement of our Constitution ever since 9-11.
The slur always emerges when the prevaricator is either too lazy to make a logical argument, or too smart to try.
Mr. Stein is not dumb. He used this slur intentionally, and now, with equal determination, tries blithely to pass it off.
Apologize, Mr. Stein. Or, in the words of the Tom Lehrer (and don't try calling him one), "just shut up."
Charles| 12.30.09 @ 11:30AM
Professor Stein,
I am glad that you have taken an opportunity to share your line of reasoning with regards to the comment/accusation you made to Congressman Paul the other night on Mr. King's show. Personally, I do not think that Congressman Paul harbors ill will for individuals of particular faiths, or for individuals who are irreligious for that matter. Of course, I would hope that you are able to determine for yourself what his views are through conversing with him or some means other than hearsay.
I have a great deal of respect for you and Congressman Paul, and was disappointed to see a thought-provoking discussion devolve into an emotionally charged series of verbal exchanges. As I posted elsewhere yesterday, I'd like to see you gentlemen have a discussion based upon your opposing views, providing reasons and evidence for why you believe as you do regarding terrorism that is directed at the United States. I'd like to hear Congresswoman Jackson Lee's views as well.
With regards to those of us disparaging Professor Stein's letter to the editor, I would like to point out that he has described his line of reasoning rather clearly, and added that he was sure that Congressman Paul was not "anti-Semite" (possibly despite the Congressman unintentionally echoing arguments used by others who are).
I am sure that I am not the only one commenting here that has read posts wherein individuals begin with a rational premise merely as a means to introduce arguments proposing the idea that all Jewish individuals are somehow to blame for our country and/or the world's ills.
Professor Stein may have jumped to an incorrect conclusion, but considering past experience his line of thought is not as unreasonable as one might think.
Best regards,
Charles
P.S. I agree with the earlier individual who recommended Professor Pape's writings on terrorism. I also recommend Mr. Shuerer's books and the excerpts from them which may be found online, as well as Professor Chalmer's articulate writings which are equally available.
-C
nicrivera | 12.30.09 @ 11:42AM
Perhaps Obama should invite Ron Paul and Ben Stein to the White House for a couple of beers.
DJ| 12.30.09 @ 2:34PM
Completely agree.
I believe Mr. Stein did go overboard and should of at least quickly clarified. It seems to me to be a gross misunderstanding, although the apology was less then stellar. This reminds me of the time when Ron Paul opined about the ad with Mike Huckabee. Ron quoted Sinclair Lewis, “When fascism comes to America, it’ll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross”... that caused a bit of a stink, even after Ron Paul elaborated that he wasn't calling Huckabee a fascist per se.
Ted| 12.30.09 @ 11:30AM
So I guess there was no islamic extremism before the USA was founded. Is that what I'm hearing?
Uh, what about the rampaging Turks?
KCKent| 12.30.09 @ 12:43PM
The rampaging Turks were the same as the rampaging Romans and the rampaging Crusaders and the rampaging King George - it was about empire, conquering and stealing. It had nothing to do with "Islamic extremism" - it was mainstream Islam just as the Crusades and Inquisistions were mainstream Christianity at the time. And, even if it was, it has absolutely no relevance to the subject at hand. It's OK - go back to sleep with the Hannity CD under your pillow.
S.L. Toddard| 12.30.09 @ 1:37PM
When did Islamic extremists attack America before we insinuated ourselves in their affairs? How many *religiously motivated* attacks against America did Muslim extremists wage before the creation of Israel?
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 4:30PM
None of this stuff was directed our way. Our founders warned of getting to much a sense of hubris on the world stage.
Turks fine. There were also other powers that were vicious, including Christians, agnostic folks, etc.
fubar| 1.1.10 @ 6:28AM
Even a superficial (objective/rational) reading of the history of islam would easily reveal that it was a religion that was established across a large area of the planet "by the sword".
The Shi'a believe that Islam would have been able to take over the whole world had it not been for the spiritual corruption that the Sunnis (descendents of the original enemies of the prophet - may his soul be embraced in the luminous realms of spiritual light and love) introduced into Islam.
The Qur'an lays out clear instructions for imposing conquest upon the lands of non-believers (e.g., pagans) who were not "people of the book" (Jews, Christians). Buddhists were slaughtered in large numbers in northern india by invading muslims in the early history of islam.
At its high point, the Islamic world spread from Spain to the Phillipines. The Ottoman Turks reached as far into central europe as the gates of Vienna (Austria) in one military operation.
The main reason Columbus sought a sea route to india was that the muslim world became hostile to europeans (crusaders) and cut off land trade routes to india thought the islamic world.
Islamic civilization was, at its peak, more highly advanced and cosmopolitan in all areas of civilization than any other culture. But, it became decadent and urban, and its leading minds rationalized a slide into rigid orthodoxy which marginalized the more innovative elements of islamic culture that were needed at exactly the point that the uncivilized northern europeans took the vast legacy of muslim scientific scholarship and philosophy and turned it toward new ideas in science, technology, economics and politics. (the reformation, industrialization, capitalism, democracy.)
At that point, the europeans became global traders, then imperialists, took the fruits of the new wealth, science and industry, and used it to fuel their own imperial take over of half the planet.
Pot. kettle. black.
al in Boston| 12.30.09 @ 11:30AM
Powerful Israel Lobby Has Death Grip
On U.S. Politics, Elections, Policies
By Jim Traficant
“We, the Jewish people, control America and the Americans know it.” —Ariel Sharon, Oct. 3, 2001.
Yes, folks they do! The Israelis manifest their control over America through a series of powerful lobbies. Yes, a series, hundreds of them, all under the umbrella of the parent organization known as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). No one ever told you this?
AIPAC controls America with money, big money, that is funneled into the campaign funds of U.S. senators, representatives and yes, even candidates for the president of the United States.
AIPAC channels money through a number of innocently named Political Action Committees (PACS) that no one (I don’t believe anybody wants to) can trace to AIPAC—Israeli money.
As an example—XYZ PAC (for example only/not real). Sounds like it could be an educational lobby, or a science lobby—but alas, it’s money from Israel, routed to political candidates of their choice.
I can’t name all these PACS, but I suspect there are 200 or more such phony lobbies whose real purpose is to elect politicians at all levels, especially state and federal offices, who will support Israel without fail. These politicians will support Israel even when Israel is caught spying on America—yes, spying on America.
To provide background as the precursor to the official AIPAC lobby I cite an infamous Israeli spy. Check this out:
1. Jonathan Pollard was turned down by the CIA (after leaving graduate school) for failing a polygraph test. Pollard lied about his use of illegal drugs. He later admitted to prolific illegal drug usage between 1974 and 1978.
2. Guess what: That didn’t hurt Pollard with the Navy. He was hired as an “intelligence specialist.” The CIA refused to give the Navy any information they had on Pollard.
3. Within two months, Director Richard Haver wanted him fired on suspicion, but Pollard was only transferred to Naval Investigative Service (NIS).
4. In his new position, Adm. Sumner Shapiro ordered Pollard’s official clearance be revoked for suspicious behavior. Once again, Pollard was reassigned.
5. Pollard now complained he was being abused, and, in 1984, he received “excellent performance” reviews and was returned to Naval Intelligence. How’s that for a pat on the back?
6. Shortly after, in June 1984, documents show that Pollard “started to pass classified information” to Israel. The full extent of those crimes/info, that he gave to Israel has “never been revealed.”
Al in Ark| 12.30.09 @ 11:50AM
And the USS Liberty incident...
Istrilyin| 12.30.09 @ 11:34AM
One should understand that Paul and Stein are both right, but have different priorities.
Paul's priority is the USA.
Stein's priority is Israel.
That's it.
Rob| 12.30.09 @ 11:41AM
"Paul's priority is the USA.
Stein's priority is Israel. "
Hear, hear. Stein himself has admitted this in the past.
http://spectator.org/archives/.....l-for-felt
Money quote:
"And it gets worse: it's been reported that Mark Felt is at least part Jewish. The reason this is worse is that at the same time that Mark Felt was betraying Richard Nixon, Nixon was saving Eretz Israel. It is a terrifying chapter in betrayal and ingratitude. If he even knows what shame is, I wonder if he felt a moment's shame as he tortured the man who brought security and salvation to the land of so many of his and my fellow Jews. Somehow, as I look at his demented face, I doubt it."
So Mr. Stein believes that Mr. Felt should have put loyalty to the Star of David above the Stars and Stripes.
Win Ben Stein's money? I don't know how much he has but I think it is fair to say that there are 30 pieces of silver in his bank account.
For someone who worked in the White House to place another country above this republic reeks of treason.
hambone | 12.30.09 @ 11:37AM
Ben, you suck! Everyone hates you and everyone loves Ron Paul! In the words of the famous Ivan Drago from Rocky IV, "You Will Lose."
Happy Kwanzaa A-holes!
markh| 12.30.09 @ 11:41AM
Yes Ben, your "paraphrase" missed the point. The (government of the) United States CREATES al Qaeda by provoking muslims by occupying (and bombing) their lands - a distinctly different thing than your disingenuous "paraphrase". Ben, do you know how to make a terrorist? Kill his mother or father. This doesn't matter if they are a muslim or a Brazilian, the effect will be the same! Apologize to Ron Paul.
Seek| 12.30.09 @ 11:42AM
Joe, your presence on earth is an unfortunate situation.
Sean| 12.30.09 @ 11:44AM
I have to side with Ron Paul on this one. Our foreign policy is very bad for our country for a few reasons. First it is very expensive for the American taxpayer. Second there is absolutely no benefit for the taxpayer in what we do. Finally the Islamic extremist can only attack us on US soil if we let them. Its time to ban them from traveling to our country until the Muslims figure out how to maintain order in their own countries.
I like Ben Stein, but he is often wrong about economics and foreign policy. I don't think he could stand up to Ron Paul in a true debate so resorted to using a slur against him.
Treg| 12.30.09 @ 11:44AM
The question is not, "Is Ron Paul an Anti-Semite?"
The question, is Doctor Paul right? Is he right to question and ask, 'what is the motivation?' of these guys who attack us? And that answer is easy, since they tell us. As Dr Paul points out, they attack us over here because we are busy attacking them over there, supporting dictatorships such as the Saudi Royal Family, Yemen and occupying Muslim lands and giving our full support to Israeli occupation. Now that we know this, what do we do about it? Keep on occupying, attacking, and supporting occupation? If your answer is YES, then at least you know you should EXPECT more BLOWBACK from this foreign policy. If you take the Ron Paul approach, trade & peace and no occupation or (welfare to oil industry via military protections/occupations), then we would be a principled nation again.
The question for Ben Stein is: Is his foreign policy position and opinion Anti-American? Is this the kind of America that we wish to live in? A country that supports dictators, occupies foreign lands for the benefit of the few, a county that invades and occupies and supports occupation? That's not my kind of America that I want.
Is that opinion Anti-Semitic?
Or is that opinion PRO AMERICAN?
Ray| 12.30.09 @ 11:47AM
It seems the Paulbots are out in force today.
Contrary to some comments here, Ron Paul is NOT a "fighter," (unless someone threatens his perceived "expertize" in a particular subject of discussion, then, yes, he attacks and attacks and attacks, for no avail though), he's an appeaser.
Ron Paul, and a lot of his supporters, believe, wrongly, that appeasing the enemy is the best choice and that all other action will, invariably, lead to more conflict as anything other than appeasement will be perceived as provocation. Ron, is 100 percent wrong in his assessment. What Ron, and the rest of the Paulbots, forget is that a projection of strength is a very effective deterrent when dealing with a species, Mankind, that is more predator than prey. A projection of weakness, which is just what appeasement is, is an invitation for others to attack or exploit the weak.
Our Founding fathers understood that a projection of strength is a deterrence to aggression, which is why the Constitution calls for the creation of a Navy and an Army. This understanding that a projection of strength is an effective deterrence to aggression is also reflected in the creation of the right to keep and bear arms.
William M| 12.30.09 @ 12:02PM
You're actually right, but I doubt you have the intelligence to understand why.
Having 700+ bases aroung the world is not a projection of strength by a sovereign nation. The proper term is empire.
ARMED-TO-THE-TEETH NEUTRALITY is a projection of strength by a sovereign nation. It works for Switzerland. And lo and behold, they haven't been in a war since 1815.
We as a nation need to withdraw to our own borders but remain armed. To attack a nation that has that much military might not tied up elsewhere in overseas adventures for the benefit of the military-industrial complex would be suicide.
Quartermaster| 12.30.09 @ 12:08PM
I'm not a fan of Paul, but you will look long and hard, and find nothing to support your contention he is an appeaser. That assertion is nothing more than another form of ad hominem. Paul has said some things that do not bear up under scrutiny, but to assert he is an appeaser, is nothing less than discrediting to you.
KCKent| 12.30.09 @ 12:09PM
Ray,
The Costitution does indeed call for a Navy and Army as a projection of strenght and a "deterence to agression" as you put it. But, it also calls for a Declaration of War by the state's representatives in order to use that force for a purpose other than a deterrent.
I think you are confusing the idea of deterrence and defense with agression in other nations and the highly immoral position of "preemtive attack". I, as with many Ron Paul supporters, are for a strong military force and see it as one of the few federal expenditures that is justified.
Spreading our military thin throughout the Middle East, creating more enemies on a daily basis, losing our fine men and women in an endless and mission-less conflict is not strength - it is giving the fanatics what they want - it makes us weak and unable to respond without a moral highground and overwhelming force when we are actually attacked. It seems to me that creating enemies by killing and occupying civilian populations is the real appeasement - not a call for nonintervention and common sense.
Matt McIntyre| 12.30.09 @ 12:10PM
"[Ron thinks] anything other than appeasement will be perceived as provocation. Ron, is 100 percent wrong in his assessment."
Didn't we hear this same warmonger rhetoric about Vietnam?
If only we had "stayed the course" back then, we wouldn't have to fight off all these pesky Vietnamese-Communists that daily threaten our national security. Oh well, I blame the hippies..
Leanne| 12.31.09 @ 5:14AM
LOL [@Matt]
Really, where do you start with someone who considers it an "appeasement of the enemy" to get occupying soldiers off their land ...when they never attacked ours ?
minnesotA| 12.30.09 @ 12:14PM
Your first paragraph is illegitimate as Paul spent much of his political career saying the things people didn't want to hear and consequently was kept out of the main stream. Labeling him an appeaser is like calling him an anti-Semite.
Sir, what would appease the enemy? Who is the enemy by the way? A notable comment above was that the enemy is spread abroad and the U.S. continues to fight a conventional war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The strategy doesn't fit the environment.
Furthermore, the founders were divided on the subject of an organized military, including George Washington. The strategy of showing strength worked then because we were a naked baby nation, we had to show that we weren't vulnerable after the war.
Finally, your argument for projecting strength fails because after 8 years of Iraqi occupation our strength has not deterred terrorist attacks. Moreover, to say that the predator (man) would submit to another predator based on perceived strength is wrong. A solitary wolf may try to attack an adult moose if his motivation is life or death.
I suggest reading "Warfighting" the Marines handbook for strategy. The one variable that is most powerful, unpredictable, and unmeasurable is the human will.
JaimeInTexas| 12.30.09 @ 12:45PM
To remove oneself from the swamp is not to appease the alligators. To question why you are waist deep in a swamp is reasonable when you demand others to risk their life to rescue you due to your stupidity.
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 4:26PM
The founders preached nonintervention and strong national defense. What the US has conducted for more than 5 decades is profligate intervention for oil resources and to stop the spread of communism. Why did God put our oil under their sand, etc.? We are seen as a bully and rightfully so. We are now going broke for the very economic reasons Ron Paul has been warning about for years. When the tables are turned in terms of economic power watch out. I don't think our enemies will forget and forgive our intrusions into their affairs that easily. Golden Rule stuff. Why does my name have to be Ben today????
J.P.| 12.30.09 @ 11:51AM
Ben, this is the worst apology I have ever seen. You're making the same "baby killing" argument that has been made many times. At least I think that's where you're going. I'm not sure you are but I think so so you must be a "baby killer" . So in case you are you must be a "baby killer." If not I'm happy to know you and Happy New Year.
Steven Cornett| 12.30.09 @ 11:52AM
Mr. Stein,
With all due respect, I think you need to admit that your comment on the Larry King show was a wrongheaded ad hominem on Ron Paul. He didn't mention the nation of Israel; the only thing he did was disagree with our conduct of the perpetual wars we seem to be fighting with no intention or goal of winning.
Everyone makes mistakes. The best own up to them.
Matt McIntyre| 12.30.09 @ 11:53AM
Non-interventionist foreign policy = anti-Semitic?
I guess we are never allowed to have real debates about the U.S. role in the world, or how and why a warmongering foreign policy negatively affects the average American citizen.
And I suppose entirely off the table is our policy of blind, unquestioning support for the state of Israel, despite rampant human-rights violations.
Why Mr. Stein, should I be forced to subsidize a foreign government I care nothing about? And why must I be labeled with race-baiting character smears for pointing out that the state of Israel (which is a government, not a people) does nothing to benefit me or � of other Americans.
Please explain how this opinion makes me an Anti-Semite? I would love to understand this mentality, because I strongly support the rights and dignity of all peoples.
Daniel Peterson| 12.30.09 @ 11:56AM
"He said, at least as I understood it -- and I could be mistaken -- that the real fault for this terror attack lies with the United States for provoking al Qaeda by "occupying their land" --this is a paraphrase."
Yes - you are mistaken! Ron Paul never said it was "our" fault. He did not apologize for or condone the attack. He simply stated that we should look motivation if we want to solve the problem.
Hank| 12.30.09 @ 12:10PM
As a former soldier, Ron Paul is right. It is time for us to come home. Free trade yes, war machine no. Telling Israel to quit running to its big brother America is not anti-semetic Ben.
Matt McINtyre| 12.30.09 @ 12:12PM
"[Ron thinks] anything other than appeasement will be perceived as provocation. Ron, is 100 percent wrong in his assessment."
Didn't we hear this same warmonger rhetoric about Vietnam?
If only we had "stayed the course" back then, we wouldn't have to fight off all these pesky Vietnamese-Communists that daily threaten our national security. Oh well, I blame the hippies..
Paul| 12.30.09 @ 12:13PM
Stein: "They're terrorists and murders because theyre psychos"
Paul: "They're terrorists because were occupiers!"
Stein: "No, we're not occupyers, that's the same anti-semitic arguement we've heard over and over again; no. "
Stein, you're a moron and liar.
GMartine| 12.30.09 @ 12:16PM
Ron Paul has pointed out that the US gives more military aid to Muslim countries than to Israel and that it would be in Israel's interest for us to stop all funding to Israel and the other countries.
Aren't Palestinians closer to the Semite race than Israeli Jews. So supporting the oppression of Palestine seems more anti-semitic in the literal sense. And what was Ben talking about using IBM for the US military? Doesn't he know that the Nazis also used IBM for their military goals including the tagging system for the Jews during the holocaust.
It seems like Ben thinks it is ok to support the killing of millions of muslims but any opposition to war-mongering is somehow anti-semitic. Seems Ben is the real racist in this equation.
Leeanne| 12.31.09 @ 5:21AM
"Aren't Palestinians closer to the Semite race than Israeli Jews."
Both of those are Semitic groups, SO LONG AS you are talking about ISRAELI Jews (native to the area) rather than the eastern European converts who got it from the UN in 1948 (the latter are not Semitic at all).
But, point well taken.
Jeff| 12.30.09 @ 12:22PM
Both Ron Paul and Ben Stein are patriots. To me, it simply comes down to Stein wishing to treat the sympton, and Paul wishing to strike at the root of the problem. We can continue to ignore motives and fight symptoms, as long as we can continue to borrow the funds to do so from the rest of the world.
TPMalone80| 12.30.09 @ 12:22PM
Ben...sad that you are trying to defend your remark. I dont care whether or not you apologize. You are (like other neo-conservatives) trying to fringe Ron Pauls viewpoints to something that is completely wrong.
Ron Paul defends the Constitution, nothing more.
Chris in Va.| 12.30.09 @ 12:22PM
>>So let me say right now that if Rep. Paul says he is not taking that line, and is not an anti-Semite, I believe him, good for him and I am happy to know him.
Chris in VA| 12.30.09 @ 12:28PM
Apparently Amspec doesn't like Bible verses - but I'll try again.
Mr. Stein: ">>So let me say right now that if Rep. Paul says he is not taking that line, and is not an anti-Semite, I believe him, good for him and I am happy to know him."
Brother Ben, since when is the recipient of the slur required to respond, conforming to the rules of the perpetrator? You know, that door swings both ways, and I doubt that you would ever accept that rule from any of your critics (see comments above) -- would you?
Let's go to the Good Book: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
And as another observant Jew observes: "Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. (Romans 2:1)
Get a real life, Ben. Eternal life is infinitely more dear than the Hollywood High Life.
Sebastian| 12.30.09 @ 12:28PM
The issue here, I believe, is Ben Stein using the cultural Marxist tactic of throwing out an "ism" to silence, discredit and smear a member of his political party he does not agree with. Of all the "isms" employed in the service of silencing debate, "anti-Semitism" is the most feared. Calling someone a racist is quickly (and rightly) losing its sting as it is applied to anyone who may have second thoughts on socialism. Same for sexism, as most women hold views that feminists would label sexist. But for Stein to call someone an anti-Semite for believing revenge is a constant in the human condition show him to be an ill-willed fraud and an apparatchik worthy of Breshnev's Pravda.
Americans seem to lack the imagination to understand why people who are bombed by the world's largest armed forces get angry. The US has invaded and occupied two of the poorest countries in the region and is now set to start a war with Persia. And yet...and yet: neither Stein nor his warmongering friends utter one word about Muslim immigration into Europe and the US. Nothing. As if killing tens of thousands of people and then IMPORTING there relatives into the West was perfectly normal. If we are war with "radical" Islam (i.e. Islam), Muslims should not be here, period. Not every Italian, German or Japanese supported their regimes, yet Churchill made damn sure they were removed from Britain. This is not a real war. This is an exercise in globalist delusion fueled by multicultural liberalism and an unhealthy preoccupation with Israel, which is why cultural Marxists tactics are being used to discredit those who oppose it. Ben Stein has no credibility.
Lou Barlow| 12.30.09 @ 12:28PM
I guess this a sheepish apology. It's lame, no doubt. Let's accept it and move on. Mr. Stein will be slow to resort to such a low blow in the future.
Remember, if we demand civility, we have to civil ourselves.
Bob| 12.30.09 @ 12:38PM
Why don't you go back to being an eye wash salesman?
Oldefarte| 12.30.09 @ 12:43PM
The only plausable reason why we are involved in the middle east is due to their OIL SUPPLIES. If the Democrats had not prevented our developing/producing our own domestic supplies of oil for decades, Exxon-Mobil, Chevron,etc would not be over there now, but would have oil [and revenue] producing wells off of our Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf Coasts [and dedicated oil from same would be substantially sufficient to supply all of our domestic oil needs as consumers]. The Democrats/environmental wackos have not only caused the exorbatant price of oil/gas to us consumers [recently at $4/gallon]; but have also enabled the middle eastern sheiks/barons who receive humongous oil royalties/wealth to pass along same to the Muslim terrorists who are now attempting to kill us all. So all of you POLITICALLY CORRECT dummies out there should give your shout out to all of your Democrat friends/congressmen for this!!!!!
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 4:20PM
Google Carter Doctrine. Your first sentence is absolutely correct.
David| 12.30.09 @ 12:45PM
I wonder what lame BS Bennie would spew to this bunch of "anti-semites"?
www.nkusa.org
Ab| 12.30.09 @ 12:59PM
I agree with Ben, the poor guy can't call someone an anti-semite in peace. Next time Paul gets slurred he should allow the person some time to finish the the slur.
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 4:18PM
Agreed, but then Stein runs the risk of looking even more foolish. Dr. Paul probably did him a favor by interrupting.
theodorelogan| 12.30.09 @ 12:59PM
Is it really THAT hard to just say "I'm sorry...I spoke without thinking" Ben?
You'll feel better if you do. Trust me.
LibertyLover| 12.30.09 @ 1:02PM
Ben, You owe Ron Paul a sincere apology for slandering him on national TV. Criticizing foreign policy has nothing to do with anti-Semitic sentiment and you know it. Resorting to name calling always reveals a weakness in argument. You clearly didn't have a reasoned response to Paul's criticism of American foreign policy.
Chris Riffert| 12.30.09 @ 1:04PM
Couldn't get a word in? All I heard was you getting words in. Say what you mean.
Eric| 12.30.09 @ 1:05PM
>> "those who talk about the U.S. 'occupying' Moslem lands soon go to criticism of the U.S. for helping Israel... and then to biting criticism of Israel and then to bitter comments about Jews generally"
Wow, let me try that: Some people eat food, which results in them being hungry again, which drives them to resent grocery stores, which leads them to killing store owners. "I'm hungry", "the same old murderous line".
Pointing out absurdity with absurdity.
Thomas Jefferson| 12.30.09 @ 1:07PM
Ben Stein is just another washed up, run of the mill talking head for the establishments false left /right paradigm. Pushing war, Keynesian econ, empire and police state. Ron Paul is the champion of freedom, sound currency and peace. Has no one thought to think why we are in our current situation as a dying country that has crushing debt, no liberty and hated around the world; because we do the opposite of all of what Ron stands for.
RON PAUL 2012!!!
lewrockwell.com; infowars.com; takimag.com
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 5:14PM
Funny you should invoke the name of Thomas Jefferson as he was our first "foreign interventionist" President by sending the Marines to defeat the Barbay pirates. Maybe the Muslims are still mad about the ass kicking they got back then and its all Thomas Jefferson's fault? Thomas Jefferson also had a copy of the Koran and read it to know exactly how barbaric their beliefs are. Now I am all with Paul when it comes to debt but he has it all upside down when it comes to foreign policy.
Thomas Jefferson| 12.30.09 @ 11:54PM
This is the most traffic this neocon rag has seen in years. Only redeeming quality to this toilet paper is James Antle.
Todd| 12.31.09 @ 9:27AM
I get it, Ron Paul is your prophet and the rest of the conservative movement (90+%) are heretics. We can do without you Ron Paul crazies here, we prefer rational discussions on conservatism and do without the cult-like behavior of Paulites.
Bruce | 12.30.09 @ 1:11PM
Did someone inadvertently leave the door to the Paulbot Asylum open for Christmas? Jeebus! This is precisely why the Libertarian Party will never gain credibility as long as Paul is associated with it. With the Moonbats screeching in the background, of course.
Someone grab the Thorazine!
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 4:16PM
I see nothing wrong with folks coming to Paul's aid in light of the nonsensical insults from people like yourself. The libertarian types among us are gathering more and more credibility as it becomes obvious that the US is a bankrupt warfare/welfare state. Remember truth trumps all.
Leeanne| 12.31.09 @ 5:32AM
"Did someone inadvertently leave the door to the Paulbot Asylum open ...blah blah ...grab the Thorazine !"
I'm sure that if anyone has medication near them it would be you Bruce, to suppress the cognitive dissonance.
You have called an ever-bourgeoning group of people "moonbats" and implied that they were certifiably insane ...yet you have not succeeded in even so much as challenging a single assertion made here.
You're a credit to the Fox News debating tradition.
Isaac | 12.30.09 @ 1:11PM
I used to think you were cool Ben Stein. Now you're just coming off like a phony Keynesian conservative like the rest of the Republican party.
Thomas| 12.30.09 @ 1:11PM
Interesting, though predictable, discussion here. Allow me to jump in.
First, Congressman Paul has some very sound ideas as to how the government of the United States should be run. Such things as strict Constitutional construction, fiscal responsibility, etc. However, he has always been a strict isolationist in the area of foreign policy. This in no way suggests that he is anti-semitic. However, isolationism is no longer a viable option in today's world.
In the 18th and early 19th century, the oceans provided a natural barrier for the US. This is no longer the case. Militarily, weapons of mass destruction can be delivered to almost any point in this country, from the other side of the planet, in a few minutes. Economically, we are entirely dependent upon other nations to supply manufactured goods and necessary commodities, such as oil. Communications, the nervous system of not only this country but the entire world, is no longer confined to the borders of the United States. When you send an email, contact your bank or even connect to this site on line, your information transmission routinely spans several countries spread across a large portion of the planet's surface. The natural sea barriers that the United States used to enjoy, no longer exist.
I also see a lack of knowledge of history here. Some have pointed to the Cold War with the sSoviet Union as a bloodless diplomatic conflict. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We were in military conflict with the Soviets in Korea [yes, the Soviets supplied both the North Koreans and the Chinese in that war], in Cuba, in the Congo, in Vietnam [the Viet Min and later the government of North Vietnam were sponsored, equipped and supplied Ho Chi Min], Nicaragua and throughout Europe and Latin America for nearly 40 years. American's died to contain the spread of global communism sponsored, supported and directed from the Soviet Union.
As to isolationism, historically, has proven to be a fallacy in the twentieth century. It failed in WWI. The US was finally drawn into that conflict. In WWII, the US was again drawn into that conflict and we actively waged war against the Germans and Italians in Europe, neither of whom attacked the US. Isolationism proved to be a bust.
Now, one last historical note. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was not an independent action. It was actually the culmination of the 1991 Gulf War. That conflict ended, not in surrender or an Armistice, but in a cease fire. The maintenance of that cease fire was dependent upon the government of Iraq meeting certain very simple, clear-cut goals. Iraq met none of them and Saddam Hussein actually went out of his way to refuse to abide by the conditions of the cease fire. Therefor, the United States, as the leading memebr of the original coalition against Iraq in 1991, was will within its rights to continue prosecution of that war. We can debate the tactics and strategies pursued in the Iraq occupation, but the justification for the invasion itself should not be in doubt.
William M| 12.30.09 @ 3:47PM
When has Rep. Paul been a protectionist? I was always under the impression that he was for trading with other countries. If you're wondering WHY this is relevant, feel free to actually READ the definition of isolationism.
Phil - Chicago| 12.30.09 @ 4:28PM
You make the fallacy that the external intervention within the 20th century was beneficial to the United States and therefore is beneficial whenever it is applied. The US intervention in WW1 was not only unnecessary but caused the US to be sucked into a foreign conflagration within WW1, but also WW2. The progressive movement within the Wilson era is still being felt today, including the intervention of force outside the legitimate use of violence in defense of US property. To state the WW1 was successful foreign policy is ludicrous. It not only indirectly caused WW2, but the cold war beyond it. How many human lives need to perish before someone makes the logical argument that enough is enough?
Certainly defend our borders, but its a pathetic argument to say that interventionism was a correct course of action because it was the action that the US government has taken.
zack| 12.31.09 @ 1:37AM
If you don't like the Constitution, push to have it amended. Don't circumvent it, because that's how we end up with BS like the stimulus programs and never ending bailouts.
S.L. Toddard| 12.30.09 @ 1:18PM
It seems clear to me that this "apology" was nothing more than a calculated move to deflect criticism of Stein's race-card playing and slander. First, Stein slanders Ron Paul with a baseless characterization. It causes somewhat of a scandal, since the characterization was entirely unfair and unsupported by any evidence. Stein then comes to AmSpec to make an "apology" that more or less reasserts his original charge. He does this in such a fashion as to ensure that Paul supporters will be outraged. This guarantees a flood of Paul supporters to comment, in the hopes that it will include a couple misguided Truthers (unless the "9/11 was an inside job" poster is a plant, -perhaps a regular AmSpec commenter or Fox News Right supporter of Big Government wars), and the posts of those few misguided Paul supporters can then be used to discredit Paul and his supporters. That is exactly how it's played out, actually. It's an almost masterful way of deflecting criticism from himself (Stein) while discrediting traditionalist conservatives who love their country and their Constitution, and mistrust Big Government and Big Government wars.
Ferris Buehler| 12.30.09 @ 1:24PM
Ben, looks like the next time Larry King calls, you'd better just take the day off.
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 6:09PM
Well if Peter Schiff or Ron Paul are guests, Ben Stein is well-advised to run in the opposite direction as fast as possible.
john| 12.30.09 @ 1:31PM
Thanks for posting an apology and explanation Mr. Stein. That shows you are a class act.
Ron Paul 2012
Ellen| 12.30.09 @ 1:32PM
Mr. Stein, I was shocked at your abusive and uncalled for name calling. It was the lowest of the low and clearly intended to shut someone up, and not to have dialogue.
Listen to what Ron Paul said. He spoke with reason and honesty (and no, I am not one of the Ron Paul supporters) but your words intended to humiliate and shut him up and remove any possibility of dialogue were a disgusting disgrace. And then with Larry King giggling in the background......
This was yet another low moment in American media. Now when I see you on TV, I shut it off.
Keith Hamburger| 12.30.09 @ 1:33PM
It is widely known that the FBI has worked with, and even supplied, wannabe terrorists within the US. People who, without such encouragement and support, would never accomplish anything more than complaining and empty threats. But, when the FBI provides them fake explosives they are suddenly a deadly danger to our nation.
It would have been easy enough, following this guy's father's warning to our embassy, for someone with connections to the US intelligence community to provide ineffective explosives, pretending to be al Quaieda, and encourage him to follow through on his discontent. All to promote greater control of the American people and greater support for the war.
Our government has done it within our own borders, why would we be surprised they would do it from Yemen and Nigeria?
As to the anti-semitism comment, Ron Paul has pointed out that we give more money and support to the "enemies" of Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, in particular, than we do to Israel. He proposes withdrawing ALL such support.
How can that be considere anti-semitic?
Keith Hamburger| 12.30.09 @ 1:34PM
Besides, how can a confession of ignorance, whether from Rudy Giulliani or Ben Stein, be a justification for war and an attack on my freedoms?
Josh| 12.30.09 @ 1:40PM
So if you falsely implied Congressman Paul is anti-Semitic, then "good for him"? C'mon Stein, it isn't that hard... "I'm Sorry". You owe Congressman Paul an honest apology.
Hypocritically, you're against prejudice against Jews, but showed prejudice against Congressman Paul. He said nothing of Jews or Israel, but that didn't stop you from thinking he was talking down anti-Semitic lines.
And saying you couldn't get a word in afterward is a cheap cop out. You don't start out calling someone anti-Semitic, then figure out the details later to see if it really applies.
Also, for you and people with short memories, the US occupation of the middle east is not a reaction to terrorist attacks. Our occupation came first. We've been interfering with their governments, occupying their lands, and this had led to many deaths (even aside from Israel). Unfortunately, governments usually misdiagnose the cause of problems, then increase the cause in an attempt to resolve the problems. Read Glenn Greenwald's recent "Cause and effect in the 'Terror War'"
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.30.09 @ 1:41PM
I do declare!
Every single Ron Paul voter in the United States is on this thread today.
Heh!
Ron Paul is so stupid he couldn't lead a lunatic drunk to the bar for a drink.
He will always represent a lunatic fringe on the national scene.
That lunatic fringe has ably represented itself here today. heh!
To wit: "Go away, world. You frighten me."
Wrap it up any way you choose, cowards. We who are not will keep the bullies off your playground, because see, it is our playground too. You can hide behind us and not even get your fingernails dirty.
You are obviously uneducable because your fears get in the way of serious logic...or memory.
You can quote a million times and places where we "bully removers" screwed up...and you will be right in many cases.....
BUT!
Without us bumbling fools, you would have no playground.
Our country was born in blood and tears, and the rocket's red glare.
Most of our founders lost everything; many of them even their families and lives.
So you guys just sit there in your catbird's seat and scold us who built it...and feathered it for you.
Ron and youall remind me of Bible nit-pickers who memorize particular verses, but who simply cannot step back and grasp the larger message.
...Once upon a time, in 1945...we woke up one morning to realize we were the "biggest kid on the block". In our stumbling bumbling way, we have tried our best to keep the bullies off your playground.
Just say "thank you", or......just slink off behind your bullies.
It really is that simple.
William R| 12.30.09 @ 1:47PM
The Buffoon speaks.
Albert| 12.30.09 @ 1:59PM
That's not fair to baffoons. Shall we let him get back to his Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly shows?
Clairy| 12.30.09 @ 2:04PM
Thanks you, Mr Hannity! Spoken like the most patriotic, americanist, American ever to be the proudest American in America - while totally lacking any knowledge of what our founding fathers actually believed, or fought and died and suffered for! If only everyone who shares your feelings got the chance to do some of the actual bleeding that comes with war!
dr dave| 12.30.09 @ 2:14PM
Ken: stop huffing gasoline you crazy old bastard.
S.L. Toddard| 12.30.09 @ 2:19PM
Pay no attention to Kenneth. He is a confused old man, twittering away at his keyboard and drooling into his bib. His guys had their turn at bat - marvel at how low they brought America. They launched a major war, killing and displacing MILLIONS of citizens - over weapons that did not exist. They literally nearly destroyed the economy OF THE ENTIRE WORLD. In addition, he is the founder of a comical little group he thinks is very, very important called "T.E.A.M. America", which has as its theme song this rather crude ditty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZdJRDpLHbw
S.L. Toddard| 12.30.09 @ 2:21PM
^^ should read "millions of CIVILIANS"
zack| 12.31.09 @ 1:39AM
You forgot mouth-breather in your list of adjectives =)
Margie| 12.30.09 @ 2:26PM
God bless you Ken, and all true Patriots who are willing to stand up for America and her allies!
Mark| 12.30.09 @ 2:46PM
HOORA!! Let's turn the entire middle east into a glass parking lot!! USA!! USA!!! America can do no wrong!!!
Margie| 12.30.09 @ 3:50PM
America is the best and freest country on the face of the Earth. I love her. I'd venture to say you don't share in my sentiments. How sad. Perhaps you aren't an American.
Phil - Chicago| 12.30.09 @ 4:45PM
So the murder of women and children is acceptable to you? Good job spreading the Gospel. God bless you indeed. I am a Christian and am appalled at how blood-thirsty our nation has become under the auspice of a conservative Christianity.
First of all you dont speak for me, nor for the Lord. You dont know the mind of God if you have no clue about the essence of peace. To call for the destruction of a nation, the rape and pillage of innocent civilians as being blessed by God is a pathetic excuse.
Margie| 12.30.09 @ 5:41PM
Burn any American flags lately?
Because if you get an inkling to, please wrap yourself in it first.
Mark| 12.30.09 @ 6:21PM
There is a difference between America and the American Government. Dissent against a tyrannical State is the highest form of American Patriotism.
Margie| 12.30.09 @ 7:02PM
There is also a difference between those of us who are willing to fight for America, which is the highest form of Patriotism, and those who want to run like cowards. Those are the ones who do nothing but throw stones at the Patriots, and hate America, the majority of which you see on this thread.
Phil - Chicago| 12.30.09 @ 8:20PM
The highest form of patriotism is fighting for America. By your standards then, the SS in Nazi Germany were indeed the most patriotic Germans despite their demonstrable ability to provide scorched earth tactics within the German border.
You should rethink what true patriotism incurs. You mistake love for ones government as love for ones country. In fact the idolatry of your statements shows how low a level Christianity has fallen in the US. You idolize and worship the state - and indeed, by extension the violence that the state can exert.
Instead of putting God first, the state is first, and any critique of the state is verboten. This is the same disintegration of faith that occurs in every socialist and totalitarian society.
True patriots exalt the individual above the state, above the herd. Those men and women in combat do deserve better than the shoddy treatment given them with strategic errors that our state employs. But, those men and women would be better served if they were sent home and asked to defend our borders instead of expanding a decrepit and immoral empire.
Margie| 12.30.09 @ 9:02PM
your vile hatred spills over for all to see who are right minded reading these comments. Your twisted little fraudulent lying will get you to one place only.
See ya~wouldn't want to be ya.
zack| 12.31.09 @ 1:43AM
The highest form of patriotism is to fight against those in the government that commit injustice.
Leeanne| 12.31.09 @ 5:44AM
"...between those of us who are willing to fight for America ..."
Oh really Margie ~
Are you out there "fighting for America" ?
I mean ACTUALLY fighting, like that slobbering old man from Texas claims to have done ?
Or are you sitting home with a pair of chihuahua dogs in knitted shirts, foaming at the mouth over the "cowards" who protest the burning alive of children and women ?
If you - and people like you - want to catch a flight to the Middle East and put your own butt on the line for a pack of politically-motivated lies, then be my guest.
But if it's my money and my two beautiful sons you are demanding for this sham, there's a word for you which I don't customarily use.
Margie| 12.31.09 @ 4:47PM
You're foaming at the mouth enough with enough hatred.
Just remember to wrap yourself in that American flag before you burn it, Leeanne.
S.L. Toddard| 12.30.09 @ 6:47PM
"America is the best and freest country on the face of the Earth"
Actually America is the least free country on Earth - or in history. Due to our two-tiered justice system (no laws for political elites, the harshest justice system in the world for regular citizens) we imprison more of our own citizens than Soviet Russia ever did in her gulags. We imprison more of our own citizens than any nation in history, I believe.
No amount of logic-twisting can verify the claim that the country that has the least *free* citizens of any country in history is the "freest country on the face of the earth".
Margie| 12.30.09 @ 6:57PM
There are plenty of planes, trains and automobiles at the ready to take you elsewhere Toddy.
Phil - Chicago| 12.30.09 @ 8:27PM
Indeed. But the fact that millions of its own citizens are imprisoned are of no concern to the 'compassionate Christian conservative.' The historical fact that Soviet gulags and Nazi concentrations camps imprisoned less per capita than the US is also of no concern to them. They wish to inflict pain, suffering, torture and death upon people who disagree with them and live in foreign lands.
The typical response of move out if you dont like it is also quite funny. Love of ones country is love of ones government, dint ya know?
Margie| 12.30.09 @ 9:05PM
Maybe you & Toddard could share a limo.
Bye now.
Leeanne| 12.31.09 @ 5:48AM
"Bye now."
She leaves frequently, does she not ? Must be all the "vile hatred" getting to her, of people who do not do their part in the war pimping.
Todd| 12.31.09 @ 9:31AM
Has the US murdered 20-50 million of their own citizens like the Soviet Union? What an ahole you are, do you go to lectures from Bill Ayers?
William R| 12.30.09 @ 1:41PM
Former Israeli Minister Exposes Trick Of Crying Anti-Semitism - We Always Do It
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWnUbvODyyI
Jeff| 12.30.09 @ 1:46PM
Ben,
Thanks for your assistance in helping promote Ron Paul and his views.
No need to apologize.
Jack| 12.30.09 @ 2:02PM
Ben Stein's apology is insincere. Ben even lies about what "anti-Semitism" means. Here's what it means...you are an anti-Semite if you disapprove of or show any interest in...
The money and weapons the U.S. gives to Isreal every year.
The history of Israel/Palestine.
The USS Liberty bombing.
The bombing of the King David hotel.
The list goes on and on. Basically, any topic, fact, or figure that might, just possibly, make any Jewish person uncomfortable, is anti-Semitic. It is the first and best victimology, political correctness intimidation strategy.
So shut up and turn your TV back on!
Frank| 12.30.09 @ 2:04PM
I knew Ben Stein was a comedian...I just didn't realize he was this funny until now.
And it is absolutely a joke that people like Stein can call others antisemitic just because they disagree with US foreign policy.
Maybe we should ask Ben Stein what his position would be if the Chinese invaded the US in order to protect their dollar assets. Would he help the Chinese or resist? I would bet he would be one of those "pragmatists" who would help the Chinese.
It is people like Stein who are helping to ruin America with their warmongering and welfareism.
loulou| 12.30.09 @ 2:08PM
WOW, Ben Stein really flushed the looneytunes out of the woodwork! Were you nuts just waiting for this moment?
dr dave mikk| 12.30.09 @ 2:10PM
Stein says: "I said this because in my long experience, those who talk about the U.S. "occupying" Moslem lands soon go to criticism of the U.S. for helping Israel "
Beautifully spoken by a true idiot. Stein admits his slur is pre-emptive, labeling Paul anti-Semitic before Paul actually says anything self-incriminating.
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 2:38PM
He said it because it is true. How many people on this thread have brought up the Israeli "occupation" and our support for them as a legitimate reason for terrorist attacks against us? Because we know Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance and its because of Israel and America that they have suicide bombers. Paul himself is probably not anti-Semitic but he supports the policies of those who are and would like to see the destruction of Israel with his "non-interventionist" policies. You people are blind to the fact that it is a war against radical Islam because of their ideology against infidels, the so-called occupation is a red herring.
S.L. Toddard| 12.30.09 @ 7:14PM
"Paul himself is probably not anti-Semitic but he supports the policies of those who are and would like to see the destruction of Israel"
Quite the opposite. No non-interventionist - no Washingtonian neutralist -believes that remaining neutral in the affairs of the Middle Eastern countries will result in the destruction of Israel. It is simply not a realistic outcome - that Israel, armed to the teeth with nukes and perhaps the toughest man-for-man military in the world, would see "destruction" if we stood neutral. And maintaining neutrality generally does not mean it would prevent us from helping a nation that faced *destruction*. Israel is not facing destruction (on the contrary she stands unmatched in military might by any of her unfriendly neighbors) and all the hypothetical cataclysmic scenarios I've ever read are laughable. Which nation, exactly, would like its people, culture and history to become extinct in the hellfire of Israeli nuclear retribution? Because *that* is the fate of any power that tries to effect Israel's "destruction". And *that* should not even be the issue for any good American. The issue is what effect will it have on the welfare and tranquility of the American people? Our one-sided support of Israel and its Palestinian policy earns us the fanatical hatred of the Muslim world - religiously motivated Islamic attacks against America were generally non-existent before our insinuating ourselves into the conflict. It's rather obvious that standing neutral would enhance the security and tranquility of our own country - and isn't that our first concern? Or do you put another country's interests before your own?
Our own country is falling apart at the seams. Big Government is redistributing vast, unimaginable sums of money from Americans who earn it to financial corporate giants, to private health insurers, to defense contractors, to corrupt Wall Street oligarchs. We are $9 trillion in debt. Big Government is no longer bound by the law - the Constitution is a dead letter and our liberties are unprotected. Our news media is literally owned by the same corporate oligarchs that own our congressmen and who our president serves like a maître d. Big Government is hemorrhaging money as it grows like an omnivorous, Lovecraftian blob, birthing expensive Big Government projects like Big Government-sponsored healthcare and Big Government-sponsored democracy in Iraq. We no longer have control of it. This out-of-control Big Government - you argue that we should give it MORE power? You do not trust Big Government with Healthcare, but you trust it to build functioning friendly nations out of the rubble of our bombing campaigns and those surviving family members we haven't yet blown into bloody chunks? Think about the level of faith one must have in Big Government to believe it can accomplish that. It is the very essence of Liberalism.
And as I wrote before: we have 3,000 miles of open border with Mexico, across which any terrorist can easily stroll. Keep *that* in mind when Big Government tells you our soldiers need to be on the other side of the globe to "protect us from terrorism". It is not a serious position - to claim the danger we face from terrorism is so profound that we must wage perpetual war, but it is so insignificant that we can leave open a 3,000 mile door to any jihadist who wishes to attack us.
bobs| 12.30.09 @ 2:11PM
A sad note that things have declined so far in the public debate that whenever a "conservative" is losing an argument, calling someone "antisemite" suffices - just as liberals use racist as a blanket term to stifle opposition.
RP opposes our unconstitutional occupation of the ME.
So what gives, Ben?
Does Israel desires to occupy the ME and anyone who opposes this is an antisemite?
RP opposes our unconstitutional foreign aid to both Israel and the Arabs.
Just for the record, we do not have a constitutional mandate to bring democracy to the world. (For that matter, whatever the big lie, the US is not a democracy. It is a republic.) In the ME they only vote for sharia Islam anyway and we don't want that, do we?
War history.
Remember the Maine? The suspicious incident that started the Span.Amer. war.
The Lusitania? It was carrying arms and passengers to Britain.
Pearl Harbor? Read Stinnet's Day of Deceit. He is the premier establishment pro FDR pro WW2 historian. He admits and thinks it was good that FDR needed an incident to get the US into the war.
Vietnam? The Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened.
Panama? Noriega could have been busted anytime, anyday w.o. bombing the country.
Iraq1? Albright said I's invasion of K (slantdrilling I oil had something to do with it for I) was OK.
Iraq2? WMDs that were never found and if they existed were bought from either US, France or WGermany. Hello.
Afghanistan? Go after AlQuaida not the Taliban.
How do you spell sucker?
American people who vote for these wars.
Antisemite = anybody who opposes this.
And why did RP get more money from service members than any other pol candidate?
Dunno, Stan.
I think it was because he was pro-war, Ollie.
Yeah, you're probably right, Stan. How come I never thought of that?
bobs| 12.30.09 @ 2:13PM
"Yeah, you're probably right, Stan. How come I never thought of that?"
Cause you're an antisemite, Ollie.
kj| 12.30.09 @ 2:19PM
I'm still trying to get over Ben's call that the financial stocks were great buys back in late '07 and early '08.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.30.09 @ 2:32PM
True americans,
I have again shamelessly copied/pasted myself here.
Those of you who are decent parents have entered this conversation above...heh...lots of times.
..."He started it"... "nunh uh...she started it"..."she is a ______ _____"....."nunh uh, he is a _____."
.....etc.
Fortunately, our "opposition" are all cowards....except for the bullies...and we will whip their tails between their legs. heh.
They will certainly write a tough tune...then melt away as the tide turns.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.30.09 @ 1:41PM
I do declare!
Every single Ron Paul voter in the United States is on this thread today.
Heh!
Ron Paul is so stupid he couldn't lead a lunatic drunk to the bar for a drink.
He will always represent a lunatic fringe on the national scene.
That lunatic fringe has ably represented itself here today. heh!
To wit: "Go away, world. You frighten me."
Wrap it up any way you choose, cowards. We who are not will keep the bullies off your playground, because see, it is our playground too. You can hide behind us and not even get your fingernails dirty.
You are obviously uneducable because your fears get in the way of serious logic...or memory.
You can quote a million times and places where we "bully removers" screwed up...and you will be right in many cases.....
BUT!
Without us bumbling fools, you would have no playground.
Our country was born in blood and tears, and the rocket's red glare.
Most of our founders lost everything; many of them even their families and lives.
So you guys just sit there in your catbird's seat and scold us who built it...and feathered it for you.
Ron and youall remind me of Bible nit-pickers who memorize particular verses, but who simply cannot step back and grasp the larger message.
...Once upon a time, in 1945...we woke up one morning to realize we were the "biggest kid on the block". In our stumbling bumbling way, we have tried our best to keep the bullies off your playground.
Just say "thank you", or......just slink off behind your bullies.
It really is that simple.
Reply to this
JaimeInTexas| 12.30.09 @ 2:47PM
And you are already a volunteer in the IDF, right? In a branch of the uSA military?
Albert| 12.30.09 @ 3:01PM
"Once upon a time, in 1945...we woke up one morning to realize we were the "biggest kid on the block". ... and then in 2009, we woke up and realized we spent $1 trillion dollars to fight an enemy that consists of a couple of hundred cave dwellers. Now we can't come to our senses. This idiocy has to continue and folk like "texican" hunker after the glorious past to convince themselves that they are not being led by their noses.
Occupation fuels insurgency, hence I don't feel any safer today and neither do the folk at Fort Hood and Detroit.
As to economic security, the country has never been so economically insecure. We've been lied to, texican. Stop sucking at the breasts of Hannity, Limbaugh and O'reilly. I'd include Mark Levine, but he thinks "neo-con" is an anti-semitic term, so we know where that goes.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.30.09 @ 4:52PM
Jaimie,
They would not accept me. I'm not good enough.
jaimeInTexas| 12.30.09 @ 6:41PM
Then, your not good enough to send others either.
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 2:51PM
You got it right Ken about these Ron Paul fanatics. Its hard to tell the difference between them and the hate America first lefty loonies when it comes to Israel and the Middle East. No one said America was perfect but their arguments are absurd and dangerous. Ben Stein has nothing to apologize for because he is right. While I don't think Ron Paul is an anti-Semite, the foreign policy he advocates would result in the destruction of Israel and a nuclear War and strengthen the hand of radical Islam. WWII would look like a picnic in comparison.
Albert| 12.30.09 @ 3:11PM
Straight out of Hannity and Limbaugh's playbook.
So, you don't think Israel cannot take care of itself. How condescending. Do you carry an Israeli passport? No? So, why do you think we should sacrifice blood and treasure for Israel? Because you are a Christian and a member of Haggie's church (San Antonio?) Pro-life and pro-war, hey?
Ron Paul was the only Congressman who voted against the resolution that condemned Israel for bombing an Iranian nuclear facility a couple of decades ago. Ron Paul's foreign policy is 100% based on the Constitution. "Constitution? You're not serious, " to quote Nancy Pelosi.
Nothing strengthens the hand of radical Islam more than US occupation of Islamic countries. That's a fact. What you have to offer is pure conjecture based on right-wing talk show trivel.
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 3:30PM
Israel may be well capable of taking care of themselves if you don't mind them using Nuclear weapons to do so because that is what would happen if we pulled out of the Middle East and refused to give them anymore support. And if you think it is just about Israel, you are dead wrong. They hate Christians just as much and western civilization in general. How much more evidence do you need of that?
Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear facilities and not Iran's back in the 80's. So would you support Israel bombing Iran's nuclear facilities now and should we help them to do so? I am not clear what Ron Paul thinks of this but I doubt he would. So what do you think will happen if Iran gets nuclear weapons? Do you really think they can be reasoned with or ignored without serious peril? I really do not get where you guys are coming from to be honest.
William| 12.30.09 @ 3:59PM
Just like the Soviets couldn't be reasoned with, eh? And they had thousands of nuclear weapons. You're worried about a country maybe getting ONE in a few years. And God help them if they set it off and the fallout affects any/all the majority Sunni countries (Iran is majority Shia.) Iran would get walloped by the other regional powers. Not to mention the Israelis would drop a nuke right on Ahmadinejad's head.
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 4:28PM
I guess we are getting worked up by nothing if Iran gets nuclear weapons apparently since the worst that could happen is a nuclear war in the Middle East, nothing to be concerned about. Do you really think Iran is the same as the Soviets? They didn't believe in God and had no reason to think that blowing themselves up would get them 72 virgins in paradise. I don't remember any Soviet suicide bombers myself.
:)| 12.30.09 @ 4:19PM
"Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear facilities and not Iran's back in the 80's. So would you support Israel bombing Iran's nuclear facilities now and should we help them to do so? I am not clear what Ron Paul thinks of this but I doubt he would."
Ron Paul would let Israel do whatever she wants to do. He would neither condone nor condemn, in my opinion. I don't always agree with RP, but this I do simply because it allows Israel to do with she wants without the American government getting in the way. What's ironic is that not only does America fund Israel, but it also funds her enemies too. This funding always comes with strings attached too, which I believe limits Israel's sovereignty.
Quite frankly, to say Israel can't stand, in this present time, without America, is an insult. She is rich, knowledgeable, and powerful. Nobody can stand against her now, nor will anyone be able to in the future. I laugh at the thought that Israel will be defeated with American's support.
Ha, ha, ha!
:)| 12.30.09 @ 4:20PM
*without American's support, I mean.
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 4:32PM
Didn't know Israel was invincible but thanks for informing myself otherwise. I guess they got nothing to worry about when Armageddon arrives. The irony of the Second Coming.
Albert| 12.30.09 @ 5:08PM
Todd, Forget about the Baptists. Just follow the constitution. Give your tithe to the homeless.
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 5:06PM
Israel can do what they want because they are a sovereign country. We shouldn't encourage such acts, participate in them, or mop up the aftermath.
Margie| 12.30.09 @ 8:24PM
Hey little wise butt~ Ron Paul voted AGAINST a House Bill (H. Res. 34) entitled: "Recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against attacks..."
~The man doesn't even agree to Israel's right to defend itself. Now, if you're any kind of honest... you'll have to reconsider what you just said, wouldn't you?
http://www.govtrack.us/congres.....;sort=vote
zack| 12.31.09 @ 1:50AM
presumably he voted against it because such resolutions are unconstitutional meddling in the foreign affairs of other countries. It goes without saying that Israel should be able to do whatever it wants and suffer the consequences of its actions.
Leeanne| 12.31.09 @ 5:52AM
"Ron Paul voted AGAINST a House Bill (H. Res. 34) entitled: 'Recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against attacks'..."
He also voted against using taxpayer money for a statue of Mother Teresa ...NOT because he despises Mother Teresa but because he knows that such adulation or censure is not what the American people pay Congress to do.
Albert| 12.31.09 @ 10:22AM
Margie, Paul voted against it because it was not so much pro-Israel as anti-Palestinian, which in turn adds more fuel to Islamic fires. Can't you understand that resolutions phrased like this incites more hatred towards USA? The purpose of the resolution was to curry favor with local constituents, a fragrant violation of their oaths to uphold the Constitution. There is no need for resolutions like this. They are the cause of the Islamic hatred towards the USA. Why do we need to pick sides and expose ourselves like this? To curry favor with the electorate? Well, then we will bear the consequences. The Constitutional approach is not to pick sides in conflicts. Not to arm the one side and give financial aid to the other side. The dire state of our nation's finances is a direct real of these unconstitutional foereign policies.
I address your Israeli concerns and God's plan in a post earlier. Somehow, Christians think God can't do without USA's help in Israel. Funny when you analyze it.
Albert| 12.30.09 @ 5:06PM
Ron Paul believes Israel has the right to defend itself in any way it chooses. It's called a policy of non-interference. It makes friends not enemies. It's constitutional.
Iran can't even refine its own oil, so how will they get the ability to drop nuclear bombs on the US? Think this through, before you swallow the drivel from the neocons.
However, if Iran were to obtain anything close to a nucleur bomb. Israel will destroy the facility before the folk at the United Nations could finish their breakfast. Ron Paul would support that, but the internationalists in Congress (by far the majority of members) will condemn Israel.
Margie| 12.30.09 @ 8:25PM
Read above post.
ChuckD| 12.30.09 @ 4:11PM
What's your drivel based on? Keith Overbite and Mslsd?
:D| 12.30.09 @ 4:22PM
Yay! Let's play the insult game.
What's your drivel based on? Joseph Goebbels and Satan?
:o| 12.30.09 @ 4:25PM
I can has teh game too?
What's your drivel based on? Jeffery Dahmer and Backdoor Boys?
lolcats| 12.30.09 @ 4:27PM
thugaim!
What's your drivel based on? Mike Hunt and Harry Ballsonia?
Nah...| 12.30.09 @ 4:28PM
His "drivel" is probably based on facts...it's amazing how many Republicans like to slander true conservatives with the "Liberal" label...I guess it makes them feel more "Republicanny".
Btw Will, you can also add N. Korea as an example of countries we can't "reason" with(and you don't see us threatening them militarily...cause they already have nukes)...lol...these chickenhawks are a joke...most of them probably haven't done any military service like Dr. Paul. They are all eager to send their own children and those of others for the "cause" as parroted to the by NEOCON buddies like Cheney, Rush, Hannity and the like.
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 5:37PM
The lefties are for welfare, Ron Paul folks are not so much. Pretty easy to tell the two apart, really. Israel will not go anywhere, don't worry, but if they continue the cruelty against the population that they dominate, they deserve whatever comes their way. If we support them, then we too deserve whatever "blowback" comes our way. Again a "Golden Rule" thing. Israel has lots of nukes so if anybody messes with them, Israel will destroy them. I don't want anymore of our tax dollars going to Israel if they continue this apartheid nonsense in the West Bank. Maybe going broke as a nation will serve to be a good thing.
Chris Bieber| 12.30.09 @ 4:17PM
All right bully boy(you STILL aren't over not being picked as 4th Grade Hall Monitor!!!) lets see you and your 'patriotic" American pals load up a plane(or a boat!) full of weapons and go off to Tel Aviv(or Kabul or Teheran)and go defend American Freedom(and our currency!) on the front lines..BE CONSISTANT...besides who needs that old G-D piece of paper Constitution anyway?????
Look forward to seeing your proud beaming face on the news..........thanks for defending MY freedoms and Constitutionally GUARANTEED not! GRANTED rights.....
Tom | 12.30.09 @ 2:34PM
That wasn't an apology. Try again Ben.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQsrYG85WpM
Bob Roddis| 12.30.09 @ 2:36PM
On further consideration, it appears that Mr. Stein is attempting to enforce at least two taboos, both of which are being successfully undermined by Ron Paul:
1. The taboo against discussing foreign interventionism as the source of so many of our problems; and
2. The taboo against exposing the Fed and Keynesian economics as poverty-inducing criminal scams.
Mr. Stein would have been right at home in post-Galileo Italy.
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 3:04PM
Perfect case in point of ignorant Paul fanatic right here. Let us use the Soviet Union as a case in point Bob, they were certainly all about foreign interventionism. Do you consider Reagan a bad President because of his "foreign interventionism" that hastened the fall of the Evil Empire? Do you really think it is possible to go around pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist or should concern us? Do you really believe radical Islamist would leave us alone if we pulled all of our forces out of The Middle East? Only a really ignorant fool believes that.
And what makes you believe Ben Stein is a supporter of Keynesian economics? That is just nonsense. I am not even sure what you mean about him being right at home in post-Galileo Italy. Do you have something against Galileo?
BT| 12.30.09 @ 3:21PM
"Do you really believe radical Islamist would leave us alone if we pulled all of our forces out of The Middle East?"
I do not think it would stop all attacks, but as the CIA stated during the 9/11 commission hearings, they do not hate us for our freedom, they hate us because of past and present occupations of their holy land, which is what Ron Paul was trying to state when Stein played the race card.
So far as the Keynesian comment I think anyone that watches him on TV towing the status quo line of failure and fraud knows he supports the Keynesian theory. Don't do much reading, do ya Todd?
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 4:39PM
What exactly are you referring to as their "holy land"? Is Israel occupying their "holy land"? Ben Stein is no arch conservative but I know he has spoken out very much against the "stimulus" and Obamanomics. I read the Spectator almost every day and Ben Stein is a regular contributor so I know what I am talking about. You are only here I am guessing because you were informed Ben Stein wrote something negative against Ron Paul.
Albert| 12.30.09 @ 5:14PM
"Do you really believe radical Islamist would leave us alone if we pulled all of our forces out of The Middle East?"
No harm in trying, a much cheaper option than the current trillion dollar solution. Occupation fuels insurgency. Take away the cause of the hatred and they will have a problem finding new recruits. Like Vietnam, they will begin to trade with us... nothing ignorant about this kind of reasoning. We are bleeding to death, trying to fight a couple of hundred renegades living in caves. I hope you still have a job, but continue with this idiocy and you will find yourself in an unemployment line. Spending $10,000 per second on this misguided "war" is not sustainable.
zack| 12.31.09 @ 1:51AM
Ben Stein is rich from feeding off the government teat so now we can all screw ourselves. Hey - at least he got his!
Melvin| 12.30.09 @ 2:49PM
Wow, I guess this wouldn't be a good time to declare the world is flat would it?
GEOFFREY LAESSIG| 12.30.09 @ 2:50PM
HEY BEN,
Why did you start shilling for the scammers at "free credit.com".
You know it's dishonest and misleading. They high use high pressure thru fear and fast talk to get the ignorant
general public to give up their credit card info so they can be billed (it's also hard to cancel)
for a service predicated on B___ Sh___. Ben, your doing this for money?
You know as well as I that people of our generation view this kind on behavior a sell out.
By the way, I have a 2 year degree in psychology does that make me a psychologist?
So why are you called an economist? Just wondering.
Oh, why did the NY Times fire you?
Right, I read about your dismissal and was quite pleased with the Times decision.
Come on Ben clean up your act. Integrity is something. It's not just nothing. At your age you should
cherish being know as a person of integrity. I guess you need (want) the money more.
Another example of someone people used to look up to
who isn't really honest when you strip off the makeup, pretense,
and props. Very sad indeed.
An X Fan,
Geo Laesig
Dan May| 12.30.09 @ 3:03PM
No Mr' Stein. You did not say "something like" the same anti-semitic arguement we've heard over and over again. You said, "That IS" the same anti-semitic arguement.
You do know the meaning of "is" don't you? You do know that "is" is not "something like", right?
Take some advice. If you wish to apologize for a mistake, don't begin your apology with a denial of making the mistake.
Roland| 12.30.09 @ 3:06PM
If, in the course of a debate, I suddenly accuse my opponent of being a child molester, I should not be surprised if he becomes angry, demands an apology and interrupts me when I try to continue the debate as though nothing had happened.
Ben, if you want to be “allowed to talk,” then don’t throw terms like “anti-Semitic” around so carelessly.
In response to Dr. Paul’s explanation of what motivates terrorists, you said, “I never heard anything quite like that in my whole life.” Really? If you and Rudy Giuliani can’t understand the phenomenon of people getting mad when American politicians bomb them and occupy their land, then you are too ignorant of human nature to be taken seriously.
blounttruth| 12.30.09 @ 3:12PM
Ben plays his role and follows orders as any good operative should. To state that the U.S. funds Israel with U.S. tax dollars that are returned to AIPAC and end up in the coffers of many of our officials whose loyalties many of today's real thinkers question is not anti Semitic, it is fact.
The Israeli race card is getting old, repeated consistently when ever questioning the policy of the Israeli government, and to think the boldness or ignorant arrogance it must take to attempt a guilt trip against those that liberated the Jewish race especially from a neo conservative is laughable. Ben now has zero credibility and if you were to Google "Ben Stein racist" you might be surprised at the 90,000+ hits, talk about the pot calling the kettle Jew....
vlad| 12.30.09 @ 3:12PM
Shame on you for calling the only honorable person in Washington an anti-semite. Ron Paul has done nothing to get called that. I will forever boycott anything you ever do because of it. Thanks for proving you are just another neocon buffoon.
Roland| 12.30.09 @ 3:21PM
Well said. I wish I had thought of using the word "buffoon." It's one of my favorites to describe politicians and their cheerleaders.
I thought Stein was funny when he played a boring history teacher on TV. He should have stuck to comedy.
Tony in Central PA| 12.30.09 @ 3:17PM
Just to clear something up, how did we end up getting involved in Afghanistan ? Did it just seem like a good country to invade and occupy in order to rob its wealth ?
Eli| 12.30.09 @ 3:23PM
Look, I agree with some of what Ron Paul says about the Fed. I do not think in this instance he was being anti-Semitic and I do not believe that Ben Stein was accusing him of being so.
HOWEVER, it is a FACT that over the years, Ron Paul's newsletter, which is overseen and approved by him, has engaged in racist sentiments toward Jews, Blacks and Hispanic immigrants in the form of Right-Wing "Libertarian" conspiracy theories. LOOK IT UP.
The followers of Ron Paul appear to be turning a blind eye to the man's shortcomings like every other brain-washed follower of a politician.
Roland| 12.30.09 @ 3:50PM
Your comment leads me to suspect that you don't know the difference between a right-winger and a libertarian, or between a libertarian and a Libertarian.
If it's common knowledge that Dr. Paul is such a hate-monger, why don't you quote him directly right here, with links to the evidence? As he has said many times, he can't control what his supporters do and say. What has he said himself that shows "racist sentiments?" Put it in a reply - right now.
What you and your fellow state-worshippers don't understand is that Ron Paul doesn't want anybody to be his follower; he just wants the stinking politicians in D.C. to obey the Constitution - as they have all sworn to do - and leave us alone.
Personally, I became interested in Dr. Paul many years before he ran for president, and it was because his ideas about freedom and constitutional government coincided with what I had been thinking for a long time.
Eli| 12.30.09 @ 11:19PM
The difference between a libertarian and a right-winger: one wears Army Fatigues and one doesn't. The difference between a libertarian and a Libertarian: The shift key on one letter. All, however, listen to Glenn Beck.
Leeanne| 12.31.09 @ 5:58AM
Eli must wish to showcase AND highlight his own ignorance this evening. No Eli they do not "all listen to Glenn Beck". Turn off your tv; you've been sucked into the mainstream characterizations and you apparently came here to prove it.
"Something's happening here, but you don't know what it is ...do you ...Mr. Jones."
re: Vlad| 12.30.09 @ 3:25PM
"Shame on you for calling the only honorable person in Washington an anti-semite. Ron Paul has done nothing to get called that."
Yes he has go read his "newletters".
BT| 12.31.09 @ 12:17AM
Please, by all means post a link to a news letter that Dr. Paul authored with any such comments, I beg of you. While you state there are newsletters that he authored as the media attempted to do, Dr. Paul stated that the news letters had many authors and was put out under his name; he however, never authored said letter (GOOGLE it and find out for yourself, it was on Beck). The question to be asked is “are you a racist”, and it has been asked and answered, Ron Paul stated he was not a racist. Other than hooking him up to the HARRP system, I’m not sure if it gets any clearer than that. It does a heart good to see the partisans coming out of the wood work to parrot vile and slanderous main stream media propaganda into the webosphere, but not as good as it feels knowing how ignorant they are for not educating themselves, government schools much?
re: Vlad| 12.30.09 @ 3:26PM
sorry I meant "newsletter". Was typing in a hurry.
Ying| 12.30.09 @ 3:28PM
I like how all of the defenders of Ron Paul on this forum say something along these lines:
"How dare you call Ron Paul a racist! Now go back to your evil Zioinist Neocon Cabal you Jew!"
Clairy| 12.30.09 @ 5:20PM
Who said that? I can't find that quote anywhere. You must've caught Ben Stein's affliction: pre-emptive accusationism.
re: Clairy| 12.30.09 @ 11:42PM
This is from a poster on this forum:
" Ben Stein is a neocon Zionist scumbag. For him no amount of American gentile blood and treasure is too much to spill in service of the Jews. His only loyalty is to his Jewish people.
Suck it like a mohel, Stein. "
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 5:26PM
Who said this? Oh wait you are spreading unwarranted slander. You won't get any street cred going that route. The truth is just too powerful.
Ying| 12.30.09 @ 11:23PM
Who said it? There numerous responses on this forum saying that Ben stein is nothing more than a shill for the Israeli lobby. Here's one with links to Anti-Zionist Conspiracy Theories:
" Ben Stein uses the anti-Semite 'Trick' (see youtube linked via following URL) against Ron Paul who was spot on with what he conveyed on Larry King the night before last:
The Trick:
http://neoconzionistthreat.blo.....trick.html
Ben Stein, Apologize to Ron Paul:
http://tinyurl.com/BenSteinApologize"
Ying| 12.30.09 @ 11:24PM
Here's another with the dreaded "neocon" insult:
"Shame on you for calling the only honorable person in Washington an anti-semite. Ron Paul has done nothing to get called that. I will forever boycott anything you ever do because of it. Thanks for proving you are just another neocon buffoon."
Leeanne| 12.31.09 @ 6:04AM
Ying,
what you have written is manifestly untrue:
You claimed that one or more Ron Paul supporters addressed someone as "You Jew". None of your quotes show that.
Being anti-Zionist is not antisemitic and many Jews (especially the ones who actually believe in God and have read the Torah) ARE anti-Zionist.
So basically,
you lied.
Consider yourself dismissed.
Ken (OLd Texican)| 12.30.09 @ 3:40PM
Hey folks,
Its another "hate a jew day in the neighborhood" again.
I don't think Ron Paul is an anti-semite...he just wishes Israel would somehow disappear. heh.
One of the little children above talked about " a couple of hundred cave dwellers" heh.
There used to be several dozen thousand "country owners with guns". We killed them...duh. We sent the remainder to their room...uh...caves. heh.
The little child forgets the nukes in Pakistan under assault, and the whack-job Iranian mullahs getting all excited about nuking Israel.
The little dummy doesn't even realize that Israel has been on hair-trigger alert for over twenty years, with enough nukes to be-head every enemy state that hates them.
I think Israel has been very...very...reasonable. They know that when they launch...it is the end.
Please believe me when I tell you...they WILL bring down the temple of the Philistines on their own head...just like Samson....(uh...they will launch on warning.) When their national motto is ..."Never Again", I for one believe them.
We Texicans still remember the Alamo, and honor those men. I shall honor the Israelis for precisely the same reasons.
In the meantime, I will simply laugh at the Ron Paul disciples of cowardice. heh heh
PS, I don't care if jihadists get mad. Get me some beer for my horses and whiskey for my men.
BT| 12.31.09 @ 12:38AM
".he just wishes Israel would somehow disappear. heh. "
Being patriotic and ignorant of fact does not make one more patriotic than another. It just makes one ignorant. Here is the same race card rhetoric that Stein displayed which is based purely on neo conservative propaganda.
To enlighten us all more:
"There used to be several dozen thousand "country owners with guns". We killed them...duh"
So 30,000 troops are going to Afghanistan because we did such a bang up job killing them? Brilliant, are you by chance on the Obama war commission?
"With enough nukes to be-head every enemy state that hates them."
In a Geo political reality, I would dare say that this is factual, and not because of their race, but because of their actions (Israeli gov) For the sake of the Jewish families that simply want ot live their lives I hope you are correct.
I am not sure what the Alamo has to do with Israel, but since your prior post was relatively incoherent I’ll let it slide, but as a Volunteer from Tennessee we too remember the Alamo and how the elitists would not allow troops to assist those brave souls who gave their life, and left them to die. Interesting how history seems to repeat itself through ignorance of fact.
Robert| 12.30.09 @ 3:42PM
Ron Paul gets his foreign policy out of a cracker jack box. We have bases all over the world because we have AGREEMENTS WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS! Get it Ron?? That airbase in the Saudi desert? We have an agreement. That refueling station in Yemen? We have an agreement. Gulf War One? At the pleadings of the Kuwaitis. He asks how would we feel if the Chinese had a base in the U.S. I'd be pissed, and I'd go to D.C. and protest. If necessary, I'd help remove our government by force. What I wouldn't do is go to China and kill 3000 people. See how silly his position is??
Ron Paul's position is akin to saying that criminals break the law simply because cops exist. Nonsense.
Pro-death Lobbyist| 12.30.09 @ 4:05PM
Yes, we should have a military base in every country in the world! We'll have to make sure they pay for our operating costs of course, give us access to their natural resources so my corporate buddies can make huge profits, then make sure the media is on my side to keep the American people scared over these cave-dwellers.
Hopefully we can continue to push on with our Neutron Bomb Project, get it into full swing, that way we won't have to fight a conventional war anymore. We can nuke an entire country, but at least keep the infrastructure intact, while only having to deal with minor radioactive residuals.
The only rational conclusion, to combat Islamo-fascism, is we'll need to turn the entire Middle East into glass, with the exception of Israel of course, they got their own nukes, and can fight with or without America. Granted, who would ever want to bite the hand that feeds us or them?
Face it people, pre-emptive wars of aggression is the in-thing to do. Occupying another land is necessary, even if it means we have to completely obliterate it; there are no innocents, only collateral damage. We are right, you are evil. We'll accept your surrender, once you're dead.
... that's the American way! F*** yeah!
Funny| 12.30.09 @ 4:47PM
Agreements? Do you mean like the "agreement" we have with Japan? The one in which they want us to leave and we are refusing to do so? You mean that agreement?
So which nation was it exactly that came over and killed 3000 of our people? Where do we go to rectify that exactly? Wasn't it like 15 or 16 of the hijackers that were from Saudi Arabia? A couple from Egypt...why aren't we occupying them huh?(or bombing them). Sure, Afghanistan had training camps...but these people weren't "radicalized" there....Robert needs a new view on foreign policy cause his doesn't make any sense.
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 5:01PM
I seriously doubt your first statement as Cracker Jacks are an unhealthy non-organic snack, and last I heard Dr. Paul practices healthy eating practices.
OK seriously though, we have bigger problems than so-called terrorists. I say so-called because they are merely taking issue with our empire's intrusion into their countries. They are using violence which is absolutely wrong but then so do we on a much larger scale.
Being broke is a big problem, and that whole drug war spilling into our border towns, and the fact that the majority of Americans can not do basic math seems to me to be priorities.
"What I wouldn't do is go to China and kill 3000 people." They have to do something that hurts us. Besides we have been foolish enough to march our brave young men and women over there so they can have "legitimate" targets. 8 More today at a forward operation base.
Ron Paul is correct, you are wrong.
The Propagandist | 12.30.09 @ 5:27PM
Robert,
1.) The over 700 bases worldwide that the United States military could have been established after every single citizen of every single foreign nation personally signed a petition asking for them, and they would still be bad for the United States.
2.) The bases are just international welfare. Foreign governments love them because they inject money in the local economy.
3.) It's pretty clear that many foreign people dislike the bases on their land, and actually do protest. (See Korea, Japan, etc.) However, places like Saudi Arabia don't exactly extend the right to free expression considering public demonstrations are forbidden along with criticism of the government.
I think it's clear that the people that take their foreign policy out of a cracker jack box are the clowns that think that this level of international intervention is sustainable, justified, and productive.
zack| 12.31.09 @ 1:57AM
While foreign governments may accept the bribes we pay them to plop a military base in their borders, it most assuredly angers at least *some* of the foreigners we are encroaching on. It only takes one pissed off Nigerian/Yemeni to commit a terrorist act to make people like you wet their panties.
Larry| 12.30.09 @ 3:48PM
Ben Stein in right! Ron Paul is an anti-semite.
Ron Paul opposes US aid to Israel, our "closet ally." US gives Israel only $4 billion a year, which amounts to about $700 per Jew in Israel. They really need the money! Also, Ron Paul opposed the Iraq war, which greatly benifited Israel. Saddam Hussain was an enemy of Israel, and America was right to attack Israel's enemy. Although the Iraq war cost us 4000 US troops lives and 20,000 wounded, Israel is safer today. Thanks America!
There have been many criticism of the Jewish Lobby. The Jewish Lobby is good for America because the Lobby forces Congress to provide aid to Israel, which Israel really needs. We need to understand that America is a great country because America is sacrificing blood and treasure for Israel. The Jewish Lobby with its control of media and finance ensures that Congress continues support for Israel. Thanks again America!
BT| 12.31.09 @ 1:06AM
Please, your source? Ron Paul has questioned how we can claim Israel as an ally when we give twice as much foreign aid to their enemies; his position is to clean things up at home so more people are able to help others, not a specific attack on Israel. Aside from that, there are many more nations in far greater need of assistance than Israel, where did you come to the conclusion that the American tax payer owes Israel blood and treasure? Most of the welfare the U.S. sends to Israel comes back to line politicians pockets here at home through lobbyists, and most never reaches Israeli families. If it is your idea that governments are sending anything anywhere to help everyday people, then perhaps it is you that needs to fashion a tin foil hat.
Leeanne| 12.31.09 @ 6:08AM
I think Larry was employing sarcasm in his comment.
^.^
BT| 12.31.09 @ 9:21AM
Your right... 8P
Man it is getting late and I am yet to find a worthy arguement...
Jack| 12.30.09 @ 3:53PM
Ken, I know a lot of Texans, some of them old, and I don't believe you are a Texan or even live there now. If you were, you would "remember" that the Alamo was a battle against Mexico, but San Antonio is now a Mexican colony. So who won? You are a phony. And if you are not a phony, then it is great knowing you, Happy New Year!
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.30.09 @ 4:30PM
Well hi, Jack.
Nice to know you too.
Yep, six generations Texan. Texican means one's ancestors were here during the Alamo battle. heh.
Mine were.
Other than traveling the world for twenty years as CEO of two fortune companies, I have lived here all my life.
PS: we won. That is why Mexicans still flee Mexico for a better life, and where the cop on the corner is still our friend.
I have laughed with many "wetbacks" over a beer. They are SOOOOO proud of that border.
On the Mexican side...total corruption. On our side, not very much....on a personal basis.
Because of that, like George W....I am a little ambivalent. Some of our finest Texans have a hispanic family name.
Best regards
Ken
BT| 12.31.09 @ 1:16AM
Wow, a U.S. CEO towing the status quo talking points.... there's a shocker. The special part I liked most is calling Ron Paul out by stating in your first post...
"Its another "hate a jew day in the neighborhood" again."
and then to throw the old:
I have laughed with many "wetbacks" over a beer. They are SOOOOO proud of that border.
“An ounce of hypocrisy is worth a pound of ambition.”
Ludwig Von Mises| 12.30.09 @ 4:00PM
Alas, Mr. Stein's slanderous non sequitur on Larry King shortcircuited what could have been an interesting debate on whether the U.S.'s playing World Police has helped a bankrupt America become a) freer; b) more prosperous; or c) safer. I think the conclusion is obvious, but the issue would have borne some serious discussion and certainly would have provided a refreshing departure from the usually frivolous banter that passes for "analysis" on CNN and elsewhere. Too bad the unfounded and out-of-leftfield hysteria from Mr. Stein prevented that. Bizarre comment, certainly, and spewed forth at a most inopportune time. For the viewers: better luck next time.
Pingback| 12.30.09 @ 4:03PM
Ben Stein vs Ron Paul | Conservative Heritage Times links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 4:13PM
I am with Ron Paul on this one. Ben Stein should apologies or risk looking like a fool in light of his misguided insult. Ron Paul just espouses truth, and it is awfully hard to argue with truth over the long haul.
Dean| 12.30.09 @ 4:17PM
Ron Paul doesn't believe in foriegn aid funds being forcibly removed from Taxpayers, on principle. These other people like Stein have agendas, not principles.
Vortex of Freedom| 12.30.09 @ 4:20PM
If these wars are so important to support, then why can't neither a Republican congress or a Democratic congress declare war as mandated in the Constitution?
James| 12.30.09 @ 4:30PM
The terrorist hate us because of Ben Stein after listening to that annoying voice for more than 5 second I want to committ sucide LOL...
Bob| 12.30.09 @ 4:42PM
Never forget that this eye wash salesman and pimp for rip-off credit scams demands that tens of billions of your tax dollars be given to corrupt foreign governments.
Ben is for endless intervention that costs people like YOU a fortune! And all this intervention does is make enemies for YOU.
Why can't people see through this eye wash salesman?
Dan McCall | 12.30.09 @ 4:51PM
Stein says he's "never heard anything quite like that" when Paul talks about policy decisions creating an atmosphere of terrorism--or "blowback". If you've never heard of "blowback" then you aren't qualified to speak on the subject. It's just that simple.
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 4:53PM
It appears that Ben Stein is receiving considerable "blowback" here, and I am loving it!
Dan McCall | 12.30.09 @ 4:59PM
That's right. Now Stein might understand the concept of blowback. This is a good lesson for him.
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 4:52PM
"I was about to add that I was sure that Rep. Paul was not going that far. But Rep. Paul became so upset that I could not get in a word."
Sure, it is always easy to ante up such things in hindsight. By the way I liked you in that Bueller thingy.
Ed | 12.30.09 @ 4:59PM
America's blood and treasure is being sucked by Israel and its agents. If you point out the obvious facts, you are labeled an antisemite. Jews control the movie industry, sucking dollars from consumers. Jews control the jewelry industry, again sucking dollars from fools. Jews control the gambling industry (including ownership of so called Indian casinos), sucking money from fools. Jews control porn industry, sucking money from people. Of course, they control finance which is a high margin industry. Jews like Ben Stein, Suze Orman and others come on TV to tell us how we should manage our money. Are any of the foregoing statements incorrect?
William | 12.30.09 @ 5:04PM
"This is my message to the American people: to look for a serious government that looks out for their interests and does not attack others, their lands, or their honor. And my word to American journalists is not to ask why we did that but ask what their government has done that forced us to defend ourselves." ~Osama bin Laden
I think our terror problem might have to do with our foreign policy. Asking the government to solve our problems overseas when it can't even defend our liberties at home is an irrational mistake.
Stein needs to get out more.
Tom| 12.30.09 @ 5:10PM
Ben Stein needs a real job. Put the parasite to work in a farm.
NotBen S, andThankGod for that| 12.30.09 @ 5:11PM
Ben,
Its not anti-semitic to point out the fact that Israel occupies Palestine. It is not anti-semitic to point out the fact that the US helps fund this occupation. These are facts...
It is also not anti-semitic to criticize the Israeli occupation. It is also not anti-semitic to criticize US support for the occupation.
The real villian here is you and people like you that us the charge of anti-semetism to avoid constructive debates on any number of subjects...in this case with Ron Paul the suject of US imperialism... but mainly Israel/Palestine...
It should offend everyone that actually experiences genuine anti-semetism. You should be ashamed of yourself...
MT Patriot| 12.30.09 @ 5:12PM
I wonder, as Dick Nixon's speech writer, whether Mr. Stein wrote the consummate politician Dick's now famous & long-continued pro-nationalist government line, "I am not a crook!"
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 5:17PM
Janet Napolitano better get her subordinates to get their grooves on in this forum because there are many educated, well spoken, thoughtful people here that she would say mean to do America harm.
Clairy | 12.30.09 @ 5:55PM
So true. DHS is so focused on labeling ordinary citizens as "hate groups" and terrorists, that they can't be bothered to write down the name of the muslim guy whose Dad informed the American Embassy that his son is likely to commit a terrorist act.
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 6:16PM
Ya you wonder what more the CIA/DHS need to do their jobs. This whole underwear thing is ridiculous. That guy's testicles have to be wishing the CIA would have connected the dots sooner.
Clairy| 12.31.09 @ 12:32PM
Underwear Bombs: Terrorist Plot or Hazing Ritual?
And how will these incompetents "correct" their own stupidity? By more fully invading the privacy of law-abiding citizens! Ah, the wisdom of a bloated, out-of-control government!
Albert| 12.30.09 @ 5:24PM
Bloomberg reports, Dec 30, Eight American civilians were killed today in a suicide-bomb attack on a U.S. military base in Afghanistan, a U.S. official said.
A single attacker was responsible for the blast, which also caused an unspecified number of injuries, according to the official, who asked not to be identified.
A Pentagon spokeswoman, Lieutenant Colonel Almarah Belk, said the Americans died in an explosion at Forward Operating Base Chapman in Khost province. Belk said she didn’t know what installations or agencies are located at the base.
Can anyone explain their deaths to us? Were they in Afghansitan to enrich the shareholders of companies comprising the military industrial complex; the ones that bankroll the campaigns of the neocons?
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 5:28PM
"Can anyone explain their deaths to us? Were they in Afghansitan to enrich the shareholders of companies comprising the military industrial complex; the ones that bankroll the campaigns of the neocons?"
In a word yes. The attack was "blowback" on a forward operations base most likely staffed with intelligence folks. Hate to see good men wasted for ill-advised interventions.
Jacob| 12.30.09 @ 5:40PM
Must burn poppies, must convince Afghans to plant soybeans instead. Must burn poppy fields.....
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 5:27PM
I don't think it's fair to call someone anti-Semitic because he is against the US government spending US taxpayer money to aid foreign governments, Israel or any other foreign government.
Todd 1st| 12.30.09 @ 5:42PM
You should realize I have already posted and use a different name. Ron Paul is not an anti-Semite, just an idiot. I watched the video and he is a fool. I guess we should just leave the terrorist alone in Yemen making plots to kill us like with Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan before 9/11. Stop drinking the Paul kool-aid
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 5:47PM
We can support Yemen against elements within their borders if it is prudent, but we should not conduct military operations inside of sovereign nations. I am with the founders and Ron Paul on this one. If you believe Dr. Paul is an idiot then Todd 1st = fool + idiot.
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 5:52PM
So you are saying we should have done nothing to Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan before 9/11 because the Taliban would not give us permission? Do I have you right? Thumbs up to Bill Clinton and his lawyers
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 6:00PM
I would say that we probably should have connected the dots when these guys were in our own country. If Osama is in the dersert with a clear shot and no civilians around as was the case then fine, especially considering the fact that Afghanistan was not a recognized sovereign entity on the world's stage.
I will reiterate what a commenter said earlier:
""This is my message to the American people: to look for a serious government that looks out for their interests and does not attack others, their lands, or their honor. And my word to American journalists is not to ask why we did that but ask what their government has done that forced us to defend ourselves." ~Osama bin Laden "
60 years of bad relations with Iran falls at the doormat of the CIA.
Cuba: That whole Bay of Pigs thing didn't help.
Iraq/Iran: CIA, etc. support for both sides to bloodlet didn't help our standing in their eyes.
Tenet pushing suspect intelligence at the UN to support an illegal undeclared war didn't help.
The founders and Ron Paul are right.
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 6:15PM
Ben,
Do you really take Al Qaeda propaganda as fact? Do you really buy into the Al Qaeda freedom fighter canard? How am I suppose to take you Ron Paul people seriously when you spout Al Qaeda propaganda to support your argument? How is Yemen any different then Afghanistan before 9/11? And do you think any war can be fought without civilian casualties? Like we shouldn't drop a bomb on Bin Laden because he has his harem and future terrorist brood with him? Its the same excuse the Israel haters use to support Hamas and any strikes Israel makes against them when they hide around schools like cowards.
The CIA screws up all the time like they did with this scum from Nigeria, does that mean we should have no intelligence agency or be concerned what foreign enemies might be up to? What is your point about The Bay of Pigs? We were wrong to interfere with Castro and having the Soviets put nukes there? Don't equate Ron Paul with the founders, they are not one and the same.
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 6:23PM
Yes I think Osama articulated very sensible statements if the translations are correct. America has killed far more civilians since Al-Qaedas inception than Al-Qaeda could ever dream of. The fact is that we are a belligerent power that is creating enemies right and left with our foreign policy profligacy. It is interesting with all the threats we hurl towards Iran for instance: The US a nation who attacks someone new every other year or so and a nation that has drop two nukes on population centers is telling Iran they can't have nukes, Iran a nation that hasn't attacked anyone preemptively in over 100 years, because Iran threatens Israel a country practicing cruel apartheid against people Iran identifies with. Am I missing something. The whole thing is a big joke.
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 6:41PM
"Don't equate Ron Paul with the founders, they are not one and the same." He's the closest thing we got dude. The rest are bought and paid for through our corporate fascist state.
re: Ben| 12.30.09 @ 11:31PM
Geez, I don't know if Ron Paul is like our founding fathers. At least not like one who authorized the navy to fight Islamic Pirates (terrorists) off the coast of Africa WITHOUT authorizing or even telling Congress he was going to do so. That would be Thomas Jefferson.
Ben| 12.31.09 @ 12:07PM
Ron Paul did just suggest marque and reprisal against the Somali pirates so in that sense he is very much like a founder.
Clairy | 12.30.09 @ 6:10PM
Sounds like another case of Ben Stein's disease: predict what someone may or may not believe, then make groundless accusations. (Later, reiterate your baseless accusation, but frame it as a form of "apology".)
BT| 12.31.09 @ 1:36AM
Todd, once again with the logic... So in your mindset if a blood or crypt gang member commits murder in China, China is justified in killing innocents in the U.S. and occupying our nation? You have no clue what it is like over there for families who are simply trying to feed their families while the bombs fall on their loved ones, but it is a great recruiting tool for the terrorists. I know you will not be convinced of fact or truths as I was a blind follower of those that cared not for me or mine at one time, an awakening relies on long and hard research of the facts, and turning off Fox news 24/7. Perhaps you should study on Goldwater conservatism versus Neo conservatism and find out that the policies you support today were the radical leftist ideals of the 60’s, and as another policy the neo-con movement desires to rule over the people as subjects, not as a representative government, and we see the effects of this today. Once you understand that you have been had you might learn more, but supporting failed policies from the neo-cons will never serve to better America as a nation, or its citizens.
Todd| 12.31.09 @ 9:49AM
I consider myself a Goldwater-Reagan conservative. Your China analogy makes no sense whatsoever. So you apparently think it was a great recruiting tool going into Afghanistan after 9/11? Tell me how you felt on 9/11? Do you follow the Rev Wright reasoning that it was our chickens coming home to roost? It sure seems like to me alot of you Paulites follow the Rev Wright reasoning, good company eh? Bill Ayers would find common ground with you and Ron Paul about how it is our fault and yet you accuse me of supporting policies of radicals of the 60's. Time to rethink your philosophy and stop the blame game against the "neo-cons", the favorite phrase of the far-leftist Berkley hippie freaks.
Ben| 12.31.09 @ 12:06PM
Actually his China analogy does make sense. It turns things on their flipside in which we are the target for rogue citizens committing crimes in other countries. You need to learn to read Todd and try to slow down and understand what you are reading.
Todd| 12.31.09 @ 12:56PM
Let me know if a blood or crypt tries to blow up a passenger plane on its way to China and maybe it would make sense. Otherwise it is a pointless analogy which has nothing to do with it. See how you equate terrorism as a crime, you sound like Obama loser.
Tim| 12.30.09 @ 5:28PM
Many posts accused Ben Stein of being stupid, moron, etc. Ben Stein and other Jewish agents of Israel are not stupid nor are they moron. They understand that America was attacked on 9/11 because of our support of Israel. They understand Arabs hate us because of our military support of Israel. These Jews fear that if ordinary Americans discover this link between our support of Israel and terrorism, Americans may force our government to end support of Israel. So, they continue to promote lies such as terrorist attacked us because of our freedom. Because our mainstream media is wholly owned by Jews, these parasites have unrestricted access to propagate the lies.
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 5:49PM
Jew haters and Ron Paul fanatics unite in a common cause. If we could just get Israel removed from the map and beg for their forgiveness, we could all just live in love and peace. You see Osama is just a freedom fighter against the Israeli occupation and we should have just let Hitler finish the job and this whole mess could have been avoided. We know Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance because we have been told that many times so just ignore all the evidence otherwise. What we need to be focused on is "right-wing" hate groups, Janet Napolitano has her eye on the ball and we should not be distracted by the Nigerian "freedom fighter".
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 6:06PM
On the contrary misguided patriot, a mistake was made in 1948, but what is done is done. I support their right to exist, but I do not want my tax dollars supporting their cruel apartheid in the occupied territories. Israel is a cruel nation that is expanding their settlements to increase their holdings. They care not for peace, but rather for domination. Hitler and Osama are quite different. Hitler practiced preemptive war as we now do. Osama is responding to occupation and foreign efforts to prop up corrupt dictators within Arab nations. There is a huge difference, but then again you are a right wing neocon-type.
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 6:22PM
You have fully expose yourself as an anti-Semite piece of crap. You and others like you (you do realize you are siding with the far-left about Israel don't you) would throw Israel to the wolves but that would not satisfy them and would in fact encourage them more. They want the whole World dominated by radical Islam and sharia law and they have stated many times over. Osama is evil incarnate whatever excuses you make for him, he would slit the throat of any non-believer given the chance. Islamic fascism is as worse an ideology as Nazism and they deserve the same fate.
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 6:28PM
You have fully expose yourself as an anti-American piece of crap. You and others like you are bankrupting our country to support entities that are immoral.
"They want the whole World dominated by radical Islam and sharia law and they have stated many times over. " Don't let them immigrate. Europe has made a big mistake here. We agree on this one to some degree.
"Osama is evil incarnate whatever excuses you make for him" If this is true then so are we to the other half of the world. Again we have killed many more civilians than he could ever dream of.
"Islamic fascism is as worse an ideology as Nazism and they deserve the same fate. "Yep no fan of either, nor corporate fascism for that matter. We agree on this one, but it is important to realize that Islamic fascism rears its ugly head every time we force our will on them for resources, etc. The "Golden Rule". Again you are misguided. The founders were right.
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 6:40PM
I am anti-American because I don't blame America for Osama Bin Laden's action? Israel is bankrupting America really? $4 billion from an almost $4 trillion deficit, that must be it. I am not really a fan of foreign aid really but I make an exception for Israel because if Israel goes down, it will only encourage their wicked ideology even further. It is like thinking giving Hitler Austria would satisfy him and we would have "peace in our time."
Force our will on them for their resources? Yeah, we went to Iraq for oil and nothing to do with Saddam Hussein breaking every truce that was made and his support for suicide bombers. There is no Golden Rule in Islam, you must have it confused with Christianity. I wouldn't advise turning your cheek to Osama and his friends, your head might go missing in short order.
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 6:41PM
I meant to say budget and not deficit.
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 6:49PM
"I am anti-American because I don't blame America for Osama Bin Laden's action? " That is too bad. You will never understand, and America will not be on top forever. It will suck to possibly on the receiving end.
"if Israel goes down, it will only encourage their wicked ideology even further. "No it won't. There extremism is fueled by policies against them whether they originate in America, Israel or somewhere else. I have my guns ready. They will not convert me no matter how much your fear mongering states the contrary.
"Hitler Austria would satisfy him and we would have "peace in our time."Hitler would never succeed at taking over the world for the same reasons we can't. Stop with this Hitler nonsense.
"Yeah, we went to Iraq for oil"This is exactly why we are there. Don't kid yourselves. Remember oil was supposed to pay for the inexpensive war and then some. Give me a break.
"There is no Golden Rule in Islam"Yes there is. Didn't you read the quote from Osama I showed you. They kill us because we kill them. What goes around comes around. The Golden Rule has origins in Islam, Christianity, and Buddism among others.
"I wouldn't advise turning your cheek to Osama and his friends, your head might go missing in short order. "More fear mongering. Fortunately I understand their hatred whereas you do not. This is the problem we have in this country. A bunch of people in denial full of American hubris.
"Israel is bankrupting America really? $4 billion from an almost $4 trillion deficit, that must be it. " You misinterpreted what I said. I said entities. This is much greater than just Israel.
re: Todd| 12.30.09 @ 11:34PM
I'm starting to think that Janet Napolitano's warning about Right-Wing Hatred was right: A lot of these right wing, libertarian, Ron Paul-worshipping types share a lot of opinions with members of Al-Qaeda. I should have just stayed on National Review. Sigh.
Todd| 12.31.09 @ 9:56AM
The Ron Paul freaks are interloping on this fine site of conservative thought. Janet Nap might be on to something but surely not in the way she thinks as she probably has the same thoughts about Israel and how it is our fault like the Ron Paul freaks. Its like talking with Jehovah Witnesses with these people, they cannot be reasoned with.
Ben| 12.31.09 @ 12:03PM
If you ask me, I think I articulated my points rather well. Where do you take issue? You are good at hurling insults, but not very good at making coherent truthful statements grounded in fact.
Ben| 12.31.09 @ 12:01PM
Hurling insults at truth tellers. Nice. Again you are part of the problem.
Todd| 12.31.09 @ 1:04PM
Are you a "truther" as well? Tell me Ben, was 9/11 our chickens coming home to roost? Believe me, I am not concerned at all about you converting to Islam and they don't care either. Conversion is not their MO, death and destruction is. The Golden Rule came from Jesus Christ directly, you show your ignorance in claiming it has orgins in Islam and it has nothing to do with killing people. The Golden Rule is to do good unto others like you would like them to do good unto you. One of the dumbest claims I have ever heard, why should I take you seriously when you spout nonsense like that?
Albert| 1.1.10 @ 11:27AM
"Israel is bankrupting America really? $4 billion..."
Your math skills are deficient... so far, one trillion dollars and counting... $10,000 per second cost of war dot org....
JMC0369| 12.30.09 @ 5:35PM
Another Retired Marine here, and boy I want to distance my self from the left/right thinking that that the retired Marine who posted earlier displayed. He needs a little more time to get deprogrammed!
Jon
Jon
hardrain77| 12.30.09 @ 6:03PM
Exactly. Most every war throughout history has one side representing the side of Imperial domination and occupation. Power, money, greed, and the right to kill thousands of people . That's been the aphrodisiac of wars throughout history. Support the troops is what they tell you. "Cannon fodder" is what they call them. Just because you've been brought up to believe differently doesn't make the war you support any less wrong.
Our are we just going to hope to find out when our dollar collapses, our wealth is totally stripped, all our industries are in third world countries, our freedoms eroded and we wind up like Thomas Jefferson once said, "homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
James| 12.30.09 @ 5:57PM
Ben,
If you think we can support puppet dictators and tyrannical regimes in Muslim countries like we have been for almost 60 years and not face any blowback, then I have nice shiny new bridge I'd like to sell you.
Our foreign policy is called "Wilsonian" for a reason and has remained unchanged for almost 100 years now. The ideology of "making the world safe for democracy" has nothing to do with conservatism; that is, unless you want to acknowledge Woodrow Wilson as a conservative. Do you acknowledge Woodrow Wilson as a conservative Mr. Stein? You, and all neocons for that matter, can advocate our foreign policy if you want, but don't call it conservative. It is not remotely conservative. Nor is it "unpatriotic" to question our government's motivations for going to war. How is it unpatriotic want to preserve life and wealth? I've been reading/listening to Ron Paul for a long time now and I've never seen him denigrate our troops. Whenever he has something bad to say about our military actions I have always seen/heard him say "we" meaning America collectively or our government. How would we feel if another foreign government like China were doing the same things to us? When (not if) China surpasses us in economic and military hegemonic power will they have the right to open military bases on our soil and conduct operations? We would be outraged! We might even be willing to blow ourselves up or fight to the death to drive them out.
You also cannot make the argument that liberals are anti-war anymore. Now that their guy is in office they seem to be all for it.
As a constitutional conservative I must say that people like you, Rush, Hannity, O'Reily, Palin, Levin, Bortz, Gingrich, Pence, Romney, Huckabee, etc definitely do not speak for me. The lot of you offer no intellectual honesty or gentility to any of the arguments put before us. All of you mostly resort to talking over people and name calling. I thought such was just liberal shtick? I guess not. It just tells me that you are afraid that your argument is weak. I would much rather listen to Rep. Walter Jones, Ron Paul, Thomas Woods, and Andrew Napolitano. People who, more than written speeches, have actually studied the matters at hand and think a speak with conviction.
AlPon| 12.30.09 @ 6:01PM
Hurray, hurray ... some of us are finally getting to the 'real' truth. The world IS controlled by a few hundred, maybe a thousand or so, ultra rich, ultra secretive families. For all who still wonder why and for those that can't seem to understand what's going on in the world. For all those still divided by petty differences. For all those that still have a partisan mindset. In other words; us vs. them and Dems vs. Repubs. Let me present the ultimate evidence of world wide manipulation and control. Written over 150 years ago, by the evil doers, for the evil doers, this document has been denied by them as bigotry. But after you read it and see that all the plans and proficies have come to fruition there can be no denying the truth. They never denied the existance of this document, only to say it is racist and bigoted. They never deny the contents thereof. For over 100 years it has been hidden and censored.
Every citizen of the planet needs to read this book. It will rock your world and you will never be or think the same afterwards. I'm not selling anything. Unlike so many web sites trying to get rich by informing us of what we should already be aware of. My only motive is too circulate this publication. To help the citizens of the US and the world in general to see and discern the truth. The REAL truth.
At the risk of disappearing or being 'rubbed out' I am revealing this to all the world. The name of this tome is "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion". If you can't find it with your browser, as I said, they want this kept under wraps, I will provide it free as a WORD or PDF document. Just request a copy from alanponelli@hotmail.com. I will promptly reply and attach said doc to my email.
Let’s see how many people have a quest for the truth or just like to hear their own gums slam together.
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 6:26PM
Like I said earlier, Jew haters and Ron Paul fanatics unite. Ben Stein was absolutely correct, no apology necessary.
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 6:29PM
Your statement multiplied by a (-1).
Leeanne| 12.31.09 @ 6:26AM
"Like I said earlier, Jew haters and Ron Paul fanatics unite."
Yes you wrote it earlier and it looks just as paranoid and desperate this time as last time.
Todd| 12.31.09 @ 10:01AM
Does it not concern you that someone like this AlPon freak voices his approval for Ron Paul and his "truth" and tells us we need to read "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"? Is that the kind of company you want to keep? I know you don't want to admit to yourself but you are siding with some very bad people, the Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright's of the world that America and the CIA is to blame.
Ben| 12.31.09 @ 11:59AM
I do not freak about these things. I am interested in acquiring truth from a host of reliable sources. I am well aware of the propaganda out there, don't worry. I believe if you look hard enough, the truth becomes pretty obvious.
Ben| 12.31.09 @ 12:00PM
Oh and by the way, the CIA is to blame for all sorts of stuff. I believe they probably should exist, but the funding should be reduced and there budget declassified. Don't tell us what you do with the money, just tell us what tax payers are on the hook for in order to spread more chaos.
re: Alpon| 12.30.09 @ 11:39PM
Alex Jones couldn't have said it better.
Re: Idiot| 12.31.09 @ 1:12PM
THE PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION! You have quite the debating skills.You are an idiot and a buffoon. That has proven to be an anti-Semitic fraud and hoax.
Lay off the Glenn Beck and Alex Jones.
Nick | 12.30.09 @ 6:04PM
Mr. Stein, before you write a piece from "memory" describing an event that was recorded on video, do yourself a favor and watch the video first. What you have written implies that either your memory is horrible (to the point you may need to visit a neurologist) or you are a flat out liar. Since I'm assuming you know that anyone that would read this would also be able to pull up the clip on YouTube and would then know you are liar, my money is on some type of neurological disorder. Please seek help.
I thought when you made a fool of yourself telling everybody that Merrill Lynch was a "steal" at $75 bucks a share and that the financial sector of the economy was "strong", that would be the last we'd see of you. Have you no shame?
We established last year that Dr. Paul understands economics better than you. We established this year that Dr. Paul understands foreign policy better than you. What do you have lined up for next year?
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 6:29PM
Does Ron Paul have any good stock picks I should know about? Should I buy gold or not? Please inform me, I don't want the Jews to steal my money by giving me bad stock advice.
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 6:34PM
Didn't Ben Stein convince you to go after those well run financials?
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 7:03PM
I didn't know Ben Stein was a stock analysis or broker. Pretty sure my broker doesn't take advice from Ben Stein on what stocks to buy but I will ask next time. Tell me more about Ron Paul's investment advice though, I know those greedy Jews want to screw me.
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 7:09PM
He apparently bought a bunch of gold when it was around $35 or so. He has probably done quite well. Wish I would have known about him and his economic reasoning earlier in my life.
Leeanne| 12.31.09 @ 6:30AM
"Tell me more about Ron Paul's investment advice though, I know those greedy Jews want to screw me."
I think you're being phenomenally unfair to Jewish people, Todd. I know some Jewish people and they are among the most generous people I've ever met.
[I would advise you to buy that gold and hide it in your straw man].
Todd| 12.31.09 @ 10:05AM
If you follow the thread, you know I am being sarcastic because Ben (not Stein) and others blame Jews for about everything.
Ben| 12.31.09 @ 12:11PM
Yes Todd is the guy that is all for the empire that is bankrupting us.
re: Todd| 12.30.09 @ 11:41PM
Of course you buy should buy gold dude! Glenn Beck tells us that every day. Be sure to stock up on storable food and machine guns first.
And Ron Paul's new book.
Ben| 12.31.09 @ 12:12PM
Obviously you are no Boy Scout. Be Prepared. Hope for the best, expect the worst. Don't get caught with your pants down.
re : Ben| 12.31.09 @ 2:18PM
What???
James Arft| 12.30.09 @ 6:17PM
Ben Stein is a very intelligent intellectual. Actually, what Ben Stein was saying is that anyone who questions our foreign policy in the Middle East or elsewhere should be suspected of being anti semitic. He fears that questions will lead to questions about Israel's foreign policy and its actions towards others. So, instead of dealing with the issue of our involvement in the affairs of others he chose to begin name calling with the tired old slogan anti semite. Get a life Ben. Deal with the issues.
John C. Randolph| 12.30.09 @ 7:06PM
"Ben Stein is a very intelligent intellectual"
If you actually believe that, then you really need to find some smarter people to spend time with. Stein is an ignoramus, as he demonstrated with his movie "expelled", which should have been titled "flunked".
Stein is moderately articulate, and far too many people confuse that with intellect.
-jcr
Mike| 12.30.09 @ 6:29PM
Win Ben Stein's Apology? Not in this article. That "old saying" of being anti-semite is exactly what YOU used in your argument. No wonder Congressman Paul got so upset. Try a real apology next time. Try expanding your library as well with any of the three books by Chalmers Johnson (especially Blowback). Someone also suggested reading "War is a Racket" = another good choice. Maybe spend some time reading those, to understand Ron Paul's argument, instead of typing more meaningless diary entries that we don't read in this magazine anyway.
hardrain77| 12.30.09 @ 6:30PM
Most every war throughout history has one side representing the side of Imperial domination and occupation. Power, money, greed, and the right to kill thousands of people . That's been the aphrodisiac of wars throughout history. Support the troops is what they tell you. "Cannon fodder" is what they call them. Just because you've been brought up to believe differently doesn't make the war you support any less wrong.
Or are we just going to hope to find all this out when our dollar collapses, our wealth is totally stripped and funneled into the hands of the super-wealthy banksters, all our industries are in third world countries with non-union and no bathroom breaks slave labor, our freedoms eroded and we proudly wind up like Thomas Jefferson once said, "homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
Franco| 12.30.09 @ 6:41PM
How utterly disgusting of Ben Stein to stoop to such measures.
This is truly a new low.
But it shows how afraid the MSM and the alleged "right" plan to deal with an objective factual argument... by stooping to labeling one of America's most righteous and honorable men as an anti-semite!
Truly disgusting, you have lost all respect and credibility I once gave you. To slander a great man's name as you have is criminal.
John C. Randolph| 12.30.09 @ 7:10PM
You forget that Ben was once a minion of Tricky Dick Nixon. While I agree with you that his smear of Dr. Paul was low, I would be greatly surprised if it's the worst that Ben Stein has ever done.
-jcr
Shalom Ben Shlomo| 12.30.09 @ 6:41PM
Ben Stein is a neocon Zionist scumbag. For him no amount of American gentile blood and treasure is too much to spill in service of the Jews. His only loyalty is to his Jewish people.
Suck it like a mohel, Stein.
Sam| 12.30.09 @ 6:44PM
Todd, the Jew, has several posts defending Israel and warning us of the "great danger of Islam." Todd, the Jewish Lobby has recruited hundreds of Jews to flood the Internet with pro-Israel propaganda. Todd, why don't you and others like you recognize that you can't fool all the people all the time. You guys have fooled America for the last 30 years, and times are changing. Why don't you understand Jews were persecuted because of their conspiring, scheming, fraudulent activities?
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 6:55PM
"Why don't you understand Jews were persecuted because of their conspiring, scheming, fraudulent activities? "
Agreed with you totally until the last sentence. They have been unfairly treated pre-Israel. Now hatred towards them can unfortunately be justified.
Todd| 12.30.09 @ 7:01PM
Sam the anti-Semite,
I am a Christian but I support the right of Israel to exist and not be murdered by Islamic fascists. Do you really think the Palestinians and Hamas believe in a 2-State solution? They have the same solution as Hitler did, the final solution. Have you finished reading The Protocols of the Elders of Zion yet? Please tell me how about Islam is a religion of peace and how Mohammad was not actually a barbaric warlord but a chosen prophet of God? For the record, I have several Muslim friends but I won't pretend that Islam is a religion of peace and that Sharia law is nothing to be concerned about. They would be the moderate Muslims who don't believe infidels should be killed but there are plenty that do like that Nigerian scum.
BT| 12.31.09 @ 2:15AM
Todd, the anti American,
It is clear now that this is a religious issue for you, and you could have saved many a post to make it clear you are prejudice towards Muslims. Have you ever been to Israel and witnessed the racial attacks towards the Palestinian people?
Have you met a Palestinian family trying to survive the onslaught from mechanical weapons of mass destruction? Have you ever been put in a hopeless situation where you do not know if you will survive the night? I do not know a single Ron Paul supporter (and I know many) that do not agree that radical Muslims should be stopped, but to attempt to stand on a moral high ground as your tax dollars pay for the killing and/or torture of men, women and children that never intended on attacking Americans or Israeli’s is justified is simply ignorant. Israel deserves our friendship, but not our blood and treasure as the media propaganda has sold you that every single Palestinian lays wait with their suicide bomb in tact for the chance kill a Christian, this is simply not so. As I have now read every post here, I am yet to see where you get off saying that Ron Paul supporters want Israel erased? I stand for all Israeli’s and Palestinian's that want peace, and there are many, but your beloved government cannot profit off of peace so they stir the hornets’ nest of a people with nothing left to loose. I am not sure why that is so hard to understand, but then again I do not understand your bigoted stance towards Muslims other than you watch way too much cable news. We do not support terrorism in any fashion, but we can imagine that to be on the other end of an Israeli tank gun while throwing stones could cause terror in anyone, its called being human. Until you can break from your shell and accept as a Christian that abortion is wrong, how can you support the constant killing of Muslim children unless you think it is justified via your Christian beliefs. Please enlighten us and explain that part of the bible...
Todd| 12.31.09 @ 10:18AM
Yes I am prejudiced against Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, The Muslim Brotherhood, "moderate" Fatah. For Muslims that just to want to actually live in peace and not consider everyone else infidels, not so much. They certainly outnumber those that will kill for Islam but enough of them tacitly approve to make Islam a huge threat to mankind. Putting your head in the sand about this reality won't make it go away. Israel has made many concessions to the Palestinians but it is never enough because what their leaders want is nothing more than the destruction of Israel. Just go back to the year 2000 and see what happened when Israel was bending over backwards to Arafat only to have a viscous murderous suicide bombing campaign launched against them. That opened my eyes to the reality of what Israel faces, an implacable enemy that craves their blood for religious and political reasons. You might follow the Jimmy Cater appeasement model but I sure as hell do not.
Albert| 12.31.09 @ 11:40AM
Ron Paul and Jimmy Carter are poles apart. Paul is strictly Constitutional. Carter is the liberal's liberal. Your argument doesn't wash.
Ben| 12.31.09 @ 11:55AM
Thought you might find this interesting:\
Israel fostered and funded Hamas to counter Fatah back in the day. We funded and trained Osama and his buds to counter the Soviets. We funded Iran to fight the Iraqis. We funded Saddam and provided questionable weapons to fight the Iranians. Hezbollah represents Shiites in Lebanon who have been politically and financially marginalized for decades there. Hamas now fights for the Palestinians, much to there peril, against Israel's injustices. Seems to me we might be better following that nonintervention idea. There is always a reason for these groups to exist, and there is always a pathology guiding their actions which probably is not dillusional or crazy. Get to the root of the problem. That is what Ron Paul is about. By the way the Carter Doctrine started much of this nonsense. It was anything but appeasement. Learn your history bud.
Michael | 12.30.09 @ 7:06PM
I am an Orthodox Jew (born in Israel, now in the US) who refuses to recognize the existence or authority of the so-called "State of Israel" and make a point of demonstrating that our position is the position of the Torah and authentic unadulterated Judaism.
Condemnation of and segregation from anything connected to or affiliated with the so-called modern day "State of Israel" is based on the Talmud, the key fundamental doctrine of the Oral Tradition handed down by G-d to Moses on Mt. Sinai. The Talmud in Tractate Kesubos (p. 111a), teaches that Jews shall not use human force to bring about the establishment of a Jewish state before the coming of the universally accepted Moshiach (Messiah from the House of David). Furthermore it states that we are forbidden to rebel against the nations and that we should remain loyal citizens and we shall not attempt to leave the exile which G-d sent us into, ahead of time.
Jews are not allowed to dominate, kill, harm or demean another people and are not allowed to have anything to do with the Zionist enterprise, their political meddling and their wars.
James| 12.31.09 @ 5:15AM
Please don't take offense to this but I find it ironic that your comment is the only one that claims to not support the existence of the "State of Israel" yet no one has called you an anti-semite.
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 7:07PM
Todd please convince Israel to stop the settlement expansions, water diversions, demarcations, etc. I want Israel to exist to, but they are making perilous choices.
"I won't pretend that Islam is a religion of peace"
Then no religion is and yet they all profess to be. Again something else is amiss. Domination of one over another. Please Israel to not only speak of peace but to do the right things as they are the powerful ones.
Mike| 12.30.09 @ 7:11PM
of course, when faced with facts, Ben Stein chooses instead to lie and pull the "antisemitic" attack, something sure to stop any and all actuall debate and discussion. Which is exactly what it is supposed to do.
Antisemitism means nothing now, when Ben sides with real antisemitism in his dreadful anti-science movie, yet criticizing a nation that is literally engaging in mass expulsions and ghettoizations - actions which were clearly crimes against humanity when committed in Europe 70 years ago - means you are antisemitic.
Ben Stein has just let every actual anti-semite and neo-nazi off the hook by using the work to silence his political enemies.
Damn you and every other neo-con all to hell Stein.
Pingback| 12.30.09 @ 7:44PM
American Fluorescent VRR217TRE8 Reed and Ribbon Vanity Light, Hand Applied Rust Finis links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Mary Louise| 12.30.09 @ 7:44PM
I’m not a Paul fan at all, and neither is what remains of 98% of the electorate. I don’t think the construct of Country that he provides can suffice for the one we’ve become. I don’t know if he’s an anti-Semite. He may be, but it’s counterproductive to reduce the impact of the charge by leveling it against him as you just described. Is he really an important figure or dangerous? He comes off as kooky and not in the present, if you know what I mean.
To the issue of occupation: I’m not sure we qualify as occupiers. Occupiers don’t usually share the winning hearts and minds strategy of Patraeus and McChrystal. Occupiers don’t usually take pains to bring a Country like Afghanistan into a clearing. But we are invaders, and we shouldn’t be afraid to use words truthfully. We invaded Iraq and are responsible for the widows and orphans we’ve created.
This bomber was released by the Bush Administration, right? Mistakes are bound to happen, and this is a bit of an equalizer as well as a wake-up call. A wake-up rallying and rethinking that the American people could get and stay behind. One that doesn’t call for extended commitment of thousands of troops. One that doesn’t allow the blood of our boys to be shed drop by drop. One that doesn’t sap our economic strength as we pour money into rebuilding other Nations who show little capacity for keeping us near heart as benefactors.
My Greatest Generation relatives in Italy love the United States. During our discussions of WW II, which they never seem to tire of, they say l’America ebbe liberato con una mancanza di servire una causa, la sua causa, di occupazione. Do you see the possibility of emulation on the part of Iraq and Afghanistan? I don’t.
Let me apologize in advance for errors in my Italian. I’ve been on the phone with my relatives a lot over these past few weeks, and they do love to hear Italian spoken with English thought patterns, but they tell me I’m getting rusty.
Mark| 12.30.09 @ 9:19PM
We don't qualify as occupiers? Get off the bong now!! We are occupiers because THE PEOPLE don't want us there and we continue to stay - no matter what.
It doesn't matter who we bribe or threaten to make it look like the government wants us to stay. The people wants us gone - so we are occupying the place. I am sure the Nazi's did the same thing when they occupied a country to make it "legal" as well.
Mary Louise| 12.30.09 @ 9:45PM
I'm not sure we do qualify and your reply is insipid. You have no idea if the people want us gone or not.
Yeah, we're the same as the Nazis. Go and keep witth that. In the meantime better men than you will try to keep us safe.
I'm with them through thick and thin. I only hope that we can make a pivot militarily. That we can develop a relatively light, highly mobile, lethally able fighting force. Terrorists shouldn't fear our "occupation" they should fear our wrath and return fire. Ditto for left-of-the bellcurve sac-bombers.
With or without revolution we’re not going back to a stark federalism. We’re 300 million and 50 States strong. We’re one and we’ll remain one or we’ll dissolve into an abyss of disorder. Cops, firefighters and those who are sworn to protect and serve won’t buy into the overwrought imaginings of those who can no more separate themselves from the mess we’ve created than the President can.
You're out of your league.
BT| 12.31.09 @ 2:25AM
I am sure they do not think us as occupiers any more than we would if China invaded the U.S. because a non governmental entity such as a L.A. gang members murdered their citizens on their soil. When the shoe is on the other foot it is not all seen through rose colored glasses. More active duty military contributed to Ron Paul then all other candidates put together, and from the historic words of General Smedly Butler "War is a racket" and our military men and women see that these wars of aggression against a third world people is not what the United States has ever stood for. I am sure that if China came in and replaced our president and bombed our towns from the air we would welcome them with open arms, right Mary? "out of your league", you have no clue.
Leeanne| 12.31.09 @ 6:43AM
"I'm not sure we do qualify and your reply is insipid. You have no idea if the people want us gone or not."
Mary Louise, if anyone is being "insipid" it is you.
Do you stuff plugs into your ears so as not to hear them clearly state that they want us gone ?
Also your figure of "98% of the electorate" is pulled, apparently, from a place even more benighted than your mind.
Red Phillips | 12.30.09 @ 10:07PM
"He comes off as ... not in the present, if you know what I mean. "
Yes, I know exactly what you mean. He wants America to actually follow a 200+ year old document like the Founders intended. Such an antediluvian. There is a name for that type of person ... wait ... it's on the tip of my tongue ... what is it ... oh yeah, they're called CONSERVATIVES.
Mary Louise| 12.30.09 @ 10:26PM
The America you want is gone. It can't be retrieved, and I'm not even sure your interpretation of us as Constitutionally pure is accurate.
When I read Adams, I don't get the impression he was as hands off as he is portrayed. Obviously, Hamilton wasn't hands off. Hamilton has a place at the table too. This is an old argument.
During Burke's time did England have a written Constitution? I want to say no. Following a document that can be open to some interpretation is not going to save a Nation from ruin or calamity.
The Founders weren't as enthralled with the Constitution when they'd finished writing it as many are today. It was the beginning of something. Adams and Hamilton warned against the disease that slavery was spreading. The early wealth of the Country, that which kept us from becoming South America was probably due, in large measure, to the extremely cheap and forced labor that slavery provided. Most especially the tobacco plant.
We weren't constitutionally pure from the very beginning.
We can go 'round and 'round. The Nation is where it is today, not where it was 200 years ago. Any travel back in time is probably not doable, and I really don't think it's doable by Ron Paul.
You can have the last word, but this is an imbroglio that takes either an Epic or man of tremendous inspiration, imagination, and courage to free us from.
BT| 12.31.09 @ 2:33AM
That is right Mary, we cant go back to the time of the constitution, just of the time of Kings ruling over their subjects, right? In the federalist papers we were warned about the desire for power and possible abuses that could occur, and we are seeing that today in plain sight, but to state that we cannot return to the document the nation was founded on that made us the last vestige of a free people would be absurd!
I agree that at Ron Paul's age and the fact that the media slandered him constantly that simpletons would never be able to get his message, but the desire to remain sovereign is not a Ron Paul ideal, as we see now 39 of the 50 states have signed or are presently working on 10th amendment sovereignty acts, which makes one believe that perhaps taking a step back is a consensus among state leaders, but I am sure your insight is far superior.
Mary Louise| 12.31.09 @ 9:22AM
Signed or presently working on means nothing when you have a safety net that's been established and that the electorate approves of. You can tweak it, to be sure, but you can't abolish it once it's been established to this degree. If health care passes you'll have a couple of years to defang it, if you can't you'll never repeal it short of systemic, economic collapse. And then you're going to have a whole host of other problems, and 'liberty' will become the last thing people are thinking about.
Bob Barr's position on the safety net is a two year stint and I don't think you get any do-overs. The Feds would still need to administer that. It's still enormous. It's still the capillary action of the Feds.
You can use a scalpel to excise some fat, but you can't touch the organs.
Get some new spokesmen, and you might have a shot at being influential.
BHK| 12.30.09 @ 7:46PM
Man up and apologize, Ben. The slippery slope and generalizing is beneath you. Or, maybe it's just easier to go that route when you have nothing rational to offer.
Mary Louise| 12.30.09 @ 7:59PM
A couple more thoughts, Mr. Stein.
I don't think it was just of Midge Decter to accuse Russell Kirk of anti-Semitism for his Tel Aviv quip. I know conservative Jews have a deep attachment to Israel. I don't think it's a loyalty at the expense of the US because we're not an Island. But it is a loyalty that can and should be defended with a sense of security.
I feel the same loyalty toward Italy. If men like this sac-bomber were about to storm the gates of the Vatican or to hit any part of Italy, I would want our military to consider St. Peter's, the Sistine Chapel, the Tower of St. John and the rest of old and venerable Italy worthy of protection. Think of it as the democracy of the dead, extreme prejudice.
Let me leave you with a quote from Norman Mailer that I think you might find thoughtful, if difficult:
**I think when you're born a Jew, given our history, and given our special placement, plus and minus, in the world, it's almost impossible to take anything large for granted.
The great evil that Hitler did us, apart from the Holocaust itself, is that he deadened the Jewish mind. Because all too many Jews now can think of nothing but, "is this good for the Jews?" They have a built-in reflex. The moment anything bad happens that is slightly unfavorable to the Jews, they panic.
And we're not here for that. We're here to do all sorts of outrageous thinking, if you will, but certainly incisive, fine thinking. If the Jews brought anything to human nature, it's that they developed the mind more than other people did. It was tremendously important to them to develop the mind, and to deaden it, to stultify it, to flood it with cheap religious patriotism, I consider part of the disaster that Hitler visited upon us. " [The Devil and Der Führer Interview, Nermeen Shaikh]**
I think Mailer, who was no atheist, is still not the man to help us distinguish between "cheap, religious patriotism" and deep religious patriotism. My agreement with him lies in the fact that once your people have been sent to the Ovens, it's almost impossible to not sleep with one eye open.
Red Phillips | 12.30.09 @ 9:59PM
Mary Louise, the fact that Jews support Israel, Italians support Italy, the Irish support Ireland etc. is entirely natural. I would find it rather odd if they didn't. But this is PRECISELY why the nation as a whole should be neutral and avoid being guided by the feelings of an impassioned minority, whether Jews, Italians, Irish, or whoever. This is particularly important in a multiethnic country like America.
Mary Louise| 12.30.09 @ 10:13PM
Red, not that it means very much, but I like you. You're a smart guy, and I think you're an honest man.
What would you advise if St. Peter's was under attack? Would you just let all of that go without a fight?
Nations minding their own business never having to intervene to help one another; has there ever been a point in history when that was so?
It's an honest question, Red.
BT| 12.31.09 @ 2:46AM
I am still trying to find out where anyone has stated that we do not attack if attacked? Ron Paul supported going after Bin Laden, but advised that using contractors (mercenaries) would bring a cheap, fast, and effective result. No one has stated that we not help Israel or any other nation in need, many of us see the Israeli genocide in Gaza for what it is, or is it your belief that all men, women, and children are guilty in Gaza and deserve what they get? I state this as you ask the question:
"What would you advise if St. Peter's was under attack? Would you just let all of that go without a fight?"
I think in simpler terms the same question could be applicable to a Palestinian construction worker whose home was shelled, wife killed in the night by tanks, are you saying because he is a Palestinian Muslim he should not fight? And how would a hopelessly poor, starving, individual respond to tanks killing his family? The answer is any way he could with a vengeance unmatched. So the main issue here is weeding out the terrorists from individuals, but Israel has decided that all Palestinians deserve to suffer which fuels more hatred of a desperate people, and the cycle continues.
Billy Bob| 12.31.09 @ 4:51AM
If St. Peter's was under attack, would you tell some 18 year old kid from Idaho that he had to risk his life to defend it? Or would you allow him to opt-out?
Likewise, would you force American's to pay for said defense whether they supported it or not? Even worse, would you force them to borrow the money with interest?
If people want to volunteer to risk their lives and money to defend a foreign country, that's fine but forcing them to is immoral.
Mary Louise| 12.31.09 @ 9:02AM
Our military is voluntary. And no, I'm not for forcing anyone to defend St. Peter's or even our homeland. You defend what you value and love or you let it go.
We did not spring into being without a mother and father. Historically, we have a mother and a father. We either defend them or 'let the dead bury the dead,' and insist we 'hate our mother and father' and pledge allegiance to a barren, inhospitable, nihilistic, Randian liberty.
Mary Louise| 12.31.09 @ 9:27AM
Hayek’s work on Order is wonderful. He acknowledges that circumstances can materialize that necessitate liberties be curtailed, though he advises emphatically that as issues become resolved the reintroduction of liberties happen ASAP. He also comes right out and states that an electorate must contain a segment that understands humility and a hierarchy of truths, so to speak.
Rand’s Shrugged is an unlivable creed because man isn’t who she claims he is. He’s a lot more social, a lot more in need of not losing touch with sentience, that is the capacity for suffering. The pursuit of happiness in the vitality of community has staying power, her creed does not.
As Franklin said when writing of the Goat/Sheep Session, what matters isn’t so much what you think but how you live.
We The Living is dreck. The most appealing character is the Communist. He’s the one who loses his humanity the least of the threesome that consists of him, Kira and Leo her true love. Leo is very forgettable and Kira walks off alone into snowy weather and suicide.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn loved Russia because it was his Country. He decried her obvious defects, but he believed in serving his Country. Don’t know if he believed in conscription or not.
From my acquaintance with his writing, I think he believed in an originating order quite different from that of Ayn Rand. In his One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich , one of the appealing characters is a Baptist. It’s quite sweet to read.
Inalienable rights, presented as such, must flow from God and not from man himself who can create nothing of the basics which sustain all life. He’s been appointed caretaker, steward and not an owner of that which he found.
Cadavre| 12.30.09 @ 8:10PM
Ben, as Abe Foxman and his merry band ADL klan have come to know, one can be successfully sued for asserting that a party is anti-semitic. Your pockets are deep - and so is the case precedence - perhaps you you be smart instead of loud and remove that kind of self destructive whine from your vocabulary.
MVS| 12.30.09 @ 8:14PM
Calling Ron Paul an anti-Semite is a cheap shot and the last refuge of scoundrels. Wouldn't an anti-Semite general eschew Jews instead of being their disciple? So what are we to make of Ron Paul being an Austrian Economist: a disciple of Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard? Are von Mises and Rothbard not Jewish enough?
Show some sack and apologize. You wouldn't put up with that kind of name-calling and race-baiting from Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, so why is it OK for you to do it to Ron Paul?
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe | 12.30.09 @ 8:19PM
Ron Paul > Ben Stein
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 9:09PM
True indeed, except when it comes to acting. Bueller pretty darn good. Bruno, well.....
Jimbo| 12.30.09 @ 8:26PM
God's Word places a blessing on those who bless the Jew and a curse on those who curse the Jew (See Genesis 12:2-4 and related verses). Those who call themselves Christians should be warned not to curse the Jews but to bless them. That has been the tradition in America since the first Jewish settlement in the Baptist colony of Rhode Island in the 1600's. America has always been hospitable to the Jews and has provided a safe haven for them when other nations would not. America has been blessed because of this and we stand to lose that blessing if enough people here turn into Jew-haters. This is a dangerous thing when one considers what has happened to those nations who have cursed the Jews.
Michael | 12.30.09 @ 8:34PM
"America has always been hospitable to the Jews"?
Really Jimbo? Really?
Click my name and tell me if that is hospitality.
Jimbo| 12.30.09 @ 9:51PM
Michael, That particularly ugly time in American history, when we refused just that one time to allow a small number of Jews to enter the US is a shame on America (I didn't say America is perfect). However, since then, America has been the one gentile nation that has allowed hundreds of thousands of Jews to immigrate. Apart from Australia and Canada, there have been no other significant nations that have not had pogroms. Unlike the Germans, French, Russians, Spaniards, Arabs, et al., we don't kill our Jews. Indeed, we allow them to thrive and prosper here, unlike most other places. For the past few centuries, America has been the safest place for a Jew to live. I pray that it stays that way - unlike some others who have posted here.
Phil - Chicago| 12.30.09 @ 8:55PM
So wait - you are telling Christians that a promise God made in the early history of mankind applies now even after the birth of the Savior to which the actual promise was made? You deny Christ's own statement about fulfilling all promises made prior to His birth? You state that Israel cannot be held accountable for its own actions then and can act in any manner with support from Christians everywhere?
Not only dangerous but un-scriptural. I know, because I thought once as you did. But, reading a bit fuller into the Scriptures and having a little understanding makes this passage clear as to Gods Purpose - the birth of Christ and his salvation.
Ridiculous that Christians actually think this way.
Margie| 12.30.09 @ 9:26PM
Phil,
Aren't you aware of the Scriptures that tell of God's plan of restoring the Jews in the end? And that Salvation is from the Jews? If it weren't for their rebellion, us Gentiles would have no chance of Salvation? The Bible says that we've been grafted (Christians) into the vine. It also says that Salvation is "to the Jew first, then to the Gentiles."
So yes, Christians love the Jews, and we are all original rebels but for the Grace of God!
Red Phillips | 12.30.09 @ 9:49PM
"Aren't you aware of the Scriptures that tell of God's plan of restoring the Jews in the end?"
Margie, you are aware that the pre-mil dispensationalism to which you allude is a theological system that is less than 200 years old? 200 years ago NO CHRISTIAN believed it as it was a doctrine that hadn't been formulated yet. Many sincere Bible-believing Christians reject this doctrine.
Margie| 12.30.09 @ 9:53PM
Well Red, I just know what it says in the Bible. I care not what today's Christians may have to say. Know what I mean?
Red Phillips | 12.30.09 @ 11:28PM
"Well Red, I just know what it says in the Bible."
Margie, that is the point. It isn't crystal clear what the Bible says about this issue. Sincere Christians disagree on the matter. Do you count R.C. Sproul as a sincere Christian, for example? He isn't a dispy pre-mil. If dispy pre-mil was such an obvious conclusion of a plain reading of the Scriptures than it wouldn't have taken 1800 years of Christian history to figure it out.
Margie| 12.31.09 @ 12:58PM
Anyone got a Bible? Just go and take some time to read it. Read Romans chapter 11 for one.
The anti-Semites on this thread would have you believe otherwise, but how God is toward the Jews is very clearly written.
Remember "God is not a God of confusion, but a God of peace." 1 Cor. 14:33.
Jimbo| 12.31.09 @ 5:33PM
Red: You mean 2,000 years ago. See what Paul (also a Jewish rabbis) wrote in Romans, Chapter 11. Here he alludes to God's plan for the Jews in the end times.
BT| 12.31.09 @ 2:56AM
I cannot seem to find reference in the bible that states that Christians should support anyone in a genocide of another peoples? I have not read a single comment where a single person has stated that Israel should not exist, or that it is O.K. to kill a Jew, this is rhetoric and nothing more. The fact is in Revelations does it not state that the million Muslims will surround Jerusalem at the end of time, and they will be destroyed by fire at the hand of God? Is it in the divinci code that states Christians must lay their beliefs aside and support the killing of women and Children? Hypocritical at best when the Christians protest abortions, but turn a blind eye while innocents die at the hands of greedy politicians and racists. I have been a Christian for over 40 years and am yet to find where God calls for Christians to break from the bibles teachings and support this type of killing. No one here is supporting Palestinian bombers, but the end does not justify the means, and killing children in the name of Israel is not a part of any belief I have. I wonder how many 4 year olds died in last Christmas's attack in Gaza, and please enlighten us all how that differs from late term abortion? There is no way to claim a moral high ground when innocents are killed, even when going after the “bad guys”.
Albert| 12.31.09 @ 10:06AM
Margie, I have no problem with Gods plans for Israel, but I fail to understand why He needs our USA taxes (and military might) to accomplish his plans. This lobbying by Christian leaders for a seat at the table to influence foreign policy with regard to Israel is a contradiction of their beliefs in the omnipotence of God.
All the problems in the Middle East stems from US efforts to court both parties in the conflict. We should just withdraw and let Israel protect itself in whatever way it deems fit (Ron Paul's position). The Islamists will quickly reign in their militancy, because when Israel is allowed to act freely "they take no prisoners," as the saying goes.
Christians ought to love the Jews AND the Arabs, and the rest of mankind for that matter. Your Christian leaders are a bunch of Pharisees. Your are the blind being led by the blind. Get back to the teachings of Jesus and give your tithes to the homeless.
Margie| 12.31.09 @ 12:53PM
That is not Paul's position. He voted against the Bill to recognize Israel's right to defend herself. You're nothing but a liar.
Leeanne| 12.31.09 @ 6:56AM
"Ridiculous that Christians actually think this way."
Ridiculous and tragic. But VERY useful to those who knowingly exploit it.
And here is the rub:
Let's assume for this discussion that God literally said that. He still was not saying it about a regime constituted by converts from eastern Europe who decided to adopt the Jewish religion. He said it about the descendants of Abraham.
Please ...
if you're religious, then read Revelations 2:9 also, and recall that the eastern European convert to Judaism who founded the Zionist movement ...was an atheist, as many of the leaders in Israel are today.
Red Phillips | 12.30.09 @ 9:43PM
So Jimbo, does the Biblical mandate to bless the Jews mean that America the Nation State has an affirmative moral obligation to financially and militarily aid Israel? If so, do Christian nations in poverty striken Africa have the same obligation or is this just some special American obligation? And if we do, how is this obligation limited? Are we sinning if we only give them a few billion? Should we give them a trillion instead to stay on God's good side? Should we draft American citizens directly into the IDFs so as not to sin by mearly giving them weapons and defense guarantees?
Besides that, it is not clear theologically what relationship modern Isreal has to the Israel of the Bible. Dispensationalism is a novel theological developement historically speaking that many sincere Bible-believing Christians reject.
Jimbo| 12.30.09 @ 10:05PM
Red: I have met a number of African Christians, they are as supportive of the Jews as are most American Evangelicals. The committed Christians in Africa are poor and lack the political power to have their governments support Israel. Indeed, many live in Muslim-controlled areas and suffer persecution, but they pray for the Peace of Jerusalem just the same.
America should support Israel not only because it is in accordance with God's will, but because it makes logical sense. Even many American atheists believe that America should support Israel because they are our most reliable ally in one of the most strategic areas on Earth.
Israel is not above criticism (nor is America for that matter) but most of the criticism of Israel is lopsided and these critics (who are largely crypto-antisemites) always seem to ignore the glaring deficiencies of the nearby Arab nations who opress their own people and have an obsessive hatred of Jews and Americans.
The Jews are Israel and the regathering of the Jews to their homeland was predicted in Scriptures. The Israel of today is remarkably similar to the old Israel. They acknowledge their heritage, speak Hebrew and like the Isralites of old, they also continue to disobey their God and most still fail to recognize their Messiah. According to the Scriptures, that will change someday (see Romans 11).
Margie| 12.30.09 @ 10:20PM
Thank you for saying that, Jimbo.
Red Phillips | 12.30.09 @ 11:22PM
Jimbo, most modern Jews are secular. While evangelicals in Africa, doubtlessly influenced by America, may embrace pre-mil dispensationalism, I am certain they do not see their nation as somehow the God ordain protector of Israel. This is a peculiarly American notion that arises from some confused mix of dispy pre-mil theology and American exceptionalism ideology. But one does not inherently follow the other. Even if pre-mil dispensationalism is the correct interpretation, presuming some special role for America in protecting Israel borders on blasphemous. So God gave to America a special mandate to protect Israel? Says who? Where is that in the Bible? It presumes upon God. Do you not see this?
Why should American Christians not be more concerned about evangelizing lost Jewish souls than they are protecting the largely secular ethno-state of Israel? While all orthodox evangelicals will deny that they support dual-covenant theology in actuality, they behave as if they believe it. Why else would you get pleas for money during evangelical broadcasts to send Jewish kids in Russia to Israel? Why? So they can be just as lost in Israel as they are in Russia? Why not send missionaries to ostensibly Christian Russia and try to convert them?
S.L. Toddard| 12.30.09 @ 11:40PM
"presuming some special role for America in protecting Israel borders on blasphemous"
Indeed. As the great Dr. Fleming wrote, "For American Christians, what they say they believe does not always translate into concrete actions or even into support for Christian moral positions." He goes on a bit more about the general un-Christian lives of many Christian Americans, noting that America "is a country, remember, where Britney Spears was a spokesbimbo for the Episcopal Church. Many evangelical and Catholic Christians actively supported the philandering, lying Bill Clinton, and many traditional Catholics, in defiance of both the Vatican and the Church’s teachings on just war, support George Bush’s war in Iraq. In March 2003 Pope John Paul II, who described his opposition to the war as ‘unequivocal’, sent Cardinal Pio Laghi to dissuade President Bush from attacking Iraq. The President told Cardinal Laghi, ‘We’ll be quick and do well in Iraq.’ As Cardinal Laghi, who calls the invasion ‘tragic and unacceptable’, points out, ‘Bush was wrong.’
But warmongering Catholics are no match for the Revd Pat Robertson. Mr Robertson has gone beyond deflecting hurricanes and denouncing Ariel Sharon for turning Jewish settlers out of land that God gave them. Now he has called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, the troublesome president of Venezuela. In defiance of both logic and Christian ethics, Robertson recently said: ‘If he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war.’"
Jimbo| 12.31.09 @ 7:28AM
Red: There are numerous groups supported by Evangelicals that seek to evangelize the Jews. More Jews have accepted Y'Shua as their savior than at any time since the first Century. I don't believe in American exceptionalism nor do most Evangelicals I know. God's curse on any who curse the Jew applies to all of the Gentile nations equally. It's just that because of America's strong biblical roots, we have been the most hospitable nation to the Jews and that could easily be one of the reasons God has blessed America so much. If we begin to curse the Jew as so many others have done, we will share their fate. The mandate to bless the Jews is not specific to America, I never said it was. It applies to all the nations.
I have never seen more antisemitism in America in my lifetime. Liberals never quote this statistic but according to FBI statistics on hate crimes, the group that is most likely to be victims of "hate crimes" is not one the preferred groups such as gays, blacks, latinos or muslims, but Jews! If we keep heading down this path, we could end up joining many other nations on the "ash heap of history".
S.L. Toddard| 12.31.09 @ 10:10AM
"the group that is most likely to be victims of "hate crimes" is not one the preferred groups such as gays, blacks, latinos or muslims, but Jews!"
So anti-semitism is a big problem in America? Holding the Jews down, is it? Let's see - Jewish Americans make up 1.7% of the American population, and yet (as social scientist Seymour Martin Lipset notes in "Jews and the New American Scene" - h/t VDARE) over the last three decades, "Jews have made up 50% of the top two hundred intellectuals, 40 percent of American Nobel Prize Winners in science and economics, 20 percent of professors at the leading universities, 21 percent of high level civil servants, 40 percent of partners in the leading law firms in New York and Washington, 26% of the reporters, editors, and executives of the major print and broadcast media, 59 percent of the directors, writers, and producers of the fifty top-grossing motion pictures from 1965 to 1982, and 58 percent of directors, writers, and producers in two or more primetime television series."
If America is as chock-full of "anti-semites" as you suggest, they must be the most bumbling, incompetent, non-threatening lot on Earth.
BT| 12.31.09 @ 3:11AM
Wouldn’t it be funny on judgment day if God asks these so called Christians why they did not raise their voice while poor innocents were burned by massive weapons? Why did you not protest this? Their response "God, it said in the bible we should support Israel, and there were terrorists there", I have a feeling God would say "So you decided to support Israel even after all of my teachings contradict what occurred, when did you decide it not best to turn the other cheek"? If the second coming doesn’t occur for 1000 years, perhaps Israel and Palestine will be one at that time, and God expects us to change the direction Israel is heading now. We sure do like to intervene as if we care about peace, but Christians seem content with the slaughter of Muslims, because the media told us they were all evil murderers after 9/11. Oh what a day judgment day it will be, when these moral individuals must answer for their support of murdering the meek while seeking the wolfs.
yourmomma| 12.30.09 @ 8:28PM
ben, i seem to remember a youtube video of you and peter schiff. yeah you sounded pretty stupid then too.
Margie| 12.30.09 @ 8:45PM
Interesting how all the little weasels here are more concerned with Ben Stein's alluding to the fact that Ron Paul's attitude was akin to the "tired old anti-Semetic line"
which was a true statement, but all the little weasels so loudly protesting here with vile hatred, are in reality~ anti-Semetics!
Proving once again that Liberalism is indeed a mental disorder.
Mark| 12.30.09 @ 8:51PM
Not wanting to bomb Muslims does NOT make you an anti-Semite.
MVS| 12.30.09 @ 9:26PM
In fact it could make one a pro-Semites, since many, many, many Semitic people are Muslims.
Leeanne| 12.31.09 @ 7:00AM
"Not wanting to bomb Muslims does NOT make you an anti-Semite."
Nor does it make you a liberal [that is to Margie whose name-calling has by now begun to entertain me].
Margie| 12.31.09 @ 12:44PM
Glad you're entertained Leeanne. I remember you from many threads ago and your attacks on me along with other Paulite haters.
The fact of the matter here is that Paul's refusing to back Israel's right to defend herself reveals his hatred (like yours) for Israel.
Liars have a slick way of twisting reality.
Phil - Chicago| 12.30.09 @ 9:00PM
Logic - for the loss. Calling someone a name is not a logical rejoinder to an argument, despite what you may have "learned." Indeed it is called a fallacy for a reason, and since the logic of your post is false, then your premise and any conclusions that you make are false. See how logic works?
Margie| 12.30.09 @ 9:08PM
For "logic"~ all one has to do is read your posts.
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 9:08PM
Margie, you are anti-American because you continue to support policies that are bankrupting us and putting us in the crosshairs of an ever-increasing amount of enemies. 8 CIA agents today, what tomorrow?
Margie| 12.30.09 @ 9:19PM
Ben & Phil,
No, I just live in the real world and it is a mess. I live in the present, not some utopia dream where we have no war, and could all live in a fortress America where all there were or are is a bunch of wild Indians to contend with. It is impossible for us to withdraw from all our battles at this point.. no one WANTS to have to go to war. It is something we have to do. Israel is our ally. They are are democracy, I think the only one in the mid east. You just don't get it that we ought to be defending her right to defend herself at least! Ron Paul doesn't even agree to that. (See my above post and link to his voting against it).
I think you guys have a wrong view of history and of reality, and I truly pray you come to see the reality we are in at this time.
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 9:27PM
"I live in the present, not some utopia dream where we have no war, and could all live in a fortress America where all there were or are is a bunch of wild Indians to contend with." Very humorous. We all exist in the same world as you do, but, unlike you, we see many of the problems arising from US foreign policy.
"It is impossible for us to withdraw from all our battles at this point."I don't believe this. If Ron Paul was elected president, the world would have changed for the better.
"Israel is our ally." Why so we can support them in their dehumanizing of the Palestinians. Count me out on that one.
"They are are democracy" No they are not. Arabs are second class citizens at best so all men in that country are not equal and certainly do not have equal say.
"You just don't get it that we ought to be defending her right to defend herself at least!" No we shouldn't because of their illegal activities in the occupied territories.
"I think you guys have a wrong view of history and of reality, and I truly pray you come to see the reality we are in at this time. " Throw this one back at yourself. I will pray for you as well. God will have to figure out that one.
Margie| 12.30.09 @ 9:35PM
Well, you can't blame me for trying to converse with you. It is clear that you are a blame America first personality and that it is of no use continuing with you.
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 9:41PM
When the country that I love is being run by corrupt politicians sending us to war against a new sovereign state every other year or so and spending us into oblivion with out of control spending, your darn right I will blame my government first. Notice I said my government.
"that it is of no use continuing with you." giving up, I rather enjoy calling you neocons out on your hypocrisies.
Margie| 12.30.09 @ 9:46PM
Ok Ben,
Off into your sad little life you will go with your lies. Because that's what you are, Ben ~ a liar.
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 9:48PM
"Because that's what you are, Ben ~ a liar." Please elaborate.....or is this directed towards Mr. Stein?
MVS| 12.30.09 @ 9:23PM
Margie,
The onus is on Ben to prove that Ron Paul is an anti-Semite. He must be able to come up with evidence of Antisemitism. He has none. It was a cheap shot. I actually like both Ben Stein and Ron Paul, which is why I'm more than disappointed that someone I like (Ben) would resort to a cheap shot against someone else I like (Ron).
In your post, you have committed a number of logical fallacies, just a few of which are slanting, hyperbole, straw man, ad hominem (especially the 'poisoning the well' sort), ad baculum, stereotyping..and I'm tired of typing and I realize this is a worthless exercise; you are not interested in the exchange of ideas, but in beating people up with the brickish ideas you wield like a weapon.
Margie| 12.30.09 @ 9:33PM
MVS~ your post is ridiculous. As Ben Stein did not call him an anti-semite to begin with. But you obviously must not have read his post, above.
As for how I speak and what I say, you obviously don't like it and so you will wield your insults coming from your intellectually moralistic high ground.
Touche.
By the way oh high and mighty one~ how do you explain Ron Paul's voting against Israel's right to defend herself?
Or is it you that has no wish for discourse?
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 9:38PM
Ben Stein implied anti-Semitism by telling Ron Paul that his statements were anti-Semite when in fact Dr. Paul's statement had nothing to do with Israel.
S.L. Toddard| 12.30.09 @ 11:07PM
"Paul's voting against Israel's right to defend herself?"
Oh boy. Marge - Ron Paul doesn't actually get to vote on whether Israel has a right to defend itself. Israel is not an American state. Ron Paul represents Texas.
Margie| 12.30.09 @ 11:17PM
Oh boy Toddy. Let's play stupid some more.
http://www.govtrack.us/congres.....;sort=vote
Hasn't that plane, train or automobile come to pick you up yet?
Red Phillips | 12.30.09 @ 11:35PM
Margie, a little nuance please. Ron Paul voted against condeming the Palestinians as he should have. If there was a motion condeming Israel, I can assure you he would vote against that as well as he should.
Margie| 12.31.09 @ 4:32PM
Why would an American vote AGAINST condemning TERRORISTS?
Answer: because they despise Israel.
No matter how you try and twist it, you and your Ron Paul pals are promoting a lie.
S.L. Toddard| 12.30.09 @ 11:47PM
"Oh boy Toddy. Let's play stupid some more."
Yes, let's. Please cite what article of the Constitution grants Congress the power to decide whether Israel has the right to defend itself. You will find it is not there - that sort of thing is decided in the Israeli government. Ron Paul never voted "against Israel's right to defend herself", since America has no say in that issue. Ron Paul voted against throwing all of our support behind one side in a conflict in which no American interests are at stake. That vote had nothing to do with granting Israel the right to defend itself - it had to do with supporting Israel's actions in the Gaza War.
My word.
Margie| 12.31.09 @ 12:39PM
Great way to try and justify the hatred of Israel by Ron Paul.
Keep lying to yourself and others Toddy.
Way to go. But to where?
Margie's Man| 12.31.09 @ 4:43AM
Damn babe, you must really hate Reagan then. Because back in 1981, Paul was in Congress when Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear plant and — unlike President Reagan — Paul defended its right to do so.
See, Israel is the dominant power in the region and like anyone with half a brain, Paul knows this. He also knows it is immoral to borrow money from China that has to be paid back by Americans that haven't even been conceived yet and give that money to Israel.
Clairy| 12.31.09 @ 1:10PM
CHECKMATE!!!
Albert| 12.31.09 @ 11:47AM
Margie, That is very unchristian of you to call me a weasel. They called Jesus a child of Belzebub, or something like that, you'd know better than me. Name calling is such a bad approach to rebuttal. By all means follow your faith, but take time out to read the Constitution and then judge the actions of your representatives by what the Constitution demands, keeping in mind that they swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Judge your pastors by what Jesus said about the Pharisees and you'd find that both pastors and representatives are at odds with the documents they swore to obey. There are hard facts to accept.
Margie| 12.31.09 @ 12:37PM
Perhaps brood of vipers would be more fitting?
Albert| 12.31.09 @ 1:04PM
Margie, ... or whited-sepulchers?
I really don't care what names you call me, but why don't you rather respond to my rebuttals of your assertions above? For example, my reasoning for why Ron Paul voted against the anti-Palestinian resolution; why God needs our taxes and the US military to achieve His purposes in the Middle-East; why a representative who believes he should honor his oath to uphold the Constitution and hence vote accordingly is somehow out on a limb. What good has eight years of warfare, countless deaths and wounded, and one trillion dollars (cost of war dot org) of spending brought us? Who is the enemy other than a rag tag band of criminals hiding in caves hardly worth spending the cost of a flyswatter on? How many more deaths, how many more wounded and traumatized, how much more cash down the toilet before we should rethink this unconstitutional escapade?
Margie| 12.31.09 @ 4:24PM
Perhaps this would be more fitting~
"You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies." Jn. 8:44.
Albert| 12.31.09 @ 4:54PM
Not sure how this fits into the discussion, except for the fact that this was said of the religious leaders of the day, no different to what ought to be said of our religious leaders today, especially those who peddle religion for political ends... oh, no, I won't name any.
Still, I asked you a few questions, which you have not yet answered. This is your opportunity to educate us lead us to the "promise land." We are obviously lost in the minutia of the Constitution and need some direction.
Albert| 12.31.09 @ 4:57PM
Oops, that was said of Jesus? Yah, well what do you know? Kind of like the things that Hanity and Levine said about Ron Paul and probably still say. A prophet is not honored in his own land. Anyway, let's stick to my questions. I'm holding my breath.
JK| 12.30.09 @ 8:49PM
Ron Paul an Anti-semite??? Because he believes in the Constitutional rule of law and not intervening in the affairs of other nations??? Because he quotes the 911 Commission report and CIA on terrorist blowback?? Yes, I'm sure that's why he's an Austrian economist and follower of Mises and Rothbard, both Jews. Ron Paul is a litmus test for true lovers of liberty as opposed to Neocons and "Democrats" (outright commies). If you don't like Ron Paul, a true hero for our time, then you don't like liberty, probably don't even know what it is and think that is what US soldiers are "spreading" in Afghanistan. I loved "Expelled", but this smear campaign against Ron Paul is despicable. Shame on you, Stein. You are outed as a Neocon warmongering New World Order toady.
Out side the box| 12.30.09 @ 9:01PM
Look Osama said he would drag us into middle east and bankrupt this country..And they are following his orders...So really....Bin laden seems like a story line to me,and the control freaks set things in order..Its like a script write for our lives..all bs-snd propaganda.I beleive nothing that come from the fork tounge basturds anymore..Far as i am concerned the enemy isnt only in the the middel east--some are right here at home and they are taking our future and destroying our freedoms..Sometimes you have to look at who is pointing the finger they may be the one causing the problems.Keep your powder dry and eyes open..
Poptech | 12.30.09 @ 9:46PM
Why it is impossible for Ron Paul to be Anti-Semitic
Jewish Friends and Mentors,
Peter Schiff (Jewish) - Ron Paul's Economic Adviser for the 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination.
Murray N. Rothbard (Jewish) - Ron Paul's Late Economic Mentor from the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Ludwig von Mises (Jewish) - Ron Paul's favorite Austrian Economist.
S. L. Toddard| 12.30.09 @ 10:06PM
Some of my best friends are Jewish..lampshades
S.L. Toddard| 12.30.09 @ 11:04PM
I don't suppose I need to point this out, but this is someone posting in my name again. Assume if any legitimately anti-semitic posts are made in my name that they are not mine.
Albert| 12.31.09 @ 11:51AM
The folk monitoring the board should have picked this up. Too bad, and thank you for pointing it out. Imagine if you were not able to do so promptly. Shame on the person who did this to you. Some people have no conscience.
D| 12.30.09 @ 9:49PM
A non-apology apology! Don't you all feel sorry now for Ben, guys? Ron didn't even let him talk. Aw, how terrible!
Ben's rationale for why being against occupation is anti-Semitic is one of the most convoluted non-sequiturs I have seen.
Keith Hamburger| 1.1.10 @ 2:09PM
It's not a non-sequiter. Zionists are occupying Israel. Opposing occupation could be seen to oppose Israel. Therefore, opposing occupation is opposition to Israel.
Never mind that the occupiers of Israel are not devout descendants of Abraham but are secular, atheist, communist Europeans. The true descendants of Abraham, both Muslim and Jewish, are attacked and discriminated against by the rulers of Israel.
Thomas Jones Sr.| 12.30.09 @ 10:09PM
Ben Stein worked for President Nixon who was a notorius anti-semite.All that is forgotten when defending the war-mongering of our regime.Rep. Paul tells the truth and we should all know by now, that truth is treason in the empire of lies. Our empire is crumbling and Ron Paul seems to be the only one in D.C. to see it.Ben, you can't stop the revolution, even with Shaquille O'Neal on your side.
Stamina| 12.30.09 @ 10:16PM
looks like this guy knows everything, like Goethe or Einstein, to give him some credit, he is realy able to act and write, but law and economics? man, put the guitar down, dont bother...
Anthony | 12.30.09 @ 10:25PM
I hate to bash on libertarians, they've contributed so very much to fiscal conservatism, but on issues such war, war on drugs, immigration...I couldn't disagree more. I think they are extremely...and I hate to use this word...mislead when it comes to their social issues. While they'd like to boil everything down in terms of dollars and cents, costs and benefits, you simply cannot boil everything in the entire world into what they believe is a perfect science of reason. For ex, they may refer to anti-illegal immigrant policy supporters as nativists, but do they address/quantify the devastating effect of multiculturalism and balkinization of the US? Like Thomas Sowell said on immigration:
-"people have consequences that go far beyond the consequences of commodities,"
- "Europeans have discovered with their 'guest worker' programs that have brought in many Muslims who are fundamentally hostile to the culture and the people that welcomed them" -"Today, immigrant spokesmen promote grievances, not gratitude, much less patriotism. Moreover, many native-born Americans also promote a sense of separatism and grievance and, through 'multi-culturalism,' strive to keep immigrants foreign and disaffected.
Ben| 12.30.09 @ 10:32PM
Even though I disagree with you when you say that libertarians are misguided, I must agree with the specific arguments you make on multi-culturalism, certainly in Europe. Europe has made huge errors in allowing mass immigration. These societies have a rich history of culture that will be trashed in 20 or 30 years. Alas, we can't even seal our borders. I don't think libertarians would disagree with what you state except for your intro.
BT| 12.31.09 @ 3:27AM
I think you need to learn that all that follow Ron Paul are not by any means a majority of "Libertarians", many centrist Republicans and Democrats now label themselves as conservative or liberal constitutionalists, so please do not attempt to lump his many supporters into one group. This is why HR1207 made such head way, both sides of the isle were plummeted with calls from constituents on the left and right, else it would have died in committee as it has for so many years.
While you may find many policies from the failed drug war, the horrendous Bush Iraqi invasion, and Bush's attempt of amnesty with McCain in tow, simply wonderful, there are many Ron Paul supporters that know what the cost of illegal immigration is and are against it, We know over 40 billion a year is spent furthering failed prohibition; which like Socialism, has never worked in history, and so far as war we still believe the founders were correct in that we should respond when called upon, but no pre emptive aggressive wars without Congressional declarations so our representatives could be held accountable for the death of our service men and women. When you realize what we have lost, I hope you will be satisfied with what we as a nation and people did for the Israeli government, certainly not its people.
Frank | 12.31.09 @ 4:34AM
It comes down to morality. Even if drug prohibition didn't cause more problems than the drugs themselves, libertarians understand they have no right to use force against someone who is not infringing on the rights of others. Supporting drug laws means supporting the initiation of violence against people who are only harming themselves.
dAVE| 12.30.09 @ 10:26PM
Fuck you, Ben.
Furlough| 12.30.09 @ 11:00PM
Ben,
What were you thinking? We all know you are smarter than that. This was a cheap shot, a low blow and absolutely uncalled for in any type of debate. You just dumbed yourself down by 20 years and made Ron Paul look like a rocket scientist.
Jason| 12.30.09 @ 11:19PM
My recomendation Ben is next time be more cautious when you use the term "Anti-Semitic". My recommendation is based on my observation that the term Anti-Semitic over the decades has a strong connotation that invokes alot of emotions from people as people use it as a degrogative term to people who don't agree with Israel's policies, actions, or other people's/goverments interactions with Isreal. It's denotation is strictly applied to racism, IE: people of hebrew descent.
Francis| 12.30.09 @ 11:46PM
Hey! That's not an apology! That's the kinda thing only Ferris Beuller would pull!
Ron Paul's Newsletter| 12.30.09 @ 11:48PM
Read it and weep, Paulbots:
http://www.tnr.com/article/pol.....32a7da84ca
Matthew| 12.31.09 @ 12:28AM
This article was worthless. It basically says that if you agree that States have rights given to them under the Constitution that you are a racist. Anyone who can critically think can see the flaws in this article. Try again buddy.
Leeanne| 12.31.09 @ 7:07AM
Oh Lord have mercy, I cannot believe ANYONE is still trying with the Jamie Kirchick article.
EPIC FAIL.
Leanne| 12.31.09 @ 1:08PM
Hi my name is Leanne. I have never read any history in my life. But I love ROn Paul. And Glenn Beck says to buy gold and storable food because the apocalypse is coming.
Albert| 12.31.09 @ 2:51PM
I also love Ron Paul, but "the apocalypse" is a bit out in the left field. It is easy to draw a dire picture of the future, but we have gone through much worse in the past. We are made of sterner stuff than to succumb to fear. Ron Paul's views are suddenly more acceptable than a couple of years ago. FOX excluded Paul from the presidential debates. Now he finds himself featured on a regular basis. Prosperity will return once the country moves back to its Constitutional roots. Invest some of your savings in the books Ron Paul wrote, for the best educational value on offer by far.
re: Albert| 12.31.09 @ 3:34PM
Fox didn't exclude him from the Presidential debates. I WATCHED the debate. He was there. Not a hallucination.
Albert| 12.31.09 @ 4:43PM
In New Hampshire?
Ben| 12.31.09 @ 5:55PM
Yep Ron got his 5 minutes. The rest of the time was wasted on the other buffoons.
Albert| 12.31.09 @ 6:00PM
I thought they said there wasn't room for him on the stage and so the RP supporters, showing great restraint, kept the grenades in their pockets and tossed snowballs at Hanity.
Albert| 1.1.10 @ 11:31AM
Leanne, I owe you an apology. I misread your post. I've read all your other posts. You are much better informed than I am. You have probably memorized Ron Paul's books by now. I'm a novice by comparison. Thanks for all your great posts.
Silentboom| 12.31.09 @ 12:11AM
What do we expect from socialist, imperialist, Ben Stein. His foreign policy advice will leave you in the same situation as his financial advice did. Ruin.
The Virginian| 12.31.09 @ 12:24AM
RON PAUL REVOLUTION!!!!!!!
Dmitrij| 12.31.09 @ 12:26AM
another dumb zionist
Ron Paul 2012!
re: Dmitij| 12.31.09 @ 1:10PM
How dare you call Ron Paul a racist you dumb Zionist! Right Wing Nutjob Revolution 2012!
And don't forget to buy your gold, storable food and new Glenn Beck.
Leeanne| 12.31.09 @ 7:12AM
Great video !!
Ian| 12.31.09 @ 1:08AM
Is this the same Ben Stein that said subprime was a $30 billion problem? Tell you what, Ben. *Think* and *listen* to your opponent before responding. It helps to not talk over them. RP was right. You discredit yourself, and the networks that invite you as a guest.
Robert| 12.31.09 @ 2:26AM
We should definitely close a lot of our bases, in particular where people won't defend themselves so they can afford they're socialist state. But I hope everyone will go back and read my "cracker jack" comments because I just destroyed Paul's argument and his defenders proved it. Bin Laden launched 9/11 because we have bases in Japan and S. Korea??? Get real. I'm laughing at you. Japan and Korea want us to close shop and leave them to the Chinese and N. Koreans??? What deluded planet are you living on? Yes, Bin Laden wasn't in Saudi Arabia....they ran him off...they don't coddle terrorists there. Ron Paul says we should listen to them...he just never allows that they may be liars.
Robert's Friend | 12.31.09 @ 4:21AM
What?!?! Did you read what you typed before hitting "submit"? If so, maybe you should come down off the meth before posting.
Brendon| 12.31.09 @ 3:07AM
Ok Ben. Expelled was a great movie, so don't make me start to dislike you a little.
You're being immature and silly. Just apologize to Ron Paul and stop making crap up. You shouldn't have called him anti-semetic. By the way, I want the USA to end their alliance with every nation in the Middle East and get the heck out of it. I think it'd make America safer, maybe Israel too. I wish Israel the best of luck but honestly, if I wanted to support the Israeli government I'd send it some money rather than let the US government take it from me and give it to Israel. Also, if I wanted to die in a war protecting Israel, I'd go live in Israel. This is coming not from an anti-semite, but from a Christian who wants to see Israel succeed and be at peace.
Brian| 12.31.09 @ 3:20AM
Ron Paul reminds me of Chomsky. Another nut that does back flips to justify islamic terrorism.
Ian| 12.31.09 @ 3:47AM
Yeah. He's so nuts that he's been spot on for decades with regard to the problems we have. He's so nuts that he needs to call his opponents antisemites when he loses an argument.
/sarcasm
Argumentum ad Hominem. Why didn't you choose to call Paul an "antisemite" and instead opt for "nut"?
Albert| 12.31.09 @ 9:56AM
Earlier I posted quotes by the chief of Islamic terrorists (supplied by the most reliable of source, the Financial Times) giving credence to Paul's "back flips" that US occupation of the Middle East drove him to Afghanistan to plan his attacks. Occupation fuels insurgency - refute this.
Instead, you support an eight year effort at a cost of one trillion dollars and countless deaths and wounded to fight a rag tag band of scoundrels hiding in caves, with nothing to show for it, but a country going bankrupt under debt that keeps piling up. If that is not lunacy, let me know. I high-ranking diplomat and former marine resigned from his duties in Afghanistan a couple of weeks ago, citing the above assertion for his action.
Ben| 12.31.09 @ 11:48AM
Please elaborate on your dumb comment.
Albert| 12.31.09 @ 12:28PM
Gladly: Extract from the Financial Times: (posted earlier)
[Stein, Hanity, Levine, et al, take note, they are not killing us because we are free, or because they are psychos. Why is it so difficult to understand what Kuchinich so eloquently stated: "Occupation fuels insurgency."]
Osama bin Laden
Published: December 28 2009 02:00 | Last updated: December 28 2009 02:00
*Grew up in Saudi Arabia with a father of Yemeni origin and a Syrian mother.
*Fought with the Mujahideen after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979
*Set up a support network for the Mujahideen in the Pakistani city of Peshawar. In 1988, he named this al-Qaeda ("the base" in Arabic).
Became a critic of the Saudi royal family after they invited US and western troops into the kingdom in 1990, following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait…
His words "Our religion is under attack. They kill and murder our brothers. They compromise our honour and our dignity and, dare we utter a single word of protest against the injustice, we are called terrorists" May 1998.
"America has fallen into the quagmires of the Tigris and Euphrates. Bush thought that Iraq and its oil were easy spoils. Now, he is in a critical situation, praise God. Today, America has started to cry out and crumble before the entire world" October 2003
Albert| 12.31.09 @ 12:34PM
Find this article on the Washington Post website;
U.S. official resigns over Afghan war
Foreign Service officer and former Marine captain says he no longer knows why his nation is fighting
Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Ben| 12.31.09 @ 2:28PM
Dumb comment was directed towards Brian not you. Cheers.
Albert| 12.31.09 @ 2:43PM
Yeah! Sorry! I figured that out after reading your other posts. Anyway, helped to clarify what I said, so no harm done.
Brian| 1.1.10 @ 5:13AM
This may come as a surprise to you and Ron Paul but we would not need to "occupy" Afghanistan were it not for terrorist attacks on America. Paul has is bass ackwards terrorism fuels occupation..end terrorism=end occupation!
Keith Hamburger| 1.1.10 @ 2:19PM
The occupation has been taking place for over 100 years. It started with the British taking over the remains of the Ottoman Empire and setting borders that were unstable to try to control the population. This was followed by the British giving control of Israel to the Zionists and disenfranchising the Arab majority who had lived in the region for millenia. Then, in the 1950's, the United States started initiating coups and installing puppet tyrants who were more "sympathetic to American interests" than the democratically elected leaders in the region (in particular, Iran and Iraq but also including Pakistan and Afghanistan and others).
This isn't a chicken/egg issue, it's clear that the occupation and interference came long before the terrorism.
Jim Clark| 12.31.09 @ 3:56AM
I saw this clip, and I did not think that Ben Stein had made a personal attack on Ron Paul. I did feel that Ron Paul over-reacted to Ben's comment, and this is very uncharacteristic of him. Not that I blame him however, as I agree with him entirely on this issue and Ben Stein's line of argument is straight out of the neo-con playbook. I think Ben is a good guy, but misguided. That said, I have seen Ron continuously attacked on interviews and debates, berated in the press, and this is the first time I have ever seen him engage in a shouting match. Not that he doesn't have it in him, check out some clips of him campaigned as a libertarian in '88. I can surely grant him clemency after all he has been through. I know I could never keep my cool as he has.
James| 12.31.09 @ 5:08AM
We want a debate Ben Stein vs The Champion of the Constitution Ron Paul!
Clairy| 12.31.09 @ 1:36PM
Here, Here!
Let's leave out the name calling and present only facts!
Lighthouse| 12.31.09 @ 5:13AM
Ben Stein,
You were allowed to talk and all you said is that we are not occupiers. So if we are not occupying that country why are we there? This is basic English. Are you anti-English? Please, stop making public appearances.
Pingback| 12.31.09 @ 5:59AM
connections and context: American exhibits/audiences and modern African art : a criti links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Liberty440| 12.31.09 @ 6:06AM
Read Dying to Win by Robert Paipe. The number one cause of suicide terrorism is the occupation (not the ugly word chest thumping R's make it out to be) of a foreign power on ones land. You'll find that the most suicide terrorism (at least for now) doesn't even take place by muslims (hint: it's in Sre Lanka). If we FOLLOWED OUR OWN CONSTITUTION, we would have NO TROOPS ON ANY LAND W/O A DECLARATION OF WAR or letters of marque and reprisal authorized ONLY by the congress (people) and we WOULD be much better off with way fewer enemies.
Matt Sterba | 12.31.09 @ 6:37AM
Ben-
FYI, the 9/11 Commision Report says the same thing that Dr. Paul said.
Ian| 12.31.09 @ 6:55AM
Why is it taking so long to ordit the fed. Oh S*&t is that been anti - Semitic. These jews people must stop doing this its starting to p people off.
Patrick| 12.31.09 @ 6:58AM
Nice attempt at revising history. However, I saw the Larry King episode twice: once when it first aired live on CNN, and once again youtube. Ben Stein's recollection of what happened does not remotely reflect the reality in what actually transpired.
Ron Paul merely suggested that we Americans consider the motivations behind the "underwear bomber" and other terrorists' actions. Why do they do what they do? Is there something about our foreign policy that we can change to make the American people safer? Maybe it is easier to make America safer by modifying our own behavior rather than trying to achieve the same goal through brute force and war.
Personally, I think Ben's baseless attack was premeditated. Ron Paul's ideas are beginning to resonate with so many people that defenders of the FED, and the Israel Lobby, are looking to smear and discredit Congressman Paul with baseless accusations of racism and other slander.
The Israel Lobby does not want the American people to get the notion that the US Government's unconditional support for Israel, and the occupation of Arab lands, may be fueling extremist sentiment in the Middle East and around the world.
Clairy| 12.31.09 @ 2:17PM
Notice how the smears have ramped up now that the new year's arrived? Elections are coming and both the faux-conservatives and corrupt "liberals" are really worried about the growing demand for an honest, pared-down, constitutional government that benefits citizens rather than all their special interests groups. (DOH!) We can expect the slander to get a whole lot uglier.
Patrick| 12.31.09 @ 6:58AM
Nice attempt at revising history. However, I saw the Larry King episode twice: once when it first aired live on CNN, and once again youtube. Ben Stein's recollection of what happened does not remotely reflect the reality in what actually transpired.
Ron Paul merely suggested that we Americans consider the motivations behind the "underwear bomber" and other terrorists' actions. Why do they do what they do? Is there something about our foreign policy that we can change to make the American people safer? Maybe it is easier to make America safer by modifying our own behavior rather than trying to achieve the same goal through brute force and war.
Personally, I think Ben's baseless attack was premeditated. Ron Paul's ideas are beginning to resonate with so many people that defenders of the FED, and the Israel Lobby, are looking to smear and discredit Congressman Paul with baseless accusations of racism and other slander.
The Israel Lobby does not want the American people to get the notion that the US Government's unconditional support for Israel, and the occupation of Arab lands, may be fueling extremist sentiment in the Middle East and around the world.
DK | 12.31.09 @ 9:01AM
Hey Ben Stein,
“What can you do against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy?” George Orwell
“If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.”
Elbert Hubbard
Take the red pill Ben. The truth is out there.
wbennett| 12.31.09 @ 1:03PM
Well said.
ChrisCZ| 12.31.09 @ 9:31AM
1) Ron Paul - you rule and should be president. I appreciate your dedication to true conservatism (adherence to the Constitution)
2) Ben Stein - you're pretty much a schmuck. This was no apology. Plus, you are apparently sensitive to comments about Israel to a fault, so much so that when no one even mentions Israel, you go ahead and inject it into the discussion anyways, then use it as an excuse to personally attack. Shameful.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.31.09 @ 9:38AM
Heh!
Well now we have heard from EVERY Ron Paul disciple in America in this conversation....all forty of them. As the bright lady pointed out above, 2% of Americans support the nut. Heck, 2% of Americans will believe just about any nutty idea one can come up with. That is why they are called a "lunatic fringe" group.
I am certainly glad they had this opportunity to show us their best thought. heh
Albert| 12.31.09 @ 9:47AM
When people like "old Texican," are devoid of rational arguments to rebut statements made by Paul supporters they always resort to name calling.
I'd rather side with the 2% of Americans who still believe the country should be governed along Constitutional lines, than the 98% who like Nancy Pelosi says" Constitution? You aren't serious?"
Proud to be a lunatic, albeit a highly educated one and an employer too boot.
Mary Louise| 12.31.09 @ 11:15AM
Happy New Year, Ken (Old Texican).
I'm RC apostate and a wild-one, but I've always been fond of Baptists. A Baptist minister once stopped me as I was walking home from work, and we had a very nice conversation. No proseltyzing.
He was in his 80s. He and his wife were driving past waiting for me to cross. I motioned them on. For whatever reason, he got out of his car introduced himself and his wife, and began asking me some questions, which I answered. We talked for about 20 minutes. No proseltyzing.
He had a beaming, holy face. And as you can see, I remember.
Ben| 12.31.09 @ 11:46AM
Hate to break it to you bud, but I happen to work in a traditionally hawkish place as we benefit from military actions, and even there folks are saying that Ron Paul is probably right on foreign policy. That isn't to say everyone there agrees with Paul, but the numbers are growing. It is really hard to argue against truth. That is why people like you sound so foolish.
Matt| 12.31.09 @ 1:48PM
I'm a wall street bankerand supporter of dr paul. Does that make me part of the elitist banker cabal/lunatic fringe?
Lighthouse| 1.2.10 @ 3:59AM
So let me get this straight Ken (Old Texican), you are saying Ron Paul is a nut. Ron Paul served in the military. So by default you are saying that the military is full of nuts. I'm just trying to figure out the thought process of a knuckle dragger such as yourself.
You aren't proving to anybody here that you are capable of discussing the subject matter since you are NOT providing any tangible response. You are just resorting to name calling.
I figured I would do the same for you to communicate at your substandard level.
DK | 12.31.09 @ 9:56AM
Hey Ben,
I forgot to mention that you are not an economist because you played one in a movie.
Go back to acting: "Bueller...Bueller...Bueller..."
DK | 12.31.09 @ 9:56AM
Hey Ben,
I forgot to mention that you are not an economist because you played one in a movie.
Go back to acting: "Bueller...Bueller...Bueller..."
ME75| 12.31.09 @ 10:58AM
Stein just slandered a Republican with one of the strongest voting records in Congress. I hope this is further evidence for those in the conservative movement of the charade these neo-con figures are exhibiting.
While these characters (Stein, Medved, Prager et al) claim to be pro-life, pro-free market, "family values", law and order conservatives, the bottom line is that their chief and only concern is that of Israel, not the United States. For them, if it was between Ron Paul or some paleocon running for president against a left-wing loony like Lieberman, Hillary Clinton or even Obama, they unflinchingly vote for the pro-abortion, socialist. So much for their "conservative values."
If Mr. Stein actually held such values, instead of espousing them to make money off the conservative niche, he would have never donated thousands of dollars to Al Franken for his Senate run.
James Orleans| 12.31.09 @ 11:12AM
Dear Ben Stein,
I suggest you study up on the concept of blowback. It's hardly antisemetic. And then go give Ron Paul a real apology, before you make more of an a55 of yourself.
J.A. Topfke| 12.31.09 @ 12:51PM
Ben Stein makes a vicious, untrue, racist accusation against Ron Paul and this is all he gives as an apology? What the...? Israel was never even mentioned in the conversation, so when Stein blurts out his anti-Semite insult it reveals a deeper truth, that Stein believes the War on Terror is for the benefit of Israel.
Clairy| 12.31.09 @ 1:20PM
That's the impression I got.
BluBlu| 12.31.09 @ 1:06PM
It's interesting how all of the Ron Paul supporter's on here are basically saying this:
I like how all of the defenders of Ron Paul on this forum say something along these lines:
"How dare you call Ron Paul a racist! Now go back to your evil Zioinist Neocon Cabal you Jew Ben Stein!"
Albert| 12.31.09 @ 1:21PM
No we are not all saying that. The majority of Ron Paul supporters honor him for his unyielding devotion to the US Constitution. He does not believe the US Constitution gives us the right to build military bases in the Middle East and to intervene in their domestic disputes. Instead of following the herd and condemning Muslims, he wants us to consider how they feel about the US' presence and intervention in their backyards. He rightfully concludes that they hate us for such actions, as we would if the shoe was on the other foot. Failure to consider and respect the rights of others is a recipe for conflict. Following the dictates of the US Constitution harmonizes apparently irreconcilable differences. Forget about Ron Paul's dedicated followers, concentrate on his writings, voting record and humility. Their is not an ounce of antisemitism, anti-islam, anti-european, anti-christian in him.
Clairy| 12.31.09 @ 1:24PM
?!! (scratching head)
But YOU are the only one that's said that!
re: Clairy| 12.31.09 @ 2:11PM
I think I counted over a dozen comments calling Stein a Zionist or a Neocon (which is a racist term). There were also a comment saying "My best friends are jewish...lampshades."
Way to raise the level of debate, Paulbots!
Ben| 12.31.09 @ 2:26PM
Stein certainly played the part of a Zionist in this exchange with Paul. I guess Paulbots isn't racist as Paul supporters represent all stripes, including some Jews.
Albert| 12.31.09 @ 2:32PM
Please correct your post. A non-paulite wishing to incriminate SL Toddard posted that aweful comment. SL Toddard pointed this out, but the damage has been done, unless you acknowledge that. It show how careful one has to be in reading these posts before passing judgment.
"
S. L. Toddard| 12.30.09 @ 10:06PM
Some of my best friends are Jewish..lampshades
Reply to this
S.L. Toddard| 12.30.09 @ 11:04PM
I don't suppose I need to point this out, but this is someone posting in my name again. Assume if any legitimately anti-semitic posts are made in my name that they are not mine. "
Albert| 12.31.09 @ 2:34PM
I do arrive at the conclusion that "neocon" is a racists term? Now I've heard it all.
Albert| 12.31.09 @ 2:40PM
Sorry, hit the "submit" button too quickly. Let me ask again: "How do you arrive at the conclusion that "neocon" is a racists" term?
re: can't win argument| 12.31.09 @ 2:57PM
You're going to have to stop pretending that zionist is a slur against jews or that other non-racist terms should be considered racist. Did you go along with the assertion that "socialist" is now racist too? And that criticizing Obama is racist? It's just dishonest.
The one ugly comment you mentioned was clearly written by someone from your own camp seeking to discredit others. Why do you need to stoop to such sleazy tactics?
Neo-cons or new conservatives talk all about small government, being fiscally conservative, and "freedom", but use their power to expand government to immense proportions, spend other people's money without compunction, infringe on my rights, and sh!t all over my constitution! How does ethnicity figure into this?Eight years of Bush and his unbridled, unprincipled cronies have put Obama where he is today, and set us up for this country's downfall. God help us!
Red Phillips | 12.31.09 @ 4:39PM
Neocon is a racist term?
Nice "thought-stopper," but it won't work here.
Kristol Fan | 12.31.09 @ 4:07PM
It is strange that some think neo-con is a derogatory or racist term. Irving Kristol (the self-proclaimed father of neo-conservatism) coined the phrase himself and proudly wore the label. If you click my name, you can read Kristol's piece in the Weekly Standard where he brags about hijacking the conservative movement. Not only does he admit their strain of "conservatism" had it's origins among disillusioned liberal intellectuals (they were Scoop Jackson democrats - followers of Strauss & Trotsky who, after Vietnam, were mad the dems didn't want to use force to spread "democracy").
Make sure to check the link but here is a quote:
"Viewed in this way, one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy."
This is from the man who coined the term and proudly wore it.
Matt| 12.31.09 @ 1:45PM
Ben Stein has discredited himself. Dr Paul mentioned nothing about israel, just the govenrment of yemen and our military forces in that country. Mr. Stein should repent and apolgize for embarassing himself and inappropriately maligning someone for disagreeing with him. I will no longer be reading stein's articles until I see an appropriate apology.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.31.09 @ 1:49PM
Hi BluBlu,
I always get a chuckle reading these loons. It sorta' reminds me of a few years back walking through airports...watching and listening to the hari Krishnas chanting. Sorta' "don't interrupt me while I stick my fingers in my ears chant and la la la."
You know, I traveled the world under "pax-Americana" for twenty years. I have always wondered since...who these loons would rather have to live under. "Pax Sovietas"? "Pax Germanicus"? "Pax Sharia"?
They simply cannot get their hands around reality. Someone is going to shape the global economy/power structure. I am so very glad that it is us.
All of our childish "anti-interventionists" need to step back and study a very simple truth from the Bible; a Genesis story of Cain killing Abel.
My questions to them would be:
1. Would you have intervened if you had been there?
2. Are you your brother's keeper?
3. Would you have brought force to bear to stop the murder of Abel? And if so...how much force? Deadly force if necessary to protect...or try to protect...an innocent man from a murderer?
...Then BluBlu,
After they have spun themselves into the ground in a very simple debate in a very simple context, I would recall to them another Bible lesson: "To whom much is given...much is required."
See, they try to obfuscate the truth in a myriad of the complexities of the interconnected world. They quibble and quake, and refuse responsibility to a suffering world.
In the final analysis it is very very simple: Please excuse my repeated copy/paste...
Fortunately, our "opposition" are all cowards....except for the bullies...and we will whip their tails between their legs. heh.
They will certainly write a tough tune...then melt away as the tide turns.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.30.09 @ 1:41PM
I do declare!
Every single Ron Paul voter in the United States is on this thread today.
Heh!
Ron Paul is so stupid he couldn't lead a lunatic drunk to the bar for a drink.
He will always represent a lunatic fringe on the national scene.
That lunatic fringe has ably represented itself here today. heh!
To wit: "Go away, world. You frighten me."
Wrap it up any way you choose, cowards. We who are not will keep the bullies off your playground, because see, it is our playground too. You can hide behind us and not even get your fingernails dirty.
You are obviously uneducable because your fears get in the way of serious logic...or memory.
You can quote a million times and places where we "bully removers" screwed up...and you will be right in many cases.....
BUT!
Without us bumbling fools, you would have no playground.
Our country was born in blood and tears, and the rocket's red glare.
Most of our founders lost everything; many of them even their families and lives.
So you guys just sit there in your catbird's seat and scold us who built it...and feathered it for you.
Ron and youall remind me of Bible nit-pickers who memorize particular verses, but who simply cannot step back and grasp the larger message.
...Once upon a time, in 1945...we woke up one morning to realize we were the "biggest kid on the block". In our stumbling bumbling way, we have tried our best to keep the bullies off your playground.
Just say "thank you", or......just slink off behind your bullies.
It really is that simple.
PS: Everyone stay off the roads tonight...Tonight is for Amatuer Party-makers. (heh, we professional party makers will be quietly at home.)
Happy new year.
Lighthouse| 1.2.10 @ 4:05AM
Ken, slow down kiddo.
You said, "Someone is going to shape the global economy/power structure. I am so very glad that it is us."
Now it is 100% acceptable to believe this. However, you cannot in the same breath call the people against that lunatics because you are just as much of a madman for believing that it is the job of one nation or group to shape the global economy/power structure.
You are doing that name calling thing again when somebody disagrees with you. Grow up, and commit to a point of view. If you sincerely believe that the US has to take the helm at shaping the global economy and power structure then you are also required to believe that this must be done in the most effecient way and just say flat out how you feel. Kill everybody else that opposes our nation, enslave the survivors, and maintain control.
Don't pussy foot it by calling people names and the like, it makes you look like the lunatic.
BluBlu re: Old Texican| 12.31.09 @ 2:15PM
"Ron Paul is so stupid he couldn't lead a lunatic drunk to the bar for a drink.
He will always represent a lunatic fringe on the national scene. "
Well, I don't know if Mr. Paul is stupid, and I don't have any problem with him, though I am not really a fan.
What I am shocked by is the way his supporters attack anyone who criticizes or questions his views. They are VERY reactionary and dogmatic. Kind of like...LIBERALS!
Ben| 12.31.09 @ 6:51PM
""Ron Paul is so stupid he couldn't lead a lunatic drunk to the bar for a drink.
He will always represent a lunatic fringe on the national scene. "
Somebody has to defend this honorable man. Too man that subscribe to this outlet like to call him names and discredit him so folks like me hold the truth in their faces.
BluBlu re: Old Texican| 12.31.09 @ 2:17PM
But do like your comparison to the Hare Krishnas putting their fingers in their ears saying "na na na na I don't hear you". We should call them the Hare Paulnas.
Obama supporters are much the same way. But obviously much worse.
Ben| 12.31.09 @ 2:23PM
"Every single Ron Paul voter in the United States is on this thread today."Ya sure.
"1. Would you have intervened if you had been there?" Maybe, but my tax dollars were not going to either.
"2. Are you your brother's keeper?" Sure, I donate to charity, but the government should not have a mandate to take my tax dollars to bomb others when they have not attacked us...Iraq comes to mind. Cain and Abel didn't attack me.
"3. Would you have brought force to bear to stop the murder of Abel? And if so...how much force? Deadly force if necessary to protect...or try to protect...an innocent man from a murderer? "If I was standing there I might have pulled my pistol out.
Your biblical stuff is irrelevant here. The reason being is that most of the world doesn't adhere to the bible so if you use the bible, you have to use the rest of the books as well... Koran, etc.
"You are obviously uneducable because your fears get in the way of serious logic...or memory." Are you accusing those that disagree with you of being uneducated. I would hazard a guess that many are probably more educated than yourself.
"Our country was born in blood and tears, and the rocket's red glare."Ya what is your point.
"Once upon a time, in 1945...we woke up one morning to realize we were the "biggest kid on the block". In our stumbling bumbling way, we have tried our best to keep the bullies off your playground." Ironically we are now the most broke, and the biggest bully. Yikes the irony.
Richard Baker| 12.31.09 @ 2:51PM
To those of you who don't care that little Israel stands perpetually threatened by the most uncivilized and barbaric nations on Earth, your buddy Dr. Goebbels says "Sieg Heil" and Danke. When the slaughter of Israel starts, will you make excuses as liberals did when Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge murdered about 2 million Cambodians? The only US friendly regime in the Middle East and your motto seems to be "Let them die, no sweat off my nose." Morality, we don't need no stinking morality.
Albert| 12.31.09 @ 3:07PM
You are contradicting yourself. The most "uncivilized and barbaric nations on earth" are no match for Israel, military speaking, one the strongest countries in the world. There is nothing "little" about Israel. Ask its neighbors. Israel isn't even close to being "slaughtered." You are a victim of your own fertile imagination.
Perhaps you think Iran is a threat. Iran can't refine its own oil, let alone attack Israel. When such a possibility becomes a probability, Israel will destroy Iran's strategic positions in the same time frame that takes the cronies at the UN to drink a cup of coffee.
You are correct to use the words " your motto seems to be", because your attempt to attribute your words to us is a failed strategy. It does raise an important point. There are nations, tribes, political factions all over the world, continuously fighting each other. Why do think, we, the US taxpayers, already $12 trillion in debt and heading for $19 trillion, should extend ourselves to breaking point in an effort to "protect" the world's warring factions?
There is nothing in the Constitution placing that onus on us, but I presume, like Nancy Polosi, you probably have little regard for the Constitution, so on what basis should we shoulder these intolerable burden of being the world's policeman? And talking about morality, what is so moral about placing a $19 trillion debt on our children and their children?
Clairy| 12.31.09 @ 3:35PM
Why would Israel be slaughtered? Unlike their neighbors, they have nuclear weapons. If they feel the need to use them they can do so. They can make decisions without consulting me or anyone els. I wish Israel every success in protecting itself and bringing an end to violence in the middle east. May it's children thrive and enjoy life to the fullest! But can they (and the rest of the world) please stop sucking American citizens dry? We are broke over here and have so many more problems than we deserve. And if it's not wrong that Americans are forced to hand over our cash to Israel - WHY are we forced to hand over even more money to their enemies?!
You are trying to guilt me into feeling selfish. I want NOTHING from Israel and that's what they give me. I think you are the one with the selfish attitude.
Marty W.| 12.31.09 @ 3:44PM
In case you've never come across a hasbarat before, Mr. Baker is a cookie-cutter example. No amount of reasoned argument or intellectual maturity has any effect on them because hasbarats don't care if they come across as ignorant, obnoxious, nasty or inane. All that matters for them is sabotaging criticism of the Israeli government. They're like anti-intellectual stink bombs: designed to cause maximum discomfort but have little if any real power.
The weakness with this tactic, as you probably figured out, is that hasbarats will inevitably shout and whine themselves into irrelevance. And, it's already happening (Toronto International Film Festival is a perfect example) as the once-dreaded epithet "anti-Semite" has lost all significance and the person who hurls it is more likely to be mocked.
Ben| 12.31.09 @ 6:53PM
"Morality, we don't need no stinking morality."
So what you are saying is Israel is a moral entity that is worthy of our dollars. I guess that is where we deviate.
Stephen M| 12.31.09 @ 3:41PM
Why do people have such a difficult time distinguishing between "motivation" and "justification?" Ron Paul was talking about what motivated terrorists to attack the US, and accurately I might add. But explaining the motivation in no way justifies the actions committed by terrorists. Some people are either intellectually lazy or completely blinded by ideology. If you do not understand the motivations behind terrorist attacks, you will never put an end to it.
Albert| 12.31.09 @ 4:01PM
Why do people have such a difficult time distinguishing between "motivation" and "justification?"
Because they rely on the media to tell them what to think. The media, being compromised, will lead them up the garden path, which is why forums like this is so important in undermining the media's hold on the masses.
A lot of people on this forum have been exposed to some home truths. You can see by their name calling that they have been shaken in their beliefs, but they have nothing to offer in rebuttal, hence the name calling. However, over the coming days and month, if they have the required ability to think for themselves, the truths will sink in and many of them will be liberated. Many of us were once just us gullible and blind in our faith that if we saw on TV is must be the truth.
JQA| 12.31.09 @ 4:01PM
And her obsession with unwarranted wars; she continues to struggle for...
Her sounded friends advised her to not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She should be a well-wisher to freedom and independence to all nations. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own...
Cadavre| 12.31.09 @ 4:06PM
Jews are not a race. They are a parish. One of the largest Jewish diaspora lives in Iran. Others live in Syria and Palestine and Turkey. Why are they diaspora? Because Zionists, like Rahm Emanuel's father, terrorized and murdered and forced them to flee. The first act of the UN was to create the Zionist state. A state of eastern non-semitic Europeans descendants of a miraculous conversion to Judea in 784 AD by Ashkenazi to avoid the blade of a young Islam's warriors as they began their conquest of the known world. Because Islam considered Jews their brethren the emergency conversion of the Ashkenazi saved their lives. Since the descendants of the Eastern European Ashkenazi have occupied Palestine one of the biggest budgeted items at the Hebrew University is research and weaving of history to somehow place the Ashkenazi, not the descendants of Abraham (an Iraqi), on Noahs arc. To date the final quiltwork of this fantasy has not yet made it to mainstream. Palestinians are descendants of David and Abraham. So are the Jewish diaspora in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Turkey. Ashkenazi have no relation to bilical Jews or dark skinned Ethiopian Hebres. Their only claim is that emergency conversion by their patriarchal Ashkenazi ancestors who eventually became the World Zionist Organization and are responsible for bringing America into WWI. Before WWII, the Nazis transported many German Ashkenazi Jews (a parish not a race) to Palestine on the good ship SS Tel Aviv. The Nazi supplied them with German Marks and Machine tools.
The WZO gifted us with WWWI, WWII. Don't take my word. Listen or read the speech by American Jew Benjamin Freedman at Sweet Liberty dot Org. While you're at it read Albert Einstein's 1948 letter to the editor of the NYT protesting Zionist terrorism in Palestine.
A Zionist is not a Jew. A Zionist is a Zionist, period.
It's over. We no longer fear the forbidden zone. We no longer accept the argument that only apes have souls.
Richard Baker| 12.31.09 @ 4:09PM
Marty W:
As a good liberal, you resort to some form of lame insult rather than cogitation but that is to be expected, I suppose. Maybe you should read WHY Israel was created and stop wondering why the US supports her. Are the Israelis perfect? Of course not and I agree that they do things that aren't always palatable or acceptable to us. Why then don't we rid ourselves of any connection to France, England, and Italy as these countries regularly disrespect and attempt to hamstring the US. I am always amazed by the impassioned rhetoric your bunch uses. Remember, if the Arabs ever decided to use human wave attacks and mass and deploy everything they have, the Israeli military/nuclear capability will not be able to stop them all. Think of the relative populations. I think that you guys need to read up on massed warfare just a bit. Ask those who underwent the Chinese and North Korean mass/human wave attacks in 1950-1953 about the problems contained therein. As I said earlier, where are your rantings and ravings about the violence against the Nation of Israel since Independence in 1948?....I'm still waiting.
PS: I have great regard for the Constitution but defending our friends is not specifically mentioned there so I suppose we just let them die, hmmm? If that were the case then the French would be speaking German, I reckon. Also,if the word anti-semite has no power then why does it rouse you so? I personally never use the word in discourse myself.
Albert| 12.31.09 @ 4:40PM
"Why then don't we rid ourselves of any connection to France, England, and Italy as these countries regularly disrespect and attempt to hamstring the US."
If Paul has his way, The US will withdraw from NATO (a relic of WWII) and we won't have military bases in Germany or anywhere else in the world for that matter. Paul wants everyone to be our friend. There is no need not pick favorites. We don't have the financial resources to protect all the warring factions in the world from each other.
If we promote our constitutional values through peaceful means, instead of the barrel of the gun, we might be able to influence the Islamic countries to adopt a more open and democratic type of society. Occupying their territories and picking favorites in the conflicts have landed us in this untenable mess.
Using the Hitler argument is fallacious, because none of the Islamic leaders have the remotest chance of ever attaining a smidgen of the power and military might that Hitler commanded. However, it is an argument used by Hanity, Limbaugh, Obama, et al. to scare us into submission.
JohnT| 12.31.09 @ 7:00PM
Sorry to burst your bubble Richard but the US did not get involved in WWII to save France or any other European nation for that matter. The public was against involvement and the government was uncertain as to whether and how to involve itself in this Great War. It was because Japan was part of the Axis powers that we declared war on Germany as well after Pearl Harbor. Interestingly enough, recent declassified documents indicate that intelligence officials knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor but kept it quiet so that it would occur and turn public sentiment around.
I understand that naivite is bliss. And I really don't blame anyone for it.
Richard Baker| 12.31.09 @ 4:14PM
By the way, I believe that Dr. Paul has many good ideas and some with which I disagree. Regardless, he is someone who does have value to impart and I listen to him with a discriminating and critical ear.
Albert| 12.31.09 @ 4:27PM
"By the way, I believe that Dr. Paul has many good ideas." Spoken like a true patriot, except Dr. Paul only has one good idea: "Follow the Constitution."
USAF Vet Dan| 12.31.09 @ 4:30PM
Ben, your lame attempt to retract your outrageous accusation is ineffective, to say the least. Pleading ignorance is not a defense. The video is there as a record of what Paul said so stop with the "at least as I understood it -- and I could be mistaken" BS.
Ron Paul's position on foreign aid to Israel is available all over the Internet so again, stop playing stupid. Its exactly the same as it is for every other nation in the world - "it is counter to our best interests". Your playing of the "race card" is as bad as the liberals playing it against anyone who opposes Obama's positions. By doing so, you lost any credibility you may have had. I now put you firmly in the classification of "Neocon globalist shill".
Osamas Pajamas| 12.31.09 @ 5:38PM
I like Ron Paul's libertarianism well enough but when it comes to defense and foreign policy, I tend toward the conservative side. We are paying heavy a price for "not" promoting worldwide "liberalism" in the last two centuries, however, liberalism in the sense discussed below. Ron Paul probably would like the reference to jurisdiction, as would I, in an ideal world.
The Democrats believe in statism, not liberalism. Famous brands of statism in recent centuries have been Nazism, socialism, fascism, communism, and welfare statism [sort of a mix of fascism and socialism].
Liberalism, on the other hand, is a political philosophy of small, cheap government, and the job of a liberal government is to enforce human rights within its own jurisdiction.
I speak of the perfectly-natural and universally-valid human rights of life, liberty, private property, and the pursuit of personal happiness.
The first article of private property is "the self" and all other rights are derivatives of and flow from these cardinal rights.
These rights ----The Rights of Man ---- are the gift of nature or of nature's god ---- and they belong to all human beings, everywhere.
Show me a Democrat who subscribes to all of the above, without qualification or weasel words.
The words "liberal" and "liberalism" were hijacked by the Democrats and socialists long ago ---- and the mistake of conservatives and libertarians was to let them get away with it.
It is long past time that liberalism be reclaimed, defined, and explained by its rightful owners ---- by the champions of freedom, i.e.: not by Democrats.
Richard Baker| 12.31.09 @ 8:56PM
Of course, as some of you experts know, America is an evil country that has set out to do the world wrong. I recommend that you experts check out the James Garner movie, "The Americanization of Emily" where he lambasts Julie Andrews' character about Europe and England, in particular. Most of you guys don't have a clue but are funny, nonetheless.
Richard Baker| 12.31.09 @ 10:13PM
JohnT:
Regardless of how YOU believe it started, the US did enter Europe to liberate France. The French had to be rescued twice in the last century because of their ineptness with the Germans or they'd yet be speaking German. As you may not know of the "Axis of Steel", the enemy considered combat with one a combat with all as military alliances do. Hitler just lived up to his part of the Pact. Naivte is your assuming that the voluminous record of WWII is not known to all except yourself. Shorthand, on this forum, is necessary because of the complexity of the period and that causes a brevity which translates poorly. Intellectual arrogance is unbecoming. Try a humble spirit in argument. This is intellectual discourse and not the "dozens."
Margie| 12.31.09 @ 10:28PM
Hey Paulies~ Don't forget: Vote Republican!
Mark| 12.31.09 @ 10:35PM
Sure, as long as they believe in the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy
Albert| 1.1.10 @ 11:36AM
Who, for Lindsay Graham, Arnold Spector (George Bush's big buddy?), John McCain,...? The list is "infinite" The only Republicans worth voting for are the ones listed on the Daily Paul site. The rest are RINOs.
Pingback| 1.1.10 @ 3:34AM
The American Spectator : A Ron Paul Moment American Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.1.10 @ 3:34AM
The American Spectator : A Ron Paul Moment American Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.1.10 @ 4:33AM
The American Spectator : A Ron Paul Moment capital university links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.1.10 @ 4:33AM
The American Spectator : A Ron Paul Moment capital university links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Mary Louise| 1.1.10 @ 9:39AM
I don’t think anyone can speak for the Afghani people. You don’t know if they view the US as a body that can protect them against the predation of the Taliban. They may want us gone eventually, but I’m not sure that’s true right now. No one here knows what the Afghanis want.
The analogy w/China in reply to one of my comments (this thread is unwieldy that’s why I’m not replying to that in place ) can only hold up if we’re housing a group of people who are bent on terrorizing China and her people as well as us. If the Taliban prevailed in the US and struck another Nation, bringing that Nation to invade, there would be many Americans who would view any restoration of order by the invading force as a good.
The Iraqis may want us gone now, but I don’t think they looked at us as occupiers while we were helping them establish themselves free from Hussein. The purple finger of the voters, and the enthusiasm was real. The point in my first comment is that the Iraqis and the Afghanis, even if we leave after they’ve received what good we can offer and establish, are not likely to produce even one generation loyal to us.
I don’t think Ron Paul can’t protect the American people from the designs of these Terrorists. He can’t re-establish good relations with our enemies, even granted that we deserve these enemies. The enmity is not going to vanish overnight. The terrorists hate our decadence, they hate our culture, they don’t care much for our Trinity, either. Their angst and inadequacy dates back centuries.
In Ron Paul’s America, we’d have to absorb every body blow until the Wahabbists grow to like us. A Nation and its Constitution can’t survive that.
That 98% - okay, maybe 96 ;) - of the electorate that knows this will be sure to frustrate any attempt of any ideologue to reduce the Country to such a condition.
Ben| 1.1.10 @ 12:55PM
In a sense you are right. We have been a bully for so long that the hatred is well ingrained and tactics must be used to stop strikes against us. However, we do not have any moral high ground as we have been propping up dictators, supporting the cruel state of Israel, attacking nations that choose different government types, etc. If we had the moral high ground, and we were attacked, we could respond something fierce like in WWII. As it stands now, our enemies are the ones who can stike with great force, since we have been instigating the belligerent policies for over 5o years against thes people. Ron Paul would have been able to change much of the hostility by making a seed change in foreign policy saving us lives and money.
Margie| 1.1.10 @ 12:58PM
But hey... you never know!
Margie| 1.1.10 @ 1:01PM
(that hey, you never know was supposed to land under my post to Mary Louise).
Margie| 1.1.10 @ 12:57PM
Mary Louise,
You just make too much darn sense for any of these Ron Paulites to want to listen to. :^)
Ben| 1.1.10 @ 1:08PM
Actually she (most likely a he) makes no sense as her/his logic is clouded by neoconservative partisanship.
Richard Baker| 1.1.10 @ 9:57AM
The question is simple. Why should we cower in fear in our homes when they don't cower in fear in theirs? If the Mud People want a struggle for survival then so be it. They have set the basic objective using their murder guide the Koran . Let's oblige them worldwide, if necessary. Non-intervention is a luxury that went out for us on December 7th. Recommend that one and all go visit USS Arizona and notice the oil slick which started on that terrible day. Wish ignoring Islam was a possibility but the reality is very different, isn't it?
Ben| 1.1.10 @ 12:59PM
We do not cower in fear, they do. You think the Hellfires taking out civilians along with militants cause fear. You think the Palestinians do not live in fear within their fenced in quarters? People have used the bible as a murder guide.
"Non-intervention is a luxury that went out for us on December 7th. " It will be coming back becuause we are broke.
"Recommend that one and all go visit USS Arizona and notice the oil slick which started on that terrible day." We took care of business.
"Wish ignoring Islam was a possibility but the reality is very different, isn't it? " Actually we are the bully. Carter Doctrine, Operation Ajax, etc. You neocons are delusional devoid of reality and history.
JaimeInTexas| 1.2.10 @ 5:57PM
Read "Day Of Deceit" by Stinnet. There are others but Stinnett's is has the most recent FOIA documents.
BTW, these uSA were involved in pursuing and sinking German submarines BEFORE Pearl Harbor.
In WW1 these uSA were sending war materiel to England in passenger ships into a war zone.
Self-defense, yes.
But a burglar cannot claim self-defense.
Mary Louise| 1.1.10 @ 12:10PM
Another thing, or two.
What are we going to do with the boys we bring home from where they're all stationed?
Are we going to place them on the borders? Is that constitutional? Would the States have to agree, would it be the duty of the Feds to adminster that? And with the excess military personnel, what would we do with them? How would we maintain the military? Could we or would it have to be really thinned out because no invasion of us is imminent?
How would we handle pirates who claim we owe them because of our behavior in the past? How would we protect and patrol the seas being that terrorism there can have the same cause as terrorism here at home?
It didn't take long for France to forget that we saved her. Not long at all. But she still shared our basic understanding of life and liberty.
When we were hit on 9/11 the whole body of Nations that had been involved in the bloody struggles of decades past rose in horror against the bestiality of the slaughter.
In the talks leading up to the invasion, the Polish rep mused that the thinking at the time of the Communist occupation was that in order to be liberated they ought to attack the US and force us to 'occupy' them.
The hostage crisis in Iran led to the production of a documentary with those who had been held. They said that just before they were ready to be released their captors asked them for help in getting a green card. It could have been because they were dying to continue the hostage keeping on our soil, or it could have been that they really wanted take advantage of the stability of life in America.
Bin Laden didn't mind US aid to help him and his band of men repel Soviet aggression. His appeal to us to mind our own business is convenient.
Ben| 1.1.10 @ 1:05PM
"What are we going to do with the boys we bring home from where they're all stationed?" Train them to make stuff, because we need to improve our trade imbalance.
"Are we going to place them on the borders? " Reclassify them as border guards. Need to secure up that place with the drugs and all.
"How would we handle pirates who claim we owe them because of our behavior in the past?" Screw the pirates.
"When we were hit on 9/11 the whole body of Nations that had been involved in the bloody struggles of decades past rose in horror against the bestiality of the slaughter." This is just a power grab to get the sheep in these countries to rally around their leaders. Osama attacked us because we have been screwing over Muslims for years. Time to call it as it is.
"In the talks leading up to the invasion, the Polish rep mused that the thinking at the time of the Communist occupation was that in order to be liberated they ought to attack the US and force us to 'occupy' them. " Ya whatever.
"The hostage crisis in Iran led to the production of a documentary with those who had been held. " We deserved this crisis. Again google Operation Ajax and let your mind fill with truth.
"Bin Laden didn't mind US aid to help him and his band of men repel Soviet aggression." Yep nonintervention as opposed to isolationism sounds pretty good, doesn't it.
Albert| 1.1.10 @ 1:26PM
Well said.
The American Spectator should sift through all these comments (objectively - if that's possible) and present its readers with the two points of view being argued. The assertions and rebuttals make for very good reading and far more worthwhile than the claptrap dished up in the media everyday. Almost every assertion in favor of Stein is a regurgitation of the stuff Hanity, Limbaugh and such apologists for the Bush Administration spout every day. At the very least, Ben Stein should write a rebuttal to the arguments set forth by the Paul supporters. He owes them some response. Maybe he will be big enough to promise a thorough reading of the Constitution and perhaps, at least, an examination of Ron Paul's book on foreign affairs - A Foreign Policy of Freedom, one of the best books I've ever read.
Mary Louise| 1.1.10 @ 1:49PM
Happy New Year, first of all.
My questions were much better than your replies and deserved better thought out responses.
I don't have time to continue the discussion and by the time I can return (a few days time) the discussion will have grown cold.
I work with a lot of cops and firefighters. I'm lucky that way. :). I cut and paste responses from here from time to time (excluding user names so as to not unduly prejudice) seeking their opinions, and they just shake their heads. I'm glad for their friendship and protection and before I seek your cousel, I will seek theirs.
I really do wish you peace and good health in this new year. We're a divided Nation and I think that portends destruction and disorder which is so very sad.
Albert| 1.1.10 @ 2:48PM
For better thought out responses, read all the comments above. You will find perfectly good answers to your questions from the rebuttals posted above. There is no lack of content.
I am confused why anyone would want to connect the protection provided by cops and firemen with our council, other than the fact that some of your friends in the protective services (hardy a representative sample) are apparently bemused, which proves nothing. What would they say if they go to the Daily Paul website and listen to the testimonies of the Iraq Veterans Against the War? They will weep with the veterans. It is impossible not to weep.
The Constitution unites us and unconstitutional wars divide us. Pretty simple. Occupation fuels insurgency.
This discussion will not grow cold until we have brought the troops home and thrown the neocons out of power. It should not surprise you that the Clintons (and their fellow travelers, including Obama of course) and the Bushes (and their cohorts) are all on the same page. They are empire builders, not protectors of the Republic as our Founding Fathers intended. Argue all points with reference to the Constitution and there will be no divide between us.
Ben| 1.1.10 @ 6:36PM
Mary Louise- We are all in this together. No matter what one thinks of foreign policy, we need to make our nation fiscally solvent. Very few in DC make choices for the betterment of our citizenry long term. This is one of the reasons I take time out to blog on Paul's behalf, because of his voting record. Anyway cheers in the new year. Pray to the man upstairs to protect those in harms way oversees.
Pete Mackin| 1.1.10 @ 12:54PM
Mr. Stein,
Please understand that you don't have a problem with Rep. Ron Paul - you have a problem with the literal interpretation and application of the U.S. Constitution.
You're not important enough for many news agencies to report on your slander of the good Dr. Paul (especially slander so ill-informed and ignorant). However, a similar line was attempted by Mayor Giuliani during the presidential debates. Here's how three prominent CIA officials responded to Dr. Paul's foreign policy position:
“I’m really edified by Ron Paul stepping up and stating what he believes to be the case. If you believe that they hate us for our democracy or for our freedoms, well I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn that I’d really like to sell you at a cut rate," said Ray McGovern, 27-year veteran of the CIA. “They hate us for our policies and that’s what Ron Paul was saying. …"
Michael Scheuer, former head analyst for the CIA's Bin Laden Unit said, “I thought Mr. Paul captured it the other night exactly correctly. This war is dangerous to America because it’s based, not on gender equality, as Mr. Giuliani suggested, or any other kind of freedom, but simply because of what we do in the Islamic World – because ‘we’re over there,’ basically, as Mr. Paul said in the debate.”
McGovern also told Antiwar.com:
“[There is a] swamp of grievances dating back decades: Three generations of people living in the equivalent of concentration camps in the West Bank and Gaza, dictatorial regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other places.
“If you look at those grievances and instead of trying to shoot those terrorists as they leave that swamp, you drain that swamp by addressing those grievances and giving these people some reason to hope for a better future. …
“People will come back and say, ‘Now Ray, for God’s sake, Osama bin Laden doesn’t give a darn about the Palestinians.’ Well, that doesn’t matter whether he does or he doesn’t. He knows the kind of resonance that kind of appeal has.”
McGovern then quoted the 9/11 Commission Report regarding the motivation of Kahlid Sheik Mohammad, the ringleader of the September 11th attacks:
“Kahlid Sheik Mohammad was motivated not by any antipathy resulting from his stay in the United States [where he had attended college years before], but by his profound hatred for U.S. policy toward Israel – favoring Israel one-sidedly.”
Also on the topic, former CIA counter terrorism officer Philip Giraldi said"
“I think anybody who knows anything about what’s been going on for the last 10 years would realize that cause and effect are operating here – that, essentially, al Qaeda has an agenda which very specifically says what its grievances are. And its grievances are basically that ‘we’re over there.’
“So all Ron Paul was basically saying was that – even as the 9/11 commission report indicated – there were consequences for our presence in the Middle East and if we seriously want to address the terrorism problem we have to be serious about that issue.
“Giuliani indicated that he was not only not serious about that issue, but seemed to be ignorant of both the 9/11 [Commission] report and political realities in the Middle East.”
And joining the list of the ignorant is Mr. Ben Stein. A couple more quotes to make my point:
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." – Thomas Jefferson
“An Atlas, whose back is bowed and whose hands are busy holding up the world, has no arms to lift to deal with his own defense. Increase his burdens and you will crush him…This is our present posture…” – Murray Rothbard
You're a smart guy Mr. Stein. Do your homework and stop embarrassing yourself.
Albert| 1.1.10 @ 1:30PM
Thank you for this learned response. Now if only Stein's admirers could provide us with similarly useful content. To date, they have only offered us stale propaganda.
Pete Mackin| 1.1.10 @ 1:21PM
There's a pattern here. Apparently Ben has a BIG problem with the truth. In 2007, Ben chided Ron Paul's economic advisor Peter Schiff, who warned about Sub Prime mortgages (and was proved, once again as usual, to be 100% correct.) p.s. Ron Paul is also correct here Ben.
In the New York Times, Stein wrote:
"Next, here’s a lesson I learned in a 12-step program and should have learned better: avoid contempt prior to investigation. When the financial stock meltdown started, I was on a television show with Peter Schiff of Euro Pacific Capital, who warned that Merrill Lynch could be in very bad shape. I glibly said that I thought that its problems were limited and that the stock was a buy. Mr. Schiff was completely right and I was wrong. I had no idea that Mother Merrill, where I have been a happy stockholder for years, had been turned into a such a wild house of high-stakes gambling. I apologize to Mr. Schiff for my dismissal of his views, which turned out to be far superior to mine in this area. (I could do without his acolytes sending me endless hate mail, though.)"
Um, Mr. Stein, it's time to break out that Big Book again... and maybe call your sponsor. I suggest reading over and over the first paragraph of "How It Works" which cites "honesty" three times with dire warnings.
Greenacres| 1.1.10 @ 1:49PM
Jeez, what you Paulistas lack in popular acceptance seems to be directly, inversely related to your common level of vitriolic fervor. Take a break and watch some football (yeh, I know, all the games are rigged!) or just go swarm somewhere else for the rest of the day.
Albert| 1.1.10 @ 2:25PM
"Take a break and watch some football..." not while our troops are dying... the best way to show support for our troops is to challenge conventional wisdom and question the motives our politicians who are lying to us and bankrupting the country. We'll watch football when we get our country back. You enjoy it. Advertisements, interspersed with some running and passing... Glad you recognized that it's rigged. Washington is also rigged. We have a duty to change how they do business over there.
Ben| 1.2.10 @ 1:24AM
Yep just watch the Rose Bowl and the whooping by Florida. I really enjoy, like I said before, throwing truth and common sense in your face. If that's fervor then I am guilty as charged.
Clairy| 1.3.10 @ 1:49PM
I guess it hasn't occurred to you that some of us have friends and relatives in the military. As I have several family members who have served or are currently serving in the mid east, you couldn't grasp the anger I feel at the suggestion that I shut-up and watch football! Should one or several of them come home broken or dead it will be no loss for you, Ben Stein, AIPAC or the ADL!
You and I are not rivals in a game. Some of us stand to suffer genuine loss here, while others can sit back and make observations between football games! Your attitude is further proof that the warped, over-promotion of sports and other forms of mindless entertainment, have dumbed Americans down to pathetic levels.
Our concern is not about supporting Ron Paul, but about finding and supporting the truth. Ron Paul just happens to be the only one with the courage to examine and promote what's right and what's wrong!
Jive Dadson| 1.1.10 @ 3:34PM
Quoth Ben, "[Ron Paul] said, at least as I understood it -- and I could be mistaken -- that the real fault for this terror attack lies with the United States for provoking al Qaeda by "occupying their land" --this is a paraphrase."
I will try to use small words. Ron Paul said nothing about "fault." He accurately named the MOTIVE behind the terrorist attacks. Clearly their motive is revenge for US occupation. When a robber breaks into a house, his motive is to get the valuables that are there. That does not mean the home-owner is at fault for having valuables.
Whether or not US foreign occupation is wise, legal, or moral is an entirely different question.
The "anti-Semitic" comment was reprehensible, and demonstrably untrue. (Sorry about the big words, Ben.) Many of Ron Paul's heroes and campaign staff were Jews. Some of Ben's best friends are neo-cons.
Albert| 1.1.10 @ 5:28PM
Correct! Hi Jive, your "you tube" videos introduced me to Ron Paul a couple of years ago. I haven't looked back. Many thanks again.
Margie| 1.1.10 @ 7:58PM
Here's a lovely learned response: You anti-Semites are all a bunch of Neo-Con-Artists!
I've learned that from watching you all. I'm becoming truly informed, thank you.
Ben| 1.2.10 @ 1:23AM
I have no artistic talent whatsoever.
Albert| 1.2.10 @ 4:18PM
Margie, What good has eight years of warfare, countless deaths and wounded, and one trillion dollars (cost of war dot org) of spending brought us? Who is the enemy other than a rag tag band of criminals hiding in caves hardly worth spending the cost of a flyswatter on? How many more deaths, how many more wounded and traumatized, how much more cash down the toilet before we should rethink this unconstitutional escapade?
(For a true education go to the Daily Paul website.)
Margie| 1.3.10 @ 4:11PM
Hey hey hey fat Albert~ Why don't you come down off your high horse with all your holier-than-thou clap trap and face reality?
You're a joke and a self-righteous imbecile.
You and all of your Paulie Pals.
You and your cowardly Toddard pals sit on your fat butts and throw stones while our true American heroes are out there sacrificing their lives for cowards like you who sit here throwing stones at this country.
Have a nice life, idiot.
Oh and have the time of your life trying to "discredit" me for "name-calling."
I say if the shoe fits, wear it.
Albert| 1.3.10 @ 6:35PM
"You and your cowardly Toddard pals sit on your fat butts and throw stones while our true American heroes are out there sacrificing their lives for cowards like you who sit here throwing stones at this country."
The best way to support the troops is to campaign for their return to their families. Ask the folk at Iraq Veterans Against the War.
I'm "throwing stones" at the politicians who have dragged this country into an additional trillion dollars of debt, not to mention the high cost of life and limb.
"Idiot"? Your Jesus (or that was your posture in earlier posts, but I'm more and more doubting whether you had ever read the gospels, let alone... was it Romans 11 you wanted us to read?) said call no one a fool. He also said, do good to them that hate you. Love your enemies and blessed are the peacemakers. Bless them that curse you. (God bless you, Margie.) Pray for them that despitefully use you. Mmmmm.... I kind a like it. The Pauline approach.
Again, you failed to answer my question, prefering rather to resort to insults, merely proving how insecure you feel about your own positions.
Again, I respectfully ask: What good has eight years of warfare, countless deaths and wounded, and one trillion dollars (cost of war dot org) of spending brought us? Who is the enemy other than a rag tag band of criminals hiding in caves hardly worth spending the cost of a flyswatter on? How many more deaths, how many more wounded and traumatized, how much more cash down the toilet before we should rethink this unconstitutional escapade?
Margie| 1.3.10 @ 10:09PM
Yes Albert.. you are an idiot. And you are a liar. You are not into honest debate as you call it. You are a back stabbing coward.
Romans 11 does not say call no one a fool, as you pretend to know. I called you an idiot, which you are. God will judge as to whether you are a fool.
You're nothing but a pretender. You care nothing for the truth. Like I said~ John 8:44.
victorkiriakus| 1.1.10 @ 8:26PM
Paul is correct, if our military would not invade countries in the Middle East, the Muslims would not have to drive our military out. Iraq, like Iran and Yemen, had no involvement with 911 and do not pose a threat to the U.S. Is it any wonder why the rest of the world hates our us?
Although Paul never mentioned Israel, I will. The rest of the world is aware of the "Goldberg Report" and knows that human rights organizations condemn Israel's deplorable treatment of the Palestinians. I guess not allowing children access to medical care, schooling, or even water is ok to Stein.
Bennet Cecil| 1.1.10 @ 9:19PM
How long will the US keep bases in Germany, Korea, Japan and countless other countries? If the US had stayed out of Iraq, Sadam would be dealing with Iran's nuclear program instead of the US. Ron Paul is correct that the US cannot afford to fight endless wars. Did the wars in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq advance security for Americans? These wars bankrupt America and actually make us more vulnerable. The federal government has increased our debt more than 9% annually since 1970 and the debt doubles every 6-12 years.
Pingback| 1.2.10 @ 8:00AM
Ben Stein schools Ron Paul on Foreign Policy, strong support for Israel links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Richard Baker| 1.2.10 @ 8:56AM
In all of these "comments" decrying US involvement, there's on question I'd ask. Are you ready, if we do it the Ron Paul Way, to conduct Close Quarter Battle (CQB) in your neighborhoods? If we removed every vestige of US military today, right now, from around the world, do you honestly think that the Moslem killers will just stay in their "countries" and leave us alone here? I'd love to see the whining and moaning from Paul supporters when that would happen. Not a lot of cognitive activity from those folks on this issue. If we don't kill these people in huge numbers overseas then I'd suggest CQB training as you Paul supporters are gonna need it.
Albert| 1.2.10 @ 4:11PM
"If we removed every vestige of US military today, right now, from around the world, do you honestly think that the Moslem killers will just stay in their "countries" and leave us alone here? "
Of course they will. Occupation fuels insurgency.
Besides, doesn't bother you that our military adventures are bankrupting us and costing the lives of our brave men and women, not to mention the toll among innocent women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan. Remember we are borrowing heavily from foreigners to wage this war, meaning your taxes are going towards paying interest on the debt and future generations will have to deal will paying off the debt. Highly immoral, if you ask me.
The thought of us fighting Bin Laden's rag tag army in our streets is laughable. Only Hanity and Limbaugh could sell that stuff.
"If we don't kill these people in huge numbers overseas..."
This is how you incense the locals and drive them into the arms of Islamic fundamentalists.
Please explain how many of Bin Laden's armed forces do you think could land on any of our beaches or cross our borders undetected? That is what you are insinuating. Isn't that just a bit preposterous?
Again, remove the cause of the hatred and you stand a better chance of returning the world to normalcy.
I'm looking forward to a rational debate.
victor| 1.3.10 @ 3:34PM
"If we removed every vestige of US military today, right now, from around the world, do you honestly think that the Moslem killers will just stay in their "countries" and leave us alone here? "
"Of course they will. Occupation fuels insurgency."
Yeah, we saw that with the US occupation of Germany from 1945 to 1949 and the subsequent rise of the Fourth Reich, eh?
That didn't happen and the Emperor of Japan did not rise up and create the New Japanese Empire after we occupied Japan from 1945-1952.
You need to provide some citations or historical perspective.
Albert| 1.3.10 @ 7:03PM
Victor,
Are you equating the likes of those bandits hiding in caves and calling themselves Al Qaeda with the intelligence and sophistication of the Germans and Japanese?
Evan Brudi| 1.2.10 @ 12:25PM
Ben, you're full of bull. Instead of saying "I was going to say it," why didn't you SAY IT?
Backpedal all you want, we won't be happy until Ron Paul gets an apology directly from you. Preferably on stationary, signed "Ben 'I was wrong' Stein."
Mack| 1.2.10 @ 3:32PM
"Americans can, in this 21st century, criticize Israel, it is not a crime. You owe no individual or foreign agent or foreign country your allegiance or any recognition of any foreign country as a “special friend” to America. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights assures every American the right to have an opinion and without fear, to freely and publicly express that opinion regardless what foreign interests or those sympathetic to them may think. The one hazard of the smear artist trying to silence you and shape debate in our country has been exposed and it is rapidly becoming the slanderers who are being reviled. There are those who have no sympathy for Israel’s policies, problems, or politics to lesser or greater degrees, as there are for many other countries. But why are only Israel’s critics vilified in their own country with the sordid intent of personal destruction by groups of their own citizens ? It must end."
Stein is repugnant!
from Bsproof dot net
NeoCONslayer| 1.2.10 @ 3:48PM
Ben Stein, debate Ron Paul.
Margie| 1.3.10 @ 4:04PM
Why? So Ron Paul can talk over Ben Stein like he did on Larry King Alive's show?
What a joke.
Ron Paul acts like a typical Liberal in that respect. Talk over your opponent, accuse them of being "mean-spirited" and "hateful" no matter what you say.
Liberals don't debate. They wimper and accuse when the truth is spoken about them.
Cornhead| 1.2.10 @ 4:34PM
Ben is right on.
Ron Paul is a loon.
He needs to be ignored. CNN put him on TV to make "conservatives" look as loony as him.
Ron, if it wasn't for the Fed we'd have 40% unemployment.
Albert| 1.3.10 @ 6:37PM
Nervos belli, pecuniam infinitam (Philippics V.ii. 5) “Endless money forms the sinews of war.” - Cicero
Albert| 1.2.10 @ 6:04PM
"Ron, if it wasn't for the Fed we'd have 40% unemployment. "
Pure conjecture.
The Fed's easy-money policy caused the problem. Comatose regulators were derelict. The doctor spread the germs, now you think we should thank him for the "cure."
Do you have any books, papers of essays that you have written on the subjects of foreign policy and the monetary system that we could consult to be better informed?
If Ron Paul is a loon you must be genius. Any proof on offer would be gladly accepted. No books, papers or essays? None!?
jaimeInTexas| 1.2.10 @ 6:04PM
"if it wasn't for the Fed we'd have 40% unemployment."
According to whom. Since the FRB the dollar has lost more than 90% of its value.
Dr. Paul support a dollar backed by gold AND silver for payments to/from the States and the Federal government. Why? Because it is required by the Constitution.
Dr. Paul, though, is not limited to a gold/silver denominated currency. He supports a commodity backed currency. The commodity can be gold, silver, titanium, chromium, whatever.
But as for the States in union and their agent, the Federal government, gold or silver IS the requirement by the Constitution.
Albert| 1.2.10 @ 6:43PM
He also wants to make gold legal tender. Any gold transactions currently attract sales and other taxes. It is illegal to transact in gold. What the Constitution mandated our lawmakers made illegal. It is time to throw the scoundrel out.
History has taught us that governments can take a perfectly good piece of paper, put some ink on it, and make it totally worthless.
Cornhead, we'll gladly exchange our dollars for your gold, anytime of the day. I'm no gold bug, but history has taught me not to trust the Fed, the Treasury and the Govt.
(They made ethanol from corn, don't they? Another govt. boondoggle, which makes for an appropriate handle if you think the Fed is your friend.)
Richard Baker| 1.2.10 @ 7:13PM
Albert:
Who gives a damn if they are mad? If they openly advocate our destruction and work to that end then they need to be dead. Make them mad? So what? Are you ready to fight these Moslem killers in your backyard and watch them gleefully slaughter your family? What kind of American are you exactly? As loony as Ron Paul, I suppose.
Albert| 1.2.10 @ 9:15PM
Richard,
"Who gives a damn if they are mad?"
- One trillion dollars and thousands of people killed and maimed are good enough reason to care.
"Are you ready to fight these Moslem killers in your backyard and watch them gleefully slaughter your family? "
I ask again, please explain how many of Bin Laden's armed forces do you think could land on any of our beaches or cross our borders undetected? That is what you are insinuating. Isn't that just a bit preposterous?
Muffy Malone| 1.2.10 @ 8:38PM
Ron and Ben are both right. Ron's is an idealist approach, one that sounds great on paper, but doesn't hold up in REALITY. Ron's idea to be friends and trade with people does not work in the modern era as the sole guiding principle in foreign policy! We have to deal with terrorism because we have to make the Muslim world less extreme before they nuke YOUR kids and my kids. In this age of high tech, we can't afford to let so much of the globe be theocratic nutjobs. That's our duty as Americans and I won't even attempt some kind of ethical justification. It's just the way it is. Of course, our occupations should have better PR and less waste, and should deal with the perspective that our past actions in the region have created. Still, I'm glad we kept that oil flowing to the good guys during the cold war. Glad I don't have to live under Joseph Stalin's grandchildren!
Albert| 1.2.10 @ 9:11PM
"We have to deal with terrorism because we have to make the Muslim world less extreme before they nuke YOUR kids and my kids. "
- You give them far more credit than they are due. They can't refine their own oil. If anyone is at risk, then it Israel and Israel is quite capable of dealing with that issue.
What caused the terrorist attacks? "Our past actions in the region have created." Thank you. Time for a different strategy.
"Still, I'm glad we kept that oil flowing to the good guys during the cold war."
- If they don't sell the oil to us, what else can they do with it? Japan buys all it wants on the open market. We can do the same.
"That's our duty as Americans."
- I doubt it, but now that we are going bankrupt, it is time to reassess.
"Ron's idea to be friends and trade with people does not work in the modern era as the sole guiding principle in foreign policy!"
- China is friends with everyone. So are many other regimes. Never has such a policy been more realistic than in this era of globalization.
Are you happy with our $12 trillion debt ceiling going to $19 trillion within the next decade? If we don't trim our military empire, where else do you suggest we cut spending? Or do you think endless borrowing from the Chinese is in our national interest?
Muffy Malone| 1.2.10 @ 9:51PM
"You give them far more credit than they are due. They can't refine their own oil."
Their scant scitech resources are currently fully employed toward building nuclear weapons and enriching uranium. Believe me, they could refine oil, but they'd rather be nuking the West, and since any Persian with a modicum of intelligence flees to America, it's consuming all their domestic talent. 100 years ago you couldn't buy a car in America. Things change fast. The next 100 years are going to be more rapid and even more dangerous unless we can affect it now.
We could buy oil on the open market, but without our military interventions, the Middle East and Russia would jack prices up so high you wouldn't believe it. It would lead to wars between nation states and then someone throws a nuke or lets out a bio weapon. We have to deal with these things now and move them in positive directions. The human species can now eradicate itself more easily than at any time in history. I don't want that and you shouldn't either.
Yes, it's expensive, that's why America should be the executive branch over a world congress and they should cough up their fair share since we're saving everyone's ass in the future. It's going to be tough, and you are hurting the country and humanity with your naive Ron Paul ideas. Those impoverished third worlders can hear you guys and it gives them the wrong idea. And they think that since you're such a rich American, you must be right. They don't understand that you don't now what you're talking about.
Albert| 1.2.10 @ 10:45PM
The impoverished islamic fundamentalists are very happy for us to have run up a trillion debt trying to flush them out of their caves.
A "world congress" won't cough up their share. Forget about it.
"The next 100 years are going to be more rapid and even more dangerous unless we can affect it now"
- How? by occupying Muslim countries and forcing our values on them through the barrel of a gun, while we bankrupt ourselves in the process?
This is just as far fetched: "Believe me, they could refine oil, but they'd rather be nuking the West."
"Their scant scitech resources are currently fully employed toward building nuclear weapons and enriching uranium. "
- They will have to test their weapons. Just one test, or even before that, and Israel will destroy any vestiges of a nuclear facility. They are not even close. We still have time to win the hearts and minds, but not through force. Still, we can't keep this debt accumulation up for much longer. Our financial plight will force us to rethink.
"We could buy oil on the open market, but without our military interventions, the Middle East and Russia would jack prices up so high you wouldn't believe it."
- Pure conjecture. South Africa had an oil embargo against it for decades. They never lacked a drop of oil during all that time and never had to pay up for supplies. There were more than enough intermediaries willing to break the embargo and supply at reasonable prices. It's simplistic reasoning to believe that any country could have kept us from obtaining all the oil we needed at reasonable prices.
"The human species can now eradicate itself more easily than at any time in history. I don't want that and you shouldn't either. "
- without America's military posturing the world community will become an interconnected global village, trading, communicating and exchanging ideas. Bottom line, the pot is empty. We don't have the money to take of domestic needs and the voters a wising up. Your may dream of US military might anyway you like. Our financial situation will force us to bring our troops home and the world will be a safer place.
I'll give you credit for a sensible debate with far more substance that the rest of your peers whose main contributions consisted of name calling.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.3.10 @ 11:33AM
Folks,
I will close my part of the conversation with this comment. I have had a little fun poking fun at Ron Paul positions, and the honest (ignorant) supporters of those positions. I daresay, none of his supporters here have lived and worked in the middle east. They seem to be basing all their talking points on heresay, and undemonstrated theories.
Conversely,
I lived in Saudi Arabia for two years as CEO of a very large energy and infrastructure development company. We had multiple hugundous projects all over the middle east and Africa, and I visited my teams on those projects often....over many years.
I also negotiated contracts with Kings and Sheiks and Tribal leaders, helping them emerge from tents and mud palaces of the tenth century variety, and bringing in medical resources for their peoples in order to demonstrate our good-will and "neighborliness". Honestly, it was good business, but we, (me and my men), also worked along side of missionaries, and peace corps personell just for the "good" of it.
One missionary doctor's wife considered her two best contributions to those folks to be, respectively, A. Adding broom handles to the broom brushes the women used to sweep out their villages.
B. Teaching the people how to position and dig "offset wells" to separate their drinking water from their sewage waters.
One of my guys grew up on a bean farm. Everywhere I ran into him, he was showing the locals how to grow a bumper crop of red-beans. (possibly the single most nutricious (sic?) crop known to man.
Folks,
We hired a lot of locals at unheard of wages, treated them with dignity, and I believe, left a lot of good friends behind.
We built dams, railroads, pipelines, roads, medical clinics, oilfields, coal mines, bridges.....you name it.
We never stole from the folks; they had nothing to steal...except perhaps their millinia old squalor induced very short life-spans.
From day one, we never stole. We paid very well for every drop of oil we produced for them, and every erg of electric power we derived from the dams we built for them.
See,
That's where the Paulites have everything turned upside down. We didn't go into those countries to rape and pillage and make war. We went there to earn a living for both we and the locals....to improve all our lives.
Our Army went into Saudi for Gulf War I at the request of Kuwait and Saudi. We went into Afghanistan during the Russian masacre to help them survive. When the Russians started dropping explosive toys out of airplanes to blow the hands of children off, some friends of mine had enough and quietly began supporting the Afghans, with food, medical supplies...and stingers.
Conclusion, where the Paulites think of me and my men as bullies and would-be conquerors or something equally stupid, we always shall think of our efforts as "building a little better world for all of our host countries, and yes, getting paid for it."
That is all beside the point now. We went to those places. Our motives were pretty OK in our minds. There was no evil intent.
You will never hear it on your boob-tubes, but we made millions of lifetime friends in that part of the world. That precisely is what pisses off their local bullies.
Yell and holler all you want. That is the actual truth of the matter.
Best regards
Albert| 1.3.10 @ 5:50PM
Nobody questioned the presence of civilians in the Middle East. You make things up, create a straw man, so that you can drive a point home that at first appears valid, but is wholly based on a falsification.
"Conclusion, where the Paulites think of me and my men as bullies and would-be conquerors or something equally stupid..."
Try as you may, you will not find Ron Paul ever saying anything like this. Be honest. This debate has nothing to do with civilian activity in the Middle East. Thus, "the truth of the matter" is the truth about matters upon which ther are no differences of opinion.
Ron Paul is quoting Al Qaeda who said they plotted the attacks on the US because of our military bases in Saudi Arabia. We might think that's just silly, but we do not think like a radicalized Muslim. The only relevant issue here is that a group of Saudi's motivated by Islamic fervor found our military presence offensive and that caused them to take steps that culminated in 9/11.
Since then, our one trillion dollar response has just added fuel to the fire. Al Qaeda is much stronger today and finds it a lot easier to recruit new members, from a far a field as Nigeria and Fort Hood. The USA, on the other hand, is financially much weaker and many of its citizens are dead scared of attacks in the backyards, however, ridiculous that might sound. Our Department of Homeland Security, the hassles at our airports, the Patriot Act and host of other issues have greatly inconvenienced our lives.
Again, bottom line, our Treasury is dry. The Chinese are funding our wars. Regardless of whether we can continue this pigheaded approach, our economy is calling quits on it.
Richard Baker| 1.3.10 @ 12:04PM
Albert:
Are you ignorant of the facts of unconventional warfare or just stupid? You don't need troops to do anything in the world. These killers don't need infrastructure, tanks, or much else to do an amazing amount of damage. Remember sport, two aircraft loaded with fuel and no specialized weapons, unless you count box-cutters, destroyed two enormous buildings, brought the US to a screeching halt, and for the loss of 19 who were expendable in their minds. Really, until you have a clue about modern warfare in all its variations, shut up.
By the way, are you ready to fight them in your backyards and neighborhoods if we listen to your inane thoughts?
Albert| 1.3.10 @ 6:14PM
The FBI was fully aware of these people taking flying lessons, but were not concerned about learning how to land planes. Proper intelligence at home, at fraction of the cost of these wars, should be able to prevent further attacks. You don't have to be fighting an endless trillion dollar war to protect the country.
The whole point is that if we stop antagonizing them, they will leave us alone.
“Really, until you have a clue about modern warfare in all its variations, shut up.”
I think you feel very insecure about your position otherwise you would not use such abusive language. I direct your attention to a movement called Iraq Veterans Against the War. They are probably better informed about modern warfare than any of us. Daily Paul website currently has a video of a veteran weeping through his account of his experiences.
Whatever damage 9/11 caused, it pales in comparison to the subsequent loss of lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, military and civilian, and the one trillion dollars in additional debt that we had to incur to sustain this pigheaded response to 9/11.
“By the way, are you ready to fight them in your backyards and neighborhoods if we listen to your inane thoughts?”
Yes, why not? Thanks to the second amendment, I am well prepared to face the enemy from within and without. However, nothing sounds more inane than the thought that Al Qaeda will be tripping through my sub-division engaging in hand-to-hand combat. Is it possible that they will be placing roadside bombs in my neighborhood? Not likely, especially not while we are spending a trillion dollars to expose out troops (and civilians) in their backyards. It has never been easier for them to attack us. Still, I have lived in a country that frequently experienced attacks of terror. You just live with it. The probability of becoming a victim of such an attack was very low. Protection provided by the local police and armed patrols was of a sufficiently high standard not to cause undue stress to the locals. Live just goes on, that much I know.
Pat(60 y/o Alabama Republican)| 1.3.10 @ 3:07PM
This nation building something president Bush said he would not do.To stay in either of these countries is crazy.They are bleeding us economically.That's their strategy.I supported these two wars but the only wnners are the defense contractors and the terrorists.We can't go into Pakistan and the last admin should have known that.The two factions in Iraq will never build a government together and the last admin should have known that.Wake up!The last admin just used these wars to get elected a second term and as a 35 year Republican they have angered me!
Richard Baker| 1.3.10 @ 4:11PM
Pat:
I'll ask you the same question I asked Albert. Are you prepared to fight these Moslem Killers in your backyard and neighborhood? Think carefully.
Pat| 1.3.10 @ 10:36PM
Richard,The money we have spent on two useless wars could have been used to make this country safer.So you are willing to waste money and lives.You think it is wise to spend a trillion dollars for nothing.They have plenty of operatives to hit us and they haven't.Our protection here as we just saw is full of holes.Much intelligence tells us that they only have a small force in Iraq.They are just there to fuel that cival war that can never be settled.The last admin uses that BS to fool people like you and to justify their damn bludder.Those terrorist have been patient to allow us to weaken ourselves economically.I think my aurgument makes alot more sense than some totally hypotheical question like yours.I would use the stategy I have just laid out if I were them.You sound like that senile fool Dick Chenney who is himself part of the problem.He needs to go back to Wyoming and be let out to pasture.Actually,he ought to be in jail.To think I voted for that old fool makes me sick to my stomach.
John| 1.3.10 @ 4:35PM
I am an admirer of Ben Stein, however, it is a bizarre response to think that anybody who has a non-interventionist view with all countries including the middle east is somehow an anti-semitist. Words or accusations like that should not be thrown around loosely. Ron Paul didn't say anything during that interview on CNN that warranted that response. Ben Stein also suggested that he never heard the position of looking at the terrorist motives and whether or not interventionism was a contributor. I found this statement hard to believe. Didn't he watch the Republican Presidential candidate debates, where the topic was discussed on more than one occasion? I do agree he (Ben) should have had more time to explain himself and to debate the topic intelligently and suggest that he takes up Dr. Ron Paul's offer to have a debate on the subject with a moderator.
Pat| 1.3.10 @ 10:49PM
I am for our defending Israel but I agree with Ron Paul.We don't have to waste resources to do it.We can be ready if Israel is attacked and we can respond.Their economy is in better shape than ours they can pay for our aid.They can also enlist the many billiaonaire jews on Wall Sreet for help.David Rubin,Goldman Sachs,Carlye Group,Texas Pacific,Micheal Milken,Apollo Group,Blackstone,Carl Ican,Sam Zell,and many more Jewish run firms.I am not an anti- semite.I am just stating the facts.Most of these private equity and hedge funds have made money by shuffling assets and stripping american companies of assets.Let them support Israel
Richard Baker| 1.3.10 @ 9:24PM
Pat:
By the way, since you are angered don't change the GOP. No, go ahead and support a 3rd Party so that the unified Democrats can continue to destroy the country. Constant venting without effect is just so American these days. Please, go ahead and support one of a variety of unelectable vote-splitting candidates.
Margie| 1.3.10 @ 10:17PM
That is EXACTLY what Pat and friends will probably do. They despise the Republican Party, and you can ALWAYS tell a Paulite by their constant posting of how the Republican Party is the party of "stupid." If you mention you will be voting Republican they will seek to discredit you by calling you a RINO.
They are nothing but fake phony frauds who think they are better than the rest of us because they are anti-war.
These people are simply the Leftist hippie freaks revisited and I have no qualms calling them on it.
They are absolutely NOT interested in "debating".
While they get to call us America haters like the Hippies of old used to, we are not allowed to call them what they are~ cowards and liars. Enemies.
Pat| 1.3.10 @ 11:08PM
No Margie,I don't hate anyone but I feel like President Bush,VP Chenney,and many other of my fellow Republicans have mislead and used evavangelical Republicans like me especially with moral issues and their socalled national defense.I don't think these men are stupid.They have an agenda that favors the KBR's and Carlye Group crowd who are two of few defense contractors who have made a fortune on these wars.Carlye Group(James Baker,George Herbert Bush,George W.Bush have been partners)owns a company called National Defense.They make the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.I am not against all wars just those that are not stategic.By the way,I have voted Republican for 35 yearsgoing back to Gerald.Your name calling doesn't stand up to facts and logic.No, I think, at least so far you have not presented one cogent aurgument to support your position.
Margie| 1.3.10 @ 11:38PM
Pat~ I'm not cogent, but reading your posts about hoe those horrible jews ought to pay for the protection of Israel, and your paranoia about GW and Cheney and their "group".. oh how conspiratorial can you get? I actually feel sorry for you.. and you're an "evangelical Republican?" Don't bother explaining..
You seem like you know how to use the word cogent in a sentence but that's about it.
Did you even read ANY of my posts? How about Ken's posts? How about Mary Louise? How about Richard Baker? How about Todd's? All of theirs were pretty cogent especially compared to mine. I just come from the simple truth as best I can. But I believe we're all on the same page.. they can correct me if I'm wrong.
We live in an insane and dangerous world. There is a huge need to fight and protect our country from both foreign and domestic enemies. It is impossible to not do so.
As in many , if not ALL of the pro Ron Paul posts yours have an anti-Semitic hatred that is so very clear.
You guys are a cult of Israel hating people, and Ron Paul is your despicable leader.
Pat| 1.4.10 @ 7:16AM
Margie,
I don't hate Israel but at the same time I don't think we should be giving huge finacial aid to a any nation that is doing well economically.I believe that Israel has a special place in God's plan according to Romans 9-11.I am familar with Dr.Paul only through his economic ideas I have heard on T.V.If I happen to agree with his some of his anti THESE TWO WARS IDEAS they are conclusions I have come to believe on my own not those I got from him.But I do wish you would stick to the issues and get away from the name calling.That kind of language does cut off debate.I haven't read much of you other friends because I have never written on this blog or any other.I am enjoying the exchange of ideas but I'll bet this stuff can become addictive.I will pray for President Obama as I did for President Bush and all other leaders and other leaders.I am an american not a liberal or conservative.I am not going to continue to repeat myself or defend especially the fact that I am a disciple our Lord Jesus Christ.I am done for this day as I am today the day off from my work to pray and will as I always do on this beginning pray day of the month,I will pray for our nation.I spend most of my time praying for those nations that are the poorest both spiritually and economicaly.Have a blessed day my friend.
Albert| 1.4.10 @ 8:58PM
Margie writes : They are absolutely NOT interested in "debating".
Albert responded to Margie's previous post:
Margie wrote: "You and your cowardly Toddard pals sit on your fat butts and throw stones while our true American heroes are out there sacrificing their lives for cowards like you who sit here throwing stones at this country."
Albert responded: The best way to support the troops is to campaign for their return to their families. Ask the folk at Iraq Veterans Against the War.
Albert responded/debated: I'm "throwing stones" at the politicians who have dragged this country into an additional trillion dollars of debt, not to mention the high cost of life and limb.
Margie responded: "Idiot"?
Albert's rebuttal: Your Jesus (or that was your posture in earlier posts, but I'm more and more doubting whether you had ever read the gospels, let alone... was it Romans 11 you wanted us to read?) said call no one a fool. He also said, do good to them that hate you. Love your enemies and blessed are the peacemakers. Bless them that curse you. (God bless you, Margie.) Pray for them that despitefully use you. Mmmmm.... I kind a like it. The Pauline approach.
Albert: Again, you failed to answer my question, preferring rather to resort to insults, merely proving how insecure you feel about your own positions.
Albert begged for a debate: Again, I respectfully ask: What good has eight years of warfare, countless deaths and wounded, and one trillion dollars (cost of war dot org) of spending brought us? Who is the enemy other than a rag tag band of criminals hiding in caves hardly worth spending the cost of a flyswatter on? How many more deaths, how many more wounded and traumatized, how much more cash down the toilet before we should rethink this unconstitutional escapade?
Margie's response:
"Yes Albert.. you are an idiot. And you are a liar. You are not into honest debate as you call it. You are a back stabbing coward."
[Albert: Why does religion make people so hateful?]
Margie: "Romans 11 does not say call no one a fool, as you pretend to know. I called you an idiot, which you are. God will judge as to whether you are a fool."
Margie debating: "You're nothing but a pretender. You care nothing for the truth. Like I said~ John 8:44."
Albert: OK, Margie, commence the debate and answer my question, now asked for the third time:
What good has eight years of warfare, countless deaths and wounded, and one trillion dollars (cost of war dot org) of spending brought us? Who is the enemy other than a rag tag band of criminals hiding in caves hardly worth spending the cost of a flyswatter on? How many more deaths, how many more wounded and traumatized, how much more cash down the toilet before we should rethink this unconstitutional escapade?
Show how to debate the issue at hand.
tysen| 1.3.10 @ 9:53PM
You are pathetic Ben. You don't deserve to be on the same stage as Dr. Paul let alone question his understandings of foreign policy. You are a nobody that needs to go back to MTV game shows. Using racism as a response to an analytical argument is both counter intuitive and pathetic. You should lose any of the very LITTLE credibility you have and never have your retarded opinion published again. You should be APOLOGIZING to the congressman after making a fool out of yourself instead of this half ass attempt to justify your actions. This made you look worse then your argument with Dr Pauls chief financial advisor Peter Schiff. Remember how ridiculous you looked after everything he told you came true? You don't know jack about the economy or foreign policy so go back to what you know, stupid trivia questions.
Richard Baker| 1.3.10 @ 11:10PM
Margie:
Even the America Firsters changed their tune after December 7th. These guys haven't changed their tune despite 9/11. Ron Paul has a bunch of great supporters, doesn't he?
Margie| 1.3.10 @ 11:42PM
Some of them are truly despicable. Toddard, Ben, Albert. etc. They have no desire to debate or reason. They turn the tables on you if you try.
Some may be truly ignorant not recognizing their error. Every time you try and reason with one of them it always seems to turn out the same way. It seems the "dislike" for Israel is their core reason for unity. Mixed in with paranoia partly due from just listening to the Leftist media and other individual liars.
Richard Baker| 1.3.10 @ 11:21PM
Dr. Paul exhibits many of the Dr. God characteristics that we all see in too many Physicians. Smart, intelligent, but too cocksure of his cognitive talents.
Nobody| 1.4.10 @ 12:38PM
You know, reading all these comments, it's painfully obvious that few, if any, Americans understand how important the moral dimension of warfare is. I don't mean that as an insult, but simply as a matter-of-fact observation.
Remember how after 9/11 the military recruiting stations were jammed to the rafters with people wanting to enlist to avenge what had happened? Well, guess what? The exact same reaction takes place on the *other* side of the world when, say, the US bombs Yemen and, not so incidentally, kills women and kids. Al Qaeda can then point to our actions, claim that if the infidels aren't fought against they will never leave the Middle East, and...blammo: another successful recruiting drive for the Bad Guys (and yet more people we're forced to kill if we ever want to see peace again).
Let's face it, our record in the War on Terror indicates that civilian deaths (the so-called "collateral damage" we're always gutlessly referring to, seeing as how we seem to have become too sissified to use the word "death" anymore in relation to our own actions) mean nothing at all to us (kindly refrain from insulting my intelligence by insisting otherwise: our actions have long-since belied our words). That is, if thirty-five people are in a building, and one of them happens to be a Bad Buy, it means nothing to us if thirty-four other folks have to die in order to nail the one Bad Guy.
Well, fair enough, I say....so long as we do not make any bones about such a policy and, just as importantly, stop trying to kid everyone else that we "don't really mean it" when civilians die when, yes, we do. Likewise, we have to be willing to accept that such an outlook is equally acceptable for the Bad Guys to maintain, seeing as how it's the one we hold ourselves (none of that "do as I say, not as I do" garbage here).
It's equally important for us to acknowledge that such an outlook precludes any claims to us holding the moral high ground in this conflict. Oh, sure, you may laugh: the phrase "moral high ground" sounds like a lot of Hippie Talk, doesn't it?
Unfortunately for us, however, history is littered with examples of countries that fought conflicts in which they had a) the technological edge and b)the tougher (or at least the better-trained) fighters and yet, despite these things, ending up losing badly. Why? Because the people they fought against, while possessing inferior technology and less-capable troops, held the moral high ground. Holding the moral high ground allows you to fight onward (and despite near-crushing setbacks) because you are fighting with the confidence that you (not your opponent) are in the right.
Alas, the longer we meddle in the Middle East, the longer the moral high ground will continue to elude us. This, in turn, will serve to futher enhance our enemies' motivation for fighting us. If you think this is a worthwhile course of action, you need do nothing but have our so-called defense policy continue in its present form...because that's exactly what we are doing.
Just be prepared to give up all of your wealth (and your children) in the prosecution of conflicts we stand no chance whatsoever of winning due to the simple fact that our "operating against the enemy" and acting against our own long-term interests is going to be one and the same.
Fair enough?
I don't have any problem with people insisting that we keep on doing what we're doing, only with the assertion that what we're doing is, somehow, going to result in a positive outcome for us. It hasn't produced such an outcome in eight years of conflict and it sure as hell shows no signs of producing one as we go into the ninth. Sadly, despite the passage of nearly a decade, we show no signs whatsoever of learning from past mistakes (e.g. invading entire countries to eliminate what are essentially criminal gangs is an inherently misguided and wasteful idea).
I say all this with great sadness because there is nothing (nothing!) worse than watching people continue to do foolish things time and again, yet expect a different outcome than the perpetuation of foolishness.
Pat| 1.4.10 @ 4:28PM
I rarely ever hear anyone even mention all the civilians that have been killed in both of these wars.Since I don't think America has taken the moral high in these two wars because they will accomplish nothing then our country is responsible for those civilian killed directly by us and those killed because we are there.It matters not that it's 50,60,or 100 thousand they those that have nothing to do with these two conflicts but each soul is infinately valuable.You words,Nobody,have made me think more deeply about these moral conflicts.
Albert| 1.4.10 @ 8:32PM
Yep... how can you be pro-life and pro-war. The woman and her child on the streets of Baghdad or Tehran are just as precious as the child in the womb.
They did not attack us. They were unfortunate enough to live in a country with a leader that the Bush family did not like. He was a nasty piece of work (although once upon a time a friend of Rumsfeld), but in order for the Bush family to get even with Saddam, they dragged us into a war and caused the deaths or tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, not to mention those crippled, wounded and the two million refugees. Incomprehensible suffering.
These pro-life Christians should follow the teachings of Jesus. Love your enemies. Do good to them hat hate you. Bless them that curse you. Blessed are the peacemakers.
Albert| 1.4.10 @ 8:35PM
Well said. On Daily Paul website (page 2) a veteran recounts his experiences. It is a very moving account. Not stuff the media will ever show.
Kevin| 1.4.10 @ 4:34PM
After reading some of these comments it makes me so proud that I joined the revolution last year. I can't wait for the neo con movement to end so we can finally have some sanity again and the republican party can go back to Jeffersonian principals.
Richard Baker| 1.4.10 @ 6:23PM
To those of you living in Delusional-land:
Since the early'70s these Moslem killers of the "Religion of Peace" have attacked various countries around the world and have shown their "religion" to be nothing but a modern version of the 1830s India murder cult, the Thuggees. No real soldier ever wants to see a war because the soldier knows the price to be paid. Every life is truly precious in God's sight. However, allowing these murderers to continue on is suicide on our part. Americans will lead the way in the death and destruction of these killers and their families. They don't give us any other option, now do they? Submit or die. Which is it for you, liberals?
Pat| 1.4.10 @ 8:13PM
I will repeat myself to you as I have your friend Margie .I am an american not a liberal or whatever you feel like calling all those americans who think this Iraq war is a waste of life and money.If we fight a war, at least fight one with the right enemy and with the best strategy.WE ARE NATION BUILDING IN THESE TWO COUNTRIES WITH TOTALLY IRRATIONAL PEOPLE.HOW STUPID IS THAT!!!!!!!When Bush and Chenney realized the WMDs were not in Iraq, rather than pulling out as George H did, they changed the plan which has been their GREAT AND COSTLY bludder.When they didn't get Ben Laden,they should have pulled out.Can we fight these guys in Pakistan?No!So both of theses wars can't be won.With your global logic we would have nuked China and Russia!We will blow a trillion plus,kill 100,000 civilians,and lose 10,000 of our soldiers and then crawl away with NOTHING.They will suceed in breaking our moral and our treasury.Let's get those two cowboys back to Texas and Wyoming instead of running around trying to rewrite history.They ought to be in jail with Don Dumbsfeld.At least he has brains enough to go hide under some rock.
Albert| 1.4.10 @ 8:43PM
"Every life is truly precious in God's sight."
What's God got to with it?
They kill in the name of God. You, a Christian, say we should kill them. There is no difference between the two.
Just follow the Constitution. The Constitution does not permit us to engage in military actions that were not declared by Congress. Congress gave Bush a free hand. he said we must 'defend the integrity of the United Nations." God help us!
Read "Nobody's" post above for insights on how foolish the current course of action is.
"However, allowing these murderers to continue on is suicide on our part. "
You should start your own right wing talk show. You'll get quite a following with such reasoning. Al Qaeda uses the same language to attract their support. I guess that makes them conservatives.
Pat| 1.4.10 @ 9:16PM
Albert,
About the talk shows,when it comes to substance Richard fits in perfectly with the right wing nuts.But the "Three Amigos",Shawn,Rush,and Glen have dominated the airwaves.I could also call them THE THREE STOOGES.
Albert| 1.4.10 @ 10:03PM
Pat,
Now that's not being fair to three stooges. I said earlier that they make the three stooges look like Nobel laureates.
Paul revere II| 1.4.10 @ 6:58PM
Wow seeing all these post and reading Bens response makes me realize that the establishment is afraid of us.
WHERE IS THE 20 PLUS SECURITY VIDS FROM AMSTERDAM AIRPORT OF THE "SHARP DRESSED MAN" THAT GOT THAT KID ON THE PLANE?? RUN BY, GET THIS BEN........
ICTS/ISRAEL! HAAA Same guys that wouldn't show the vids of the other 911 hijackers
How bout the USS LIBERTY, Ya... Zionism is our friend..
The people of Israel must rise against this racist creed, Gaza looks like the warzaw ghetto
How bout the guy video tapping the whole filght and the K9 that flagged a bag for explosives- WTF BEN
Where's the dozens of vids from the pentagon of that plane, who are the people who place put options before terror events WTF- BEN
Where are the WMD'S oh how bout that dowing street memo- We don't know it all but it don't take a wiz to see it's all B.S. BEN STEIN
HELP US DON'T JUST BE ANOTHER ELITE MOUTH PIECE
RBSKS| 1.4.10 @ 7:11PM
RICHARD BAKER! You asked above if we'd rather fight em in our backyard verses what we have now
ABSOULTELY! If we followed Paul Terroism would almost vanish overnight
Like he Wisely said to Jewliani - They don't come here to attack us because we are rich and free they come here and attack us because we are over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years!
We don't like the muslim lifstyle or religion but Iran for example "a least the young" like us just because of our example and our pop culture we don't need you or people like you running a dam thing shut your trap and step aside you people ruined this once great nation and ruin everything you touch - Before God one day "no matter who he is" you'll have to justify what you've said, done and supported, When I see dead kids all stops in my brain.. and deeply feel how wrong it is. So what will you say to god about those kids killed? oh.. it was worth cause now we got pipelines oilfields and heroin.. I won't see ya in hell but many will
davod| 1.5.10 @ 2:35AM
Ben:
Congratulations. The Paulinians and various other misinterpreters of history have greatly improved your blog numbers. They are useful for something.
James Paige| 1.5.10 @ 10:37AM
Hello all you dumb GOP kool aid drinking Morons. Why do you al ways blame the Dem's for everything. Bush and Cheney have damaged us beyond repair. It does not matter it we do net think or see ourselves as Occupiers. If the people in the middle east think we are then we are. You do not let you neighbor have a party in your back yard because he wants to protect his grass. That is a stupid argument.
James Paige| 1.5.10 @ 10:44AM
RON PAUL IS RIGHT. STEIN IS WRONG.
Richard Baker| 1.5.10 @ 7:15PM
The Cult of Personality which you Paul worshipers have created rivals that of Mao in Red China. Where's your Little Red Book?
Albert| 1.5.10 @ 8:20PM
Red book? We have something BETTER!
The US CONSTITUTION! Ever heard of the US Constitution?
Does the Constitution authorize the President to use our military to protect the integrity of the United Nations (Bush's own words) and commit our military to effect regime change, to nation build? No ways!
Ron Paul votes the Constitution - 100% voting record over a 22-year period. Beat that pal!
Pat| 1.5.10 @ 9:00PM
Is this the best you can do in responding to all the comments directed toward you?This is the typical name calling that you and Margie do instead of rationally defending your weak positions.She told me that I should read some of the things you have written.I am still looking for some substance?
BladeA| 1.6.10 @ 1:27PM
The tortured convoluted "reasoning" Stein uses in the third paragraph of this so-called "apology" is fodder for anyone taking an undergraduate logic class.
I think Ben is, overall, valuable for the Republican Party. Which is all the more reason why he needs to maintain his credibility. This was a serious error on his part.
Pingback| 1.9.10 @ 6:25PM
. o O ( Xtreme Conversions – Total Affiliate Domination Review: Scam or Serious? ) links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
josh| 1.9.10 @ 6:56PM
Stein has been squarely challenged by bsproof. net
He must offer a response if he is able to
"The Slandering of a Free People Must End Now!"
http://bullshitproof.net/?p=525
We're waiting
Darvin Dowdy | 2.27.10 @ 12:22PM
Ben just do a few google and/or youtube searches and you'll soon find that Ron Paul and especially his followers are neck deep in anti-semitism and holocaust denying, etc. Here's a couple of links for you: http://www.americanthinker.com.....d_its.html
and http://townhall.com/blog/g/777.....606d586ad0
Buddy you nailed him!! His reaction proves his guilt. Ben - make no apologies. Darvin Dowdy
poptropica | 4.9.10 @ 8:33PM
thanks you very much for your information
Poptropica
Poptropica
Pingback| 4.14.10 @ 10:27AM
Ron Paul in Debate at Reagan Library (May ‘07) | RepublicanDaily.info links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Richard L.| 4.24.10 @ 12:49AM
Foreigners have every right to shoot back if we are occupying their country after invading it for no good reason. And when we concoct lies and forge intelligence in order to justify invading their countries, well that's just more reason not to put up with the New World Order.
Stop trying to rationalize our national aggression against a sovereign state. I'm tired of you neo-cons engaging in lawyer tricks to try to come up with convoluted explanations for why we went to war. A just war always has a simple straightforward explanation, not a potpourri of loosely-linked concepts that make very little sense individually but provide a barely-plausible cause when taken as a whole and repeated ad nauseum by an obedient media.
asdfa| 5.5.10 @ 3:39AM
Flip Converter is a professional Flip Video Converter to help you convert Flip video, you can use it as Flip HD video converter and Flip MP4 converter. Supporting all Flip camcorder models, it can also function as Flip Ultra converter and Flip Mino converter.
hhhh
anorrak| 8.30.10 @ 6:11PM
I really think dominoes has it over pizza hut everytime. We went there last week and got that one with the anchovies, smothered in that sause. Heck, it was great !!! Thanks for letting me input !!
charliek | 9.23.10 @ 12:56AM
Excellent information here cause in my language, there are not much good source like this. This interesting post made me smile. Maybe if you throw in a couple of pictures it will make the whole thing more interesting.
alan king| 12.12.10 @ 1:30AM
THE BIRD THAT CHIRPS IN HEBREW
We hear constantly of the difference between a “neo-conservative” and a “paleo-conservative”. What is the difference? The difference is the difference between a real patriot and an Israel First, America Last fraud. An internet writer who goes by the name of Max Shpak offers a very useful analogy to illustrate the difference. Shpak refers to the well known phenomenon of a cuckoo bird invading a nest of chicks. The cuckoo imitates the chirping sounds of the birds. The chicks, in the imprinting stage, mistake the cuckoo for their mother. The cuckoo, thus disguised, manipulates and exploits the brainwashed birds. The neo-conservative, in reality an Israel First Jew, joins the conservative camp, chirping about high taxes and getting the government off the citizen’s backs. He drapes himself in conservative rhetoric and tells the human birds what they want to hear. The human birds, thus deluded, welcome the neo-conservative as one of their own. Then the cuckoo starts chirping about a “War on Terror” and the alleged threat of “Islamo-Fascism”. He forgets about reducing taxes and the size of government and instead tweets that the United States should spend trillions of dollars it does not have to fight wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. In short, he shows his real agenda, “Israel Uber Alles” under the cloak of false conservatism.
That is how to distinguish the “neo-conservative” cuckoo or one of its hirelings, like Glen Beck. To better emphasize the analogy with nature we must turn to an historical analogy. In the days of the British Mandate over Palestine there existed a man named Vladimir Jabotinsky. Jabotinsky is the unknown (to the gentiles) founding father of neo-conservatism. Vladimir Jabotinsky was the advocate of Revisionist Zionism, so-called because it refused to accept the partition of Jordan east of the river from the Palestinian Mandate. Jabotinsky wanted a Jewish state on both sides of the river. He abhorred the large number of Jews involved in Marxist socialism and was an enthusiastic advocate of free market economics. But he also opposed any compromise with the Arabs of Palestine, who he knew would never agree to the planting of a Jewish state in their land. To express his ideology, he wrote two famous essays, “The Iron Law” and “The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs)”. From the former essay he wrote words widely quoted by the students of Zionism. In essence, he stated that the Arabs of Palestine were not savages. They were highly civilized and would never agree to a Zionist state in their land until all hope was lost to them. Thus, the Arabs must be confronted with an “iron wall of bayonets”, to use Jabotinsky’s famous phrase, to coerce their surrender to the unavoidable. Jabotinsky openly admitted that “Zionism is a colonizing adventure and it stands or falls on the use of force”. He proclaimed: “It is important to speak Hebrew but it is more important to shoot.” This is the true origin of the philosophy of the “War on Terror”. It is the Jabotinsky philosophy of perpetual war with the Arabs to ensure the future security of the future state of Israel. Naturally, it would not do to tell Americans that they must fight and die for Israel’s survival. Therefore, a ruse must be concocted. The ruse is to tell Americans that there exists a menace called “Islamo-fascism”. America and Israel must jointly oppose this menace because it threatens both equally. As anyone can tell, this is precisely what has been done.
There are other methods by which Americans can distinguish the Zionist neo-conservative cuckoo from the real thing. Real conservatives are “isolationists”. That is, they do not believe in using America’s military might to police the world. But Zionist neo-conservatives insist that America must police the world – for Israel’s benefit. Zionist neo-conservatives are social liberals. They support open borders, diversity and the tearing down of America as a white country. They do this at the same time that they snarl for war against Iran for Israel’s benefit. Two outstanding examples of this mindset are Senator Charles Schumer of New York and Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. Zionist cuckoo birds shall hiss with barely concealed hatred of actual conservatives like Patrick Buchanan.
These, then, are the major differences between real conservatives and Zionist conservatives. But the simplest way to distinguish the real thing from the fake is to look for the bird with the hooked beak that chirps in Hebrew.
THE BIRD THAT CHIRPS IN HEBREW
We hear constantly of the difference between a “neo-conservative” and a “paleo-conservative”. What is the difference? The difference is the difference between a real patriot and an Israel First, America Last fraud. An internet writer who goes by the name of Max Shpak offers a very useful analogy to illustrate the difference. Shpak refers to the well known phenomenon of a cuckoo bird invading a nest of chicks. The cuckoo imitates the chirping sounds of the birds. The chicks, in the imprinting stage, mistake the cuckoo for their mother. The cuckoo, thus disguised, manipulates and exploits the brainwashed birds. The neo-conservative, in reality an Israel First Jew, joins the conservative camp, chirping about high taxes and getting the government off the citizen’s backs. He drapes himself in conservative rhetoric and tells the human birds what they want to hear. The human birds, thus deluded, welcome the neo-conservative as one of their own. Then the cuckoo starts chirping about a “War on Terror” and the alleged threat of “Islamo-Fascism”. He forgets about reducing taxes and the size of government and instead tweets that the United States should spend trillions of dollars it does not have to fight wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. In short, he shows his real agenda, “Israel Uber Alles” under the cloak of false conservatism.
That is how to distinguish the “neo-conservative” cuckoo or one of its hirelings, like Glen Beck. To better emphasize the analogy with nature we must turn to an historical analogy. In the days of the British Mandate over Palestine there existed a man named Vladimir Jabotinsky. Jabotinsky is the unknown (to the gentiles) founding father of neo-conservatism. Vladimir Jabotinsky was the advocate of Revisionist Zionism, so-called because it refused to accept the partition of Jordan east of the river from the Palestinian Mandate. Jabotinsky wanted a Jewish state on both sides of the river. He abhorred the large number of Jews involved in Marxist socialism and was an enthusiastic advocate of free market economics. But he also opposed any compromise with the Arabs of Palestine, who he knew would never agree to the planting of a Jewish state in their land. To express his ideology, he wrote two famous essays, “The Iron Law” and “The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs)”. From the former essay he wrote words widely quoted by the students of Zionism. In essence, he stated that the Arabs of Palestine were not savages. They were highly civilized and would never agree to a Zionist state in their land until all hope was lost to them. Thus, the Arabs must be confronted with an “iron wall of bayonets”, to use Jabotinsky’s famous phrase, to coerce their surrender to the unavoidable. Jabotinsky openly admitted that “Zionism is a colonizing adventure and it stands or falls on the use of force”. He proclaimed: “It is important to speak Hebrew but it is more important to shoot.” This is the true origin of the philosophy of the “War on Terror”. It is the Jabotinsky philosophy of perpetual war with the Arabs to ensure the future security of the future state of Israel. Naturally, it would not do to tell Americans that they must fight and die for Israel’s survival. Therefore, a ruse must be concocted. The ruse is to tell Americans that there exists a menace called “Islamo-fascism”. America and Israel must jointly oppose this menace because it threatens both equally. As anyone can tell, this is precisely what has been done.
There are other methods by which Americans can distinguish the Zionist neo-conservative cuckoo from the real thing. Real conservatives are “isolationists”. That is, they do not believe in using America’s military might to police the world. But Zionist neo-conservatives insist that America must police the world – for Israel’s benefit. Zionist neo-conservatives are social liberals. They support open borders, diversity and the tearing down of America as a white country. They do this at the same time that they snarl for war against Iran for Israel’s benefit. Two outstanding examples of this mindset are Senator Charles Schumer of New York and Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. Zionist cuckoo birds shall hiss with barely concealed hatred of actual conservatives like Patrick Buchanan.
These, then, are the major differences between real conservatives and Zionist conservatives. But the simplest way to distinguish the real thing from the fake is to look for the bird with the hooked beak that chirps in Hebrew.
yanyan | 10.10.11 @ 11:40AM
This is a smart blog. I mean it. You have so much knowledge about this issue, and so much passion. You also know how to make people rally behind it, obviously from the responses.mesothelioma attorney
malibu real estate | 10.11.11 @ 1:59AM
Valuable information. Fortunate me I found your web site by chance, and I'm shocked why this twist of fate didn't happened earlier! I bookmarked it.
yanyan| 10.11.11 @ 1:10PM
im so sad cause i have'nt try that before..but i quest i have to read about Paul stories..thanks
mas200
yanyan| 10.11.11 @ 2:32PM
am very interested for this post. Its really give me lots of pleasure. I choose this article very much. So lots of thanks for this post.zoloft lawsuit
wow| 10.17.11 @ 12:33PM
Last week, I migrated this blog to run on BlogEngine.net. While I haven't posted anything, I have (of course) been tinkering.
actos lawsuit
balcuizar62| 10.12.11 @ 8:42PM
Hey, you have included very well article on here about repartie. I really like this type’s content.
Yaz lawyer
ruth| 10.17.11 @ 9:57AM
i love this blog so much thank you so much..
silver spot price
fiance visa| 10.17.11 @ 8:54PM
A very informative article and lots of really honest and forthright comments made! This certainly got me thinking about this issue thanks all.
fiance visa
yaz class action | 10.22.11 @ 2:24PM
One of the other guests was Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. He said, at least as I understood it -- and I could be mistaken -- that the real fault for this terror attack lies with the United States for provoking al Qaeda by "occupying their land" --this is a paraphrase.
AM I CORRECT? SINCE ALQAEDA CAN DEFEAT AMERICA THE WERE HAVING THEIR SECRET ATTACKS? OR BASE UPON THEIR PERCEPTIONS THAT THEY WILL BECOME A HEROE?
creamer| 10.19.11 @ 8:22PM
.This wider our understanding about this certain issues...
actos lawsuit
accident attorney dallas| 10.20.11 @ 1:58PM
All things considered I will be subscribing to the rss and i also we imagine you create once again very soon!
accident attorney dallas
devourment| 11.4.11 @ 1:05PM
this is the best blog i ever read and useful i ever know thanks
L Tod Schlosser
PIERCE| 11.8.11 @ 2:51AM
is most efficient and comprehensive software to generate barcodes for various goods involved in numerous industries.
filipina girls
chester| 11.11.11 @ 1:25AM
I am one of your biggest visitors. You actually have truly produced a splendid rrnternet site as well. Keep up the good work.
zoloft lawsuit
Perfect !!!| 11.14.11 @ 3:53AM
So far, I managed to go though only some of posts you discuss here, but I find them very interesting and informative. Just want say thank you for the information you have shared. Regards
mesothelioma lawyer