Sunday, September 09, 2007

Will Ron Paul Now Convert To Islam?

September 9, 2007

In the debates held in South Carolina this past May, Dr. Paul was quoted, “I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it…”

Two days ago, September 6, Usama Bin Laden released a video addressing all of America. In that video he states, after castigating Democrats for their ineffectiveness and Republicans for their devilishness, "People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of the tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped.” Towards the end he adds, after telling us we cannot win and he is willing to continue escalating to kill us, and speaking of the prominence the Muslim Qu’Ran places on Jesus and Mary, "To conclude, I invite you to embrace Islam, for the greatest mistake one can make in this world and one which is uncorrectable is to die while not surrendering to Allah, the Most High, in all aspects of one's life - ie., to die outside of Islam. And Islam means gain for you in this first life and the next, final life.”

My question to Dr. Ron Paul, since he encourages us to “listen to those who attacked us,” is, will you be the first to now convert to Islam, Dr. Paul?

Bin Laden’s latest communiqué mirrors many of your own calls, Dr. Paul, so are you listening? Are you ready to accept the “invitation” for “peace?”



Radiofriendly said...

Ron Paul is a professing Christian. There is nothing wrong with having a brain and being informed about what the enemy says---understanding motive does not negate the crime. If you are Christian you will appreciate reading this Statement of Faith from Ron Paul: I happen to agree with Ron Paul--It is valid for you to disagree with Ron Paul but attacking an honorable citizen statesman like Dr. Paul is disrespectful and lowers the political discourse (already rock bottom). Dr. Paul is standing up for constitutional principles and the rule of law--that is something that, regardless of your personal view, any true Christian should be thrilled about.

Unknown said...

I don't think Ron Paul's listening to Bin Laden. However, I'm sure Bush was telepathically reading Bin Laden's wet dreams; "Wow, what if the US invaded an irrelevant country and began an imperialist occupation? al-Qaeda's recruitment levels would soar through the roof! That wouldn't happen though. It'd be suicide on a foreign relations and international secur- Oh shit, they're actually doing it?!"

LewWaters said...


Asking a simple question in line with his own words isn't attacking.

I love it when someone, Pauliacs especially, starts talking about "Christian this or Christian that."

In many ways, ya'll remind me of rabid Muslims desiring to impose their view of Islam on others.

If Paul or his followers cannot handle a simple question, how would he act as POTUS?

He is an incredibly naive person.

LewWaters said...

You may be right Paul. Paul will whine his way through this and Bush won't receive my vote next time.

Unknown said...

Ah, "listen." That can mean hear and learn about. It can mean hear and learn from.

A judge will listen to testimony from an arson. That doesn't mean he is going to run out and by matches.

It is clear from the context that Ron Paul means the former.

LewWaters said...

LOL, Dar. Like other Pauliacs, you don't get it either.

If, as he said, we should "listen" to why they came here and attacked us, while he ignores their call for a worldwide Caliphate with Baghdad as the center, will he now listen and accept the "invitation" to covert to gain peace?

Paul's whinings just don't really add up.

Unknown said...

Lew what the hell are you talking about? Why are you so convinced that talking with your "enemy" is akin to climbing in bed with them? Or do you prefer to speak with a gun and go to war with every group or country that doesn't like us?

LewWaters said...

What "the hell I'm talking about," Mike, is whiner Paul's assumption that dealing with radical Jihadists is dealing with sane reasonable people.

How would one reason with people who willingly convince others to blow themselves up, along with innocent women and children, for their cause?

Paul says we need to listen to them, so I ask again, is he listening to the latest Bin Laden video and if so, is he ready to accept the offer for peace?

Or, does he know that the offer won't bring peace, but would want others to "listen?"

Personally, I don't really care if others don't "like us." But those that have continually attacked us for nearly three decades show that the gun is the only way to counter the rabid Jihadists, while we show potentials that there is something better for them.

Since apparently you think Bin Laden is a "reasonable sort," feel free to explain just how you would go about negotiating with him and just what you personally would be prepared to give up to gain his cooperation in a "peaceful settlement" that he would accept.

ocrapnotagain said...

Lew, I'm not sure you really understood what Paul was saying. I'm not saying your question doesn't make sense, in the way you apparently took Paul's statement, but it is not how he meant it. I can say this with confidence having read/watched the man speak on this topic extensively.

Attacks on us by OBL have been shown to be blow back responses to something relatively specific every time. Thats not to say Islamic radicals are sane people, or wouldn't hate us with the same fervor if we didn't give them a reason. I have read actual books on the loonies and know better than to think we cause it all. And so does Paul, unfortunately you don't get to go into much detail in 30 seconds during a debate.

Speaking of which you might want to listen/watch what Paul says on 9-11 at John Hopkins when he speaks on traditional non-interventionism.

Anyways. Most authors who have researched those who made radical Islam what it is today know that their primary goal is to take over their part of the world first, then US. They have tried and tried and tried, and their part of the world doesn't want it. The only reason it is so damn big in Iran just happens to be as a result of us interfering. So what does Paul call for? Don't interfere. Israel can spank anyone that threatens them, and have done so in the past. The Muslim countries can defend themselves from Islamic radicals if they have to. But they are not going to be able to if we are over their doing 2 things; 1. taking away their desire to start to their own revolution, and 2. creating more terrorist, who, if it weren't for us being their, wouldn't be on their side, but would be attacking those who would be the occupying force, Al Qaeda, the one's who would be killing their families and trying to force their hand.

Paul doesn't care about what OBL 'wants', he's ONLY interested in stopping unneeded AMERICAN death. Let them try to gain supporters by attacking a non-interventionist America with our entire military juggernaut guarding out house.

LewWaters said...

Mark, I find incredibly naive for Paul or Pauliacs to give the words of Bin Laden such credibility over those of our own people.

Bin Laden does claim his actions, and those of others before him, as "reprisals," but does that make them true? I don't think so.

If Paul and Pauliacs are intent in listening to those attacking us, why do they ignore the calls for worldwide domination under radical Islam, as revealed by Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein in book Al-Zarqawi — al-Qaeda's Second Generation?

For some time now, we have been receiving the "invitation" to convert to Islam, or face annhilation, leading to my question posted here.

The anti-war left has a very long history of opposing the US winning of wars, unless we were aligned with Communist nations like the former Soviet Union. Opposing the destruction of terrorists by cherry-picking words of terrorists like Bin Laden, Iran's Ahmadinejad or that California traitor, Adam Gadahn while ignoring the open calls for establishment of an Islamic Caliphate, with Baghdad as its center and eventually the entire world, isn't making us safer. It is only leaving us open to more horrendous attacks in the future, until we submit to their oppressive rule.

It is very noble to want to "stop unneeded American deaths, but if we don't stop terrorists now the "unneeded American deaths" in the future will be staggering.

Paul is dead wrong in his blame America first attitude towards terrorists. We did not cause this war, they did. They have been desiring this for centuries to make their misguided version of their religion the sole and lone one of the world.

You even admit that their goal is to only take over "their part of the world first, then US." You also rightfully say that others there don't want their version. What you fail to see is that radical Jihadists don't care what they, you or I want. They use terror to impose their will on others, as did the Taliban in Afghanistan. Eventually, they will succeed, as did the Taliban and that means their next step will be US. How many more will have to needlessly die trying to stop them then, after they have amassed the wealth of the oil fields, perfected nuclear weapons and if Paul got his way, we withdrew within our borders hoping they don't come?

We actually have two choices here. Fight them now, for however long it takes, or put it off for our grandchildren to deal with, once they are even stronger and better armed. They have no exit strategy and are in it for the long term. We cannot eliminate them entirely, but we can reduce them to the point that they are no longer a viable threat to the world.

For someone crying to "listen" to those attacking us, you all sure miss a lot said by them, now and in the past.

Roger W. Gardner said...

First of all, Ron Paul's statements are at best delusional and at worse idiotic. And, yes, talking to the enemy and listening to their anti-American propaganda in A TIME OF WAR is considered TREASON.

Regarding our "interference" in the Middle East -- how is it that these jihadi-appeasers always somehow manage to forget a little thing like 3000 murdered Americans?

Chamberlain was convinced that he could talk with Herr Hitler, wasn't he?

If anyone really wants to talk to the enemy they can join Al-Qaeda.

Susan Duclos said...

Ron Paul is a Democrat pretending to be a Republican. I cannot put it any simpler than that. LEW, great piece!!!

Dean said...

Pauls views on the war are troubling, more importantly they are dangerous. Apparently he does not recognize the nature of the beast that is Islam.
When a barbaric, ruthless enemy such as we face present time, repeatedly tells you with certainty that their intent is to kill you, a prudent person will listen and believe it.

Islam is especially deadly to Christians. Denial of the truth about Islam is the first step in losing your head....literally.

Constitutional principle are good but we are in a war against very deadly, very serious enemies. It doesn't matter who you blame for getting us there. Fact is we are in it and we damn sure better be in it to win NOT to retreat.
Ron Paul's dangerous idea's will cost more lives than they will ever save.
If you love this country...really love this country then you Pauliacs will get off your high horses and do something to win the war on terror. Retreat and surrender is NOT an option and if you seriously believe you can sit down and have reasonable talks with these animals then you are as dangerous as Paul.

Get with the program or get out of my country.

Roger W. Gardner said...

Dean -- You couldn't have said it any better or any clearer.
Right on, my friend.

Ben said...

What does UBL want? Total world domination.

Why did they attack us? Because the demon they worship commanded them to. Its in their scripture,history & law, all of which I have recently documented at .

There is nothing to talk or negotiate about. There is a war to be won. Lets blessed well get on with it.

ocrapnotagain said...

Hey Lew,

good response, I do hear what you are saying. I don't agree, but I do get ya.

The thing that I don't think you are understanding about Paul's position, and I will admit here that I am not 100% sure this is what he believes, but based on where he gets his information and opinions, I think I'm at the very least close.

What you are not getting is that Paul doesn't think we can win, in this generation or any other, this war on radical Islamics. It's an ideal they have, and not something that can be "beaten". In fact it is my opinion that simply by trying to "win" a war against them merely makes more of them. At the very most all I believe we can hope to do is make fast, small scale attacks IF they get out of control. It's the very nature of the way they fight that makes a standing army useless as a long term method of combat. And again, since they recruit like crazy in the face of what many of their sympathizers consider an occupation, what we are doing is 100% counterproductive.

I may be wrong about us not being able to crush them now, but even if it is possible, can America last in a campaign like the one we are waging? I have no doubts that we will fail, economically before their resolve disappears, or they do. And all it takes is a hand full of them.

This is why I agree with Paul's position about defending our boarders. I don't know whether or not Paul would consider a surgical strike if things appeared to get out of hand (to give them a giant setback), and I haven't heard his specific plans for intelligence gathering. But if the later is addressed before the election to my satisfaction then I will have nothing bad to say of Paul's foreign policy.

ocrapnotagain said...

Left one thing out. Who in God's green earth ever mentioned anything about negotiations? Please tell me that you don't think Paul supports sitting down to talk with OBL in any setting other than OBL's assassination?

LewWaters said...

Something for you to think about, Mark.

Should we completely pull back within our borders and seal them, what do we do with Hawaii, Alaska and territories like American Samoa, Guam, Marianas Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands? What about Israel?

What do we do with U.S. Citizens who are Muslim with relatives in the Middle East?

Do we build a fence completely around the country allowing no one in or no one out, like was done with East Germany and Czechoslovakia, and hope that radical Jihadists don't gain the missle and nuclear capability of other countries and send them over the fence?

What do we do with business owned by global groups currently, nationalize them, as communists have in the past?

What about our goods we now export and import? Do we really think our economy would stand solely on our own today?

With a little critical thinking one can see just how incredibly naive Paul is on matters.

As for negotiations, just what does he propose to stop terrorists where they are if he is unwilling to engage them in battle, as they have been waging against us for nearly three decades?

Unknown said...

Lew, personally I would probably kill OSBL. However the last time I heard he was NOT in Iraq.

LewWaters said...

Bin laden may not be in Iraq, Mark, but a lot of Al Qaeda is. Killing Bin Laden, which I also support, should he be found, will be a great morale booster, but it won't stop the terrorists associated with him.

That is why it is foolhardly to focus solely on him.

ocrapnotagain said...


It seems you think, like is apparent everywhere on the internet for some reason, that Paul is an isolationist.
The difference between non-interventionist and isolationist, is that you just described the later while the former ONLY says we don't get our military involved unless in defense of our national security. Trade, travel etc, with other nations is still open with non-interventionism.

With that said, lets picture America as a non-interventionist country. Our military, working with a fresh intelligence agency (hopefully, lol, seeing we don't have the CIA and FBI anymore) working on screening our boarders. Nuclear devices and many biological weapons can be 'sniffed' out if we have an active net set in place, which can only happen with the added manpower. we would be more secure like this.

However what about the growing threat abroad? After all radical Islam isn't going anywhere. Paul has already said that he believes they should be dealt with the same way as any rouge hostile entity, essentially bounties, and a go ahead for groups around the world to seek them out themselves. If this fails to halt the growth, there is nothing saying Paul wouldn't consider 'some' level of buildup on their part as a threat to national security, and thus respond, but NOT with a full fledged invasion.

As for your questions about American territories, and distant states. They are essentially part of this country. The territories, well I don't know what Paul thinks of them. If you do I'd love to read something.

The last part, about US citizens with family in the middle east. I don't know what anyone can do. History is littered with a constant struggle for some getting to America or another safe haven while leaving family back in 'hell'. It is a sad reality. This however assumes the middle east would fall into chaos upon our exit, something that I feel is rather unlikely to happen. Will it fall into relative chaos? Perhaps to the levels of shortly after we invaded, but I doubt it would stay that way for long. Muslims are not horrible people, they are compassionate just like any other good people, and neighboring nations can more than adiquitely handle a chaotic Iraq if Iraq can't handle it themselves.

LewWaters said...

Mark, how would you sniff out nuclear devices launched from China, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran or such places?

Don’t fall for Paul’s rhetoric that he is not an isolationalist, but only a non-interventionist. What he fails to realize is that radical Jihadists are interventionists desiring world domination. It is very foolhardy to sit back, while they grow in strength and arms, and wait for them to hit us again.

Paul or anyone else in charge in D.C. better wake up to the realization that they don’t believe in live and let live. Their hate isn’t due to our being over there, either.

Don’t believe for a second that radical Jihadism isn’t going anywhere. Just because people there may not want it doesn’t mean they won’t impose it, as did the Taliban in Afghanistan and the radicals in Iran. Yes, Iranians regret falling for it, but what do they do now? How will they ever overthrow the Ayatollahs and Ahmanutjob without some “intervention” by others?

Al Qaeda doesn’t care whether or not you, I or anyone wants their radical misguided view, they will impose it and rule by terror to maintain control.

It is either blood now, or a whole hell of a lot more blood later, once they have become even stronger and convinced even more their tyrannical view is from God.

Iraq will handle their own country, given time to get it together. They are standing up more every day, after over 30 years of the dominance of Saddam. Paul, Democrats and others are simply wrong to expect and demand they accomplish in a few months what our country hasn’t accomplished in over 200 years. But then again, in the case of Democrats and the anti-war left, their goal is to bring about defeat now, before Bush leaves office.

I don’t really see where Paul is any different.

ocrapnotagain said...


First, sorry, I misunderstood you. You said crossing our boarders, so I figured you meant smuggled nuclear devices, which can be 'sniffed' out. As for nuclear missiles, what is different under a Paul presidency than now? What stops China from bombing us now? Some invisible shield? Sorry to be sarcastic, but really, the only defense we 'really' have against such a thing is MAD.

Paul's rhetoric of being non interventionist? HUH? he advocates free trade with all countries, isn't about to shut off immigration or travel to and from America, but is against using military force to change the world. I'm sorry Lew, but you really need to open up a dictionary here, its really rather straight forward stuff. Should I call you something other than what you are simply because I disagree with you? You are really grasping at straws on this one.

Paul understands radical Islam is NOT RATIONAL (read insane). They USE our foreign interventions to MUSTER SUPPORT. How many times do I have to say that. You can't get out of your head that we are somehow winning or can win a war against either radical Islam (a belief system) or terror (a tactic). I'm not saying we are bound to lose, what I'm saying is that we need to cut off their single greatest source of recruitment. THEIR HATE is not entirely or even mostly because of us being over there, and Paul hasn't said this. I suppose you are referring to the Paul/Gulliani spat on the second debate, where Paul said they are attacking us because we've been over there? Why do people have such a hard time seeing that Paul was referring to Iraqis fighting us in Iraq and not 911 (which he addresses separately and often). There is a massive insurgency in Iraq due mainly because of resentment towards us killing Iraqis for so long coupled with Al Qaeda brainwashing.

"Don’t believe for a second that radical Jihadism isn’t going anywhere."

Did you word that correctly?

Assuming you spoke/typed correctly, Are you saying that an idea can be killed? eradicated? Do you think the desire for communism or socialism can be warred with and exterminated? If so we are looking at this from two very very very different standpoints.

Accomplish in a few months what we haven't accomplished in 200 years? What is that? The eradication of an idea? No we ask that Iraq fights like hell for what they want. We confiscate firearms detain civilians and defile their holy lands, not a whole lot of incentive for them to get off their asses, and I don't blame them. We need to start leaving, light a fire under their asses, because if we simply coddle any nation and put them on the back seat while we fight their revolution, that revolution, to them loses its power.

Lastly, because I need sleep. We can NOT defeat an idea or a tactic. Nor can it defeat us unless we allow ourselves to be baited and fatigued to the point of defeat. This is rapidly happening, much to Al Qaeda's pleasure. On top of that we are creating resentment all over the world to which they can harness, and manipulate to their ends. Cut off their supply and the head will wither. Not die, but be rendered impotent. Will terrorist attacks continue to happen? yes and for or all eternity, regardless of our war against it. The question is, do you want to fall into its trappings? It sounds to me like you want to hand them a victory by naively combating something that cannot die, and that thrives off of our very effert to kill it.

LewWaters said...

what is different under a Paul presidency than now? What stops China from bombing us now? Some invisible shield?

No, the projection of our power beyond our borders stops them from attacking us now. We are actively engaged nearby and could respond to any potential attack much sooner.

In the case of the Chinese and even the Soviets before, they were more reasonable and understood the concept of mutual destruction. Radical Jihadists don't care about that, believing they will be honored in Heaven for dying for their cause. They are not reasonable.

If Paul is for all this free trade and enterprise with international corporations, just how does he propose to completely seal the borders to prevent terrorists from entering? They don't wear signs, you know.

Maybe you misunderstand my comment on radical Jihadism or I didn't word it well enough. Without the intervention Paul opposes, Radicals have been steadily progressing and growing in strength, as did the Taliban. Al Qaeda, which is but one group of many terrroists with similar goals, has also been steadily growing and progressively spreading out. Non-intervention will allow that growth to resume as we pull back and wait for the inevitable.

What we haven't accomplished in 200 years is Political Reconciliation, which is being demanded of Iraqis at this time. Our country is very divided with the left now referring to general Petraeus as a "traitor" and the denigration of the report they demand of him being discredited before it is even given.

The only difference is we aren't shooting each other, yet.

We sure can defeat the ideal, tactic or group known for terror, we must. We cannot co-exist with them so we either surrender or annhilate them. I chose the latter.

Paul may have a catchy sounding slogan with "we cannot defeat a tactic," but too much like the rhetoric of John 'F'in Kerry in his infamous anti-Troop testimony of 1971, "we cannot fight communism all over the world," we can, we must, and we did.

We just weren't awake enough to prevent it from taking over the Democrat party.

"Turn the other cheek" sounds good in Sunday School, but it isn't always practical in the real world. Besides, if that were the real intent of Jesus' words, why did he, at Luke 22:36, tell his disciples to go buy swords?

I'm astonished that you and other Pauliacs seems so content to accept that terrorist attacks will be allowable and we must not act upon them.

And you wonder how I can think terror will continue to grow?

Unknown said...

Lew, since your so zealous over stamping out terror. I guess we should invade every country that contains terrorists. I don't think I could even name all of them. Heck we have domestic terrorism here in the USA, perhaps we should invade ourselves.

ocrapnotagain said...

good morning Lew,

I say this in a nice way, please stop putting words into my mouth.

"I'm astonished that you and other Pauliacs seems so content to accept that terrorist attacks will be allowable and we must not act upon them.

When has Paul or myself said any such thing? There is a difference between fighting with a standing army and dishing out reprisals to terrorist for terrorist attacks. How is it you have not taken at least THAT away from my last half a dozen posts? It's like you are sitting there covering your ears(eyes) saying LALALALALALALLA.

I don't wonder how you think terror can continue to grow, I've never said that, or eluded to it. In fact, unlike you, I do not think you can snuff out this enemy. They are not going to just pop their heads out of their holes for us to see forever (unless we are over their, in which case they have more than enough recruitment to do so). The most you can EVER hope to do is have them go into hiding, typically to plan a flashy come back down the road.

You say that I use Paul's slogan of "you can't win against a tactic". Well I've been saying this since 911, and I voted for Bush twice! I believed we needed to crush Sadaam, in fact I still think we should have removed him in the 90's. However what we are doing now is BS. I'm not mad at our troops, I'm not made at our generals on the ground, I'm mad at those who won't let them leave.

Back to the tactic. You cannot wage war on a method of warfare. Simple. And you should know from all of history, you cannot defeat an opinion, especially a religious view. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. You would have us be defeated the ONLY way we can be defeated, by waging a costly war that we can not afford to fight. There are better ways to do it then war and occupation. Remember Vietnam, guerrilla tactics need to fought with guerrilla tactics. Standing armies with standing armies. Al Qaeda has no standing army.

BTW, the
I honestly have never seen what it is that truly drives them. Emotion or stupidity? I've never understood.

What you said about communism. we fight it everywhere and didn't even see it taking over our Democratic party! Do you see my point a little right now? You CAN NOT stomp out an idea, you can not defeat a concept. You spend your time kicking @ss abroad only to have it show up in your house.

Our differences;
You think radical Islam is a group of people able to be defeated with a standing army.

I think Radical Islam is a concept unable to be defeated, and that a standing army/occupation makes them stronger not weaker.

Fact. Consider Al Qaeda recruitment in the last 5 years.

Show me ONE instance in history where violence defeated an idea for good. You say blood now for less blood later, I say blood now for even more blood later. You fail to see that no matter what we do, there will ALWAYS be blood later.

LewWaters said...

Mike, how about we follow the advice of Jackie Mason in the video I posted? That might be a good start.

Mark, radical Islam will be defeated by killing those trying to kill us now and by showing the rest leaning that way that their misguided views are simply wrong.

As for your words, I read what you type, not what you think. If you are unwilling to fight them after three decades of attacks and state they will always be around, how can one interpret that as anything other than accepting them?

Unfortunatly, blood has been spilled throughout the world's history, especially to maintain free. What is the alternative when those attacking us don't want our freedom and wish to end it?

As I see it, we fight them to stay free or submit to oppression. Are you ready to accept that?

redhawk said...

Usama bin Laden seem to be looking for additional recruits to Islam now that Ron Paul has started the ball rolling... wonder how many Sheep will follow!!!

ocrapnotagain said...


"Mark, radical Islam will be defeated by killing those trying to kill us now and by showing the rest leaning that way that their misguided views are simply wrong. "

Good luck with that. I'm sure us killing people who are willing marytrs will make them stop and rethink their lives.

"As for your words, I read what you type, not what you think. If you are unwilling to fight them after three decades of attacks and state they will always be around, how can one interpret that as anything other than accepting them?

Are you stuck in some other time Lew? What part of me beingagainst standing occupational armies don't you understand? I have said multiple times that I am for reprisals for terrorism, and that Paul suggested letters of Marque and Reprisal (bounties).

It's obvious that you have your head stuck somewhere where you can't hear understand these things while I repeatidly state them. Why don't you back up your arguement as to why these things won't work and a standing occupational army will? I'm all ears.

LewWaters said...

I'm sure us killing people who are willing marytrs will make them stop and rethink their lives.

Since they have no desire to co-exist, what other choice is there? Their goal is world domiination, Mark, not just a patch of desert in the Middle East.

Mark, I refer you to my later post, The Incredible Naivety of Ron Paul where I show the trouble with the call for letters of marque and reprisals.

Perhaps I should be asking you and Paul, just what time do you think we live in?

Instead of trying to act like you are such a know it all, mark, try reading what else I wrote in a post the next day. You even have to scroll past it to get to this one, so you should be able to find easily.

Gerv said...

How far off the Law of the Land (The Constitution)have we become to view Ron Paul's views as extreme, loony or ignorant considering this is the law Ron Paul follows? I would think those of us that would allow our government to strip us of our inalienable Bill of Rights for the pursuit of safety are the ignorant ones. It was said once that our citizens life and limbs are the most valuable assets in our countries possesion, yet we are going to allow pre-emptive war on a third world country that didn't have the weapons or any relation to the terrorists that attacked us? We are going to allow Congress to relinquish its responsibility to declare war and have it hand over that responsibility/right to one man? Isn't that a dictatorship? Now we are going to allow our same government to search our homes and mail without a warrant and send us away to a prison without a speedy trial or a lawyer? It sounds like the terrorists won to me if my fellow man is so eager to give up his essential liberty for the pursuit of security. We are sending our children, our future, to Iraq (and next Iran) when we have wide open borders here in our country and our economy is about to poo from illegals and inflation (dollar's depreciation). If there is a war on terror why are our borders wide open and Bush pushing for amnesty? All the gang member has to do is tell us he isn't a gang member. Sounds fair right? Get with it guys and step up to freedom! Stop being afraid of the terrorists in some 3rd world country and start fearing the crumbling of your LIBERTY! and if you think for one second there isn't a problem with our dollar look at the price of ammo in the last 5 years! Just my thoughts-

LewWaters said...

If Paul can't see the dangers facing America after nearly 30 years of terrorist attacks against American interests, twice on our own soil, his other views are worthless.

His turn and walk away attitude is so incredibly naive as is his blame America stance.

I wonder, since he blames America's foreign policy for terrorism, why do they also attack other countries that do not support American foreign policy?

xclmr said...

This article and most of the comments left by lew waters are some of the most ignorant things I have ever read. Be a little more open minded lew and try to actually put some logical thought into Ron Paul's comments before you jump to ridiculous conclusions. I see what you're attempting to argue but you just don't make any sense. YOU are and naive one.

LewWaters said...

And yet, another Pauliac buffoon heard from.

Keep on hacking online polls thinking it bolsters his chances.

Sometimes I have to wonder, who is the bigger dunce, Ron Paul or those who worship him?

Demidog said...

The projection of power has nothing to do with China's refusal to lob nukes over here and you should be ashamed of yourself for claiming that is the case.

The reason China doesn't bomb us is because they don't need to. They loan us on the order of 800 billion dollars a year so we can finance our overseas adventures and you and your children and your grandchildren will be indebted to them for as long as it takes to repay the debt.

You can thank the republicans and democrats in congress for this.

You took an oath that you apparently didn't take very seriously. Ron Paul is loved and supported in great numbers because he took his oath seriously and consistently proved it during his 20 year stint in Congress. We are tired of the Constitution being ignored. The founders weren't stupid. They kept war from the executive branch for very good reason.

You can't just ignore the parts of the constitution that you don't like. Your oath didn't read "defend the constitution (the parts with which I agree) from enemies foreign and domestic. You either accept it all or throw it all out. But have the honesty and integrity to admit that you don't believe it is a useful document anymore.

LewWaters said...

Ron Paul is loved and supported in great numbers because he took his oath seriously


Polling at 4%?

You have no idea how serious I took my oath and I have never been released from it. I didn't get to sit in air conditioned offices.

Paul is a nothing that I imagine won't retain his House seat after this.

Demidog said...

If, as he said, we should "listen" to why they came here and attacked us, while he ignores their call for a worldwide Caliphate with Baghdad as the center, will he now listen and accept the "invitation" to covert to gain peace?

He doesn't ignore their call. They just are too weak to do anything of significance about it on these shores.

9/11 was horrendous and so it was in 1993. But it is not representative of a strong movement that we should react in an irrational way.

If you do not know your enemy, then there is no way you will defeat him. Fundamental military strategy.

Your position is that we don't learn anything about their motivations and just lob bombs in their general direction.

That sort of indiscriminate action only makes us look weak while depleting our resources.

This is why the neoconservative movement was always doomed to failure. Those who promoted a war on Iraq, did not ever claim that it was to squelch terrorism. It never was and never will it be an effective campaign. The opposite is true.

And while it will stir up the hornets nest even more, it also will bankrupt this country and cause more soldiers and civilians to die.

Not one prediction by the neoconservative "intellectuals" has come true. Zero. Nada.

The Iraq war was actually planned years before 9.11 ever occurred. It is not a response to 9.11, it is not even a good remedy were it a response to 9.11.

Ron Paul is right because he understands this and is one of the few politicians saying it and acting on this belief. You will not find democrats other than Kucinich and Gravel who are anti-war in this sense.

The democrats claim to be anti-war but continue to fund this war and voted for it back in 2003 knowing full well it was not a response to terrorism.

Ron Paul is the only guy up there who was against it and solidly so even during Clinton's administration when an escalation was first proposed by the neoconservative PNAC and pushed to Congress.

Demidog said...

Your polling data is out of date. Rasmussen has him polling at 7% nationally. Other than Huckabee, he's the only GOP candidate who is rising in the polls.

And contrary to what many of your fellow freepers say (I signed up in 1998) George Soros is not handing out money so his supporters can donate.

27 million dollars this year is nothing to sneeze at.

Demidog said...

"You have no idea how serious I took my oath and I have never been released from it."

By their fruits ye shall know them.

Judging by your writings here, your responses and comparing them to Dr. Paul's and his actions, I can say with certainty that you do not take that oath very seriously.

LewWaters said...

9/11 was horrendous and so it was in 1993. But it is not representative of a strong movement that we should react in an irrational way.

Is there a reason you left out,

Oct. 12, 2000 - A terrorist bomb damages the destroyer USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39.
Aug. 7, 1998 - Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured.
In response, on August 20 the United States attacked targets in Afghanistan and Sudan with over 75 cruise missiles fired from Navy ships in the Arabian and Red seas. About 60 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from warships in the Arabian Sea. Most struck six separate targets in a camp near Khost, Afghanistan. Simultaneously, about 20 cruise missiles were fired from U.S. ships in the Red Sea striking a factory in Khartoum, Sudan, which was suspected of producing components for making chemical weapons.
June 21, 1998 - Rocket-propelled grenades explode near the U.S. embassy in Beirut.
June 25, 1996 - A bomb aboard a fuel truck explodes outside a U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. military personnel are killed in the Khubar Towers housing facility, and 515 are wounded, including 240 Americans.
Nov. 13, 1995 - A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. The "Tigers of the Gulf," "Islamist Movement for Change," and "Fighting Advocates of God" claim responsibility.
Dec. 21, 1988 - A bomb destroys Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. All 259 people aboard the Boeing 747 are killed including 189 Americans, as are 11 people on the ground.
April 1986 - An explosion damages a TWA flight as it prepares to land in Athens, Greece. Four people are killed when they are sucked out of the aircraft.
April 5, 1986 - A bomb destroys the LaBelle discotheque in West Berlin. The disco was known to be frequented by U.S. servicemen. The attack kills one American and one German woman and wounds 150, including 44 Americans
In response, on April 15 the United States retaliated in an operation dubbed ‘El Dorado Canyon.’ Approximately 100 aircraft were launched in direct support of the raid. It was an attack against military targets involving land-based bombers from Great Britain together with carrier-based air strikes from ships in the Gulf of Sidra.
December 1985 - Simultaneous suicide attacks are carried out against U.S. and Israeli check-in desks at Rome and Vienna international airports. 20 people are killed in the two attacks, including four terrorists.
November 1985 - Hijackers aboard an Egyptair flight kill one American. Egyptian commandos later storm the aircraft on the isle of Malta, and 60 people are killed.
October 1985 - Palestinian terrorists hijack the cruise liner Achille Lauro (in response to the Israeli attack on PLO headquarters in Tunisia) Leon Klinghoffer, an elderly, wheelchair-bound American, is killed and thrown overboard.
August 1985 - A car bomb at a U.S. military base in Frankfurt, Germany kills two and injures 20. A U.S. soldier murdered for his identity papers is found a day after the explosion.
June 1985 - A TWA airliner is hijacked over the Mediterranean, the start of a two-week hostage ordeal. The last 39 passengers are eventually released in Damascus after being held in various locations in Beirut.
June 1985 - In San Salvador, El Salvador, 13 people are killed in a machine gun attack at an outdoor café, including four U.S. Marines and two American businessmen.
April 1985 - A bomb explodes in a restaurant near a U.S. air base in Madrid, Spain, killing 18, all Spaniards, and wounding 82, including 15 Americans.
November 1984 - A bomb attack on the U.S. embassy in Bogota, Colombia kills a passer-by. The attack was preceded by death threats against U.S. officials by drug traffickers.
October 1983 - A suicide car bomb attack against the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut kills 241 servicemen. A simultaneous attack on a French base kills 58 paratroopers.
April 1983 - A suicide car bombing against the U.S. embassy in Beirut kills 63, including 17 Americans.

If you have to ask what you can do with your claim of the seriousness of my oath, you and Paul deserve each other. The country deserves and will receive better.

LewWaters said...

27 million dollars this year is nothing to sneeze at.

All that money and not one ad?

Truth be known, you don't where all the money is coming in from and apparently, what is happening to it.

Demidog said...

I know exactly where the money is coming from. It is coming from his grass roots supporters and anything over 200 bucks is reported to the FEC as required by law.

Claiming that it is supplied by Soros is on the level of UFO and 9/11 conspiracy theories. Where's the beef?

Is there a reason you left out,

Is there a reason that you keep ignoring the fact that the majority of the attacks on your list are against military targets in foreign nations?

Attacks on military targets has never been defined as terrorism except by thugs inside various governments seeking to expand their power.

If the Cole wasn't in Yemen, it couldn't have been attacked now could it?

Demidog said...

What is the basis for your ridiculous claim that there have been no ads by the RP campaign? Because you ignore that they've run, millions of dollars worth of ads in New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada, those ads don't exist?

LewWaters said...

Paul has read and some were written by our own intelligence officials.

Would that be some of the same intelligence officials that everyone said got it so wrong on 9/11 and Iraqs WMDs?

but I know you're a better man than what you're presenting here.

"You took an oath that you apparently didn't take very seriously."

"Judging by your writings here, your responses and comparing them to Dr. Paul's and his actions, I can say with certainty that you do not take that oath very seriously."

You come across so sincere.

Perhaps you truly believe that Dr. Paul holds the views that you've claimed, but I can assure you that any serious reading of his speeches from the House floor would disabuse you of that belief.

I've read several of his articles and speeches, he doesn't have a clue. He is living in a dream world that doesn't exist any more, if it ever did.

The notion of sending mercenaries in to get Bin Laden, is as naive as I've heard of. Even if they did succeed, his death or capture will not stop terrorist attacks against us.

He wanted a Declaration of War, but how do you Declare War against a group spread out across the globe and within countries that desire to help us?

If he had his way, as things are currently looking up in Iraq, he "have us march out as we marched in."

you find me any other GOP candidate who actually draws significant support outside of the alleged "scientific" polls.

I have my candidate who the media ignores and keeps his numbers down. Still, we don't run around and pack online polls and belittle those who don't support him.

LewWaters said...

I know exactly where the money is coming from.

Feel free to post or email me the public list of donors contributing over $200.

Is there a reason that you keep ignoring the fact that the majority of the attacks on your list are against military targets in foreign nations?

Were the attacks by government forces within those countries? What country are we in that we are not there with the permission of the recognized government?

Even Yemen, we refuel there with their permission and pay for that privilege.

If you recall, China recently denied permission for our ships to moor in Hong Kong. We didn't attack them, just steamed away. The Phillipines requested we disband our base there and we did. When we announced severe cutbacks in European nations, they cried loudly, did they not?

His cry of "because we are there is bogus."

What is the basis for your ridiculous claim that there have been no ads by the RP campaign? Because you ignore that they've run, millions of dollars worth of ads in New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada, those ads don't exist?

I've seen ads for every other candidate, where are his? Does he intend to ignore Washington?

Demidog said...

Would that be some of the same intelligence officials that everyone said got it so wrong on 9/11 and Iraqs WMDs?

No, it wouldn't. But nice try.

Still, we don't run around and pack online polls and belittle those who don't support him.

Really? Your whole blog here is an exercise in belittlement. Your statement is beyond irony.

I would suggest though that if your candidate had a significant number of supporters to vote in online polls, they would. But they don't because there isn't a significant number. Not that this makes a candidate a good one. A candidate should be judged by his ideas, not his poll numbers.

LewWaters said...

A candidate should be judged by his ideas, not his poll numbers.

This is precisely why Paul is going nowhere.

Demidog said...

You have a funny definition of "going nowhere".

27 million raised so far. A steady rise in the polls from 0 - 7% nationally and over 100,000 supporters who have signed up and show up to his events.

The most donations by active military of any GOP candidate.

Largest single-day fundraising in the history of U.S. politics.

More awards by freedom organizations including the national taxpayers association than any other politician.

Please keep making these easily debunked statements this is pretty fun.

Oh, and as far as the donations go. You can find the data at the

Demidog said...

FEC Website

LewWaters said...

Say what you want, November 2, 2008 will tell the story. Watch as Paul goes down in flames.

With supporters like David Duke and allowing false claims of his Veterans status to stand, it will all catch up to him.

I hope you aren't too disappointed.

Perhaps he will return to the Libertarian party and allow conservatives to retake the GOP.

Demidog said...

Watch as Paul goes down in flames.

All the way to the inauguration.

Perhaps he will return to the Libertarian party and allow conservatives to retake the GOP.

Pre-emptive war was an invention of Hitler. Eisenhower said he wouldn't take anyone seriously who suggested such a thing but the so-called "conservatives" have embraced it.

We conservatives are taking the GOP back. You can join us or watch from the sidelines.

LewWaters said...

Watch as Paul goes down in flames.

All the way to the inauguration.


I do hope you won’t be too disappointed come the morning of November 3, 2008

But I do like you optimism, even if merely a dream.

Pre-emptive war was an invention of Hitler. Eisenhower said he wouldn't take anyone seriously who suggested such a thing but the so-called "conservatives" have embraced it.

You really should actually read Eisenhower’s words instead of claims made on Ron Paul forums and other liberal anti-war sites.

Q. Ray L. Scherer, National Broadcasting Company: Mr. President, there seem to be increasing suggestions that we should embark on a preventive war with the Communist world, some of these suggestions by people in high places. I wonder, sir, if you would care to address yourself to that proposition.
THE PRESIDENT. "All of us have heard this term 'preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time, if we believe for one second that nuclear fission and fusion, that type of weapon, would be used in such a war--what is a preventive war?
I would say a preventive war, if the words mean anything, is to wage some sort of quick police action in order that you might avoid a terrific cataclysm of destruction later.
A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn't preventive war; that is war.
I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing."
Q. Chalmers M. Roberts, Washington Post and Times Herald: Mr. President, in answering that question about preventive war, you confined yourself to military reasons against it. Did you wish to leave the impression that that was the only basis of your opposition to the idea?
THE PRESIDENT. "Well, let me make it this way: if you remember, I believe it was Conan Doyle's White Company, there was a monk that left the church; he said there were seven reasons, and the first one was he was thrown out; they decided there was no use to recite the other six.
It seems to me that when, by definition, a term is just ridiculous in itself, there is no use in going any further.
There are all sorts of reasons, moral and political and everything else, against this theory, but it is so completely unthinkable in today's conditions that I thought it is no use to go any further."

He is discussing “preventive war,” not “pre-emptive war.” And, he is speaking in regards the nuclear age. You might just find an excerpt from an Eisenhower biography up at Strategic Air enlightening in regards to his attitude on “Preemptive War.”

You do recall the Strategic Air Command, created under his watch, don’t you? And, their “preemptive capabilities?”

Before you drag in his “Military Industrial Complex Speech,” perhaps you should peruse Right in a Left World: That Pesky Eisenhower Speech

We conservatives are taking the GOP back

Yours and Paul’s prostitution of the term “conservative” does not make you one. At best, Paul is an admitted lifelong Libertarian. While the two may share some similarities, Libertarians are not conservatives.

If you succeed on taking over the Republican Party, it will be the death of the GOP, as two liberal parties will rule. Of course, given Paul’s penchant for allowing America to be attacked again before we take a stand against terror, politics won’t matter much, if the country is stupid enough to elect him.

But, do keep reading more of what Eisenhower actually said. It might do you some good, instead of relying on snippiets from the left.