You Don’t Like Ron Paul? WARMONGER!

Since writing my missive about why I cannot stand Ron Paul, I’ve been engaged by a group of drooling lunatics who have all called me the same thing:


They’ve called me other things, too…sick, brainless, idiot, moron, delusional. I’ve been told that I need to get help. Not one of them has produced a shred of evidence to support most of their claims. They cite op-ed websites that ignore evidence and fail to ask certain questions. The most irritating part of all is when some of these people wave the “gay rights” issue under my nose, claiming that Paul is all for gay rights (actually, he isn’t, and claiming he is is absolutely insulting).

I’ve had an ongoing back-and-forth with Twitter Paulian @hortulanus94 about why I believe Paul is dangerous, and the guy has insulted me at every turn. After he called me a warmonger several times, I asked him to define the term. This was what he said: “Warmngering is an obsession and fascination with war that is excused by false reasons that the government makes up for gains.”

They come across as outrageously self-righteous. It is unfortunate that they are so ignorant.

Paul and his followers (including semi-famous conscientious objector Aidan Delgado, who was caught telling lies to the NY Times and later called on it) claim that we are where we’re at because of “blowback”. Blowback is intelligence parlance that basically defines unintended repercussions befalling the citizenry of a nation engaged in covert operations. They claim that the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis was blowback from the 1953 CIA operation that deposed Iranian PM Mohammad Mosaddegh; on that alone, I call BS. Mosaddegh was actually quite Westernized – he was educated in France and Switzerland. He was very much like the Shah who replaced him. It was the influence of Western culture – not blowback from the 1953 coup – that deposed the Shah. The Shahs and the Ayatollahs had clashed for nearly a century before the 1977 uprising, and every time they went at loggerheads it was the Ayatollahs and their followers screaming that Western culture was destroying traditional Islamic culture (Sharia). That uprising was a long time coming. Sorry, guys…Paul doesn’t know his history, and neither do you.

The next thing they point out is Iraq. In 1979, we became buddies with Saddam Hussein because he stood against Iran. We were allied with the dictator all the way up until 1990, when he invaded Kuwait. The Saudi king approached the US with a request: help us drive him back into his own country. They only had one condition, and that was that we not kill Saddam. We supported his war against Iran. Then, when he took it too far, we said enough is enough – go home and stay there. We didn’t occupy Iraq. We made him sign terms of surrender, but all of the terms were limited to weapons of mass destruction (which we know he had), militarization and no-fly zones. He was allowed to remain in control of his own country. When he refused for eight full years to allow inspectors into the country to prove he didn’t have WMD’s (and made multiple overtures that he did have them), we again said enough is enough. We took him out of power, helped the Iraqi people rebuild their country, and we let his own people try, convict and execute him.

The only place where blowback can possibly exist is Afghanistan. Even that is a stretch. During the late 1980’s, Texas congressman Charlie Wilson pushed for a covert operation that armed and funded the mujahideen in Afghanistan. They had been fighting a losing battle to push the Soviets out of their country, and were paying an extremely high price. Finally, armed to the teeth and trained, they were able to reclaim their country and the Soviets went home. Rather than meddle in their affairs, we left and allowed them to run their own country. What rose up was the Taliban. This was where Osama Bin Laden was trained in the way of war. Then, when his home country refused his offer for help and instead asked us to send Saddam packing, Osama got his knickers in a twist. He hated the Western world anyway – now he had a reason to strike back. (Again I remind you that we’re talking about a guy who believed that drinking chilled water, eating with your left hand, and enjoying any form of music was a sin punishable by death.)

Muslim jihadists believe it is their destiny to rule the world. Most recently, Europe has seen a surge of protesting by enraged Muslims who literally call for the slaughter of those who merely insult Islam. This belief and everything that is going on now goes all the way back to the founding of America. Shortly after we wrapped up the Revolutionary War, pirates from the Sharia-led “Barbary States” (comprised of most of the nations ruled by the Ottoman Empire) began attacking American merchant ships and coastal towns and hamlets demanding that we pay a regular tribute. If no tribute was paid, hostages would be taken. Our leadership paid tribute for years, with the amount steadily rising annually. Thomas Jefferson led a steady dissent to paying tribute; during his work negotiating with the envoy of the Pasha of Tripoli, he wrote this to John Jay: “It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.”

As soon as Jefferson became president, he stopped paying tribute. The Pasha immediately declared war. After a year or two of bickering, the Pasha captured the USS Philadelphia and anchored her in the bay to use against US ships; war became official at this point, whereupon the first US Marines stormed the ship and burned it so the Pasha couldn’t use it.

History goes back quite a long way. Much further than what the Paulians like to quote. They have so little depth to their argument that I can’t even get my feet wet with them. The final insult is this video. Click on it and watch. I had already seen it when the aforementioned Twitter user sent it to me – and he keeps sending it to me as if watching it again might somehow change my mind.

It angered me from the very first time I saw it. Why? The part where Aidan Delgado says, “if Americans actually listened to the veterans that they claim to respect so much, their attitude would change. But Americans want to honor the veterans in a very cursory way – you know, putting a yellow sticker on their car, having a little parade or a welcome back…” That opening line absolutely infuriated me. My little brother has fought in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Several of my cousins have gone. MANY of my friends have gone. Two of my friends were killed in action. A handful came back in pieces – limbs missing, shrapnel still in their bodies. Each and every one of them believed in their mission. They became frustrated with a media disinterested in the truth, a public that was being badly misled, and a Congress that sent them to war with rules of engagement that tied their hands behind their proverbial backs.

All of them have enough class to keep their frustration to themselves. Not one of them wanted to go to war – NOT A SINGLE ONE. They went because they believed that it had to be done so that 9/11 would not happen again. None of us is obsessed with war or fighting. There is no romantic view of it to be found among my family and friends. It is degrading and insulting to hear Paulians say what they say.

Another point that Paul and his zombie legions like to spit out is that “71% of all active-military campaign donations have gone to Ron Paul! Listen to the troops!” This is also bullshit, and I’m about to give you two reasons why.

1. The data compiled only lists donors who chose to disclose their employer. That is not a requirement for making a political donation. A number of active-duty military won’t disclose that they’re military.

2. The boast basically claims that 71% of the current troop force is fully behind Paul. This is an outright lie, one on the level with liberals in a way that should be embarrassing. A pretty sizable portion of our troops don’t give a single dime to political campaigns at all, many of them because they can’t afford it, others because they just don’t want to get involved on that level.

When I pointed out to my Twitter stalker that not a single one of my military relatives or friends agreed with Paul on his outrageously isolationist beliefs, this was his response: “Since 1979 blowback has had it’s consequences. It does exist. It doesn’t matter what your soldier friends say.” In other words, “listen to the troops! Not those ones, THESE ones!”

Why I Cannot Stand Ron Paul

I have lost track of the number of times I’ve been at loggerheads with Ron Paul’s rabid supporters. It usually begins with their excited question: “so, do you support Ron Paul? Waddya think of Ron Paul? Will you vote for Ron Paul?” It can be a lot like talking to Hammy the Squirrel (who, by the way, I adore – I’m just using him for reference).

The cuteness of their exuberance always turns into a scene straight out of the Exorcist as soon as I tell them that I cannot stand Ron Paul because he has, in the past, espoused 9/11 “truth movement” ideas.

The Ron Paul supporters who are twoofers (the name that many have begun to use to describe “truthers”) get huffy and demand that you immediately give them evidence that 9/11 wasn’t an inside job. Of course, even if you give them any, it’s never enough. Popular Mechanics thoroughly debunked their ridiculous claims one by one in a book that was not funded in any way by the government, but it wasn’t enough. The Ron Paul supporters who aren’t get pissed and scream that he was never a twoofer and they will demand that you prove that he was.

See the video and all the goodies that Michelle Malkin has compiled here. He may not have come out as a twoofer or gone to any protests, but he doesn’t have to. The mere fact that he’s never come out against their outrageous ideas, comments and behavior is enough. This weekend, though, he all but put himself squarely in their camp.

He’s saying that US foreign policy contributed to 9/11.

That statement alone is enough for me to want that man out of Congress and as far away from the White House as we can get him. He worsens the situation by saying, “And you talk to the people who committed it and those individuals who would like to do us harm, they say, yes, we don’t like American bombs to be falling on our country. We don’t like the intervention that we do in their nations,” and saying it is “dangerous” to promote the notion that terrorists attacked the US “because we’re free and prosperous.” In all of this he demonstrates a complete lack of any understanding about the dynamics in the Middle East and why al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. Any lawmaker who is this inept needs to step away.

Before 9/11, how many Mideast countries did we try to conquer? How many did we bomb, and why? Reagan bombed Qaddafhi only after several Libyan-supported terrorist acts against Americans, including a plot to assassinate US diplomats in Paris and Rome, a string of kidnappings of US military and diplomatic targets (including CIA chief William Buckley), the hijacking of the Achille Lauro (with the murder of a disabled US tourist), the bombing of airports in Rome and Vienna, the bombing of a German discotheque frequented by US servicemen, and the bombing of Pan Am flight 103. Libya was also believed to have sponsored multiple deadly attacks carried out by Hezbollah out of Lebanon, including the infamous US embassy bombings in Beirut and Kuwait and the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. After that many innocent American lives had been lost, yes, we would have wanted to send a message that we weren’t going to sit on our laurels. When a bully refuses to back down you don’t sit there and give him a target to punch – you stand up and fight back until he begs you to stop and swears never to bother you again.

I hate to tell you this, Ron Paul-ians, but the bombings of Tripoli and Benghazi were not enough to come close to justifying any reason behind 9/11. Lemme back up a little bit and I’ll explain.

Osama bin Laden founded, financed and trained al Qaeda himself. The man was the uber-wealthy son of the Saudi bin Ladens – his wealth came from oil production. Now, if you follow HIS logic, then yes, the reason for the formation of al Qaeda was the belief that US foreign policy had harmed “innocent” Muslims in the Middle East. Then again, the man believed not only that the Jews were at the heart of every evil in the world, he also believed that all music and chilled water were evils straight from the pits of hell. Yeah…he wasn’t exactly running on all six cylinders.

Add to that the fact that he believed the best way to bring major nations down was to lure them into wars over territory in the Middle East and let them ruin each other and BAM! You have a bona fide hypocritical lunatic.

Exactly which US foreign policy was harmful to Muslims? I’ll tell you: democracy. He believed it to be just as evil as he believed the Jews were. It wasn’t Sharia, therefore it was sinful and harmful to “innocent” Muslims. See where this is going? The harm he saw us committing was one that included an end to beheading gay people, stoning heretics, and chopping the hands off of thieves. America is an example of how liberty can make life wonderful. That was the harm, and Ron Paul and ALL of his supporters have missed the point completely. They took one quote from a former CIA analyst and looked no further than that. Since bin Laden was killing Americans long before 9/11 as part of his jihad, nobody can claim that they’re all pissed over Iraq and Afghanistan. This has been going on much longer than that.

That Ron Paul does not understand the variables that go into this is frightening. We cannot allow him to take the candidacy. I see him as being just as dangerous as Barack Obama – the only difference is that Obama’s stupidity is deliberate. Paul’s is happy ignorance.

Why I Won’t Support Ron Paul

Ron Paul is at it again.  Blaming America for 9/11, making hot-headed remarks to those who dare disagree with him, and allows his over-inflated opinion of himself to continue ballooning nurtured by his undying supporters who have turned him into God since 2008. 

In 2008, I had respect for Ron Paul.  Even after his radical first-statement in the 2008 debates which blamed America for September 11th, Ron Paul knew he was un underdog and came across in a very humble way.  Since 2008, he’s become a little more pompous and intolerant of differing views.

In his latest interview with Chris Wallace, the hot-headed Congressman snickered when the Fox News host asked him why he thought it was “wrong” to go into Pakistan to kill Bin Laden without the Pakistani government’s knowledge.  At first he snickered and told Wallace he never said it was “wrong,” but then moved on to say what they “should have done.”  If you’re offering up advice to proclaim what some “should have done,” you are proclaiming that something was wrong.  Yet, Paul embarrassingly continued to deny the charge of what was obvious.  Why not just answer it?  Or better yet, why not just say that suggesting tipping off Pakistan before going in to kill Bin Laden was crazy as most sane Americans would agree?

After moving on to the topic of social security, Ron Paul began calling it welfare and begins suggesting that we abolish the program altogether.  Wallace challenged him reading Article One-Section Eight of the Constitution pointing out that Congress shall collect taxes for the general welfare of society.  Then Wallace went on to affirm that the Supreme Court upheld that it applied to social security in 1938.  In lieu of offering an explanation of difference which inspires Americans to explore, Ron Paul condescendingly snickered and wrote the Supreme Court decision off as a “liberal decision.”

Ron Paul should stick to his fan club territory, continue to criticize our elected officials, and enjoy his untouchable status anointed on him by his legions of followers.  He has been in Congress for decades and has not inspired yet one fellow member of Congress to do anything differently.  As President, he’d have even less influence on a Congress who is generally afraid to align themselves with the radicalized thinking of a sitting President when they are the ones up for re-election every two years.

The right direction for America is a renowned sense of appreciation for business, free markets combined with responsible citizenship.  We need a positive turnaround which approaches to undo years of a messy tax system in ways that won’t immediately abolish the IRS and take social security and medicare away from Americans who have been conditioned for 50+ years to rely on it.

As Thatcher found out with public healthcare in 1979-1990, once public funds are set up they are very hard to get rid of.  This is why we work with what we have while reforming the current tax code to provide for fairer rates, closing loopholes for large corporations and giant oil companies, and fighting proposed nightmares-in-progress like Obamacare before they take effect.

You know, all the same policies Sarah Palin advocates.  😉  Common sense.

Another Fun Appointment

Good Lord – I’m loving this stuff.  Ron Paul appointed to the House Subcommittee in charge of Federal Reserve oversight.  You have to be kidding.  This is great!

Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, one of the most outspoken critics of the Federal Reserve, will lead a congressional panel next year with oversight over the central bank.

 Paul, who wrote a book entitled “End the Fed,” told Bloomberg Television in an interview this morning that he will “not really, not right up front” push for an end to the Fed.

 “But obviously that’s the implication,” he added. Paul said he will first focus on oversight.

 When Republicans take over the House next year, Paul will chair the House Domestic Monetary Policy Subcommittee, which is part of the Financial Services Committee. Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, chairman-elect of the Financial Services Committee, announced the new leaders of the committee yesterday…..

Paul’s scrutiny of the Fed has bolstered his libertarian credentials in the eyes of his supporters. On Wednesday, a coalition of about 30 Tea Party-aligned groups wrote a letter to Bachus and incoming House Speaker John Boehner in support of Paul’s appointment to chair the financial subcommittee, the Washington Post reports. The letter came after reports that GOP leaders may have given the chairmanship to someone else because of Paul’s views.

This is really a brilliant move.  First, Jeff Flake is appointed to Appropriations – now this.  Keep ’em coming Mr. Boehner.

Putting Wheels on Their Prayers

It’s time for conservatives and the best Republicans we can find (like Rob Simmons of Connecticut) to cut the whining about lack of money and continue doing what they can to get the word out. 

Rob Simmons; highlighted by Ann Coulter in her column last week where she pleads for Sarah Palin to endorse him, has suspended his campaign as he is being outspent dramatically by the other Republican candidate,wrestling-guru Linda McMahon.

As Ann alluded to, there are 18 currently held Democrat-Senate seats up for re-election this year.  Connecticut; which could turn out to be another Massachusetts (if we get the “wrestler” out of Simmons’ way to do it),  is poised for a strong Republican takeover if the right candidate is running against the lying-sack-of-crap-Blumenthal, who is vying to replace the lying-sack-of-crap Chris Dodd. 

Dodd leaves Connecticut feeling as the Kennedys left Massachusetts, which is to say massively betrayed by the broken promises made of large-government, seat-hogging politicians who serve for decades.  There is no better time than now to replace him — even if some conservatives think it’s beneath them to support someone perceived to be a “moderate”.  Nobody; however, was screaming “moderate” in the case of Scott Brown after he won.  Nor would they if any Republican took over a Senate seat in a liberal-elite state like Connecticut. 

This brings me to Carly Fiorina and Palin’s decision to endorse her over Chuck Devore.  Most forget that Sarah Palin ran three campaigns on her own.  They also forget that she won all of them.  In all cases, Palin had less money and resources in Alaska than the incumbents she was running against (except when she was the incumbent for her second run as Mayor).  She worked her rear off.  She prayed, put wheels on those prayers, and placed herself in the front seat to become both driver and navigator covering every inch of the largest state in the country.

It’s hard to believe that Devore in California, or Simmons in Connecticut, could not do the same thing.  Today, Rush Limbaugh’s fill-in (don’t know the guy’s name by heart, sorry!) remarked specifically with examples of how Devore ran a lousy campaign.  Simmons as well ran a mediocre campaign and certainly did not utilize the resources available to him free-of-charge.  These include Facebook, Twitter, Craigslist, Meetup, etc.  Networking sites today; as I wrote about last week, are just as powerful as campaign commercials and airtime. 

In fact, I myself spend much more time on my computer than I do staring at the TV.

Because of Ron Paul loyalists and 9/11 Truthers who’ve chosen to adopt the tolerance of Hugo Chavez, what became known as the “tea party movement” began to split off from Americans concerned about spending and liberties between others who want to kill the IRS while simultaneously smoking a joint legally.  You can usually detect the latter if they express rage towards Sarah Palin for “hijacking” the movement.

Foolishly, without figuring out which “tea-partiers” are behind them, some of these candidates seem to believe that merely proclaiming to be the most conservative candidate ever (no, I mean “really-really conservative”) is enough to pull them through.  But the fact is, Americans are just as leery about casting their votes for unknowns every bit as much as they are about casting votes for incumbents.  Unlike the elections of 2008, voters in 2010 are energized and informed.  If Devore doesn’t campaign with as much passion as Fiorina did, how can independents possibly take him seriously?

Sarah Palin knows how to win in California as a Republican that isn’t pro-choice.  You hold true to the vast positions of the party and you keep your name out there and campaign with a little conviction.  Carly Fiorina won that contest fair and square.

But even as Ann Coulter pleads (and I did as well on her Facebook page) with Sarah to endorse Simmons, Sarah couldn’t possibly do so when in fact it seems Coulter and people like myself care more about it than he does!!  Sarah Palin knows what it takes to win an election, it is your life and it is your sacrifice until the election night is over and the votes are counted. 

If we cannot take them seriously as campaigners, how can we possibly hold them accountable as public servants?

Treason: It’s Not an Outdated Concept

Spiegel Online International posted an interview with Left-Wing icon Daniel Ellsberg.  Spiegel asked Ellsberg:

“You were the ultimate whistleblower. In 1971, you leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times, revealing that the government was well aware the Vietnam War couldn’t be won. You changed history but were vilified and prosecuted for it. Would you still do it today.” 

Ellsberg’s response was:

“I wouldn’t wait that long. I would get a scanner and put them on the Internet.”

The Vietnam War was not won because the Left sabotaged it; just like they are doing now in regards to the War on Terror.  And let’s not forget:  members of both parties said this was a conflict about which we needed to remain vigilant.  Members of both parties voted for it. 

Just for the record, what Daniel Ellsberg did is called…treason.  This is a word I would like to bring back with the full force of it’s meaning.  This notion the Left has put forward that there is no such thing as treason to one’s country is just like everything else they put forward:  muddled, unethical, unprincipled, civilization detroying, clap-trap.  It is the constant drum-beat that there is no such thing as right and wrong.  Yes, there is such a thing as right and wrong.  I can personally testify to that reality.  I’ve studied enough philosophy to know that right and wrong do indeed exist as verifiable, objective concepts.  If right and wrong didn’t exist we would live in anarchy and would be killing each other in the streets.  Pretty simple. 

From The Lectric Law Library Lexicon:

“The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

The act of speaking out against war is the very essence of free speech.  In today’s media outlet, however, where words are broadcast instantly across the globe, you are, as far as I’m concerned, “giving aid and comfort to the enemy”. 

The world is perishing not only from “an orgy self-sacrifice” as Ayn Rand would say in regards to economics–but also of intellectual retardation put forth by the inability to think critically.  We have the liberal-elite controlled schools to thank for that little gift where there is no such thing as an “F”.  I digress.    

In addition to a clarification on the definition of  the word “treason” we also need to discuss the difference between self-defense and murder.  This is how the Left gets away with muddying up the concepts.  The Left has promoted the idea that self-defense and murder are the same thing.  They are not. 

As an Objectivist I hate using religion to defend political positions.  When the Left, however, uses religion to defend their positions then you need to defeat them with their own words.  From

“According to the Bible not all killing is murder.”

You can read the rest of the link for more religious clarification.

As an Objectivist, I simply say it is the intent that matters.  If you are defending yourself you are justified.  If you are murdering, in other words committing the act for the sake of committing the act or to prevent yourself from being discovered in the act of some other immoral act you have performed such as breaking and entering where the homeowner has arrived home, you are not justified.  It is the intent behind the act that determines whether it is justifiable or not.

How long will we wait to declare war?  The extremists have declared it on us numerous times.  They’ve made their intentions clear about wanting to make Westerners submit to their religion.  Their grievance is not just about “leaving their land” as Ron Paul seems to believe.   And will waiting produce a horror even more vivid than 9/11?  Perhaps we will wait until a dirty bomb goes off in one of our cities to find out?  Hey…why not?  We have Somali terrorists crossing our southern border disguised as Mexicans.  If I’m not mistaken one of the things we supposedly “learned” from 9/11 was the degree to which the terrorists who flew planes into our buildings were here illegally?  I’m bi-partisanly pissed off in regards to this issue because the Republicans were no better at enforcing border security when they had the chance.  In fact, McCain tried to push for amnesty for illegals.  There is nothing like a little intellectual inconsistency to make the world…not go ’round. 

The politician says, “We have terrorists who mean to do harm and we should fight them…, but, hey…let’s leave the borders in complete chaos!”

Give me a break. 

It is even worse now with a party in power, who for all intents and purposes, believe there should be no borders because we’re all one big happy global family!  That…and the fact that since Americans typically reject Leftism they need the votes of people who do not understand our culture and constitution to keep putting them in power.

If I had members of my family who were as violently disfunctional as the socialist, communist, fascistic and theocratic countries which are still in existence–I’d be looking for legal separation with restraining orders attached.

Treason.  Yes–it’s still a viable concept.

The End is Near (For Ron Paul)


And thank God.  Paul and his supporters are just downright frightening.

His supporters on YouTube are so desperate that they are posting videos of him attempting to challenge Condoleezza Rice and proclaiming him the winner after it is so clear in this video that Paul got his clocked officially cleaned out with facts by Rice.

Paul’s conclusion at the end of the day?  Of course — America should stick its neck in the sand as Carter did in 1979 that gave Islamic crazies their first strong foothold.

Thank God, this is a modern ideology that hasn’t moved past the popularity of the 9/11 Truthers Movement.

Maher Finds out the Downside of Being a Liberal


This was a real treat!  The only people dumb enough to believe that the government was involved in 9/11 conspiracies are liberals (aside from the crazies supporting Ron Paul).  Here we go again with more “Building 7” propoganda.  (The same conspiracy Rosie O’Donnell believes in).

I feel sorry for Maher.  Aside for the fact that his guests were Sheila Jackson Lee and Chris Matthews; he actually has to try and sit through an audience of liberals who have spent too much time surfing 9/11 conspiracy sites, Alex Jones sites, and reading Rosie’s blog (and not working like the rest of us have to) . 

I like Bill Maher in the sense that the man is actually smart and funny.  But it has to be said that up until this point, these crazies thought they’d be welcome in his audience.  More Democrats and Ron Paul should vocally denounce these crazies every chance they get.  But unfortunately, most fall into this trap (let’s face it, Paul needs every vote he can get).

If Maher would have spent more time making fun of these crazies in lieu of degrading his President that has kept him safe since 2001, perhaps this type would not show up to act as opportunists.  And perhaps they would never think that this type of venue would welcome them in the first place.

Nice to see him make fun of them and throw them out!

BTW, I didn’t see Sheila Jackson Lee or Chris Matthews vocally denouncing the crazies as Maher did. (Unless it’s in a later segment.)  Prove me wrong otherwise.


Apparently Maher did bring this up a month ago and made fun of the 9/11 conspiracy loons.

I give him credit for that, but I still find it funny that he really is the only mainstream liberal pundit to make fun of the Rosie-crowd to this extent.  Maybe Ann can get him really drunk one night and convert him.  😉

See Liberals, Terrorists Really Do Hate You!


As if poor Britney did not have enough trouble, a Muslim Extremist leader has threatened to behead both Britney and Madonna.  Well, there would go 90% of what makes the gay community wake up in the morning!  Finally, maybe they’ll be willing to fight.

Madonna, in particular has been especially vocal in her opposition against George Bush.  The terrorists know that she is against George Bush.  Doesn’t this debunk the Ron Paul arguments that if we just leave them alone, they will stop? 

Low and behold the terrorist’s name is “Muhammed.”  Why do I get the strange feeling that Madonna and her liberal (especially the gay ones) fans will finally begin to support profiling?

Mainly in response to Madonna and her Kaballah-reading, he says the following about both women:

“If I meet these whores I will have the honour to be the first one to cut their heads off if they will keep spreading their satanic culture against Islam”

There you have it liberals.  There you have it, Ron Paul!  If you believe in freedom, no matter how vulgar, you need to be converted to Islam, or you must die.

I wonder why this hasn’t made headlines?

Read more here.