Ron Paul Clutching Reagan’s Coattails – Continued

In response to a post I wrote just minutes ago, a commenter left the following Reagan quote in response:

“In any case, the sending of the marines to Beirut was the source of my greatest regret and my greatest sorrow as president. Every day since the death of those boys, I have prayed for them and their loved ones.”

“In the months and the years that followed, our experience in Lebanon led to the adoption by the administration of a set of principles to guide America in the application of military force abroad, and I would recommend it to future presidents. The policy we adopted included these principles:

1. The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.

2. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.

3. Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress. (We all felt that the Vietnam War had turned into such a tragedy because military action had been undertaken without sufficient assurances that the American people were behind it.)

4. Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.”

What I find hilarious is that the following paragraph was left out:

 “After the marines left Beirut, we continued a search for peace and a diplomatic solution to the problems in the Middle East. But the war in Lebanon grew even more violent, the Arab-Israeli conflict became more bitter, and the Middle East continued to be a source of problems for me and our country.” –Ronald Reagan

The main point of my post was in response to Paul supporters’ “do-nothing” policy to terrorism.  What Reagan said there was after the bombings had occurred when Congress (Democrats) was pressuring him to leave.

I wondered what he would have said after the Italian ship incident in 1985.  How about the disco-club bombing in 1986?  How about the 1988 Pan Am flight bombing? 

We had a President that did nothing in response to terrorism, remember?  His name was Bill Clinton.  The highest number of attacks happened during his tenure and Clinton never struck back (aside from the pathetic aspirin-factory bombing.)  Moreover; after Clinton ripped our troops out of Somalia, OBL told ABC that our troops were “paper-tigers” who ran in defeat.  He simutaneously was planning 9/11.

Eight years of “doing nothing” led to the worst attack ever.  Since then with Bush’s war policies and domestic policies like the Patriot Act, we have not been attacked on our soil nor has an official American interest been blown up.  His efforts have stopped terrorist plots against us and the foiled JFK plot and Fort Dixx incidents is proof that terrorists are running out of professional juice.

My only regret is we won’t fight harder within our own borders with stronger terrorism policies like racial profiling.  I also think that adding a few more bombs to our war strategy overseas could end the war a lot sooner.

We need to fight like we did in WW2 without Democratic yammering about civilians.  We need to fight like we did when we actually won wars and opportunists like Ron Paul and his supporters of conpiracy theorists did not exist.

Ron Paul Clutches Reagan’s Coattails

paul.jpg

Ron Paul supporters are living in an absolute fantasy world.  On top of their insane proposal that we rip our troops out of Iraq and leave it to Al-Qaeda; and believing that just ignoring the terrorists will miraculously make it go away, they use Ronald Reagan’s good name to promote this fella who blames us for 9/11. 

The one quote out there that they keep using is the following:

“Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.” — Ronald Reagan

Let’s take a look at Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy and the ways in which he handled it.

In 1982, our Embassy in Beirut was bombed.  At the request of Lebanon, Reagan sent troops to create a peace-keeping force between Muslims and Christians.

Would Ron Paul or his supporters have approved of this judging by their standards put forth today?  Of course not. 

After the peace-keeping force was established, Muslims showed us just how peaceful they were and blew up the Marine barracks a year later killing hundreds of other American troops.  Reagan (after the Democrats in Congress harped and demanded so) withdrew our troops out of Lebanon.

Would Ron Paul or his supporters approve of this judging by the standards put forth by them today?  Of course they would!  We backed away and decided to not “intervene” anymore.

Three years later after we left, Muslims must have still been sore at Americans when they decided to hijack an Italian cruise-ship in 1985 where they decided to shoot a 69 year old passenger (American) and throw him overboard with his wheelchair.  It looks like choosing to “pull out and not intervene” didn’t work out so well.

Reagan responded by having the animals captured and handed them to Italy, who then made sure they returned safely to Iraq (the place where terrorists never lived but for the constant “intervening” of the United States).

After indirectly turning those terrorists over to safe harbor in Iraq (something that Reagan had no “direct” hand in), Muslim extremists struck again by bombing a West Berlin dance club in 1986 killing more Americans.

I wonder by looking at this crucial time period what Ron Paul and his supporters (better known as “dreamers” and “9/11 conspiracy crazies”) thinks the appropriate time table would be to sit and wait for Muslim fanatics to STOP attempting to hurt us and our interests.

I guarantee when Ronald Reagan said what he said about Ron Paul above, he had no idea that one day he would propagandize an insane position to rally support from 9/11 conspiracy theorists in order to get nominated for President.

It is clear that Muslims don’t want peace ever with the United States.  Paul and his supporters at this point are just as dangerous to our security as liberals are.

More Ron Paul Idiocy

This comment cracks me up left by a commenter on my last post:

“Using fear for political ends is the very essence of the neocon strategy, historically.”

Good lord, I’ve done this before but here goes:

  • Starting in 1979 under the Carter administration, our embassies in Tehran were seized and Americans were held hostage for 444 days.
  • In 1982 the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was blown up and 63 Americans were killed.
  • In 1983 the Marine barracks in Lebanon were blown up and 241 Americans were killed.
  • In 1985 the Italian Cruise Ship was seized and American was shot and thrown overboard with his wheelchair.
  • 1986 a West-Berlin Dance Club was blown up (coincidentally the dance club was visited often by US Service Men) — two U.S. Servicemen were killed and over 50 severely wounded.
  • 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 hijacked and over 200 people were slaughtered.
  • 1993 — The first WTC bombing.
  • 1995 — A Car bomb in Saudi Arabia blew up killing five Americans.
  • 1996 — 23 U.S. Servicemen were killed in a bomb set in an Air Force Housing Complex.
  • 1997 — Another car bomb.
  • 1998 — The Embassy in Kenya was blown up. (Multiple deaths)
  • 1998 — The Embassy in Tanzania was blown up. (Multiple deaths) 
  • 2000 — USS Cole blown up (Multiple Deaths)
  • and the grand finale, 9/11!

Since then of course, there haven’t been any massive attacks on the U.S. or its interests.  I guess those “neocon” scare tactics are paying off somewhat.

Tell me, was it neocon scare tactics that caused the destruction committed in 20 years mentioned above?

The truth is out there staring us in the face.  We never needed a 9/11 commission and we certainly don’t need someone as misguided as Ron Paul.

Finally, Michelle Malkin points out that Ron Paul has visited Alex Jones on a couple of occasions.  Do you know who Alex Jones is? 

Man, I guess Paul will get support wherever he can.

More from Malkin’s article where she actually quoted “Scholars for 9/11 Truth”

In regards to Rep. Ron Paul, he states twice in the Student Scholars video that he believes that the first 9/11 investigation was one in which there many “cover-ups.” Paul also claimed he “never automatically believes anything the government does when they do an investigation.” Additionally, he has been on the Alex Jones show several times. Ron Paul knows very well that something is very wrong with the official explanation of 9/1l. However, like Dennis Kucinich he cannot look right into our cameras and proclaim “9/11 WAS A SELF INFLICTED WOUND!” Through acknowledging the legitimacy of the 9/11 Truth Movement’s concerns, these candidates are expressing their support for our cause.”

Be sure to respond and remind me again how this is all just an evil plan of neocon war-mongers.  Moreover; make the claim that it is the fault of the United States for all terror attacks in the last 20 years. 

The Ron Paul Madness

How much longer will we have to endure libertarians’ (liberals disguised as Republicans) endorsement of Ron Paul?  Just how much history are they aware of?

An article today was misleadingly titled: Paul Tops List of GOP CandidatesUnforunately, that is not where the absurdity ends. 

The author links Ronald Reagan to Barry Goldwater of all people while simutaneously giving us  a rundown of true Republican values.  We know what those values are:

  • National Security (#1 these days)
  • Life
  • Low Taxes
  • Small government

Barry Goldwater was not in any way like Ronald Reagan when it came to the social issues.  Barry Goldwater lost in the biggest defeat ever of a Republican candidate and Reagan won in two historic landslides. 

We have endless carping about the interference of our civil liberties with Bush’s magnificient anti-terrorism measures set forth since 9/11.  These “big government” decisions that some are complaining about happened to have saved thousands of lives.  It stopped the Brooklyn Bridge from being blown up, plans to bomb the Sears Tower, the passengers headed to England on a flight destined for 9/11esque destruction, and finally the JFK terror plot.

Conservatives (the real ones) have tried explaining over and over again to liberals and libertarians that the mistakes of the Carter administration in dealing with the Shah of Iran and embracing the new government led by Islamic fanatics began most of the issues happening in the world today. 

We have a guy here who wants to be our Commander-in-Chief and also wants to pull all military out of Iraq and leave it to terrorists.  He does not see the value of deposing a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein nor does he acknowledge the fact that when you have a madman like Saddam making purposed bluffs to the U.N. about WMD after 9/11, you don’t ignore it!  Especially after we went in and put a stop to rape rooms and torture chambers that were in daily operation.  And nevermind the fact that Saddam harbored and funded terrorists as well. 

Such individuals living in this kind of denial are called liberals.  Not people who live by “true Republican standards.”  How about the Republican standard of realism?

We also have a man who could blame a tragedy like 9/11 on our own Government (thus explaining the support gained from whacky conspiracy theorists).  Has he paid attention to the endless terrorist attacks on our interests for the past 20 years?  Do the conspiracy theorists have explanations for those, too?

People like Ron Paul and folks who support him are dangerous to our humanity.  They want us to remove anti-terrorism measures proven to be effective right here in our homeland, they want us to run out of Iraq like “paper tigers” (as declared by OBL after Clinton ripped our troops out of Somalia), and serve as Al-Qaeda’s head-cheerleaders. 

I’m sorry, Republicans aren’t that stupid to run away and stick our necks in the sand praying that somehow, some way, our enemies will like us more and will never attempt to hurt us again if Ron Paul becomes President.

Ron Paul hardly “tops” Romney, Giuliani, or Thompson in the various polls available to us.  (click here to see how things are looking)

Once the Iowa Caucus is done and over, we can finally see an end to this madness.

More Nuts on Ron Paul………

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_Sh4OwZ3v0]

This is from youtube and headed “Ron Paul Revolution: A Manifesto…”

I’d say getting a look at this fella is all we need to know in terms of the types going gaga over Ron Paul.    

I just cannot imagine the pro-war folks being this extreme about their positions.  What are these liberals and 9/11 conspiracy people doing?  Breaking up in clusters based on categories of insanity?

Be it pro-abortion folks or anti-war nuts, these people from now until the primary are going to be fun to watch.  These anti-war sissies have absolutely no idea the kind of fight they are in for when they piss off the abortion ladies, LOL.

Will Liberals Ever Support Protecting Americans?

Michelle Malkin has obtained a copy of the entire 33 page criminal complaint that discusses the lead-up to the charges brought against the foolish-four yesterday.   As I read through it, and read the various articles published about the event, I got angrier and angrier thinking of how low the regard must be for humanity and human life. 

Believe it or not, there are some out there that still think the terrorists will stay over in the Middle East if we pull out of Iraq immediately.  In response to my last post, a brilliant, peace-loving liberal asserted that things in Iraq would be just fine if we left.  Terrorists would not take over, they wouldn’t gain any power or access to finance or massive “mission-funding.”

Let us stipulate for the purposes of argument that we pull our troops out of Iraq. 

In a world of post-Iraq and post-9/11, would liberals be happy by at least keeping the Patriot Act?  Would they support profiling Muslims?  (Like the one that wanted to commit an act of terror at JFK airport that would have surpassed 9/11.)  Would they allow us to keep Guantanamo open for terrorists caught in Afghanistan?

While we are in Iraq, liberals don’t even support policies here at home that aim to keep us all safe.  For some reason, liberals attach these policies to an agenda created by the Bush administration that serve only to make him and his oil-hungry friends rich. 

All of this illustrates the rapport liberals have established with terrorists.  Ron Paul increased the level of one-sided love (trust me, the terrorists STILL hate liberals – even more than Fox News does) and have liberals deluded by thinking that everything is just going to work itself out by “creating dialogue” and exercising “diplomacy” with people so irrational that an act of opposition=an act of violent murder.

If they want to pull out of Iraq so bad, they better be willing to support stronger anti-terrorism laws right here at home without threatening to bring the ACLU in to protect the civil liberties of our enemies. 

Democrats don’t get that if they spent the same amount of energy executing aggressive surveillance against our true enemies as they do by monitoring every word uttered on Fox News, maybe we could actually believe that their hearts and affection lie with the victims of 9/11 and the safety of all Americans in lieu of the radicals responsible.

This is simply the truth.  We want liberals to be Americans again.  We want them to realize that if their policies were to be implemented, this plot to blow up JFK might have indeed became a reality.  It is liberal arguments and liberal policies that brought them here and it’s the leftist ideology that keeps them here feeling safe and confident that these missions can be carried out.  After all, Barbara Boxer would never stand for violating their “civil rights” and listen in on their cell-phone conservations, would she?

After Nicolas Sarkozy’s win in France, two groups of people were violently protesting.  One was a group of radical Muslims and the other was a group of radical leftists.

Anybody else see the connection?

Even if we pull out of Iraq….

We’re still a nation at war, and we will be for quite sometime. 

Today most of us heard of the would-be attacks planned for JFK airport and because the FBI now has more investigative abilities due to the current administration and brave everyday American citizens that aren’t afraid to report such monsters, we are easily tracking them and taking action before they have the chance to bring us harm.

These type of people know that they have the Democrats in their corner.  According to most liberal debaters today, listening to their cell-phone calls and wiretapping their e-mails (“violating their “precious” civil liberties) would have been completely inappropriate.  But thank God for most the residents of New York (mostly Democrats), Americans aren’t taking the whining coming from the left serious anymore.

If liberals, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, opportunists like Ron Paul, and insane Democrats like Dennis Kucinich and Teddy Kennedy had their way, we would immediately stop all surveillance of threats, pull out of Iraq, and pray that someday the Iraqis would be able to fight against these barbarians without the help of our highly-trained military who have bravely kicked some massive ass in Iraq and Afghanistan by killing or capturing over 100,000 insurgents, most of al-Quaida’s top guys, and now have the backing of Western Iraqi civilians who are finally joining forces with our military to fight in their own neighborhoods.

We know that if we leave Iraq, terrorists will take over.  We know that if they take over, they will gain funding for their missions, power, and strong footholds that will only aid them in their sad attempts to bring down the rest of the world.

This isn’t a right-winger’s attempt to instill fear into others.  This is reality.  These people are living in our own country and are plotting these sloppy would-be acts to either distract us from what’s happening in the Middle East or to show us that they will never give in.  In order to defeat them, everyone needs to unite and get behind our President and our troops 150% and we need to do it right now.

9/11 Conspiracy Nuts vs the Nuts at NARAL

A great liberal-loony-9/11 conspiracy theorist left the following comment regarding the conspiracy leftists’ campaign to elect Ron Paul:

“I hear he based the votes for his entire career on the “Constitution.”” 

FINALLY – a liberal agrees that abortion is non-constitutional! 

Read the following:

“Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided … because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal ‘right to abortion’ exists.”

Ron Paul – 01/30/2006

So now we have two types of “one dimensional” liberals.  The ones who believe in voting only on abortion and the ones that are blaming 9/11 on the United States.  Apparently Ron Paul agrees that there are no rights to abortion in the Constitution.  Someone at NARAL needs to be alerted real soon that they are being sold out by liberals (and I thought I’d never say this) that are even MORE insane than they are.

Ron Paul Promoted by 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

Well, at least it’s a lot better than promoting John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich…so it’s not all bad news.

Since we know most the crazies buying into 9/11 conpiracy theories exist on the left, I’m wondering what will happen when they actually read into his voting record on social issues. 

“There have always been rotten Republicans, but there are no good Democrats” – Ann Coulter