February 2, 2010, - 11:19 am

Meet Sarah Palin’s Chosen Candidate, the Nutty Rand Paul (Sympathizes w/ Iran, Compared U.S. Troops to Hitler, Etc.)

By Debbie Schlussel

Early this morning, I told you about Sarah Palin’s endorsements of and donations to several very questionable candidates.  Foremost among those is Rand Paul, the equally nutty son of Ron Paul.


Empty Skirtsuit Sarah Palin Endorses Anti-War, Anti-American, pro-Iran Rand Paul

Our friend, Sultan Knish a/k/a journalist Daniel Greenfield, has a great, MUST-READ piece summarizing the anti-war, anti-Gitmo, pan-terrorist, 9/11 conspiracy theory, pro-Iran, and anti-American views of the Paul son.  He quotes from Paul’s appearances on the openly anti-Semitic Anti-War Radio (owned and run by gay neo-Nazi Justin Raimondo, who frequently bashes me for being Jewish) and Alex Jones shows (Jones is a well known 9/11 Truther and constant basher of “the Zionists”).  In my view, Rand Paul’s presence on these shows alone should disqualify him, but Sarah Palin thinks he’s just wonderful because Sarah Palin doesn’t think.  She’s a dummy, and it’s time her blind worshipers woke up to that, but they refuse to awaken from their slumber.  Does it not bother her that, as the Sultan points out, Rand Paul compared the U.S. military to Hitler?  Hellooooo . . . ?

Either Sarah Palin supports Rand Paul’s nutty views against torturing terrorists and siding with Iran against America or she’s just ignorant and uninformed beyond belief.  I vote for both, which is why she is utterly unqualified to be anything in the conservative movement, including a spokesperson and admired figure, much less Presidential timber.

The Sultan points out that not only does Rand Paul side with Iran against America and beseech us to “understand their [Iran’s] perspective,” but he calls for us to close Gitmo, and release the terrorists “drop them back off into battle . . . drop ’em back off into Afghanistan” so they can perpetrate more terrorist attacks against our troops.  Remember that the next time you hear the clueless Sarah Palin spout off something her handlers told her to say about how closing Guantanamo Bay is bad.  She doesn’t mean what she says.  And she doesn’t know what she’s talking about.

Read Sultan Knish’s entire piece . . . and wake the heck up on a complete idiot who now has dangerous power.  Her name is Sarah Palin.  And she’s a fraud.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

65 Responses

Don’t know who this “Knish” guy is, don’t care who is. Rand Paul is a good guy and worthy of support. The fact that he bases so much off a smear site by paid-Trey Grayson shill Mike Bryant (tookookyforky) ruins the slight sliver of credibility this random blogger may have had in writing this piece.

D: Rand Paul said these things. Unless you can provide proof he didn’t say them, it matters little where someone learned that he said these things. Anyone who doesn’t care that he holds these extreme positions is not “a good guy.” DS

Dan on February 2, 2010 at 11:33 am

Dan, you’re really going to have to deal with your candidate’s views, not where they’re quoted.

And if you do want to go down that road, then your candidate has appeared on Alex Jones’ show. Do you need a rundown of who Alex Jones is or what he believes?

Sultan Knish on February 2, 2010 at 11:43 am

    Terrific post Debbie! Paul supporters don’t want to believe anything negative about their guy, even if they hear him say it, or see it reported in print. I think they deny it all is that it would sure make them look stupid to have picked such a candidate!

    Love Sultan Knish’s blog, and now another great blog to read with yours!

    THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU for what you said about Palin.
    I TOTALLY agree, can you tell? LOL

    I actually had a guy tell me the other day that he’d dedicated himself to helping Sarah however he could, ever since she’d sign the shirt over his heart!

    Yeah, say it again…” . . and wake the heck up on a complete idiot who now has dangerous power. Her name is Sarah Palin. And she’s a fraud.”

    And not the only beautiful, clueless brunette I’ve written about today either!


    ConservKYgal on February 11, 2010 at 6:09 pm

and more material…


On Abortion

Middlesboro Daily News: What about instances of rape or incest or where the outcome may not be death, but severe medical problems for the mother or child. Do you think that in these cases the decision should be left to the government rather than the families?

Paul: In cases of rape, trying to prevent pregnancies is obviously the best thing. The morning-after pill works successfully most of the time. Ultimately we do better if we do have better education about family planning. With partial-birth abortion, there were five women who testified that it threatened their life. It wasn’t completely true in all cases. They were non-viable babies. They were babies with awful genetic mutations that were not going to survive, and I tend to think we let nature take its course.

(Lorie Settles, “US Senate Hopeful Rand Paul Visits Middlesboro,” The Middlesboro Daily News, 1/26/10)

On Afghanistan

After eight years in Afghanistan, several questions arise:
1. Is our National Security still threatened by terrorist training camps?
2. Why haven’t Afghanis begun to provide their own security?
3. Are we there because of a threat to our security or to build a nation?

(Rand Paul Statement on Afghanistan, 12/1/09)

On Drugs

“It’s a state issue. All issues of crime are better addressed at the state level.”

(Peter Walsten, “Q&A with Rand Paul,” Wall Street Journal’s Washington Wire Blog, 11/12/2009)

…the latter is a typically Paulian trojan horse for drug legalization

Sultan Knish on February 2, 2010 at 11:46 am

    It is good that you provide sources for your quotes. Unless the candidate denies having made he remarks, it is really hard to avoid drawing the appropriate conclusions. Of course, you have the “Dawn of the Dead” sorts from the political fringes who will mindlessly stick with someone despite the evidence presented. Thank you for your contribution.

    sorrow01 on February 2, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    “On Afghanistan

    “After eight years in Afghanistan, several questions arise:
    1. Is our National Security still threatened by terrorist training camps?
    2. Why haven’t Afghanis begun to provide their own security?
    3. Are we there because of a threat to our security or to build a nation?

    (Rand Paul Statement on Afghanistan, 12/1/09)”

    IMO, those are legitimate questions. The Afghans should provide more of their own security, if they’re able to. Also, are there still terrorist training camps in Afghanistan? Weren’t they all destroyed back in ’01? Also, what is our objective in A-stan today? Clarity of purpose is necessary.

    “On Drugs

    “It’s a state issue. All issues of crime are better addressed at the state level.””

    Sounds like something that would be a standard Libertarian position.

    I do agree that Paul may be full of it when it comes to partial birth abortion.

    KVL on February 2, 2010 at 10:34 pm

Debbie, I think you have Rand and his father Ron

And you bite out words like “dummy” about Sarah. SHAH!

M: Uh, sorry, but I don’t have him confused with his father at all, despite what your nutty FR friends told you to say. Facts are stubborn things, including that Palin is a dummy, including how she endorsed “the right to privacy”–the basis for Roe v. Wade, which she claims to be against. The woman is flat-out clueless. Even her babymama daughter sounds more intelligent. Once you wake up from your Kool-Aid induced fantasy, you’ll be better off. DS

Michelle on February 2, 2010 at 12:11 pm

Rand Paul is an honorable man who recognizes the financial and political consequences of our monetary and foreign policies. We need more people like Dr. Paul.

JR on February 2, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    Agree, JR. Anyone who questions the morality of appropriating taxpayer money for foreign aid, ALL foreign aid, without saying, “Oh, except for Israel,” gets called “anti-semitic,” or worse.

    J: Ah, the anti-Israel, Jew-hating crowd comes out to defend Rand Paul and Sarah Palin. No surprise. DS

    jcm on February 2, 2010 at 12:25 pm

      Ah, we have a guest from Stormfront, no?

      sorrow01 on February 2, 2010 at 4:52 pm

I hope Chris Matthews will question these endorsements when Palin appears on Fox News Sunday.

She would be wise to refrain from endorsements until candidates are chosen in the primaries.

topthecharts on February 2, 2010 at 12:25 pm

Whoops, I mean Chris Wallace!

topthecharts on February 2, 2010 at 12:26 pm

Sultan, remember Prohibition and what it did for alcohol? The way the feds traffic their own drugs in and sell it on the black market and then they make drugs like pot illegal. PEOPLE WILL KILL FOR IT! People are sick and tired of taking drugs whose chemical compounds contain even cancer and flu shots made with ground up bones of monkeys. The data is out there.

And Debbie the war on terror is nothing more than an excuse for the NWO and global elites. IT’S A FRAUD LIKE OBAMA’S PRESIDENCY! Did Congress declare this according to the Constitution? NO.

People are waking up in this country to a revolution against tyranny. But watch out…there could be another staged attack by this administration or any politician’s weapon of choice Al-Qaeda, WHICH DOESN’T EXIST except in the sick demented mind of Zbigniew Brzenski.

And in terms of Ron Paul, read the words of Chuck Baldwin who ran in 2008 for the Constitution Party ticket…


Bob Porrazzo on February 2, 2010 at 12:36 pm

Debbie, In Kentucky the choices for U.S. Senate are clear, either Rand Paul, a flaky Libertarian/Republican or Trey Grayson, a Democrat turned Republican simply because the Republican voter registrations swelled or Bill Johnson, a true conservative of the same material as Ronald Reagan. You have made it perfectly clear what you think of Rand Paul, so how about some positive comments on Bill Johnson? Just because Bill Johnson is running a real grassroots campaign with a statewide group of volunteers and hasn’t pulled in huge sums of money isn’t any reason to rule him out. We need to start voting for the best candidates instead of the wealthiest.

Nelson Abdullah on February 2, 2010 at 12:45 pm

    Sarah should have supported Johnson. I agree that she made a mistake there.

    KVL on February 2, 2010 at 8:47 pm

    At least right now the only viable candidates are Grayson and Paul. Maybe that’s why Palin was supporting Paul, I don’t know. I do wish that Johnson has more of a chance.

    KVL on February 2, 2010 at 10:24 pm

Does it really surprise anyone that Palin would support most people who have an (R) by their name? Just look at how she eagerly embraced the VP nomination from McCain, one of the worst RINOs / Liberals we have in Congress.

Hopefully the attention she is getting now fades away quickly. I don’t want to loose any seats in Congress to the Dems, but if Palin has the same touch as Obama has for helping to ruin campaigns (VA, Mass.) maybe then people will lose interest in her.

Jarhead on February 2, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    “Does it really surprise anyone that Palin would support most people who have an (R) by their name? Just look at how she eagerly embraced the VP nomination from McCain, one of the worst RINOs / Liberals we have in Congress.”

    If you’re referring to her endorsement of the guy, yes I admit that she made a mistake there. But there are Republicans out there even worse than McLame. Ever hear of Paul Kirk? He’s not just a RINO, he’s a DIABLO. Also, Sarah at least endorsed Michelle Bachmann and Doug Hoffman, so she’s not all bad. 🙂

    KVL on February 2, 2010 at 8:45 pm

    Funny that you bring up the “R” for Rand Paul! on smart girl politics there is a discussion of the senate races throughout the country, they have an excel spread sheet. The last time I looked there were 4 candidates running on the republican ticket here in KY and only 3 of them HAD an “R” by their name, Paul’s party was blank….meaning Libertarian!He apparently made a claim that he knew he couldn’t run as a libertarian in KY and chose to run on the republican ticket, that won’t work here in KY! http://www.bill@kentuckybill.com is the man for the job! HONOR-DUTY-COUNTRY

    Ericatwitts on February 13, 2010 at 1:30 am

“Funny I thought Alex Jones was funded by the Jews. Seems anyone who opposes the United States wars in the Middle East is a dummy. Funny how that works. Got to be for the Jews or your a dumb ass right?

Mark on February 2, 2010 at 12:42 pm”

Jones has stated time and time again on his program he is IS NOT FUNDED BY THE JEWS! People who think that way listen far too often to Beck and other neocon shills who claim to be for liberty instead they are for more taxes like Beck and for the illegal unconstitutional Federal Reserve. Ron Paul through HR1207 wants it audited and even eliminated. Congress makes the currency laws through the treasury. Since 1913 this nation has been under the iron grip of the Fed. Look in your wallets. What does it say on the top–FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE.

This nation needs to go back to the gold standard and/or put together a sound money bill as columnist and Constitutional expert Devvy Kidd recently said…


“”Money is the most important subject intellectual persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it is widely understood and its defects remedied very soon.” Robert H. Hemphill, former credit manager, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta

On January 18, 2010, I sent a letter to 1100 state representatives and senators. I would like to thank all those who donated for the postage, printing, labels and envelopes to do these massive mailings (another one below). All of those legislators either voted for (if given the opportunity) a Tenth Amendment Resolution bill in their state last year or is a strong supporter of the Tenth amendment. It was no easy task tracking them all down. I might have missed one or two names, but it is nonetheless a considerable number of lawmakers in more than three dozen states.

Not all 50 states had Tenth Amendment Resolutions. I find it remarkable that so many state legislators voted against an existing Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I guess those state legislators don’t believe the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land or more likely, they wish to ignore it in order to continuing receiving hot checks from Congress as they mismanage their state budgets. Too bad so many never headed these words:

“Madison, agreeing with the journal of the convention, records that the grant of power to emit bills of credit was refused by a majority of more than four to one. The evidence is perfect; no power to emit paper money was granted to the legislature of the United States.” George Bancroft, A Plea for the Constitution (1886)

The letter is self-explanatory, but the issue of the states establishing a parallel monetary system apart from the unconstitutional Federal Reserve is paramount and one of extreme urgency. As I write this column, “The Democratic-controlled Senate has muscled through a plan to allow the government to go a whopping $1.9 trillion deeper in debt.” Obama/Soetoro has announced “his” new budget at an insane $3.8 TRILLION “dollars.” .

The people’s treasury is overdrawn $12.2 TRILLION “dollars” in paper money. You, me, our children and grand children each now “owe” roughly $112,998.00 in debt run up by one Congress after another. What’s another $3.8 TRILLION when you’re in the hole over $12 TRILLION shoved down our throats by the same incumbents the American people continue to return to office election after election with the help of vote fraud and illegal aliens voting. If you have never seen the debt clock, look at it – this is UNSUSTAINABLE. Mark my words: Another massive financial tsunami is picking up speed and we will see more disaster very soon. The numbers don’t lie.

Some of this “money” is funneled back to the States of the Union. The states then dole it out for expenditures like education. But, wait just a minute! Citizens in all 50 states pay either a state income tax or for those states like mine that have no state personal income tax, revenues are raised through sales tax, property taxes, state gasoline taxes and so forth.

Here in Texas the tab for the dumbing down schools runs in the billions. The citizens of California are raped in personal state income taxes to fund their dumbing down, filth peddling government indoctrination centers they call schools. THEN, the feds steal more fruits of our labor via the federal “income” tax to fund education.

We are fleeced at the state level. The fruits of our labor are stolen again by the IRS allegedly to “fund” education at the federal level. That means the same money sucked out of us is then doled back to the states. Where is all that money going for what passes as education in this country since we are paying twice for the same service? Last year, California got $6 BILLION in federal funding (“stimulus”) for schools to supplement the tens of billions they were spending, but “fell short.”

That $6 BILLION comes from you and me because California’s State Legislature spends more than they take in and it never ends. Many states have done the same thing. In other words, the fruits of my labor and yours are stolen from us to reward incompetence by another state legislature. They’re all doing it and it’s wrong.

Only two states are in the black, the other 48 are in dire financial straits; ten on the verge of extreme financial meltdown. It is imperative that one understand our monetary system, the debauching of our currency and why the “dollar” isn’t worth a dollar to fully appreciate the situation the states face if they don’t pass into law an alternative system (based on gold) to pay their bills.”

Bob Porrazzo on February 2, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    Gotta be for the Jews or be cursed of God.

    “I will bless them that bless they, and curse them that curse thee.”

    Of course you probably don’t believe the Author of that either.

    ConservKYgal on February 11, 2010 at 6:26 pm

The real issue is that Rand Paul is NOT a traditional Conservative, he is a Libertarian and there is a big difference.

Libertarians believe that the government should be totally out of people’s lives and if you want to take drugs–great, if you want Welfare–too bad, government heathcare—too bad, foreign aid–too bad, etc.

I really don’t know why he doesn’t drop the Conservative label and use the Libertarian one which is what he is and what he believes.

jimmyPx on February 2, 2010 at 12:54 pm

I still have to laugh when I recall that video of Sarah Palin with the turkey being killed in the background…She was so clueless. Utterly oblivious. (Just as she is in handing out her endorsements to other jack wads. What a ditz.)

J.S. on February 2, 2010 at 3:06 pm

Sarah Palin:


J.S. on February 2, 2010 at 3:08 pm

Hey, Deb! You know that Mike Church has Rand Paul on his show about once-a-month. Are you going to boycott doing your Movie Reviews for Mike’s shows on Fridays??

YS: I didn’t know that. I’ll say something about it when I am on, Friday. Me being on a show that has him on is not the same as endorsing a guy for office and donating to his campaign, which is what Palin did. Still, I was not aware of it and will say something, just as I said I don’t agree with Ron Paul’s nutty 9/11 Trutherism on the air. DS

Yiddish Steel on February 2, 2010 at 3:50 pm

Also, if I’m not mistaken, people like Steve Forbes have endorsed Paul.

KVL on February 2, 2010 at 5:29 pm

How do you prove a negative? (KVL 2nd comment). Well, you would look for some public utterances by the politician that contradict the things that you don’t think RP said. If you don’t think he said something, there should be a statement or statements contradicting such a position from him or key supporters. If there aren’t any, it lends credibility to those who think he said it.

Unfortunately it is a characteristic of history that tough economic times create larger numbers of fanatics, both on the left and the right. It happened in the 30s; the Commies almost became a mass party, and there were the Silver Shirts, Father Coughlin, etc. We see the nuts on the right coalescing around the Pauls now. They can’t be underestimated. The mainstream politicians are unable to effectively deal with anything, and in such an environment, demagogues will flourish. Another example is Weimar Germany and what came out of that decade.

Simplistic oversimplified responses that disregard the complexities of the issues. But like Germany in the 20s and the US in the 30s, the politicians didn’t have answers. It’s especially ironic that with all the increased information available to us, these silly comments from the Paulites are what we have to show for it.

Little Al on February 2, 2010 at 6:08 pm

Un conservatives don’t have to worry about the looney-left destroying this country, we do it ourselves by killing the wounded. So Palin and Paul ain’t Moses and Aaron, they sure aren’t a Kennedy or Obama! Promote the ones who seem to push our values (nit-picking won’t accomplish anything) even tho they are not perfect. They don’t have to be ultra-conservative but as long as they have my core values, they will get my support.

A: Wow, great to hear that “better than Kennedy or Obama” is now the standard. You aim low, and that’s the problem. Sorry, Rand Paul does NOT have my core values. Neither does Sarah Palin. No-one is asking for an “ultra”-conservative. We just want an actual conservative, which doesn’t characterize the complete airhead named Palin nor the America-hater named Rand Paul. So sad that you don’t get it. Apparently your core values include supporting Iran, hating America, being against torturing terrorists, for closing Gitmo, being anti-Israel and anti-Semitic (as the Pauls are), for 9/11 trutherism and supporting Roe v. Wade and Mr. Moms. If that’s “conservative,” who needs liberal? DS

arejaymack on February 2, 2010 at 8:56 pm

    Outta the park Debbie!! LOL

    ConservKYgal on February 11, 2010 at 6:30 pm

    My core values include a much smaller less intrusive government, a department of *defense*, *no* welfare (internal or foreign), and military retaliation followed by civil restitution if we are attacked.

    I don’t care a rat’s pitoot about moral issues like gay marriage, abortion, and drug usage. “Don’t Tread on Me” is my motto.

    Public Relations has come to the internet just as it has to the halls of Congress. Israel has its PR firms and so does Iran and some of them are known pundits and ‘reporters’ while others are ‘useful idiots’.

    INOV8TN on March 23, 2010 at 11:49 am

With core values like those, you should consider the Democratic Party. Aside from “some” economic issues, the Pauls have very few problems with them. It will be a very sad day for the Kentucky GOP if Rand Paul manages to win a seat. He will almost certainly be a one term wonder who will pave the way for a Democrat in 2016. Republicans putting garbage in during past elections lost what would have been relatively safe senate seats in Illinois and Michigan more or less permanently to Democrats. Peter Fitzgerald and Spencer Abraham paved the way for their Democratic successors.

Worry01 on February 2, 2010 at 10:55 pm

The Republicans nationally have a lot to do with the apparent rise of Mr. Paul. Jim Bunning has been the Republican Senator from Kentucky. Though not perfect, he frequently thought for himself, and sometimes took good positions, but positions at variance with the Republican establishment. And guess what? The Republican establishment withheld funds from him, and he was forced not to run again. So here’s what we get. Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.

Little Al on February 2, 2010 at 11:16 pm

I think there is quite a bit of confusion among some conservatives about the Libertarian Party and libertarian ideas. Even though there exists some intersection between the two groups regarding economic policy, it is a very different animal in its totality. Ayn Rand exemplified this libertarianism in her work and life. According to Rand, man was a heroic being whose sole moral purpose in life was to seek the greatest happiness(John Stuart Mill’s “Utilitarianism”). Also, his noblest activity was productive activity(Herbert Spencer’s Social Statics: The Man Versus the State”). Finally, the reign of reason in man’s life must be absolute(Cult of Reason during the French Revolution). Social utility, Social Darwinism, and Radical Atheism are not normally associated with conservatism, but have had quite a happy existence in libertarian circles. Is this really a worthwhile alternative to socialism or conservatism? Libertarianism has more in common with anarchism than conservatism.

Worry01 on February 2, 2010 at 11:59 pm

Sarah’s husband Todd has belonged to the independence party (many of her cronies were from this party) in Alaska that has wanted to succeed (break off) from the United States and hates America and it’s leader (who is no longer around) seems to be a real vile man considering from hearing a piece on you tube that unlike the South which paid most of taxes and tarrifs before the civil war and even when it felt the union as it felt it had the right to do in terms of state rights explained why in a rational nonhateful way as it felt it had little representation in the federal government. Alaska, however, the Federal Gov’t gives far more money then it gives back and this movement is just full of hate. So this really shouldn’t be a suprise to anyone. Her husband Todd Palin I think hates America and wants it undermined. With her husbands background just as with Obama she might not pass a job to be in a security position.

adam on February 3, 2010 at 12:37 am

I would now go as far as to say that America is rudderless.

Shy Guy on February 3, 2010 at 12:45 am

Sarah’s husband Todd has belonged to the independence party (many of her cronies were from this party) in Alaska that has wanted to succeed (break off) from the United States and hates America and it’s leader (who is no longer around) seems to be a real vile man considering from hearing a piece on you tube that unlike the South which paid most of taxes and tarrifs before the civil war and even when it felt the union as it felt it had the right to do in terms of state rights explained why in a rational nonhateful way as it felt it had little representation in the federal government.”

You really do need to try reading a bit about U.S. History before making such bizarre comparisons. The Old South’s rebellion against the North was due to slavery and a loathing of tariffs on goods imported into the United States. Also, how was the Confederacy’s bombardment of Fort Sumter in South Carolina(the first shot of the Civil War)a rational and non-violent approach to secession?

Also, how is The Alaskan Independent Party a hate group:

It is a small and insignificant party that has around thirteen thousand members. Also, to be fair to Todd Palin, he has not been a member of that party since 2002. Sorry, the Alaskan Independence Party is not the Confederacy.

Here is there site: http://www.akip.org/index.html

It is just a whacky little fringe party that is about as threatening as a hamster.

Worry01 on February 3, 2010 at 12:59 am

Excuse me. It really wasn’t because of Slavery not that slavery was right but in many other countries slavery ended without a shot being fired and the NOrth has always been as racist as the South has been. It very much had to do with the economy and I have read the Politically Incorrect Guide to the South and what Lincoln did to Northerners who pointed out that the South did have legit grievances. Furthermore, there were many Jewish people in the South during the war before and after the war who played a much bigger then in the North. I would recommend reading the book the Politically Incorrect Guide to the South.

Lincoln won without one Southern State with less then 50% of the vote and the South paid more tarrifs then the North did and they really felt their interest were not being met. People like Robert Lee if you read about him he was not a radical hater nor were any of the leaders of the Confederacy. They asked to be left alone. You should read some of the books on the other side to get at least a balanced persepctive.

adam on February 3, 2010 at 1:14 am

Anyway, this was off track anyway and maybe it shouldn’t have brought it up.

But regarding the Alaska independence party that Todd was a member of and Sarah has supported it is an extremely radical party that just hates the Untied States regardless of anything. It’s leaders is just a hater and yes this does suggest that the Palin’s deep down may hate America. Palin supported the Independece party when she was in office.

Here is the link to this. That the Palin’s were associated with this is frightening and it may explain why she supports this Paul character as the Palin’s haven’t changed.

Sarah Palin and the Independence Party

adam on February 3, 2010 at 1:18 am

The link didn’t work so here is the link name. This shows that Sarah Palin herself hates America.


adam on February 3, 2010 at 1:20 am

I just checked wikipedia and, hmmm, Vogler the founder of the Independence party who Todd Palin was a member of was going to give a speech to Iran on Alaska Indepndence. This from the Wikipedia entry.

Vogler disappeared under suspicious circumstances in May 1993,[4] just weeks before he was scheduled to give a speech to the United Nations on Alaskan independence, sponsored by the government of Iran.[5][

So there does seem to be a connection.

adam on February 3, 2010 at 1:32 am


    Worry01 on February 3, 2010 at 1:47 am

Oh, grow up with your conspiracy nonsense and Civil War revisionist drivel!

Closet Secessionist?

Palin was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party – which calls for a vote on whether Alaska should secede from the union or remain a state – despite mistaken reports to the contrary. But her husband was a member for years, and she attended at least one party convention, as mayor of the town in which it was held.

The party’s chair originally told reporters that Palin had been a member, but the official later retracted that statement. Chairwoman Lynette Clark told the New York Times that false information had been given to her by another member of the party after she first told the Times and others that Palin joined the AIP in 1994. Clark issued an apology on the AIP Web site.

The director of Alaska’s Division of Elections, Gail Fenumiai, confirms that Palin registered to vote in the state for the first time in May 1982 as a Republican and hasn’t changed her party affiliation since. She also told FactCheck.org that Palin’s husband, Todd, was registered with AIP from October 1995 to July 2000, and again from September 2000 until July 2002. (He has since been registered as undeclared.) However, the AIP says Todd Palin “never participated in any party activities aside from attending a convention in Wasilla at one time.”

There is still some dispute as to whether Sarah Palin also attended the AIP’s 1994 convention, held in Wasilla. Clark and another AIP official told ABC News’ Jake Tapper that both Palins were there. Palin was elected mayor of Wasilla two years later. The McCain campaign says Sarah Palin went to the 2000 AIP convention, also held in Wasilla, “as a courtesy since she was mayor.” As governor, Palin sent a video message to the 2008 convention, which is available on YouTube, and the AIP says she attended in 2006 when she was campaigning.
– Excerpt from FactCheck.org, Sliming Palin

Shy Guy on February 3, 2010 at 3:39 am

    Thank you for providing that additional information. Hopefully, it will penetrate this time, but I do not have high hopes. There is plenty of legitimate material to deal with when dealing with Sarah Palin. Her endorsements, political stances, family stuff(up to a point), and general competence, etc. Mixing in garbage with the real stuff does not improve one’s case, but merely pollutes it. Also, let’s bury Howard Zinn’s view of history with him. It is of no use to the living.

    sorrow01 on February 3, 2010 at 5:30 am

At 105, it is not that Ayn Rand is bigger, but what she gave us that justifies what our founders described that is bigger. The jury summation by Howard Roark in Fountainhead was pure Libertarian. It is because we have all left things to chance and are now paying the price that makes what she said bigger. The Changing Face of Democrats on Amazon and claysamerica.com describes the libertarian 19th century Democrats who followed Jefferson and Madison, contrasted with modern Democrats who follow Rousseau and Marx, that being what Rand found of no worth as was the Old World. claysamerica.com

clay barham on February 3, 2010 at 12:05 pm

Rand Paul’s father Ron Paul, whom I call Ron Paul 1488 (The Fourteen Words followed by HH = Heil Hitler) accepted $500 from the Stormfront White Nationalist Community, and he did not object to Stormfront running ads for him on its Web site. Ron Paul 1488 can take a running jump as far as I am concerned.

Winged Hussar on February 3, 2010 at 12:53 pm

Did you check my link or not or you are another Palin Messiah type. Palin’s husband was a member of the Independence party, Is you tube part of my conspiracy. According to wikipedia the founder of this party was invited to Iran to discuss breaking away from the US. Did you check my you tube link or I made that up too.

Here is the link to this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmYqRfp6-x8.

Also Check the wikipedia article as well on Joe Vogler and his suspicious death. “Vogler disappeared under suspicious circumstances in May 1993,[4] just weeks before he was scheduled to give a speech to the United Nations on Alaskan independence, sponsored by the government of Iran.” I made this up too.

In terms of the civil war of course the North won so they made the history but the real story is more nuanced then you think. and you should at least one point from the other perspective especially if you are a conservative. Of course Palin supporters are frauds I know that. If you are Jewish as well I would read the book the Politically Incorrect Guide to the South. I learned of famous Jewish people I never heard of.

adam on February 3, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    Sorry, “You Tube” is not really a credible source. Try a better one if you want to be taken seriously. Also, this is a serious site, and not a conspiracy theory pit. If you prefer conspiracy theories and that sort of stuff, you should try Art Bell. He also likes to talk about alien abuductions.

    Worry01 on February 3, 2010 at 4:41 pm

OK Worry01. You tube you consider a conspiracy site. Wikipedia you consider a conspiracy site. Do you consider the conservative book club also a conspiracy site as well since they have a number of negative books on Lincoln including a recent book and the South did treat Jews better then the North. I guess to you the conservative book club is a conspiracy site. It sounds like you are unable to think outside a certain box and if you do that is conspiracy. So you are basically saying that the you tube video’s are lies. And this is not true. And the speech of Palin welcoming the independence party was made up. The speech of some others in the independence party saying how happy they were about Palin as they were going to penetrate both parties even though they don’t support their platform. OK. this is all made up. I mean really Worry01. It sounds like you are unable to hear other idea’s other then what you want to hear. It does make sense that Palin would support people that hate America like Paul this being ths case. Do you consider feminism part of socialism or that to you also is a conspiracy theory.

adam on February 3, 2010 at 5:43 pm

    You may actually want to scroll up. I cited Wikipedia and the actual website of the party on my previous posts. You seem to have some reading comprehension problems that you will need to address. Enjoy your little world. I am moving on.

    Worry01 on February 3, 2010 at 6:53 pm

Listen to the second part of this link.


1:14 and forward. Yeah, these people are from the independence party and are happy to see Sarah Palin runing. I guess this was made up to put down Palin and these people really are just UFO’s.

adam on February 3, 2010 at 5:49 pm

Telling me I believe in UFO’s is a little much. I didn’t engage in any name calling so why should I take you seriously. Anyway I read shyguy’s comments and it does say that Todd was a member. You don’t think Sara would support her husband in what he is a member even is she is a member of the Republican party. So please. Many have also said that many of her cronies were from the independence party and most women do help their husbands they are their helpmates. That is what women usually do.

adam on February 3, 2010 at 7:38 pm

    True, but literally speaking, Sara wears the pants in that family 😉

    theShadow on February 3, 2010 at 9:28 pm

For the record Alan Keyes just noted that Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Rand Paul confirms she pro choice for states. She really has no concept of what she believes in. But then Palin supporters don’t know what they believe in either other than the fact supporting her makes them feel good.


CaliforniaScreaming on February 5, 2010 at 2:05 am

Ooops! Gave yourself away here – “Once you wake up from your Kool-Aid induced fantasy…”

This article was written by a liberal. And some of her buddies are following it up with comments.

Nice try.

RedWhiteBlue on February 5, 2010 at 7:39 pm

Libertarian is conservative, at least conservative of the old days… Ron and Rand Paul are more conservative than most Republicans in Washington today…

Conservative by definition means less government – less government spending, less taxation by government, and less intrusion by government in citizen’s lives. Yes, really, that is conservative.

I’m curious to know your definition of conservative… Oh, please don’t say “resistant to change”… We’ve changed so much since 2001 and even further back you’d think liberals had been running things all this time…

John M on February 8, 2010 at 3:52 am

How ar5e we going to fund all of these wars? We can’t afford the ones we are in now. You war mongers need to be stopped while I still have a country to love.

Ahmnodt Heare on February 9, 2010 at 4:34 pm

I think all this petty name-calling has just made me vote Rand. Anyone that buys into all this hyperbole obviously has an IQ of around 75..

Joe Reagan in KY on February 9, 2010 at 4:52 pm

“I know that third party candidates can’t win in KY. Although I’m a libertarian at heart, I’ve decided to run as a Republican. Once I win I’ll be able to promote my father’s principles and work towards reforming the Republican party”. ~
Rand Paul 2009

ConservKYgal on February 11, 2010 at 6:18 pm

Sounds great, he can work towards pushing the values of the only principled man in Congress. Maybe you should open your eyes and come into reality rather than pushing your america hating, bible thumping BS.

Robert Preston on February 12, 2010 at 12:26 am

Ron Paul’s internet Nazis are out. They keep apologizing for Islamic genocide and blaming America and the Jews. The Pauls and the frauds that support them are not for liberty – anyone who works to advance Islam’s agenda is an enemy of freedom.

John on March 20, 2010 at 11:37 pm

“I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” – Ronald Wilson Reagan

xuey on April 2, 2010 at 2:24 am

Does Palin Support McCain’s bill—Indefinite Detention of Citizens On Mere Suspicion?

On March 4, 2010, Sen. John McCain introduced S.3081, The “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010.”

Sen. McCain’s S.3081 would eliminate several Constitutional protections allowing Government to arbitrarily pick up Americans on mere suspicion—with no probable cause. Your political opinions and statements made against U.S. Government could be used by Authorities to deem you a “hostile” “Enemy Belligerent” to cause your arrest and indefinite detention. S.3081 is so broadly written innocent anti-war protesters and Tea Party Groups might be arrested and detained just for attending demonstrations.

Considering how often Sarah Palin defends Free Speech, one can’t help wonder why Palin is helping McCain’s reelection to the U.S. Senate after he introduced possibly the most anti-Free Speech Bill in Modern U.S. History. Perhaps Palin or her Tea Party supporters haven’t considered McCain’s legislation might be used by a corrupt government administration to crush them. Tea Parties might question Palin whether she supports Sen. McCain’s bill the “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010.” (S.3081)

Under S.3081, an “individual” need only be Suspected by Government of “suspicious activity” or “supporting hostilities” to be dragged off and held indefinitely in Military Custody. Government will have the power to detain and interrogate any individual without probable cause. Government need only allege an individual kept in detention, is an Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent suspected of; having engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. How could one prove to Government they did not purposely do something? “Materially Supporting Hostilities” against the United States could include any person or group that spoke out or demonstrated disapproval against an agency of U.S. Government. It is foreseeable many Americans might go underground to Resist Government Tyranny. Definition for Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent: (Anyone Subject to a Military Commission)

At least under the Patriot Act, law enforcement generally needed probable cause to detain a person indefinitely. Passage of S.3081 will permit government to use “mere suspicion” to curtail an individual’s Constitutional Protections against unlawful arrest, detention and interrogation without benefit of legal counsel and trial. According to S.3081 Government is not required to provide detained individuals U.S. Miranda Warnings or even an attorney.

S.3081 if passed will frighten Americans from speaking out. S.3081 is so broadly written, it appears any “individual” who writes on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against or an entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners might be detained on the basis he or she is an “unprivileged enemy belligerent”, “supporting hostilities against U.S. Government.”

How might Americans respond should Government use this bill to take away their loved ones, family members and friends on mere suspicion? It is foreseeable McCain’s bill will drive lawful political activists underground, perhaps creating the domestic terrorists McCain said we needed to be protected from.

McCain’s bill mentions “non-violent acts” supporting terrorism in the U.S. and or emanating from America against a Coalition Partner. Non-violent terrorist acts” are covered in the Patriot Act to prosecute Persons that support “coercion to influence a government or intimidation to affect a civilian population.” However, U.S. activists and individuals under S.3081 would be much more vulnerable to prosecution, if (charged with suspicion) of “intentionally providing support to an Act of Terrorism”, for example American activists can’t control what other activists might do illegally—they network with domestically and overseas. Under the Patriot Act, law enforcement generally needs probable cause to detain or prosecute someone. But under S.3081, law enforcement and the military can too easily use (hearsay or informants) to allege “suspicious activity” to detain an individual. It is problematic under S.3081 that detained individuals in the U.S. not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings or allowed legal counsel will be prosecuted for ordinary crimes because of their alleged admissions while in military custody.

Notably, McCain’s S.3081 mandates (merging) Federal, State and Local Police and subsequently the U.S. Military to detain and hold Individuals in the U.S., even without probable cause.

Historically it is foreseeable under S.3081 that “erroneous informant information” could be used to detain innocent Individuals. Other countries have used lying informants to imprison; even execute political opposition.

Under S.3081 government may use an individual’s phone call and email information to allege without probable cause “suspicious or hostile activity” against the a U.S. civilian population or the United States to detain Americans.

(Make Your Own Determination If The Analysis Herein Is Correct) See McCain Senate bill S.3081 at:

FYI: below is enclosed a copy of “Hitler’s Discriminatory Decrees signed February 28, 1933.” Although the Nazi Decrees are written differently than S.3081, the McCain bill could bring America to the same place crushing free speech and personal liberty. Note how the Nazi Government in Section (1) and (4), similar to U.S. S.3081, suspend personal liberty— shutdown Free Speech to intimidate Citizens speaking out against Government:

See Section 1
“Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.”

Similar to McCain’s S. 3081, but using different wording the Nazi Government in Section (4) see below, suspended Constitutional rights, ordered the arrest of Citizens for any ACT that might incite or provoke disobedience against state authorities. McCain’s S.3081 instead mentions detaining and prosecuting Individuals for “supporting hostilities” against U.S. Government. S.3081 is so broadly written any person or group attending a protest could be arrested without provable cause and detained if government charged the protest-supported hostilities.

See Section 4
Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reichsmarks.


Note: Based on translations by State Department, National Socialism, 1942 PP. 215-17, and Pollak, J.K., and Heneman, H.J., The Hitler Decrees, (1934), pp. 10-11.7

In virtue of Section 48 (2) of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of Violence, endangering the state:

Section 1
Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

Section 2
If in a state the measures necessary for the restoration of public security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority.

Section 4
Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reichsmarks.

Who ever endangers human life by violating Section 1, is to be punished by sentence to a penitentiary, under mitigating circumstances with imprisonment of not less than six months and, when violation causes the death of a person, with death, under mitigating circumstances with a penitentiary sentence of not less that two years. In addition the sentence my include confiscation of property.

Whoever provokes an inciter to or act contrary to public welfare is to be punished with a penitentiary sentence, under mitigating circumstances, with imprisonment of not less than three months.

Section 5
The crimes which under the Criminal Code are punishable with penitentiary for life are to be punished with death: i.e., in Sections 81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 306 (arson), 311 (explosion), 312 (floods), 315, paragraph 2 (damage to railroad properties, 324 (general poisoning).

Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided for, the following are punishable with death or with life imprisonment or with imprisonment not to exceed 15 years:

1. Anyone who undertakes to kill the Reich President or a member or a commissioner of the Reich Government or of a state government, or provokes to such a killing, or agrees to commit it, or accepts such an offer, or conspires with another for such a murder;

2. Anyone who under Section 115 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious rioting) or of Section 125 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious disturbance of the peace) commits the act with arms or cooperates consciously and intentionally with an armed person;

3. Anyone who commits a kidnapping under Section 239 of the Criminal with the intention of making use of the kidnapped person as a hostage in the political struggle.

Section 6
This decree enters in force on the day of its promulgation.

Reich President
Reich Chancellor
Reich Minister of the Interior
Reich Minister of Justice

Dan Scott on April 4, 2010 at 7:17 pm

Ms. Schlussel, you jews and israelis have to start understanding that the world doesnt turn around you. The sooner you understand this the better…

Peter on April 5, 2010 at 11:33 am

I swear, neo-cons are incapable of critical thinking. Trying to understand Iran’s perspective on nuclear technology does not equate Rand Paul to being against America and siding with terrorists and Iran. Appearing on the Alex Jones show does not mean you’re a 9/11 truther, or against Zionist Jews (by the way, Jones isn’t against Jews–SOME of the people he’s against happen to be Jewish). And being against torture doesn’t mean you’re anti-American either. Hmm.. Let’s invade some countries, kill millions of people (who all, of course, are terrorists, right?) and expect no one to seek revenge, because how dare they do that, cause we’re AMERICA, and they’re scum. While we’re at it, we can torture some o’ them gosh-darn terrorists–Oh, what the heck, might as well throw in some terrorized farmers and village people as well, cause once we beat the shit outta them, they’ll probably surrender and admit they’re with al-Qaeda. Or maybe we can kill some pregnant women, or gun down some reporters here and there. Im sure their families won’t mind.

david on June 3, 2010 at 2:44 pm

Great post, I will put it up on my blog.

Mason Showen on November 12, 2010 at 12:25 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field