December 29, 2011, - 3:37 pm

GREAT Ron Paul Cartoon!

By Debbie Schlussel

My favorite new political cartoonist is the multi-talented Fred Taub, the author of the “Pepy’s Coffee Shop” cartoons.  Below is one of his best, and it’s spot on.  Fred is also the expert behind Boycott Watch and the author of “Boycotting Peace: Why Divestment Is Turning Truth On Its Head,” the groundbreaking book on the pan-Muslim boycott against Israel and the anti-Semitic Boycott/Divestment/ Sanctions movement.  Fred is also a computer genius who did work for NASA. Aside from all of that, he also has a witty sense of humor. And this is just one example, with great commentary on Ron Paul.

Check out new cartoons regularly posted at “Pepy’s Coffee Shop.”

Tags: , , , ,

128 Responses

Skunky, I don’t even know what all that trog and zog stuff means, but this isn’t about winning a debate, this is about realizing the dire situation of our country and the drastic steps that need to be made and there is only one candidate willing do the right things that will bring this country back and he isn’t getting side tracked by side and propaganda issues like all the other candidates are.

He is someone who leads from the front and doesn’t pander to people to get their vote like every other candidate, he knows what’s right for our country, right now and is leading us in that direction. I would love to hear your rebuttle to my last statement if there is one, again this isn’t about insults or debates this is about bringing America back and there’s only one candidate who gets it and has the guts to say it and be a TRUE LEADER AND PATRIOT!

Restore America! America 1st! Ron Paul 2012

Jerome on December 31, 2011 at 10:58 am

To all you people using the term “conservative” What are you trying to conserve? status quo? It means to conserve the Constitution. All you neo-cons quit using that word. Ron Paul IS the only CONSERVATIVE.

Jim Hoff on December 31, 2011 at 11:49 am

    Jim Hoff said “To all you people using the term “conservative” What are you trying to conserve? status quo? It means to conserve the Constitution. All you neo-cons quit using that word. Ron Paul IS the only CONSERVATIVE.”

    You could not have said it better. Ron Paul, had he won, would be head over heals better than this Romney.
    What is wrong with legalizing drugs? I have read the Tanach and there is no commandment against drugs at all. I have read Torah, there is no evil in drugs. Why do we need to outlaw things that are more dangerous when they are outlawed?
    I could care less about 9/11, I am more furious about the murder of unborn citizens of this country. We are down about 54,000,000 US citizens because of abortion. The most dangerous place to be for a citizen of the USA is in the womb of the mother.
    I believe the Torah and Tanach and try to live by them. I am not worried if Paul ever gets into office at all. Now, Romney, is not going to be the answer, and Obama has left the building, I hope.

    Miriam on August 13, 2012 at 7:27 pm

Ron Paul is NOT a Conservative, not even close.

I don’t like his silly 12 year old girl take on foreign affairs and how he trusts Moooooslim jihadists more than civilized people. I do not like his take on legalizing drugs. I do not like his take on Israel and I absolutely cannot stand for him taking money from Neo-Nazis and not denouncing them (Paul has a consistent history of taking $$$ and then not denouncing or he tries to distance himself on the controversial issue even though his name is on it…he loves the money but 100% eschews responsibility). THAT is NOT Conservative!

Oh, and I also cannot abide how he tried to make Christians complicit in terror just as much as Mooooslims in that audio bit I posted. NO WAY! NO HOW! And being an anti-semite is a deal-breaker for me.

I will NEVER vote for Ron Paul. Not in a house or not with a mouse!!!

And really, I resent that peeps act as if he is the ONLY Constitutionalist out there! I know our Congress is pathetic but all the Constitutional adherents out there do NOT NEED Ron Paul. He can’t be the only one and I reject the fact that it is him or no one. The truth of the matter is that the whole GOP needs an enema! For four years they have been sitting around with their thumbs in their tuchis while Barack Hussein Obama, the crypto-Marxist tears down USA. They are as much to blame for where USA is as is MaObama!

Skunky on December 31, 2011 at 12:25 pm

Well at the end of the day, we’ll get the leadership that this nation collectively deserves, so even though I hope Ron Paul wins, there are just too many sheep in this country who don’t see through the propaganda and lies.

Bush=Obama=Romney, expect the exact same old downward spiral people for years to come. Nothings going to change until we collectively get smarter.

We’ll get the leadership we collectively deserve for better or for worse. Truly following the constitution is the only thing that will save us, and anyone who takes an honest look at the candidates will see Ron Paul is the one who best follows the constitution. We vote the SAME type of people year after year in and wonder why our country is going down the tubes.

Expect more of the same, don’t get your hopes up people, looks like our best days are behind us if there is no radical change which only Ron Paul is principled and honest enough to make.

Jerome on December 31, 2011 at 1:15 pm




    In fact, like Skunky, I agree with what you wrote in your post @ 1:15 pm except for the part about you supporting Ron Paul. However, I didn’t see Michele Bachmann in your equation. I think that she is the best person running for President for 2012. So does Debbie and as well as several other regulars here. If you don’t agree, well then here’s your chance to explain here why you don’t think so here.

    JeffE on December 31, 2011 at 6:05 pm

      U R A complete tool.

      D Rosinski on February 28, 2012 at 2:46 pm

Jerome, I actually agree with EVERYTHING your last post says BUT for the Ron Paul bit.

Skunky on December 31, 2011 at 1:32 pm

Well, I’m just sick of this downward spiral and I don’t see it getting any better. We all just have to take an honest look at our options and see who will give us more of the same and who’s ready to make the big changes that will set THIS COUNTRY FIRST right, EVERYTHING ELSE is secondary, if things weren’t so bad maybe I could entertain the idea of voting for someone else, but Paul is the right guy for this current state of disaster.

Jerome on December 31, 2011 at 1:52 pm

Frustration and downright fear for our nation is well expressed here. But the Paul supporters’ chagrin, sadly, bespeaks an angry ignorance– and pride in it– most unbecoming for people of otherwise good-will.
Search hard your souls, good people, and know that to support the likes of a Ron Paul, though it gives you a certain venting satisfaction, offers an awful alternative. Look again.

lee on December 31, 2011 at 2:36 pm

Well, we certainly have the same passion. Too bad there was not a true patriot that could save us from ZerObama.

Well said Lee. Jerome, funny how we feel the same way but RP I just can’t do. But you did say it all when you said we will get the leader we deserve. Collectively, USA has lost it. What a shame.

Skunky on December 31, 2011 at 3:38 pm

There’s no anger or ignorance here, I’ve done thorough research, analyzed all sides with an open and OBJECTIVE mind, learned from the past, not blinded by party or camp, I see past the slogans, I understand all perspectives objectively to the best I can and I’m seeing through the continuous charade. I hope I’m wrong but I’m about 99.9 certain.

If RP isn’t elected the downward spiral continues. We lose our economy and our LIBERTIES and the CONSTITUTION and the status quo continues and who knows what we become then but it won’t be the America we knew and loved.

The constitution is our life jacket as long as we hold on to it and follow it, we can combat any foe, surmount any obstacle, but few politicians see it that way, its become a liability and not an asset to most of them and not following it, is leading us to our destruction.

Jerome on December 31, 2011 at 5:21 pm

Excellent cartoon, Fred Taub.

JeffE on December 31, 2011 at 6:25 pm

Regarding Bachmann, I like her but shes literally at the bottom of the numbers and sinking fast, she doesn’t have a chance and she doesn’t get foreign policy, she advocates the same shoot first ask questions later attitude when it comes to these unconstitutional wars which are bankrupting our nation and solves nothing but only creates more problems, exactly like Iraq no different. Sincerity isn’t enough, we need sincerity, principles, and smart policy.

All the Iran talk is no diff than the Iraq talk, but this time it’s a lot more serious and a much more dangerous game to play. If we make another Iraq mistake the results will be catastrophic for our economy first, which will weaken us like no other as a nation and the safety of the world.

It’s not popular to say among Republicans but Ron Paul has it right on Iran, see my statement about 4 of my posts ago where I talk about that. We really have to wise up and learn from the past and get sound information and not be herded about like scared sheep.

Jerome on December 31, 2011 at 7:21 pm


    First off, Lee didn’t mention anything about Michele Bachmann. I did.

    Second, yes, it is a pity about Michele’s low poll numbers. I never did understand why after her poll numbers fell after her rise. I mean, she kicked Tim Pawlenty’s rear in one of the debates, she then won the Iowa straw poll with Pawlenty coming in third, causing Pawlenty to drop out of the race, and then a short time later Rick Perry entered the race. And right as Perry entered the race Michele’s numbers fell. It was as if people were saying “Sorry Michele, but since Rick Perry has entered the race, it means that now you no longer the person to be the nominee.” And I’m thinking, “Huh?” So as I said, yes her poll numbers are regrettably low. But then again, so are RP’s poll numbers. Even if Ron Paul wins Iowa he still has no chance after that to win the nomination.

    I will deal with the Iraq/Iran issue in my next post.

    JeffE on December 31, 2011 at 8:16 pm

      That’s right JeffE, you’re on to the same thing I was.

      Bachmann wins the straw-poll and then Perry enters and POOF, she’s gone.

      It was almost like the GOP and the media said well, the more we mention Rick Perry, the more he WILL be the frontrunner. I watched that carefully and it was exactly like the more they talked about him a string of days, the more it will be true (frontrunner status). And of course they are helped along by so-called Conservatives who go with the flow in lieu of independent thinking. They did not count on Perry melting down in a grand way. That was unforeseen.

      I believe this year that one could see EVERY MOVE made by the Establishment if they were paying attention. The good part was when Conservatives were NOT listening to CW but thinking for themselves. That was the Cain surge…and you saw what the Liberals and Establishment GOP did with that .

      You’re smelling a rat because there is a smelly rat to smell. I don’t like it either.

      So then you get the Newt surge, which was due to his debate performances. Too bad he just says what the REAL Conservatives want to hear, not how he will be.

      I read Ann Coulter’s latest column. Very interesting. But what a shame. To even beat the Zero we have to pick a bunch of sh** sandwiches. She may be right in her column, but her column told me more about how asleep at the wheel the GOP has been these last 4 years than her *MAYBE* credible point on Romney.

      We are in quite the fix, that is for sure!

      Skunky on December 31, 2011 at 8:39 pm

        Thanks, Skunky. And in your picking up where I left off, your analysis is spot on.

        JeffE on January 1, 2012 at 12:50 am

On the presidential race, if Islam is not a factor being considered by a voter, there ain’t much difference b/w the candidates, since this time, you don’t have the likes of a McCain running. Yeah, on closer examination, one would find problems w/ their records, such as Romney’s governance of MA, Newt’s record as speaker towards the end and the legacy of his handpicked aides, like Delay, Santorum largely rubber-stamped whatever Bush did, and is not likely to be much different, and Perry was fine until one examined his record and the in-state tuition for illegals issue hit him badly.

I do hope Bachmann rises – it’s disappointing that she didn’t organize her NH campaign well, and more often than not, that’s started the trend of anyone advancing, given how close the next few caucuses & primaries are to one another. If not Bachmann, maybe Santorum, but Newt is too close to Norquist, while Romney, who seemed to be right about ‘Radical Jihadism’ last time around, has gotten worse by exhonerating Muslims @ large in subsequent statements.

But any of these candidates, except Ron Paul, would be preferrable to Obama.

Infidel on December 31, 2011 at 8:46 pm

    I agree, Infidel.

    However, I do have to make one note about Rick Santorum. In the ABC debate made the day after it was first reported that Newt Gingrich had pointed out that that “the Palestinians” are an invented people, and one of the moderators asked Newt to defend his comment. After Newt successfully did that, Rick Santorum criticized Newt for having said what he said, lest it disturb U.S. policy. I lost a little bit of respect for him after that. Debbie mentioned this in passing in her post about the issue the next day and I also commented there at the time saying so. You also commented on that post, Infidel, so it’s unnecessary for me to link that post to you. He still remains second best after Bachmann, but this is not going unnoticed by me and the gap between the two became a little wider after that debate than it was before it.

    JeffE on January 1, 2012 at 1:06 am


(cont’d from my 8:16 pm post)

Third, about Iran and both you and others throughout the media who feel as you do on this issue saying that it might be a replay of Iraq, here’s my thoughts on the issue.

a) On the Iraq war, whatever else one thinks of the war, leading to the 2003 war Saddam Hussein was acting as he had WMD. The reason why his having WMD was an issue was because he used chemical weapons twice in 1988 (first against the Shiites and then against the Kurds), attacked two nations (Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990) and attacking a third–Israel–with Scud missles in 1991 and paying $ 25,000.00 or more for a “Palestinian” family whose member committed genocide bombings against the people of Israel. And we were heading toward lifting sanctions on Iraq with Saddam in power. And if we were to have done that and he had WMD, then G-d only knows what damage he would have done to his neighbors, especially leading to a nuclear war against Israel. So we invaded Iraq and they at least appear to not have had WMD, we’ll we will now know that he will never have them again and he therefore will never do any damage with them (because he is dead). So that threat has been averted.

b) With Iran, it is now indeed almost a replay. The facts with regard to Iran are that Iran has been at war with us since the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy and their taking the American hostages in 1979, only we have not been fighting back, so that should solve that constitutional question about declaration of war. Its occupying force Hezbollah attacked the U.S. troops in Lebanon in 1983, murdering 241 of them. Midway through the war with Iraq, after Iran fought off Iraq from Iranian territory, Iran launched a counter-agression against Iraq so neither party were angels and I wouldn’t have minded if the war had lasted longer between them to get their mind off of everything else. Since then while Iran had elected (with the Mullahs being the real voters) having a “moderate”/”happy face” President in power–something that I did not buy for a single second. Meanwhile, Iran have been secretly building its nuclear weapons program. Then in 2005, the Irainians (read “Mullahs”) elected Mahmood(sp?)Ahmadinejad who–as is well known–has repeatedly denied that the Holocaust happened, has stated his desire to wipe *Israel off of the face of the map-*and we found out that Iran has been building a nuclear weapons program. If–G-d forbid–Iran should carry it out, it would not only be catastrophic in of itself, but G-d only knows who else Iran would attack with its nuclear weapons after that, including the United States. Also, the U.S. economy would be in be in worse throughout with $10.00/gallon prices (or higher) throught this scenario. Therefore, it must be stopped. If it can be carried out nonmillitarily, then fine. But if it is a choice between doing nothing and letting Iran do its damage verses us going to war against Iran to stop the Irainina threat, then I choose the latter. At the very least, we need to both secretly and openly help Israel to do the job themselves.

*-I read your post that you referred to in which you are disputing the accuracy of the “wiping Israel off the face of the map” quote. I will deal with that next.

JeffE on December 31, 2011 at 9:03 pm

On Iraq & Iran, a part of what the ‘establishment hawks’ want to do is correct. On Iraq, they did the right thing by ousting Saddam, and when they found out there were no WMDs, that was the point at which to leave. When Bush stood on that ‘Mission Accomplished’ ship, he happened to be right. It was the nation-building exercises in both Afghanistan & Iraq that was totally uncalled for.

After all, everybody was bellyaching about the legitimacy of overthrowing Saddam, but if he was all that popular, he’d not have gone into hiding, and would have won a popular re-election. The right thing to have done then would have been to leave. Chances are that the Shia would still have seized power, but better chances are that that country would have had a full scale 3 way civil war – Sunnis (backed by Saudis & Kuwait) vs Shia (backed by Iran) vs Kurd (backed by nobody, but in whose case, the US could have just supplied arms so that they didn’t get massacred by the rest of them.

One thing I want to make clear – I’m all for bombing Iran’s nukes and getting rid of that capability. Same goes for Ali Khan’s Pakistan, which any sane country in the position of the US would be openly treating as an enemy @ war. But beyond that, zilch. I do not want US troops sent to any more Muslim countries to do any peacekeeping nor nationbuilding. If anything, the best policy would be to covertly encourage civil wars in all these countries, so that none of them have money to fund the likes of Hamas, Hizbullah, CAIR, et al.

It’s good that a part of Iran’s nuke capabilities have been sabotaged, but given the power of Iran vs the US, such covert action shouldn’t even have been necessary – the US should have simply bombed the Iranian sites in the various cities they’ve been doing it. Muslim regimes, unlike Communist ones, are not rational, and so the previous principles of Mutually Assured Destruction do not apply to them. And we’re not talking about any Muslim country as large as Russia or China – the US could declare war on every member of the OIC (except for the ex Soviet states) and as long as the war just involved bombing their infrastructure, the US would win easily. And they don’t have to do that – they can just target the trouble makers, and hit them hard.

Aside from that, Republicans have been as wrong as Obama on Libya, and would do well to not interfare in what’s going on in Syria. Best thing to happen for the Infidel world is all these Muslim countries to be plunged into an indefinite full scale civil war, so that they’d have no money to fund jihad against Infidels, whether it’s building rocket launchers against Israel, or building mosques be it in Ground Zero or Dearbornistan.

Infidel on December 31, 2011 at 9:08 pm

(Cont’d from my 9:03 pm post)

Jerome writes at 7:21 pm:

“It’s not popular to say among Republicans but Ron Paul has it right on Iran, see my statement about 4 of my posts ago where I talk about that.”

The post that Jerome refers to is his post on December 30, 2011 at 7:14 pm (Click on “OLDER COMMENTS”).

In that post Jerome writes:

“Iran never said it wanted to destroy Israel, it was a misquoted statement. Google ‘washington post wiped off the map misquote’.”

I google it, and the important thing is this Washington Post article.

The rest of the results are various other websites that quote from this article with approval which are unecessary for me to deal with. The important thing is this Washington Post article itself.

First, its author is Glenn Kessler. He writes about Israel a lot, including having published a whole book on Israel where he gives the LSM (Lamestream Media) BS line about Israel. “Two-State Solution” “Israel occupying Palestinina land” BS so I don’t like him. He is about the same quality as Thomas L. Friedman (Ewwwww!)

Now, for the meat of the article. Kessler writes from the WP article:

“— Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, October 2, 2011

Almost unnoticed, Iran this week joined the United States and Israel as one of the few countries in the world to oppose the statehood bid at the United Nations by the Palestinians. As the Tehran Times noted, the Iranian supreme leader “condemned any measure which would lead to the recognition of the Israeli regime and would ignore the legal right of the Palestinian people to their homeland.”

In other words, Iran continues to oppose the two-state solution. But does this mean that Iran wants to destroy Israel — ‘wipe it off the map’ — as is commonly cited? This is certainly the conventional wisdom, as seen in the statements above. But a colleague at The Washington Post, spotting the Bachmann and Obama statements during the U.N. festivities last month, suggests that it is this widely cited statement by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was actually a mistranslation.”

It goes on for a few paragraphs, read the link to see what it says for it’s yada yada yada account of what the people quoted such as left-wing and anti-Israel author Juan Cole and others say. My post is getting long as it is.

Then Kessler writes:

“Some might question why Ahmadinejad’s precise words are important. [JE: Raising my hand.] Clearly, the Iranian government has unrelenting opposition to the state of Israel, so much so that it even rejects Palestinian efforts at statehood if that would result in Israel remaining in the Middle East. Indeed, Tehran has armed and funded Hamas, Hezbollah and other militant groups opposed to Israel. At the same time, the words allegedly uttered by Ahmadinejad have been used to suggest a change toward a more militaristic posture by Iran toward Israel.”

My comment:

Iran does not care about the so-called Palestinians. He does indeed want to wipe Israel off of the face of the earth. If it means wiping out the “Palestianians” as well, then so be it. Their purported support for them is merely to help to make it’s pretext for destroying Israel acceptable to the Western leftisits and now some on the right as well.

Kessler concludes:

” In fact, Ahmadinejad is not the power broker in Iran; it is Khamenei. Khamenei, in fact, has been consistent in speaking of his hatred of Israel, but without a military context, as he demonstrated once again this week. Moreover, the fact that Ahmadinejad was merely quoting Khomeini suggests that even less weight should have been given to his words, especially since there is a dispute over the precise meaning in English.”

(His final paragraph not quoted here gives out dhimmi wishful thinking BS.)

But what Ahmadinejad has been saying has been backed up by the Mullahs by their words and actions. These facts only prove concerning the Hitler/Nazi analogy that whereas the original Hitler was the boss and the Nazis followed his orders, here the new Nazis are the bosses and the new Hitler obeys their orders.

JeffE on December 31, 2011 at 9:50 pm

Yawwwwnnn!!! The denials by the holocaust deniers that Ahmadinejad’s statement was lost in translation is about as original as the standard Muslim apologist claim that one can’t understand what the quran says w/o knowing Arabic! Iran supporters really need to come up w/ a newer one than that!

Infidel on December 31, 2011 at 11:35 pm

    I know, Infidel. I didn’t want to write my posts published at 11:35 pm and 11:40 pm on December 31, 2011, but I felt that I had to answer Jerome, so I had no choice but to dirty my hands and take on his denial of the quote and especially citing the the Washington Post. The fact that it made its way there is causing me to fear that this will not be the last time that someone either here or elsewhere will have to write something similiar to what I wrote in those two posts.

    JeffE on January 1, 2012 at 1:32 am

      Oops! I mean my posts at 9:50 pm and 11:40pm. 11:35 pm is the Infidel post that I responded to.

      JeffE on January 1, 2012 at 1:34 am

        Nice job, Jeff.

        skzion on January 1, 2012 at 1:55 pm

          Thank you, skzion.

          JeffE on January 1, 2012 at 2:40 pm

My final post for 2011:

P.S. I reread the last part of the WP linked in my previous post says that it is “One Pinocchio” which it says that it means “Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods.”

I take GK with a grain of salt, but if even he says that it is only one Pinocchio, and that is the best that he can do to disprove Ahmadinejad’s “wipe Israel off of the map” quote, then I say that the quote still stands and the so-called context is merely academic.

JeffE on December 31, 2011 at 11:40 pm


If one goes just by Newt’s statement on the Palis vs Santorum’s criticism, it’s valid to side w/ Newt. But once one factors him being joined @ the hip to Grover Norquist on more issues than just taxes, Newt’s credibility on this evaporates. Norquist was instrumental in Bush getting such Dhimmi advisers, and Newt aint going to be any better. In fact, he’s more likely than not to be bought off by the various Arab Sheikhs, and make the right noises on Iran to appear to be anti-Islamic.

Also, I wasn’t criticizing your post about Iran, rather, I was criticising those Paulbots who were trying to deny that there was a mistranslation b/w Ahmadinejad’s original statements in Farsi vs the newswires. B’cos had there been any way to whitewash his statements, the news media – AP, AFP, BBC, CNN, et al definitely would have. If anything, I doubt that in Farsi, he said ‘map’ – more likely, he said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth.

Wish you & everyone else here a very happy 2012! 🙂

Infidel on January 1, 2012 at 2:50 am

trying to claim, not deny, that there was a mistranslation b/w Ahmadinejad’s original statements in Farsi vs the newswires

Infidel on January 1, 2012 at 2:53 am


Thank you for clarifying that you didn’t criticize my post about Iran.

On Santorum vs Newt, you had also originally pointed out about Newt’s friendship with Grover and how Newt doesn’t have credibility to actually carry out that policy and I thought that I made it clear that I agree with that. But in case I didn’t, then I’m saying now that I do agree with that.

Happy New Year everyone.

JeffE on January 1, 2012 at 10:01 am

one more calrification of my 10:01 am post:

“and how Newt doesn’t have credibility to actually carry out that policy ”

Meaning, the policy implied when Newt said that “the Palestinians” are an invented people.

JeffE on January 1, 2012 at 10:11 am

All the goofball posts on this story are proof that Paul fans are the fringe. I was unfortunate enough to discover a friend of my wife was a Paul fan as her husband was. Talk about a terrible dinner date. Like a damn cult.

samurai on January 1, 2012 at 12:44 pm

Your point a)
Regarding Iraq, I know how bad he was and what he did, with all you said, the bottom line is we were told he had WMD’s and he had something to do with 9/11 both of these were COMPLETELY FALSE and the government new it.

What we all have to wise up to is that WAR=MONEY for many business and oil men. War happens, oil prices skyrocket and they’re many contracts and money to be made.

There are powerful business interest who lobby just for that. I know it sounds dirty and we don’t want to believe but it’s a fact. These perspectives on foreign policy often when out in the media and with politicians because of their influence. Youtube “Eisenhower, military industrial complex” And all this is coming from a Republican president, he says this about 50yrs or so ago.

Bottom line Iraq was NO threat to US and it cost us so much more than we gained, which is we loss a TRILLION dollars and 5000 American lives and we strengthened Iran a nation which was an actual threat to us (exaggerated threat) but threat no less.

And regarding Iran, again we just have to look at all the info with an open mind and not be blinded by fear and a false sense of patriotism and see it’s the same Iraq movie.

Iran would have to WIPE THE PALESTINIANS off the map to literally wipe the Israelis off the map. This quote was about a political regime and not the actual physical nation. Yes the Iranians hate us and Israel but again they act logically.

We have been at war with them not since 1979 but since 1953 when we OVERTHREW THEIR DEMOCRATICALLY elected government and installed the Shah a dictator back into power, google 1953 Iranian coup. And this is the blowback that RP talks about, we make these disastrous foreign policy mistakes and the consequences are devastating and last for decades and put us in worse shape and we act like they never happened.

Again the Iranian SUPREME LEADER says WMD’s are AGAINST THEIR RELIGION and they don’t want them, youtube Imam Khamenei nuclear weapons. Secondly, if they did use them they would destroy their thousand year old civilization and they would never do that,even if they gave the nukes to someone else and they destroyed Israel we would know it was from them and we would destroy them or overthrow them, mutually assured destruction would work with Iran, Iran is not alqaeda, it wouldnt work with alqaeda, but the Iranians are a proud historic civilization with a lot to lose and again even though they hate Americans and Israelis they are rational when you look at their and our history.
None of it makes sense if you carefully and objectively analyze the evidence. Again its the same old Iraq war lies that we all swallowed whole before and it looks like many us are falling for it again.
Ron Paul is the only one who is seeing through the lies and has been saying the same thing for over 30 yrs.

Jerome on January 1, 2012 at 5:54 pm


This is merely a greetings post. I want to tell you that the person to whom you replied to again is not Lee, but to I, JeffE. Lee hasn’t posted on this thread since December 31, 2011 at 2:36 pm.

I am now working on reading what you wrote and to respond accordingly. Please stay tuned.

JeffE on January 1, 2012 at 7:40 pm

Ok sorry again for the mix up, in my haste I get the names mixed up. Happy New Years to you and everyone else, I’ll be awaiting your next post.

Jerome on January 1, 2012 at 7:55 pm

Thank you, Jerome and to you too.

JeffE on January 1, 2012 at 7:59 pm


It looks like that you are responding to my post on December 31, 2011 at 9:03 pm.

I just got done watching Dwight Eisenhower’s 1961 Farewell address where he makes mention of this “military complex”. And okay, so Eisenhower was a Republican. So what? So is Rick Santorum, and I made a criticism of him in this thread. So also is Newt Gingrich whom Infidel made some criticisms of him and which I agree with. If a politician says or does (X), it either is a good thing worthy of praise, or it is a bad thing worthy or criticism/scorn, and whatever the answer is, it is the same whether that person has a (D), (R), or any of the other 24 letters of the alphabet after his or her name.

Now on Eisenhower, it was under him that we did the operation to topple Mohammad Mosaddegh and replace him with the Shah. More on that later. Overall he was a good President, but he did two things that I strongly disapprove of. One was that along with Harry S Truman, he failed to have us win the war in Korea. If only Truman had allowed General MacArthur to finish the job in Korea, or, failing that, then Eisenhower did it, then instead of their being North and South Koreas with the North have being under Stalinst regimes starving to death, and either North Korea having or soon will have a nuclear weapon, and with US troops stationed in South Korea, we would have one Korea with Free Markets and Democracy in the same way as the either the U.S. or Britain, and no U.S. troops in Korea and no nuclear North Korea, or even the threat or worry of one. But instead Truman held MacArthur back and Eisenhower withdrew all U.S. troops to the North/South border where we remain to this day, and have to unless we are prepared to refight the war. So if there is a military complex, Eisenhower himself helped to contribute to it.

Second is the 1956 Suez War, where Great Britain, France and Israel invaded Egypt because, in the case of Britain and France, Nasser nationalized their oil companies, and in the case of Israel, because of numerous terror attacks that happened across the Egypt/Israel border and Nasser’s various threats to destroy Israel. Here, isolationism would have made sense to let the three countries do their job in Egypt, but NOOOOO!, Eisenhower had to take the Soviet threats at face value and intervene to make them withdraw from Egypt. And while everyone was focused on Suez, meanwhile, the Soviets went into Hungary to put down a pro-freedom/anti-Communist uprising that was going on there, where, according to wikipedia’s article on the topic, “over 2,500 Hungarians … were killed in the conflict, and 200,000 Hungarians fled as refugees.” (I don’t care about the Soviet troops being killed). And then because of the Israeli withdrawal from Egypt forced by Eisenhower came the 1967 war eleven days later, which was clearly for Eisenhower an unintended consequence.

(to be continued…)

JeffE on January 1, 2012 at 8:56 pm


    My concluding part should read:

    “And then because of the Israeli withdrawal from Egypt forced by Eisenhower came the 1967 war eleven years later, which was clearly for Eisenhower an unintended consequence.”

    (to be continued…)

    JeffE on January 2, 2012 at 12:04 am


“military industrial complex” (both mentions)

JeffE on January 1, 2012 at 8:59 pm


You write:

“We have been at war with them not since 1979 but since 1953 when we OVERTHREW THEIR DEMOCRATICALLY elected government and installed the Shah a dictator back into power, google 1953 Iranian coup.”

Okay, I googled it, and I come up with this article:

The article reports that Obama “made a major gesture of conciliation to Iran”. The article is dated June 4, 2009. It’s now been 2 1/2 years and Iran clearly is not appeased.

So basically what you and Ron Paul’s are saying is that because the United States, along with Britain, overthrew Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and restored the Shah to power, that this is why Iran hates us.

First of all, Mossadegh was a communist and pro-Soviet. Khomeini was, and the Mullahs, and Ahmadinejad are anti-Communists. In fact, they view Islam as being an ideology in the same as way Capitalism and Communism are and when Communist regimes started to fall in 1989, one of them said something like (paraphrasing) “Communism down, Capitalism to go”.

Second of all, in any case even if what we did to Iran was wrong (a view which I disagree), it should have been cleared up after 1979, when they overthrew the Shah and put in Khomeini and the Mullahs and even when they took over the U.S. Embassy and took hostages. The U.S. certainly did not fight back from that. And what was Iran doing in Lebanon with its occupying Hezbollah force? Hezbollah are no more Lebanese than the Americans are. And then came Obama’s concilitatory gesture in the article linked above. So if Iran’s war against the U.S. was all about what happened in 1953, and these activities happened since then, where Iran has more than paid us back, then what will it take to get Iran to get over 1953?

Unless, of course, it turns out that they hate us for more and deeper reasons than that….

(still to be continued)

JeffE on January 1, 2012 at 9:52 pm

BTW, for a summary about exactly what did happen in the 1953 operation, see this Wikipedia article:

It’s a long article and I do not necessarily endorse the contents of what it says, it is for bakground purposes only.

JeffE on January 1, 2012 at 10:02 pm

I’m just waiting for this lying little lowlife to crash and burn along with his Paulbot army. You can tell the heat is getting to him. He’s starting to look pretty nervous in every interview. Gee, I wonder why? Got something to hide Ronny? You’re a punk and a crackpot and you’re followers are either clueless or crackpots and America-hating scum. It appears that Paul is a control-freak and hates not feeling in control when he is being interviewed. Dondero’s description of Paul makes him out to be very autocratic and I believe everything Dondero has said about Paul. I just hope the other candidates finally grow a pair and declare war on this twisted little freak before he can do any more damage to conservatism and the Republican party. And, no, Paul is not a conservative. He’s a libertarian nut and I wonder how many libertarians truly understand the damage that he is doing to their movement.

Daniel Middleman on January 1, 2012 at 10:31 pm


In any case, Jerome, the 1953 operation doesn’t explain why Iran hates Israel. Israel had nothing to do with the operation as it was a purely American/British operation.

Next you say that the Irainians care about the “Palestinians”. You write:

“Iran would have to WIPE THE PALESTINIANS off the map to literally wipe the Israelis off the map. This quote was about a political regime and not the actual physical nation. Yes the Iranians hate us and Israel but again they act logically.”

No, they don’t. If they really care about the “Palestinains” and wanting them to have their own state, and they don’t want them to be harmed, etc., then they would at least give lip service to the idea of a two-state solution. But they haven’t. In fact, the Washington Post article that I linked to and quoted from yesterday at 9:50 pm said (and I quoted from it there):

“Clearly, the Iranian government has unrelenting opposition to the state of Israel, so much so that it even rejects Palestinian efforts at statehood if that would result in Israel remaining in the Middle East.”

So much for Iran really wanting a “Palestinian” state. Now what about wiping them out? You say that all Iran wants is an (inappropriately named) “regime change” in Israel. Well, since 2005, we had Ehud Barak as the Prime Minister of Israel, followed now by Benjamin Netanyahu, so there has already been two “regime changes” in Israel. So who exactly would Iran want to have in power in Israel? They haven’t said. And yes, Iran would have a lot to lose if they tried to carry out their threat against Israel. The problem is that they don’t care. Shia Islam believes that there will be a Twelfth Imam who will be the Islamic equivalent of the Messiah. I will let Glenn Beck explain:

In any case, my main point is that when you deal with evil, you destroy them while they are still weak and don’t wait until they become strong. That should have been the lesson after WWII. It appears to have turned out to be the case with Saddam Hussein of Iraq, and it needs to be true with the Mullahs in Iran.

So back to your saying that the Iranians want to do “regime change” in Israel, there is a regime change that needs to be made, but that regime is located in Teheran.

That concludes my response. I await your response, Jerome.

JeffE on January 1, 2012 at 11:15 pm

Ok starting with Eisenhower,

I didn’t reference him to defend any of his other positions but to show a US REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT who verifies the real threat of the arms dealers and the military industrial complex which influences our media, politicians, and foreign policy over 50 yrs ago and is a GRAVE INTERNAL THREAT. If he was alive today he would be thoroughly disappointed because his words have come true.

Politicians such as him and during those days were generally cut from a different cloth than politicians today, they were honest, wise, smart, genuinely cared about what was right for the nation, and weren’t bought off by powerful corporate interest, Ron Paul is cut from that same cloth. JFK mentions it as well, google JFK secrecy speech. (Not agreeing with JFK or any of his policies, just saying earlier politicians were aware of this)

Regarding Iran, yes they hate communist but they have Iranian pride more than anything and Americans interfering with their nation is a more hated thing than them dealing with their own people.

The Iranians generally hate our policies regarding the middle east and the Muslim world as well. Hezbollah are their allies because they are Shia Muslims and Hezbollah has been fighting Israel and Israel is supported by the US. More or less they see Israel as a proxy of the US in the west or maybe even vice versa, maybe they see America as a proxy for Israel in the west, its one or the other.

They want a one state solution they want Israel dissolved as a nation and they want all that land to be under Muslim rule that’s what they want because Jerusalem is the 3rd holiest site in Islam after Mecca and Madinah another reason why they wont nuke Israel.

So its not really about protecting the Palestinians per se but the land, that comes by default and that’s why they disagree with the Palestinian leaders on a 2 state solution.

And I disagree with just about everything they do and say but we have to understand all sides to properly deal with the situation. The first thing you do when you need to start a war is start the propaganda war. I watched Glenn Beck series on the Mahdi and I’ve also looked into their beliefs about it, again I don’t buy it, nothing about them willing to destroy their whole country to drop a nuke on Israel.

Again the Iranian Supreme Leader says Nukes are forbidden in their religion and they would never destroy Jerusalem the whole Muslim world would revolt against them. You have to take a lot of huge leaps in logic to believe they would some how manage to nuke Israel.

My main point is there is NO REAL EVIDENCE to show that Iran is willing to destroy it’s own 1000 year old civilization to destroy Israel, Jersualem is holy to them and the Muslim world would revolt against them. It’s propaganda, Iraq War 101.

If we engage Iran militarily WE unleash hell for ourselves and the world due to some pretty weak evidence and weaken our nation like no other, if we don’t engage them militarily NOTHING will happen. Ron Paul is the only one who has it right on all the major issues and is principled enough not to pander but speak the truth even if its unpopular.

Jerome on January 2, 2012 at 12:46 am


I sure hope that Ron Paul has something that we can put in our cars that’s available in abundance in the US, and for which we don’t need to go shopping to Jihad Central a.k.a. OPEC. Had that been a viable option, I’d be pretty much for the US having nothing to do w/ anybody in the region.

Not that I really trust that. After all, here is someone who is ostensibly for ending US foreign aid to foreign countries and organizations. In which case, why did he, a few weeks back, vote against a resolution cutting off aid to Hamas? The only foreign aid he has a problem w/ is Israel’s, as well as countries not hostile to the US. He has no problems w/ the US sending money to Hamas.

Also, is Ron Paul in favor of sealing US borders and seriously tackling immigration reform, particularly Muslim immigration? If not, voting for him is no different from voting for the likes of Rick Perry or Obama. Does he have an energy policy that would free the US from dependence on Muslim oil? If not, there is nothing he can be doing differently from Bush & Obama. What is his stand on global warming? Would he kow tow to the environmental wackos on this, or will he resurrect a whole bunch of power initiatives – from nuclear Thorium plants to clean coal to solar to drilling in ANWR?

Honestly, I don’t recall him talking about all these – all I hear is a return to the gold standard, and all the conspiracy stuff that he holds dear.

Infidel on January 2, 2012 at 8:47 am

He wants to not only end foreign aid but more importantly foreign involvement. That same bill calls for the US to be involved in negotiations between Israel and the Palesinians and RP would never vote for something like that because he wants us out of those issues and direct our resources back home and not overseas.
And no one is talking about tackling Muslim immigration that’s just too politically charged for anyone. Name me one candidate who’s talking about that, I haven’t heard any.
RP is very free market, I don’t see him kow towing to the EPA or any environmentalists.

Jerome on January 2, 2012 at 11:28 am


“Bush=Obama=Romney=GINGRICH”. Jerome, you’re forgetting Gingrich has been on the islamo-marxist payroll for the past 20-25 years along with such other GOP leaders as McCain and Dole.

joesixpack31 on January 2, 2012 at 1:00 pm


Regarding our main points, I guess that we will have to agree to disagree. But I do want to make one more point.

You write:

“And I disagree with just about everything they do and say but we have to understand all sides to properly deal with the situation. The first thing you do when you need to start a war is start the propaganda war. I watched Glenn Beck series on the Mahdi and I’ve also looked into their beliefs about it, again I don’t buy it, nothing about them willing to destroy their whole country to drop a nuke on Israel.”

Yes, it’s true that the key to starting a war is to start a propaganda war. You are referring to what the U.S. has been saying towards Iran. But however, take a look at what Iran has been saying towards Israel and the Jewish people. I read even closer the Washington Post article that I linked to and quoted from on December 31, 2011 at 9:50 pm, including looking at the links, and here is one link from a pro-Israel perspective:

I don’t know whether or not your research on what the Iranian Mullahs believe includes seeing that item, but in any event, take a look especially at the photographs on pages 13 and 14 and on page 16 where Mohammad-Ali Ramin states that “The Jews Are Very Filthy People” and there’s more where that came from in that link. This is as bad or worse than was the Nazi propaganda and demonization of the Jews during the 1930’s, and we know know what happened after that. So the Iranians during content to just wiping out Israel, they also want to wipe out the Jewish people generally. So land alone does not explain it, otherwise they would just be content with driving Jews out of Israel and let the Jewish people live in exile. This is ideological, and an irrational one at that. … or a logical evil one.

JeffE on January 2, 2012 at 1:19 pm

The following sentence in my final paragraph should read:

“So the Iranians are not content to just wiping out Israel, they also want to wipe out the Jewish people generally.”

JeffE on January 2, 2012 at 1:22 pm

Debbie apparently opposes Paul based on percieved anti-semitism. Maybe he is …maybe he isn’t. I don’t see it. Ron Paul’s policies which “ring” of wisdom and conservative leadership include: (1)Immediate HALT to all foreign aid including aid to Israel and to her enemies who recieve approximately ten(10) times the amount Israel recieves, (2) Immediate HALT to our interference in the internal affairs of other nations including Israel,(3) Immediate HALT to sticking our nose into mid-east peace negotiations and attempts to “dictate” stupid peace terms and conditions which appear to be “geared” toward prolonging the middle-east conflict and assuring full employment for the damn fools in our state department diplomatic service, (4)Immediate withdrawal of our armed forces from the occupation of some 150-200 military bases around the world and the intimidation of the host countries and the redeployment of these forces to fully secure our own national borders and internal security. My bottom line is, I haven’t detected what I would consider to be anti-semitism in Ron Paul. I would appreciate if someone could show me some examples.

joesixpack31 on January 2, 2012 at 1:42 pm


I’m not saying they’re not anti-semitic, they largely are which is absolutely disgusting, but to think they have the will or ability to drop a nuke on Israel just isn’t accurate when adding up all the info, again you have to make some big leaps in logic.

1st leap, they’re willing to destroy Jerusalem the third holiest site in Islam and send the Muslim world in an uproar against them.
2nd leap, they’re willing to kill at least about 100,000 Muslims who reside in Israel.
3rd leap, they’re willing to have their own 1000 year old civilization nuked or at the very least toppled by a US invasion.
Add to that their Supreme Leader Khamenei says nukes are against their religion and they deny wanting nukes but just nuclear energy.

It just doesn’t add up, when I look at that evidence I see Iraq war propaganda and I’m not going to fall for it again. This is a serious issue, we’re bankrupting our nation with unnecessary war endeavors because certain people get really rich off of war and Ron Paul is the only one who gets it.

Jerome on January 2, 2012 at 1:56 pm

Jerome (and others):

Please check out this item. There’s a power struggle between Ahmadinejad and his regime. He wants to remain in power past his second term–and more.

This item from over two weeks ago, but it is far from being outdated. Maybe Imam Khamenei is opposed to having Iran use its nuclear weapons (debatable), but Ahmadinejad is not. I will post another link from the same website in a second.

JeffE on January 2, 2012 at 4:42 pm

Ahmadinejad from 2006.

Footnote six from my first link.

JeffE on January 2, 2012 at 4:45 pm

Final note, does anyone wonder why Ron Paul gets more money from the ACTIVE MILITARY service men and women than any other candidate combined? Google this info and see for yourself. Are own military service men and women which Ron Paul was once unlike any other of the current candidates if (I’m not mistaken) himself get this and support him, those on the front lines support him but those of us comfortably sitting at home for some reason don’t?

If you want to pinpoint the problem the main problem for us regarding extremist and terrorism in the mideast, its not particularly Iran, its wasn’t Iraq but its Saudi Arabia and their our “allies”. All the hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi, Alqaeda is mainly a Saudi run and funded operation.

I’m pretty noninterventionist but if there was ever a strike to overthrow the current Saudi regime I actually might support that because the Saudi Wahhabis are the true hub of terrorism and with their money and high position in the Muslim world because they host the two holy sites of Islam they are able to spread their ideology of Islam across the world.

Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi and their government and religious leaders passively endorse alqaeda and our politicians know that but hey guess what they’re our “ally” because most of our government is in bed with corporate interest who make money off of Saudi oil.

We could find other ways to get oil without relying on Saudi it might hurt us a bit in the short run but if our politicians were principled enough we would sever that relationship and remove their government but that relationship is just too profitable for corporate interests.

Our current political establishment is a sad game, Eisenhower predicted it and it’s come true, that’s why we need honest principled politicians like Ron Paul.

Jerome on January 2, 2012 at 4:50 pm


If Ron Paul is opposed to foreign aid for everyone, why did he oppose the vote that would end funding for Hamas? Is it more expensive for the US to mediate b/w Israel & the Muslims than it is to cut off all funding to Hamas?

As for your question on which candidate would oppose Muslim immigration, Tom Tancredo did in the last elections. His numbers were where Ron Paul’s were. If Ron Paul is so principled – and he certainly seems so on things like the gold standard and so on – why is Muslim immigration suddenly an exception? I find that hard to believe – more believable is that he does not have trouble w/ uncontrolled immigration.

Infidel on January 3, 2012 at 4:03 am

Any presidential candidate who repeatedly goes on Alex Jones has a huge problem and automatically does not get my vote. Ron Paul is a mix of someone with good ideas and who has no CLUE as to what happened inside the US agencies on 9/11, and how those agencies were in MOST cases completely kow-towing to Saudi/Taliban interests in FULL knowledge of the terror threats. But that’s just one of hundreds of aspects of how 9/11 came to happen with wyes wide open. E.g.,in key instances close family members of Bin Laden were paying US pols way into office. So when the disinfo artists paid to confuse issues esp. b4 each pressy election – tells Ron Paul 9/11 was an inside job, he buys it and repeats it verbatim. Lack of definition of “inside job”. However, all that being said, Romney is a bigger issue, as “he and his” (Mormon mafia, as they are known as inside the FBI) were in on what I call “the inside know” of 9/11. After all, John O’Neil couldn’t get his FBI team into Yemen, but that subversive Tolbert, via his Mormon intel all the way up the Saudi FBI ladder got their disinfo team inside Yemen during the critical months leading up to 9/11. Now that’s what I call inside job material.

XYZ on January 3, 2012 at 11:06 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field