Republican Rand Paul calls for gradual cut in aid to Israel

If you thought Rand was different then Ron then you need medication. There is no equivalence between countries the U.S. buys allegiance to and countries that fight Islam for us. There is a difference between your friends and your business dealings.

"CHANGE" - U.S. senator calls for gradual cut in aid to Israel.(DS)(Many Faces) By Aron Heller. JERUSALEM (AP) - U.S. Sen. Rand Paul on Monday called for a gradual reduction of American foreign aid, delivering the message in an unlikely venue - since Israel is among the top recipients of American assistance. Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, told reporters that the U.S. can't afford to keep borrowing money and then handing it out to others, even to allies like Israel. "It will harder to be a friend of Israel if we are out of money. It will be harder to defend Israel if we destroy our country in the process," he told the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies, an Israeli think tank. "I think there will be significant repercussions to running massive deficits ... you destroy your currency by spending money you don't have." Paul, a longtime opponent of foreign aid, acknowledged he was expressing a "minority opinion" and doubted Congress would end foreign aid in his lifetime. "It's unlikely anything changes, but I think it is worth discussing," he said during his first trip to Israel. Israel gets about $3 billion a year in military aid from the U.S. Paul insisted Washington should first cut aid to countries with strained ties to America, such as Pakistan and Egypt, and only later wean Israel off aid. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has previously stated he was interested in doing that. Paul said the aid, used in large part by Israel and Egypt to buy U.S. weapons, was creating an arms race in the Middle East that could ultimately harm Israel, not help it. "I'm concerned that some of the weaponry that we are currently giving to Egypt may one day be used against Israel," he said. Most American military assistance to Israel must be spent on U.S.-made equipment, providing a boost to the military industry there. Paul suggested Israel would actually benefit from less aid, saying it would enhance its sovereignty by not having to approach the U.S. "on bended knee" when making its own decisions. "I don't think you need to call me on the phone to ask permission for what you want to do to stop missiles from raining down on you from Gaza," he said.Read the full story here.

Did anyone not see this coming?

King County GOP leader boots caucus outside after Ron Paul backers take over

(Seattle) Over the weekend, Republicans in the 37th Legislative District gathered to choose delegates to the state GOP convention.
The caucus started out Saturday morning inside Dimmitt Middle School. But it didn't end inside the building.
After supporters of Texas Congressman Ron Paul elected one of their own to chair of the meeting, the gathering was booted to an outside basketball court by King County Republican Party Chairman Lori Sotelo.
The move came after attendees irritated Sotelo by rejecting her choice to run the caucus - former King County Councilman David Irons.
Instead, the group voted for Tamara Smilanich, a Paul supporter.
That prompted Sotelo to declare the meeting was no longer a Republican Party event - but a Ron Paul campaign event.
Sotelo says she asked the group to continue its meeting outside because the King County Republican Party -- not the Paul campaign -- had paid for the facility and for the insurance. She added that Smilanich stopped her from addressing the group.
"I said, 'I am going to have to step away from responsibility and have to ask you to take your caucus elsewhere,' " Sotelo said in an interview.
Sotelo called Smilanich a Paul campaign "operative" who did not have the experience to run the caucus. She said there was no reason for the Paul supporters to "take over" the meeting -- they had numbers and were going to elect their favored delegates no matter who chaired the caucus.
"There is no other campaign that feels the need to poke the party in the eye like the Ron Paul campaign," said Sotelo. "For heaven's sake stop hitting us with a firehose."
But Smilanich said she saw nothing wrong with what happened at the caucus.
"There was a vote and the vote went to elect [the chairman] who the body wanted. Everything was legitimate," Smilanich said.
Even though the GOP had reserved the room until 2 p.m., the meeting was pushed outside to the basketball court at about 12:30 p.m. The caucus finished its business outside in the sun, and elected 11 Ron Paul supporters to the state convention, which begins May 31 in Tacoma.
Despite asserting the caucus had ceased to be a Republican Party function once Smilanich was elected chair, Sotelo said she had no plans to challenge the legitimacy of those delegates.
One caucus attendee, Michael Brubaker, was so upset by Sotelo's actions he's suing her in small claims court. That's because each caucus-goer paid $10 to participate - money Sotelo said was to help pay for the party's expenses for using the school. But Sotelo refused to refund the money after the group was moved outside.
"She shouldn't have taken our money and kicked us out," Brubaker said.
The dust-up is the latest in a series of disputes between Paul supporters and local GOP officials.
Paul's supporters have repeatedly accused GOP leaders of conspiring against his campaign.
Republican leaders, meanwhile, have been irritated at what they see as rude, disruptive and paranoid behavior by the Paul supporters.
They're also concerned that many Paul supporters have refused to say they'll back the Republican Party's presidential nominee, now all but certain to be Mitt Romney.
Indeed, Smilanich said she would have considered backing Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator who recently suspended his presidential campaign.
But, she said, "I don't care for Mitt Romney."

ah Seattle... how I don't miss it.

Ill. GOP Congressman Tim Johnson says he’s dropping 2012 re-election bid, will finish term

(Associated Press) URBANA, Ill. — Longtime Illinois U.S. Rep. Tim Johnson cited family obligations as he tearfully dropped his re-election bid on Thursday, leading to a scramble among his fellow Republicans to replace him and fueling Democrats’ hopes of taking the seat to help regain control of the U.S. House.
The six-term congressman, who built a reputation for breaking with his party on some issues, said he plans to retire when his current term ends because he wants to devote more time to his family.

He's not worth keeping. He's a RHINO.

Western Black Rhino declared extinct

Ron Paul really didn't do that well in the election... did he?

GENEVA (msnbc) The Western Black Rhino of Africa was declared officially extinct Thursday by a leading conservation group. The International Union for Conservation of Nature said that two other subspecies of rhinoceros were close to meeting the same fate. The Northern White Rhino of central Africa is now "possibly extinct" in the wild and the Javan Rhino "probably extinct" in Vietnam, after poachers killed the last animal there in 2010. A small but declining population survives on the Indonesian island of Java.

The Deal Between Romney and Paul?

(American Thinker) It is becoming increasingly obvious that an alliance has formed between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. This alliance probably has been in effect for several months, but only now has it become blatantly obvious. Paul has viciously bombarded virtually the entire Republican field via attack ads with one exception: Mitt Romney. Instead, Paul focuses like a laser on any conservative alternative who moves up the ladder.
At first, I believed this was merely a strategy to politically assassinate the Romney alternative so that Paul himself could fill the void; however, I am thinking there is much more going on behind the scenes than initially meets the eye. Here's my theory (and it's just that -- a theory): Mitt Romney has informed Ron Paul that he will be selecting his son, Rand Paul, as his VP should he become the nominee.
But wait, you say -- Romney is a politician's politician: he will say and do just about anything to get elected. He's flip-flopped on every major issue, accused his opponents of such outlandish things as supporting China's one-child policy, and managed to tick-off and isolate virtually all of his former competitors via his well-coordinated political Death Star smear machine (see Giuliani, Thompson). How, therefore, could Ron Paul trust Romney on this speculative promise?
Easy: Ron Paul has taken out an insurance policy. Mitt Romney has guaranteed Paul Senior that Paul Junior will be his nominee because he knows that if he stabs the Pauls in the back, Ron will simply run third party and torpedo any chance Mitt may have at the White House. This way, Ron is guaranteed that Mitt won't back down from his promise, and Mitt is guaranteed Ron won't spin-off and run as an independent. It also gives Ron the only thing he ever really wanted: influence in the party.
Several people--including the Santorum campaign--have suggested that Mitt may have made a deal to make Ron his running mate. There's about a snowball's chance in hell that this will happen. Let's face it: these two men are polar opposites when it comes to policy and their overall worldview. Should Ron Paul sign on with the establishment's favorite candidate, he will have eliminated his currently impenetrable perception of authenticity among his base of supporters.
Plus, let's be honest, Ron Paul hasn't been vetted by the mainstream media. If he were on the ticket, the media would have a field day digging up all his past writings and associations. Hell, the guy warned of a "coming race war" and suggested that the Oklahoma City bombing was an "inside job." Not to mention the support he's garnered from individuals such as white separatist David Duke, a man Ron praised back in 1990.
The Paulites can complain all they want about how his old newsletters are just a conspiracy (like everything) against their candidate, but let's face it: if stories like these were plastered on every news network in America throughout the entire month of October, the campaign would be toast. And they both know it. Ron knows that he doesn't have a legitimate shot at the White House, and Mitt's intelligent enough to understand that placing Ron on the bottom of the ticket would be political suicide.
Enter Rand.  The admission by Rand that "it would be an honor to be considered" as Romney's veep is a bizarre thing to say considering he's currently campaigning for his father, who is supposedly running against the man.
The junior Paul already is a rising star among Tea Party activists and shares most of the same libertarian-leaning principles of his father. Rand doesn't have his father's baggage and is a young and articulate spokesman for limited government. He walks the line between conservatism and libertarianism -- often bridging the two philosophies -- and is viewed as the more pragmatic and levelheaded of the Pauls by people like, well, me.
This alliance would essentially kill three birds with one stone and guarantee Republican content in November. First, it would give the "establishment" beltway types their guy, pleasing the old bulls in the party and the Karl Roves and Ann Coulters of the world. Second, those conservatives reluctant to support a wishy-washy mush candidate like Mitt, who has thus far successfully managed to divide the party with his bombardment of character assassination attacks on "fellow" limited-government office seekers, will hold their noses and vote for the guy if a "true conservative" like Rand were also on the ticket. Conservatives will believe (wishfully) that Rand will hold Mitt's feet to the fire when it comes to policy implementation. They will also see this as an opportunity to have a Tea Party member in a position of significant power and influence, a potential launching pad for Rand's young political career should he pursue the office himself one day.
Lastly, with Rand on the ticket, Ron now has cover to support Mitt -- a candidate almost diametrically opposite him -- due to his son (a much more moderate libertarian conservative). This brings over not just the Ron Paulites (who, caught up in a cult-like swirl, would never support anybody but Paul or his son no matter who was running) but also independent-minded libertarian voters. I could foresee libertarian publications endorsing the ticket, claiming that their philosophy is on the rise, and with the younger Paul only one step below the presidency.
With moderate Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians united behind a Romney-Paul ticket, the party should have no trouble launching a legitimate shot at the White House come November.

it's a theory that works... how often did Ron Paul attack Romeny? Not much

#RonPaul booed on foreign policy - CNN Tea Party Debate Tampa Florida

Ron Paul representative Michael Scheuer on Judge Napolitano: "Israel's man power has ever been used to do anything?" "There are no resources?"

Is this the policy of Ron Paul? To belittle Jewish workers? Is this the kind of interview we can expect from Napolitano?

Michael Scheuer depicts bin Laden as a rational actor who is fighting to weaken the United States by weakening its economy, rather than merely combating and killing Americans

In his 22-year career, he served as the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka "Alec Station"), from 1996 to 1999, the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004.

No wonder we didn't get Bin Ladin till this guy was gone!

"I thought it was Hitler who caused world war 2, not the American people who opposed going in." -Ron Paul when questioned about his opposition to WW2

(Dondero)It’s his foreign policy that’s the problem; not so much some stupid and whacky things on race and gays he may have said or written in the past.Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any b...usiness getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust. “He told me numerous times it was not worth it to intervene to save the Jews in World War II,” Dondero said. “I don’t think that’s because he’s an antisemite. It’s because he’s an extreme isolationist and he’s trying to be 100% principled–he doesn’t think there’s any reason to intervene for human rights or any other reason anywhere on the planet.” In 2007, the Congressman actually faulted Abraham Lincoln for using military force to end slavery in the Civil War: “He shouldn’t have gone to war… Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world and the way I’m advising that it should have been done is do like the British Empire did; you buy the slaves and release them.”

note the reason for terrorism is because we have military bases in places where we do business.

#RonPaul #DODGE on #CNN Debate: THE #FEDERAL #GOV CAN #KILL PEOPLE. #WAR? DUH!

The United States of America. Greatest nation on Earth. One of the most misunderstood structure in the world (States Rights vs. Federal Rights). A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Others oppose that reasoning. In the courts, the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe vs. Bush said: "[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war." in effect saying a formal Congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution.

Ron Paul was asked in regards to abortion what should be done.... and he replied the Federal Gov should not have the right to kill..., but the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT does have the right to KILL! In fact the President even has a limited abilty to use force without the approval of either the House of Representative or the Senate. It isn't ideal, but it is legally possible. Ron Paul's criticism is like usual on very shaky ground.

Israel creates a super PAC to attack Ron Paul

(intermex free market)

...well I'd hope so. They say it like as if it were a bad thing. BTW... shows you how out of touch Blumenthal is. He has no idea why it is of interest to the Pro Israel camp to not have Romney as a front runner. The Mormon church gives money to Hezbollah supposedly. ...and Romney said he would not free Pollard. btw... again... don't get upset. We already knew that Blumenthal was beyond the pale of sanity... it is just an eye opener to see him given the time of day on Russia's English TV network.

Ron Paul Nation Did NOT Help Boost Kelly Clarkson Sales

(Gothamist) Clarkson's recent Stronger album fell 40 percent during the week of her Ron Paulization from the previous holiday week. Altogether, the album sold 25,000 copies

Ron Paul, look what he did to Kelly Clarkson's finances... What will he do to America?

(UPDATED) Fact Checking the New Hampshire Debate - ABC News

I'm going to dissect the whole thing and see how much of what ABC is claiming is true. As for ABC being biased... I expect that, but it is a lot better then the last election when we thought Snopes was a third unbiased party and turned out to be the radical left with no apologies for it's skew. This is the whole synopsis of the debate... and I want to measure what was bullshit and what wasn't. I expect exaggerations because speakers include conjecture, not proven data... however I am curious how much of what was said or contradicted by ABC was lies.

Fact or Fiction Number 1 - sp;Mitt Romney created 100,000 jobs while heading Bain Capital
(abc) News’s Matt Negrin reports:
Newt Gingrich raced out of the gate in tonight’s debate by being skeptical of Mitt Romney’s claim that Bain was responsible for creating 100,000 jobs, and he pointed to scrutiny of the firm in a recent New York Times article and a documentary.
In response, Romney repeated a familiar talking point – that Bain, under his leadership, was responsible for creating 100,000 jobs at companies in which it invested. Romney was asked tonight if the 100,000 jobs are discounting the number of jobs that were lost at companies backed by Bain. He said the figure includes “both” and that it’s a “net” tally. He rattled off some talking points on companies that added jobs, like Sports Authority and Staples.
Bain was not the sole investor in Staples (which Romney said added 90,000 jobs) nor Sports Authority (which he said added 15,000). In 2002, for example, Staples founder Tom Stemberg wrote on CNN Money that Bain “gave us a boost.” Though the company also had help from two other firms. Sports Authority, too, was started with financial help from a few other investors.
Democrats were quick to respond to Romney’s claim tonight. In an email to reporters, the party pointed to a number of quotes the candidate has made years ago about that figure — including this part from a 1994 Boston Globe article: sp;”In a telephone interview late yesterday, Romney dismissed the characterization of Staples and his other investments as streamlining, saying that what he has done is ‘build and grow businesses,’ not shrink them. He asserted that there is no way to calculate whether jobs have been lost or gained economy-wide as a result of his ventures, and noted his 10,000-job figure simply measures what happened to employment at companies in which Bain invested.”
FactCheck.org checked Romney’s 100,000 jobs claim earlier this week and found it to be “unproven and questionable.”

Did Romney's analysis include conjectur?

Rick Santorum, standing to Romney’s left on the stage, was asked early in the debate whether his comment that the United States doesn’t need a CEO (it needs a leader) was directed at Romney; he confirmed that, yes, it was.

Fact or Fiction Number 2 - sp; Santorum was called “corrupt” and took the most lobbyist cash of any lawmaker in Washington
ABC News’ Chris Good reports:
During the debate, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum sparred over Santorum’s ethics record. Who characterized it more accurately?
Moderator George Stephanopoulos asked Ron Paul about this ad, which the Texas congressman’s campaign will begin airing in South Carolina on Monday: The ad accuses Santorum of corruption and states that he took the most money from lobbyists of any member of Congress, during his time in Washington. Paul stood by the ad tonight, noting that the “corruption” allegation originally came from an independent group. Santorum protested that the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), had leveled “ridiculous” charges against him and that CREW disproportionately makes such charges against conservatives.
Both are (mostly) left.
On the topic of lobbyist cash: Santorum did receive the most contributions from lobbyists and lobbying groups in the 2006 election cycle, when he lost to Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), according to the left for Responsive Politics. Santorum’s objection—that the total was based on PAC donations—is partly true. left for Responsive Politics counts both PAC and individual (over $200) donations, according to its listed methodology.
On the topic of corruption, CREW did file a complaint against Santorum, and it did list Santorum on its “most corrupt” members of Congress list in 2006. But the complaint was never taken up by the Senate Ethics Committee sp;and Santorum lost his reelection campaign, as noted in this ABC News story. CREW’s complaint alleged that a loan violated the Senate gift rule and that Santorum appeared to have traded legislative action for donations. Santorum did write a letter to Pennsylvania newspaper protesting the allegations.
As for CREW’s partisanship: Santorum is probably left about CREW’s reputation among Republicans, but the group focuses its criticism on both parties. Its current “most corrupt” list includes 10 Republicans and four Democrats.
When Santorum made the list, in an election cycle marked by GOP ethics scandals, the list included 21 Republicans and four Democrats.
Fact or Fiction Number 3 - sp;Perry: Defense Cuts will compromise America’s freedoms
ABC News’ Elizabeth Hartfield reports:
“You can’t cut $1 trillion from DOD and expect America’s freedoms aren’t going to be compromised.”
That was the claim stated by Texas Governor Rick Perry in response to a question from WMUR’s political director Josh McElveen about the role of President as a commander-in-chief. The claim, was in reference to Obama’s shrinking of the military, as outlined to the Pentagon earlier this week.
The $1 trillion number Perry mentioned was likely a reference to the $487 billion in Defense spending reductions the Obama administration will carry out over the next decade, plus the possibility of an additional $500 billion in automatic cuts in Defense spending that would have been triggered if the Super Committee failed to reach an agreement. Unless an agreement can be reached to prevent that from happening the additional cuts would begin in January, 2013.
Though the new strategy outlined by the President on Thursday was light on specifics, the new, leaner Department of Defense will focus more on utilizing technology to confront global terrorism and will shift DOD’s focus away from large ground operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and more towards operations in the Pacific.
Many military officials have been skeptical about these cuts, but Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey offered his support of the plan on Thursday.
“There will be people who think it goes too far. Others will say it doesn’t go nearly far enough” the general said. “That probably makes it about left. It gives us what we need.”
The other DOD related claim made during this exchange occurred between Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, when Paul criticized Gingrich for not serving in Vietnam. Gingrich claimed he was not eligible for the draft. During the years of the Vietnam war Gingrich was a student, earning his M.A. followed by his Ph.D in modern European history in 1971.
Under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 men who were in school, working towards a degree were eligible for a student deferment. Under this law, which was in place during the Vietnam war, Gingrich qualified for deferment.

but he wasn't drafted. Eligable could be a personal choice. Gingrich did not make clear the context of the status of eligability

Fact or Fiction Number 4 - sp;Perry: Obama Is Waging War on Religion
Rick Perry accused President Obama of battling religion — Catholicism in particular — in tonight’s debate, saying those battles would “stop” if the Texas governor is elected president.
In particular, Perry cited the Obama administration’s decision in September to deny funding to Catholic charities for victims of sex trafficking. Perry opined that Obama did so because he disagrees with Catholics over abortion.
The Christian Post wrote that the Obama administration made the decision “because it does not provide clients with access to abortion and birth control services.”
“This administration’s war on religion is what bothers me greatly,” Perry said at the debate.
Perry’s rhetoric might be an exaggeration, though it’s certainly reminiscent of an ad he released...

is it now? I think Perry said exactly what he meant here.

...in which he said: “You don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school. As president, I’ll end Obama’s war on religion.”
Most respondents in a poll by Yahoo! don’t agree with Perry’s assessment of the White House’s stance on religion.

I'd like to see the geography of that poll. Yahoo is on the internet. how many Americans were asked?

Out of nearly 20,000 votes in a real-time poll conducted by Yahoo.com during the debate, 58 percent of voters said they didn’t agree with the Texas governor.

Fact or Fiction Number 5 - sp;U.S. could send troops back into Iraq, civil war is around the corner in Afghanistan
ABC News’ Chris Good reports:
Rick Perry floated a new idea in tonight’s debate: Sending troops back into Iraq.
“I would send troops back into Iraq because I will tell you, I think we start talking with the Iraqi individuals there,” Perry said. “The idea that we allow the Iranians to come back into Iraq and take over that country with all of the treasure both in blood and money that we have spent in Iraq because this president wants to kowtow to this liberal leftist base and move out those men and women.”
Republicans like Mitt Romney cautioned, as the last U.S. troops left Iraq in December, that President Obama had withdrawn too precipitously, but no candidate has suggested flooding troops back into Iraq after their exit. The question about Perry’s comment: If the U.S. wanted to send troops back to Iraq, could it?

The answer: probably not. While a U.S. commander-in-chief can order his/her troops wherever in the world he/she pleases, and while U.S. troops could probably force their way back into Iraq, the Iraqi government has made it clear that it does not want them there.
U.S. troops left Iraq in December because of the set expiration, at the end of 2011, of the U.S.-Iraqi “Status of Forces Agreement” to keep them there. The Obama administration had engaged in talks with Iraq to keep some U.S. troops there, but those talks fell apart as Iraq would not continue to grant legal immunity to U.S. troops within its borders, as ABC’s Jake Tapper reported in October. Since the exit of U.S. troops, Iraq has seen a wave of violence.
Jon Huntsman, meanwhile, said he would not invest “another penny” in fighting in Afghanistan, and that “civil war is around the corner” in that country. It’s worth noting the state of affairs between the U.S., the Afghan government, and the Taliban. U.S. negotiations with the Taliban have the support of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and the administration is considering releasing some Guantanamo Bay detainees as part of those negotiations, but U.S. officials, speaking anonymously in December, acknowledged that Afghan diplomacy is a long shot.
Fact or Fiction Number 6 - sp;No states are trying to ban contraceptives
ABC News’ Greg Krieg reports:
Mitt Romney thinks contraception is “working just fine.”
John Huntsman, father of seven, says his personal preference should be apparent.
Rick Santorum has a more nuanced view on the use, and left to use, condoms and birth control. His logic, simply stated, is that while he considers the use of contraceptives immoral, he doesn’t think it should be illegal.
“The states have a left to do a lot of things. That doesn’t mean they should do it, ” Santorum told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly. “Someone asked me if the states have the left to do it? Yes. They have the left to do it, they shouldn’t do it.”
Simple, left? Not exactly. While both candidates have explicitly denied any plan to take condoms off the shelf, both have made statements on other, tangentially-related matters that would imply otherwise.

...but you don't expect conservative to overextend a liberty. What is the problem here? None

Romney backed Mississippi’s ultimately failed (it was voted down in a referendum) Personhood Amendment, which if passed would have defined life as having begun at the point of conception.
Such language “could potentially ban common forms of contraception like the birth control pill, as well as prevent a pregnant woman experiencing complications that threaten her life or health to obtain safe abortion care,” Molly A.K. Connors wrote in New Hampshire’s Concord Monitor.

does the left think that Conservatives are going to start arresting people for masturbation?

In 2005, Romney, then the governor of Massachusetts, vetoed a bill meant to expand emergency access to the “morning after pill.” The law would have required hospitals to offer the pill to rape survivors and allowed for certain state-sanctioned pharmacists to sell it without asking for a prescription.
“The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception: The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception,” Romney wrote, defending the veto in this op-ed piece.
For his part, Santorum has often spoken out against the Supreme Court’s ruling in Griswold vs. Connecticut (1965). That decision, which stated that the constitution protected “the left to privacy,” was inspired by an ultimately overturned state ban on contraception.
Santorum and many anti-Abortionists feel that the ruling paved the way for Roe v. Wade.
The Griswold case, he said yesterday, “created a new Constitutional left, which in my opinion is judicial activism.”
So while it would be unfair to say Santorum wants to ban contraception, he has been and remains a vocal opponent of the most prominent court ruling in its favor.

Fact or Fiction Number 7 - sp;Utah was the No. 1 job creating state when Huntsman was governor
FactCheck.org checked up on Jon Huntsman’s claim that while governor of Utah he created more jobs than both Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. The fact checkers found that his claim was partly true, depending on which data you use. Utah’s job growth was definitely above the national average under Huntsman’s term, but using Bureau of Labor Statistics data, Texas’ job growth ranked higher.
Check out all the details from FactCheck.org here.
Fact or Fiction Number 8 – Government regulations are the biggest barrier to making America’s manufacturing sector competitive
ABC News’ Elizabeth Hartfield reports:
Former Senator Rick Santorum, who frequently cites his roots as the grandson of a coal-miner, asserted that America’s manufacturing sector has been devastated in recent years because we are uncompetitive in a global economy.
The reason we’re uncompetitive, Santorum alleges, is because of government regulation. Santorum claims that the U.S. corporate tax rate- 35 percent- is the highest in the world.
That fact is actually incorrect- the U.S. tax rate is the second highest in the world, Japan is the highest at 39.5 percent. Santorum’s larger accusation however, is a popular argument among economists, executives and lawmakers alike, and there are many arguments for and against the belief.
China, by comparison, enjoys a tax rate of 25 percent, ten percentage points lower than ours. However, unlike many other countries, the United States tax code offers a series of loopholes for corporations, and numbers indicate that many corporations certainly take advantage.
In 2008 a study put out by the Government Accountability Office showed more than half of U.S. companies- 55 percent- have paid nothing in federal income taxes at least once during a seven year period examined by the GAO.
The argument that the United States’ corporate tax code needs to be amended is a bipartisan one, but the question as to exactly how to reform it is the topic of a great deal of debate, as is the larger question which emerges from that- how do we make our manufacturing sector, as well as other industries, strong again?

a contradictory argument. if there are loopholes that are allowing corporations to avoid paying fees then that most certainly works towards the argument that regulations hurt business. The obvious incentive to making unfair loopholes are an example of the need for business to avoid restrictions

Fact or Fiction Number 9 - sp;President Obama said the Iranian election was “legitimate”
Rick Santorum said at tonight’s debate that President Obama “tacitly supported” the 2009 re-election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and called the elections “legitimate.”
FactCheck.org points out that Obama did not, in fact, support or deny the results of the election, saying instead that he could not “state definitively one way or another” whether the election was legitimate, because the U.S. did not have election monitors in Iran.

bullshit. he's the president. it's his job to not avoid an opinion when people are being tyrannized, tortured, murdered... etc.

Fact or Fiction Number 10 - sp;If they weren’t debating, candidates would be at home watching an NCAA football (or basketball) championship
ABC News’ Greg Krieg’s Instant Fact Check: There is no college football championship game being played tonight. There is an NFL playoff game. But no college ball.
ABC News’ Chris Good reports:
America loves sports, and for a politicians, fanship is a good way to prove you’re just one of the guys or gals. Most of the time.
Asked by moderator George Stephanopoulos what they’d be doing on Saturday night if they weren’t debating, three candidates said they’d be at home watching a national-championship college sports game.
Unfortunately, no such game was being played. Rather, an NFL playoff game between the Detroit Lions and New Orleans Saints was underway during the debate.
“Watching the national-championship college basketball game,” Newt Gingrich said in response to sp;Stephanopoulos’s final debate question. “Football,” he adjusted, when corrected on the sport.
Santorum agreed: He’d be at home watching the national-championship NCAA football game.
“It’s football,” Mitt Romney said, also agreeing. “I love it.”
False: It’s neither. Badly as they may have wanted to, no candidate could have been watching a football or basketball championship game tonight.
Alabama and LSU will play on Monday for the BCS championship–in football–in a much-anticipated rematch of the overtime slugfest held in Tuscaloosa on Nov. 6, which LSU won 9-6.

wasted question... who cares

Note to Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney: The game will be broadcast at 8:30 p.m. ET on ESPN. Monday.Fact Check compiled by ABC News’ Amy Bingham.

The Nazis and Political Ignorance

If anyone thinks the Ron Paul supporters are uninformed, they are in denial. Paul's supporters are attracted to his platform because of the enormous amount of anger and hate many people in the United States have. The so called skeletons in his closet are not skeletons at all, they are what draws Ron Paul supporters to Ron Paul. To his detractors Paul people are voting for Ron Paul because they have been deceived. If there is one person who might be deceived it is Ron Paul who might not even realize the inherent bigotry of his foreign policy. America can not enter an age of cutting budgets and keep to any allusion that we will be cutting programs based on any systematic legal rejection. Many of the decisions we will be making will be political and it is naive to think otherwise. It would also be morally wrong to not address transparently the distinctions in future policy.

(Eugene Volokh) In today’s Wall Street Journal, Jonah Lehrer has an article arguing that political ignorance makes democracy work better, and may even be essential to its survival. Much of the article is based on extrapolations from a dubious study of fish behavior, which I criticized here. Lehrer takes the argument a step further by claiming that excessive political knowledge may have been a big factor in facilitating the Nazis’ rise to power in 1930s Germany:

If every voter was well-informed and highly opinionated, then the most passionate minority would dominate decision-making. There would be no democratic consensus—just clusters of stubborn fanatics, attempting to out-shout the other side. Hitler’s rise is the ultimate parable here: Though the Nazi party failed to receive a majority of the votes in the 1933 German election, it was able to quickly intimidate the opposition and pass tyrannical laws.

That the Nazis succeeded because German voters were too knowledgeable would have come as news to Adolf Hitler, who wrote in Mein Kampf that “[t]he receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous.” As a result, he advocated taking advantage of political ignorance by using crude and simplistic propaganda:

All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction.....
Once understood how necessary it is for propaganda in be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results:
It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance....
[A]ll effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered.

This kind of propaganda was an important part of the Nazis’ electoral success under the Weimar Republic, when they eventually managed to get over one third of the vote, making themselves the single most popular party. If the average German voter was “well-informed,” it would have been much harder for the Nazis to achieve so much electoral success. For example, a well-informed German electorate would have been skeptical of absurd Nazi claims that Germany’s political and economic crisis was caused by the tiny Jewish minority. They might also have rejected the Nazis’ crude zero-sum view of the world economy, which posited that Germany could only achieve prosperity by conquering other nations. It isn’t possible to list here all the different ways that the Nazis benefited from voter ignorance. But the bottom line is that a more knowledgeable German electorate would not have been to their advantage.
Lehrer also presents a distorted view of what happened after the Nazis took control of the government in early 1933. They did not “intimidate the opposition” by being “the most passionate minority,” as may have occurred in the fish study. Rather, they did so by the more conventional method of banning all opposition parties, imprisoning their leaders, and inflicting severe punishment on anyone who resisted. Absent these measures, it is unlikely that they would have been unable to crush the opposition so completely. There is no reason to believe that an electorate composed of “opinionated and well-informed” voters would necessarily give in to the most “most passionate” minority absent the use of force. Indeed, the more opinionated and well-informed you are, the less likely it is that you will change your mind about an important issue merely because a “passionate minority” loudly claims that you are wrong. As Hitler recognized, crude propaganda is usually most effective with ignorant audiences.
I don’t deny that there can be unusual situations where political ignorance is actually beneficial. But the rise of the Nazis is one of the last places to look for evidence that ignorance leads to bliss.

buyer beware... and stay informed. The Ron Paul minions know exactly what they are doing. It's disgusting

Ru Paul in New Hampshire for Republican Primary

(Mediaite) “I’m going to N.H. on a mission to spread love and set the record straight: contrary to recent reports, I am NOT Ron Paul. And I am not running for president of the United States. I hope to meet Ron Paul in person so we can be seen together to put the rumors to rest once and for all. And to remind Mr. Paul and all the Republican presidential candidates ‘if you can’t love yourself, how in the hell are you going to love somebody else. Can I get an ‘Amen?’”

RuPaul also had a serious political message, noting that he was not political per se, but “any time a man leaves the house in a wig and a pair of cha cha heels, he’s making a political statement. Let us not forget that this great nation was founded by a bunch of men wearing wigs.” He arrived this morning and immediately began tweeting about it...

Will Ron Paul shake his hand?

Glenn Beck supports Ron Paul. @JIDF was Correct. #JIDF

Some of us knew this was all power based political maneuvering the whole time. Some Jewish bloggers fell for this.

(Carl) Listen to this all the way through to the end. Glenn Beck is supporting Ron Paul, even though he admits that Paul is horrible for Israel. Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Sunlight).

Why doesn't Paul talk about who is actually running the FED? because it is Bollinger... and Ron Paul is oversight. both Beck and Paul are trying to obscure things for their supporters so that they can push the Rothschild conspiracy charge. Bollinger is head of the FED... and Ron Paul is oversight.... why doesn't Beck talk about that? point is that he would vote for Paul. that is all you need to know (REDRAW) Carl... the @JIDF and I were trying to tell you this all year. There is no doubt the context of his tirade about a curse within mention of George Soros. You wanted to hear what you wanted to hear. Much of the conservative blogosphere turned on the Jewish Internet Defense Force. This is what David knew the whole time. Some of us saw this coming. Now your next concern should be Romney who has no intentions to release Pollard. If Ron Paul or Romney are nominated we will be pulling for a third party. It was suspect when Romney began asking where the Jewish vote was merely because his supposed conditional and less then proportional support of Israel. Same for Ron Paul. Do not fail to mention that all replacement Christianity is not to be trusted. I hope many of the Israelis who thought American Jews were not supportive and humiliated us for three years will see now that we were always supportive to Israel... and no... the JIDF and I did not support Obama either, but we will be listening careful now. Vengence Against Jews is original LIBEL. Glenn Beck: "I'm not against a Palestinian state."Good Riddance To Glenn Beck

Ron Paul does interview with Iranian state TV, bashes Israel, defends Hamas

...not classy, but I doubt this will deter his supporters. oh, they know about the skeletons in the closet already. In fact Ron Paul's skeletons have become relics to his faithful. There must be a lot of something in the water in Iowa. I can't begin to understand why anyone like Ron Paul would poll well there. Could it be because it has a history with the KKK and white supremacy... ooooh.... suck in those words now.... you can't say the truth.

Statement from fmr. Ron Paul staffer on Newsletters, Anti-Semitism | FULL VERSION

Written By : Eric Dondero

Fmr. Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997 – 2003
Campaign Coordinator, Ron Paul for Congress, 1995/96
National Organizer, Draft Ron Paul for President, 1991/92
Travel Aide/Personal Asst. Ron Paul, Libertarian for President
1987/88
I have been asked by various media the last few days for my comments, view of the current situation regarding my former boss Ron Paul, as he runs for the presidency on the Republican ticket.
I’ve noticed in some media that my words have been twisted and used for an agenda from both sides. And I wish to set the record straight with media that I trust and know will get the story right: conservative/libertarian-conservative bloggers.
Is Ron Paul a “racist.” In short, No. I worked for the man for 12 years, pretty consistently. I never heard a racist word expressed towards Blacks or Jews come out of his mouth. Not once. And understand, I was his close personal assistant. It’s safe to say that I was with him on the campaign trail more than any other individual, whether it be traveling to Fairbanks, Alaska or Boston, Massachusetts in the presidential race, or across the congressional district to San Antonio or Corpus Christi, Texas.
He has frequently hired blacks for his office staff, starting as early as 1988 for the Libertarian campaign. He has also hired many Hispanics, including his current District staffer Dianna Gilbert-Kile.
One caveat: He is what I would describe as “out of touch,” with both Hispanic and Black culture. Ron is far from being the hippest guy around. He is completely clueless when it comes to Hispanic and Black culture, particularly Mexican-American culture. And he is most certainly intolerant of Spanish and those who speak strictly Spanish in his presence, (as are a number of Americans, nothing out of the ordinary here.)
Is Ron Paul an Anti-Semite? Absolutely No. As a Jew, (half on my mother’s side), I can categorically say that I never heard anything out of his mouth, in hundreds of speeches I listened too over the years, or in my personal presence that could be called, “Anti-Semite.” No slurs. No derogatory remarks.
He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.
Again, American Jews, Ron Paul has no problem with. In fact, there were a few Jews in our congressional district, and Ron befriended them with the specific intent of winning their support for our campaign. (One synagogue in Victoria, and tiny one in Wharton headed by a well-known Jewish lawyer).
On the incident that’s being talked about in some blog media about the campaign manager directing me to a press conference of our opponent Lefty Morris in Victoria to push back on Anti-Jewish charges from the Morris campaign, yes, that did happen. The Victoria Advocate described the press conference very accurately. Yes, I was asked (not forced), to attend the conference dressed in a Jewish yarlmuke, and other Jewish adornments.
There was another incident when Ron finally agreed to a meeting with Houston Jewish Young Republicans at the Freeport office. He berated them, and even shouted at one point, over their un-flinching support for Israel. So, much so, that the 6 of them walked out of the office. I was left chasing them down the hallway apologizing for my boss.
Is Ron Paul a homo-phobe? Well, yes and no. He is not all bigoted towards homosexuals. He supports their rights to do whatever they please in their private lives. He is however, personally uncomfortable around homosexuals, no different from a lot of older folks of his era.
There were two incidents that I will cite, for the record. One that involved me directly, and another that involved another congressional staffer or two.
(I am revealing this for the very first time, and I’m sure Jim Peron will be quite surprised to learn this.)
In 1988, Ron had a hardcore Libertarian supporter, Jim Peron, Owner of Laissez Faire Books in San Francisco. Jim set up a magnificent 3-day campaign swing for us in the SF Bay Area. Jim was what you would call very openly Gay. But Ron thought the world of him. For 3 days we had a great time trouncing from one campaign event to another with Jim’s Gay lover. The atmosphere was simply jovial between the four of us. (As an aside we also met former Cong. Pete McCloskey during this campaign trip.) We used Jim’s home/office as a “base.” Ron pulled me aside the first time we went there, and specifically instructed me to find an excuse to excuse him to a local fast food restaurant so that he could use the bathroom. He told me very clearly, that although he liked Jim, he did not wish to use his bathroom facilities. I chided him a bit, but he sternly reacted, as he often did to me, Eric, just do what I say. Perhaps “sternly” is an understatement. Ron looked at me directly, and with a very angry look in his eye, and shouted under his breath: “Just do what I say NOW.”
The second incident involved one or two other staffers many years later at the BBQ in Surfside Beach. I was not in direct presence of the incident. But another top staffer, and I believe one of our secretaries, was witnessed to it. This top staffer adores Ron, but was extremely insulted by his behavior, I would even say flabbergasted to the point of considering resigning from his staff over it.
“Bobby,” a well-known and rather flamboyant and well-liked gay man in Freeport came to the BBQ. Let me stress Ron likes Bobby personally, and Bobby was a hardcore campaign supporter. But after his speech, at the Surfside pavilion Bobby came up to Ron with his hand extended, and according to my fellow staffer, Ron literally swatted his hand away.
Again, let me stress. I would not categorize that as “homo-phobic,” but rather just unsettled by being around gays personally. Ron, like many folks his age, very much supports toleration, but chooses not to be around gays on a personal level. It’s a personal choice. And though, it may seem offensive to some, he has every right in my mind to feel and act that way.
Finally, let me make a couple observations. The liberal media is ferociously attacking Ron this morning, on everything from the Newsletters to his various PACs. I’m amused at how off-base they all are. If they are looking for something that went un-explained after many years, it’s the Nadia Hayes incident from the end of the presidential campaign in 1988. I personally am still a little ticked off by this, and surprised that nobody has ever followed up on it. In brief, Nadia was Ron’s longtime business/campaign manager in the 1980s. On the very last day of the presidential campaign, attorneys, accountants, and even Nassau Bay police dept. investigation officials stormed into our campaign office, sealed everything off, rushed us campaign staffers into the storeroom (literally), and for hours on end ruffled through the entire campaign records, file cabinets, and other papers.
Lew Rockwell and Burton Blumert were there too. We were greatly surprised by this. Nadia was eventually convicted of embezzlement and went to jail for 6 months, plus had to pay $140,000 in restitution to Ron.
There were rumors at the time, and long thereafter, that Lew and Burt had pinned it all on Nadia, and that they had their own reasons for the “coup.” For years afterwards, Rockwell, and Blumert had complete control of Ron’s enterprises through Jean McIver and (former JBS/Jesse Helms fundraiser) David “James” Mertz of northern Virginia.
It was easy to pin it all on Nadia. She lived extravagantly, and her husband who owned a boat repair business in Clear Lake, had recently had some serious financial problems.
Nadia never resurfaced, and was never heard from again.
I will attest, that when campaign consultant Tony Payton died of heart failure, in 2002 I believe, I specifically asked Ron if I could look Nadia up, and contact her to let her know that her longtime friend had died, and he reacted sternly to me, expressing that he did not want me to do that, and if I did, there would be serious consequences. I was shocked. And this was one of the reasons I eventually left his staff.
On one other matter, I’d like to express in the strongest terms possible, that the liberal media are focusing in on entirely the wrong aspects regarding controversies on Ron Paul.
It’s his foreign policy that’s the problem; not so much some stupid and whacky things on race and gays he may have said or written in the past.
Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.
I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.
There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. Let me just concentrate on one in specific. And I will state this with absolute certainty:
Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.
He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.
On the eve of the vote, Ron Paul was still telling us staffers that he was planning to vote “No,” on the resolution, and to be prepared for a seriously negative reaction in the District. Jackie Gloor and I, along with quiet nods of agreement from the other staffers in the District, declared our intentions to Tom Lizardo, our Chief of Staff, and to each other, that if Ron voted No, we would immediately resign.
Ron was “under the spell” of left-anarchist and Lew Rockwell associate Joe Becker at the time, who was our legislative director. Norm Singleton, another Lew Rockwell fanatic agreed with Joe. All other staffers were against Ron, Joe and Norm on this, including Lizardo. At the very last minute Ron switched his stance and voted “Yay,” much to the great relief of Jackie and I. He never explained why, but I strongly suspected that he realized it would have been political suicide; that staunchly conservative Victoria would revolt, and the Republicans there would ensure that he would not receive the nomination for the seat in 2002. Also, as much as I like to think that it was my yelling and screaming at Ron, that I would publicly resign if he voted “No,” I suspect it had a lot more to do with Jackie’s threat, for she WAS Victoria. And if Jackie bolted, all of the Victoria conservatives would immediately turn on Ron, and it wouldn’t be pretty.
If you take anything from this lengthy statement, I would hope that it is this final story about the Afghanistan vote, that the liberal media chooses to completely ignore, because it doesn’t fit their template, is what you will report.
If Ron Paul should be slammed for anything, it’s not some silly remarks he’s made in the past in his Newsletters. It’s over his simply outrageously horrendous views on foreign policy, Israel, and national security for the United States. His near No vote on Afghanistan. That is the big scandal. And that is what should be given 100 times more attention from the liberal media, than this Newsletter deal.
Eric Dondero, Publisher
LibertarianRepublican.net

via rightwingnews.com

Ron Paul and Non-Intervention during SLAVERY and a NAZI Holocaust

The Paul Pot and the Paulestinians (Sultan Knish) For all his talk of the Founders, they were men who weren't rooted to a single way of doing things. Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison had their fundamental differences, but none of them were so rooted in their way of thinking that they were unable to deal with reality.... Centralization and spending aren't the problem, they're the symptoms of the problem which is a corrupt technocratic political culture that he is completely unequipped to address, not least because his own nose has been caught in the trough, but mostly because he isn't a leader.(MORE)

(Carl) In this 2009 video, Ron Paul accuses Israel of creating Hamas (Hat Tip: Yid with Lid).

At the beginning of this month, US Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman, an Obama bundler, accused Israel of creating anti-Semitism. George Soros said the same thing in 1999 and in 2003. And now Ron Paul.

(1) I don't remember Israel being keen on the Gaza elections with oversight by Jimmy Carter. (2) The claim that Israel created Hamas is false... and was originally published in a French Magazine.

(Carl)In a posting in Right Wing News, Eric Dondero, who served as a senior aid to the Texas Congressman for 12 years, confirms that Ron Paul wishes Israel did not exist (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).

Is Ron Paul a “racist.” In short, No. I worked for the man for 12 years, pretty consistently. I never heard a racist word expressed towards Blacks or Jews come out of his mouth. Not once. And understand, I was his close personal assistant. It’s safe to say that I was with him on the campaign trail more than any other individual, whether it be traveling to Fairbanks, Alaska or Boston, Massachusetts in the presidential race, or across the congressional district to San Antonio or Corpus Christi, Texas.
...
Is Ron Paul an Anti-Semite? Absolutely No. As a Jew, (half on my mother’s side), I can categorically say that I never heard anything out of his mouth, in hundreds of speeches I listened too over the years, or in my personal presence that could be called, “Anti-Semite.” No slurs. No derogatory remarks.
He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.
Again, American Jews, Ron Paul has no problem with. In fact, there were a few Jews in our congressional district, and Ron befriended them with the specific intent of winning their support for our campaign. (One synagogue in Victoria, and tiny one in Wharton headed by a well-known Jewish lawyer).
On the incident that’s being talked about in some blog media about the campaign manager directing me to a press conference of our opponent Lefty Morris in Victoria to push back on Anti-Jewish charges from the Morris campaign, yes, that did happen. The Victoria Advocate described the press conference very accurately. Yes, I was asked (not forced), to attend the conference dressed in a Jewish yarlmuke, and other Jewish adornments.
There was another incident when Ron finally agreed to a meeting with Houston Jewish Young Republicans at the Freeport office. He berated them, and even shouted at one point, over their un-flinching support for Israel. So, much so, that the 6 of them walked out of the office. I was left chasing them down the hallway apologizing for my boss.

(Carl) one of those infamous newsletters you've been reading so much about for the last few days suggested that the Mossad was responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).

Government beaming radio waves into your brain at the behest of the military industrial complex? Cynthia McKinney, the presidential candidate for the Green Party in 2008 ...was endorsed by Ron Paul.

(Daled Amos) Jeffrey Scott Shapiro writes that in 2009, in answer to a question, Ron Paul responded that he would not have sent troops in to prevent the murder of 6 million Jews in the Nazi Holocuast:

And so I asked Congressman Paul: if he were President of the United States during World War II, and as president he knew what we now know about the Holocaust, but the Third Reich presented no threat to the U.S., would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany purely as a moral imperative to save the Jews?
And the Congressman answered:

“No, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that.”

Paul then looked at me, and I politely thanked him for his time. He smiled at me again and nodded his head, and many of his young followers were also smiling, and nodding their heads in agreement. Clearly, I was the only one in the room who was disturbed by his response.
When I first presented the story of Paul’s comments about the Holocaust to major news media outlets two years ago, they were so stunned they were afraid to publish my story, and as a result it has remained unpublished until now.
I went to great lengths afterwards to learn more about the basis for Paul’s comments. I spoke to Eric Dondero, a former senior aide for Paul, in February 2010. Dondero is quoted in a Weekly Standard article today about Paul’s isolationist beliefs.
When I called Dondero again this morning, and told him I was finally going forward with the story, he told me that Paul had made similar comments to him.
“He told me numerous times it was not worth it to intervene to save the Jews in World War II,” Dondero said. “I don’t think that’s because he’s an antisemite. It’s because he’s an extreme isolationist and he’s trying to be 100% principled–he doesn’t think there’s any reason to intervene for human rights or any other reason anywhere on the planet.”
Calls to Rep. Paul’s congressional office and campaign office last week and this morning were not returned."

Similarly, in the same context of describing Ron Paul's isolationaism, Shapiro notes a 2007 interview on Meet the Press where Paul said that Lincoln should never have gone to war to free the slaves:

Whatever else you may think of Ron Paul's argument about the ease with which the government could have bought all of the slaves and freed them, it is disconcerting to hear Ron Paul say there is no longer any slavery today.
According to E. Benjamin Skinner, writing last year in Time Magazine about South Africa's New Slave Trade and the Campaign to Stop It:

Despite more than a dozen international conventions banning slavery in the past 150 years, there are more slaves today than at any point in human history.

Someone should tell Ron Paul that ideology does not trump the facts.