Ron Paul has Never Met an Evil He hasn’t Sympathized With

As a Jew and a grandson of Holocaust survivors, I had been horrified to discover an interview in which Ron Paul had stated that if he would’ve been president during the holocaust he wouldn't have intervened despite the tens of millions of men, women, and children the Nazis had slaughtered.

Paul’s shocking remarks had not been an isolated incident complete with profuse apologies. They are one tiny chapter amongst countless similarly vile comments. Just a couple of days ago, in an interview conducted last Friday, Paul had announced that one must have empathy with … Mahmoud Ahmadinejad! He then went on to “explain” that Ahmadinejad isn’t seeking a fight with the Western World, and that it’s merely a concoction by those who wish to engage him in war. Has he never heard Ahmadinejad blast America and the free western world, clearly stating his intentions to wipe out Israel and all infidels?

Many view Ron Paul as simply naïve or as nuts and dismiss him and his rhetoric in the manner one does to a buzzing fly. It must be clear that he is not simply naïve or nuts, but evil. He led racist and anti-Semitic newsletters for many years, with the intentions of his actions to be so. He has often told aides that he “wishes Israel didn’t exist.” Sounds like Ahmadinejad himself, no? No wonder he feels empathy for him!

Ron Paul’s warped sense of good and evil seems to manifest itself amongst his supporters who’ve adopted a weird line of attack against Rick Santorum. They warn voters in ominous comments that electing Santorum to the presidency is a guarantee for a World War III, while voting for Ron Paul will bring peace upon the world.

They appear utterly ignorant of the events which had caused World War II to have become the monster war that it was - having led to the deaths of over fifty million people. When Hitler rose to power and built a powerful army despite it having violated the Treaty of Versailles, the world, weary of war, pretended not to notice, hoping to avoid a confrontation.

Even after the Nazis intentions became clear after the annexation of Austria, the European leaders attempted appeasement via Sudetenland instead of halting them in their tracks. Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister, explained his avoidance of war saying that war results only in losers and in no winners, while the U.S. engaged in isolationism and turned a blind eye to Europe. Only after the Nazi beast has grown to monstrous proportions, gobbling up country after country, did Great Britain and France declare war on Germany. At that point though, the German army had already morphed into a strong and organized force which couldn’t be defeated so easily.

The U.S. continued to remain out of the war while watching the world turn upside-down until it came under direct attack by the Japanese, Germany’s ally. The Pearl Harbor bombings resulted in 21 Navy ships sunk or damaged, over 188 U.S. aircraft destroyed, over 2,400 Americans dead, and many more injured. This jerked the U.S. out of their isolationism, declaring war against an enemy whose size and power had vastly increased during the five years it faced zero or little opposition.

The U.S. had followed exactly the type of policy that Ron Paul promotes and promises to enforce, and that has led not only to the deaths of thousands at Pearl Harbor but to an extended and extremely difficult war to fight. Instead of defeating the German army in their homeland and having to liberate one or two countries they had invaded, battles were held across three continents, spanning most of Europe, chunks of Asia, and portions in Africa.

And Paul supporters say that precisely a Santorum presidency, who will not allow evil to mushroom out of control, will lead to a World War III?

Notable amongst the many indefensible remarks made by Ron Paul was his sharp rebuke to the military and Obama administration after news of Osama Bin Laden’s death was publicized and celebrated across the country. Instead of joining the jubilant masses, Paul bemoaned the successful operation and criticized the government in performing an act which didn’t respect the rule of the law according to Paul’s interpretations, asking whether we would’ve done the same had he been hiding in London.

Is there even hope to penetrate Paul’s skull that evil people are in existence very much like good people, and that evil needs to be handled differently than good? It doesn’t seem like it. Never mind that he hadn’t felt it necessary to express his condolences to the families of the 9/11 victims, save perhaps when he used them to condemn the U.S. government as responsible for the heinous actions of the terrorists. Ron Paul’s conscience, if he has one, was more disturbed over the death of Osama Bin Laden than that this evil monster’s life hadn’t been brought to an end a couple of decades earlier before he would’ve had a chance to inflict death and damage to thousands via 9/11 and other bombings across the world.

Ron Paul’s thinking is terribly wrong, for he considers those who sympathize with evil as unrelated to evil. The truth though, as Bush had outlined in his state of the union speech, is that one cannot be neutral in the fight against evil. One is either for evil or against it. If one’s sympathy for evil overrides the sympathy he feels for the victims, than that person is evil itself. Ron Paul has never decried acts of terror performed against ambassadors, children and innocent civilians who were riding busses, walking streets and minding their own business. Nor has he felt it necessary to condemn the Texas Fort Hood shooter or similar incidents. His behavior had been quite the contrary. Ron Paul has always taken the side of evil and terrorists, finding ridiculous excuses to explain away their horrific actions and for turning the villains into victims.

When Ron Paul preaches his anti-war rhetoric, he’s not simply against attacking other countries before they attack us. He promotes closing the CIA and FBI leaving a nation with no intelligence to gather information about possible attacks. That’s not defending liberty, despite his claims. Such action is irresponsible behavior which can result in the infringement of liberty and life of many U.S. civilians on American soil through acts of terror our intelligence regularly intercepts.

Simply put, Paul wants to shrink and weaken the entire U.S. defense, leaving the greatest bastion of liberty defenseless in the face of evil.

Hasn't Muhammad Yusuf, the NYC Al Qaeda Sympathizer heard that Obama is Withdrawing the Troops?

As reported by New Jersey:

An "al Qaeda sympathizer" who plotted to bomb police and post offices in New York City as well as U.S. troops returning home has been arrested on numerous terrorism-related charges, city officials said today.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced at a news conference the Saturday arrest of Jose Pimentel of Manhattan, "a 27-year-old al Qaeda sympathizer" who the mayor said was motivated by terrorist propaganda and resentment of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

What care has been taken in referring to him as an "Al Qaeda sympathizer!" So long as you don't call him Islamic extremist, Muslim, terrorist, or any other term which may offend some sensitive souls. 

And did you notice? It's all Bush's fault cause this radical extremist resented the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Doesn't he know Obama's bringing home the troops?

The mayor said Pimentel, a U.S. citizen originally from the Dominican Republic, was "plotting to bomb police patrol cars and also postal facilities as well as targeted members of our armed services returning from abroad."

Authorities have no evidence that Pimentel was working with anyone else, the mayor added.

"He appears to be a total lone wolf," the mayor said. "He was not part of a larger conspiracy emanating from abroad."

Terrorism is always an isolated incident with no apparent connection between one Al Qaeda member and the next. What about that terrorist propaganda which motivated him? Was that self-written?

Pimentel, also known as Muhammad Yusuf, is accused of having an explosive substance Saturday when he was arrested that he planned to use against others and property to terrorize the public.

At last! Only towards the end of the article did the writer find it necessary to slip in his Muslim name hoping no one would notice.You surely noticed that his country of origin which isn't Middle Eastern or Arabic was deemed more important than the guy's current name since that was written right at the top of the article. And besides for this one mention, his Spanish name was written repeatedly throughout the entire article.

The charges accuse him of conspiracy going back at least to October 2010, and include first-degree criminal possession of a weapon as a crime of terrorism, and soliciting support for a terrorist act. He was to be arraigned later today.

Soliciting support? Wasn't he a lone wolf? My! These liberals do their utmost to protect the image of these poor terrorists and future terrorists to the extent that they can barely write two sentences without contradictions galore.

Joe Biden has issued a replacement for the word "Terrorists"

The Obama administration has already dropped many dangerous terminology coined by the Bush administration and by Webster’s Dictionary and replaced them with new peace-inducing terminology.

The war on terror was switched to “Overseas contingency operation”

An act of terrorism is now called a “man-caused disaster”

Additionally, the Obama administration no longer considers detainees in Gitmo as “enemy combatants.”

The only dirty word that has surprisingly been left intact has been the naming of an individual as a terrorist. It wasn’t a major cause of concern for the Obama administration since terrorists ceased to exist…except when they resurfaced in the Tea Party.

Following the storm that erupted after Joe Biden, who happens to be the vice president, and many other Democrat leaders called Tea Party members terrorists, a replacement for the “t” word was needed.

At last, Biden has discovered the perfect substitute!

Listen to this clip of Biden at AFL-CIO Rally: 

h/t Politicons

All right, for those of you who simply can’t bring yourselves to listen to Uncle Joe here’s what Biden said in reference to the Tea Party “terrorists."

“You are the only folks keeping the barbarians from the gates”

Isn’t calling those you disagree with “barbarians” rather than terrorists so much more noble and civil?


 

The Indictment and Conviction of David Prosser by the Media

The media has long abandoned all pretenses of being an agency solely with the intention of reporting the news. They interpret the news for you according to their wishes and choose what and how to report based on its conformation to the leftist ideology.

The media has taken on a new role in addition to all that; not satisfied that they can’t control all politicians and decisions in this country, they’ve appointed themselves as prosecutors, lawyers, witnesses, jurors, and judges all in one who place judgment on individuals facing charges before facing trial.

The media’s actions and reactions to Judge Bradley’s claim about Judge David Prosser are a disgrace and blemish to journalism. Sadly, this is not a one-time occurrence. As a New Yorker, the following two stories highlight the media’s judgmental stance.

Forty four people were arrested in a sting operation across New York and New Jersey two summers ago including politicians, mayors, Rabbis, and regular citizens with charges of assorted white-collar crimes including money laundering, accepting bribery, and accepting illegal campaign contributions amongst others. The only relation between the arrestees that they all were connived into the illegal activity by the same individual, an F.B.I. informant who had swindled out of a bank millions of dollars and was promised a lighter sentence through acting as an informer.

The morning following the arrest, the media in the entire tri-state area and beyond launched nasty attacks against those arrested before they were been found guilty of any crime. The fact that they’ve been duped by an informed was irrelevant and mentioned in passing.

In a separate incident in Riverdale, New York two months before the above arrests, four Muslims were arrested and charged for plotting to blow up synagogues and military aircraft in Riverdale, New York. Their contact, whom they believed to be from Al Qaeda, and helped them with the planning the terrorist attacks and the procuring of proper weapons, was an F.B.I. plant. They had planted the bombs near the synagogues and were heading with a stinger to shoot down a military aircraft (all of which unknown to them were fakes) when the F.B.I. closed down on them and arrested them

The media reacted by reporting the story as an “alleged plot” in which they questioned the arrests because the arrestees were ensnared into the entire plot by the instigator. Even after they had been found guilty by jury and judge, the media continued to fight to absolve them from any wrongdoing and attacked the F.B.I. for its use of an infiltrator as seen here, here, here, here, and here.

I was shocked at the media’s callous attitude towards the four radicals and my outrage grew to greater extremes when their reactions two months later after the New Jersey arrests were entirely different. These three Muslim men were ready to blow up and kill innocent civilians, yet the media was careful to refer to the “alleged plot and harped on the F.B.I. agent’s role while at the next story, didn’t find it necessary to give any of the arrestees the benefit of doubt or focus on the informer’s role. If an Al Qaeda cell in the U.S. would’ve contacted these three Muslims, as they thought was the case, and provided them with the proper aid, the result would’ve been horrific. Despite all this, they were on the receiving end of sympathy from the media.

On the other hand, the charges against the forty four individuals were for money laundering, accepting bribes, organ trafficking, corruption etc. -- white collar criminal charges of different levels which the people too have convinced into committing by a former criminal, and some of which were later acquitted or thrown out. Even those found guilty never came close to harming another individual, but the media felt it as their duty to pronounce them guilty while defending those persuaded to cause death and destruction.

These are not isolated incidents, but occur daily. The media’s response to the radicals mirrored their reaction to the three brothers who were accused and sentenced for plotting a killing spree at Fort Dix, a military base located in New Jersey.

I’m not defending any crime, violent or otherwise. The fact that the media plays judge is in itself astonishing. Their skewed judgment is the shock upon the astonishment. Their verdicts are seen daily in newspapers to the point that many no longer realize how un-journalistic it is and that it goes against the belief of innocent until proven guilty.

It’s interesting to note that often after the court has passed judgment on an individual, the media has no qualms coming to the defense of criminals who have been proven guilty of murder or other crimes after lengthy court cases in which witnesses and/or other sufficient evidence has been provided that earn the criminal the death penalty. Suddenly the media’s hearts bleed with compassion for the “poor” killer and criticize the judgment of the judicial system.

How can the media at times pounce upon an individual or group of people accused of crime, oftentimes petty, and declare them guilty without a proper trial or evidence, and at other instances criticize the sentence of a jury or judge which is based on hard facts as too harsh or as accusing someone who’s innocent?

The above incidents which highlight the media’s conflicting reactions to criminal accusations explain the media’s treatment of the accusations against Strauss-Kahn and Prosser.

Strauss-Kahn was arrested about two months ago because a hotel maid accused him of rape. The media pounced upon the claim and passed their verdict of guilty accepting the point of view of the hotel maid against his. He’s a socialist who I disagree with on every issue, but what happened to innocent until proven guilty? Why is the media so desperate to destroy people before a verdict has been passed? Recently it has been reported that the prosecutors are dropping the case because of conflicting reports from the hotel maid, according to police investigators.

The other accusation is against a Conservative Supreme Court judge who recently ran for reelection against the entire liberal machine who was desperate to unseat him because of his support for Governor Walker’s union reforms which the left were trying to block. The left viciously attacked him with false smears and ads such as that he’s supported sex offenders rather than rape victims, a claim which the rape victim denounced as false and twisted. After a tough battle in which he fought against many hateful lies, he overcame the left and the media, and won the reelection.

Several weeks ago the bill that stripped the collective bargaining rights from unions was ruled as constitutional and legal by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin thanks to the conservative vote of the aforementioned victorious judge, Judge David Prosser.

About a week later, one of the liberal judges went to the press and accused him of holding her in a “choke-hold,” and the media pounced upon their former prey with a new passion.

Here’s an excerpt of Schneider on NRO which provides details of the incident:

The week before the legislature was set to re-pass the collective-bargaining provision, three of the four conservative justices were ready to issue a ruling reinstating the union law as originally passed. Prosser, on the other hand, wanted to wait longer, to avoid the appearance that the court was rushing their decision through. Prosser thought he had an agreement with liberal Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson to delay release of the opinion until Tuesday of the following week.

As Monday arrived, there was no word from Abrahamson on whether the decision would be issued the next day. At 5:30 p.m., Prosser and the other conservative justices marched around the chambers, looking for Abrahamson, who was found in Justice Bradley’s office. Prosser stood outside Bradley’s door, talking to the justices in Bradley’s office. The discussion got heated, with Prosser expressing his lack of faith in Abrahamson’s ability to lead the Court.

According to one witness, Bradley charged toward Prosser, shaking her clenched fist in his face. Another source says they were “literally nose to nose.” Prosser then put his hands up to push her away. As one source pointed out, if a man wants to push a woman who is facing him, he wouldn’t push her in the chest (unless he wants to face an entirely different criminal charge). Consequently, Prosser put his hands on Bradley’s shoulders to push her away, and in doing so, made contact with her neck.

At that moment, another justice approached Bradley from behind and pulled her away from Prosser, saying, “Stop it, Ann, this isn’t like you.” Bradley then shouted, “I was choked!” Another justice present replied, “You were not choked.” In a statement following the incident, Bradley maintained Prosser “put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold.”

On Monday night, Bradley called Capitol Police Chief Charles Tubbs to talk to him about the incident. On the morning of Wednesday, June 15, Tubbs joined the justices in a closed-door meeting, where he discussed “issues relating to workplace violence.”

During the meeting, Chief Justice Abrahamson actually reenacted the incident on Chief Tubbs — no doubt an amusing sight, as the diminutive Abrahamson mimicked choking the tall, portly police chief. During her demonstration, Abrahamson emphasized that Prosser had exerted “pressure” on Bradley’s throat.

“There was no pressure,” interrupted the justice who had initially broken up the incident between Bradley and Prosser. “That’s only because you broke us apart,” shot back Bradley. This exchange led several meeting attendees to believe Bradley was making up the charge, as they took her rejoinder as an admission that there was no pressure applied to her neck.

Althouse had a prudent point about Bradley’s response:

Indeed, if we believe Bradley said "That’s only because you broke us apart" when someone pulled her back from behind, it would seem that the "pressure" that would have occurred but didn't would have been the result of her forward movement toward Prosser. That's the evidence a criminal defense lawyer would milk if there were an actual trial here.

Bradley didn’t end up pressing charges and instead turned to the media the following week. The media scooped up her story and portrayed Prosser as a bully with an uncontrollable temper and not deserving of his judicial seat even though it appears Bradley’s made contradictory statements. They all sided with Bradley’s version of being held in a “chokehold” rather than reporting both sides of the story and allowing the public to form their own opinion.

About a week later, a Fox news reporter (which the media claims is a rightwing network when all they have is a few right commentators and a majority of mainstream reporters) ran after David Prosser repeatedly badgering him with questions until Prosser and pushing the mike in Prosser’s face. Prosser attempted to push it aside and when the reporter persisted, he took the mike out of the reporter’s hand and then handed it back. Of course, when the video hit the blogosphere, the left condemned him and used it as “proof” and “hard evidence” of his “violence” in the courthouse. Most conservatives continued to defend him but questioned his judgment for pulling out the mike which gave him a terrible PR at a time when he’s being blamed for attacking a fellow judge.

I don’t know if I lost my mind, or it’s others that lost their mind, but why do people have such a hard time understanding another human being? Here’s a person who’s being blamed for choking someone, which if found guilty can land him time in jail, and although it’s her word against his, the entire media has declared him guilty. This same individual has just finished his reelection campaign in which the media and the left falsely accused him of supporting rape acts amongst other hateful in an attempt to destroy him only because of his belief that a certain law is constitutional and legal. After winning the election and passing judgment on the law, the left is set to destroy him no matter what. No one but these judges know what truly occurred, but if Bradley said by the reenactment that there was no pressure because they were broken apart, and the police officer was there as witness, then this seems very likely as simply another attempt to tarnish a man’s reputation and destroy his career. 

Is it so difficult to understand the emotions and pressure of an individual who’s been branded guilty by the entire media without any evidence, that his reaction to the press was the refusal to answer questions and the removal of a mike? Why should he trust the media?

When a college student questioned Bob Etheridge, the former Democrat congressman from North Carolina, whether he supports Obama’s policies, Etheridge attacked and choked the student, as captured on video. The media’s reaction was to sweep the video under the carpet and not even show it to the public! Suddenly, the media is disturbed by claims of choking?

The media is a hypocritical institution which has long abandoned the original principles of journalism and became an extended arm of the Democratic political machine. Rather than reporting the news, they choose to skip some, stress others, indict the right, and acquit the left. It’s time for the media to take upon themselves one more change, a change of name.