Did you see this:
...Paul is the most pro-Israel candidate in this race," campaign spokesman Gary Howard said in an emailed statement.
"He is the only leader who will stop sending tens of billions of dollars in aid and arms to her Arab enemies, cut off subsidies to companies who do business with Iran....
You see, he buys into the Zionist crap about Iran.
Ron Paul is not my man, but neither is Obama.
Jesus is my man!
I had a friend take me to task for this. I replied:
"campaign spokesman Gary Howard said in an emailed statement.
"...cut off subsidies to companies who do business with Iran...."
You see, he buys into the Zionist crap about Iran."
Betty, it's not okay to talk out of both sides of your mouth.
If Ron Paul did not give his campaign spokesman this idea: "cut off subsidies to companies who do business with Iran," then what the hell is going on with his campaign?
What does it say about Ron Paul?
Sure, people can go off half-cocked, but then Ron Paul needs to get out in front of it and clarify that he is not for sanctions against Iran and warn his staff that he will let people go who persist on misstating his positions and philosophy.
Show me where he has done that. He hasn't. It's been over a whole news cycle too.
He may have to now that I've said it. We are read.
Peace to you.
Here's my latest -- taking him on: http://www.facebook.com/TomUsher/posts/10150454103218741
After that, I replied to more commentary with the following (in part):
As for what Ron Paul had said about Iran, of course I was fully aware. It's not relevant to my point that there is politicking afoot for the reasons I gave in my earlier thread/post.
I'm turning up the heat on his campaign to force a single voice. The spokesperson for Ron Paul's campaign was playing to the Zionists, and you know it! Admit it.
I'm forcing one, consistent voice coming out from that campaign. I'm doing it for the sake of everyone, not least, the Palestinians and their just cause against the land-grabbing Zionists who don't have a biblical leg to stand on.
Some Paulites don't know with whom they're dealing:
By "buys in", it doesn't mean wholesale. I'm obviously talking retail politics here; but if you don't know how to speak that language, it's not my fault.
On one hand, you laud his consistency. On the other hand, you excuse the pandering to Zionists, the placation tactic that I'm sure Ron Paul is fully aware of but will attempt to weasel out of, rationalize, or whatever. Watch. It will either be silence or fall on his face. Either way, he's wrong. The only right thing to do is what I said, but then he'd still have a huge basket of inconsistency to address, which I've been talking about, about him for many years now.
He's ducked and ducked and ducked. Don't think he doesn't know I'm out here. His people inundated my blog the last go around, and they started really, really early in that process. Now it's stone-cold silence. You figure it out. It's not because the Ron Paul campaign doesn't visit to read my stuff about him. It's because they never won an argument with me, period. They didn't win because he's wrong – inconsistent – anti-Christ even though he professes Christ.
I don't care whether or not you think I will ever reach perfect in anything. I'm a Christian, and I'm headed to perfection; and I'm going to do as much as I'm able to bring it here to this Earth despite your best efforts to retard that process.
Ron Paul claims to be a Christian, Betty. I'm not limited to questioning his consistency based solely upon his asinine, anti-environmental-regulation Austrian School economics. If you don't like it, so be it.
Prove you wrong? I just did and Big Time.
Ron Paul tells people he agrees with Ayn Rand. Ron Paul says he's a Christian. That's impossible. No Christian could possibly agree with Ayn Rand.
Ayn Rand is perhaps the most anti-Jesus person who was in America and well known during the twentieth century. Her creed was selfishness through-and-through. She despised Jesus. What Christian could back her? Her economics were spoiled-brat juvenile.
Any man running for public office who says he likes Ayn Rand's so-called philosophy is dangerous (and that includes Ron Paul).
Also, you didn't address Ron Paul's anti-environmentalism -- his hatred for regulations when pre-regulation, we could hardly breathe in the major cities and it was getting worse and worse and worse. The waters were terrible, and they aren't clean enough yet. The toxic dumping was rampant. Where was Ron Paul all that time? Was he championing clean-up and regulation of the polluters? He was not! He was a Libertarian, and Libertarians don't go there. It's their "property" rights to pollute.
Well, maybe now he's having to refine his understanding; but he slow, very, very slow to catch on. He's been stuck in a rut and wants the rest of us in there with him. No thank you.
I want none of his anti-environmentalism. I want AGW stopped! I want Monsanto stopped! Why didn't you agree rather than focusing on Iran even though I am absolutely right that what his campaign did, likely with his knowledge and possible direction, was pander and twist the issue to appease the Zionists on their trumped up fear -- buying into the Zionist garbage about Iran whether Ron Paul says he's opposed to attacking Iran or not?
The closer Ron Paul gets to the White House, the closer Netanyahu's Likud will get to attacking Iran because Ron Paul won't green light it once in office and won't back the Zionists if and when they do attack Iran. They'll need to attack while Obama is still in there just to get backing from the US military before it's "too late" they'll think. They won't be able to help having that discussion, if they haven't had it already. So a vote for Ron Paul could have huge consequences that few of the new Paulites consider. The old Libertarians would simply let Israel and Iran fight it out. Well, Israel has nukes and Russia and China do too and aren't very far away. Plus, the wind doesn't stay still, etc. We don't need more nukes going off especially above ground! That says nothing about the millions who would die, including the innocent, while we non-interventionists count our gold and silver coins.
We can't go at it that way. We can have peace, and need it; but we can't just turn our backs. We have to work on Israel and Iran and the others. We have to do that while improving ourselves. We can pull troops out without just tending our gardens at home and or simply be about trying to sell and buy goods and services in the world. If we just turn our backs, those gardens might just end up radio active thanks to the Zionists and their Masada complex.
Oh, you don't have to worry about Dr. Paul over the Iranians because Dr. Paul won't just cut the aid to Israel, he'll cut the subsidies for US companies that deal with Iran. Oh brother.
That's not the kind of leader we need. It's not straight talk. It's twisted because it comes out from minds that can be Randian and Christian at the same time: Insanity, pure insanity!
I don't like Zionism anymore than you do, Betty. I do know though that Ron Paul's economics is not out from the cooperative spirit but rather the competitive spirit. His very economic philosophy runs exactly contrary to the teachings of Jesus, his professed Lord and Savior.
If Ron Paul is so consistent, why isn't he running as a Christian only? He can't.
He isn't going to make my walk with Christ easier but more difficult. That's not a Christian attitude on his part. He wants me stuck more and more under the inherent selfishness that is capitalism. I don't appreciate that. I don't like what he has in mind for the people as a whole. His way is not better than mine. Why should I be silent about him? Why should I back him? He's misleading people with his selfish creed. His way is no answer.
I want the whole truth, not Ron Paul's half-truths.
The article called the person a campaign spokesperson.
I don't discount the possibility that the reporter may have gotten something wrong; but because the story was featured so widely nation-wide, I am positive that Ron Paul's whole top staff in his campaign knows about it.
I am not monitoring this full-time, as I have a day job so to speak. However, if Ron Paul or his campaign manager wants to clarify and to distance the campaign from the notion that Ron is pandering to Zionist fake fears regarding Iran, then there's nothing to stop them. If they don't do that, I think it speaks volumes about the low level of intellectual honesty.
People all over the nation are talking about Ron Paul as if he is a saint for his consistency, etc. He is not a saint! He is a "political" animal who has stayed on message, which message is fraught with egregious errors and incompatible ideological/religious positions (inconsistencies), which I have already pointed out in no uncertain terms in my previous comments in other threads/on other posts. He is consistently inconsistent. That's not a good thing.
This does not mean that I do not view him in relative terms and stack him up against Barack Obama and find him lower than Obama in terms of ethics and so forth.
I find them both lacking while not finding myself perfect. I can do that without being a hypocrite.
I'm interested in what is best, and I too stay on message. You like that about Ron Paul but not about me, even though what I want for the whole of humanity is superior for sure to what Ron Paul advocates. Aim higher.
We as humanity can continue accepting that there just is no way we are ever going to have leadership with goals that are pure or we can start working for such people to come to leadership. Ron Paul's goals are far short of even rudimentary notions of what is purely best.
Yes, someone is going to be the President, and the President has huge power to swing and jerk the world around for good and evil. I take it seriously, but I'm not going to be done when my body gives up my ghost. My body is not my soul. I am spirit manifest. This is what Jesus teaches, and I believe him. This is what Ron Paul claims to believe also, but he stops short of doing the rest but rather does the opposite with Ayn Rand and the other unbelievers.
I have given credit where credit is due. I have posted and tweeted that Ron Paul is the only clear choice right now in terms of due process of law, which is critical. However, that does not mean that Barack Obama is immutable. He is not. He may change for the wrong reasons, but he does change (ever so slightly). Ron Paul shows much less tendency to do so, and I cannot abide his horrific environmental and economic policies.
I hate laissez-fair capitalism. It has been a curse on humanity. He loves it. I won't reiterate all of his terrible environmental-deregulation ideas here right now; but if you are honest and really research before getting on a band wagon, you will check out how much trouble and how many new and huge problems he will create by the policies and practices he's advocating.
The following article is up your alley right now, but it's just not good enough:
As for the Palestinians (your main cause, Betty), Ron Paul is not their savior. You need to think about it. Just because he would pull troops and try to cut aid (which he may not even be able to do what with the ZOG he'd be dealing with) does not mean that the Palestinians would be better off. I say that the Ron Paul route regarding the Palestinian issue will leave them much more at the mercy of the Zionists. I say that much of the current efforts will be undercut, and I don't mean Barack Obama's administration's efforts but rather the global BDS and other efforts. Think about it. If and when the Zionists were to stomp harder on the Palestinians, what would Ron Paul do but stand back and not get "entangled" in other people's business? Oh, he might say shame on the Zionists, but laissez-faire market economics is Ron Paul's first principle and primary way of dealing with everything. He would defend the US from direct attack, but that's it (so far; and he doesn't change much at all on that, if at all). No, I'm not advocating that the US militarily stomp on the Zionists. There are better ways.
Look, the following makes my point perfectly:
"Dr. Paul is the most pro-Israel candidate in this race," Howard wrote. "He is the only leader who will stop sending tens of billions of dollars in aid and arms to her Arab enemies, cut off subsidies to companies who do business with Iran, and allow Israel to defend herself as she sees fit, without the permission and interference of the U.S. or the United Nations." (source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/151203#.Tv4uopc_xaM)
That came directly from Ron Paul's national campaign press secretary, Gary Howard. The story has been out since Wednesday, and Ron Paul has said zero to retract it. I'm fairly confident that Ron Paul either instigated it or was consulted on it and approved/agreed.
He would let Israel do whatever it wants toward the Iranians. The Likud would attack! The Likud would also take the gloves off against the Palestinians too.
The whole campaign strategy was to placate the Zionists! Get clear on this whole Ron Paul mess, Betty. He is not really your man if you will think it all through!
I have heard him ad nauseam! His national campaign press secretary said exactly what Ron Paul wanted out there! It was a direct campaign strategy devised at the highest levels to counter allegations he is anti-Israel.
Please God, explain it to Betty.
"...praised it as one of the United States's most important allies in an Israeli newspaper interview published on Thursday."
Come on, Betty, admit it. You've been duped. He's all over the map on this saying one thing to one group and another to another. I'm just keeping up with it without even trying.
He is pandering, hugely!
He has gotten tangled in his talk, as I always said about him.
He's a mess -- consistently a mess. Of course, so are all the Republicans and Obama.
I cannot back any of them and won't!
Ron Paul wrote, "I opposed President Obama's attempt to dictate Israel's borders this year."
He is not an anti-Zionist. He is pro-Zionism, a crypto-Zionist!
Q. In the Fox News presidential debate you expressed understanding and even sympathy for the Iran having nuclear weapons. But Israelis view an Iranian nuclear capability as an existential threat to their country. Do you disagree? Do you not believe Iranian leaders who say that Israel should be "wiped off the map"?
Paul: I am against the spread of nuclear weapons. But I do understand why other nations want them and why they don't accept the nuclear monopoly as it now stands. You cannot change an opinion you don't understand. I understand it and would try to change it.
However, there's a key fact that it seems is being overlooked when my positions are discussed. I believe I'm the only candidate who would allow Israel to take immediate action to defend herself without having to get our approval. Israel should be free to take whatever steps she deems necessary to protect her national security and sovereignty. (Source: http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/ron-paul-tells-haaretz-i-am-not-an-anti-semite-1.404208)
He clearly said, "I understand it and would try to change it." That means exactly what I have been saying all along. He buys into the Zionist lies that Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons. This is a gigantic problem about him, Betty!
It's far from the only one too.
Is Haaretz neocon? If MSNBC reports a fact, it matters not that it is neocon to any degree. I cited them because they are current on the issue, showing that Ron Paul has not backed up one bit on this pandering!
Really, Betty, quit with the logical fallacies. You're ducking the hard facts. You are in denial about Ron Paul. You are suffering from cognitive dissonance. Snap out of the Ron Paul spell you've been put under.
I really don't have any more time for this. If you want to persist in Ron Paul's utter nonsense, that's your choice. I think you will come around to seeing what I'm saying though if you will really analyze it rather than staying emotionally invested because of your high hopes for the Palestinians.
He'll get more of them killed, Betty.
More: Oh what a web they weave:
The liberal-left view:
The so-called Christian-Reconstructionist view:
Don't get me wrong. I don't disagree with plenty of Gary North's views. He's just off on lot's of Jesus's teachings. He falls short.
I too am into monetary reform (very much so):
When I first met you on the Internet on Facebook, your Profile said that your primary cause was the Palestinians (it still may). Also, this pacifism of yours did not extend to telling the Palestinians to be non-violent. We argued about it. You may still hold that position. You don't appear to hold the first anymore. So, that's new to me.
If you are putting the US and the rest of the world before the Palestinian cause so to speak, that's a clarification on your part concerning your changed position.
My view has not changed. The Palestinian issue is not more central nor non-central to me than it was when we first started interacting.
I stand by everything I have written about Ron Paul now and in the past and regardless of where.
As far as I'm concerned, you have avoided the thrust of my points concerning him, which points make clear that he has given the Zionists a green light to attack Iran and to not worry a bit about a Paul administration in terms of Zionist colonization of Palestine. He won't come to the Zionist's rescue, but with all of the Zionists in the US Congress, etc., if the Likudniks attack and are attacked and start to lose and Ron Paul does not act, they will -- one way or another. In addition, there are many Zionists in the "intelligence services" and military who will work together and with Shin Bet and Mossad to see to it.
Barack Obama is an ass in many respects; but like it or not, he has so far held back a Zionist attack on Iran. He has told Netanyahu that the US has it's own threshold for any attack. That alone has stayed Netanyahu's hand. As for whether Obama will continue to withstand the Zionist/neocon pressure to attack Iran ASAP, which has always been their position, remains to be seen. I for one certainly hope he does. I'm sure our Iranian friends who are not insane feel the same.
Now, I got your point; so unless you have something new to add here about Ron Paul, I think we are done with this thread and the others concerning him.
I hope your New Year's Eve is pleasant for you.
I'm not distorting anything. You are, Betty. You twist your own position: They're your main cause, but you don't see Ron Paul as related to the issue even though he's green-lighted the continued, even permanent occupation of the whole of Palestine by the Zionists.
You are in denial: inconsistent; cognitive dissonance!
Your position about Ron Paul is bizarre to say the least. I hope your Palestinian friends come to see it clearly too and inform you of such.
I know about the efforts of the Palestinians in terms of non-violence. You aren't supplying me with any links that tell me anything I don't already know.
None of the links you've supplied over the last several days has told me anything I didn't already know.
Your position was, as stated by you to me, that you cannot tell the Palestinians that non-violence/pacifism is what they ought to do/continue even though you are a pacifist.
You are stuck in the rut of Ron Paul's making. You can't bring yourself to admit that you are completely wrong on the points I have made: irrefutable points.
I finally found someone, Ben Swann, who sees what I see but comes at it from the pro-Zionist position:
Is Ron Paul anti-Israel?
Well, consider history. In 1981, Israel bombed an Iraqi nuke plant. Rep. Paul went against both the U.N. and president Ronald Reagan when he defended Israel's right to defend itself.
Today, that position hasn't changed.
Paul seems to believe that the strongest stance with Israel is for the United States to no longer try to control that nation's every move.
If today Israel decided that it must launch an attack on Iran to protect its own people, which candidate aside from Ron Paul would support that move without Israel first receiving U.S. approval?
And that is Reality Check. (Source: "Reality Check: Are Ron Paul's views on Israel 'misguided and extreme?'")
It's gotten around. As of 1/1/2011 at 1PM PST, "8,716 people" had recommended it on Facebook.
"If today Israel decided that it must launch an attack on Iran to protect its own people, which candidate aside from Ron Paul would support that move without Israel first receiving U.S. approval?" All of the Republicans would support it in the closet. Some of them would support it openly. Those who would have wanted the Likudniks to have first received the President's okay would be thinking imperially, and many Americans would agree with that sort of thinking. The US is an empire, and its Presidents are emperors for a term or two.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)