An Orchidectomy performed by Dorothy Rabinowitz

I’ve made no secret of my opinion of Representative luaP noR, MD, “R”-TX, over the years.

He’s getting both new found “respect” and deeper examination by the LSM as a consequence of running competitively with the worst President of the post WWII era, and for leading in some polls in Iowa.

Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal would like to remind the LSM of why the good Doctor is so lightly regarded by Conservatives and other thinking people.

What Ron Paul Thinks of America

It seemed improbable that the best-known American propagandist for our enemies could be near the top of the pack in the Iowa contest, but there it is.

By Dorothy Rabinowitz, The Wall Street Journal

Ron Paul’s supporters are sure of one thing: Their candidate has always been consistent—a point Dr. Paul himself has been making with increasing frequency. It’s a thought that comes up with a certain inevitability now in those roundtables on the Republican field. One cable commentator genially instructed us last Friday, “You have to give Paul credit for sticking to his beliefs.”

He was speaking, it’s hardly necessary to say, of a man who holds some noteworthy views in a candidate for the presidency of the United States. One who is the best-known of our homegrown propagandists for our chief enemies in the world. One who has made himself a leading spokesman for, and recycler of, the long and familiar litany of charges that point to the United States as a leading agent of evil and injustice, the militarist victimizer of millions who want only to live in peace.

Yep.  But you know what’s worse?

Should he somehow win the Republican Nomination for President of the United States, I’ll vote for him, because the SCoaMF is that much worse.

Lie of the Year a Democrat Lie
I'm hoping an Obama supporting family member will try to convert me
  • Anonymous

    Of course Dorothy Rabinowitz doesn’t like Ron Paul, she’s one of the shills for war with Iran.

    In today’s War Street Journal the former movie reviewer Dorothy Rabinowitz, who now apparently fancies herself as a foreign policy expert (!), calls Ron Paul the chief propagandist of “our enemies.” Let’s see now. The War Street Journal played a major role in lying the nation into the unconstitutional, aggressive war in Iraq that never had anything whatsoever to do with the defense of America. Ron Paul, on the other hand, was the loudest political voice in opposition to this patently un-American assault on constitutionalism and morality . . .

    It is neocons like Dorothy Rabinowitz who are the enemies of constitutional government, and who are responsible for the breeding of endless enemies of Americans with their cheerleading for endless military interventionism that has nothing to do with defending America. It is neocons like Dorothy Rabinowitz who have the blood of thousands of American soldiers who have died in vain on their hands. It is neocons like Dorothy Rabinowitz who are responsible for tens of thousands of American soldiers who came home from Iraq maimed and crippled for life. It is neocons like Dorothy Rabinowitz who now want the U.S. to start another non-defensive war in Iran, a country four times the size of Iraq which, unlike Iraq, actually has a military that can fight back.

    • Anonymous

      Well, that was a non sequitur response, Chico. The article is about Ron Paul and his utter unsuitability as president, not about Rabinowitz.

      And her points are not diminished by ad hominem attacks on her from the lunatic fringe, or claims that somehow because she is capable of seeing the real threat of a nuclear Iran, that makes her a shill who would, de rigueur, have to make wild attacks against Ron Paul.

      When the enemy uses Ron Paul’s words in their propaganda against the US, that does not speak well for Paul. His foreign policy beliefs are naive, foolish and dangerous. That his words are repeated by the people who hate the US is a black mark against him.

      • Anonymous

        Ron Paul’s telling the truth about the mongering for wars that have nothing to do with defending the USA, and everything to do with wasting good American lives and trillions of dollars.  Iran is not, and can never be, a serious threat to the USA, but how many countries designated as threats to Israel does the USA have to destroy?  Who’s next after Iran? Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia? It didn’t work out too well for us in Iraq, did it? 

        Dr. Paul is catching on because a vote for Romney, Gingrich, Perry or Bachmann is a vote for more pointless and endless wars.

        • Anonymous

          “Iran is not, and can never be, a serious threat to the USA….”

          Seems I heard the same tune with the fall of Communism in the old Soviet Union.

          Nice to see Pvt Chico’s got his head still firmly planted up his ass.

          • Anonymous

            So what?  I didn’t say it.  The Soviet Union, with 10,000 nukes of various sizes, ICBMs, SSBNs, and a zillion tanks in Europe, was a serious threat to the USA.

            Iran does not have the wealth or industrial base to be anything but a regional power.  

          • herddog505

            Up until about 1964, the Soviet Union was not a particular threat to the United States as their strategic bomber / missile force was relatively tiny (though this was not known at the time).  This is why President Kennedy was able to “win” the Cuban Missile Crisis: SAC and the Navy Polaris force would have destroyed Russia with little the Soviets could do to us in response (though they could have clobbered Europe and Japan).

            I suggest, therefore, that the argument can be made that we missed quite a wide window of opportunity to PREVENT the USSR becoming a threat to the United States.  I further suggest that we have a similar, closing window with regard to Iran.  They are not an especially grave threat to us (or anybody else aside from their own people) NOW, but they are pretty clearly working hard to change that situation.

            What shall we do in five or ten years when they can credibly threaten to destroy parts of the Middle East and Europe?  Hope that they will play nice?

          • Anonymous

            There’s a decent alternative history book about a preemptive strike on the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  It’s as you say – the USSR is destroyed, along with Europe, along with NYC and DC.  The USA is impoverished by the war and resulting depression.

            The book is titled Resurrection Day


            I don’t think that would have been a good outcome.

        • jim_m

          Nice that you still avoid the substance that Paul is a racist, xenophobe.  Just keep your head up your ass and I’m sure you will get the fascist dictatorship you so strongly desire.

          • Anonymous

            Oh, he’s a raaaacist, huh?  Xenophobe?  It seems the ultimate in xenophobia is advocating invading other countries and killing people there, which Paul is against and you are for.

            Fascism and war are siamese twins, we have war, you want more war, and with the wars we have a law legalizing indefinite imprisonment of American citizens on the president’s order in the National Defense Authorization Act.  That sounds like fascism to me, I don’t hear you complaining about it, but Ron Paul is.

          • jim_m

            Fascism and war are siamese twins

            In what sense?  Are you saying that fascism begets war or that fascism is caused by war?  It sounds like the latter.  I would argue that you are woefully ignorant of history if that is the case. 

            However if you think that fascism begets war than you re right and the answer is to oppose fascism wherever it arises and right now that is in islamic fundamentalism and he Middle East. Like it or not we will eith er need to oppose it or be taken over by it.  I know that you and your leftist friends would be very happy living under Sharia law but the rest of us will stand up for a better way of life.

          • Anonymous

            Believe me, as someone with experience in the Middle East, most people there can’t find their ass with both hands, let alone impose Sharia law on the USA.   90% of them want only the sensible parts of Sharia law, like the ones we share, not the stoning (which comes from the Old Testament). A lot of Muslims drink like Celts. I laugh when I read that stuff about Sharia law taking over, whatta joke.   It is funny how they in the ME get most of our TV channels, but we can’t get any of theirs, like Al Jazeera English, in the “free” USA.

            There are quotes by Tocqueville, Lincoln and others that say that the USA will only lose its freedoms from within.  I also go with Sinclair Lewis’s quote – “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

          • Oysteria

            “90% of them want only the sensible parts of Sharia law, like the ones we share, not the stoning (which comes from the Old Testament). ”

            Yeah, like the 82% in Egypt.  Oh wait, 82% liked stoning for adulterers, 77% liked the idea of cutting off hands for robbery and 84% think the death penalty is appropriate for those who leave Islam.

            Maybe you’re talking about Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, Pakistan, etc.  Whoops, not a single one came close to 90% against stoning.  Not one.

          • Anonymous

            What are you talking about?  You know nothing about Egyptian politics or political platforms.

            Is the “Islamist”  Justice and Development Party in Turkey in favor of stoning or cutting off hands? 

          • Oysteria

            Oh, I’m sorry, I thought you said that 90% of the people in the middle east wanted the “sensible parts of Sharia law, like the ones we share, not the stoning”.

            I countered your actual remark.  Now you want to change it to political parties and platforms. 

          • jim_m

            I’ll grant that Chica may be right about what the people want, The problem is that in the muslim world there is no way for them to voice dissent because to do so labels them as apostates and the penalty for apostasy is death. 

            That’s why you never see “moderate” muslims.  It’s too damn dangerous to speak out.

          • Oysteria

            Perhaps the polls of the general Muslim population are off by 70-80%.

            Regardless, he makes assumptions about me, then changes the argument.

          • jim_m

            My comment wasn’t a criticism of you it was really more a comment on Chica’s contention that muslims were not interested in Sharia

          • Chica responding to itself:

            You know nothing about Egyptian politics or political platforms.

            Truer words never uttered here by he.

          • jim_m

            “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

            Yep.  Sounds like the American left.  When they lose they riot in the streets trying to over turn the results of the elections like they did in Wisconsin.  They shout “this is what democracy looks like!” whilst trying to impose mob rule.

            Yes the American left will seize power in the name of democracy and their secular anti-Christian faith (aka warmism).  Just wait till Nov 2012 when obama loses the SEUI and their corrupt stooges at ACORN along with International Answer, Code Pink and other communist front groups will all turn out fomenting unrest in an attempt to overturn the election.

          • Fascism has already been here once, under the presidency of that well known Republican Fundamentalist Christian Woodrow Wilson.

          • jim_m

            Frankly I think that we have less to fear from the NDA (although I agree with you that we are going too far) than we do from SOPA.

          • Anonymous

            Well, Paul’s against SOPA too. 


            The rest of them, and Obama, are a part of the crony capitalist statist oligarchy.

          • Anonymous

            Yes Chico Ron Paul is a racist.

        • Anonymous

          If by some fluke Ron Paul is nominated the LSM will beat him to death with his own newletter. The stuff in that newletter all written in first person is deplorable. He will spend his entire campaign trying to rid himself of that stench and Obama will win 47 (hell he might win all 57) states. But you go right ahead and support the lunitic.

          • RP will be very electable according to the MSM… until he wins the nomination.

            At that point, he’ll turn into Satan Incarnate.

          • Anonymous

            That’s exactly right and then all of a sudden the news letter and it’s dispicable contents will be big news, frankly as it should be.

          • jim_m

            The left is willing to overlook racism when it suits their purposes. They don’t really give a damn about it unless it furthers their own agenda.

          • Anonymous

            Yeah, the MSM showed little interest in Obama’s attendance at a racist church for over 20 years.  I wish the MSM would have been as persistent in questioning Obama about Rev. Wright and Mr. Ayers as they are about questioning Rep. Paul – note, I’m not saying the questioning of Rep. Paul is inappropriate, just that the MSM did NO vetting of Obama.

    • You defend Ron Paul with articles published by Lew Rockwell, Paul’s “longtime partner”?  Right.  Do also agree with his racism, homophobia, antisemitism, deceit on pork spending, trutherism, and profiting from gold investments by constantly touting it as a currency standard?

      • How odd chicka has not responded to your comment in re Lew Rockwell.

  • luaP noR, chicka, and Lew Rockwell, a threesome which would have been much better left unimagined.

  • Anonymous

    There’s nothing to dislike about Ron Paul until you actually listen to him.

  • Anonymous

    Like most politicians, and indeed like most people, Ron Paul is a mixed bag.  

    • Anonymous

      I agree he’s a mixed bag, but he’s the only one telling the truth about the Fed printing money, the increasingly oppressive police state, and the warmongers.

      Top three employers of campaign contributors to Ron Paul, (because the troops see the truth and they’re sick of the wars and bullshit):

      1. U.S. Army
      2. U.S. Air Force
      3. U.S. Navy

      Top three employers of campaign contributors to Mitt Romney

      1. Goldman Sachs
      2. Credit Suisse
      3. Morgan Stanley

      Top three employers of campaign contributors to Newt Gingrich:

      1. Rock-Tenn Co. (“green” products)
      2. Poet LLC (subsidized ethanol)
      3. First Fiscal Fund (real estate)

      • Anonymous

        What is this supposed to prove Chico, that Ron Paul hasn’t said the most ridicuous things or that he’s not an outright racist? Ron Paul supporters are like Obama supporters they just never hear the negative stuff, and there is plenty of negative stuff. Sorry Chico just because military people send Ron Paul money doesn’t change the fact that he’s not fit to be president and will never ever win a presidential election. The only thing this guy can do is give us 4 more years of Obama.

      • Anonymous

        Chico, those represent percentage of total received monies.  If servicemen and women donated $300 of the $400 that luaP receives, and give $3000 of the $50,000 that Perry gets, who has more support from the military?  Yes, the Doc gets a larger percentage of his miniscule donations from the military, and I am cool with that, But, the statistics show a percentage of money, not an absolute amount. 

        Hell, total donations to Obama from active military are greater than the donations to the Ronster campaign.

        One more problem, there really any way of checking the claim of employment or even need to make the claim of employment for private donations.

        • Anonymous


          As of the last reporting date, at the end of September, Paul leads all
          candidates by far in donations from service members. This trend has
          been in place since 2008, when Paul ran for president with a similar
          stance: calling nonsense at hawk squawk from both parties.

          This year, Paul has 10 times the individual donations — totaling
          $113,739 — from the military as does Mitt Romney. And he has a hundred
          times more than Newt Gingrich, who sat out the Vietnam War with college
          deferments and now promises he would strike foes at the slightest

      • retired.military

        Top 3 employers of Campaign contributeors to Obama
        1.  Fannie and Freddie
        2.  Unions
        3.  Loony assholes.

      • “a mixed bag” – yes, of ugly, hateful, deceitful, and anti-American thought.  Paul may declare all sorts of things “unconstitutional” – no matter how well established their constitutionality or his own failure to bring action in court against any which have not – but what he really wants is either a return to the Articles of Confederation or to be the Dictator himself.

        But we get it, as with Democrats, any sin is overlooked as long as he opposes America defending her interests.  Had Paul’s foreign policy – which you seem to approve – been in force after WWII, we would be living in Soviet America today without doubt.  The world would be divided between the Soviets and ChiComs.

        But that’s what you really want anyway, isn’t it, Chomsky?

        • Anonymous

          I’m all in favor of some things being declared unconstitutional, like the Fed printing money at will or by order of the banks, wars by presidential order, warrantless surveillance of communications, and now (NDAA) imprisonment of citizens by presidential order.

          What is so bad about the Articles of Confederation?  Maybe it is time to go back to that.  Local government should have more power.  There would still be a confederal armed forces. 

          Ron Paul is not going to win the nomination – the media blackout alone will ensure that – but he is a champion for sound money, peace and Constitutional rights.

          • Evil Otto

            What is so bad about the Articles of Confederation?

            Ask the Founding Fathers. They disposed of them within only a few years.

          • herddog505

            Look on the bright side:

            Under the Articles, the several states could tell Barry to get bent over ObamaCare.  They could flip the bird to the SCOTUS about Roe v. Wade (or Brown. v The Board, for that matter).  The rest of us wouldn’t be responsible for California’s debt.  No more NLRB dictating where companies can build plants.  Tax Cheat Timmy and Helicopter Benny couldn’t print money at will.  Our national debt would likely be non-existent.

            And, for the libs, it would be hard for the US to go to war without a standing army or navy.

            Yep, there’s a LOT to be said about the Articles.  I’m sure that many people in history kicked themselves that we didn’t keep them.  You know: Jeff Davis, the Kaiser, Schickelgruber, Stalin, etc.

            I wonder whose face would be on the No. Carolina dollar bill (or pound note)?

    • Anonymous

      Ron Paul is more like a can of mixed nuts.

  • jim_m

    The left and the media will keep covering for Paul because he is everything they want in a politician. He isn’t recognizably conservative, he opposes any assertion of American interests abroad, he is a racist and and anti-semite.  Why wouldn’t the left like him?  They look at him and see themselves.

  • Anonymous

    Paul is an earmarker of some quality as well. While decrying the use of earmarks he places quite a number of them. I always considered Paul a candidate trying to win in the 2000’s with ideas from the 1900’s, which didn’t work then and won’t work now.  cbtrce

  • Anonymous

    Ross Perot made more sense then Rupaul and he was not taken seriously. McCain made way more sense then the organizer and was not taken seriously.

    This is a sad state of affairs..

  • Ron Paul doesn’t care if you are Black…
    …or if you are white, or latino, or Jewish, or Arab; Ron Paul only cares that you have liberty and justice and not ruled over by reckless Authoritarians. In response to the mainstream attacks on Ron Paul since his sudden rise as frontrunner, I would like to point out a few things:
    –         Ron Paul wants to end the war on drugs which disproportionately effects minorities and minority communities, releasing non-violent offenders (he would free more black men than Lincoln)
    –         Ron Paul wants to end the Endless Wars (all wars are racist, name one that does not have racial overtones) that not only effect people of all races in this nation but also promotes violence against people of other cultures (if you don’t know about the plight of Black Libyans after our “lead from the rear/ UN validating /Undeclared” war, then you need to educate yourself.)
    –         Ron Paul is against a boarder fence stating that it can “keep us in as well as others out” and “it won’t work and costs too much money”
    –         Ron Paul is against the Patriot Act of the Bush era and the NDAA2011 of the Obama era which effects everyone regardless of race (effecivly making Americans “terrorists”). No other Republican or Obama is against this, only Ron Paul.
    –         Ron Paul doesn’t want our police (or any part of the government) violating the rights of any American.
    –         Ron Paul is Pro-Life, not only because of spiritual and moral conviction but knowing about the racist eugenics program of social engeneering and also knowing that 54% of black people don’t even exist today because of abortion since 1970.
    –         Ron Paul supports the family, which the Establishment wants the State to replace your family. That is why ethnic (and white) groups with stong family values get targeted by CPS and the dependancy system. 
    –         Ron Paul wants freindship and trade with all nations, the authoritarians want to bomb anybody who looks at us funny.
    –         Ron Paul is a Libertarian (individual liberty) which is the opposite of collectivism, Racisim is the ugliest form of collectivism.
    –         Ron Paul believes in States Rights, yes, but he also knows that the State (and the Fed) only get their power from the PEOPLE. Read the 10th Amendment, it states that THE PEOPLE are the ultimate authority. We give the State permission to conduct our business.
    –         Ron Paul supported Israel’s right to defend its self back in 1981 when they attacked an Iraqi facillity. Every Republican, including Reagan, condemed Israel for that action, not Ron Paul. He still supports Israel’s right to defend its self and defends their  right to exist and respects their sovreignty.
    –         And many other examples can be cited…
    So how many Republicans AND Democrats can claim such a record? Ron Paul believes that FEAR is what weakens America. If you FEAR Ron Paul because you “think” he is racist by association and that White People are out to “get you”, then you fall right in line with what the Authoritarian Establishment wants you to believe. Same goes for those whites that have FEAR of being labled a “racist”, don’t be fooled by those that want to bomb whole races into genocide while indefiantally detaining American citizens forever without trial (NDAA2011). The Establishment is crying “Racist!” to distract you from the fact that Ron Paul has been fighting for EVERYONE in America, and the world. The others don’t even come close.
    I don’t need someone to “tell” me if someone is racist or not, I can tell by their actions and not what others have said in their name. Lets’ go ahead and tar-and-feather Rush Limbagh and Micheal Moore then if you are really offened. What about the Bush family and their CIA and Nazi past? What about Obama and his familie’s CIA and Terrorist past? What about Goldman Sachs and international banksters “owning” most parties around the world?! What about the Neo-Con PNAC document of 2000 that talked about “Race specific Bio-weapons”?!! You get it yet? You are being played so you stay in your political pen. They are telling you to shut up and sit down and choose Republican Death and Economic enslavement or the Democrat version. They are both Authoritarians, Ron Paul and the American people are the only thing standing in their way. Wise up, don’t be fooled again.
     And those still worried about his newsletters, try to read his books and then try to figure out about the propaganda being shoved down your throat. Also I would advise researching “false flag” and “establishment provocateurs”, maybe you will then understand what is going on in the real world.

    • Most people think of politics in a 2 dimensional way, usually left and rightIn actuality politics is more of a 3 dimensional game. In politics there is a “X” and “Y” axis“Left” and “Right”, or the modern version of what “Liberal” and “Conservative” means, those are on the “X” axis“Authoritarianism” and “Libertarianism” are on the “Y” axis
      Authoritarianism and Libertarianism are opposing forces, not opposite. Just as Fascism and Communism are extrem versions of Authoritarianism (so you can be an Authoritarian with out being a Fascist of Communist), Anarchy is the extreme of Libertarianism.
      In terms of what we face today, the “Left” and “Right” of the “X” axis is firmly in the “Authoritarianism” end of the “Y” axis spectrum. Ron Paul is the only one on the “X” axis running opposing the Authoritarian “Left/Right”. So choose Fear or Love; cower to tyrants, or stand up for liberty?

    • retired.military

      Not another cut and paste job.  Save us.

    • Anonymous

      I’m for ABO like most conservatives but c’mon.. Is he your father in law or something?

  • A Ron Paul video interview from 1995, while he was still out of office, has surfaced.  One of the things he says he’s busy with is his newsletter.  He suggests the interviewer “read what I wrote in my newsletter” to explain a position.  When confronted with the anti-black, anti-gay, and antisemitic references in his first congressional campaign thereafter, he did not dispute authorship of any of these things, but only insisted that they should not “be taken out of context” and the full article read.  Well, the full article is about the objectionable quotes in every case.

    Paul told Ed Crane of Cato that his biggest source of contributions for his congressional campaigns was the mailing list for The Spotlight.  For those unfamiliar with this publication, it is a Holocaust-denying, antisemitic, conspiracy sheet which has offered articles defending Hitler.  He also has long relationships with the people behind Stormfront, and has received contributions from known white supremacists which he refused to return or repudiate.

    He associates closely with conspiracy nut Alex Jones and regularly uses phrases from the Truther lexicon which those nuts believe is a signal to them of his belief.

    Paul was 100% for open borders his whole career, until his return to Congress when he found his district was concerned and damaged by illegal immigration.  “Man of principle”?

    Paul has been routinely one of the leading three Republicans in the House in terms of pork spending and earmarks.  His MO is devious, though, arranging to get his items inserted in committee or in conference and then, when the final compromise bill is assured of passage, casting a “NO” vote and proudly pontificating about the excessive spending.  He knows his followers aren’t sharp enough to catch onto his deceit.

    If Paul’s followers disagreed with his racism, antisemitism, and homophobia, disbelieved in his 9/11 Trutherism, and were merely disturbed enough to support “libertarian” ideals, they had a candidate to support.  Gary Johnson is a libertarian without all the baggage who was actually a successful Governor..

    And yet, they stick with Paul.  Are they stupid, evil, or just too stoned to notice?

    • Anonymous

      While Paul is saying things that need to be said, I would much prefer Gary Johnson myself.  Paul is also defined by his warmongering opponents.

      Johnson is probably closer to what Americans really want than any other candidate of either party.

      Don’t you think it’s more than a little strange and creepy how Johnson, a successful two-term governor, got kept out of the debates, while the pizza maker Cain, who ended up being a circus clown, got in without questions?

      • Jay

        Don’t you think it’s more than a little strange and creepy how Johnson, a successful two-term governor, got kept out of the debates, while the pizza maker Cain, who ended up being a circus clown, got in without questions?

        It’s because Johnson also advocated marijuana legalization, which the GOP doesn’t want to promote.

        • Anonymous

          I believe it’s more because he’s a non-interventionist, but more palatable than Ron Paul. 

          In other words, Johnson was more of a threat of actually winning the nomination and the presidency.

        • A more fundamental question comes to mind…

          Who really cares what chicka thinks about the field of Republican Candidates, other than as a semi-reliable contra-indicator?

  • Anonymous

    How big is Iran with the additions of Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and “Palestine”?