Sunday, April 04, 2010

Newsflash

Militia Leader was a Ron Paul fan. Those of you familiar with the presence of 9-11 Truthers supporting Paul need no further reading.

The militia kooks were more Bill Ayers than Bill Ayers. Maybe Ayers will reach out to them and offer to convert them to Communism. Maybe these militia men should apply for jobs as professors in Berkley or DePaul.

17 comments:

Always On Watch said...

Militia Leader was a Ron Paul fan.

Well, doesn't that just figure?

beakerkin said...

Of course this is missed by far left types who see Ron Paul as "authentic". Authentic of what remains unknown.

Anonymous said...

Beak, what exactly is your beef with Ron Paul? Surly you aren't in favor of viewing the character of a person based upon some of his supporters, are you? That's a weak stance to take.

Is it that he's not in favor of playing Superman militarily all across the world, like Bush was? I'm guessing that you think you've found something in his views that qualifies as antisemetic, thus, making him a "commie" by extension. Does he view Israel as just another country, without any sort of divine exceptionalism or intrinsic moral superiority? No ill intent meant, but that seems to be your criteria quite frequently in determining a politician's worth (their view of Israel and use of military force)

Don't get me wrong, I have my political problems with the man. I just do not get why such an economically conservative politician, who also does not want the gov. involved in the bedrooms of America, would pose such a problem for you, a fairly socially liberal fella.

Ray

beakerkin said...

Ray

Many of my closest friends on the web are liberterians. These include
Jason Papas as well as Warren.

My problem with Paul starts from the fact that he has associated and accepted money from Nazis, Holocaust Deniers and Truthers. Rather than give the money back he dodges and twists.

When I was in VT on winter Nights I could get Mark Levin on the radio. A regular staple was really
nasty antisemites calling up and identifying themselves as Paul supporters.

The libertarians I know and am friendly with do not care for Nazis, 911 Truthers and drive Commies like the Duck up a wall.

Anonymous said...

Okay, I can see why you would have a problem with him, given his taking of money from such people. Has this been addressed to him directly, forcing him to explain why he has accepted funds from such vermin? Without knowing much about this aspect of Paul, I'm just throwing this out there to see what you think. This doesn't address his "truther" stance either, but of Israel.

We both know that those that claim to support Israel may not concomitantly care much for Judaism or Jews. I have in mind here many of the Christian Fundamentalist Disspensationalists (Hal Lindsay, the authors of the Left Behind Series), who simply need Jewish bodies to play out their notion of the "End Times." When the "rapture occurs, that's when the Hebrew Bible prophecies are supposed to be brought to fruition. Israel is needed to exist in this scenario.

Then, there are those that quite correctly view Israel as a good ally, particularly against the Iranian regime, and are somewhat unsure what to think of Israel from their Christian standpoint (for instance, the R.C. church traditionally eschews disspensationalism but most of the laity remain unsure of what the Church's stance is).

But, there is a viable opposing viewpoint that the U.S. may need to rectify some things with its relationship with Israel to better relations with (It pains me to say it), Muslim countries. That's just a reality, those relations need to be bettered. That is not done by completely abandoning Israel, but by engaging in the peace process fairly, or at least doing the best we can on our part. The Muslim countries may not cooperate.

Therefore, what if Ron Paul's views, which may not be(The jury should still be out on that) antisemtic, but simply pragmatic, not favoring Israel the way fundamentalists do?

Now, a neo-Nazi scumbag may see Paul's stance on Israel as antisemetic, not because it truly is anti-Jewish, but because it is simply devoid of the religious favoritism so heaped upon it by many within our gov. Is that possible? That Ron Paul has some antisemtic supporters, not because he really is, but because his stance towards Israel simply comes across differently than what has been the case from these people's disgusting standpoint?

Ray

beakerkin said...

Ray

Paul was confronted on this by Michael Medved and refused to answer. There are some odious types that support Buchanan, but the Paul
supporters win hands down.

Paul is well aware of the Truthers who support him and has said nothing.

Anonymous said...

I forgot to finish my previous post that Paul may be receiving monies and donations from cretins under the false assumption that he is anti-Israel or a Judeophobe of some kind or another.

When in reality, his views are not antisemetic but are simply devoid of the exceptional status given Israel by many in the U.S. (primarily a certain type of Christian) That said, if that's the case, it would be in his best interest to visibly and forcibly distance himself from these people. But, I still stand by my assertion that it's not his initial fault for these sorts liking him because they misunderstand his views.

Ray

beakerkin said...

Ray

It is difficult to criticize Yeagley for material that is similar to Ron Paul.

You can read the quotes about gays, blacks and Jews from a newsletter that carried his name in the New Republic. The support of racists and Nazi types is no accident.

Paul like Yeagley has appeared for the John Birch Society as well.

The Pagan Temple said...

Paul's son, Rand Paul, is running for the Senate from Kentucky, as a Republican, against Trey Greyson, the Kentucky Secretary of State. Palin and the Tea-Party supports Rand Paul, McConnell and most mainstream GOP officials seem to favor Greyson.

Either one to me would be preferable to Mongiardo, our current Lieutenant Governor (one of the few Kentucky politicians to support Obama in the primaries) or his Democratic rival, the state AG, who refuses to join the states lawsuits against the Obamacare on the grounds that its just "grandstanding".

I don't know how much like his father Rand is. I do know he's been accused of wanting to close Guantanamo, and of positing that 9/11 may have happened because of our presence and policies in the Middle East, something he denies, though he is evidently on film saying precisely that.

If he is a Truther, or an apologist for Islamic terrorism, that's unfortunate, because otherwise, I find myself in solid agreement with Ron Paul on a good many issues, most especially that we should get the hell out of the business of being the big bad protector of the world that nobody really wants to have around unless they need us (which turns out to be all the fucking time).

We could cut our yearly deficit in half just by letting those assholes fend for themselves. Israel is more than capable of taking care of themselves, if we would just stay the hell out of their way and let them do what they need to do. If we would quit kissing up to these other worthless space takers, they could do so and there's nothing anybody else could do about it.

The ironic thing is, if we would go back to a hands off policy when it comes to foreign affairs, the way Washington proposed at the beginning, our so-called "allies" would quickly come around to our way of thinking, and I mean real damn quick.

beakerkin said...

PT

Only time will tell

Anonymous said...

Beak, I never said I'm a huge Ron Paul supporter. He's yet to articulate a stance towards the Federal Gov.'s upholding of the treaty and land trust obligations towards tribes in this country. Libertarianism and small gov. policies sound great in many ways, but many proponents leave Indian issues unaccounted for. For libertarians, it's sort of a third rail issue, I suppose.

Secondly, by speaking of Yeagley as though he were on par from an influence standpoint with Paul and other notable figures that you hate on the far left, you give him way too much credit. I know Yeagley directly in terms of his hatefulness.

Yeagley is not a political figure, so by trying to insinuate that my stance towards Yeagley is jeopardized by my supposed support of Ron Paul, is unjustified. Please note that I never claimed to have done extensive research on Ron Paul or his stance towards Israel, the "birther" movement, or 9/11. I only offered a POSSIBLE interpretation of why he may have some asshole supporters. If he is actually in support of those sorts of monsters (Holocaust deniers and such), then he deserves the scorn you have for him.

Ray

beakerkin said...

Ray

I stand corrected

The quotes from Paul are from his news letter. The stuff speaks for itself.

Going back to Yeagley, the question we will never know is who or what Yeagley really is other than a loon.

Lets talk about some common themes.

1) Yeagley is a racist.

Even from a person like myself who wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt this is impossible. The tones and the preponderance of writing is inexcusable.

2) Yeagley is a patriot

No, he has not the first clue about our values. It is illogical
to claim that you are a patriot and
fail to grasp we are a nation of shared ideas open to all who believe similarly. We do not have second class citizenry and racism is Unamerican.

3) Yeagley is an antisemite.

No, he is not but he is clearly a moron of great ability. He plays
idiotic who is a Jew bit with less
humorous results than the KKK dude on the Howard Stern show.

I will point to a well known anti-semitic vermin whose presence
is well known by many here Greetings My Son aka Rightminded.
His Nazi rhetoric was well known here and he has boot marks from our very own Mr. Beamish, a real patriot.

Yeagley does not grasp that there is indeed a mental defect with antisemites of the following groups.

a) Jihadi- Kill all of you Jews and plan to make the entire planet Muslim.

b) Nazi- Jews control the media, blew up the WTC, focus on the Liberty indecent, frequently delve
into Khazar and Edomite bits.

c) communist Sheer abuse of populism and fake history from Marx
to the current era. They cater to one and two.

4) Hatred of gays

He is mostly quoting scripture and has never advocated killing or jailing them. Has many real nasty
quotes.

There is limited evidence of this.

5) Hates Women

There is ample evidence of this.

Anonymous said...

Hey Beak, you'll get no argument from me about what you've said about Yeagley. However, poiint #4 about his problems with gays, I encourage you to check out the several week old discussion under "Christian Missions" of his site. He offers a somewhat passive support for the killing of gays in Uganda.

Once upon a time, I called Greetings out there and in private messages. He was scum but Yeagley allowed him to post because, well, Yeagley enjoyed Tweet's viewpoints, but only grew impatient with him when he got around to spewing anti-Jewish crap.

Ray

The_Editrix said...

"He is mostly quoting scripture and has never advocated killing or jailing them. Has many real nasty quotes."

As if that weren't enough, Beak! And now don't give me the crap that I am saying nasty things about them as well. I don't hate homosexuals. I hate what the political faction does and I support that by a REASONED argument.

May I remind you of the vile things the great American Patriot said about Father Mychal Judge, a man I revere?

You are secular, so you dismiss scripture as irrelevant. May I remind you as well what atrocities were performed in its name? What do you think a world would look like in which "Prophetesse" Ellen White and acolytes like Yeagley were the supreme authority? Saudi Arabia and Iran would almost pale in comparison.

Hey wait! While I'm writing this... Saudi Arabia, Iran ... No alcohol, no "indecently" dressed women, no extramarital sex, no homosexuals, racial separation, ideas of supremacy of one "race" over the next, general contempt and disrespect of women, strictly kept religious rites... I guess if the Religion of Peace came from a corner of the world where people are white, he would be quite compatible with it.

beakerkin said...

Editrix

Actually, you are right he did say some awful things about victim number one on 911. He certainly did not run from danger on that day. I guess the notion of a brave man who is gay upsets Yeagley.

The_Editrix said...

"I guess the notion of a brave man who is gay upsets Yeagley."

Bingo Beak!

beamish said...

The nicest thing I can say about Ron Paul is that he's a waste of a good bullet.

If Ron Paul is the face of conservatism, I will spit in that face.