Ron Paul: Iran Wants to Disrupt World Oil Supply Because of our Verbal Provocation (2011 Video)

RON PAUL ON THE ISSUES Just like the Left, libertarian Ron Paul always finds a way to blame us. Iran can’t dream of having a better ambassador and defender than Ron Paul. When it comes to foreign policy, what is the difference between Ron Paul and Obama? A small government and an audited Federal Reserve here at home will do us no good, if under a Ron Paul presidency, terrorists will be allowed to do as they please while we hide our heads in the sand, flagellate ourselves for their attacks, and think of ways to befriend the terrorists as Ron Paul has suggested. Hat tip: The Right Scoop. (Click image for video)
	—– o —– TRANSCRIPT (12/14/2011) RON PAUL: How would I deal with the threat or the so-called threat of the Iranians, that they are going to disrupt the oil supply? Well I’d be provoking them a lot less because they’re reacting to the provoking of the West saying “we’re gonna put on sanctions”. We have them surrounded with nuclear weapons and we’re claiming that they’re gonna build a nuclear weapon and there’s no evidence for this. So we’re just looking for trouble. We’re building the war propaganda against Iran just as we did against Iraq. [...] So they [Iran] are acting actually in a rational manner because they’re saying “they’re gonna attack us and start bombing us”. They have to say “well, we don’t have any nuclear weapons, we can’t really defend ourselves. So we might sink a boat, sink a ship out there in the Persian Gulf”, hoping that we might back off. I just think we’re treating the whole thing wrong.

Ron Paul Blames America for the Islamic Terrorism (2009 Video)

RON PAUL ON THE ISSUES Libertarian Ron Paul on Islamic terrorists: “They’re terrorists because we’re occupiers.” (CNN’s Larry King Live, 12/28/2009, video mark 5:14)

Video shows Ron Paul and guests talking about terrorist Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab (The Underwear Christmas Day Bomber who attempted to bring down Northwest/Delta flight on 12/25/2009). Ron Paul used the opportunity to blame America (again) for the Islamic terror attacks even though: 1. Islamic attacks against Americans started decades before the Iraq War 2. Islamics Crusades started 4 centuries before the European Crusades 3. Islamic doctrine calls for Muslims to attack non-Muslims until they submit to Allah and accept Sharia law ——- o ——- TRANSCRIPT (Video mark 5:14) RON PAUL: One thing that is missing here is never asking the question what is the motive? AbdulMutallab…he said why he was — he did it. He said it was because we bombed Yemen two weeks ago. That was his motive. Osama bin Laden said that he has a plan for America. First, he wants to bog us down in the Middle East in a no-win war. He wants to bankrupt this country, demoralize us, as well as have us do things that motivate people to join his radical movement. It seems like we’ve fallen into his trap. Why is it off base? Today, when the gentleman indicated that he did it because of the bombing, you know what the administration said? They dismissed it. It can’t possibly be so. If you dismiss motivations for why they hate us, we can never resolve this. There’s hate on both sides. You have to ask the question, why do they hate? And they usually come up with a reason. And we’re foolish not to take that into consideration. LARRY KING: Ben? BEN STEIN: Well, that’s — I have never heard anything quite like that in my whole life. What he’s saying, basically, is we are doing something wrong by defending ourselves. Look, if these terrorists are trying to kill the government of Yemen, we’ve got to help defend them. They’re our friends. We can’t just let al Qaeda run wild. If we try to stop them – RON PAUL: Why? BEN STEIN: Why should we stop them? Because they are terrorists and murderers and they’re very anti-American. RON PAUL: Why are they terrorists? BEN STEIN: Surely congressman – RON PAUL: Why are they terrorists? BEN STEIN: They’re terrorists and murders because they are psychos. RON PAUL: They’re terrorists because we’re occupiers.

Ron Paul Favors Marijuana Legalization (2009 Video)

Mickey Mouse and Adolf Hitler Allowed on Wisconsin Recall Petitions

THIS IS HOW THE LEFT FIGHTS On Tuesday, the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board unanimously approved that “Adolf Hitler” and “Mickey Mouse” will be valid signatures on a recall petition to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. Their message is clear: All fake Democrat signatures will be accepted…unless they are challenged. But as the MacIver Institute reports, “The recall petitions will not be data entered by state staff. It falls on Walker, or other independent groups, to discover fraudulent signatures among the tens of thousands of recall forms submitted. If the signatures of Mickey Mouse, Adolf Hitler, etc are then discovered, they can be contested, but they are given the presumption of legitimacy by the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board.” Their tactic is simple: Unions and other leftists will submit a massive volume of phony signatures that there will be neither manpower nor time to challenge them all. Read more: here and here.

Nation of “Palestine” Never Existed

There has never been an independent state in Palestine ruled by Muslims. Palestine was an ancient name for the geographic region of Israel or Terra Sancta ruled either by Jews or Christians. No ‘Palestinian Arab people’ existed until 1920, when the British occupying force carved out a ‘Palestine.’ (1881 Map via Library of Congress) -
Via Front Page Magazine:
	CREATING “PALESTINE” The term Palestine ( in Arabic) was an ancient name for the general geographic region that is more or less today’s Israel. The name derives from the Philistines, who originated from the Eastern Mediterranean and invaded the region in the eleventh and twelfth centuries B.C. The Philistines were apparently from Greece, or perhaps Crete, or the Aegean Islands, or Ionia. They seem to be related to the Bronze Age Greeks, and they spoke a language akin to Mycenaean Greek.Their descendants were still living on the shores of the Mediterranean when roman invaders arrived a thousand years later. The Romans corrupted the name to “Palestina,” and the area under the sovereignty of their littoral city states became known as “Philistia.” Six hundred years later, the Arab invaders called the region “Falastin.” Throughout all subsequent history, the name designated only a vague geographical entity. There was never a nation of “Palestine,” never a people known as the “Palestinians,” nor any notion of “historic Palestine.” The region never enjoyed any sovereign autonomy, but instead remained under successive foreign sovereign domains, from the Umayyads and Abbasids to the Fatimids, Ottomans and British. During the British Mandate period (1922–1948), the Arabs of the area had their own designation for the region: Balad esh-Sham (the country, or province, of Damascus). In early 1947, in fact, when the UN was exploring the possibility of the partition of British Mandatory Palestine into two states, one for the Jews and one for the Arabs, various Arab political and academic spokespersons vociferously protested against such a division because, they argued, the region was really a part of southern Syria. Because no such people as “Palestinians” had ever existed, it would be an injustice to Syria to create a state ex nihilo at the expense of Syrian sovereign territory. During the nineteen years from Israel’s victory in 1948 to Israel’s victory in the Six-Day war, all that remained of the territory initially set aside for the Arabs of British Mandatory Palestine under the conditions of the UN partition was the West Bank, under illegal Jordanian sovereignty, and the Gaza Strip, under illegal Egyptian rule. Never during these nineteen years did any Arab leader anywhere in the world argue for the right of national self-determination for the Arabs of these territories. Even Yassir Arafat, from his earliest terrorist days until 1967, used the term “Palestinians” only to refer to the Arabs who lived under, or had fled from, Israeli sovereignty; and the term “Palestine” only to refer to Israel in its pre-1967 borders. In the PLO’s original founding Charter (or Covenant), Article 24 states: “this Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the west Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, in the Gaza Strip or the Himmah area.” For Arafat, “Palestine” was not the west Bank or the Gaza Strip, which after 1948 belonged to other Arab states. The only “homeland” for the PLO in 1964 was the State of Israel. However, in response to the Six-Daywar and Arafat’s mentoring by the Soviets and their allies, the PLO revised its Charter on July 17, 1968, to remove the language of Article 24, thereby newly asserting a “Palestinian” claim of sovereignty to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Part of the reframing of the conflict, along with adopting the identity of an “oppressed people” and “victim of colonialism,” then, was the creation, ex nihilo, of “historic Palestine” and the ancient “Palestinian people” who had lived in their “homeland” from “time immemorial,” who could trace their “heritage” back to the Canaanites, who were forced from their homeland by the Zionists, and who had the inalienable right granted by international law and universal justice to use terror to reclaim their national identity and political self-determination. That this was a political confection was, perhaps inadvertently, revealed to the West by Zahir Muhse’in, a member of the PLO Executive Committee, in a 1977 interview with the Amsterdam-based newspaper Trouw: “The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism. [Emphasis added.] Arafat himself asserted the same principle on many occasions. In his authorized biography he says, “The Palestinian people have no national identity. I, Yasir Arafat, man of destiny, will give them that identity through conflict with Israel.” But even these admissions—that the concept of a “Palestinian people” and a “Palestinian homeland” were invented for political purposes to justify and legitimize terrorism and genocide—could not stem the enthusiasm of western leaders. Within the space of a few years, the Middle East conflict with Israel was radically reframed. No longer was little Israel the vulnerable David standing against the massive Goliath of the Arab world. As the PLO’s Communist-trained leaders saw the inroads that Vietnam, Cuba, and other “liberation struggles” had made in the west, Arafat promoted the same script for the Palestinians. Now it was Israel who was the bullying Goliath, a colonial power in the Middle East oppressing the impoverished, unarmed, helpless, hapless, and hopeless Palestinians. Despite the changing imagery, however, one thing remained constant. From his earliest days, Arafat was clear that the PLO’s aim was “not to impose our will on [Israel], but to destroy it in order to take its place . . . not to subjugate the enemy but to destroy him.” The Palestinian nationalism that he and his Communist advisers created would be the only national movement for political self-determination in the entire world, and across all of world history, to have the destruction of a sovereign state and the genocide of a people as its only raison d’etre.