Saturday, January 9, 2010

Steve Forbes Endorses Rand Paul

A note from Steve Forbes (via RandPaul2010):
“I am proud to endorse Republican candidate Dr. Rand Paul for Senate.”
“As someone who has run an outsider campaign myself, I know something about taking on the establishment. I see in Rand someone who can take the fight from the Tea Parties to the Senate, and help take back our government and our country from the out of control, tax and spend liberals.”

“The American people need more than just another vote. They need a man of principle who will always stand up and fight. They need a citizen politician who will represent THEM.”

“Rand Paul will do the work to fight for lower taxes and spending and for more freedom in Washington . He’ll fight for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget and for term limits. He’ll fight to give back more of our rights, not take more away.”

“And then he’ll go back home to Kentucky . I can’t think of a better way to represent the people of Kentucky than to end the cycle of career politicians and pork barrel spending in Washington.”


  1. So is this good or bad? Forbes didn't endorse Ron Paul, right? So I'm assuming the son isn't going to be "crazy" on foreign policy if elected...?

  2. The son Rand is in favor of wars. He is a member of the War Party, unlike his dad Ron.

    Schiff is a War Partier also.

    Any difference between Dems and Repugs is an illusion -- they are mostly all War Partiers, largely for the benefit of Israel, not the US.

    It's a bloody mess that's going to spiral into WW3.

  3. "Schiff is a War Partier also."

    I don't know for sure about Rand Paul, but I call "Bullshit" on this comment.

    Anonymous, try actually listening to or reading Schiff, but, Of course, only if you are genuinely interested in his positions, and not just throwing bombs against him.

  4. Steve Forbes endorsed Ron Paul for Congress in 1996 when the entire GOP establishment was lining up behind democrat turncoat Greg Laughlin.

  5. to: RatherBFlying

    "Peter Schiff says he might support attacking Iran"

    Since umpteen US intelligence agencies say Iran has no nukes, since IAEA has found no nukes, etc., Schiff is just posturing for the Ziocons which makes him a WAR PARTIER.

    All I know is what I read. This doesn't look/sound very good to me.

    Don't say "bullshit." Deal with it.

  6. Did you actually watch the video on this page, or just read the headline? Mmm hhmmm. He says if he had evidence, he might support limited operations to remove them. This tells me that if "umpteen US intelligence agencies say Iran has no nukes", Peter won't do a damn thing to Iraq.

    So... sorry, sticking with "bullshit".

  7. Correction: "thing to Iraq." should be "thing to Iran."

  8. To RatherBFlying:

    You have the following to resolve:
    (1) Schiff is presently unaware that there is ZERO credible evidence of Iran nukes (which makes him less informed than most folks who follow non-MSM info); or (2) he is, as I said, just posturing for the Ziocons.

    So, you have a dilemma: Schiff is either terribly ill-informed or a poseur, either of which makes him a poor alternative candidate for public office. As an ordinary pol/hack of course he is just fine.

    Check and mate. If I were you I wouldn't respond further. You are just embarrassing yourself with your own "bullshit."

  9. Nice of you to declare yourself winner dumb ass, but before you pop the cork:

    Your options are plain wrong. Schiff said "... IF there was credible evidence." Since he is currently a citizen and not privvy to current intelligence reports (and, by the way, neither are you) he can't rule out that that evidence exists or not. For him to say anything any different right now would be as FOOLISH as your position.

    Thanks for the advice not to respond, twit, but when I see some one as full of it as you are, well... I have to repeat myself: Bullshit.

  10. RatherBFlying:

    All "current intelligence reports" say Iran has no nukes. This is despite the best efforts of Israel to manufacture a war, with US, UK and French complicity of course.

    BUT now I understand. You must be PIMPING FOR ISRAEL.

    Enough said by me. I submit to the other readers to judge whether we have a ziocon in our midst.

  11. You're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists, aren't you Anon?

    Be careful walking past those trees and buildings... a "ziocon" might jump out and scare you. Boo!

  12. RatherBFlying:

    I don't think anybody other than you and me is following this discourse any longer.

    But there is one answered question, just between us.

    The evidence so far looks like you are "pimping for Israel": in short, a ziocon.

    Now, the original motives for zionism were understandable: a homeland for jewish people.

    So long as this was obtained honorably through purchase of land, there was not a problem. However, after the Balfour Agreement, where the Brits agreed to give away somebody else's land for free, zionism became a criminal enterprise.

    I say all this in preamble for the following:

    yes, or no, do you agree that the embodiment of zionism in the present state of Israel represents a racist, occupying state that now wages wars of aggression on its neighboring states. (Basically, I'm just summarizing scores of UN resolutions and recent war crimes reports).

    Anything other than a "yes", will mean a no.

    If you agree, then you are not a ziocon, but rather see Peter Schiff as worthwhile because of his economic analysis (which analysis I tend to agree with), and are overlooking his failure to comprehend the situation with Iran vis a vis western colonial pressure. We can agree to disagree on this without name calling. Schiff is hopefully teachable.

    Bear in mind that the description I give to Israel is also that claimed by the True Torah Jews, aka Neturei Karta.

  13. I think you are still building from an agenda, but that's OK; I like this last post.

    You have turned this in to some secret Israeli/Zionist plot. It seems to me that you are more concerned with the US support for Israel and Israel's influence than you are with Iran's welfare.

    Me not so much. I am concerned with the Military Industrial complexes influence and the perpetual state of War that they must maintain so that they don't collapse. That has to stop.

    Back to the matter at hand: If someone asks you "Will you support attacking country A if there is clear, incontrovertible evidence that they are a clear and present danger to the United States?", you will be looked at as a fool by the majority of the country if you answer "No."

    Peter knows we can't afford these wars. All you have to do is LISTEN to him. You obviously haven't. And a question for you... if not Peter, who do you support for that Senate race? Are there other war-partiers in that race, and can you provide links to where you trashed their reputations? Why did you single out Schiff?

    Now a word about blog mechanics: You can google my handle and find posts on this site and others, and you can see a history of what I have said in the past. You could see where I have signed up for the secret zionists meetings, and pledged my allegience to Israel... if I had actually done that. You posting anonymously... well, son (or daughter), you have not history. No tracability to see if you are consistent.

    Sorry, gotta run... my barmitzvah starts in an hour.

  14. Well, you didn't exactly say "yes"...

    I don't care about Iran's welfare. It's not my country. I sure don't care about Israel's welfare. Why should I care for either?

    I do care about the US's welfare. Let the others fix their own probs. Take the US $ away from Israel and they might learn to live with their neighbors.

    As the new guy, Schiff can be given the benefit of the doubt, perhaps. I'm in WA state, so he's a long way from my vote or $.

    None of this mideast stuff involves our national security other than for petroleum. China quietly makes deals to get what they need; we can do the same. Cheaper than waging war.

    Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran: it's all about resources and Israel's existential enemies.

    Of course none of this will make any sense to you if you are still part of the ever shrinking group who can't accept that 911 was an inside job. That's a key paradigm.

  15. Thanks for filling in some important details about yourself. I understand now.

    Have a nice life. Well... as nice a life as anyone with such a tortured world view can have.

  16. What a curious choice of words, "tortured."

    I've struck a nerve again here, but I'm not sure where/why.

    Re: Iran, Israel, etc. Of course I care about the welfare of people everywhere. It's just that our government goes mucking around in other people's business and they make things a lot worse. Best we get our own problems straightened out. If we stop bombing the living crap out of brown people around the world, we all will feel safer.

    Re: 911. I haven't been particularly insulting to you, but in the interests of complete disclosure, if you think that some muslims sitting in a cave in Afghanistan pulled off 911, have zero credibility.

    For a good website, with EXCELLENT archives on a range of subjects including 911, I like Rivero's

    How/why he keeps doing this is beyond me. He sure isn't getting rich. Look over his 911 archives. There's a lot of stuff there that has vanished down the rabbit hole. Check it out. Doubt him. Cross check with google. It's a very complicated world out there.

    Complicated to the point of being tortured? Maybe. Torture now is as American as apple pie. Which is sad. And a hangable war crime under the Nuremberg Protocols of 1950, for which the US of A ironically pushed.