Skip to main content

Former Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) recently defended Russian President Vladimir Putin against critics in the United States who had said that he was complicit in the deaths of nearly 300 people because because Russian weapons were likely used to shoot down a Malaysian Airlines plane.

Everybody’s angling to propagandize and make their position known,” Paul told Newsmax on Friday. “So, I think it would be unwise to say, ‘The Russians did or the Ukraine government did it or the rebels did it.’”

As I read this I thought to myself. How is the fool gonna try to bring Obama in to this.

Here we go...

“That may well be true, but guess what, ISIS has a lot of American weapons,” Paul declared. “We sent weapons into Syria to help the rebels and al Qaeda ends up getting it — it doesn’t mean that our American government and Obama deliberately wanted ISIS to get American weapons.”
What's this clown's angle by bringing up ISIS?

Oh here it is...

“So even if it was a Russian weapon, it doesn’t mean a lot.
Yeah Ronnie, it doesn't matter that Putin is arming and training these rebel's in Ukraine.

GTFOH with that bullshit.

*As Rachel Maddow expertly reported it takes extensive training to learn how to use these massive anti-aircraft missiles.You don't just find one of these truck mounted systems and learn how to use it on your own.

And of course now that the pied piper himself has given this hairbrained argument, his libertarian army is gonna be repeating this all over the blogs & twitter.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Ron is a regular on RT (Russia Today) which is nothing more than Putin's propaganda network designed for American consumption.


Are you surprised that Ron Paul his ilk are defending Putin?

74%107 votes
11%17 votes
13%20 votes

| 144 votes | Vote | Results

Continue Reading

Over the last few months I've noticed a bizarre collection of people across the political spectrum have been willingly outing themselves as shills for Russia and it's insane dictator Putin.

Whether it's cheering on Putin as he screws with Pres.Obama over Syria,Putin's actions in Ukraine, or the Snowden affair.

A strange collection of Left & Right wing libertarian types have been tripping all over themselves to be the biggest Putin apologist. (While angrily denying the charge)

Well they all can stop.

We have a winner.


I want everyone to read these quotes from Roberts with the knowledge of the Malaysia Airlines attack fresh in their minds.

To be fair Roberts wrote this "before" the attacks. But it's more relevant now.

A person might think that revulsion in “the world community” against Washington’s wanton slaughter of civilians in eight countries would have led to War Crimes Tribunal warrants issued for the arrest of presidents Clinton, Bush, Obama and many officials in their regimes.  But the vocal part of “the world community”–the West–has become inured to Washington’s crimes against humanity and doesn’t bother to protest.  Indeed, many of these governments are complicit in Washington’s crimes, and there could just as well be arrest warrants for members of European governments.

The one exception is Russia. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation has published a White Book on violations of human rights and the rule of law in Ukraine.  Propagandized Americans think that all the violations in Ukraine are made by Russians.

I've got my WTF face on. Let's read some more...
The slaughter of Ukrainians on Washington’s orders by Washington’s stooge government in Kiev has worsened considerably in the past three months, producing more than 100,000 Ukrainian refugees fleeing into Russia for protection from strikes against civilian housing from the air, artillery, and tanks.

Every effort by the Russian government to involve Washington, the European Union, and Kiev in negotiations to find a peaceful settlement has failed.

I didn't realize Pres.Obama was ORDERING his Ukrainian puppets to slaughter Ukranians. (Facepalm)
Washington is not interested in a settlement....Washington is at work through its Kiev proxy murdering citizens in eastern and southern parts of present-day Ukraine that once were part of Russia.
Washington has declared these civilians to be “terrorists” and is trying to force Russia to intervene militarily in order to protect them.  Russia’s protective intervention would then be denounced by Washington as “invasion and annexation.”  Washington would use this propaganda, which would blare from the Western media, to pressure Europe to support Washington’s sanctions against Russia. The sanctions would effectively destroy the existing economic relationships between Russia and Europe.
Now if you're an Alex Jones conspiracy type you will read this and say " SEE he predicted it!!!" See I told you it's a false flag to hurt innocent Putin!

But if you live in the real world you have to be reading this and thinking " This guy is a damn fool!"
He just spent all this mental energy twisting in knots to defend Putin and his Ukrainian Rebel terrorists and blame all their killing on President Obama and the United States.

But Roberts isn't done yet.

Unlike the American presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, Putin does not claim the authority to use military forces without permission from the legislature.
LMFAO!!! Do I really need to explain why this is ridiculous? Putin says NO, so I won't.
Washington’s response to Putin’s stand down is to increase the slaughter of civilians, all the while denying that any such slaughter is occurring.  Washington is determined not to acknowledge the existence of a slaughter for which it is responsible...
Another risk in Putin’s bet is that by standing down and tolerating Washington’s slaughter of civilians, Putin is becoming complicit in Washington’s crimes against humanity.
Putin’s alternative is to come to the defense of the Ukrainians who are being attacked. Putin could accept the requests of the rebellious provinces to rejoin Russia as he did with Crimea,  declare  Washington’s stooge, Petro Poroshenko, to be a war criminal and issue a warrant for his arrest, and send in the Russian military to face down the forces sent by Kiev.
Outside the West, this would establish Putin as a defender of human rights.
OMG!!! This guy sounds like someone else.

Last but not least. Here's the best part!

Sooner than later Putin needs to realize that his reasonableness is not reciprocated by Washington.  Washington is taking advantage of Putin’s reasonableness, and Washington is pushing Russia harder.

Putin has done what he can to avoid conflict.  Now he needs to do the right thing, as he did in Georgia and Crimea.

LMFAO. I gotta admit I don't read Counter Punch. I've often wondered why it was so popular amongst Ron Paul libertarian types who exist on the "left".

If this is the type of bullshit that they consume I can understand why they say the things they do.

I feel bad laughing so much at this very serious issue.Especially considering the 300 dead victims shot down by Russian trained terrorists.


I've been wondering what Jane Hamsher has been up to over these last few years. I literally hadn't seen or heard from her during the entire second term of Pres.Obama.

The last I heard from her she was trying to form an alliance with Ron Paul /Tea Party libertarians to defeat Obama. She coined a new term for her ratfucking..."Transpartisanship"

posted 07-15-2011
My Twitter feed has been abuzz lately, with some leftists very angry that Jane Hamsher is about to endorse Ron Paul and push for the "Blue Republican" movement proposed by Robin Koerner of the Huffington Post. For those of you that don't know her, Jane Hamsher is the editor/owner(?) of FireDogLake, a very progressive website that has been critical of President Obama.
Well apparently one of the things she has been up to is joining in the right wing hysteria over Benghazi.Which is an entirely politcally motivated campaign to smear Hillary Clinton & the Obama Administration. It's literally a GOP fundraising tool.

Here she links to an article by some fool on her website named Peter Van Buren.

Van Buren asks a list of questions directed at Hillary Clinton that sound like the standard script a Fox News contributor would read off of. For the record this is well over a YEAR after Benghazi stopped being an issue and FDL (like the GOP) is still flogging it.

Here's another "true progressive" who just also happened to join in on the GOP Benghazi campaign.You know, just asking questions. (Cavuto / Rove approves)

Oh look, it's Hamsher's old business partner Glenn Greenwald

I'm sure it's just a coincidence now that Hamsher has been attacking Elizabeth Warren on twitter, Greenwald joins in as well.

 hopey changie? Jane using an old Anti-Obama attack line from Palin's hand scribbles to attack original

I guess teleprompter jokes are next.

Two Anti-Democrat peas in a pod.

Let's check the scoreboard for these two "Transpartisans"

Support for Ron Paul & attempts to get
progressives in league with Teabagger libertarians - CHECK

Hatred for Pres.Obama  - CHECK
Hatred for Hillary Clinton  - CHECK
Joining GOP smear campaigns  - CHECK
now attacking Progressive leader Elizabeth Warren - CHECK

I'm sure there are still folks out there who will attempt to overlook this and try to convince people that both of these folks are working for the interests of the left.

Somebody's got to sell that snake oil.


Libertarian Glenn Greenwald has a long history of attacking Democrats and Progressives.

Now that Elizabeth Warren is gaining support as a Democratic Candidate for 2016 he has decided to begin taking aim at her.

Shortly after her speech at Netroots Nation a man named Joe Schoffstall tried to catch the Senator in a "gotcha" moment by asking her about the Israel / Gaza issue while she walked to her next engagement.

Warren declined to answer. A perfectly acceptable decision considering the situation.

Being the opportunist that he is Greenwald attempted to exploit this interaction and take a swipe at Senator Warren.

This is a blatant hit piece by Stephen Gutowski of the Capitol City Project.A man who's bio brags about being cited by The Drudge Report, Fox News,The Blaze etc

Here are some other headlines from the site.

"Hillary Clinton Speaks About Defense of Child Rapist [WFB]" - by  Joe Schoffstall

"Felon, Former Black Panther Party Leader Hosts Fundraiser for Democratic Senate Candidate Michelle Nunn [NRO]" - by  Joe Schoffstall

Just a taste of the right wing bullshit that's on the site.

Greenwald gleefully linked to this trash on twitter. Tossing up red meat for his hateful twitter followers to chow down on. Many of them calling her "gross".

It's become clear that as the 2016 Democratic Primaries get closer, Greenwald will begin to ramp up his attacks / attempted smears on the progressive candidate. (While not laying a finger on Rand Paul)

This is only the beginning. Soon we'll start hearing him crowing about "Warrenbots" or some other nasty nickname that people will come up with.

When is the left gonna wake up to what this guy is all about?

He is not on our side. He is not our ally.


On Melissa Harris Perry's show the other day one of her guests made quite possibly the most ridiculous criticisms of President Obama I've ever heard (from the left)

I tried to embed the video.If you don't see it please click the link if you want to view.

The link goes to Tommy Christopher's daily motion channel.

300 by tommyxtopher

“I have to just mention this about the 300, and what the significance of that number is, it’s symbolic. The movie now, 300 with the 300 Spartans, is an East versus West fight. I don’t know if this is where the sophistication – why the President chose 300, and I don’t know but it signals maybe to Iran, because we see that because the movie was a big downer, and Iran it wasn’t allowed to be played because it shows the Persians in this negative, barbarous state. Again, it’s an example of something, if it isn’t intended, and it’s an unintended consequence, you’re thumbing your nose at another part of the region just because of your ignorance of what that means, that 300 military advisers, American Spartan warriors that are the special forces and, again, I don’t know if that was intended or unintended, but it will signal a message to Iran.”

It really annoys me that this type of pseudo-intellectual nonsense is creeping in to the left wing dialogue. It virtually dominates the right wing.

Why not question President Obama on real issues.Grill him on our strategy in Iraq to make sure this doesn't end up lasting for years.


Do you agree with the panelist's claim that President Obama made a mistake by sending 300 advisors because of the movie 300.

14%11 votes
85%67 votes

| 78 votes | Vote | Results


In 2 of my other diaries several people questioned why I associated Glenn Greenwald with Ron & Rand Paul.They made the accusation that I simply made up the association and that Greenwald had never been aligned with them.

One poster asked why I said Greenwald despised Democrats.I responded with this post. It was a speech Greenwald gave in 2010 days after the disastrous election for Democrats.

The speech was sponsored & attended by Paulite Libertarians at the University of Wisconsin.

At a talk given the day after the 2010 election — one that was a disaster for Democrats — “progressive” writer and civil liberties lawyer Glenn Greenwald gave a talk at the University of Wisconsin, and expressed the hope that Democrats might suffer the same fate in 2012.
even though I know that by abstaining or supporting a third party, I’m going to be sacrificing some of my short term political interests; I’m going to be causing a few more Republicans to be elected than otherwise might be elected; on balance, I’m willing to sacrifice my short term interests in order to do something to subvert the stranglehold that these two parties have on the political process because electing more Democrats, even though it’s a little less scary, accomplishes nothing good.
Here's what some of the Ron Paul fans said about Greenwald's speech
The speech was stellar with too many good points to touch on in a single blog post. I would like to point out that in the Q&A at 38:00 Greenwald specifically addresses a possible alliance between progressives and Ron Paul libertarians. He also mentions Gary Johnson as a unique candidate with possibly the best chance of bringing this coalition together in a 2012 run for president.

And here's the DAILY PAUL touting Greenwald's speech

Some of the Ron & Rand Paul supporters are even confused as to why Glenn Greenwald is viewed as a progressive.

From the comments:

It's tough to know what Greenwald is. 2 days ago on MSNBC he denied being either a "progressive" or a "liberal." I was at the speech and he sounded very libertarian to me. If he's not a libertarian yet he certainly could be converted into one.
This is why I said Greenwald was a Ron & Rand Paul libertarian.Because he is.

This is why I get frustrated when I see Greenwald & Bill Maher trying to sell Rand Paul to left leaning audiences.

Continue Reading
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD - MARCH 14:  U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) addresses the 40th annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) March 14, 2013 in National Harbor, Maryland. A slate of important conserative leaders are slated to speak during the the American Conservative Union's annual conference.  (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Both Glenn Greenwald and Bill Maher decided to spread the lie that Rand Paul supports Pot legalization on Maher's show Friday night. They did so in an attempt to promote the idea that Rand Paul was uniquely positioned to attract the support/ votes of young people in the country. (even more so than Democrats)

But that claim is a provable lie.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has thrown his support behind legislation that Republicans could use to force President Barack Obama to crack down on legal marijuana in states like Colorado and Washington.

Speaking to Fox News on Thursday, the libertarian-leaning senator said he supported the Enforce the Law Act, which has been approved by the House. The legislation would allow Congress to sue the president for failing to faithfully execute laws.

Paul said that Obama appeared to be “writing his own laws whenever he feels like it.”

But a committee report submitted by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), one of the three congressmen who introduced the bill, suggested Republicans would also use the proposed law to try to force Obama to crack down on marijuana in states that have legalized its possession and sale.

Rand Paul doesn't support the policy.

So I have a simple question to ask.

Why are Glenn Greenwald and Bill Maher misleading voters in to thinking that Rand Paul supports policies popular with the left & young voters?


In the overtime segment of Bill Maher's show (from Friday) he engaged in a political discussion regarding the 2016 elections. He brought up the topic of the Republican Party's efforts to appeal to voters and their strategy moving forward.

Maher said that the 2016 race on the GOP side would come down to Ted Cruz vs Rand Paul. He said that Cruz appeals to the dumbest voters on the right and in contrast Rand Paul appeals to young "smart" voters. Maher and the panelists even tried to paint the picture that Paul's appeal reached across the ideological divide. I found the entire discussion sickening.

Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are two peas in a pod.Both are anti-govt extremists who have already done great damage to the country.Rand Paul adds the extra layer of being a vile racist.

Rand Paul pretty much thinks the entire Federal govt. is illegitimate.

Elizabeth Warren's CFPB
Dept. of Education
Voting Rights
Work place descrimination (Racial & LGBT equality etc etc)
Women's Healthcare policies

Rand Paul is on the wrong side of all these issues.I think young voters care about the environment, funding & access to education, protecting the rights of minorities etc.

Why do folks like Bill Maher belittle Democrats for being on the right side of these issues by default, but praise freaks like Rand Paul for 1 or 2 issues that they are in agreement and then try to act like that makes them viable candidates.

I'd much rather have a debate / election against a tradional GOP candidate like Christie, than have to defend why the Civil Rights act was a good thing against a teabagger like Rand Paul.

If you're a liberal having a debate about why segregation was horrible in 2014, then you've already lost. You may win the election but the playing field has shifted so far to the right that you've lost the war.

The right wing and the GOP never do this.They never praise Democrats as being able to appeal to their voters or anyone else for that matter.Yet for some reason there are people on the left who love reaching deep down in to the right wing swamp to pull out some politician that they can say isn't "all bad".

(side note: Glenn Greenwald was unusually silent during the discussion but chimed in to promote Paul as well)

I was told that during the episode that Greenwald also promoted / praised Dave Brat. I didn't get a chance to watch the episode myself so I won't comment on that until I do.If anyone got a chance to see it, I appreciate an overview of what he said.


Should people who claim to be on the left be promoting Teabaggers like Rand Paul as "rational"

67%80 votes
32%39 votes

| 119 votes | Vote | Results

From the moment I heard about this guy I've found him extremely offensive and yet I've seen flocks of liberals lining up to sing his praises.Claiming he's the type of candidate they've been "dreaming" of.

I first discovered him when he announced that he was running for President as the "Anti-Obama".

That was bad enough but I wanted to understand what he meant by that.It was a bizarre claim for any Democrat to make.Not to mention someone who is not a Blue Dog (Schweitzer is considered as a "left" libertarian)

Right off the bat Schweitzer invoked racial politics by claiming that the only positive thing he could say about President Obama was that he was the first black president.Adding that Obama ceased being relevant / useful the moment he took

The question was simple enough: Is there a single thing President Obama has done that you consider a positive achievement?

Finally, he spoke.

“My mother, God rest her soul, told me ‘Brian, if you can’t think of something nice to say about something change the subject,’” he said.

Eventually, he paused to acknowledge Obama’s historic role as the first black president. But by that standard, Obama’s usefulness ended the day he took the oath of office.

Many people (including myself) saw that as a passive aggressive way of saying President Obama was a worthless affirmative action figurehead as President.Someone who hasn't contributed anything to the country or the office other than being a token.

Then I found out that Schweitzer (a mining executive) was a staunch supporter of the Keystone XL pipeline.Going so far as attacking people who opposed it.

I found it truly bizarre that a certain type of "liberal" was showing him so much love considering the fact that these same folks were concern trolling President Obama over the very same issue.

Then comes Schweitzer's high rating with the NRA and his opposition to the very type of gun legislation proposed by Democrats & liberals around the country.

Again it was bizarre that the most ideologically strident members of the left had overlooked such an important issue.One that they consistently bash the President and congressional Democrats for being too "weak" to tackle.

Now we find out that Schweitzer has been visiting Romney supporters and praising Mitt (while again bashing Obama). To make matters worse he also tossed out gratuitous homophobia at Eric Cantor for some strange reason.

My overall questions are...

1) Do you think that seeking/ earning the support of Black folks, The Gay community, Women etc is irrelevant to Democratic electoral success?

2) Should you be allowed to intentionally poke these groups in the eye and still receive praise from liberals?

3) Is trying to make inroads in to the disgruntled white male demographic by distancing yourself from key Democratic constituencies a smart / palatable strategy?

In my opinion Schweitzer is the exact type of candidate we DON'T need and one that we shouldn't even want in the first place.

And yet when he announced he was running many of President Obama's most hostile opponents on the left cried out in excitement.

"Finally we've got our kind of candidate"

In case anyone asks or cares...

I support Elizabeth Warren


Do you still support Brian Schweitzer?

30%26 votes
69%59 votes

| 85 votes | Vote | Results


During the lead up to the Iraq war and during the following years of darkness, liberals joined in solidarity with people around the world to protest.People here in the U.S who protested the war were smeared as Anti-American by right wingers in the media and in the government.A standard McCarthyite tactic used by intellectually bankrupt right wingers was to call their liberal political opponents "communists". This tactic has been utilized so much that it has become a political parody.

Writing on his blog in 2005 Glenn Greenwald called Iraq War protestors in Argentina "hardcore communists" who didn't deserve to have their opinions viewed as credible.He proceeded to claim that it was a badge of honor to be protested against by such horrible people. (Greenwald aligning himself with the Pro War forces)

His main argument for why these people aren't credible is that they allegedly hate the United States because of our "economic freedom" and "individual liberty". He says they are collectivist authoritarians.

This post was discovered by someone named Gus_802 on twitter

For some bizarre reason Glenn Greenwald is considered a progressive or at the very least a member of the left.He sounds like your standard right wing libertarian.

His ridiculous dismissiveness of the Iraq protestors' true intentions sounds like it came right out of the mouth of Dick Cheney.

In a truly offensive and arrogant rebranding effort, Greenwald has attempted to position himself as a moral arbiter of what American foreign policy should and shouldn't be.Completely whitewashing his own "odious" views as if they never existed.Only He is allowed to stand in judgement of everyone as if he is "now" and has always been pure.

Greenwald's only defense of his support for the NeoCon Iraq War was that he was a politically disinterested pawn, who simply got swept up in the wave of "overwhelming" support Bush had.He claims he is no different (or worse) than "Democrat X" who initially supported the war.However, none of these Democrats ever attacked Iraq War protestors and questioned their motives.

Greenwald's hyperbolic teabagger rhetoric flies right in the face of the claim that he had no opinions at the time and wasn't a cheerleader for the war.

His animosity towards the Iraq protestors was obvious.He considered it a badge of honor to be on the opposing side from these truly "odious" people.And when he stooped to calling them "communists", he was reading right off the playbook of the Iraq War's most diehard cheerleaders.

Greenwald was clearly engaged in politics.Someone who wasn't engaged wouldn't be saying things that sound like idiotic Rush Limbaugh rants.

Right now we are seeing a frustrating parade of discredited right wingers flooding the media with their opinions on Iraq.Most of us on the left are greeting these clowns with the derision they deserve.

I find it confusing why someone like Greenwald isn't viewed in the same light.


Do you agree with Greenwald's opinion of Iraq war protestors?

7%7 votes
92%85 votes

| 92 votes | Vote | Results

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site