Sunday, September 01, 2013

Rand Paul does not want to strike Syria's President Assad because he has "protected Christians" and if the rebels win it might be a "bad idea for Christians." Yeah, no religious favoritism there!

Click image to hear interview
Courtesy of HuffPo: Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Sunday portrayed the current conflict in Syria as one between the government of President Bashar Al Assad, who Paul said "has protected Christians for a number of decades," and "Islamic rebels," who Paul said "have been attacking Christians" and are aligned with Al Qaeda. 

"I think the Islamic rebels winning is a bad idea for the Christians, and all of a sudden we'll have another Islamic state where Christians are persecuted," Paul said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

So to be clear in Rand Paul's eyes, the ONLY victims that we should be worried about are Christian victims, is that correct?

I mean fuck all of those Muslims who are dying by the hundreds of thousands right?

That is what they get for believing in the wrong religion.

Look I think Congress should have very deep concerned about our involvement over in Syria, however that concern cannot be based on the fact that if the balance of power shifts, Christians might die instead of Muslims.

People dying are people dying.

And I can pretty much guarantee that there will be far fewer Christian deaths than there have been Muslim deaths. Far fewer.


  1. Anonymous12:41 PM

    What an idiotic statement. Of course, Paul is making his case to his christian base, who he's hoping will support his presidential run. It's all politics. These guys try to draw every ounce of self-promotion they can, out of a tragic situation. Just like Palin. It's like they say to themselves, "what's in it for ME?"

    How can anyone about anyone's religious affiliation at a time like this? So, to Rand Paul, it's better not to engage with Syria and protect future innocents because it would keep the christian community safe? Idiotic. If christians in Syria are true christians, they'd rather leave the country and save children's lives than demand their "rights" be protected, and seek protection from a dictatorial murderer. Rand Paul would rather that christians in a civil war, be vindicated and fight for their rights, than yield to a superpower that could protect Muslim children from further slaughter?

  2. Boscoe12:59 PM

    Paul is a fraud. He's just fanning the anti-Muslim hate lurking in the Christian community to his own advantage and insuring that Obama looks like he's pro-Muslim/Anti-Christian if he intercedes. What a fucking psychotic douchetard.

  3. Anonymous1:38 PM

    If he ever gets near a run for the White House, please let us band together to help people know that this self-certified eye surgeon has NOTHING to do with Ayn Rand. No matter whether he flirts with libertarians, who are fooled by his name and his father's supposed libertarian leanings.

    Ayn (rhymes with "mine") was a crazy crank, but she also, throughout her life, was a strong and militant atheist. She would have had nothing to do with this religion stuff, either way, and would reject out of hand "Rand" Paul's "Save the Christians" crusade.

    He's shameless. A shill and a sham.

  4. Anonymous1:46 PM

    Both Allah and God mean the same thing; the creator of all things. So sad that the two fairy tale factions have to battle each other, but really christians don't get along and have factions, as do the muslims so basically there is no end to this circular path of destruction with "GOD", whichever one these people believe in leading the charge.

    Religion is an idea whose time should have come to pass long ago, however, there is something present in the minds of some folks that just can't let it go. I feel great pity for the brainwashed and hope they will find the mental acuity to come around soon because they aren't making a better world for the rest of us, the areligious majority.

  5. Anonymous1:59 PM

    Don't forget, he and his heartless buddies were so anxious to take food from the mouths of children in this country in order to give more tax breaks to the bazillionaires.

    If they're so happy to starve American children, why should he care at all about those evil Muzzlim children in Syria???

  6. Anonymous2:07 PM

    He'll never get anywhere should he run for POTUS. He is a fraud and liar - so very similar to Sarah Palin...only a 'fraction' of the population support them!

  7. Anonymous2:15 PM

    ...And then he did something no modern president had done. Even though he believed he had the authority to act, he knew that this was a divisive issue, and that the people's representatives had to join in the decision. He called for Congress to debate and vote on a resolution granting him specific authority to militarily strike Assad for violating international treaties banning the use of chemical weaponry, some of the oldest weapons conventions in international law. He had heard the rumblings from Congress saying that he had to seek approval before any strike, and agreed.

    But why did he agree? This is where he pivots beyond what all the pundits and talking heads expected. Just before declaring that he would seek Congressional approval, he reiterated that he believed that he had the authority to conduct the attacks with or without Congressional approval. But such an action, in a region of the world where such action could quickly spiral out of control, needed more than just Barack Obama's say-so as Commander in Chief. Syria is not Libya. In the Libyan crisis, the President had a UN resolution with which to work. As a signatory to the UN charter, all member nations had a duty to enforce Security Council resolutions. That was all the authorization he needed.

    In Syria, the UN is not functioning. Russia is Assad's patron, and will certainly block any resolution demanding consequences for his actions. And in the US President Obama is facing a nation weary of war, and leery of getting involved in another Middle East quagmire. These particular facets to the Syrian maelstrom invite a different strategy.

    Any unilateral action by Obama would, as always when it comes to him, invite backbiting from Congress. An action against a state with a powerful patron means that action has to have broad-based support. Thus, he's demanding that Congress not merely sit on the sidelines, in opposition or support. He is demanding that Congress not hide behind the wake of the Imperial Presidency, mouthing off and hampering any action against Assad. Congress wanted to be consulted on any attack on Syria; Obama called its bluff. It will have to go on record for or against an attack. If it votes for military action, then the President will have the broad support to maintain pressure against Assad. If it votes against, it will have to explain why enforcing chemical weapons conventions is not in the national interest. It will have to explain, member by member, why murdered children will have no voice. It will have to explain why it's allowing a dictator to escape consequence scot free. He is, finally, reminding Congress that it is a co-equal branch of government, and to take that responsibility seriously.

  8. Anonymous2:30 PM

    President Obama, in my estimation, outplays the U.S. Congress every time!!!

    Okay, Congress men and women, get back to work and make public your discussion on Syria and the vote!
    This is what you wanted our President to do - follow through w/something for a change! Get back to work prior to 9/9 IF you really are concerned about Syria!

    1. Anonymous9:32 PM

      sorry, and this isn't a snarky dig, but he painted himself into a corner with previous statements.

  9. Anonymous2:40 PM


    Though I do not answer your tweets, know that I read them all, and that their kind words make Me wish I did not have to eventually kill you.

    When tens of thousands of refugees from your country are fleeing TO Iraq, your country is in a bad way.

  10. Anonymous2:50 PM

    Sucking up to a base he probably has no use for.....other than votes......think Iowa 2016...

  11. Anonymous2:56 PM

    ...Kerry highlighted the box that President Obama has put his opposition into. Republicans and their media outlets are now forced to argue against representative democracy. The argument that Wallace was making was that the people should have no voice in the decision making process concerning military action. Chris Wallace’s basic argument was that Republicans can’t be trusted to do the right thing for the country, so it would be best if Obama did whatever he was going to do without their input.

    Fox News is so desperate to oppose Obama that they are not only pushing propaganda from a dictator, but they are arguing that the United States should be more of a dictatorship. As Sec. of State Kerry’s comments revealed, there is no way that Republicans can argue against seeking congressional authorization without looking like they are attacking our system of government.

    Some on the right are yearning for the “good old days” of the Bush years when the nation could count on the president to unilaterally invade nations based on manipulated intelligence and cooked up evidence. If anyone bothered to challenge that evidence, they got their CIA agent spouse outted.

    Fox News desperately wants to go back to the good old days when the red, white, and blue was a whole lot less free, and it is killing them that Barack Obama is showing such great respect for the constitution.

  12. angela3:41 PM

    Paul is a pandering asshole.

  13. Anonymous3:47 PM

    I love the president’s decision. Checkmate!

  14. Anonymous3:59 PM

    Repubs and Dems are bought and sold by Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing and Lockheed. This is extremely cynical of me, but I think these companies feel it is their due and central to their being that the US continuously be at war or selling missiles, missile systems and arms. Unfortunately we are all complicit as most congressional districts employee people in some manner in defense-related fields —whether it be military bases or outright production.

    We all need to say "no more" and embrace the courage to create new peaceful skill sets to employ people in our communities. There will always be a place that is troubled and tyrants who will seek power, so it is up to each of us to make sure such people do not make it to office by being responsible citizens and responsible parents to our children.

  15. Anonymous4:23 PM

    I swear to god, his annoying voice sounds just like Pinky from Pinky and the Brain.

    1. Anita Winecooler5:58 PM

      Thank You! I kept thinking his voice reminded me of something else, and you're right!

  16. Anonymous5:03 PM

    Misleading Headlines About Obama Granting Immunity For Bush War Crimes Are Not Accurate

    As the story goes, President Obama or the Department of Justice (depending on which source you are looking at) have filed court documents granting the Bush administration immunity for war crimes. Looking closely at the case in question and reading through the court documents which are cited as sources for these stories, it becomes clear that the headlines on this are, at best, misleading.

    ...President Obama Grants Immunity To Bush Administration?


    In response to the suit US attorneys filed a Motion to Dismiss. This motion to dismiss cites the Westfall Act, which actually has nothing to do with Obama granting George Bush or his administration immunity from anything, since it was first put in place in 1948 and updated in 1961, 1966 and 1988. This law provides that any government employee who was acting as an agent of the US at the time a crime is committed, is immune from suits of the nature. It also requires that the United States government be named in place of any individual employee of the government. In the Motion, attorneys for the US government clearly state that in order for the suit to be legal, the United States government must be named as the defendant.

    Whether or not you agree with the law, the fact remains that Obama did not write the law, nor did he have anything to do with its creation, nor is he or the Department of Justice free to simply violate it because we don’t like it.

  17. Anita Winecooler6:01 PM

    I just love the persecuted christian argument, when the majority of those killed were innocent Muslim men, women and children. Randy, pull your head out of your ass and Rip up the victim card, purina DOES NOT make "Purina Lion Chow" made of ground up christians.
    Assad is the death panel and his own people are the REAL victims.

  18. Anonymous5:38 AM

    Glad I'm not christian then!

  19. LisaB25959:56 AM

    Well, Christians are a persecuted minority in the Middle East. They face real persecution, not the faux kind they complain about here. Dozens of churches have been torched in Egypt recently by Muslims since they blame the Christians for the coup. (Copts are 10% of the population. I'm not sure how that percent earns you a coup, but that's the reason for the attacks.)

    Christians are dying anyway. I don't see how our interference will help.


Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.