Today on Blogcritics
Home » Iowa Presidential Debate Organizers Snub Ron Paul

Iowa Presidential Debate Organizers Snub Ron Paul

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Few examples of the behind-the-scenes power exerting its authority over the people are more impactful than the deliberate stranglehold on the free speech of candidates running for office. Today, Ron Paul finds himself in the chokehold of a couple of Iowa organizations that have refused to allow his message to be heard on the same stage as other Republican candidates. Ironically, one of the groups claims to be Christian.

As a former campaign manager for a popular candidate running for the California State Assembly in a wealthy district of San Diego County a few years back, I witnessed first-hand the backroom dirty dealing that goes on in the political parties. In my particular experience, the candidate was the front-runner but was eschewed by the Republican Party (the district was historically Republican and so was my candidate) simply and solely on the basis of the fact that he was black.

After weeks of phone calls, meetings and quiet inferences that the Republican Party of San Diego County would support him if he bowed out of the district for which he was running and moved to a southern district near the Mexico border and ran for Congress against a Democrat who was firmly planted there, my candidate accepted the fact that he would not be endorsed by the county Republican Party (although he held office within that same group). It was a conditional offer made by the party to provide support as a sacrifical lamb in a congressional battle if he gracefully exited the race in his home district. He declined. Not once, but several times.

Eventually, a high-ranking member of the Republican National Committee flew down to see us. The “us” was just my candidate and myself. The three of us were in an office conference room in Northern San Diego County when the proposition was made plain. My candidate declined the “offer.” In the following weeks the field of candidates for the primaries in our district tripled. When it came time to vote, there were 12 candidates flooding the field in the Republican primary, including a couple of very wealthy latecomers. In the end, we finished 4th.

I left politics after that.

It was quite apparent to me during my short involvement in the behind-the-scenes organization of campaigns for issues and candidates that what the public sees is often contrived, manipulated and sometimes cutthroat. I remember when another well respected Republican candidate, Ambassador Alan Keyes, was taken away from a debate (to which he was initially invited) in handcuffs because he refused to acquiesce to the power that informed him he could not participate.

Today, the organizers in Iowa are preparing for a debate between Republican presidential candidates. This time the odd man out is Ron Paul of Texas. His campaign is quite dismayed at the display of hostile suppression by the folks in Iowa who purport to be Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance. Such strongarm tactics to prevent Paul from addressing issues the other candidates prefer to ignore is not in keeping with the spirit of our constitutional rights to freedom of speech and the democratic process of electing leaders.

The gatekeepers that guard access to the public will do no great service to that public by dismissing a relevant voice in the presidential debate in order to kowtow to the candidates that have ganged up against Paul. While there is no outward proof that the other candidates intend to bow out or have exercised some other clout necessary to close the gate on Paul, the result is clear. Paul has not been invited to a debate his campaign clearly desires to attend.

There is really no mystery here. Since the debate where Paul and Rudy Guiliani briefly broached the topic of 9/11, Paul has been cast in the shadows while the rest of the field has steered clear of the issue of 9/11 and Paul’s specific comments. Nevertheless, the American people are interested in the subject even as the national media joins in the effort to suppress the issue from reaching mass audiences during primetime debate coverage.

Unfortunately, much of the American people are quite ignorant, intolerant and impatient, as many in political circles rightly describe the general population. Even a cursory look into the campaigns of numerous candidates reveal methodologies designed to persuade the dumbest among us. Marketing efforts seek to utilize jokes, references to pop culture and an overall appeal to the “Sopranos” fans of America. That isn’t to say everyone watching the Sopranos has the IQ equal to their shoe size. But the overall process of politicking and campaigning employs methods that insult the intelligence of many as candidates clamor to pander to the popular culture of the day.

Analyze the totality of the methods of marketing to the masses and you will learn little about the candidates regarding the most important issues facing this nation. They all just want to be liked, or receive the ultimate compliment of being perceived as “cool.”

The media is complicit in providing preferred candidates with a pass, choosing to focus on issues that segue into great sound bites by the candidates, rather than do the job of journalists and dig deep to expose the true positions of those seeking to lead this nation.

How is it possible that the future Commander-in-Chief is not grilled relentlessly (as are those appointed by him subject to the approval of Congress) about his or her position on Iraq today, yesterday and as far back as they were holding office? This nation has been at war in Iraq since 1991. The rationale for sending more ground troops in 2003 was the case made by a Commander-in-Chief with the approval of Congress in the aftermath of 9/11. How is it possible that the media is not centered like a laser on the issue of 9/11 and grilling each candidate about his or her evolving positions regarding 9/11 and Iraq? Why is there no focus on the controversies surrounding this administration’s reaction to 9/11 and the conspicuously missing Congress members who failed to call for an independent investigation of a scene of mass murder?

There is no greater issue facing this nation than our involvement in the “war on terror” that came as a result of 9/11.

Ron Paul has the courage and integrity to address the issue. He is today alienated by much of the media and his colleagues running concurrent campaigns for the same office. It is no secret that other candidates are unwilling to appear on the same stage as Paul. After all, they are the lying leaders who desire not to have their lies exposed through a thorough scrutiny or debate. No such risk exists in dealing directly with a compliant and complicit media. And no such risk exists when standing on a stage with other puppets.

But Paul is no puppet. And the refusal to invite him to present his point of view to the people of Iowa displays a haughty disrespect for Iowans in general, and those supporters of Paul specifically.

Still, such dictatorial tactics are not the exception in American politics. They are the rule. American politics is filled with propaganda, lies and deception to the degree that the argument that claims every vote counts stands on shaky ground.

Paul’s plight is but one tiny example among many that point to a radically changed nation that bears little resemblance to the one designed by the framers of the constitution — whose deliberate restrictions upon an otherwise tyrannical government have been thwarted by the very people to whom they trusted all power. That’s you and me, and the rest of the American people.

Powered by

About Mike Green

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Interesting article were it not for the fact that a large portion of it is a pile of crap.

    First off, your rambling accusations against the ‘compliant and complicit’ media make no sense at all in this context, because while Paul was excluded from this debate held by non-media groups, he’s been invited to the much more important August 5th debate in Iowa which is sponsored by the news media, so it’s not the news media who are at fault here, but these two particular groups.

    Second, every time Paul opens his mouth about 9/11 those who are potentially sympathetic cringe, because they’re afraid he’s going to pander to the lunatic fringe again as he has done in the past. It’s not a strength for him, it’s a weakness. Most people are not delusional conspiracy nuts, and when Paul starts talking to that crowd he alienates more mainstream voters. Confronting the other candidates on the war is a strong move for Paul, courting those who deny the facts about 9/11 is not. BTW, you try very hard in this article to downplay your own belief in 9/11 conspiracy fantasy – why do you take that tact? Could it be that you ALSO know that no one will take you seriously if you start babbling about 9/11 conspiracies?

    Third, there WAS an investigation of 9/11. Ever hear of the 9/11 Commission? It was sponsored by congress but it was run by independent investigators and it did a pretty damned thorough job with the hundreds of pages of report to prove it. Congress doesn’t push for an independent investigation because they already HAD one and they’re not going to second-quess the report they sponsored. Oh, and the other reason is that all the things you want investigated are transparently bogus.

    Fourth, let me ask you a question about the candidate you worked for. Something there doesn’t ring true. You suggest that he didn’t get support because he was black, but in my experience, when given the choice the GOP bends over backwards to look for and support black candidates. Is it possible that he was challenging an incumbent? Incumbency is the one thing that tends to make a candidate inviolate. Or did he share some of your extremist views? That also tends to make the party blue hairs rather nervous.

    Having said all of that, I agree that it’s bizarre that Paul wasn’t invited to this debate. Considering that the groups sponsoring it are a Christian group and a anti-tax group, how could they not like Paul? He’s a Christian extremist and the most anti-tax candidate around. He ought to be their dream candidate.

    Dave

  • https://www.cafepress.com/fhurst2007 FJ Hurst

    Is that brushfire I smell in the wind? LONG LIVE RON PAUL!!!!!!!

    “It does not take a majority to prevail … but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”
    — Samuel Adams

  • http://www.IHateRonPaul.com Rudy G

    “…they hate us for our FREEDOMS.”

  • http://ronpaulforums.com bret

    Dave – RP has never said it was a conspiracy, stop repeating this drivel.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Bret, I didn’t say that Paul believes in the 9/11 conspiracy, but that the author of this article does. As I said, Paul panders to those people. He skirts the subject, raises questions and keeps playing to the audience of conspiracy nuts because he’s found that they’re willing to become fanatics for any candidate who gives them any consideration at all.

    It’s Paul’s willingness to play demagogue to an audience like that which makes many of us who might otherwise support him a bit nervous.

    Dave

  • Paul

    I think Dave is confused.

  • Mythic Mystic

    9-11 Commission Report, HA! Have you even read it? Wasn’t that what Dr. Paul was talking about when he mentioned ‘blowback’? BTW – What does it say about Bldg 7 or does that not matter because it is too hard to comprehend? The whole Anti-‘Tin-Foil-Hat’ ideal is a safe place for those with bloodlust in their harts, lack of vision in their minds, and cowardness in the face of power. Now you can marginalize every thing as ‘Oh, so you think Bush did it’, which would be incorrect anyway if you really researced ANYTHING. But continue to allow America to believe in the New America instead of the Constitution. Just because you love liberty and understand what it means does not not mean you are a ‘Conspiracy Nut’. Granted there are some way-out things that people claim about 9-11 (pancake?) but there is also SOLID research being done. No, the 9-11 Report was NOT an investigation. If it was we would have seen truck loads of evidence being shipped to D.C. or the Commish halting the steal from leaving New York to go to China.

    BTW – about the Bush, he has more ties to OBL than Saddam ever had (can you say Arbusto Oil?). And while your at it, since you know everything, check out Grandpa Bush Prescott. Then you will know where Bush got his family Fortune.

  • G

    Paul has flat out stated he believes al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. I don’t know how much clearer he can get than that. The people he turns to for his facts on the “War on Terror” are respected members of the intelligence community and academia.

    He is always skeptical of the government, of course, and so appeals to conspiracy theorists who are also skeptical. I don’t see a problem in that.

    He’s also hardly an extremist, or at least not one who wants to force his views on others (other than probably wanting abortion outlawed by states, but thats more of a “when does life begin?” issue than a religious one).

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    9-11 Commission Report, HA! Have you even read it?

    Not only have I read it, but I’ve also read the followup reports from the NTSC and other investigating agencies debunking the various claims made after the report was complete.

    Wasn’t that what Dr. Paul was talking about when he mentioned ‘blowback’?

    Probably. But ‘blowback’ is a very simple term for a much more complex idea. It makes a great soundbyte, but it’s almost meaningless in the context of radical islam? Blowback for the Shah? 50 years later? Why not blowback for the Siege of Jerusalem 900 years ago?

    BTW – What does it say about Bldg 7 or does that not matter because it is too hard to comprehend?

    I’ve never said there are no questions about 9/11, but the grand conspiracies just don’t hold up.

    But continue to allow America to believe in the New America instead of the Constitution.

    What is this ‘new america’? I’m not familiar with it.

    Just because you love liberty and understand what it means does not not mean you are a ‘Conspiracy Nut’.

    True. Those who love liberty should oppose the truthers and other conspiracy nuts, because they are one of the greatest threats to our constitutional republic.

    Dave

  • dave is an idiot

    Ron Paul has made it extremely clear that he thinks Al Qaeda is reponsible for 9/11. So much so that he thinks we should have targeted the war against OBL instead of Iraq. He doesn’t skirt the issue. He is the most direct and honest candidate out their when it comes to discussing 9/11 it’s causes adn the “war on terrorism” it is all the otehr candidates who “skirt” these issues.

  • Nick

    The greatest threat to our Constitutional Republic are citizens that don’t vote for Constitutionalists, but rather vote for sound byte politicians that try to explain what Americans thinkm, as if we were united in our thoughts about anything. The only thing we should be united in, is our Constitutional integrity. The flag, the military, the President…they are not representative of freedom, or of rights. The Constitution is. If you would start promoting politicians like Dr. Paul instead of accusing him of pandering to conspiracy theorists (gee, I wonder why people might think a conspiracy lurks) maybe we would have leaders that want us all to be free and to live by our Constitution. He is not the enemy. The enemy is made up of gun grabbers, dictators, signing statements, imperialists, warmongers, entitlement promoters, and special interest politicians. Ron Paul fits none of those categories. Research every other candidate and they fit at least one, guaranteed.

  • mean Gene

    Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Tommy Thompson, and Tom Tancredo will participate in this Iowa forum.
    So……Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Duncan Hunter and John McCain are not included.
    I know Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich haven’t committed to running so no biggie there.
    But were Rudy, Duncan and John offered a place at the forum but chose to decline?
    Was only Paul snubbed?

  • Jay

    Independent switching to the GOP so I can vote for Ron Paul in the Primaries. Dr. Ron Paul 2008!

  • chad morehouse

    Dave,

    if you think that the 911 commission was thorough then we must be talking about different reports.

    the author of this article was refering to the fact that it took congress almost a year after 911 to commission a report and that was only because of the victims families demanded it. then, few of the testimonies were taken under oath, alot of the documentation was classified( and still is, think pentagon video’s) and was only allowed to be viewed by select people.

    so asking questions, or even considering anouther investigation is not ( or should not be) so proposterous.

    especially since we know alot more now than we did when the report came out ( such as several of the hijackers have been reported as to still being alive, noone was reprimanded for incopetence in norad or any other agency, etc.) so i think asking questions is perfectly reasonable.

    Ron Paul just wasn’t to this debate because he is honest and knows more about the given topics than anyone else running for office, if you call the president of “Iowans for tax relief” and ask why they did not/will not invite him, they will either hang up on you or ask you to leave a message, never will they say why the taxpayers best friend is not welcome at a debate sponsored by a non for profit tax relief organization.

  • Mythic Mystic

    Blowback is actually very complicated. Put in simple terms it can be considered revenge of sorts. If you’re saying that over 50 years of ‘interventionalism’ could not create a radical ideologies than why do they attack us? Because of our freedoms? So let’s take all those away so we can be safe, right? (BTW-50 years is a short time in the span of humanity, ever seen a Confederate Flag?)
    Cultures in the middle east have not always been angry at the U.S. In fact, many Islamic and Arab nations LOVED America because it was the FIRST anti-colonial nation in the ‘West’. For the past 100 years we have been in a slide into the ‘Old ways of government’ all because we are ‘scared’ of ‘those people’. Seems like Government sponsored racisim to me.
    The ‘New America’ I speak of is this Neo-Con Juggernaught that has been firmenting for years. Those in the current administration (originaly) were refered to during the Regan years as ‘The Crazies’. The PNAC (Project for the New American Century) explains the need for America to become, how should I say, more proactive by force in the world. This was published in 2000. I’m sure you have heard the soundbyte ‘Everything has changed because of 9-11′. Well what? We have always been the enemy of Tyrrany so that is a given. But why must we throw out the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? How does that make us safe? We will allow the ‘Terrorists’ to win if we destroy our national foundations. Now you can not say that the Constitution hasn’t been abused off and on throughout our history, but the kind of tactics used these days are very similar to those that we have opposed in the past.
    Now why are ‘truthers’ and ‘conspiracy nuts’ dangerous? Because they give a justification for terror? What a propaganda tactic that is!! (just denounce the dissenting veiw as unpatriotic and a danger to the nation) Just like the ol’Nazi idea.
    If you have a drug or alcohol problem what is the first thing you need to do? ADMIT YOUR PROBLEM! That is what ‘truthers’ and ‘conspiracy nuts’ are trying to do to help save this REPUBLIC (thanks for noting it is a Republic an not a Democracy).
    They are not ‘blaming America first’ they are willing to own up to what we have done against even our OWN laws so we can move forward in this world and reclaim our heritage. You must have questions, but are afraid of the answers you may be given. What ‘Grand Conspiracy’ do you speak of? Is it the threat of Globalism taking over the spirit of Nationalism? Or do you relate it more to the UFO/Reptoid group of wakos. If it is the ladder, you are sorely mistaken by what it means to be a ‘Truther’. I don’t see how asking questions could be dangerous especialy when this is OUR nation, WE THE PEOPLE ARE CEASER SO GIVE CEASER HIS DUE!

  • BabaRamDass

    Bret, I didn’t say that Paul believes in the 9/11 conspiracy, but that the author of this article does. As I said, Paul panders to those people.

    Wrong. Ron Paul panders to those people who value liberty.

  • Lumpy

    US interventionism didn’t create radical islam. It just gives it something to focus its attacks on.

    As for the paul ‘snub’ the press release from his campaign says that they were not overlooked,but rather deliberately excluded.

  • mnjrupp

    Lumpy, US interventionism didn’t create radical islam, but it did create “Blowback”
    I didn’t create “fire-ants” but if I stick my bare-foot in the middle of the ant bed, it IS my fault for getting stung!

    Let’s return back to our foundation.

  • bbruhwiler8

    You gotta be kidding me. The latest polls show that MOST Americans KNOW 911 was an inside job. If you haven’t yet seen the overwhelming evidence, go to YouTube or Google Video and watch –> 911 mysteries, 911 in plane site, terror storm, loose change, zeitgeist the movie, money masters <– Question the official story.

  • Lumpy

    It occurs to me that conspiracy theories are nothing more than another way to avoid having to take personal responsibility. If you can blame the world’s problems on shadowy super-powerful conspiracies then you never have to account for your own weakness and failure. You’re just another helpless victim.

  • Lumpy

    Mnjrupp. ‘blowback’ is just empty jargon for people who want to state something supidly obvious and sound trendy doing it.

    You attack people it pisses them off. Duh. But what about all the millions of moderate arabs who are glad someone will stand up to the terrorists or the iranian intellectuals who still remind us that things have never been better in iran tha they were under the shah. Is that all ‘blowback’ too?

  • Henry

    Ron Paul will win. I know what your thinking. Your thinking I’m crazy and that Ron Paul has no chance. He may not win the election but the fire he is lighting in people’s minds and hearts will eventually be victorious. Whether it be another bloody revolution in this country against an unconstitutional government or that people wake up and clean out the White house and congress. The message will win, therefor Ron Paul wins and the people win. Doubt me now if you want, but you will be wrong.

  • Davy C Rockett

    The Republican Party has been hijacked by liberals also referred to as “Neo-Cons”, hardly conservative or fo small government.

    Ron Paul is the only sensible and true conservative to come down the road in a very long time.
    America can’t miss this chance to return to our Constitutional Rule of Law.

    Yes it will take more than a Ron Paul in the WH, to start following Constitution, but it would be a great start to getting people and authority to wake up and understand the laws of our land.

  • Davy C Rockett

    Lumpy, if I walked up to you and punched you in the face, your telling me that there would be no “blowback” towards me, from you.
    I don’t think so.

    C’mon where’s “founding father commonsense” these days.

    Oh yeah I remember,… Ron Paul 2008.

    Don’t you think Iowans deserve to know he’s running for President?

  • allan Neal

    I was going to comment, basically stating that love is more powerful than hate and hate is war and bla bla bla, let’s vote for Ron Paul. Then I saw the note about personal attacks. I would think “pile of crap” would fall under that. Thus, I can’t take any of you seriously. Attack?

  • Thomas

    When the organizers snub Ron Paul, they might be representing their organizations. Or they might have personal incentives. In either case, action is mostly intramural.

    Those within the organization who feel like they are not represented well might want to seek Ron Paul information. Perhaps local Ron Paul supporters will be able to help them out.

  • http://www.ronpaulaudio.com goldenequity

    Audio Just Posted: Ron Paul’s Campaign Chairman Kent Snyder
    faces off with Ed Failor Chairman of Iowa Tax Relief org. on WHO Newsradio Jan Mickelson’s call-in.

  • http://www.blogsmonroe.com/liberalpolitics/ Jacob

    “Christian extremist”

    dave, what exactly is your definition of extremist? that’s like calling tiger woods a golfing extremist. ron paul would force his religion on others no more than tiger woods forces his golfing on others.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    A christian extremist – to me anyway – is anyone who believes in the Christian god and thinks that belief should in any way play a role in setting national, state or local government policy. Ron Paul has supported prayer in schools. Ergo he is a christian extremist. Maybe not the worst of the lot, but it’s something to consider.

    Dave

  • http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469 BuckinOhio

    Stop the lieing about 911 questions being on the fringe. Nobody believes it anymore.

    The latest nationally recognized polls show on 16% believe the so-called official lie-story about 911.

  • Clavos

    BuckinOhio says:

    “The latest nationally recognized polls show on 16% believe the so-called official lie-story about 911.”

    Here’s what Angus Reid (which he cites) really said:

    “Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks, down five points since May 2002. (emphasis added)

    For the record.

  • http://www.thetruthaboutterror.com Mike Green

    For the record. The personal experience I provided in the article is true. The candidate was running for a wide open seat. The district was profoundly and historically Republican. Thus, the winner of the primary would be seated in the California Assembly. I personally knew many of the leaders in San Diego County, as did my candidate. In fact, the former incumbent endorsed my candidate. I do not toss allegations of discrimination and prejudice around lightly. In fact, you can read any of my writings over the past decade (much are online) and you will not find me whining about prejudice and discrimination despite the fact that I experience it regularly as a black man making a living in a society and field of work where I am a small minority with a very small voice.

    I find it a bit insulting that the implication was made that I perhaps am viewing my experience through a colored lens that discounts it somehow. I did not name names nor did I charge anyone with a crime. People have the right to vote for whom they please for whatever reasons they desire. The organizations that support candidates have the same right. I just happen to have been on the indise of this particular incident and witnessed first-hand a bit of under-handedness that persuaded me to leave both the Republican Party and politics.

    mike green

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Which is quite a bit different from what the Buckeye claimed it said. He needs to read my brief explanation of how polls can be misrepresented over on the other Ron Paul thread.

    And BTW, in the latest LA Times/Bloomberg poll 63% of Americans believe illegals should be given amnesty.

    Oh, and 75% of Americans believe in angels.

    Dave

  • http://www.thetruthaboutterror.com Mike Green

    Dear Dave,
    Regarding the inference you made, that my experience may have been perceived through a colored lens in order to draw a conclusion that racism motivated particular actions, may I offer you a little more information. Without chronicling the entire experience and providing you background on the individuals and leaders who both me and my candidate knew personally, perhaps you ought to know that the district race was wide open since the incumbent had reached term limitation. The incumbent actually endorsed our campaign, which was the catalyst that sparked a visit from the national office.

    I do not feel a need to explain further. I do not arbitrarily accuse folks of acting out of racial prejudice. If I, or my candidate, were such people, we would never have had even a remote chance in a district consisting of a very high percentage caucasion population.

    As it were, we had not only a remote chance, but the best chance until a series of decisions and subsequent actions taken by the party sunk our vessel. Yet, consider how strong our vessel actually was. It took a flooding of the campaign with candidates and a number of wealthy latecomes that outspent us handily with their own money. These were individuals who had decided previously not to enter the race.

    We did our homework. We knew who would be in and who would be out. We also had a number of insiders in the party leadership circles who knew exactly why the actions were taken. I do not lightly charge anyone or any group with discriminatory practices.

    And given that these actions were not against the law, there was no need for us to do anything other than to recognize how things were and fight to win as best we could. We did. We lost. We moved on.

    My revelation of the experience in this blog was due only because it relates to the point I was making regarding the ulterior motives behind the scenes that motivate organizations to act in a nefarious manner toward candidates, in particular Ron Paul.

    Additionally, may I add that my perception of the media is also due to more than 13 years working in the industry. I am well aware that scholars and amateur sleuths aren’t the only ones capable of asking really tough questions and analyzing statements and events objectively. Journalists can and often do exactly that … except in the case of 9/11.

    Step away form the notion of conspiracy and just focus solely on the information provided by the government. Then ask the questions that easily come to mind when analyzing the events that occurred and the numerous conflicting and contradictory explanations offered by our government leaders. The questions you may come up with, however many or few they may be, were not asked by the national media or Congress. And to this very day the anamolies and contradictions have not been addressed by either the mainstream media or Congress.

    If you want to discount conspiracy theorists, I will join you … only if you begin with the ones in the White House and Pentagon who provided the first conspiracy theory to explain 9/11.

    Start there and we’ll be on the same page.

    Respectfully,

    mike

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    For those of you who want all the details on what’s going on here, check out this audio from WHO radio in Iowa where Paul’s campaign chair discussed it with the guy in charage of the candidate forum.

    Dave

  • StrawDog

    Excellent article, I wish it weren’t so lonely.

    I’m not positive I’ll vote for Paul yet, but I am positive I want him in the debates! Anyone who pays attention to the online and phone polls knows there is a snow job against Paul. It’s pretty clear to me who really hates my freedom – and they fear Paul. Huh.

    And to Dave Nalle, resident Paul detractor with the random angel statistic: I believe in angels, and I know better than to judge people’s intelligence based on their spiritual beliefs or lack thereof. People are a little more complicated than that.

  • http://www.voteronpaulpresident2008.com Chris Lawton

    GO RON PAUL! GO RON PAUL! GOD BLESS RON PAUL! RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2008!

    Ron Paul in CNN debate on June 5, 2007!

    “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor—he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their garment, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation—he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city—he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared.

    — Cicero: orator, statesman, political theorist, lawyer and philosopher of Ancient Rome.

  • The O T H E R Dave

    Ron Paul is walloping the “status quo” which has been and is dominating the political process in Presidential elections for a number of years. Our candidates were hand picked by the Party and promoted or condemned by the Media with virtually predictable results. Issues were determined for us, likewise. Everything has been timed and weighted with precision to obtain a predictable result. Think about it! Isn’t this what really sticks in the craw of the Democrats having lost the last two elections? The formulae was followed but the “guaranteed ” result was not achieved. When I read the above and in other venues, the negativity towards Ron Pauls candidacy I can smell the fear exudeing from the words. Both Democrats and Republicans, Party hacks and their fellow travellers, view Ron Pauls candidacy as another monkey wrench thrown into the gears of their machinations to manipulate the Presidential election for their own purposes and the Public be damned.

  • The O T H E R Dave

    Ron Paul is walloping the “status quo” which has been and is dominating the political process in Presidential elections for a number of years. Our candidates were hand picked by the Party and promoted or condemned by the Media with virtually predictable results. Issues were determined for us, likewise. Everything has been timed and weighted with precision to obtain a predictable result. Think about it! Isn’t this what really sticks in the craw of the Democrats having lost the last two elections? The formulae was followed but the “guaranteed ” result was not achieved. When I read the above and in other venues, the negativity towards Ron Pauls candidacy I can smell the fear exudeing from the words. Both Democrats and Republicans, Party hacks and their fellow travellers, view Ron Pauls candidacy as another monkey wrench thrown into the gears of their machinations to manipulate the Presidential election for their own purposes and the Public be damned.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Excellent article, I wish it weren’t so lonely.

    Lonely? Since I first started writing about Ron Paul a couple of months ago we’ve published more than a dozen articles about him. We’re doing what we can.

    I’m not positive I’ll vote for Paul yet, but I am positive I want him in the debates! Anyone who pays attention to the online and phone polls knows there is a snow job against Paul. It’s pretty clear to me who really hates my freedom – and they fear Paul. Huh.

    This is more or less the position I’ve taken from the beginning. I’m not sure Paul has what it takes to be an effective president, but if he gains some mainstream support (not the crazies he mostly has right now), then his ideas may influence the other characters in a positive way. He’s also make a great VP.

    And to Dave Nalle, resident Paul detractor

    While I’m realistically critical of Paul, I wouldn’t call myself a detractor. I’ve supported his candidacy from the very beginning as the publicity and promotion vehicle which it has the potential to be. The fact that I don’t think he’s a viable candidate is just realism.

    with the random angel statistic: I believe in angels, and I know better than to judge people’s intelligence based on their spiritual beliefs or lack thereof. People are a little more complicated than that.

    When their ‘complexities’ take them away from reason then they are delusions.

    This is part of what’s wrong with Ron Paul. The fact that he has these religious ideas which clearly run counter to the Constitution and he’s willing to let them trump the Constitution raises the question of what other circumstances he’d be willing to abandon his principles under.

    Dave

  • http://ronpaulforums.com bret

    What religious ideals that run counter to the Constitution? Specifics.

    It’s like you’re digging for ANY REASON to disqualify him. Can’t you just accept that he’s a decent guy, and the best one for the job, and move on to the real task of getting the message out there to the rest of the country?

  • future_primitive

    Ron Paul belongs in the Iowa debates. The Iraq war is a spectacularly bad idea, entered into with the foreknowledge that it would be an abysmal policy failure that would wreck political debate for years to come. That said, it should also be noted that a broken clock is right twice a day, and that Ron Paul can afford to be the only real GOP critic in the campaign process. He has nothing to lose and no chance of election. Rabid support for Paul even in far left circles indicates a myopic and amnesiac vision of current events in the US. Outside his stance on the war, Ron Paul is still (and always has been) a paleocon fringe figure that draws core support from disturbingly far right entities like the Christian Identity movement and Posse Comitatus. He carries a 100 per cent favorable rating from the John Birch Society to the present day. His kind of freedom and liberty is code for unchecked corporate hegemony over the individual and a civil society reduced to bellum omnium contra omnes, the war of all against all.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    What religious ideals that run counter to the Constitution? Specifics.

    He supports a constitutional amendment promoting school prayer and posting of the ten commandments on public property. Both of those are completely unacceptable on constitutional grounds.

    It’s like you’re digging for ANY REASON to disqualify him.

    No, I’d love to support Paul. I supported him when he ran as a Libertarian. Voted for him and campaigned for him. But at this juncture we need a canddiate who can govern effectively and doesn’t have severe ideological liabilities.

    Can’t you just accept that he’s a decent guy, and the best one for the job, and move on to the real task of getting the message out there to the rest of the country?

    There are LOTS of decent guys who I don’t want to see as president. As I’ve said before I support his campaign and his right to be in every debate and I’d love to see him as VP.

    Dave

  • Garry

    Dave said: A christian extremist – to me anyway – is anyone who believes in the Christian god and thinks that belief should in any way play a role in setting national, state or local government policy. Ron Paul has supported prayer in schools. Ergo he is a christian extremist. Maybe not the worst of the lot, but it’s something to consider.

    Dave, he supports ALLOWING prayer in schools, not mandating them. There is a difference. Allowing prayer is not “extremist”. That is a pro-freedom and pro-constitution position. Paul’s principles are against mandating either prayer or non-prayer.

    Here is the summary of the bill he supported: Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.

    In fact, that students are not allowed to pray in schools is evidence of extremism on the other side.

    Anyway, he is also against a federal ban on gay marriage. Further, he was against the government having schools set aside a time for prayer in school after 9/11. Some “Christian extremist” eh?

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Gary, I’m afraid that the way things are in the schools today even allowing prayer would end up violating the rights of an awful lot of students. I had to take my kids out of public school because of the constant assaults by religious recruiters.

    Read up on the National Day of Prayer sometime. Check out some of the ideas that James Dobson has about prayer in schools. Even better, check out some of the ideas you see from people like Marvin Olasky who have been working for decades to train Christian activists to move into the public school system as teachers. All they need is for the door to be open a crack and the schools will become the next best thing to the Christian version of an Islamic Madrassa.

    Dave

  • Stephen Dupont

    The author is absolutely correct! Politics have become a disgusting business. But this is their strategy as it is easier to manipulate less people than more people. What they are doing is deliberately turning good people away from the political process out of disgust. This way here they can swoop in and manipulate the few 20% that actually turn out to vote.

    But here’s the catch, Ron Paul supporters will have less people to defeat now that the lower turnout is in place, so it will backfire on these scumbag corporate elite in the long run.

  • Stephen Dupont

    This is hilarious, Do you think a terrorists just wakes up one day and decides he has a thirst for American blood because we let women vote or are jealous of our freedoms? C’mon people, I refuse to believe that you are this easy to manipulate.

    If you want to understand why they hate us you have to look back at what caused this hatred. Think of the people in your life that you dislike for whatever reason. I bet you can trace these feelings back to an incident where you feel you were betrayed or humiliated or whatever reason you formed this opinion. Do you think it’s any different for these people? Did you just wake up one day and decided to hate sally or jim or is it because sally stole your boyfriend and that pissed you off or maybe jim cheated on you and that pissed you off.
    So maybe we pissed them off or have been pissing them off for a hundred years and they are sick of us fucking with their lives. How come they don’t attack freedom in places much closer to themselves? This would be logistically easier correct? Why attack us all the way across the world? If they attack us merely for our decadent way of life blah ,blah,blah then why not attack other countries with similar lifestyles as us? That’s what is wrong with this hypothesis of it being an unprovoked attack! our foreign policy has been an overwhelming contributing factor to their hatred towards America and not some religious sicko’s who hate Christianity so much they would travel half way across the world to attack us here rather than hit someplace closer to themselves. Complete nonsense indeed.

    Maybe it has to do with something our former leaders or CIA operatives have done to destroy their country or their way of life. Kinda like what Dr. Paul tried to state in his 30 seconds at the debate(which that scum Ghouliani ingratiated himself once again over the deaths of 3000+ of our fellow American’s lives, truly a disgusting man) when he mentions “blowback” Go look on the CIA’s own website they explain how they overthrew Iran’s DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT a very popular person with the people of Iran. They fail to explain that the CIA was blowing up school buses full of children and blaming it on Iran’s government.(the ends always justify the means for these sick neo-con bastards) Then we installed the Shaw which for the people of Iran meant 25 years of a very oppressive regime that included torture, martial law etc. etc. our CIA even taught the Shaw how to crush the peoples spirit with their version of the gestapo secret police and the like (all in the name of spreading our goodness around the world).
    If you were Iranian, are you getting pissed yet?

    So, why install the Shaw and destroy the democratically elected government, hmmm, let’s see. Maybe it was because Iran was sick of the Oil profits, from their oil was being siphoned off by B.P. British Petroleum and of course us here in the righteous U.S. of A. to the tune of about 90% for us and 10% for Iran and he dared to nationalize the Oil refineries to allow the profits from his countries natural resources to be used for his own countries infrastructure.
    Oh,ummm, I don’t know, it’s just another one of those pesky conspiracy facts that always get in the way of us Americans that want to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that we are good and they are evil, case closed have a nice day. Pssssst here’s a little tip for ya davey boy, reality dictates, we ain’t all that goodie good ya know.
    “Don’t the victors get to write the history”, somebody famous said that, Napoleon or Julius Caesar.
    The historians and revisionists have distorted the true nature of our history and left us with this picture of righteousness and roses at our feet, the great faultless American dream. WAKE UP SON, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.
    Take care all

  • Dave Nulle

    Dave N: “Who is Ron Paul?”

  • http://ronpaulforums.com bret

    VP candidate for who? Mickey Mouse? WTF?

    The rest of those yahoos want to nuke Iran. The Democrats maybe not, but they thirst for war.

    Dave, it’s absurd to base your decision to support or not support RP on the basis of whether he’s for allowing Christian prayer in school or not. Prayer in schools, or gay marriage, or whatever is NOT KILLING PEOPLE ON A DAILY BASIS. The wars on Iraq, drugs, poverty, etc are killing people on a daily basis. Get your priorities straight, man. Seriously!

  • Dr Dreadful

    Stephen (comment #47):

    While I do agree that a lot of people are ignoring the 500-lb gorilla of American Middle Eastern policy as a possible factor in the rise of “Islamic” terrorism, I’m not entirely sure what world you’re describing when you talk about:

    religious sicko’s who hate Christianity so much they would travel half way across the world to attack us here rather than hit someplace closer to themselves.

    On this planet, there have been no major terrorist incidents on US soil since 9/11/01. In that same time period, there have been thousands of attacks in the name of Islam in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Spain, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines…

    Almost all perpetrated by citizens or legal residents of those countries. Close enough to “home” for you?

  • StrawDog

    Just to be clear about my other post: This article on the exclusions of Paul in these upcoming debates is a rarity on the web – I’ve seen no similar mainstream commentary.

    Dave, thanks for responding to my comments. Honestly, I think this kind of being “realistic” is more “fatalistic”, which is exactly what it takes to stop everything in its tracks. Also, I’ve seen how Paul responds to the loaded questions against him – Wow, if that guy isn’t presidential material, who is?

    Like Bret said: Is the possibility of school prayer really a pressing issue right now? I don’t like every platform of Paul’s or any other candidate’s, but in the big picture, who else offers the real chance for change here? That is a HUGE deal, to me. Anyway, even Bush couldn’t get prayer into school or revoke abortion, and now we have a Dem majority in both houses.

    For the record, Dave, I’m responding to you – even though your view (that spiritual belief is delusional) strikes me as arrogant, narrow minded, and inflexible – because maybe I misjudge you, or maybe you are also bigger than that.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Dupont. You might want to learn how to SPELL ‘shah’ if you’re want to talk about him and not sound like an idiot. You also might want to ask some actual Iranians how they feel about the Shah and the current Iranian administration. The Shah gets rave reviews from most of those I’ve asked, especially when compared with the current band of butchers who killed more people in their first two weeks in power than the Shah killed in his entire tenure in office.

    The Shah was a positive and liberal influence in Iran and the whole region, and the stories of his ‘oppression’ are laughable propaganda mostly manufactured by the current band of religious bigots who rule in Iran.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Dave, it’s absurd to base your decision to support or not support RP on the basis of whether he’s for allowing Christian prayer in school or not. Prayer in schools, or gay marriage, or whatever is NOT KILLING PEOPLE ON A DAILY BASIS. The wars on Iraq, drugs, poverty, etc are killing people on a daily basis. Get your priorities straight, man. Seriously!

    The introduction of religion into our government and our public schools is the first step towards the further erosion of our constitutional rights and leads us down the path to a theocracy. That seems like a pretty serious concern to me.

    I do agree that the Waro n Drugs and some of these other issues are quite important, but I have no reason to believe that Paul would be able to end them. It doesn’t work that way. If it did then Bush would have been able to implement tax reform and privatize social security, and those ideas are a lot less radical than getting rid of the war on drugs.

    dave

  • JERRY MCGUIRE

    RON PAUL AMERICAS #1 CHOICE BY A LAND SLIDE THE ZIONEST JEWS /NEOCON /ISRALI MOSS IS IN CHARGE OF IOWA TO THEY SAID REPUBLIAN WITH OUT RON PAUL THEY HAVE NOTHING THE TELL THOSE HILLBILLY IDIOTS AMERICA USES COMPUTORS AND RON PAUL HAS LOTS OF FREINDS OUT THEIR WORKING FOR HIM WE WILL MAKE OUR STAND WITH RON PAUL AND WE,LL STILL BY CALLING THEM HILLBILLY IDIOTS AFTER THE ELECTIONS

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    There you go. #54 is EXACTLY why Ron Paul is being unfairly marginalized in this campaign.

    Dave

  • Adam

    Dave, it seems to me that banning prayer in school is a violation of our constitutional rights. Ron Paul is in favor of allowing it not making it mandatory. I’m a Christian though so obviously I see this issue differently.

    It does seem like you’re looking for reasons not to support him. Things like foreign policy are much bigger issues. Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that doesn’t find it reasonable to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against a country that has no nuclear weapons and has not attacked us because they might eventually get some which they have the right to do under international law. The run on sentence was intentional to emphasize how insane our foreign policy has become. It makes my head spin just thinking about it.

    Also, people like #54 could be trolls trying to hurt Dr. Paul’s campaign on purpose. I can’t see any real supporter being stupid enough to think thats helpful.

  • Clavos

    “I can’t see any real supporter being stupid enough to think thats helpful.”

    Read the thread here.

    And here.

  • http://www.thetruthaboutterror.com Mike Green

    Regarding post #40

    “This is part of what’s wrong with Ron Paul. The fact that he has these religious ideas which clearly run counter to the Constitution and he’s willing to let them trump the Constitution raises the question of what other circumstances he’d be willing to abandon his principles under.”

    Considering the fact that each of the presidents elected since FDR have chosen to use their power to exert force through clandestine means based upon expansion of U.S. power and influence, I would welcome an individual whose religious principles direct him his decisions regarding life and death. The notion that U.S. values, which prioritize “vital economic interests” (see several U.S. presidential speeches across three generations), are the driving force behind CIA operations that seek to murder leaders, overthrow governments, undermine governance both here and abroad, and violate principles of jurisprudence as well as moral laws, it seems to me that a change in ideology is also needed at the highest echelons of our society.

    Ron Paul represents a voice of peace and reason. Compared to those he is running against, as well as those who have been elected president in the past, Paul is far and away the most honest, forthright candidate we can hope for. If integrity holds any weight when voting, there is no question that just one candidate fits the bill, Ron Paul.

    Pauls’ personal beliefs not only do not run counter to the constitution, they shore it up in the same manner that the framers of the document had in mind. While protecting the freedoms of the people, Paul recognizes the limitations placed upon government. That includes, but is not limited to acts of war without proper justification and support from the people. Contrived and concocted reasons sold to the Congress is well outside of the constitutional boundaries of the executive branch, yet that is what has occurred through the past half-dozen presidents.

    I welcome a man of integrity, whose fellowship with the Lord of Lords provides him a moral guidepost that dissuades him from making the very decisions we’ve been subjected to by numerous presidents and congresses. I doubt if the CIA, FBI, Dept of Homeland Security and a host of other agencies operating in the darkness of unaccountability will find Paul a leader that supports the secrecy to which these organizations (and others) have grown accustomed.

    And I believe America would be a better nation for having a president like Paul, who would pull our troops from the Middle East — a feat Congress seems to be unwilling or unable to do.

    Certainly Paul is the only candidate that seeks to save the lives of our troops. And while he is running on a platform that brings the troops home immediately, all the other candidates are hedging their bets on Iraq, knowing full well the current policy is set to maintain a permanent force there. Yet, which one of the liars will admit that? None.

    It is time to make saving the troops the mantra of the 2008 campaign. Support saving the lives of U.S. troops — kill the current foreign policy in the Middle East. Vote Ron Paul.

  • Passenger57

    Why is there even a discussion on why a candidate is invited or not? If you are running for President,you should be AUTOMATICALLY invited to every debate.Of course, if THE CANDIDATE chooses not to participate,that’s their decision.Whenever I see someone is being marginalized,I wonder why-and I start listening to THAT candidate.
    Tha 9/11 attacks? Please. Three words- IN. SIDE.JOB. Condi Rice perjured herself before the 9/11 Commission-which I think was a whitewash, but she was under oath.Never imagined terrorists would use planes as wepaons? Look up G8 Summit/Genoa/2001 and you’ll see why she was lying.
    And I’d STILL like to know what Bush and Cheney told the 9/11 Commission about the worst attack on America in its history that NO ONE CAN KNOW ABOUT IT.It’s kind of incredible when you think about it…four jets hijacked over American airspace,nearly 3,000 people dead,two of the tallest buildings in the world destroyed,a third destroyed,the Pentagon attacked(with an AFB ten miles away)…WHAT did they tell THEM that they couldn’t tell US?

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    passenger57 – 3 words – TIN FOIL HAT. Oh, and another 3 LUN A TIC. To believe 9/11 is an inside job you’d have to accept motivations from hundreds of national leaders so bizarre that they’d be showing other symptoms of insanity, and a method for enforcing secrecy along the lines of surgically implanting micro-bombs in the brains of all of our elected leaders. Please be real.

    As for the exclusion of Paul from the debate, it’s a matter for discussion because it happened. And it happened because this particular debate is privately run – as are all the debates when you get down to it. They all have mechanisms for excluding people, particularly 3rd party candidates when it comes to the major debates.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    9/11 was an inside job, alright.

    All those A-rabs were inside those aircraft, hijacking them when they crashed.

  • Neil

    Seems like their explanation is that initially they didn’t invite him because they didn’t invite him (looks to me like circular reasoning). Since he’s a candidate who is well respected and desired by people, and most likely the only one who really has this status, they ought to go ahead and invite him. It’s not too late right now. So-now, if they still won’t invite him, then they should provide an acceptable reason; and if they don’t provide one then it should be plainly obvious to anyone that they have an ulterior agenda and that would be the end of that.

  • Shaun

    To Dave Nalle:

    You’re hilarious man. Anyone who is critical of the government is a loony.

    But if we let people decide for THEMSELVES whether or not they want to pray in schools… That’s the crack in the door that lets Christian evangelists brainwash little children…

    Who’s wearing the tin foil hat?

    (PS: I’m atheist – [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor])

  • Shaun

    PPS: If a teacher starts trying to pull children into prayer, you can be damn sure the parents (like you) would hopefully bring it up, right?

    On 9/11 – Pearl Harbor ring a bell Dave?

    Look for impartial information and you’ll find a lot of evidence to support the government’s prior knowledge of 9/11 (no not that we did it ourselves, but that’s still bad enough)

    Couldn’t they have warned employees? Secured NYC? Nah, that’d be too much work – better to let a few thousand people die, sway the American opinion to support war, and let banks push our country further into debt…

  • Clavos

    “On 9/11 – Pearl Harbor ring a bell Dave?”

    Oh shit. Not that old chestnut again…

  • PQ

    Dave writes, “This is part of what’s wrong with Ron Paul. The fact that he has these religious ideas which clearly run counter to the Constitution and he’s willing to let them trump the Constitution raises the question of what other circumstances he’d be willing to abandon his principles under.”

    Neither of your examples, supplied in a later message, held much water. But let’s assume for the sake of argument Paul is not *perfectly* consistent on the Constitution. Where is the candidate who is? Are you saying we should abandon Paul due to his lack of perfection, while all the other candidates cannot even hope to hold a candle to him, in terms of adherence to the Constitution?

    And this business about fringe elements… The last thing I am going to do is worry about who the fringe (however conveniently defined) supposedly prefers. Otherwise, I am letting the fringe influence my choices! Everyone holds opinions, of one sort or another, that are based on bad or incomplete information, or information created by propagandists. Everyone is “fringe” in some respect. Forget all that, look at the issues and the character of the men running for office.

  • http://buck Buck

    “It was sponsored by congress but it was run by independent investigators and it did a pretty damned thorough job with the hundreds of pages of report to prove it. Congress doesn’t push for an independent investigation because they already HAD one and they’re not going to second-quess the report they sponsored.”

    Shill.

  • http://www.estrellaeguino.blogspot.com Estrella Eguino

    Great Article! Congratulations and thank you for your effort to open the eyes of the public. Those people who have lived in the United States for say…more than ten years understand what is going on. The trouble is that we have millions and millions and millions of quickly naturalized citizens that barely know how to read and write in their own language, let alone English. They are the ones that are being manipulated by the media. And yes, the manipulation is Real.

    I have friends in Europe that had been telling me already for a very long time that our news is corrupted and skewed and the dumbing down of America by keeping Paris Hilton, Michael Jackson, Britney Spears, OJ, and all the other people that NOBODY in America gives a crap about will be our downfall.

    Estrella

  • http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i20989 Earnest A. Peal

    I’d like to know whether Paul supporters think he can get the backing of Christian groups? Any reaction to this article (mine, which is a spoof, but raises some issues I’d like your opinions on)?

  • Shaun

    To Earnest A. Peal: I hope what Ron Paul does is preach the problems we really have and persuade us to dissolve ridiculous ideological differences and realize that these petty issues are meant to divide us. We need to fix what’s really wrong…

    Do you realize that when we print money, it not only inflates the value, but also is LOANED after printing, at interest? What kind of retarded system is that… THAT’S THE ISSUE OF OUR GENERATION. It should have been done with after Andrew Jackson, but things that should not have been forgotten were forgotten (and history became legend, haha).

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    You’re hilarious man. Anyone who is critical of the government is a loony.

    If you say so. I certainly wouldn’t go that far. Criticizing the government is a good thing. Making crazy shit up instead of criticizing their real misbehavior is loony.

    But if we let people decide for THEMSELVES whether or not they want to pray in schools… That’s the crack in the door that lets Christian evangelists brainwash little children…

    I’ve got no problem with silent, individual, non-demonstrative prayer in school. But can you actually limit it to that? The people promoting school prayer like James Dobson want it to be groups of people engaging in full-prostration prayer. That’s not a private prayer, it’s a revival meeting, or close to it.

    (PS: I’m atheist

    And this makes you special because…

    On 9/11 – Pearl Harbor ring a bell Dave?

    Quite a few, and still no proof of a conspiracy there either.

    Look for impartial information and you’ll find a lot of evidence to support the government’s prior knowledge of 9/11 (no not that we did it ourselves, but that’s still bad enough)

    Well of course. There’s no question that people in the employ of the government had big chunks of information about the 9/11 attack in advance and either didn’t act on it, or bungled it, or didn’t put the pieces together to draw the right conclusions. But none of that is a conspiracy, it’s just unfortunate coincidences.

    Couldn’t they have warned employees? Secured NYC? Nah, that’d be too much work – better to let a few thousand people die, sway the American opinion to support war, and let banks push our country further into debt…

    The evidence is that those who knew the possible targets and those who knew the possible perpetrators and those who knew the possible methods were all working separately and not communicating. Any of them could have put out a blanket warning, like ‘look out for plane attaks’ or ‘keep an eye on the WTC’ – but those who tried were stopped because their concerns were too vague and alarmist. They were sent back to work out more details. And pretty soon it was too late.

    Again, not a conspiracy, just unfortunate circumstances.

    Dave

  • EEKman

    Ok guys, we all know that 9/11 was a lie. Problem is we dont yet have the political will to get the new investigation on 9/11 and it wont happen until after the election cycle. Just let Ron Paul think what he wants about who caused 9/11 and we can educate him after hes elected. Keep the 9/11 political will building but keep it on its own turf for now.

  • EEKman

    Btw to break my own rule, I thought 9/11 truth was tinfoil moonbat zone until I read ‘Crossing the Rubicon’ by Mike Ruppert. Then I woke up and things suddenly made sense.

  • Anthony Grande

    When is everyone going to stop taking Ron Paul as a serious canidate?

    Maybe these groups aren’t anti free speech or anti Ron Paul or anti anything but they don’t want to waste the spotlight on such a nothing canidate.

    With one less canidate in the debate we will get a chance to hear real canidates like Giuliani, Romney and… is Fred Thompson going to be there?

    AG

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Ruppert is an utter nutjob. I started to read his book and it was so poorly documented and full of blatant false assumptions that it was essentially worthless. He attempts to create a perfect storm tying every coincidence and potential conspiracy together and the result is just ridiculous.

    His book is so bad that other conspiracy freaks have accused him of being a plant designed to discredit the ‘truth’ movement. The irony is that he’s perfectly typical of their rat-brained, paranoid scaremongering and they’re just jealous that he’s slightly crazier than they are.

    Dave

  • http://clifylq.livejournal.com/ clifylq
  • Naughten

    RON PAUL

    Ron Paul is clearly regarded with fear and loathing by the Leftist Democrats and the Neo-Con Reps, and much of media; and he has proven himself to be the leading debater.

    If his sacred right to Freedom of Speech, guaranteed by the American Constitution, is somehow denied him; there will certainly be a severe backlash everywhere in America. After the rude and biased behavior of Fox News at the last debate, this ridiculously opinionated and pretentious group suffered such a severe firestorm of criticism by the American People, that it will never recover its former reputation.

    Ron Paul has moved up so exceptionally fast in the polls, from 2% to 6%, that it has put his opponents into a state of panic. After this next debate they will certainly suffer further humiliation.

  • L.Step

    Not to brag, but I try to be fair. So when I first heard what wretched and scurrilous things were being said about Ron Paul, I decided to try to find out if he was indeed such a dreadful person. After some research I was convinced that he wasn’t. Period. I then decided that I did not want to be among those who, for whatever reason, were so vicious. I am now ready and willing to vote for Ron Paul.

  • Mark

    Dave!
    Do you think Ron Paul has a better chance than he did in June?

  • Dave

    911 and the war are being used to suppress free speech. You can bet that many christian or conservative groups that attack Ron Paul would have supported him if it wasn’t for 911 and the war. These groups wont stand up for their traditional values. Pat Robertson, Hannity, it goes on and on. Ron Paul has stayed true these others are deserters. Paul states real concerns about how American policy can create blow back from fanatical organiztions because such policy is used as a recruiting tool. The spin media finds it easier to lump him with others with more extreme views. They ignore the other things he stands for.

  • Dave

    Why are the front runners front runners to begin with. Its because the media has put a spot light on them. Usually big money people and big money media are behind it. If Paul does something significant like raise huge amounts of money or has a strong message that people support, it should be reported. To exclude a particular candidate from a debate shows a bias and lack of respect for the political system. How are people to be properly informed on a candidates views if you exclude them. Second hand lies from their opponents? Real fair. These groups are dispicable. Ron Paul was a virtual unknown a few months ago. No big organizations or media are behind him. Its millions of individuals catching on and wanting a change in government. We are tired of the corruption and fascism. Fascism is when corporations or even individuals become so huge and powerful they can exert an unfair influence over media and government.

  • Dave S

    The above two comments were made by Dave S and not Dave Nalle

  • Jason

    Why are we talking to Dave? 9/11 we be the pretext for revolution, WAR in this country against this country.

  • STM

    Can someone tell me what will happen to all the millions of dollars donated to Ron Paul’s campaign fund by ordinary people when Ron Paul doesn’t make it.

    Does it get returned, or does someone get to keep it. Not a trick question, but a genuine query.

    No one gives Paul a snowball’s chance in hell, yet his campaign donation meter is ticking over at a rate of knots. So what happens to any unspent dough?

  • Clavos

    It’s governed by the various states, Stan, and varies as to what the candidate must do with surplus funds, but in no case are they allowed to keep the funds (for personal use) or distribute them to their families.

    Some states allow them to be retained for future campaigns, some require they be returned to donors, most allow charitable contributions, etc., etc.

  • STM

    Thanks mate for the heads-up. I notice that one of the defining things about Paul’s campaign is the amount of money he’s getting, but everyone seems to be saying that he’s no chance.

  • Clavos

    The thing is, mate, he does very well on the ‘net, but at least so far, isn’t considered a major candidate because he doesn’t poll very high, overall.

    Because most of your exposure to our race is on the ‘net, you’re getting a skewed view of Paul’s impact.

    Read the wires at the shop.

    All that said, who knows?

    His internet supporters are certainly vociferous.

  • STM

    And presumably, they’ll all get out lof bed to vote.

    Like you say, they are vociferous, so he may have more impact than the mainstream pollsters think.

  • Clavos

    They’ve got a lot of time left to get it right…

  • STM

    How would mainstream America feel about a President Paul?

    Or would that be because of mainstream America?

  • Clavos

    I don’t think he’ll pick up too many Democratic votes, and, all other things being equal, I do think the Democrats stand a good chance of winning, after the Republican debacle of the past eight years.

    But, I’m no expert, and this is just my opinion.

  • Dave

    Sorry Dave, I think Ron Paul is not a Republican nor a
    conservative.
    Hello shuga

    You are correct. Ron Paul is not a Republican or a Conservative…he is a Libertarian. That is what I like about him. He cares about America first, and screw the rest of the world. He believes in taking care of America first. I don’t live in the Sudan, or Zimbabwe, or Bumfuckt Egypt…I live in South Carolina, which (last time I checked) is a part of the United States of America. He has a strong defense policy, to protect us from the illegal aliens, to protect us from the foreign invasion of goods, and to protect us from our biggest fear, the Federal Government that interfers with our daily lives.

    I supported Bush and his invasion of Iraq…now, I question on how it was handled. It was handled totally wrong. Bush did it for retaliation of an assassination attempt on his father. He wanted Saddem Hussien, and he got him. End of story. Now, it is time to bring our troops home. No matter when we leave, whether it be next year, or 6 years from now, Iraq will revert to whatever regime that it wants to be. We can’t force Democracy on a country who doesn’t want it, or doesn’t believe in it for that matter. I do support our troops, don’t get me wrong. We need to find and kill Bin Laden…but he isn’t in Iraq.

    Bush screwed up his second term, and is going to make it that much more impossible for a Republican to be elected as President next year. He thinks that this country has an endless pocketbook. Well, it doesn’t. Our troops should have been out of Iraq three years ago if it had been handled right, they would be. Ron Paul has pledged to pull our troops out the minute he takes office. That would be when we start taking care of ourselves again, and stop worring about other country’s affairs. I could care less what happens to Iraq, as Israel is there with enough firepower to blow them and Iran out of the water. Iran knows not to attack Israel, as they would seal their destiny by America’s retaliation. One bomb on one day…no Iran. Ahmadinejoke, is too smart to think that we wouldn’t retaillate against him, so he aint gonna do a thing but threaten. If he does make a bomb, so what…he is still wasted by us. We got more than he will ever have. Russia and China, they won’t even want to be a part of it, as we are their biggest trading partner. France, who is also a nuclear power, would just tuck their heads between the ass and watch. India has the bomb as well, they just can’t figure out how to use it (they are too busy making telemarketing calls to the US to worry about firing off a nuclear missle).

    If the Iraq war has proven one thing, it is that we can’t force our way of life upon another country, nor should we try. But yet we still pour billions of dollars into the effort. Those dollars could be used here, in America, to be helping the homeless, the helpless, and the hungry. THAT, is what Ron Paul would do…get our troops out of a no-win, no-lose situation, and start rebuilding America. Our defense is secure, and we would then have the money to stay that way without robbing my Social Security check that I hope to have in the future. America is 10-1 in the wars that it has fought. It wouldn’t be so bad to end up 10-1-1. The people of Iraq ae going to decide their own future whether we are there or not.

    You will never guess what Lynn bought me yesterday…an MP3 player . She got tired of me going out to her car to listen to my gospel album that I recorded, she said I was messing up her car with cigarettes LOL. It works pretty good, but I checked out the package, and it was made in China. So, if you don’t hear from me after this, you will know that I have contracted lead poisoning and have a brain tumor or something.

    Dave

  • T Yen Vu

    Greetings, Dave N. You stated the following:

    “Those who love liberty should oppose the truthers and other conspiracy nuts, because they are one of the greatest threats to our constitutional republic…”

    Sorry to drag this one up all the way from June 20th, but–with all due respect–how do such people constitute “one of the greatest threats”? As a fellow concerned citizen and patriot, I’d be grateful if you could supply reasonable and well-argued support to this statement.

    Again, sorry for the delayed reaction!

    T (newbie)

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    T, I’ve posted on it at length in the past. Go check my article listing and look for my various truther debunkings.

    Dave

  • bob johnson

    Dear Dave Nalle, just a few comment,

    Blowback of the Shah in Iran did NOT happen 50 years later, it happened 20 years later, which is not that unthinkable since the CIA molded Shahs secret police based on the Nazi SS one of the most brutal and harshest ever.
    for 20 years the people of Iran had to endure that brutal regime America put in to power, i will not go in to detail but you are severely miss informed on the subject if you don’t even know how many years after the CIA coup that put the shah back in to power, this “blowback” took place.
    So yes while some of the things Dr Paul says is clearly outside of the mainstream thought process. it does not make them any less true. In short Arabs do not want to harm you for your freedom fries. They want to harm you because you are squatting on their land with no plans to leave in the near future.
    I believe in the old west they also shot land squatters. These people are also sick of their own leaders acting as American puppets (which most are) and resent us even More for it than any religious teaching they might subscribe to that is viewed as extreme.
    America and the CIA hand in hand turned and funded the Saudi Muslims in to extremists during the cold war to fight against the USSR’s occupation of Afghanistan, 9/11 is also a direct blowback because of it.
    This all from a Canadian observing

  • Giovanni

    Dave,

    I’m not a conspiracy theorist or a lunatic. I go out with my friends, we hang out, talk and share laughs and a few beers. We eat food, sleep at night and make love to out girlfriends. We wear clothes and take showers. We see black helicopters but we see yellow ones too. We also like green tea. We like to drink it.

    I believe that 9/11 being a false flag attack, be it deliberate or negligent in circumstances, isn’t crazy at all but pretty normal to think about, given the many previous false flags. Nonetheless, I am not completely sure and I can discuss it dispassionately because I’ve learned to do that. Most importantly though, 9/11 being an inside job is something that a lot of people have strong opinions about and is simply not necessary in a campaign, be it true or false. On a strategic standpoint it would only hurt his chances.

    You do bring up great points and I want to acknowledge that. I also wanted to respond to the name calling and that ground zero is a crime scene and shouldn’t have been cleared up without a proper investigation. There’s a lot of holes in the commission. We will get bogged down in an endless debate about so I try to avoid the subject. Just try not to call anyone who considers that some people in our government would work to let this or make this happen a conspiracy nut or kook. I’m not a tin foil man and neither are my friends who find it plausible that the box cutter commandos were able to only learn how to take off in planes and not land them and somehow the government didn’t notice.

    What does it for me is the picture of the steel pillar neatly sliced like a piece of bread. Steel does not melt neatly and diagonally. Search on the web. I consider all realities and do not attach my ego to a perspective allowing me to not make intellectual cheap shots like calling people insane for considering such things.

  • Giovanni

    STM:

    He used the remaining funds for C4L and some seed money for YAL.