Ron Paul

Ron Paul, Part MCXII

|

There may well be other news in the world right now, but I want to follow up on the Ron Paul-Michelle Malkin kerfuffle. In our last exciting episode, Malkin triaged her attacks on Paul and built a new case that he might be a 9/11 conspiracy theorist on a web post by the group that confronted him after a house party.

Here's what Student Scholars for Truth is saying about Ron Paul and his good buddy Dennis "The Truth About 9/11" Kucinich:

In regards to Rep. Ron Paul, he states twice in the Student Scholars video that he believes that the first 9/11 investigation was one in which there many "cover-ups." Paul also claimed he "never automatically believes anything the government does when they do an investigation." Additionally, he has been on the Alex Jones show several times. Ron Paul knows very well that something is very wrong with the official explanation of 9/1l. However, like Dennis Kucinich he cannot look right into our cameras and proclaim "9/11 WAS A SELF INFLICTED WOUND!" Through acknowledging the legitimacy of the 9/11 Truth Movement's concerns, these candidates are expressing their support for our cause.

I repeat: This has no place on the GOP presidential debate stage.

Since I am a journalist, I asked Justin Martell (the leader of Student Scholars, who quizzed Paul) about this statement. He responds:

In regards to the article that I wrote that Malkin cites, where I stated that candidates cannot look into our camera's and proclaim "9/11 was a self inflicted wound," it has been taken out of context. You must understand the position I am writing from. Many members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, or 9/11 Wingnuts as some have so eloquently described them, won't give anyone the time of day unless they fully commit to the "inside job" standpoint, and that article was in response to many emails I had received from supposed supporters telling me that I should have been more aggressive and that if a candidate won't go on the record and say 9/11 was an inside job, then "to hell with them." And I was merely responding to those people, and trying to tell them that just because a candidate does not share their exact views about 9/11 does not mean he or she should not be supported.

This onion is pretty much peeled. Paul does not think there was a conspiracy behind 9/11, has said so, and has persuaded Martell that he thinks so. But Martell and other members of Student Scholars like the way he answered their questions and he/they encourage 9/11 truthers to support Paul (or Dennis Kucinich). If anyone thinks that failing to kick 9/11 truthers out of your event is or having some 9/11 truthers support your campaign is grounds for being kept out of the debates, I guess he/she can argue that.

In fairness, I admit that the LGF poll Malkin links to is pretty sweet.

Advertisement

NEXT: Fox News Conspiracy Theories

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Uh.. There WAS a conspiracy behind 9/11, and it consisted of Osama Bin Laden and his followers who killed themselves in those airplanes.

    -jcr

  2. Wow. Paul really has the neo-cons running scared. (They generally react badly to the truth.) Not bad for someone they consider both irrelevant and a joke.

    It is especially fun to watch LGF have a hissy fit over a “silly internet poll” that didn’t go the way it was supposed to.

  3. Ron Paul is the dark horse we have been waiting for in these dark hours.

  4. Nothing to do with anything, but his name would make a euphonic Pope’s.

  5. So Ron Paul might get 9/11 Truthers to vote for the Republican Party…

    Michelle Malkin can’t see the humor in that. What is she, blind?

  6. Malkin is a shill.

    I have paul on video in a q and a at a republican event being confronted by a “9-11 truther”. He patiently agreed to take a look at the book they offered him but explained he is not convinced that the US government planned, participated in or caused the attacks.

    Is Malkin following up on Giulianis illinformed views on the root cause of suicide terrorism? I personally think that crap should be banned from the stage. Of course since the 9 other candidates all spew the same nonsense, we would be left with a lone Paul on stage debating the moderator.

  7. Dave –

    Can you link to that video?

    It sounds really interesting.

  8. Dave-

    Really, you should link to that video or, if it is not currently online, post it on youtube. This would be the evidence needed to make Malkin look like an idiot. (Not that that’s difficult.)

  9. From what I understand, Paul said at the GOP debate that he believed that 9/11 was a consequence of US meddling in the Middle East. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything attributed to him saying that Karl Rove was in Manhattan talking the planes in.

    How are these two distinct positions suddenly being conflated?

  10. What I find amusing is that 2000+ people have voted in LGF’s joke poll.

    I also find it amusing that all the neocon bloggers seem to think Paul has some sort of organization directing people to freep their sites. I registered at Paul’s site, but my support has never been enlisted in going to any other website or voting in any online poll, text message poll, whatever.

    No other Paul supporter has ever emailed me, told me to visit any site, etc. How hard is it for these guys to understand technorati? Or Google blog search?

  11. There’s only one important question concerning the attacks, did the US gov’t allow/participate in 9/11?

    The answer to that query would explain the illegal wire-taps, suspension of habeas corpus, banning of books like “America Deceived” from Amazon, detaining of dissenters in fences miles away from events, and multiple wars based on lies.

    How can the gov’t be innocent in 9/11 when we have caught it lying so many times (WACO, Ruby Ridge, no WMDs, USS Liberty, Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, ETC.)?

    In law, if you determine a person lies ONCE during his testimony, it can be assumed that he lied in the remainder of his testimony. How come we do not hold the gov’t to the same standard as it holds us to?

    The gov’t lied to us about Iraq and more Americans have died there than in 9/11. If the gov’t lied about Iraq then why is everyone so reluctant to believe that the gov’t lied about 9/11?

    Final link (before Google Books bends to pressure and drops the title):
    America Deceived (book)

  12. It’s extra-funny that LGF mocks Ron Paul for being a conspiracy theorist while having their own conspiracy theories about why Paul has (seemingly) so many supporters on the interwebs. LGFers will never be accused of being great appreciators of irony, that’s for sure.

    Oh, and them being completely wrong about what Paul thinks about 9/11 is kinda funny, too. Only kinda funny, though.

  13. Somebody should explain to Justin Martell, as the leader of a group with the word “Scholars” in its name, that in standard English the phrase is in regard to, not in regards to. (Or if he can’t resist including the s, he should say as regards, which is also consistent with standard English.)

  14. Every time Malkin says something I expect her to end with ‘na na, na na na’. She’s a fantastic name caller so she fits right in at FOX.

    911 was an inside job. Crime of the century. Too easy to see. Shows how gullible people are.

  15. Apparently the Malkins of the world can’t see the difference between (a) thinking that U.S. policy in the past encouraged the terrorists to perpetrate 9/11 and other atrocities, and (b) blaming someone as part of the conspiracy itself.

    No surprise there. The anti-Paul forces want to twist his words as much as they can…and spinning it as if to say we should shut up about 9/11 and leave the terrorists alone because it was our fault is ludicrous.

    As far as this stuff having “no business” on the debate stage, what is the GOP afraid of? They consider Paul an also-ran, right? Frankly I think it’s refreshing when a candidate — whether Republican, Democratic or Other — can hold a position contrary to the mainstream of his/her party. The last thing I want in the political arena is to have unpopular ideas silenced. Isn’t that why the founders gave us the First Amendment? (Yes, I realize the debate committees aren’t “the government” per se when it comes to free expression, but it’s not entirely disconnected, either, as it relates to political elections.)

    Frankly, I think Paul’s skepticism about government claims is refreshing given that most of the people in political power try to spoon feed us their version of “truth” and expect us all to swallow it like good little boys and girls.

  16. Did Malkin ever retract her claim that John Kerry intentionally shot himself in the leg to get a purple heart?

    She’s as bad as the “truthers”.

  17. It is amazing to me how absolutely histrionic Michelle Malkin is about Ron Paul. She must be really afraid.

  18. Don’t a majority of Americans still think Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11?
    Why isn’t Malkin calling for all them to be rounded up and placed in internment camps?

  19. Henry T —

    “The government” is not one person, therefore just because “the government” lied in one case it does not logically follow that “the government” lied about something else.

    If you believe that “the government” lied about WMDs in Iraq, does that mean that Charles Manson should go free? I mean, after all, it was “the government” which presented evidence against him, and “the government” which testified.

    Is “the government” also lying when “the government” tells us what the consumer price index says, what yesterday’s low temperature in Provo was, or that Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon in 1969?

  20. In law, if you determine a person lies ONCE during his testimony, it can be assumed that he lied in the remainder of his testimony. How come we do not hold the gov’t to the same standard as it holds us to?

    Off the top of my head, I can think of two reasons:
    1. The government is not a person. It is a lot of people, and its composition changes over time.
    2. Even in law (assuming you’re correct about this), I presume that such a rule only holds in the limited context of a particular trial.
    3. Even within the context of a particular trial, if someone was known to give false testimony, you wouldn’t simply be able to reverse all of their statements to arrive at the truth. They could be lying about some things, telling the truth about others.

    I wager this is all blindingly obvious to 95% of the readers here.

  21. I mean three reasons.

    Clearly, Peter K was thinking the same thing at the same time!

  22. It is amazing to me how absolutely histrionic Michelle Malkin is about Ron Paul. She must be really afraid.

    I don’t think active fear has anything to do with it. It’s annoyance because, to someone like Malkin, Paul is insane. To a statist, either left or right, calling the primacy of the state into question is like getting up and denying the sun is visible in the sky. You get annoyed with such people, you call them names, you shake them and act like Akira berating a religious person, and you try to get them to go away.

    I want Paul to win, but I know that it would never happen: if it appeared he had a snowball’s chance in Urkobold’s garden, the big guns would be trained on him. Too many people in positions of power would have too much to lose with a lib in office since our philosophy denies the legitimacy of power.

    It reminds me of some liberal Massachussetts friends of mine who go to protest the war in Iraq. What they never seem to realize is that the government that has the power to do the things they want (and they are big-time statists) also has the power to do what they don’t want. The only way to eliminate what you don’t want is to eliminate what you do want. There is no such thing as the “right” government, because its priorities will change. If they do fear Paul at all, it is because he threatens everyone on either side of the aisle…

  23. Man, hasn’t the loser (or losers, I guess) who keep posting this “America Deceived” nonsense on every message board on the planet gotten tired yet?

  24. JF: Some of us are actually offended that our next president will probably be a lying piece of crap.

  25. A few weeks ago, my buddy Joe (no relation to “joe”) wrote:

    i am certain that the government is doing a whole lot of evil things in secret because they are doing a whole of evil things out in the open.

    A 9/11 conspiracy doesn’t pass my BS detector because, frankly, I don’t think the government would be competent enough to keep such an operation a secret. However, rejecting a 9/11 conspiracy doesn’t mean that the government doesn’t ever do anything evil in secret.

  26. If you could wave a magic wand and make a Libertarian the president, how much could really be effected against rampant bipartisanship and the military-industrial-congressional complex?

  27. Lamar,

    Well, yeah, but reading a poorly-written piece of fiction about “President Andrew Humphrey” is going to have about as much effect as reading “Dianetics”.

  28. Remember how terrible it was when we had to choose in Bush/Gore or Bush/Kerry? Can you imagine choosing between Romney/Clinton? Either perpetual war or socialized health care.

  29. Just want to go retro for a second and comment on something important I haven\’t seen anyone bring up. I think everyone has missed the point on the original \’controversial\’ comments and are letting the pundits frame the issues:

    Paul\’s comments on \’the hate us because we are over \’there\’ and \’blowback\’ had nothing to do with 9/11. They began as an answer to a question on the IRAQ WAR and why Ron Paul thought we should get out. He held up Iran 1953 and Bin Laden as examples of \’blowback\’ to infer his belief that the IRAQ WAR IS HAVING A NEGATIVE EFFECT on the U.S. and its image and further radicalizing the Middle East.

    The FOX News REPORTER brought up 9/11 and then Giuliani pounced. Paul\’s comments were vis a vis the Iraq War, not wether the US was to blame for 9/11.

    He also has said it is a distraction to finding those actually responsible for 9/11 and has said he would go after Bin Laden and Al Quaeda, so he is far from a pacifist ostrich.

    Wether we should stay and try to \’fix\’ what we\’ve started as opposed to just leaving would be a good debate. Paul\’s reasons for wanting to pull out, though, have merit.

    Now back to your normally schedulled troll programming…

  30. Bill Maher stands up for Ron Paul, edits the debate to show how it really went. (from Alternet)

  31. How are wingnuts who believe that the government pulled off the 9/11 attacks any wingnuttier than the wingnuts who imagine that Ron Paul, with our without Michelle Malkin’s attacks, is anything bu a comic-relief candidate? This particular “kerfuffle” has all the resonance of a dispute over the tiddlywinks championship. It matters to so few that it doesn’t really matter at all.

  32. Don’t a majority of Americans still think Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11?

    No, but a majority of the “activists” who want to paint anybody who disagrees with them as “sheeple” keep perpetuating that lie, along with the like that the Bush administration said Saddam had something to do with it too.

    Kinda funny that Don’t a majority of Americans still think Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11?
    aul keeps saying that US foreign policy and action are why we were attacked on 9/11, but his followers keep trying to tell us that this, somehow, does not mean that we “invited” the attacks. Yep, in the debat he never used that word, it was the context of the question and he did not question that.

    Sort of like the way Gore supporters try to tell us that he never said he invented the internet. Of course, he made a statement on Larry King but none of the words in that statement mean what he said, or something.

  33. JF: I know, I know. I believe in the marketplace of ideas, not that particular book.

  34. Montag: What does “inviting attacks” mean? If I invite something, don’t I deserve it? You’re a right wing Ward Churchill.

  35. Trying that second paragraph again . . .

    Kinda funny that Paul keeps . . .

  36. Montag: What does “inviting attacks” mean? If I invite something, don’t I deserve it? You’re a right wing Ward Churchill.

    I am sure that there will be a varing explaiation from Paul supporters over time.

    I am not saying we invited the attacks, but Paul sure is going that direction while David and others deny it.

  37. What the heck does “inviting the attacks” mean?

  38. Like Bush went to CompUSA, bought Print Shop and made up some invitations, which he then sent to Saudi Arabia…..

  39. It’s a meaningless phrase that mischaracterizes what he said. Look at the video I linked to. It won’t change your mind, because no amount of facts will do that, but at least you’ll see what the Paul people are saying.

  40. I’ve seen the video where Paul is confronted by the 9/11 nutter. And much of the flak he is getting today regarding 9/11 conspiracy theories is his own fault. In that video he gave what he apparenlty thought was a good political answer. He didn’t openly disagree with the student, he sounded as if might be on their side without saying he was thus allowing him to deny it later. He could have quite clearly said he disagrees and the issue would have ended. Instead he was being a politician and being vague intentionally.

    Second, Paul is a conspiracist. Whether he is a conspiracist on 9/11 is the question. He spouts John Birch Society type of bankers conspiracies and fear of the “new world order” and such things all the time. So Paul certainly does buy into some rather nutty conspiracy theories. That encourages people to assume he holds similar nutty views on 9/11. (The Birchers apparently don’t hold the “truther” position so Paul in keeping in line with the the JBS position.) The Birchers give Paul a 100% rating and he praises them.

    In their magazine he mentions the alleged plot to merge the US into Mexico and Canada that is popular with the fringe Right. And then says: “Fortunately, there are groups like the John Birch Society and others that have brought this to the attemtion of a lot of people.” Concocted the story is more accurate. He also buys into the “NAFTA Superhighway” conspiracy which the conspiracists blame on the CFR as usual.

    This doesn’t mean Malkin wasn’t trying to distort to prove her point. She was. But Ron Paul has more than enough loony conspiracy theories to go around that he does clearly hold. And that makes him a prime target for easy distortion.

  41. “So Paul certainly does buy into some rather nutty conspiracy theories.”

    Name one and back it up.

  42. Second, Paul is a conspiracist. Whether he is a conspiracist on 9/11 is the question. He spouts John Birch Society type of bankers conspiracies and fear of the “new world order” and such things all the time. So Paul certainly does buy into some rather nutty conspiracy theories. That encourages people to assume he holds similar nutty views on 9/11. (The Birchers apparently don’t hold the “truther” position so Paul in keeping in line with the the JBS position.) The Birchers give Paul a 100% rating and he praises them.

    When Hitler talked about the \’parasitical\’ Jew and the money-grubbers who lived off the hard work of the German Volk, it\’s probably true that there were several unscrupulous Jewish bankers and business men that fit that description to a tee. Of course, he probably killed very few of those but instead millions of Polish and Hungarian peasants.

    In other words, there may be a few truths to be found in the even the most wild of theories. It is not unbecoming for a reasonable man to keep an open mind on all things as long as he is careful his opinions and actions are solidly based on fact and not wild speculation, wether his own or others.

  43. Has anybody proposed that only Guilani and Paul be allowed in all future Republican debates? They were the only ones we remember, and they are the only ones who are not run-of-the-mill BORING.

  44. Ron Paul should have some appeal on the Christian right. He apparently thinks we’re a Christian nation.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

    “The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.”

  45. Like a good Christian rightist, Ron Paul opposes stem cell research.

    http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm

  46. Final link (before Google Books bends to pressure and drops the title):
    America Deceived (book)

    That’s terrible prose.

  47. The book, I mean, not the post.

  48. Edward, that comment is disingenuous. Ron Paul not only opposes Federal funding of stem cell research, he opposes Federal funding of ANYTHING not specifically allowed by the constitution. Thomas Jefferson, a good Democrat, would have agreed with him.

  49. Ron Pual doesn’t oppose all federal funding.

    He voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)

    He voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)

    By the way, he apposes gay rights:

    He voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

  50. I tell you what, Montag: Take as long as you want to make up some definition of “inviting attacks” or “inviting 9/11.” Until then, it is basically your position that Paul should have definitively answered a definitionless question. That kind of neocon crap is why the GOP can’t win the next prez election without a major Dem meltdown. In essence, people like you are responsible for the Democrats gaining power.

  51. Edward: You found two instances of funding? That’s supposed to be impressive? That’s supposed to refute Ron Paul’s general philosophy of no federal funding? That’s just poor work on your part.

  52. If you like Ron Paul so much why don\’t you marry him!

  53. Lamar

    How about commenting on his anti-gay, Christian right views?

  54. How about commenting on his anti-gay, Christian right views?

    Who gives a shit?

  55. Ron Paul is NOT anti-gay lol

    We did meth together and i polished his peter

  56. Actually, Paul simply doesn’t think the federal government should be able to federalize the institution of marriage. That’s it. He also doesn’t think that the full faith and credit clause forces each state to recognize the marriage licenses of every other state. I don’t really agree with him, but I think this is one the times he’s on a states’ rights kick, and not some particular vendetta he has against gays.

  57. Marc at 11:05, responding to Henry T.:

    Off the top of my head, I can think of two reasons: . . . .
    2. Even in law (assuming you’re correct about this), I presume that such a rule only holds in the limited context of a particular trial.
    3. Even within the context of a particular trial, if someone was known to give false testimony, you wouldn’t simply be able to reverse all of their statements to arrive at the truth. They could be lying about some things, telling the truth about others.

    That is absolutely correct. There is a maxim in law that goes like this: “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” (false regarding one thing, [thus] false regarding everything). But all it is is a maxim, a rule of thumb that a judge or jury may take into account when weighing a witness’s testimony.

  58. Well, I don’t like Ron Paul’s notion that the churches should repalce the state. Hasn’t that been tried soemwhere in the Middle East?

  59. Marc –

    I agree with you that we probably can’t assume that the Bush administration lied about everything, just because they lied about some things.

    However, since they lied about some things, it definitely takes the onus off of those who want investigations that relied on their voluntary testimony reopened.

    I don’t think for a second that a new 9/11 investigation would reveal that the administration had a hand in 9/11. It might, however, reveal Bush administration incompetence or mendacity that didn’t make it into the first report. I doubt very much that there’s evidence of complicity waiting to be discovered – but I don’t find it hard to believe at all that there’s evidence of stupidity still waiting to be discovered.

    That being said, a new 9/11 investigation would be way, way down my list of priority investigations when Bush and his gang finally don’t have the shield of being in office any more. I think we would need to start with the NSA wiretaps, then move on to fraud and abuse in Iraq reconstruction spending, then move on to fraud, abuse, and human rights violations on the part of contractors and private armies in Iraq, then move on to the authorization of torture and rendition, then move on to a broader investigation of the military prison systems in Iraq and Afghanistan, then move on to…well, let’s just say there’s a lot ahead of a new 9/11 report. The President did his best to immunize all his people in the Military Commissions Act, but at least you could shine a lot of daylight on these events, and maybe send a bunch of these rogues to federal prison for things not covered by the MCA amnesty.

  60. There’s a little bit of a difference between churches replacing the state and churches becoming the state.

  61. “Can you imagine choosing between Romney/Clinton? Either perpetual war or socialized health care.” — George

    I think you get both either way. Clinton is pro-war and Romney socialized health care in Mass.

  62. “Well, I don’t like Ron Paul’s notion that the churches should repalce the state. Hasn’t that been tried soemwhere in the Middle East?”

    The good doctor, in the quote you cited, was simply endorsing the idea (enunciated by Tocqueville, too, by the way) that private religious institutions do a better job than the government in taking care of the poor and unfortunate, and enforcing moral standards (eg, having children only within marriage, not divorcing, etc.) which help reduce the occasions for state intervention.

    The Middle East analogy, if you’re referring to the Muslim world, represents an incorrect interpretation of how Islam is supposed to operate, and how it does in fact operate in countries like Saudi Arabia. Muslim leaders are supposed to govern *all* the affairs of the *umma,* from punishing crime to regulating prayer, etc. There is no institutionally-separate “church” which handles certain affairs which are outside the province of the secular authorities. There is often dispute over whether a given political regime is legitimately Muslim, and dissenting religious teachers often urge the governments to follow Islam more closely, or call on the people to overthrow un-Islamic leaders, but the end goal is to have a true Muslim in the leadership who enforces Islamic precepts. There is no separation of church and state because there is no church to separate.

  63. Dr. Paul’s “robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America” would be a country where (as in previous periods of our history) most people went to church voluntarily, because that’s what they (or their families and neighbors) want, not because the government tells them. The government would guard the frontiers and administer justice, but it would be voluntary religious organizations which do most of the work of socializing people and teaching them what’s right and wrong. Atheists might have to endure the horrid spectacle of public officials praying, and nativity scenes being installed in public spaces, but they wouldn’t have to worry about prayer in the public schools, because Dr. Paul doesn’t think the government should be in the education business. Paul signed a petition to separate school and state, see

    http://www.schoolandstate.org/home.htm

  64. More to the point, elaborating on my comment on the Muslim world: There is no church domination of politics, because there’s no church. This isn’t a mere semantic distinction, because in the West, when the Church was dominant, there was a doctrine of separate spheres, with secular and Church authorities having distinct (albeit often overlapping) responsibilities – there was no single leader with authority to regulate *all* the affairs of Christendom.

  65. So far as the book goes:
    America Deceived is published by iUniverse.
    IUniverse is known as a vanity or subsidy publisher, who will publish anything by anyone that wants to pay for it.

    That does not make them illegitimate, but it contrasts them with University and commercial publishers, who publish things that are either of serious interest to various communities, or that they think are good enough to make a profit from.

    Amazon does still list this book, Barnes and Noble do not, even with an ISBN search. Amazon will list things sold by third parties, using Amazons site as a portal. Barnes and Nobel are more discriminating, but not by much. They do list books by iUniverse, Xlibris and other publishers like them. IUniverse has some link to B&N as well, but I am not sure if they are a subsidiary or in some sort of partnership arrangement. So for B&N to not list the book may say something.

    The one review on Amazon states:
    “After reading the first couple of pages it became apparent that this is a vanity press book. No serious publisher would have considered it. The author has no idea of how to write fiction, so he just throws silly ideas on a page . . . beginning with a long list of black celebrities, followed by the n-word. Then a list of events in American history all caused by a family of conspirators. Don’t waste your time.”

    Looks more like a case of an execrable author on a nutty topic being studiously avoided by the rational.

  66. tomwright,

    Agreed. For a real adventure, read the first few pages at iuniverse; they make the prose of Ayn Rand and L. Ron Hubbard look positively flowery.

  67. I just watched the Republican debate on Fox, and I have to admit that Ron Paul’s remarks on the war in Iraq were very reasonable and hard to disagree with. Too bad an electable candidate doesn’t speak the truth on this issue as forthrightly.

  68. You all make good points about separation of church and state and the inappropriateness of the Middle East analogy. Nevertheeless, I find Ron Paul’s anti-secularist rhetoric unappealing.

  69. This “America Deceived” guy is a comment spammer that’s been hitting H&R (and apparently a lot of other sites) for a long time now. He appears to be searching for threads referencing conspiracy theories, then dropping his packaged advertisement and taking off. Here’s a list of some of his H&R spamming incidents by date, with professed name and email addresses:

    Feb 9: Hank G (John11724@cs.com)
    Feb 12: Larry Halston (Billdone11722@cs.com)
    Feb 21: Jack D (John11724@cs.com)
    Mar 21: David B (Billdone11722@cs.com)
    May 20: Henry T (John11724@cs.com)

    A Google search returns a long list of sites he’s spammed with this crap. I don’t know Reason’s policy on IP blocking, but it might be worth finding out if this guy has ever participated here in any way other than comment spamming.

  70. Once again, it’s just FUD to say Paul would replace the state with church.

    What he meant was that faith-based groups would do the work that welfare does now, but with voluntary funds.

    I think the world knows what Paul said and meant during both debates and this is why Rudy’s popularity has sunk 11 points in the MSM’s own polls today.

  71. Apperently conspiracy spammers are ok, just don\’t say anything dirty about Balko\’s exotic asian mistress or you will be BANNED! There are kids here, you know?

  72. Were things really so much better when welfare was supplied exclusively by the church? Somehow the Middle Ages don’t strike me as the best of times.

  73. Edward,

    I cited the Middle Ages to contrast traditional Christendom with the Islamic world. Dr. Paul’s “robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America” is not based on the Middle Ages. American has never conformed 100% to this ideal, but the closest it came was in the Victorian era, when Tocqueville wrote about the phenomenon Dr. Paul describes.

    One of the regrettable things about the Victorian era was the establishment of government schools, so I repeat it wasn’t a libertarian paradise.

  74. Mad Max

    But were the poor better off when they were taken care of by religious institutions? Since there has never been a fully functioning libertarian society, why should we assume it would work? Often when the state is weak, criminal organizations take over, witness the Mafia in Sicily.

  75. Edward,

    Are the poor better off when the arbiters of cultural opinion mock marital fidelity, denigrate the traditional family, and encourage easy divorce?

  76. In Sicily, the people didn’t trust the government at all – they didn’t even entrust it with its basic functions of impartially adjudicating disputes and repressing crime. How is this relevant to the welfare state vs. the churches?

    Akira, why don’t you chime in? I’ll give you a topic – organized crime versus organized religion – is there a difference? Or is organized religion worse? Discuss.

  77. For people who support Malkin, the substance of her views don’t matter. As long as she responds in a forceful way, they think she’s winning. I say let the Malkins of the world jabber on about Ron Paul. Rank and file Republicans think she’s a loon and may be inclined to look into what Paul stands for based entirely on Malkin’s hysterical justifications.

  78. Mad Max

    The role of the Mafia in Sicily seems relevant to libertarian anti-statism. Human nature, it seems, and not the state, is the the source of much that libertarians object to. We’re a violence-prone, hierarchical species. What’s the difference between paying taxes and paying protection money?
    I think the poor are better off now than when they were at the mercy of private charity. We’re healthier and living longer now than ever before. Maybe that’s why radical ideologies get so little traction here.
    I tend to agree with Dawkins et al that religion is mostly a harmful supersition. Politicians like Ron Paul encourage religious obscurantism. Having said that, I do like his take on the Iraq war.

  79. Ed and Co

    You\’re conflating the man\’s personal views with what he would do as policy.

    Ron Paul is a Christian. But he is not anti-secularist. His varying, seemingly conflincting positions on different things show, more than anything, an independent thinker who operates on his principles and beliefs rather than an ideolog.

    He often votes his conscience. His stance on abortion and gay marriage are examples of this.

    His stance on abortion is particularly interesting, more so than his stance on gay marriage. He departs from typical Libertarian thinking on this and somewhat from his usual non-governmental intervention stance. For example, he voted FOR the ban on partial-birth abortions. He\’s voting his conscience.

    However, his stance on abortion is different from the usual \’Pro-Life\’ right in that, rather than appeal to moral hysteria and government coersion, Paul goes once again to the core of the issue in arguing that abortion is simply murder of a potential person and that that person should be awarded all the protections anyone should.

    I don\’t know if he believes abortion should eb outlawed outright, but he is definitely believes government, esp. federal gov., should not be involved one way or another. I think he believes the ultimate decision should be local and state, but ultimately INDIVIDUALLY.

    He is very firmly FOR separation of church and state and against government intervention in personal affairs and moral busy-bodying; the kind that both those on the right AND the left like to indulge in.

    The quote cited by Edward is more a reflection of his personal beliefs, what he would wish it would look like, not an outline of enforced policy.

    Thus I don\’t believe you have to worry about Inquisition or Theocracy coming from the likes of Ron Paul.

  80. ideolog = idealogue; eb = be

    I\’m completely fucking stupid.(but i still own you all 😉 )

  81. Paul on CNN’s Late Edition this morning:

    “We do much better trading with Vietnam than we did with fighting with them, and we lost 60,000 men there.”

    “I support the Republican platform better than any other candidate, I am convinced of. Take out the platform. They’re for less government. They’re for personal liberty.”

    “We ran on our program in 2000 for a humble foreign policy. How can anybody say I’m not Republican? I’m the most conservative member of the Congress. I vote for the least amount of spending and the least amount of taxes, and they say I’m not Republican enough?”

    “We cannot win as Republicans next year if we just continue to dig our heels in, send more men and women over there to die on a policy that has failed.”

    “That is the issue. Republicans are scared to death to face up to the truth. And my job is to make them face up to it and show them that the majority of Americans are with me, not with the current foreign policy that we’re following.”

    Yeah, Malkin must be right. What a loon. 🙂

  82. Edward:
    “At the mercy of private charity”

    My irony meter broke!

  83. Edward:
    \”At the mercy of private charity\”

    My irony meter broke!

    rofl

    That\’s funnier than Michelle Malkin sex jokes!

  84. “I think the poor are better off now than when they were at the mercy of private charity. We’re healthier and living longer now than ever before.”

    There’s a lot of fish in that particular barrel, it feels unsporting to shoot them.

    “Maybe that’s why radical ideologies get so little traction here.

    “I tend to agree with Dawkins et al that religion is mostly a harmful supersition.”

    Dawkins’ radical ideology has very little traction here.

  85. Ron Paul on abortion

    Post-debate interview by Hannity & Colmes.

    \”We gave them the gas, we gave them the gas!\”

  86. Bringing the commentary more inline with the original subject, is Ron Paul a conspiracy theorist?:

    Ron Paul on the New World Order in his own words.

  87. Here’s a question for conspiracy buffs: does New World Order necessarily mean a concerted effort by secret designers making secret fruit cup or can it be used do describe the idea that all nations should answer to an international court or something along those lines? From what Paul said in that video, he was talking about the broad “new world order” of the abolition of nation-states, not the Trilateral commission or whatever else.
    But maybe “new world order” is too charged a term to throw around if you want to have a political future.

  88. Related to subjects touched on in the above video:

    Ron Paul on Economics(The Korelin Economics Report)

    Conspiracy Theorist? Unecessary Pessimist? Or a man with sound economic ideas?

    What is he?

  89. idkwiaa,

    The good doctor said nothing about conspiracy in that video. What he *did* say is that there are lots of influential people in this country who are philosophically opposed to the traditional conception of American national sovereignty. He blamed this attitude for this country’s non-serious attitude toward border enforcement.

    In high school, I was involved in the World Federalist movement, which wants to establish a literal world government. So don’t tell me these people don’t exist.

    I see that the World Federalists are still around, and they seem to be getting support for some of their projects, including support from such insignificant fringe groups as the MacArthur Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Open Society Institute. See

    http://www.wfm.org/site/index.php/pages/40

    One of their big things is the International Criminal Court, which they want to have the power to bring national leaders to trial for war crimes and humanitarian violations if (in the international court’s judgment) the domestic legal system isn’t doing enough to prosecute the accused.

  90. Extra-thick. Get yours today!

  91. “But maybe ‘new world order’ is too charged a term to throw around if you want to have a political future.”

    President George H. W. Bush used the phrase. Of course, he *did* go on to lose the election of 1992. But he lost to an internationalist Democrat, so make of that what you will.

  92. Yes, I may as well admit, all conspiracy theorists are part of an *organized plot* to discredit the government. They have a central headquarters in Billings, Montana which sends instructions to the minions of the conspiracy. The conspiracy theorists even have influence in Congress, as Ron Paul shows. The fact that Dr. Paul hasn’t espoused conspiracy theories is proof of his diabolical cleverness at hiding his true, secret agenda.

    The conspiracy theory headquarters just has to give the word, and Rep. Paul does their will, and Paul’s supporters post on libertarian blogs in an insidious effort to infiltrate and discredit the libertarian movement.

    Fortunately, there are a few brave souls who see through the facade and are willing to expose the conspiracy theorists!

  93. Lamar,

    Quit making up positions for me. I have already stated mine and it is quite different than your Saint Paul’s.

    someone else,

    Has anybody proposed that only Guilani and Paul be allowed in all future Republican debates?

    I propose that and let Fred ignore them as they babble.

  94. Here\’s a question for conspiracy buffs: does New World Order necessarily mean…

    Again I do not espouse these ideas but,

    As far as I understand it, here\’s the basic run down:

    For the conspiracy theorists, the New World Order is a goal of a one world government espoused by the moneyed Elite.

    These elite today are comprised of the international bankers, the \’money-traders,\’ who have historically controlled all the money and dictated policy to governments by controlling the money supply to such governments.

    In essence, they are ones who dictate actual government policy. They own the governments.

    These include the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve, both private banks, and the IMF, World Bank etc. are all related.

    Then you get into the various manifestations of the Elites through history and culture. The Illuminati, Secret Societies like the Free Masons and Skull and Bones, blah blah blah and their symbolism.

    Some conspiracy groups take a distinctly anti-jewish, or anti-Zionist, as they call it, view which could be construed as anti-semitic.

    It so happens many of the bankers are and have been Jewish: Wolfowitz, Greenspan, Rothschilds, etc. You\’ll see banners at these sites saying things like \’Fight Zionists!\’
    And you have some association with these ideas by White Supremacists ans Neo-Nazis because it fits neatly with the idea of the \’Evil Jew\’ behind all the world\’s problems.

    Alot of these fringe groups are the ones that do alot to discredit alot of these ideas.

    Alot of these ideas are very interesting. In particular monetary theory and the idea of private banks like The Fed having so much influence. Didn\’t famed economist Milton Friedman basically share these views?

    Thanks to the lunacy of some of these fringe groups, these ideas are all lumped together as \”crazy conspiracy theory\”.

    If there is merit to some of them, then maybe mainstream journals and intellectuals should start supporting and giving legitamacy to the ideas that have some base in fact.

    Here\’s a few videos on Google Video that spell most of it out if you\’re interested. Very interesting, actually:

    Freedom to Fascim by Aaron Russo

    The Money Masters by Bill Still

    Again, I\’m not a conspiracy theorist or a spammer.

  95. Here’s a question for conspiracy buffs: does New World Order necessarily mean…

    For some of us non-conspiracy folk (anti-conspiracy? ) it is a world without tyrants.

  96. Bringing all this around in relation to Ron Paul,

    Dr. Paul has a cameo in Russo\’s \”Freedom to Fascism\” video, where he is interviewed by Russo about the Fed.

    Views of Paul and others on the Fed are apparently articulated in the book The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve by G. Edward Griffin. This book is highly praised by Ron Paul.

    Views of the so-called \’New World Order\’ are articulated in the book New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies by William T. Still, producer of \”The Money Masters\” video.

    I haven\’t got around to reading either book, but I\’d like to, because I spend all my time getting involed in meaningless debates on the intranet.

  97. Here’s a question for conspiracy buffs: does New World Order necessarily mean…

    For some of us non-conspiracy folk (anti-conspiracy? ) it is a world without tyrants.

    For me, it’s a Ministry song. For most, it’s a group of wrestlers.

  98. The Money Masters by Bill Still

    Link didnt work.

    \”I do not espouse these ideas\” , means I don\’t believe them in their entirety necessarily. But they do give, at least, interesting food for thought.

  99. Warty:
    For me, it\’s a Ministry song

    sweet, im gonna limewire it!

  100. What’s so funny about “at the mercy of private charity”? You must have images of stealing from your mother’s purse or something.

  101. Re: Lamar’s comment, “JF: Some of us are actually offended that our next president will probably be a lying piece of crap.”

    Probably? Is there some presidential contender with support above low single digits who speaks his or her mind like Ron Paul does? Please name names.

  102. Montag: Re: “Quit making up positions for me. I have already stated mine and it is quite different than your Saint Paul’s.”

    I wouldn’t have to put words in your mouth if you would simply define what “inviting 9/11” means. You want to discredit Ron Paul for saying something that he didn’t say and failing to respond to something that doesn’t mean anything. Feel free to disagree with Paul on the merits, I certainly do. But supporting the neocon/Rudy angle shows a Bushian disregard for facts.

  103. JH: I say probably because ya just never know….

  104. Lamar, don’t waste your breath. Debating guy is like trying to teach a pig to sing: it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

  105. While there are elements of the federal reserve system that suggest private ownership, they are an illusion. The Federal Reserve is an independent agency within the U.S. government.

    http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_10/woolsey-fed.html

  106. http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_10/woolsey-fed.html

    Hmmm, very interesting. Thanks for an opposing view.

    However, in skimming through your article I can spot several things that seem to support those crazy \’conspiracy theorists.\’

    I am currently too drunk and lazy to continue further, but here is one example:

    \”The rough equivalence between the interest the Fed earns from the government and the amount it transfers to the U.S. Treasury causes most economists to see these financing issues as a shell game. Since nearly all the interest paid on debt sold to the Fed is transferred back to the U.S. Treasury, there isn\’t really any interest paid. The government uses the Fed to partly finance its deficit by creating money and spending it. The end result is no different than if the U.S. Treasury just printed up \”greenbacks\” and spent them. The process is just a bit more \”efficient\” than the ancient practice of melting down silver coins and mixing in lead.\”

    \”The […] interest the Fed earns from the government and the amount it transfers to the U.S. Treasury causes most economists to see these financing issues as a shell game.\” ?

    Most economists?? Are \”most economists\” crazy conspiracy theorists then?

    \”The end result is no different than if the U.S. Treasury just printed up \”greenbacks\” and spent them.\”

    If the end result is the same, then why do we need The Fed then? Get rid of it!

    \”The process is just a bit more \”efficient\” than the ancient practice of melting down silver coins and mixing in lead.\”

    Ohhhh, it\’s more \”efficient.\” Well, I\’m an old-fashioned kind of guy. Gimmie the \”old\” method back.

    Getting back to basics, what really is money? Is gold, a chunk of soft metal that looks pretty, any more intrinsically valuable than a piece of paper? You can\’t even do anything with it. Steel is more valuable.

    No, it is just an agreed upon form of bartering that is more conveniant, just like seashells were to some groups of natives.

    It seems to me, then, banks like The Fed and others liek them, have discovered, manufactured, the Philosopher\’s Stone- the ancient goal of alchemists, the substance that could turn anything into gold! They, in essence, can manufacture gold out of thin air, by controlling the printing of money. Eventually it won\’t even be paper money anymore, but numbers on a computer-electronic trnafers and credit cards.

    Am I wrong?

  107. If 9/11 happened under a Democratic presidency, I bet Malkin, Ann Coulter, Little Green Footballs and Free Republic would all be giving 9/11 conspiracy theories a sympathetic ear.

  108. Unfortunately, I don’t know who you are either, you are wrong.

    Money is not just what it can be exchanged for; it has – or is supposed to have – an intrinsic value.

    Units of money represent productive labor in the marketplace.

    Counterfeiting is not productive labor.

  109. Bill Woolsey:
    The process is just a bit more \”efficient\” than the ancient practice of melting down silver coins and mixing in lead.

    This got me thinking a bit further.

    Wasn\’t \”ancient practice of melting down silver coins and mixing in lead\” a scam? At least at first?

    The people that first got those coins thought they were getting pure silver coins. But they weren\’t. They people that first \’owned\’ those coins profiteered on it. They went from having 100 pure silver coins to 500 overnight by mixing in lead with the silver and passing off those coins as the same silver; unbeknownst to those that had originally given them the coins.

    Eventually, actual silver coins were replaced by just silver-looking coins, just as gold was replaced by the paper receipts that represented it.

    So are you saying that The Fed is just an ancient scam made more \”efficient\”? Wow. Oddly enough, it makes some sense.

  110. Units of money represent productive labor in the marketplace.

    Counterfeiting is not productive labor.

    Thank you. That makes sense.

    Is that why at various point in time there were \’Usury Laws\’? Laws that made it illegal for people to simply make money with money, as in interest?

    So by way of comparison, banking is not productive labor. Funny how bankers seem to have the most money, without \’productive labor.\’

    All these arguments I, and others it seems, are making sound incredibly simplistic to me. Obviously, things are much more complicated. Except, maybe there\’s a chance they\’re really not, at their core?

    I\’m gonna take a Community College class in economics and I\’ll get back to you.

  111. Attempting to move on from off-topic and sophomoric economic debates with uneducated morons like myself:

    If I remember High School economics class (I never went to college) governments, or course, couldn\’t just print (i.e. counterfit) more money because this would devalue the currency, right? The more you have of something, the less it\’s worth; the basic law of supply and demand, right?

    But isn\’t this what Ron Paul and others are basically saying about the dollar? That since The Fed took over in 1913, the dollar has been steadily, and stealthily I might add, devalued?

    He\’s an educated man, right? A Doctor.

    Haven\’t other prestigious, super educated economists said, that the incredible feat of the Fed and the \”genious\” of folks like Alan Greenspan, has been to keep this up for so long? Without an inflation/devaluation implosion of the currency ala Argentina?

    So then Ron Paul, and others who raise similar points, must be simplistic dopes who just \’don\’t get it.\’ Barring that, they must be conspiracy theorists.

    Man, I really wish I could afford to go to one of those expensive colleges where they teach how things really work. The I wouldn\’t have to listen to conspiracy theorists.

  112. Asharak wrote: “If 9/11 happened under a Democratic presidency, I bet Malkin, Ann Coulter, Little Green Footballs and Free Republic would all be giving 9/11 conspiracy theories a sympathetic ear.”

    You don’t have to bet. Sites like WorldNetDaily routinely run articles on the Clinton administration’s “cover-up” of what *really* happened to flight TWA 800.

  113. speaking of Ministry, the tune “Step” (offa their “Dark Side of the Spoon” album) features a comical delivery of the line “I don’t know who I am anymore”

    anyhow, here’s their N.W.O. vid.

  114. I just posted this in the previous Paul thread, I don’t mean to spam but since these videos are new I thought they would interest everyone. Anyhow here is my post:

    Here is Ron Paul speaking in Austin yesterday. Pretty good turn out and video.
    Part 1

    Part 2

    Not sure if there is a part 3.

    I’m still kicking myself for telling my friend I would take him to the gun show here in Houston and having him bail at the last minute instead of just going to see Paul speak in Brenham. After that Paul drove to Austin for the fund raiser in the films I shared.

    Anyhow I just donated $25 to Paul’s campaign and bought $20 in buttons and magnets to give out to friends. If I had more cash I would have given more but I’m on a budget.

  115. If 9/11 happened under a Democratic presidency, I bet Malkin, Ann Coulter, Little Green Footballs and Free Republic would all be giving 9/11 conspiracy theories a sympathetic ear.

    Now why would they do that? It’s not as if conservative writers and talk show hosts claimed that the Clinton Administration deliberately started the fire at the Mt. Carmel Compound that killed the Branch Davidians, or that Clintons had Vince Foster shot, or that Clinton launched cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan to distract the public from his impeachment hearings…

    Hey… wait a minute!

  116. Looks like James Eaerl Carter III is bucking to become Ron Paul’s Secretary of State pick.

  117. Guy: did you ever decide what the heck “inviting 9/11” means, or are you still dodging the definition of that meaningless phrase you found so compelling?

  118. It looks to me like the “southern strategy” is part of the reason that the GOP changed from its traditional anti-war philosophy to the neocon ideology that promotes unnecessary war.

    The party that relies on the redneck vote is the war party. It used to be the Dems, and now it’s the GOP.

  119. Guy: did you ever decide what the heck “inviting 9/11” means, or are you still dodging the definition of that meaningless phrase you found so compelling?

    Dodging? No, I was ignoring your stupid question that you asked as if you do not understand plain English. Are you 10 years old or something?

    “Inviting 9/11” meas that we were asking for it and got attacked.

    Last engagement in your juvenile joeish nonsense.

  120. Speaking of which: where AM I in the World-Body?

  121. “I think the poor are better off now than when they were at the mercy of private charity. We’re healthier and living longer now than ever before.”

    The poor are worse off because they have become dependent on the dole. Charles Murray pointed out in “Losing Ground” how people were rising above poverty during the 60’s, but with the installation of the Great Society programs, all their progress was halted.

    People are living longer and healthier not because of the welfare state but because of Capitalism. It has brought about better medical technology.

  122. What the heck does “asking for it” mean? You seem to think that the language a parent uses with a child is appropriate to describe the effects of our foreign policy.

    Bumperstickerism is the misguided belief that complex issues can be summarized with meaningless catch phrases.

  123. “I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything attributed to him saying that Karl Rove was in Manhattan talking the planes in.”

    “How are these two distinct positions suddenly being conflated?”

    It’s because Michele Malkin has chosen to demonize because she knows deep down that Ron Paul is right. She doesn’t want to hear anything that would bring her war warmongering position into question. Michele is real cute, but I’m afraid that underneath that pretty exterior is nothing but mush.

  124. “Michelle Malkin is real cute”

    You know what makes women cute? Smiling. Bitterness? Not so cute.

  125. Most everyone on planet Earth, including Ron Paul, knows 911 was engineered and facilitated by covert, rogue operatives within and without the US government. The difference is that most people are not running for President. Ron Paul is the only candidate who supports the Constitution, our liberties and our freedom.

    Help Ron Paul become the next US President; do it for yourself, do it for your country and most of all, do it for the future of our children; it may be our last opportunity to save America, period.

  126. Ron Paul is my alter ego.

  127. Lamar | May 22, 2007, 12:27pm | #

    “Michelle Malkin is real cute”

    You know what makes women cute? Smiling. Bitterness? Not so cute.

    Lamar is as gay as his name. It’s the booty, Lamar, on the long stems.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.