Conspiracy

National Review Accuses Ron Paul of “vile conspiracy theories about September 11” While Deeming Only Romney, Huntsman, and Santorum Acceptable Nominees

|

Will soon need to airbrush some gray

The Romney nod is no surprise, but it's always illustrative to see who conservatism's flagship deems worthy of the term. Excerpt:

Governor Huntsman has a solid record, notwithstanding his sometimes glib foreign-policy pronouncements; his main weakness is his apparent inability, so far, to forge a connection with conservative voters outside Utah. Governor Romney won our endorsement last time, in part because some of the other leading candidates were openly hostile to important elements of conservatism. He is highly intelligent and disciplined, and he takes conservative positions on all the key issues. We still think he would make a fine president, but time and ceaseless effort have not yet overcome conservative voters' skepticism about the liberal aspects of his record and his managerial disposition. Senator Santorum was an effective legislator. He deserves credit for highlighting, more than any other candidate, the need for public policies that topple barriers to middle-class aspirations. Weighing against him is a lack of executive experience.

Much of the editorial is devoted to making the case against Newt Gingrich. Of Ron Paul we get just this: "Representative Paul's recent re-dabbling in vile conspiracy theories about September 11 are a reminder that the excesses of the movement he leads are actually its essence."

Which "conspiracy theories," precisely, are the "essence" of the Ron Paul movement? The editorial does not say, though it would seem to be in reference to this story from last week:

"Think of what happened after 9/11, the minute before there was any assessment, there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq, and so the war drums beat," Paul said Thursday night before a packed room of more than 1,000 students and supporters. "That's exactly what they're doing now with Iran."

Former Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer responded to the "glee" charge by tweeting, "The man is nuts."

Accusing administration officials of having experienced something akin to Christopher Hitchens' "feeling of exhilaration" post-9/11 may be both off-puttingly omniscient (if unsourced) and more than a bit rude (invoking as it does the image of a squeal for joy as the first tower collapses), but the only way you can convert it into a "vile conspiracy theor[y] about September 11," I think, is if you take it to mean that Paul is peddling some Bush-knew elixir here, which he clearly is not. As Conor Friedersdorf points out:

The implication is that Rep. Paul is a 9/11 truther—you'd think, reading that one sentence, that Paul stated or implied the U.S. government either orchestrated or had foreknowledge of the attacks. In fact, Rep. Paul responded to the September 11 attacks by voting to authorize an actual war against its perpetrators; and as anyone who is even passingly familiar with his worldview knows, his controversial opinion is that Islamist terrorists attack the United States partly because they are furious about the quasi-imperial role America plays in their countries. The blow-back theory is itself controversial, but it is obviously different from 9/11 Trutherism.

Reason on Ron Paul here. NR link via the Twitter feed of Mornin' Joe Scarborough.

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.

214 responses to “National Review Accuses Ron Paul of “vile conspiracy theories about September 11” While Deeming Only Romney, Huntsman, and Santorum Acceptable Nominees

  1. And they are well aware that that’s what Paul meant.

    1. Yeah, based on what I glanced over in Cobra II, Ron Paul is either entirely right or close enough.

      1. Our actions have consequences. Are we okay with that? Is the gain from our intervention worth us being on a high-security footing all of the time and getting targeted for attacks regularly? If the answers to those questions are all yes, then fine. But Paul and many others aren’t so sure.

        1. Ron Paul, aka The Boring old Fuck, has had a long asscoiation with the John Birch Society. The JBS is ground zero for lunatic conspiracy theories.

          1. Max, the boring old troll, has a long association with the libertoids at reason. Reason is ground zero for a Somalian form of government where texting while driving is encouraged, while building roads are not.

            1. He must be in a libertarian militia to hang out here, huh?

              1. Max is Terry the FBI agent?

              2. Send him to Gitmo with all the other militia terrorists.

          2. Ari Fleischer and Mitt “ObamaCare” Romney ate my balls. And isn’t “National Review” kinda like National Lampoon? I always thought it was, anyway. My bad?

    2. its wasnt glee on bush’s face in that elementary classroom.

      1. It was “Oh shit. They actually went through with it.”

      2. You really are vile aren’t you?

    3. Fuck the National Review, yo.

  2. The Washington Examiner also came out with a Romney endorsement today. This is why we can’t have nice things.

  3. The blow-back theory is itself controversial

    I fail to see how.

    The War of 1812 was blowback for English imperialism in North America, specifically in US territory.

    As was mentioned with some of the new stuff about WW2, Japan’s attack of Pearl Harbor was in part blowback for US imperialism in SE Asia.

    The Mexican War was blowback for Mexican imperialism in the southwest.

    1. I don’t think we’ve created the problems in the Middle East, but our meddling did help to make us a target. That’s a fact.

      The question isn’t whether that fact is true; it’s whether we believe that such consequences are worth whatever we hope to gain in the region.

      From where I’m sitting, the Middle East is Europe’s problem, in the sense that they get most of their oil from the region. We don’t, not in relative terms.

      1. From where I’m sitting, the Middle East is Europe’s problem, in the sense that they get most of their oil from the region.

        Wrong. Most European oil imports come from Russia.

        (and this table only contains oil imports, not oil that comes from sources within the EU)

        1. I was wondering if that were entirely accurate vis-a-vis Russia. Okay, more of their oil than ours comes from the region. And, of course, they have closer ties, with all of the immigrants and workers from there in Europe.

          1. It really doesn’t matter where the imports come from, since oil is fungible. If the ME were to stop producing tomorrow, we’d have to pay a lot more for oil, even if we got zero barrels from there.

            1. That’s true, but there are production alternatives if it came to that.

              1. True. IIRC, through much of last century the US was an oil exporter. I wonder how much domestic production is untenable / disallowed due to regulatory measures.

            2. If the ME were to stop producing tomorrow

              Yeah, but realistically, they can’t. That’s their only source of income to prop up their states. No sell oil, revolution 5 minutes later.

              1. Yes. Islamic finance isn’t exactly a world beater. Also, a graph of US oil production / imports 1950-2009. Interesting that the peak US oil production came in 1970.

                1. What’s sad is that they know that but just keep blowing the money on things other than diversifying their economies. With some small exceptions.

            3. If Osama Bin Laden and his crew had taken over Saudi Arabia Hans Gruber style in 2001, nobody in this country would have given a crap. But no, he was more interested in killing a bunch of people who probably had no idea where Saudi Arabia was.

              1. It was a retarded move.

      2. The question isn’t whether that fact is true; it’s whether we believe that such consequences are worth whatever we hope to gain in the region.

        Its the truth of the fact that the National Review and others are denying. If they acknowledge that blowback is a real thing, ONLY THEN can we have a legitimate debate over whether or not its still worth it.

        But they need to first acknowledge that actions have consequences.

        1. Why would anyone attack us if we weren’t involved? It’s obviously true.

          I’m not necessarily saying that we can pack up our bags and stick our head in the sand, either. Maybe we should stay involved to some degree, given what we’ve done in the past and the current state of affairs. But it’s neither cowardly or traitorous to question whether it makes strategic or even moral sense to do so.

          1. The whole “they hate us for our freedom” was obvious bullshit.

            Or maybe I’m wrong. After all, the PATRIOT ACT did take away a substantial portion of freedom. Maybe Bush & the Congress were trying to make them hate us less.

            1. I think that among the fundamentalists, we and Europe are viewed as immoral and decadent, on top of being unbelieving infidels. But that’s been true all along. Why did we finally get attacked? It was crazy and stupid to do so, but was it inevitable given our actions over there?

              1. I have a hard time believing that the 9/11 assholes would have attacked us just for our porno flicks. Our support of Israel and constant intervention in the region had a lot more to do with it than moral turpitude.

                1. Agreed.

                2. I think it’s important to also point out that given 9-11 was due in large part to Blowback, that doesn’t make the terrorists and their actions good or righteous.

                  Ron Paul is delving into a debate that is very, very nuanced and requires questioning of the basic narrative: we were attacked, therefore we must spend infinite resources, suspend freedoms, occupy numerous other nations on rooting out potential future attackers.

                  The narrative might be correct (I don’t believe it to be, but I am not omniscient), but the conservatives will not debate it and smear anyone who questions it.

                  I am sick of the attacks that Paul is “crazy”, “extreme”, or “traitorous”. Please debate the guy on the issues.

                  Finally, in my opinion Ron is the playing the part of trail-blazer for his son Rand. Rand is highly respected by the same people who hate Ron. While Ron must live in the conservative wilderness, his son is considered to be one of the team. I am looking forward to his ascendancy to the top of GOP heap and eventual presidential run (2020 if we get a Republican president in 2012 or 2016 if not). Rand has the feeling of a winner. And he will be a good president, truly the anti-Obama in the ways that matter to libertarians.

              2. The fundamentalists would conquer us and the rest of the world if they had the power to do so. The reality is they don’t have anywhere close to that amount of power & have enemies closer to home that they would focus on & conquer long before they ever got around to us. The reason we are number one on their hit list is because we are messing with that area of the world and manipulate the politics of that region.

    2. The blow-back theory is controversial only in the sense that some people reject it wholesale. To accept otherwise leads to “blaming America” in their minds.

      Of course, some of the criticism of Dr. Paul is pure strawman stuff. There’s a breed of Republican that despises libertarian policies and will grab on to anything to marginalize it.

      1. I don’t blame us. We’ve been somewhat inept and did some things during the Cold War to make enemies in the region, but we’re not the bad guys in all of this.

        That said, why are we still piddling around over there? What U.S. interest does it serve?

        1. It’s not oil. I think we just love Jews and Arabs so much that we love to meddle in their affairs.

        2. We’ve been somewhat inept and did some things during the Cold War to make enemies in the region, but we’re not the bad guys in all of this.

          My family’s friends who were refugees fleeing the 1960’s Savat would beg to differ.

          So would Egyptians living through the 90’s in Egypt.

          Ditto the Lebanese shelled accidentally because a faction of the U.S. Navy wasn’t going to own up to the fact the powder for the 16″ guns on the Iowa class BB’s had degraded.

          The U.S. government has been one of the many bad guys (not the worst by any means) in that region, which would be far better off without U.S. govt meddling.

          Unfortunately most middle-easterners accept the bullshit that the U.S. government is ruled by the will of the people, and assume that Americans must be uncivilized bloodthirsty savages since their government is such a serial malefactor.

          1. The thing is, you can’t play over there without either actually doing bad stuff or being accused of it. Yet another consequence to being involved.

            1. Actually, one could. The U.S. Navy keeping the sea lanes open and maintaining a Swiss-type neutrality coupled with open immigration and low tariffs on imports would work wonders for the area.

              Even now it’s not too late to do that.

              1. Sure, but that’s not the kind of meddling we’re doing. If we wanted to play a role as an arbiter, that would be fine, but our credibility is probably completely gone in the region, except for a recognition that we can topple governments with ease.

                1. The U.S. could regain its credibility in a generation – if it would stop giving money and arms to its allies.

                  1. Okay, let’s do it!

              2. Maintaining a swiss-like neutrality (ie, inaction) seems imcompatible with keeping the sea-lanes open (very muscular action).

                And even if we did find a way to limit our involvement to keeping the sea-lanes open, somebody, somewhere would find a way to suck us in.

                They’ve been doing this to outsiders for centuries and are really, really good at it.

                1. protecting US flagged vessels does not violate any neutrality, however we don’t need bases around the world to do so, nor do we need to do it in most of the world.

                  1. There are always automated drones. Not our fault what the drones do.

                    1. Be careful what you wish for. Drones apparently can defect.

          2. Unfortunately most middle-easterners accept the bullshit that the U.S. government is ruled by the will of the people, and assume that Americans must be uncivilized bloodthirsty savages since their government is such a serial malefactor.

            In my experience, most Middle Easterners are much more likely to maintain that mental separation between America the Government and America the People than the other way around.

            They’ll believe all sorts of fantastic, off-the-wall, truly evil shit about the US government but will welcome you (and your money) with open arms (unless you act like an asshole/Brit).

        3. Read “The Grand Chessboard” by Brzezinski. It expresses exactly what interest we have in the region – for the U.S. to become the one and only global superpower on the planet.

          Crazy, isn’t it?

  4. If Paul wins the Iowa caucus the msm and republican establishment will smear him as an anti-american racist.

    Libertarians prepare to be Bircherized

    1. Meh I could care less of thugservatives hate us or not. Thugservatives along with their Paleo cousins dont want liberty they just dont want liberals in power. I expect nothing less from a thugservative rag like National Review.

      Thugservatives fail to understand that if you poke and prod a man long enough he will eventually punch you back. Libertarians like Paul understand this concept very well.

      1. I think the word you want is “Rethuglican”, which covers both groups you’re talking about.

        1. Fair enough but alot of Paleos have left the Republicans to join the Constitution Party

      2. Using “thugservatives” once is amusing, but using it every time just makes even people who agree with you want to punch you in the face. Gets old *real* quick, and makles you sound like a two year old with a new word.

        1. I hate when people do that. Using ‘rethuglican’, ‘democrap’, ‘libertard’ doesn’t add any validity to your argument. And if you’re going to make jokes about the opposition at least be funny.

          THough, one conservative guy came on here and called us ‘loserdopians’; I thought that was pretty good.

    2. I don’t know about the anti-American part. But he’s certainly a racist.

      This is documented.

      As for the Birch remark, you really believe they were unfairly demonized?

      Really?

      1. Of course, that’s flat-out untrue. In fact, given his decades in public office show no hint of racism, the fact that something that is merely associated with him and not authored or endorsed by him proves him a racist is a laughable and pathetic attempt at political sliming.

      2. Give evidence that he is a racist.

        Anything, one piece.

        Either prove it or fuck off.

        1. He’s let slip a few racist comments. The whole “95% of black males in DC are criminal” thing is pretty racist.

          1. That’s from the newsletters in question, right? The ones that he clearly didn’t write? ‘Cause if he did, how come he’d never said anything like that before or since if he’s such a racist?

            1. He let the newsletters go out with his name on them for years, you fucking moron.

              1. The ones in question? Oh, Edward, did you write them?

                1. Somebody posted this the last time around, and it stuck with me: Either Ron Paul is a racist, and thus disqualified from being president, or he let newsletters go out under his name for years while paying no attention whatsoever to their content, in which case he lacks the managerial competence to be night manager of a 7/11.

                  1. By that standard, name one American who has the competence for the job?

                    Exactly.

                  2. I’m glad you found that little nugget of, er, wisdom, Dickie. Now you go outside and play with it while the adults talk….mmmmkay?

                  3. Also, its bullshit for another reason. As I said last night, these werent the Ron Paul & KKK newsletters.

                    There were a couple of isolated articles with racists content. It wasnt the core of the newsletters.

                    He did sell his name and beats some responsibility, but it is entirely overblown.

                    Since this is a National Review started thread, I bet we could find a 1/2 dozen sentences in NR over the years that would make Buckley roll over in his grave.

                  4. I think you’d really have to be an active editor to find a couple of iffy sentences over the course of years of newsletters.

                    Because that’s what we’re talking about.

                    We have a sentence where someone implies that black urban teenagers run faster on average than the elderly subscribers of the newsletters. HOLY SMOKES WHO COULD EVER POSSIBLY THINK THAT? Teenagers are faster runners than subscribers of a goldbug libertarian newsletter? Get the fuck out of here with that racism!

                    And the claims about Martin Luther King, Jr. – that he was a philanderer and that he was a Communist – are actually true. We’ve all agreed among ourselves never to discuss these things, because King has been declared an American saint and we’re supposed to avert our eyes from any unpleasant claim about him, but true is true in the end, man.

                    Actually, one of the worst things about America in 2011 is the pretty extensive set of facts that it’s not acceptable to speak aloud in polite company. True is true and trumps everything else. King accomplished great things and it’s appropriate that we honor him, but the guy definitely was at least a Socialist, and whether or not it’s truthful to call him a Communist depends on whether you quibble over labels once you get that far out on the left wing of collectivism.

                    1. Fluffy, let us grant that your entire post is filled with timeless wisdom. Do you think any of that will matter one iota when the full-steam attacks start?

              2. Max|12.15.11 @ 10:47AM|#
                Arf
                Arf
                Arf
                Arf
                Arf
                “One-trick pony” is too kind.

            2. Sorry, I quoted it out of context.

              Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action?. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational.

              Hey, and if you’re getting flustered by my bringing this up here (I’m a Paul supporter) just think what will happen if he starts winning primaries. Or, if he wins the nomination. It will be “the throwback racist Ron Paul who is supported by David Duke and the KKK and wouldn’t have voted for the civil rights act vs. the hip young new multiracial, multicultural, progressive man of the future who has vision, etc.” It’s all bullshit, of course, but this is what all Paul supporters need to get ready for. This will be the narrative.

              1. His supporters made peace with it a long time ago. But he needs to get in front of the issue if he is truly running a serious campaign. He needs to drive a stake in the heart of those newsletters once and for all, which he could do.
                The fact that he hasn’t makes me wonder about the seriousness and professionalism of his campaign. And it’s also made me refrain from donating to him this cycle.
                I gave the max in 2008, but was sorely disappointed in his New Hampshire campaign then. I won’t be fooled again.

                1. How can he drive a stake in the heart?

                  He hsa repudiated them. What more is there to do (throwing the author under the bus does NOTHING, we already know Paul didnt right them)?

                    1. Here’s a suggestion a wise citizen made on these very tubes:

                      He should mention it in a few interviews before he’s asked.
                      Something about how “over the years I’ve acquired executive skills which I once lacked. Maybe you haven’t heard about the time I let some objectionable newsletters be published without reading them first. But believe me, I learned a lesson there.”

                    2. Piling onto CN’s suggestion, Paul was publishing the Ron Paul Survivor Report, or whatever the hell it was called, for money. Admit how much money he raked in from that enterprise—I doubt it was all that much—beg forgiveness for his attempt at propagandizing to goldbugs and kooks, and donate the money to some acceptably P.C. organization. This in addition to CN’s suggestion about how he’s learned his lesson. Oh, and throw Rothbard or Rockwell, Dondero: whoever wrote the crap, under the bus already.

                      But get in front of the damned story. It’s not like it’d take a vast mea culpa to dispose of it, IMHO. Otherwise, it’ll be just like 2008, when the New Republic story hit, and Reason couldn’t distance themselves from Paul fast enough. Remember those times?

                      Those of you pointing out, “But Rev. Wright!,” are ignoring that: 1) Obama’s black, and therefore incapable of being racist (according to current media thought) and 2) Paul’s a Republican, so any hint of racism or other impropriety is going to be magnified. (For Chrissake’s, how is what Cain did any worse than Edwards?) In a just world, among other things, going to a scumbag like Wright’s church for 20 years would’ve torpedoed any Presidential aspirations. Or associating with a domestic terrorist. And so on…

                      I know it’s old news, you know it’s old news, we both know that Ron Paul isn’t a white supremacist; but this story is not going to go away—sorry; OM, robc—especially if they can start asking Ron questions about the Civil Rights Act and constitutionalism. Hopefully he learned something from the kerfuffle when Rand talked about it.

                    3. I live in KY. I liked Rand’s answers on the CRA. I wouldnt have wanted him to answer it any differently.

                      He properly distinguished the good parts of the law from the bad parts.

                    4. Whenever a liberal asks me about my stance on the CRA, I tell them how in the 80s my parents took me to a diner and we sat for three hours and nobody served us (this was during the time when people were bashing japanese cars driving through detroit). And I calmly say, “no CRA helped me; it was a huge fraud”, and watch their heads explode.

                      Of course, Ron Paul can’t exactly do this.

      3. As for the Birch remark, you really believe they were unfairly demonized?

        I don’t know if it was unfair or not but I do know they were demonized by the establishment.

        Any group that’s demonized for decades will dwindle down to an extremist core and the public perception of that group will become completely biased.

        Anyone paying attention to politics should know that the truth cannot compete with a good story. How many people know about Newt serving his dying wife divorce papers on her death bed for instance. That story is a complete lie and yet major news outlets continue to repeat it to this day.

        When Paul becomes impossible to ignore, which is going to happen soon, he will be attacked by the media, the republican establishment and democrats as an anti semite, racist and anti American. The newsletters and Pauls questionable associations in the past will provide more than enough fuel to get that bonfire of lies going. And then those same three groups will use the allegations against Paul as an attack against all libertarians.

        Count on it.

        1. Unbelievable. You zombie-like libertoid true believers really can convince yourselves that a racist old fuck like Ron Paul is the victim of some conspiracy. Conspiracy is his line, idiots.

          1. Dumbshit,

            It’s not a conspiracy, it’s the DC hive mind. Have you missed how every candidate that challenges Flopney is blasted from all sides at exactly the same time?

          2. Poor Max doesn’t realize that the charge of being “Racist” has lost it’s magical properties of argument winning and discussion shutting-down. How quaint.

            Also, logic fail: having stupidly failed to exercise due-diligence over newsletter contents in the past (ie, having formerly been an enabler of several mildly racist comments), does not mean that he is currently a racist.

            And Paul seems to have been absolved by the head of the NAACP who is pretty much the ultimate authority on these things.

            Maybe black people are getting scared of Obama’s trampling of civil liberties for everyone and are willing to overlook Paul’s past sins. Maybe not the choice they would like, but possibly the one they will have. Or perhaps they will choose to stay home (net advantage, RP).

            Redemption, how does it work? Reality, what is it?

            1. Why do we think we know whether Paul wrote those newsletters or not? He said he did write them, he also said he did not. We know for a fact Paul lied about who wrote the newsletters, we just don’t know which of his two stories is the lie.

          3. Max|12.15.11 @ 11:03AM|#
            Arf
            Arf
            Arf
            Arf
            Arf
            Yep, same old dipshit.

      4. I would rather have an accused racist who is anti-imperialistic, than a seemingly non-racist who is imperialistic.

      5. If Ron Paul were racist, I doubt the local NAACP head would be saying kind things about him.

        Nor would he be expressing sorrow and shame about one of his newsletters smearing a black congresswoman whom he regarded well.

        1. He hasn’t just said that he didn’t write them, either. He’s admitted that he has “moral responsibility” for their publication. Anyone else in this race would’ve just kept denying any culpability at all.

          1. That’s one of the reasons I’m irritated at his defenders who are pretending he had nothing to do with the newsletters.

            Ron Paul has accepted responsibility for them. All they are doing is undermining his credibility by peddling a line of bullshit as if it’s his official position.

            1. I’m irritated at his attackers because Ron Paul isn’t a racist, but they are trying to fool people into thinking he is.

        2. He would if he’s a politician.

          1. Max|12.15.11 @ 11:04AM|#
            Arf
            Arf
            Arf
            Arf
            Arf
            Yep, same old dipshit.

  5. And yesterday there were also attacks by Limbaugh, Giuliani, Dick Morris, Bill Bennett and Chris Wallace. You could almost call it a conspiracy.

    1. If all those guys hate Ron Paul then I’m definitely voting for him the first chance I get.

      1. Yeah, this is one of those cases where you can point to your opponents as a source of pride.

      2. Spoken like a true librul, Art.

    2. What happened to Limbaugh supporting Reagan’s 11th commandment?

      1. u just now realize rush is an entertainer & nothing moar ? i prefer comedy channel & bikini allstars.

      2. Well, if you believe only people who support a vigorous, interventionist hegemony are true republicans, then it’s not a violation of Reagan’s 11th commandment.

  6. He is highly intelligent and disciplined, and he takes conservative positions on all the key issues.

    The problem is that he also takes liberal positions on all the key issues.

    1. Yeah…I can’t really believe they said that with a straight face.

    2. Who cares?

      He likes bombing countries, perpetuating the police state, and locking people up without due process.

      That’s all National Review needs to call someone a real conservative.

    3. That’s where I hit the brakes also.

      You would think even a Big Government Conservative would balk at supporting Oromneycare.

  7. It’s no surprise that they’d come out against Paul. When Buckley ran it, one of the main thrusts was riding conservatism of antisemitism.

    Why they want to help bring it back?

    1. Would make sense if Paul was an antisemtie but thats not even entirely true since Arabs are also semites. You can pretty much guess on how the average NR reader views Arabs.

    2. How dare Ron Paul not treat Israel as the 51st state of the U.S., and jews as superior human beings to Arabs (which are scum that need to be bombed, of course).

      Thinking Israel – and jews – ought to be treated *equally* to everyone else?
      What a jew-hater.

      1. In the last debate Flip Flopney said that he would not make a public statement as president without first consulting with the president of Israel.

        1. Wow. “Er, Mr. Netanyahu, is it ok if I pardon this turkey?

    3. Yes, the man who has a picture of Murray Rothbard in his office and lists Mises and Rothbard as his heroes cleary hates Jews.

      1. That crap doesn’t make any sense to me. Not wanting to meddle in the Middle East doesn’t make anyone anti-Semitic or anti-Israel. Israel is clearly our best ally in the region and is more like us than any other country over there. We could retain all sorts of ties with them without being the policeman of the Middle East. I think they’re past the point of needing active U.S. protection, anyway.

        1. Ha, ha. Israel is not our ally. We are Israel’s ally, but they don’t reciprocate.

          More like us than the competition is a really low bar to pass, and they’re not significantly more “like us” than anyone else over there.

          1. Sure they are. It’s a mostly liberal government, with industry and stuff. I’m not saying that their hands are clean in all of this, because they aren’t. But pretending that, say, Syria and Israel are more alike than different seems to me to be simply untrue.

            I don’t really think we should be taking sides, anyway. We should do business and stay out of the wars and politics as much as we can.

          2. It’s the other (non-mostly) part which worries me. And since it’s a democracy of sorts the govt is subject to change.

            What worries me are the gender-segregated buses, stone-throwing at heretics, defacement of advertisements which feature women, and all the other creepy religious fanaticism that Israel and her US-based enablers would seek to deny or whitewash.

            1. Yes, it’s not a country I’d like to emulate.

    4. It’s no surprise that they’d come out against Paul. When Buckley ran it, one of the main thrusts was riding conservatism of antisemitism.

      That was pretext. Birchers, libertarians and Ayn Rand none of whom WB actually had any success in running out of anywhere had one thing in common and it wasn’t hatred for Jews; it was there opposition to Cold War industrial policy and the Vietnam War. Note, the later day purges of Sobran and Buchanan happened with their opposition to the Gulf War, and Pat’s ‘Amen Corner’ remark was blown to Kafka levels out of proportion. Note, as well, Jim Baker’s remark that occurred in the same time line, ‘the fuckers don’t even vote for us’, was much more incendiary, and he wasn’t driven out of the party. Why? He supports the War complex.

  8. Please refer to us as Team Purple, that is all.

  9. At least the National Review didn’t call him a racist, so there’s that.

    1. They don’t have to; they’re waiting for the leftist wing of the statist movement to do that for them.

  10. My understanding is that in the early hours after 9/11 Cheney was openly trying to tie the attacks to Iraq and the Administration subsequently went to great lengths to insinuate that Iraq was behind it. So much so that polls for years after the event indicated that a tremendous number of Americans believed Iraq to be responsible.

    These were the authors of the Project for a New American Century who championed trans-formative war in the ME as a way of making America great again and defeating Israel’s enemies. Does anyone doubt that there was excitement at the prospects of having an excuse to carry out the Project? I actually worked for Wolfowitz briefly. I totally believe there was a “whoop!” when the towers fell.

    1. PATRIOT Act.

      They had been trying for years to get the items in it passed without any success.

      9/11 happens and Bam! suddenly they slide right thru.

      I dont think anyone was actively cheering when it happened, but opportunists saw opportunity. The National Greatness Folks needed something like it to happen. They had been whining since the Berlin Wall fell that they didnt have something.

      1. What’s funny is that the Clinton administration pushed hard for a number of Patriot Act provisions a few years earlier. So it’s bipartisan tyrannical bullshit.

        1. Nothing funny about it at all.

          Its why the vote was infinity to three or whatever it was.

          1. It’s funny that certain people think that USA PATRIOT was some sort of Republican plot. Never was, never has been.

    2. thx kahn o’clast. i never could figure the real motive since the admin had to have known (& repeatedly warned) there were no nukes. i always thougth it was payback for sadaam’s attempted assassination of bush senior while he was in kuwait.

  11. Governor Romney won our endorsement last time, in part because some of the other leading candidates were openly hostile to important elements of conservatism.

    And Romney is not hostile to important elements of conservatism? Maybe I just don’t understand conservatism.

    1. I help you

      Thugservatism; 1. Supports the state in the name of law and order

      2. Wants bigger government but when compared to lieberals it appears “small”

      3. Believes to be pro-life but loves the murder people abroad

      Better?

      1. Ooooooh, nice!

      2. You forgot the most important thing.

        Support crony capitalism.

        1. Damm I completely forgot about that one. Thank you Maxxx

  12. “The Romney nod is no surprise, but it’s always illustrative to see WHO conservatism’s flagship deems worthy of the term.”

    Really? Are we still trying to figure out the difference between subjective and objective pronouns?

    1. You know whom else had difficultly with subjective and objective pronouns…

      1. Yo’ mama?

        1. More me than her, but whatever

  13. Jesus said a tree is judged by the fruit it bears, so what fruit has 9/11 borne? 9/11 immediately reversed three decades worth of government distrust (as seen in yesterday’s graphic), it accelerated the militarization of all levels of government, it made habeaus corpus an as needed principle, it facilitated the injection of the US military into the middle east, and the ultimate acheivement – in one fell swoop the PATRIOT act took 30 years of government policy and proceedure regarding criminal investigations and modernized all of it to account for electronic communications and foreign banking. As far as any conspiracy goes, I can say this: if there were no government insiders in on the planning of 9/11 there should have been because it acheived an era of government expansion the likes of which were unthinkable on 9/10/2001.

    1. Well put, but I’d suggest that it was ENTIRELY “thinkable” on 9/10/2001.

      But just by wingnut, crazy, gun-toting, freedom-loving, government-fearing, “constitutional whack jobs”… like me.

  14. Isn’t it openly admitted in just about every insider memoir from the Bush Administration that hours and days after the 9/11 attacks Iraq Hawk elements in the administration were pounding the table demanding war with Iraq?

    And that Bush is quoted as saying, “Fuck Saddam, we’re taking him out,” in that time frame as well, in the context of 9/11 response discussions?

    The question of whether or not this is “glee” is subjective. To me, when a bunch of policy advocates see an opportunity to use current events as an excuse to demand the enactment of their policy, and get their way, it’s not unreasonable to describe their reaction as “glee”. Excitement + Satisfaction = Glee.

    1. So that gay (NTTAWWT) TV show that I’ve never seen – but seen TONS of ads for, and chicks seem to LOVE – is REALLY a brainwashing, support-the-war thing?

      Genius. Utter, evil genius.

  15. What amazes me, naively I suppose, is that such truly awful people as Limbaugh, Giuliani, Dick Morris, Bill Bennett, Chris Wallace, Wolfowitz and all the other neo-cons of his ilk, not to mention the bankster types, many still in the Obama admin. are the people who thrives so spectacularly in our society. That must tell you something very significant about what America really is. Most people remain deluded that they are America, but we’re really just the livestock and people like those above are the farmers.

  16. Awesome. I’ll be the first one dancing the grave of the GOP.

    1. Be sure to avoid my urine stream as I pay my respects.

      1. Thanks for the warning – quite polite of you!

    2. And watch where you step as well, I (and I suspect Sandi) will be paying a visit.

  17. Conor Friedersdorf also points out, btw:

    The Project for the New American Century is not a conspiracy theory. Nor are quotes like this one, spoken by Newt Gingrich on September 19, 2001: “If we don’t use this as the moment to replace Saddam after we replace the Taliban, we are setting the stage for disaster.”

  18. I have to add that this is just another reason why Libertarians should stop wasting their time working with thugservatives. They don’t like us nor do they want liberty. Like the left all they seek is power.

    Granted this is an old piece but it bears repeating

    http://mises.org/Community/blo…..atism.aspx

  19. Romney will receive the nomination. I was trying to explain this to Cain supporter. Romney calls himself a conservative, he can speak in public, he has just enough of a liberal taint to snatch some swing voters, and above all, he looks Presidential.

    He’s perfect for the game of Preventing the Other Team From Winning The White House.

  20. If elected, will Mitt have the most punchable face in presidential history? Discuss.

    1. Nah, that would be Woodrow Wilson.

  21. So . . . it’s pretty clear what’s going to happen here. Paul will place strongly enough in Iowa and NH to ruffle the feathers of the folks in power that hate him and libertarianism. He will be smeared, and while not dissuading his already fervent supporters, this will limit his appeal to a wider audience. Thus, no nomination for Dr. Paul.
    Which lead us to revisit the old argument about what is best for libertarianism and libertarians in America – being a small part of the GOP, or joining the LP and pushing that as a vehicle for our ideas. Or should we Free State it?

    1. Neither is a good option, this is as far as we know Dr. Paul’s last hurrah since he said he has no plans to return to congress after his current term experiences. The LP seems to have lost their way especially with Wayne Allen Root as it’s spokesman.

    2. You and Tulpa show little faith in the American people. Americans dont trust the media (which pisses the media off to no end).

      Why would media smears limit his appeal?

      It might, but I dont see it as fate accompli like you and Tulpa do.

    3. Stop looking for political solutions to a cultural problem?!?

      Party politics is a waste of energy and time.

    4. Portsmouth, N.H. is a lovely town. But it would be hard to relocate my entire compound.
      I had to chuckle when driving from N.H. into Maine recently. After crossing the border, there was a string of signs warning of all the things that are illegal in Maine (and apparently tolerated in N.H.)
      “Buckle Up! It’s the law!”
      “Fireworks prohibited!”
      “Maine is serious about D.U.I.!”
      “No sheep fucking!”
      (I might have imagined the last one.)

  22. At least the “Cancel my subscription!!!” crowd will be over at NR today.

    1. I let my subscription expire some years back. About 8-9 years ago an article in NR attempted to make the case that the SC ruled incorrectly for the plaintiff in Griswold v. Connecticut back in the early 1960’s. The author tried to make the case that Connectict legislature was well within its powers to prohibit the sale of condoms and other methods of birth control to its citizens.

      It just seemed incredible to me that they would address a 40 year old case. And there’s just no way to square advocacy for condom restriction with limited government. At least in my mind there isn’t.

  23. All the rest of the candidates (maybe not Huntsman) want to go to war with Iran.

    That’s nutty. That’s extremist.

    Some of them want to invite Georgia into NATO and provoke war with Russia.

    That’s nutty, stupid, and dangerous.

    These people see sanity and they label it as the opposite. It’s because they’re insane themselves.

  24. I’d agree that “gleeful” comment doesn’t make Paul a Truther, but the comment itself is despicable, not “more than a bit rude.”

    1. I’d agree that “gleeful” comment doesn’t make Paul a Truther, but the comment itself is despicable, not “more than a bit rude.”

      Oh please! You don’t think W. was looking for any excuse to depose the man who tried to assassinate his daddy?

      1. I think Cheney was probably more enthusiastic about it from a “I didn’t get my way back in ’91” sort of way.

    2. You don’t think Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearle, et al. were dancing a jig on Sept. 12? Everything they had wanted to do since 1992 was possible and very likely after Sept. 11. They were writing Clinton letters all through the 90s praising him for bombing Iraq and crushing the regime and begging him for a boots on the ground occupation. Sept. 11 happens and wham, now it seems that their dream is inevitable.

      1. You don’t think Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearle, et al. were dancing a jig on Sept. 12?

        You know, I don’t. Lower Manhattan had just been pretty much destroyed, thousands had died. I have a low opinion of our political class, but I honestly don’t think they were gleeful about that.

        I think they probably felt vindicated that their belief that the Mideast was a nest of vipers had just been proven true. And I’m sure they knew that they would get a nice bump in the polls, etc. etc.

        But gleeful? Dancing a jig? No.

        1. Immediately in the aftermath of 9/11, I doubt they were drawing up plans. 6 months later though, I think Cheney was working on a way to deal with Iraq for good however.

          1. Sure he was. But that was because he thought Iraq was part of the problem and dealing with it necessary for US Security. Now maybe you think he was wrong about that. Maybe he was. But to claim that they were all happy and wanted 9-11 to happen is just horseshit. They all shit their pants when 9-11 happened.

            1. wanting 9/11 to happen, hell no…using it to their advantage to help build a case for war with Iraq, hell yes!

    3. Bullshit. The comment is completely accurate — the Bush administration treated 9/11 as a huge opportunity to take advantage of people’s fear in order to launch an invasion that wasn’t related to the attacks, not to mention passing USA PATRIOT.

      Any person that would be willing to manipulate others like that in a moment of weakness brought about by national tragedy has no fucking shame, so it’s hardly beyond the pale to describe their reaction as gleeful.

  25. I’d like you to explain in exactly what way it was despicable.

    Were there, or were there not, elements in the Bush administration that seized on the events of 9/11 to increase their advocacy for a war with Iraq?

    Is that true, or not?

    Keep in mind that many Bush insiders have written memoirs about these events that we can reference.

    1. Were there, or were there not, elements in the Bush administration that seized on the events of 9/11 to increase their advocacy for a war with Iraq?

      Of course there were. But not as a pretext. Saddam was one of the top supporters of terrorism, had a record of developing and using WMDs, etc.

      From their perspective, 9/11 proved they were right all along, and that state sponsors of terrorism could no longer be tolerated. They knew, I’m sure, that they couldn’t go after both major sponsors (Iran and Iraq) at the same time, so they picked Iraq for a variety of reasons.

      Where they went wrong, I still believe, wasn’t necessarily in getting rid of Saddam. It was the hubristic belief that we could turn a broken and barbaric society into good and decent one.

      1. I think we disagree on the concept of “glee”.

        I don’t think it requires dancing a jig.

        For example, if I was wandering a back alley one day and came across Lindsey Graham too drunk to stand or to recognize me later, I wouldn’t dance a jig while I lay a beat-down on him. In fact, I would probably never smile at all. The last thing you’d be able to call the look on my face would be a smile. But I still think it would not be “despicable” to describe my emotional state in that alley as “glee”.

        1. So you are going to be “gleeful” when some cop finally does go to far somewhere and gets people to start supporting more oversight over the police?

          1. If Obama decided to detain 100 Boy Scouts and 100 members of the Daughters of the American Revolution at Guantanamo, and then this fact was exposed and it humiliated Obama, the United States, and our entire military, intelligence and law enforcement establishments, and riots broke out in major American cities…

            …Yeah, I think an honest appraisal of my likely emotional state at that time would require me to concede that you’d be allowed to use the word “glee”.

            Or at least, it wouldn’t be “despicable” if you did so. Emotional tags are so inexact, it would really be a subjective call.

            I’d be feeling vindication, I’d want to high-five the rioters, I’d be screaming “Fuck you” at the TV a lot, I’d be scouring the internet for new news, I’d be coming here and ranting, I’d probably be gloating more than a little…I don’t see how it would be “despicable” to call that “glee”.

        2. And in the end, what is your point? They saw events confirm what they thought to be true and acted accordingly. That is exactly what anyone would do.

          1. It’s pretty obvious what my point is.

            My point is, “The Ron Paul statement being quoted is not despicable, but is rather quite reasonable.”

            Since you seem to be arguing now that it’s actually a quite normal human emotional reaction to be excited and energized when events prove your policy positions correct (or at least when you think those events will advance your argument and paralyze your opponents), then you actually are agreeing with me, and with Paul. You’re just saying, “Well naturally that’s how they reacted. They’re human beings in large bureaucratic institutions, and that’s how people react in such situations.”

            1. Okay, then Ron Paul doesn’t have a point. What is he doing besides question begging and pointing out the obvious? It seems that Ron Paul’s point in saying these things is to imply that somehow their subsequent actions are invalid or tainted, which since anyone in their position would have done the same thing, is nonsense.

              1. You see, this is one of those times that you can’t stop yourself from being a fucking douche.

                You concede that the observation is valid.

                But you’re still annoyed that he made it.

                Here’s what he’s doing besides pointing out the obvious:

                He’s making it clear that if you allow the current crop of Republicans to run things again, we can be sure that they will use any crisis as a pretext to justify whatever asinine new war they’ve got up their sleeve NOW.

                Since we now all agree that they did so ONCE, it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that they’ll do so AGAIN. Hell, you now concede that this is the way that all human beings and all institutions work.

                That being the case, the only reasonable course of action we can take is to purge the executive branch of anyone who’s itching for an opportunity to push their own private little war policy. Had there been no one around in the Bush administration who wanted war with Iraq in 2001, there wouldn’t have been anyone around to gleefully use the 9/11 attacks as a pretext for such a war.

                Since as you now concede is obvious, human beings will inevitably try to exploit events to advance their own favored policy, that means to avoid another pretextual war, we have to fire everyone who holds, say, war with Iran as a pre-favored policy.

                1. No. By our own admission, they would use world events that supported their case as a justification for their case. What Paul is saying is that it was somehow invalid to claim 9-11 was justification for the actions they took afterward. And that is where he goes off the rails. He say they were wrong. But he is saying they were malicious. And you admit they were not.

                  And I not a douche. You just talked out of your ass and RC and I caught you. Sorry you don’t like that. But tough shit.

    2. If the police in some city went bizzerk and killed a few hundred people, would you fluffy not seize upon those events to increase your advocacy for constraining police power and increasing oversight?

      If so, then wouldn’t you be trying to benefit from that tragedy? See what RC says above. The subject of Iraq really has left people with severe PTSD. They just cannot think straight about it.

  26. If you think that there are not elements in government – in any administration – that experience total, unbridled glee when an event occurs, no matter how tragic, that gives them an opportunity to flex their war muscles, then you are a naive idiot.

    1. You are correct, especially when that event is the culmination of months worth of careful planning and preparation.

  27. From a CNN Paul story today:

    He believes so much in scaling back government involvement in peoples’ lives that he says if people choose not buy health care insurance — or even drink raw milk — they should be able to and suffer the consequences of their own actions, come what may.

    Am I the only one who finds the “raw milk” to be a hilarious non sequitur?

    1. Oh — I see he mentioned raw milk to some Iowa farmers. So there was a “point”. My bad.

      1. as opposed to directig people how to live and refusing to allow them to do things that someone deems unhealthy for them. After all, people are not individuals, they’re societal cogs that cannot be allowed to vary from the plan. That’s the path free healthcare takes you down. You give up responsibility for yourself, eventually the government is not going to tolerate you damaging their equipment.

    2. It’s fucking annoying that the article leaves out the context completely, namely, that the federal government arrested an Amish farmer for giving his customers what they want.

  28. I don’t know why max is getting so upset about these newsletters. I read a quote of his on another thread where he says he hates minorities.

    Why do you hate minorities, max?

  29. “Conspiracy Theorist”? This must be the latest ineffective BS talking point that the media has come up with to thwart Ron Paul’s rise in the polls. You can fool all of the people some.

    You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

    Abraham Lincoln,

    1. The central problem of democracy is that half the people have below-average intelligence.
      — Citizen Nothing

      1. The central problem of democracy is that half the people have below-average intelligence.

        Too wordy, CN. I tightened that up for you, see how you like it.

        1. It’ll work. (I always accept editing gracefully.)

        2. I would throw an edit in there T if you don’t mind…”the problem with democracy is that this is supposed to be a republic, not a democracy, and people dumb or smart, don’t seem to be helping that cause for the most part, or even be aware of that fact. “…and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all…”

      2. Just to nitpick. Don’t you believe below median.

        1. Don’t you mean below median and thus proving your point. Although I maintain that intelligence and typing are not a perfect correlation.

  30. Really, it’s pretty brilliant, if totally evil, on the part of the NR editors. They ignore all of the (MANY) things about Ron Paul that conservatives would actually like, and focus with laserlike intensity on the one issue they know will piss off the security hawks. Honesty is not important.

    1. What’s batshit insane about this is that it’s clear they’d prefer Obama–who is fine with war, the WoT, indefinite detention, etc.–to Paul. So much for free markets, limited government, and civil liberties being central to the NR message, huh?

      Paul could help save our economy and our concept of limited government. The GOP should be behind this 100%. Even if we end up taking a short break from our empire-building, so what? A wealthier and healthier U.S. would likely emerge on the other side of his administration.

  31. This indeed is a hatchet job on Ron Paul. While I myself will probably not vote for Mr. Paul, because of my disagreements with him on foreign policy, I definitely would not call him a ‘Truther!’ Reason hit the nail on the head concerning the ‘blowback’ theory. Personally, I do believe there is quite a bit of that going around, but I also believe there are folks out there, such as the fundamentalist Islamists in the Middle East who are bent on destroying Western Civilization as we know it (they’ve tried expanding their realms since their beginnings; the only thing stopping them has been power and weapons, in most cases.) I feel that Mr. Paul’s insistence on leaving the Middle East alone, due to the reasoning that they will leave us alone if we leave them alone, a bit troubling. Nonetheless, he is entitled to his opinions. That being said, I feel that Mr. Paul has been an excellent Congressman who has shed light on many issues that freedom-loving conservatives have not seen or practically ignored.

    1. There’s a nice middle ground between ignoring the Middle East altogether and sending in the troops (or drones) to every flea-bitten part of the Muslim world where conflict breaks out.

      I suspect that’s where a President Ron Paul would end up being.

      As long as the desert rats have a bunch of oil that the world needs, they’ll be relevant. But it’s not in our interest to get our knuckles bloodied in their silly disputes. Israel can defend itself, and I don’t particular care how they do it, or even if they succeed.

      BTW, the people who actually run the Middle East are more interested in padding their Swiss bank accounts than in expanding the ummah. The jihadists are useful tools.

      1. BTW, the people who actually run the Middle East are more interested in padding their Swiss bank accounts than in expanding the ummah. The jihadists are useful tools.

        And, akin to the Crusades, the jihad occupies a lot of 2nd+ sons, poorly educated in everything but the Qu’Ran, from otherwise staging their own OWS against the corrupt shitheads who rule them. We are (“were”, I guess, since we’ve now just left Iraq) doing the dirty work of killing the Gulf states’ dissidents for them.

  32. Maybe it’s just my impression, but it seems like National Review has become increasingly irrelevant since WFB died, even within the conservative movement.

    Too much Beltway Conventional Wisdom. Too much discussion about esoteric Catholic shit that no one outside Vatican City cares about. Too much residual neocon warhawkery in an era when most Republicans are beginning to focus again on domestic issues.

    NR hasn’t come out yet and openly endorsed Romney for the second time, but we all know it’s coming.

  33. Now David Frum is piling on too:

    Ron Paul’s damaging impact on GOP sympathy for the middle class

    They are in full-blown panic mode at this point! This is the true test of whether people are still able to be led by the nose. Can they resist all this propagandistic nonsense and stick to their own decisions?

    1. e.g.:

      (It’s maybe remote from current concerns, but at a minimum, I have no patience for a professed libertarian who openly prefers the slaveholding cause in the U.S. Civil War.)

      Pure fucking slander.

      1. Of course it is. How pathetic.

  34. The mainstream media wakes up from a nap, rubs its bleary eyes, and says “what the fuck?”.

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/15/…..?hpt=hp_t2

    1. Yet still pushing the narrative:

      Yet Galen also added: “If Paul wins, then whoever comes in second — assuming its Gingrich or Romney — will ‘win’ having beaten the other. So, whoever comes in third under this scenario is the loser.”

      1. Just about anyone else, they’d be talking about him maybe taking it all. With Paul, the risk to the gravy is too great. He can’t be ignored, but they’ll sure as hell try to relegate him to irrelevancy.

        1. It’s almost beyond parody at this point. They’re literally writing the “Gingrich wins Iowa caucus with second place finish” headline in advance.

          1. I think the media is on dangerous ground. They’ve already chopped the head off of their credibility (whatever was left of it) by not vetting and even cheering on Obama. Now they’re going to openly go through contortions to minimize a possibly successful candidate? I wouldn’t be surprised if that helped Paul considerably.

            1. I think the media is on dangerous ground…I wouldn’t be surprised if that helped Paul considerably.

              Hello! Helloooo! What part of “Most of your fellow citizens are gullible, easily led morons” don’t you understand?

              1. To some extent, yes. But not all of them and not all of the time.

          2. Like that would ever happen.

            From wikipedia
            Newsweek magazine captured the press coverage of the 1992 New Hampshire primary by printing a cartoon with Clinton and Pat Buchanan, the runner-up who gave George H. W. Bush a scare on the Republican side, with second place medals on top of a victory stand while Bush and Tsongas stood with gold medals off to the side pouting.

            Oh snap.

    2. or even drink raw milk

      Apparently that is CNN’s idea of an extreme position. Allowing personal choice over raw milk.

  35. Ron Paul, I agree, clearly did not accuse the federal government of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks. He believed the opposite, as mentioned in this article. However, what he meant in the quotes highlighted here, is that he accused some government officials of exploiting 9/11 anti-Islamic sentiments in order to poise America for an invasion of Iraq and other military conquests. Many in the government had long wanted these invasions to take place, and used 9/11 as a springboard to set them in motion, as fundamentally wrong as that was. You can read more in his book, “The Revolution”. Iraq was a wholly unnecessary conflict that did not improve the state of Iraq nor our own national security.

    If you examine Mitt Romney’s record, he does not display true conservative and constitutional credentials. He said that the bank bailouts were a necessary evil, and incorrectly put blame on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the housing bubble, instead of the Federal Reserve where the blame belongs, for their manipulations of the currency and promotion of mass malinvestment.

    Ron Paul has consistently been one of the only in Congress to exemplify a respectable conservative record (not the conservatism that most Republicans today claim incorrectly is the true conservative tradition) for his entire tenure in office, and is the only of the GOP candidates to have done so.

    RON PAUL 2012!!!

  36. it my guess that ron paul knows quite a bit of what goes on behind the minds and actions of those we elect as authoritive figures.

    being that this piece is about ron paul being a 911 truther, ron paul is the most honest person in this race for president, so i have my doubts on this hit piece.

    i peronally believe the towers were brought down by demolition and not the pancake theory. there was no pancake. there was only three buildings, and all three turned to dust, with the exception of the steel supports which were found to be in convenient pieces ready to be hauled off.

    when i hear that we will be attacked, i think of the people who planted all those charges and why they are still at large. could it be possible that those who tell us we are going to be attacked are the very ones who are going to attack us? it has happened before, why not now?

    my vote goes to Dr. Ron Paul. i choose freedom and liberty and am against slavery.

  37. The bottom line is, if you’re going to play the “politics” game, play the fucking game.
    Neither these attacks, nor the more virulent ones to come if Paul’s strength holds, should be a surprise to anyone.
    Prepare, anticipate, counteract.
    This may be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to promote the cause of freedom. Don’t fuck it up, Team Paul.
    Otherwise, just admit you’re offering an educational service.

  38. Thank you for clearing up the idiocy.

  39. What has happened to responsible journalism? It seems there is no objective reporting anymore. Everything has a slant to it. Why is that? At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy nut, these news organizations must be pushing something. I found this when looking up who owns what: “The U.S. media landscape is dominated by massive corporations that, through a history of mergers and acquisitions, have concentrated their control over what we see, hear and read. In many cases, these giant companies are vertically integrated, controlling everything from initial production to final distribution.” (http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main) Can’t we be trusted to think on our own, without someone trying to condition us?

    1. Free Press (an Orwellian name if there ever was one) exists solely to make the case for selective government censorship using incorporation as a fig leaf. Don’t quote that shit here.

  40. In your honest opinion

    Would a Candidate Paul receive even as high a percentage of the vote as Candidate Goldwater in 1964?

    Is there a state he might carry?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.