2008 Presidential Elections

[Ryan Ruck]

Well friends, it looks like we are all fucked. According to Fox News, it is official that Fred Thompson is pulling out of the race. He's on his way from Nashville visiting his sick mother back to Virginia where he lives. Numerous high level staffers have disclosed the information that the withdrawal is imminent.

There are no Conservatives left in this election. I will not be championing anyone else in the field. None of them really appeal to me. It looks like we will simply be voting for the lesser of the evils and who will do the least damage this time around.

God help our Republic at this vital juncture.

[American Patriot]

Apparently Fred withdrew today. Sad day for the Republican Party. A couple days ago, it was Hunter. Today Thompson. Both of the ONLY Conservatives in the race.

I won't be voting for Romney. His Liberal big-spending daddy was a governor in Michigan when I was younger and as far as I am concerned, the apple didn't fall far from the tree. Furthermore, I don't TRUST the guy. Something IS NOT RIGHT. Call it intuition or call it a gut feeling, I won't vote for him.

He was gracious to Fred though.

Boston, MA – Today, Governor Mitt Romney issued the following statement on former Senator Fred Thompson withdrawing his candidacy for President of the United States:

"Throughout this campaign, Fred Thompson brought a laudable focus to the challenges confronting our country and the solutions necessary to meet them. He stood for strong conservative ideas and believed strongly in the need to keep our conservative coalition together. Ann and I would like to extend our best wishes to Fred, Jeri and their family and congratulate them on their efforts during this campaign."

[Brian Baldwin]

What if Romney chooses Fred as a running mate?

[American Patriot]

If Romney choses Fred then I might change my mind.

Then again, the VP hasn't got a lot of say in foreign policy, however, at least the VP is consulted.

So I might consider him. I don't TRUST HIM. I can't explain it, and I'm not going to try, I simply don't believe the man is any better than Bill Clinton.

[Ryan Ruck]

Honestly, I think it is going to come down to one of two candidates with the outlook of one not being particularly great.

First, I don't think McQueeg or JulieAnnie has a chance. Though there are people out there that like them, there aren't enough to bring them over the cusp. Not to mention that they are both liberals with R's next to their names. Ron Paul, though having a number of fanatical supporters, falls into the same popularity camp.

That leaves either Romney or Huckabee. Now, between those two there are reports that Huckabee is running out of cash. This won't be a huge problem if he were to get the party nod he would have the official backing of the Republican Party but, to be almost out (as is the word) this early in the game doesn't bode well for him. That brings us to Romney. Romney has plenty of cash on hand, including his own, and has already won a couple primaries.

What it is going to come down to is Conservatives having to hold their nose and pick one of those two. Huckabee is pro-2nd Amendment and pro-life but, is also pro-illegal immigration and pro-big government for social causes. Romney is (believed to be) anti-illegal alien and is pro-business but, Romney is also anti-2nd Amendment (he signed the Mass. AWB) and has been pro-abortion (though claims to have changed).

Personally, I'm with Rick. I get that same "slick" vibe from Mitt that I get from Bill Clinton. Also, given the current and future political landscape, I think it is going to be very important for us to correctly maintain the 2nd Amendment. That means that as much as I hate illegal immigration, I think that firearms are going to be far more important. Of course, if SCOTUS rules correctly on Heller then the candidates position on the 2nd Amendment will carry far less weight as it will be (correctly) viewed as an individual right not to be infringed upon.

The fact remains though, as I said above, God help our Republic.

[American Patriot]

That leaves either Romney or Huckabee. Now, between those two there are reports that Huckabee is running out of cash. This won't be a huge problem if he were to get the party nod he would have the official backing of the Republican Party but, to be almost out (as is the word) this early in the game doesn't bode well for him. That brings us to Romney. Romney has plenty of cash on hand, including his own, and has already won a couple primaries.

This is why the damned democrats PUSHED for a year early fight. They started this shit and they are trying to finish it by attrition. Thompson came in "late" for many people, because everyone else stated "on time". The fact is, Thompson saw through the game as did most of us supporting him.

The fact remains though, as I said above, God help our Republic.

God, Guns and Good People will save our Republic.

[American Patriot]

(If being 'Swiftboated' means having the truth TOLD, then GOOD)

Kerry: Obama Being Swiftboated
Newsmax ^ | January 22, 2008 | Newsmax

Sen. John Kerry is calling on Democrats to help presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama avoid the fate he endured in the 2004 election -- "swiftboating" by political foes.

In an e-mail sent out Tuesday to Obama's supporters, Kerry wrote:

"I support Barack Obama because he doesn't seek to perfect the politics of Swiftboating -- he seeks to end it.

"This is personal for me, and for a whole lot of Americans who lived through the 2004 election.

As a veteran, it disgusts me that the Swift Boats we loved while we were in uniform on the Mekong Delta have been rendered, in Karl Rove's twisted politics, an ugly verb meaning to lie about someone's character just to win an election. But as someone who cares about winning this election and changing the country I love, I know it's not enough to complain about a past we can't change when our challenge is to win the future -- which is why we must stop the Swiftboating, stop the push-polling, stop the front groups, and stop the email chain smears.

"The truth matters, but how you fight the lies matters even more. We must be determined never again to lose any election to a lie.

"This year, the attacks are already starting. Some of you may have heard about the disgusting lies about Barack Obama that are being circulated by email. These attacks smear Barack's Christian faith and deep patriotism, and they distort his record of more than two decades of public service. They are nothing short of "Swiftboat" style anonymous attacks.

"These are the same tactics the right has used again and again, and as we've learned, these attacks, no matter how bogus, can spread and take root if they go unchecked.

"But not this time -- we're fighting back.

"And when I say 'we,' I mean that literally. I know Barack is committed to fighting every smear every time. He'll fight hard and stand up for the truth. But he can't do it alone.

"We need you to email the truth to your address books. Print it out and post it at work. Talk to your neighbors. Call your local radio station. Write a letter to the editor. If lies can be spread virally, let's prove to the cynics that the truth can be every bit as persuasive as it is powerful. ...

"Barack Obama is committed to bringing our country together to meet the challenges we face, but he knows that power gives up nothing without a struggle -- and to win the chance to change America, we must first defeat the hateful tactics that have been used to tear us apart for too long. ...

"The fight is just heating up -- we won't let them steal this election with lies and distortions."

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

[Phil Fiord]

As to Ron Paul, he is about as right as one can get so he overlaps into being a federalist. I keep hearing talk that the candidates remaining are all liberal leaning. True - almost. Paul is attracting a diverse crowd true. Yet he is doing something I admire.

He is talking about the Constitution and the desire to run our country by those standards set forth by our founding fathers. Honestly, that is about as radical as one can get these days and in that stance he is for small government and balanced budgets. Granted his stance is also about pulling back militarily from around the world and bringing them here to protect us here, but his logic is good and his record as a congressman is clean and non reversing.

Sounds like I am plugging him, but really it is an observation. I have checked out his site and been following his campaign and the election process this year out of curiosity. I see the media as truly lacking in reporting fairly as well.

I keep hearing talk radio callers bemoaning Thompson's leave, and indeed he was a good candidate, but they say there is no other candidate that is for smaller government and balanced budgets and all these issues are issues that Paul is actually deeply involved with. It boggles my mind.

The media has succeeded thus far in painting him as a kook and it isn't hard to do it as he takes such a "radical" stance as a constitutionalist. I have been hearing that we are beyond the constitution and that it doesn't matter anymore. That is scary and only screams of the list of Communists goals Ryan posted long ago, removing the heart of our laws in this country for socialist affairs and entitlements.

Again, this is not a preachy endorsement, but my observation. I do not see him as a kook.

[Toad]

I too have a sincere respect for Ron Paul, simply because when he speaks, I sense he is truely speaking his mind and his honest opinions. Even when the crowd is not all that receptive to what he has to say. I don't agree with him all the time, but he isn't playing the spin game, the polls game, the adjust the message game. He doesn't tailor the answer to what the crowd of the day wants to hear. What you see is what you get. I respect that.

[American Patriot]

Sorry, guys. No respect for a guy that allows his news letter to drum up and state hateful anti-Jewish rhetoric, then claim he had nothing to do with it. It was HIS letter, HIS name.

Sorry, no respect for a guy that goes on Alex Jones' show consistently - and there's another Jew-hater.

No respect for a man who says 9-11 was an "inside job". Both of them have said it.

No respect for Ron Paul who won't distance himself from the idiots following him, the kooks, conspiracy theorists and liars.

Nope. Ron Paul won't get my vote under ANY Circumstances. He is NOT better than Hillary, he is NOT a Constitutionalist, he is a LIBERTARIAN, and is one step north of Anarchist.

[Phil Fiord]

That's the thing. A lot has been taken out of context with regard to Ron Paul and despite whether one likes a person or not, the unfair smearing of a person is simply not fair. I am not saying it is you Rick, but the sources that you have gained this info from, as they have been influenced by unfair and extrapolated reports.

Sorry, guys. No respect for a guy that allows his news letter to drum up and state hateful anti-Jewish rhetoric, then claim he had nothing to do with it. It was HIS letter, HIS name.

The newsletter was written in large part by a staffer in Ron Paul's name much the way any newsletter can be. Does Donald Trump really write all his own material for his blog? It is common practice for a newsletter to be crafted with elements of a namesakes vision, but the product to be produced by the staff.

When working in Los Angeles, I was once the lead on a newsletter for a company that my boss put out. The material was his he wrote or gathered in a raw form and I made it into the format needed, adding material for flow. On occasion I issued editions in his name purely on my research as he was not there to do it. I maintained the flavor of the letter as I was the editor anyway.

On one occasion I issued a news brief on a local matter with national implications in my bosses name. I made an error. I issued it with my thoughts on the matter rather than just report it in the news flash. It drew some angry replies. My boss did not say he did not do it, but rather took the criticism and apologized on behalf of him and his staff.

Sorry, no respect for a guy that goes on Alex Jones' show consistently - and there's another Jew-hater.

The MSM has largely ignored Paul as compared to some other candidates. Other smaller candidates such as Thompson and Hunter may not have accepted alternate media sources, but they are no longer in the race either. It is a means to keep a name active and in play. Like Paul or not, it is succeeding. I am not impassioned by Jones and some of his stances based on extrapolated facts, but he does play to a large enough audience to merit interviews.

No respect for a man who says 9-11 was an "inside job". Both of them have said it.

I cannot locate where Paul actually said it was an inside job, though Jones has openly discussed this idea. What Paul states is it was our own past actions that drew these 9-11 thugs to do that very hateful act. The point being that in the past many decades we have established bases and/or influenced other nations.

The example he cites is how happy would we be if China came here and established bases to secure their interest in our oil sources? We'd be pretty upset and likely act to take them down. I agree. I would act against any country that would try to infringe upon our countries sovereignty. Here I would be a patriot. Abroad I would be seen as a terrorist. The main difference would be I am not using religion for any actions I take.

No respect for Ron Paul who won't distance himself from the idiots following him, the kooks, conspiracy theorists and liars.

Why should he distance himself? He is trying to build upon uniting people as the individuals they are. If a person is a conspiracy theorist but is not causing mayhem is that bad? Paul has stated he stays on his path and those who support him are diverse in their backgrounds. Judging a candidate not by them as a person and their record seems wrong to me. Yes he has a few fringe notables in support, but they are seen because they are notables. There are many many people who are quite rational that also support him as a candidate but based on his record and who he is.

Nope. Ron Paul won't get my vote under ANY Circumstances. He is NOT better than Hillary, he is NOT a Constitutionalist, he is a LIBERTARIAN, and is one step north of Anarchist.

It is not up to me to tell anyone who to vote for, but this guy has been badly maligned based on non-issues. Is he better than Hillary? I think so, being that he not looking to socialize the US. He not out to grow the debt or expand the size of government. As to being a Constitutionalist, I think he is. As a congressman he has a consistent record in voting using that document as his guide. This so much so he has been dubbed Dr. No for voting no on multitudes of spending Bills when they would not include reductions to balance the Bill.

He is perhaps more Libertarian in view, but that is to me the extreme of conservatism. As to Anarchist... Well, that seems extreme, but if you define it as less laws that invade our lives so we are actually free - then ok.

[American Patriot]

The newsletter was written in large part by a staffer in Ron Paul's name much the way any newsletter can be. Does Donald Trump really write all his own material for his blog? It is common practice for a newsletter to be crafted with elements of a namesakes vision, but the product to be produced by the staff.

Doesn't matter WHO wrote it, it matters whose name was on it, and why didn't he STOP them from publishing that crap?

The MSM has largely ignored Paul as compared to some other candidates. Other smaller candidates such as Thompson and Hunter may not have accepted alternate media sources, but they are no longer in the race either. It is a means to keep a name active and in play. Like Paul or not, it is succeeding. I am not impassioned by Jones and some of his stances based on extrapolated facts, but he does play to a large enough audience to merit interviews.

Race, or religion baiting, and hating isn't relevant then? Or the fact that Alex Jones and his people are certified nutcases ANYWAY? Or that they go along with the "shut down the government completely" people? Going on the show is doing nothing but promoting him to more kooks. Fine, let him GO on the show, it just shows how out of touch with reality he actually is.

I cannot locate where Paul actually said it was an inside job, though Jones has openly discussed this idea. What Paul states is it was our own past actions that drew these 9-11 thugs to do that very hateful act. The point being that in the past many decades we have established bases and/or influenced other nations.

Guilt by association. When asked if he would remove himself from the debate by disagreeing with those people who are supporters of his (AND the 9-11 conspiracies), he refused. That's called pandering.

[Phil Fiord]

Doesn't matter WHO wrote it, it matters whose name was on it, and why didn't he STOP them from publishing that crap?

I think it does matter. When that occurred several years ago now, we do not know the details of reprimand or even how it could be more than one newsletter if it was. The fact remains Paul has a very relevant stance on race today and it is clearly defined and approved by him. From the following site location:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/

...The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism....
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity....

Race, or religion baiting, and hating isn't relevant then? Or the fact that Alex Jones and his people are certified nutcases ANYWAY? Or that they go along with the "shut down the government completely" people? Going on the show is doing nothing but promoting him to more kooks. Fine, let him GO on the show, it just shows how out of touch with reality he actually is.

Any baiting to elicit response is to varying degrees underhanded. Jones appears to do that and is not always civil is his posts and certainly is firing up unfounded claims on various matters, however this is a separate issue from Ron Paul and his views and stances. They have overlapping ideology on freedoms, but thats as far as I see it.

Guilt by association. When asked if he would remove himself from the debate by disagreeing with those people who are supporters of his (AND the 9-11 conspiracies), he refused. That's called pandering.

He did not simply refuse to remove himself. He did so on the basis that he cannot control what people believe and though his views differ he is not going to suggest them being disassociated from being supporters. It was not a cut and dried refusal. That is how it can bee seen, but it is incomplete. It seems to me that Paul presents things more dynamic than other candidates and in summary the point can be missed.

Guilt by association. Well, that is a true matter in many ways in many cases, but when a statesman or woman goes to China and says they are good and friendly, we know that is crap but they are not seen as being sympathizers by the masses.

When a drug house is busted and a person is there - even if they have no drugs on them, that is guilt by association.

I would sincerely suggest a thorough read of the basic issues as viewed by Ron Paul rather than take media word as truth.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

All I am seeking is a just understanding of the candidate as the overall view given in the mainstream is slanted or incomplete. It is a little like watching TMZ for facts on a celebrity as opposed to what it really is - gossip and hype.

[Brian Baldwin]

Problem I have with Paul is that he isn't hawkish enough for me. I don't like his libertarian views either. Oh, I go along with some of it but it falls short of where he needs them to be.

I want a president that will bring war to radical islam in such a way that there would be nothing left of them at the end of that president's term. Fairly small request yet I don't find a single candidate willing to do that.

[Phil Fiord]

Thank you Brian. I tend to agree with your POV as there are several points I agree with on Ron Paul, but I am a bit off in my positive thoughts due to the current terrorists problems inside and outside our country.

I do understand his view on the 'why' 9-11 occurred and he is backed by intel docs, but I question the outcome from pulling back as fully as he envisions.

All I want is a sensible understanding of all the candidates and thusly have looked at all including Paul and I find him the most thought provoking. I do know I dislike the leaders on the Dem side and the Rep side, but rather than sit it out, I want to see if I have a viable alternate in my view. This is Primary time and not the main feature in November, so time will tell how it plays out.

Also, with Paul we do know that his full agenda cannot possibly come to fruition and that is interesting to me because he has a very old school conservative stance on government that appeals to me. Its just a few points of larger scale that hinder me on him.

[American Patriot]

I don't agree with most of Ron Paul's stuff, and nothing you say is going to convince me otherwise. I used to listen to him and think he was pretty smart, however, Phil by NOW you ought to know that I do my research.

I'm not in a position to, nor will I go through point by point, but suffice it to say is there's no way the man will get my vote. And if he gets elected President, he will do more harm than even Hillary will.

He's an idiot, does NOT see the "Big Picture". Hillary sees that she wants this country to be Socialist. Paul simply wants to reduce government, bring the troops home (All of them including all the countries we have people stationed) becoming isolationists. His attitude is no better than that of Nevil Chamberlan - with the exception that he will simply IGNORE problems like Iran. He's already said as much, that Iran isn't a problem.

I'm sorry, but anyone that can NOT see Iran is a problem isn't going to be President. He hasn't got a chance in hell of getting elected, and it's a waste of time for people to continue pushing a man who is supported by a shit-load of kooks.

Let's assume for a minute that he isn't Kooky at all, and I've got it all wrong. Why then would he not distance himself from these people WHO ARE KOOKS? Don't make excuses. You either agree with the kooks or you don't. If you do, then you're a kook too. Anyone that agrees that 9-11 was an act committed by our OWN government is looking for anarchy. That's what these people want.

The 9-11 Conspiracy Theories are something brought up by the left, constantly, that America was "attacked because we are over there". No, folks America was ATTACKED because those Muslim pigs want to kill American's and Westerners.

America was ATTACKED on 9-11 because those people call us "The Great Satan".

America was attacked on 9-11 by people who believe that the West (that folks, includes ALL Western Civilization, including Europe and Australia, the US, Canada and most other countries as well) are "evil" and should be under Islamic Laws.

Ron Paul said we were attacked "because we were in Iraq"....

REP. RON PAUL, R-TEXAS, GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: They attack us because we've been over there, we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East. I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics.

CALLER: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I'm tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?

HON. DR. RON PAUL: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don't have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there's not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn't going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on.

JACK BLOOD, GUEST HOST: I think it's fair to say that of all the candidates out there, the one most interested in reopening the investigation and clearing the questions is Dr. Paul; and you should be commended for that.

Further...

ron paul believes the kennedy assasination was done by the american govt

ron paul believes the kennedy assasination was done by the american govt, also, he believes that 9/11 was a inside job that should be "investigated". in a debate on may 15, he stated that the american foreign policy of "bombing iraq for 10 years" while saddam was placed under UN sanctions was the reason that america was attacked, however one cannot believe both conspiracy theories at the same time, either the american government killed 3,000 of it's own citizens, or we deserved having 3,000 of our citizens killed, make up your mind mr paul!!!!!, lol

More information on this 9-11 "Truther" crap...

Speaking to The Alex Jones Show, the Texas Congressman was asked his opinion on Cindy Sheehan's recent comments that the U.S. is in danger of a staged terror attack or a Gulf of Tonkin style provocation that will validate the Neo-Con agenda and lead to the implementation of the infrastructure of martial law that Bush recently signed into law via executive order, as well as public pronouncements from prominent officials that the West needs terrorism to save a doomed foreign policy.
"I think we're in great danger of it," responded the Congressman, "We're in danger in many ways, the attack on our civil liberties here at home, the foreign policy that's in shambles and our obligations overseas and commitment which endangers our troops and our national defense."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/...n_and_its.html

Ron Paul is different.

Rep Ron Paul (R-TX) is the only Republican candidate to demand immediate withdrawal from Iraq and blame US policy for creating Islamic terrorism. He has risen from obscurity and is beginning to raise millions of dollars in campaign contributions. Paul has no traction in the polls -- 7% of the vote in New Hampshire -- but he at one point had more cash on hand than John McCain. And now he is planning a $1.1 million New Hampshire media blitz just in time for the primary.


Ron Paul set an internet campaigning record raising more than $4 million in small on-line donations in one day, on November 5, 2007. But there are many questions about Paul's apparent unwillingness to reject extremist groups' public participation in his campaign and financial support of his November 5 "patriot money-bomb plot."

(I have not given links to all the above, most are easy to find, if you bother to look)

In the previous message you stated that you don't think it is relevant at all who wrote his newsletter, with his OWN name on it, which he approved at his level.

Well, sorry, but I disagree completely. While you can certainly say this, it doesn't take away the fact his NAME was associated with that newsletter and he had editorial approval of said newsletter. It IS relevant who wrote what, and why they wrote it, in particular because it was associated with his name.

It is equivalent of me writing MY opinion on Anomalies - and ending up "fired" for debunking several theories that were just pure bullshit. My name was associated (and still is) with Anomalies Network as a Skeptic, something that Olav will never get away from and the site will continue to "suffer" for this (I don't think the site suffers for it, and is BETTER for having had someone stand up to this crap and point out the fallacy in simply believing in something, or in others telling you stories without looking it up for God's Sake).

Ron Paul had a news letter that was hateful towards Jews and others and has "apologized" (though I honestly haven't been able to find ANYWHERE he actually apologized yet...) -- I still find it appalling that he can't admit he was part of that. If he wasn't, why dis he apologize again?

[American Patriot]

Video: Glenn Beck Grills Ron Paul About Threats, Conspiracy Theories

http://ianschwartz.com/2007/12/18/vi...racy-theories/

December 18, 2007 @ 8:05 pm

Ron Paul was on Glenn Beck’s show for a full hour after being hounded by the candidate’s supporters and being sent an open invite.

Beck reveals that he has been threatened by a fanatical group of Ron Paul supporters which has caused him to wear a vest and obtain protection for his family. Paul tells Beck he doesn’t know these people or had direct correspondence with them. Beck proceeded to ask Ron Paul if he agrees with any of the several 9/11 conspiracy theories his fans seem to be fond of. Paul is bewildered and makes clear he doesn’t believe in any of them. Watch:



Hot Air has video of Glenn Beck uh, offering to kiss Ron Paul because of plans for the IRS. Click to watch:



Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

Related Articles:

• Video: Ron Paul On Huckabee Ad: 'When Fascism Comes It Will Be Wrapped In A Flag And Carrying A Cross'
• Video: Ron Paul Answers Question About North American Union

[American Patriot]

And even the Leftist/Socialist Huffington Post weighed in on the last one above....

BIO

BeckWatch: A Meeting Of The Minds

HuffingtonPost.com | Jason Linkins | December 19, 2007 04:27 PM

Read More: 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists, Glenn Beck, Ron Paul, Ron Paul Supporters

---

CNN's Glenn Beck had a one-on-one interview last night with presidential contender/Guy Fawkes enthusiast Ron Paul. And what would you imagine the two men talked about? Why, crackpot 9/11 conspiracy theory of course! Beck brought up the subject by mentioning that Paul's "rabid supporters...believe they can speak to their own agendas using the candidate`s name." Some of those agendas? Claiming that Beck is "part of a 9/11 conspiracy" and that Paul is "part of...another kind of conspiracy to expose the conspiracy of 9/11 and the World Trade Center," and that Ron Paul would like to speak the truth but cannot afford to "let on" that he knows what he knows. Uhm...got it? Look, just watch the video, and reflect on what the world's come to that this topic gets broached on Headline News:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/...cpid1348279993http://www.brightcove.com/channel.js...nel=1178199204


Both men deserve credit, obviously, for drawing a line in the sand between themselves and Crackpotville. We don't know how Paul calling his own supporters "bizarre" and "preposterous" is going to go over, though. Seems like this could open up a schism between the Ron Paul True Believers who take his every utterance as the Oracle at Delphi and those who truly believe he cannot speak freely of all the dark 9/11 secrets he's uncovered. And that's before the fever swamp that is the 9/11 "Truth Movement" gets further roiled. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is a very real possibility the internet could simply explode today. Good night and good luck!

• Read Whole Story
• Read or Add Comments

[American Patriot]

Also, with Paul we do know that his full agenda cannot possibly come to fruition and that is interesting to me because he has a very old school conservative stance on government that appeals to me. Its just a few points of larger scale that hinder me on him.

He has a LIBERTARIAN VIEW. LIBERTARIAN VIEW. He wants to legalize marijuana, legitimize abortion, become isolationist in America...

He wants to remove the IRS... Great, more power to him.

He wants to get back to basics in the Constitution - FANTASTIC.

But, at the same time he is planning to throw out ever other law on the books, no review, no rhyme, no reason?

Ok... alright maybe I'll vote for him to see what happens. That you stated his "full agenda can't come to fruition" is not showing CONFIDENCE in him, only that you like some parts of what he says. Nice, so do I.

But, anyone that thinks 9-11 needs to be further investigated is a KOOK, K O O K.

[American Patriot]

This is about Paul, from the LA TIMES.... (And yes, I left IN their own misspellings).


« Headline of the day | Main | Mike Bloomberg Watch: Now he's meeting with Obama »
A shocking report: Inside the Ron Paul conspiracy

Maybe you've heard rumors about an explosive newspaper expose on a major political figure that would rock the political world just as the presidential voting is about to begin.


We haven't either.


But we do know that today is when this newspaper blows the top off of the Ron Paul Conspiracy, that vast unorganized protest movement that has silently become one of the more interesting political phenomena of the current election season.


A Times reporter -- we'll call him James Rainey to protect his identity -- has managed to penetrate the Paul presidium.


In his story he recounts for the very first time the shockingly ordinary details of a movement of thousands of disparate, dissatisfied people, some of whom want an end to the Iraq war, an end to gun controls and the IRS, an end to laws banning marijuana and a return to the gold standard, whatever that means.


These Paulites believe the government has been hijacked by a bevy of big interests that threaten the freedoms of ordinary Americans. They're not going to take it anymore. Locally, they're even organizing a re-enactment of a brazenly defiant act, the BostonTea Party, except it'll be in Santa Monica and won't involve tea or white people dressed as Indians. And the protestors promise not to leave anything foreign floating in the water.


These committed partisans, bonded by their suspicion of authority and venal influences like the mainstream media that ignored them until they did something, have united behind a 72-year-old...



Air Force vet and ob-gyn from Texas who has managed to win 10 elections to the House of Representatives as a Republican with two first names and strongly libertarian leanings.


This man believes that U.S. sovereignity is threatened by many things, especially including consistently ignoring the Constitution and by a planned mystery superhighway that would unite with a ribbon of inexorable cement all three North American countries--Mexico, the United States and that other larger one on top that can only afford to have three downs in its football games.


Apparently he's not talking about I-15, which already does that.


"Rainey's" account describes how this man's followers appear to be ordinary citizens with jobs and family by day. But at night they gather openly in chat rooms and living rooms to plot how to promote a tiny unassuming man whom they call reverently Dr. Paul. With little central direction but tons of commitment, idealism and passion, Dr. Paul's followers do everything they can think of to mobilize voter support.


They patrol the internet day and night seeking Paul slights to right. They stand on windy interstate bridges holding inflammatory signs saying: RonPaul2008.com.


Even as you sleep at night some of the 1,200 Paul meet-up groups are handwriting letters to all 700,000 independent Iowa voters urging them to consider their long-shot leader. A couple of weeks ago Paulites raised $4.2 million on the internet in one day, a near-record, and a sum they intend to more than double on Dec. 16, the anniversary of that rebellious tea party. How's that for insignificance?


As one result, the ultra-lean Paul organization has been able to buy advertising in New Hampshire and to pump its poll numbers up near double-digits in some places. Rainey's story describes the commitment of one Ron Paul meet-up group in Southern California and the regular folks who drive it with their political beliefs and energies.


Few professionals -- well, to tell the truth, no one -- actually gives Paul any chance of winning the Republican nomination. But then up until Yorktown back in the 1700s, all the smart Vegas money was on the British.
--Andrew Malcolm