Ron Paul Blames 9/11 on Blow Back

Raw Story titles the story "Giuliani: Suggestion 9/11 was invited is 'absurd'". In my mind, the important story here is a disappointing one: that Ron Paul didn't speak out for 9/11 truth.

New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who skyrocketed to political prominence in the wake of Sept. 11, heatedly refuted a suggestion by quixotic candidate Rep. Ron Paul at Tuesday night's Republican debate that American involvement in the Middle East invited hostility directed at the US from international terrorists.

"I'm suggesting we listen to the people who attacked us (on Sept. 11) and the reason they did it, and they're delighted" that US troops are in Iraq because they provide easy targets for terrorists, Paul said.

Paul was responding to a question about the origins of terrorist attacks on US soil and noted the generations-long history of US involvement in Middle East politics, including a CIA-sponsored coup to overthrow Iran's leader in 1953 and regular bombing missions in Iraq over the last decade.

"I don't think i've heard that before," Giuliani said, "and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11."

Paul said he was referring to what the CIA calls "blow back" in mentioning the hostility American involvement might ferment in foreign cultures.

"They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free," Paul said. "They attack us because we're over there."

Rather disappointing indeed! I hope Ron Paul is just using this

as a curve-ball or an icebreaker from which to broach into 9/11 truth.


A 911blogger story is on the frontpage of netscape, i was wondering can u paste the traffic for blogger?


it MUST be

I say let the guy get as close to the presidency before he starts talking about 911 truth.
I realize we're on a tight deadline where the truth NEEDS to get out as soon as possible, but Paul will be of no help if he talks about 911 truth now.
After his popularity grows and he becomes a real prospect for president, THEN he had better start discussing desires for a new 911 Investigation.


I had wondered why everyone believed Paul was a truther because he hadn't really come out saying he was. However, that is a good idea at this point! He can't come out with something Americans aren't eductaed about yet, aren't prepared for. He would shock the hell outr of them and he wouldn't have a chance. As of now, he is gaining support and getting people to open their eyes to other corruptions like the tax and federal reserve system. He is doing so good right now. He is our best chance as far as I see it.

Sorry, I couldn't disagree more

From Day 1, the 'blowback' theory has done service for the official theory, because it IS the official theory--reinforcing the dread fear of Muslim extremists; making a show of criticizing US foreign policy even while reinforcing the very psychology among the public which facilitates the foreign and domestic policies sought by the perps of 9/11; the very psychology which induces people to vote for creeps like Giuliani. It may well be (alas) that blowback is really what Ron Paul thinks concerning 9/11; but if he believes something much more pernicious was involved in those events, then he's completely mistaken in thinking 'blowback' talk is going to give him some kind of political advantage. I know it takes an incredible amount of courage, when operating within the milieu where Ron Paul finds himself, to encourage real questioning--with the possibility of repudiating--the official 9/11 story. But we kid ourselves if we think the political climate is going to change any other way. Have you seen the posters that say 'Only 9/11 Truth Will Set Us Free'? Well, I happen to believe that that's how it really is, folks, and would doubt I'd be alone in that opinion on this blog. So are we now going to start qualifying it with things like, '...except in Republican presidential debates,' etc.?

And besides, what would Paul really have to lose? Newsflash!--The forces in control of the Republican party will never allow someone like Ron Paul to become their nominee (just as the Democrats will never nominate Kucinich).

The official theory

Is that they hate us for our freedoms.

Have patience.
Here he is saying the commission was nothing but a cover up:

No, the official theory

is that horrifying attacks were carried out on U.S. soil by autonomous foreign actors, and that subsequent U.S. invasions of predominantly Muslim countries--however ill-advised in the opinions of many--are the result of trying to fight back and protect ourselves. Differing with the administration as to the 'why,' the motives of the alleged attackers, does nothing to raise one's awareness of the falsity of the official story so long as it takes the 'who' of that account for granted. This only keeps people arguing on the administration's turf, keeps them wallowing in the backwaters of the official theory (where many, many remain stuck, going on six years later), keeps them from proceeding to the more telling matters of 'how' (how it was possible for the attacks to be carried out successfully) and 'who' (who was in a position to thus make them possible)--and the realization that among the latter were people with motives which have nothing to do with 'blowback'.

No matter how you slice it, blowback is NOT a stage on the way to the truth of 9/11. It is something from which people need to break free before they can start advancing toward the truth--and if you're going to consider that a 'stage' on the way to truth, you might just as well claim that darkness is a 'stage' on the way to light, sleep a 'stage' on the way to being awake, being wounded a 'stage' on the way to healing. Those who believe the perpetrators of the official story acted as they did out of anger towards U.S. policy are no closer to realizing we've all been told a Big Lie re 9/11 than are those who swallow the administration's 'they hate us for our freedoms' line. It is therefore hardly surprising that proponents of the 'blowback' line of argument are typically hostile to the 9/11 Truth movement itself--some even claiming that we're 'racist' for doubting that Muslims from the Middle East couldn't have done it on their own.

I agree

with all the things you just said. However, blowback can be an important step forward for a lot of sheeple to realize. Most of the people who are so adamantly staunch about 9/11 not being anything other than the msm version can't even begin to acknowledge that America has has ever done anything wrong to other countries because of all the bs they've learned in school. They can't even put two and two together that if a group of big-oil players takes control of the White House and then invades the Middle East that it's about the money. So for a lot of people blowback is an important step in realizing that the USA isn't exactly the stalwart mainstay force for international "Good" that they think it is. To admit blowback is to admit that our leaders have wronged different peoples across the world and that they (the average citizens) fully supported wronging other peoples on a massive scale. That's a hard pill to swallow. Once it happens, though, people have the ability to recognize that there are governmental leaders that just don't give a fuck about human life and would kill anybody just to make a buck. That's when they'll be able to accept the reality of 9/11. It becomes quite apparent after they've taken that step.

This doesn't mean that full-on 9/11 Truth can't be the first breakthrough of such nature for a person, but that blowback can serve to bring people closer to understanding the realities of the way the world works.

And, by the way, I don't buy any of the bs from people who don't already accept the reality that 9/11 Truth gets at. I just try and help people towards a bigger understanding at whatever level they can get to.

"Blow-back" is definitely a necessary step in logic.

For blow-back, be it real OR wrapped within a colorful tapestry of "islam-o-fascism"... is still blow-back. Which inescapably implies an origin of cause; be it by taking natural resource inequitably, at gunpoint now the case may be... AND/Or by the crafters of a tapestry colored with brilliant fiction.

Who's holding the gun of inequity, and who's the master of fiction? One in the same.

Inescapable questions that everyone has, or must yet, take. We must trust this logic, but only after people have processed it... one step at a time.

I agree with much of what you say,

but not about Ron Paul. For starters, he's the best presidential candidate in the field ANYWAY. I think he will push for full truth WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT. Look how he reacted when Hannity tried to corner him. He knows it was an inside job, he just wants to get deeper into the race, and maybe have a chance to win. He'd be destroyed if he said anything yet. It's in our best interest that he stay in the race as long as possible anyway, because he is talking publicly about many issues that are in line with what we need to do. He is speaking the truth about the CIA, the FED... He is helping shif the public consciousness. If the media is sucessful, and he does fall behind in the polls, maybe he will go out with guns blazing and say the magic words. Until then, THIS IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY. (And AFTER too.)
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

Is he a truther?

Does anyone know whether he's a truther at all? Or are we just hoping? If I was a truther in Ron Pauls situation, I would use the opportunity to spread the message in the TV debates, rather than waiting until I might get elected, which there is no guarantee for.

No guarantee? More like no chance.

Wake up & smell the fixed elections people. The next puppet has already been chosen. Paul needs to speak NOW while he has the spotlight. I love the optimism of fellow 911 truthers but to someone who's known the truth long before 911 it reads more like self-delusion.

When pressed, he says he

When pressed, he says he doesn't think it was an inside job. I think he knows deep down it was, but I don't think he'll ever get behind 911 truth completely. Still, his philosophy of government is anathema to the forces that led to the inside job of 911. You really can't say that about anyone else in the race.

Yeah,.....Bottom Line is that....

.....he has to stay in the game and not give them something as big of a hot potato as 9/11 Truth to destroy him with.....(George Romney, Barry Goldwater, Thomas Eagleton, Howard Dean were all eliminated for less controversial things, blown out of proportion).

Basically, we haven't done our jobs well enough.... in that we haven't got an overwhelming majority of Americans on board with us and are willing to act upon that knowledge....


...he wants to see the evidence more directly for himself. He's an old-timer and most of the discussion is taking place on the Internet, and he probably doesn't trust the Internet as a reliable source of information.

Maybe if he manages to make his way into the White House he may find the evidence he needs.

Of course, I've come to think it's possible certain government agencies/agents or people paid by government agencies (directly or indirectly) *collaborated* with eager terrorists to orchestrate 9/11. Hypothetically, it sounds sensible to me: Radical Muslim groups have been given every reason to hate US policies, and wanted the desperate opportunity to "strike back" at the corporatocracy, and the people aiding and abetting them wanted their new pearl harbor.

Hmm...This hypothesis may explain just about everything I've read. Kinda a combination of blowback/LIHOP/MIHOP.

The answer almost always lies in the middle, between the lines, between the extremes.

no doubt they were eager terrorists

just not likely they were muslims or arabs!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force



just a thought. a possibility. I don't have access to classified documents. i don't know any of these people. I've never even been to new york. all i know is what i see online. and i don't have time to sort through everything. i don't have high-quality footage of the events. i certainly wasn't on any of the planes, or anywhere near the pentagon (I was a couple of counties south of there at the time.)

maybe not muslims, maybe israelis. maybe someone else entirely. but it sounds like something some greedy/shady characters would do, hire some people pissed off at the corporatocracy and simultaneously arrange things on the local end so that the attacks are more devastating than they would've been otherwise - and have some perfect scapegoats to boot. though osama's involvement seems highly unlikely given his medical condition around the time of the attacks. *shrug* Maybe not. The whole truth still remains to be seen.

Any way you slice it there's an inside job to be uncovered, that NEEDS to be uncovered and people held accountable. But the bigger picture is the entire system has been in need of reform..."A republic, if you can keep it", we were given, and we're squandered our freedoms for too long and forgotten the responsibility that goes with them, the responsibility to protect those freedoms, not from communists or terrorists or dictators afar, but from greed and treachery within. But we should all know that by now.

the "threat" of international terrorism is definitely exaggerated, but at the same time, there have *been* people pissed at our empire-like tendencies for decades all over the globe. the whole world gaped open-mouthed at our invasion of panama in 1989 and hardly any US papers covered it. and for what? money. it's all about greed. it doesn't take a *vast* conspiracy - it's an almost predictable result of a system that rewards greed that the greedy rise to the top faster. and when the suffering you inflict is physically disconnected from you, it makes it easy to not notice it, or internally justify it somehow that it's for some greater good...

BTW, recommended reading: Confessions of an Economic Hit Man [if you haven't already read it. It's an easy read at 300 pages] Granted, the author buys the official 9/11 story to some degree, but he also recognized that (even if the official story were true) we're still responsible for it. and many people bought the osama connection because we'd all heard the '93 bombing story. [Is anyone claiming perchance *that* was an inside job too? Of course we all should know by now anything osama has done against us is entirely our fault for using him like a pawn in the 80s.]

Presentation by Richard Gage

Presentation by Richard Gage is crucial at this point for the entire Ron Paul Team.

I recommend:

[1] Everyone listen to Monday nights TRR with Gage and Wave

[2] Visit

[3] Visit

[4] Link them via email, phone, activism, etc

Contacting Ron Paul

If anyone wants to contact Ron Paul's Office Staff etc for or with information regarding 9/11, I got this from his campaign website

By Email:

By Phone: 703-248-9115

By Fax: 703-248-9119

By Mail:
850 N. Randolph Street, Suite 122
Arlington, VA 22203

In Due Time

Ron Paul is simply describing the events of 911 on face value. The debates was not the platform for debating 911 Truth and it's likely they were trying to throw Paul a curveball and slap a big 911 Conspiracy label on his chest if he made more accurate statements about 9/11.

That's exactly what they're

That's exactly what they're trying to do.

not yet...

we all know that Ron Paul knows about the NWO and that 9/11 was an inside job. i think he will eventually start talking about 9/11 truth. not yet though, especially in that situation when Rudy got a huge applaud after Ron's statement on 9/11. i think hes waiting for the right time to do it. i wonder if there will be a debate in Texas. if there is, that would be the perfect time for him to discuss 9/11 truth. America is still waking up and hes getting more and more support each day. give it time, he will do it. but tonight was not the right time.

"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th;
malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."

-George W. Bush November 11, 2001

Obviously 9/11 Truth is not

Obviously 9/11 Truth is not a politically viable position for a Republican party candidate. If anyone was hoping he would say 9/11 was an inside job, you are deluding yourself. That would be political suicide at this point in time, especially on the Republican side.

It is equally obvious that Rob Paul is the most likely candidate, even if he doesn't explicitly state it, to side with us. Therefore, it is still incumbent upon us to do everything we can to support him. Personally, I have decided to contribute $100 to his campaign as soon as I get a free minute or two at work tomorrow. I suggest all here do the same if you can.

I would like to hear him say the magic words as much as anyone else, but I would rather get him elected than get hung up on the ridiculous notion that a serious contender for President would ever say those magic words. It is the unfortunate reality that 9/11 Truth just isn't currently politically viable. Hopefully we can do something in the next year or so to change that.

OK, but I hope & expect that he will be speaking openly about

9/11 truth well BEFORE the election!

If he brings it BEFORE the

If he brings it BEFORE the election, he will be ousted from it, those pushing for Ron Paul to discuss 911 Truth before he is elected are actually doing him and the movement a dis service, the general population can not and will not swallow the red pill.

We already know his stance on one of the energy sources behind those that were behind 911, the Federal Reserve, and Foreign policy. That should be enough, when and if elected I feel that he would address 911 appropriately.

We are the ones who have to

We are the ones who have to force the issue on each and every candidate.
No candidate should be allowed to give vague answers to 9/11 Truth--"What? never heard of that before," or "WTC 7? What's that?" or "Give me your evidence and I will look at it and get back to you."
And if any one of them tries to say we're wrong or crazy, be sure to ask them: "Why do you say that?" or better "How dare you say that!"
This is a real issue with widespread voter support and hard science.
2007 is a crucial year.
Push the system. Force it to pay attention. This is the time to act.
Maybe cut Paul some slack for a month or two. But the main thing is to get the candidates talking about it.
Let the Republicans try to paint the Democrats as 9/11 crazies. That'll be GOOD.
Time to force answers, force them to focus on this subject.
They are masters at squirming and dodging the truth, at being vague.
Be tough, remember what they have said, hold their little feet to the fire.
No more bullshit!

Contribute $91.10 to get the message across

loud and clear to those you support and $9.11 to those you want to annoy with the same message (LOL).

That's my approach, anyway.

Keep up the good work, we're winning this one day and one person at a time.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.


you can't blame him for biding his time...but he also needs to realize that we're running OUT of time.

do you really think...

paul stands a chance coming out for 9/11 truth at this point? he will be vilified to the point of exclusion. he knows exactly who funds this bullshit war/apartheid/media machine and is treading into these very murky waters with his best galoshes. i have hope, albeit limited. my non-violent battle gear isn't far away..............................


hes still the best

he still opppses the federal reserve, neocons plan to strike iran, the cia, illegal wars. Hes articulate and hes the best option we have now to fight the new world order. Hell, at least he brought up something that took guts like blowback, could you imagine a shill like hillary or ghouliani doing that? hes got my vote.

blowback sucks

like chomsky's stink bomb book all about it. - i bought those dead trees oh so long ago. it ain't the NWO you need be concerned about. the shit is running a bit closer to eye level. don't be afraid of the taboo crap any longer. it's fair game, sir. if they can win the battle, the war isn't through...push's all in the eyes.

i still support ron paul and mike gravel, respectively.

as an aside.................where is 'disinformation in the information age?' man, such a promising working title.

Yikes! Pentagon is in the midst of simulating one of the largest

nuclear detonation exercises ever!

so what

shall i hide under my bed or dig a crawlspace lined with permaseal nuclear dissolver fluid? i've been eating spinach, cuz popeye did it when he was in trouble.


'So What?'

You have missed the boat on that one wolfowitz. It doesn't make much sense when you and others discount these nuclear drills and continuity of gov't warnings.

this thread is about ron paul

not some farcical nuclear threat drill intended to make you go "yikes!"

"Supreme executive power

"Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

LOL!!! Sorry, just the word "farcical" makes me think of this movie. Here's some political humor to lighten the mood:

Shut up, will you? Shut up!
Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
Shut up!
Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
Bloody peasant!
Oh, what a give-away. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?

"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

Nah, it didn't even go down like that.

Oh, wait... Was there already a SECOND Republican debate? I saw the one a week or two ago, and Ron didn't try to push the "blowback" theory. He was more saying that we need to stop the interventionism in general, than saying that the interventionism LED to 9/11. I'm pretty sure he knows.

"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine



I'll take a look.
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

Ron Paul.

Great catch GW. Also help Ron Paul out by voting for him in the post debate poll.

Take the MSNBC poll on the debate!

Also visit his website if you want to contact him...

Register your vote!

Thanks for the link. Did you see all that support for Paul? WOW!

I agree. Regardless of his

I agree. Regardless of his view on 9/11, he would serve well for the american people but def not for the criminals who have been running the show in the past 50 years or so. I used to share the same view as ron paul's that 9/11 was a result of us foreign policies before discovering that the govt explanation is a massive cover up of their involvement.

Blowback? Gas!

When the subject of 'Saddam' gassing his own people came up, Ron Paul's response was:

"We gave them the gas"

He'll bring out the BIG GUNS (911) when the time is ripe.

Global Warming is the biggest scam to infect the planet.
Global Warming = Global Tax = Global Police = TOTAL CONTROL
Gov't Health care? From Murderers? RUCrazy?

Their goal is a ONE WORLD DICTATORSHIP. COMMUNIST or FASCIST it matters not.

Polls Old&New
Global Warming is the biggest scam to infect the planet.
Global Warming = Global Tax = Global Police = TOTAL CONTROL

Their goal is a ONE WORLD DICTATORSHIP. COMMUNIST or FASCIST it matters not.


Thanks for all the links---great job! Saves me time for sure!

Dissapointing but not unexpected

Any rep in the system now cannot be expected to come out with 9-11 truth unless prodded to by some serious pressure. Even Dennis "limited investigation" Kucinich has at best been half hearted and non-committal on 9-11. The 9-11 movement must ORGANIZE and put pressure on these least worst candidates to make any headway within the system. The pressure for them from the dark side includes being JFK'd so don't expect them to join the movement without any effort from us. The movement ought to demonstrate it's ability to mobilize, to get a message out, be a voting bloc, celebrity endorsements from Charlie Sheen and Rosie O., show some benefit for the candidates if they join in. If they come out openly for 9-11 truth, they will at the least be vilified, the movement ought to be able to back them in the media and prevent any sag at the opinion polls. At the same time the movement should push the candidate to commit to investigate honestly, if not, then face the consequences of a negative campaign from the truth movement.

Don't get your hopes up too high on them either, I'm sure the perps have a convenient "Monica L" story to sabotage any honest, uncontrollable candidate. But it's still worth a try anyway.

Just my idle thoughts.

Support a Congressional Investigation of 9-11



"The 9-11 movement must ORGANIZE and put pressure on these least worst candidates to make any headway within the system. The pressure for them from the dark side includes being JFK'd so don't expect them to join the movement without any effort from us. The movement ought to demonstrate it's ability to mobilize, to get a message out, be a voting bloc, celebrity endorsements from Charlie Sheen and Rosie O., show some benefit for the candidates if they join in."

I think it might be needed to form a new political party (911 truth party/ Constitutional party ?) outside the established party structures. I don't think it has to go all the way to winning the presidency. But to really become a true politcal force. One that makes politicians scared.

I don't think we can rely on politicians like Kucinic or Paul. There are too many ways to put pressure from above to control them.

political pressure

Hi Pagan,

If you support political pressure for truth, please support my Congressional Investigation initiative in the link below. It is a roadmap of sorts to an investigation supported by the truth movement. I am begging for people to sign up, give advice, add corrections. Even negative feedbacks are welcome. Just take a look and comment.

This is a medium term goal, it won't happen asap, only after the movement gets enough wits to organize. But this is one motivation to start that organizing effort.

You get free candy for taking a look. Please!
Support a Congressional Investigation of 9-11



If there really is a risk of someone being "JFK'd", then I don't know what kind of pressure or incentives could convince a public official to go public. You are almost saying "game over".

What do you think Siebel Edmonds is risking everyday

There is always that risk, they did off 3000 people in 2001. But people will have to take that risk if they believe in the cause and know there is a reasonable chance of success. This is the reason why I am urging that the movement organize, if it has a voice, a reliable network, and an ability to mobilize then it can protect the people whom it endorses. If the movement can cut campaign costs for a candidate, then he can spend more on his security.

The movement should be able to raise a big howl if the candidate it supports is JFK'd. That is small protection for the candidate but it should comfort him that people will pursue his murderers relentlessly should he be taken out. Wouldn't this give his enemies second thoughts? The movement is already doing this anyway, pursuing justice for those murdered in 9-11, we just need a collective voice, more focused moves.

Support a Congressional Investigation of 9-11



Yup. Gotta start playing like pros now, people. We are picking up steam. Richard Gage and Johnny Wave each added something HUGE to the movement. We should REALLY be putting out foot on the pedal now. Don't just go out on the 11th, start going out every week, or EVERY DAY!! We need to organize, but stay decentralized in our planning.

"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

I agree with pagan on

I agree with pagan on this.
I want to add two points:

1) We should pressure ALL of the candidates, not just the "least worst" of them.
The reason for this is a) we do not want to "punish" a sympathetic candidate, and b) this is a national issue, despite the media blackout, so all of the candidates must be FORCED to take a position. Who cares what their positions are? We'll fight that once they have stated them in public.

2) It's time for us to start putting up some real MONEY. The best way to do this would be to get Griffin to oversee an account. We all trust him and believe he is wise and parctical. He could get plenty of help and make the spending 100% transparent. Candidates that are in favor of a real 9/11 investigation get money. Candidates that are not infavor get ads targeting their stupid positions.

If anyone can get in touch with DRG and get him to agree to this, I am sure that many of us will be more than willing to send in one week's pay or better.

Everybody There Was Attacking Him

It was obvious from the onset that he was being handed loaded questions meant to divisively estrange him from the mainstream GOP, but he came out with guns blazing. He handled himself pretty well, coming across as the most American of the group. He is the best hope for having a candidate that supports 9/11 Truth, but (like was said above) it's way too early for anyone seeking a major party nomination to bring out those guns. Most Americans probably still believe Saddam did it. Further into the election cycle, though, he'll talk about some of his harder hitting opinions. Even if he doesn't support 9/11 Truth pre-election, he'll be the best shot for getting White House support. That being the case, I'm going to do something that I would have killed myself before even considering until now - I'm going to register as a (I know it's disgustingly disgraceful) (feel free to shoot me for doing so) republican. That way I can vote for Paul in the primaries and he can get the nomination.

As far as the polls are going, he's at 63% positive at MSNBC, with Romney second at 21%. Guiliani rounds out the top three at 16%. He's also got the absolute lowest negative rating at 19%. His closest contender there is Huckabee at 45%. He's slaughtering everyone there. The Fox News poll shows him second with 25%, behind Romney at 29%. The first numbers on Fox in the post-debate commentary had him leading, and the Fox bitch (it was either Hannity or Colmes - I don't know which is which) just about had a stroke over it - pure hilarity. Even when faced with very basic facts that are still light-years away from 9/11 truths, these guys just have no clue whatsoever and lose their composure. All Paul did was show them a little common sense.

registering Republican makes more sense than you think

Imagine the effect of a big swell of registered Rs who vote for Ron in the primary, and then leave the party if he doesn't win it.

That said, I encourage everyone to SUPPORT RON PAUL however you can, but never forget that the presidency is, ultimately, just 1 position. Don't get mesmerized by a "hail Mary" possibility of electing a 9/11 Truth candidate for prez who will solve our problems for us. Keep up all efforts! (This is just an encouragement, not an accusation.)

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

I think

even if he doesn't win the primary we should write him in :)

ron paul poll

Make sure and vote in the WND poll.

Ron Paul is smoking Giuliani in the Fox
poll, MSNBC and WND poll.

It's 4:18AM

FOX closed their poll at 12:30AM EDT and they still haven't put the results up on their web site.


Hopefully, someone will have the video of Hannity nearly shitting a brick when the first numbers came in. Also wanted, Hannity's three minute post-debate chat with Ron Paul and all of chicken-necked weasel Carl Cameron's crap.

Here's FOX's direct links if anyone wants them:

Post-debate toe sucking by Hannity:

"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~~ Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Director Building and Fire Research Laboratory (NIST)

here tis...


That debate was so much more painful to watch than the first one.
I should have expected the negativity and pro-torture and pro-war stance of Fox.
Ron Paul is so honest, but I fear he's given the media all the sound bytes needed to trash him for months.
No American wants to hear about blowback....they'd rather hear about how we should torture terrorists whenever we wish to.
And if Giuliani brings up how he personally KNOWS terrorism, I'm going to hurl. What a weak WEAK man.

Ron Paul would NEVER bring up 911 Truth in a debate, and I'm sure he KNOWS there was more to it than blowback.
I think he was addressing the notion of our bullshit policies in the middle east that has us so rightly hated around the world.
It's so peculiar to see honesty on the tube. I've gotten used to seeing the Ministry of Truth's crap.

Loved Paul's mention of Orwell's "Newspeak"....though I'm sure most Americans missed the reference.

wishful thinking

I honestly don't see how Ron Paul is a truth friendly candidate. Seems like those who think so may be basing it on the fact that he is against basically Alex Jones' definition of who the perps were--the NWO, the fed, etc. In other words supporting Ron Paul seems much more about supporting his overall political agenda than it is about actual 9/11 truth. Every excuse being offered--it's too soon, he was being set up, etc. is lame. As lame as excuses people make for Kucinich. Please don't get upset in the future if you bring the Ron Paul for Prez campaign to this site and some of us call him out as an OCT apologist. He's earned it.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


just watched his exchange with H&C

He seems like a nice guy and I can respect his defense of being a pro life libertarian, though I disagree since he is drawing the line of liberty at the level of state government. the problem remains I don't see why we should be confident about his desire for 9/11 truth to come out--seems much more likely that he is playing the same role as Kucinich but for the republicans. a safety valve for dissenters to blow off steam and stay with the party. He is basically taking Chomsky's view but from a traditional "isolationist" perspective. all part of the political game, whetehr he is consciously playing or not...


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Inshannity in that clip goes out of his way to be....

....rude, dismissive, and make an obvious show of demonstrating a lack of respect for Paul.....sending the messsage to Faux Noise viewers that "this guy is a nothing and you shouldn't take him seriously". Colmes too, in his own way...bringing up the "independent run" thing and trying to put Dr. Paul in a corner on abortion.....marginalizing Paul subtly.....

Ron Paul isn't (at this point) a 9/11 Truther's Dream Candidate, but he openly talks about so much that needs to happen (ending American Corporate Imperialism, breaking up the Fed & CIA, decentraliizing power) that he gets my support until someone even more gutsy comes along.

Let's give him the benefit

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt for a while.
He is in a tough position. We have to show him and the others that 9/11 is a 100% serious issue and that taking a real position on it will benefit their campaigns.
Also, remember, these candidates are REPRESENTATIVES. The initiative is up to us. WE have to make them represent US.
This is the year to be active. Most important year so far.

I'm sorry, exactly WHAT would you be satisfied with!?!

You're fishing for reasons to shit on the guy RT. I've gotta call you on this one. Yeah, it would be lovely if one of the candidates would start screaming the magic words tomorrow, but he'd be picked up by his belt-loops and punted out of the debate hall!! Why don't you tell me which candidate is better for the country right now, HHHMMM?? Don't say Kucinich, 'cause he'll ban all guns, then the round-ups will begin. (I'm not even "pro-gun", but I can recognize tyranny when I smell it.)

He's far and away the best candidate. Hell, he's the only REAL candidate in the field as far as I can tell. This is coming from someone who is "pro-choice"...

"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

That's a little shortsighted, don't you think?

Considering that none of the other truth-friendly candidates have even a remote chance of winning, supporting a truth-friendly candidate that does have a chance at winning sounds like a winning proposition for 9/11 Truth. Paul's track record shines with integrity and an absolute refusal to give in to our current system of legalized bribery. By simply pushing the issues that he supports he will bring an awareness of different perspectives to American politics. If he keeps building momentum, he may even win. To believe that a major candidate will come out of nowhere and convince the world that 9/11 Truth is the biggest issue around is just a little more unbelievable than believing that Ron Paul, who is a major candidate on the scene, can't or won't ever support 9/11 Truth. If he at least opens doors in people's minds that allow for 9/11 Truth to grow without his direct support, then we're still getting somewhere.

Postulating blowback as the reason for so much anti-Americanism is a big step in and of itself. The humbling of the public that would come with an understanding of the non-interventionist policy that he supports moves the popular mindset in that direction as well. He said that he would do away with the Fed and the income tax in the second debate. I find it hard to believe that he doesn't know that JFK took a similar stance and suffered the consequences. I find it much easier to believe that he is fully aware of such, and that he is exactly a man of such integrity that he would be fully willing to suffer the consequences because he knows that he can make such major inroads into changing public opinion and raising public awareness as to the underlying causes that brought us 9/11 in the first place. He's a smart man, and a true American. Even the people who would have him killed like they did JFK know that, in this day and age, to kill him would only bring more attention to his cause, driving millions of more citizens to causes like ours and sympathetic to ours. He would be instantly immortalized.

We have to go beyond a super-strict 9/11 focus at times to support causes friendly to our cause or causes that are directly related intellectually. To not network our support to friendly related causes is stupid. My personal opinion is that Ron Paul will at some point be at least publicly friendly to 9/11 Truth as part of his campaign, but we also have to recognize that he's running this campaign to win. I have every faith that he will do the right thing.


VERY well said, Dr. J.

We can't take our frustrations out on everyone that doesn't expose 9-11 Truth. That's what WE'RE here for.

But I can certainly understand feeling frustrated that people like Ron Paul just can't come out and make assertions about the Truth as we know it. It's a surreal experience to know that people in very public positions might know the truth but say nothing at all about it.

At the very LEAST, Ron Paul hits home with so many other issues that are in need of being addressed. Issues that other politicians are terrified of addressing. I think the guy is very sincere and is definitely a step in the right direction for this country.

no I don't

What exactly has Ron Paul done to demonstrate any commitment to even broaching the subject of 9/11 truth? Kucinich as lame as it was at least is forming some kind of formal investigation. Blowback is progress? It is the opposite--it is moving backwards to 2001 when that was the default lefty position that did absolutely nothing for us. Does anyone really think that if Ron Paul were to have said something akin to "Before we devote any more blood and treasure to the war on terror there are some questions that must be answered about the events of 9/11." during the debate he would have been assassinated? Really? That is the LEAST he could have said. Instead he reinforces the evil muslim fantasy while softening it with the idea that well, they're not entirely evil because we provoked them. Not gonna fly at this point. What is he now at some point going to say "well yeah, I said it was blowback during the debate but I knew better, actually..." Nah, throw the bums out--all of em!

oops, I should add--he has little chance of being nominated, much less winning. you don't seem to understand that our elections are currently meaningless. that's just a sad fact.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


He's trying to make blowback

the default "righty" position.

"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

Blowback is progress in a

Blowback is progress in a room (and channel) filled with the "glass parking lot" crowd.

Although it might be too

Although it might be too soon to tell, I tend to agree with Real Truther here. I just don't have ANY faith whatsoever in ANY career politician. We really do need to begin relying on EACHOTHER for positive changes. Look what happened to the anti-war and civil rights movements in the late 60s when their heros were "off'd". If Ron Paul stood any chance at all of being a "9/11 truth" presidential candidate, he'd die "accidentally" in no time at all. Far as I'm concerned, Paul Wellstone's death remains unsolved, yet it's almost obvious what happened to him. When will we as a People come to understand (fully) that the system is rotten to the core and any hopeful who might want to do some good won't be ALLOWED to get very far. Political democracy in the U.S. is a farce. Period.
Ron Paul may be the most earnest politician in our country's doesn't mean he stands a chance. He doesn't.

Plan B, people...

turning the corner

There is no question about relying on yourself, supporting Ron P or any other candidate for office should be accompanied with pressure to investigate 9-11 or to remove the Fed if that's what is needed. He should be in your service as much as he is your president. The truth movement however should have it's own dynamics and not have him as it's leader whether he gets into the oval office, JFK'd or simply losses out of the elections.

I think unlike in the past, the internet allows information to spread instantly to all members of a group. At the time of the civil rights movement, info was concentrated at the top making it easier to stop with a few hits. With information available to all members, the leadership becomes more replaceable and interchangeable.

Use the institutions of the current political system for whatever good they can be used for. A complete change of the system may be necessary but you are not be in a position to do this yet. You may also want to exhaust all alternatives before turning that corner.

Support a Congressional Investigation of 9-11


juandelacruz says...

"You may also want to exhaust all alternatives before turning that corner."

I think we have. The system is now closed shut for progressive change. Accept it, come to terms with it, and come up with another plan. That goes for all of us. Time is running out and I can feel the collective sweat begin to appear on our foreheads. Do we need to feel physical panic in order to realize that elections are a dead end and that we need to take things into our own non-violent hands? I'm growing agitated having to say this on a 9/11 Truth forum.

It's a system clogged with

It's a system clogged with weak and selfish people who constantly stroke each other. But it is much easier and infinitely more practical to force this system to work than to hope for an entirely new one, which would come with no guarantee of being better.
Also, we we are not even close to "exhausting all alternatives." We have not even forced major candidates to take positions on 9/11 Truth yet.
Why despair? Look at the progress. Two years ago we had maybe 2% of the population on our side. We have 10, 20 times that number now. That is wonderful, very positive news.
What is before us is fairly clear--a new presidential campaign.
What do we do with that? First, WE make them take real positions on 9/11. Following that, we help those candidates who take decent positions and expose the lies of those who do not.
Politics is the art of the possible.
All of this is possible. Let's do it rather than dream about the impossible.

Yeah, Juan.

I think all the options were exhausted before we even knew it. I think we were cooked when Bush Sr. took office, if not before. Since Dubya... Forget it. Technically, this is a fascist dictatorship right now. Look at the Military Commissions Act, and the John Warner Defense Authorization for 2007. The past two elections have been pure theater. Technically, it's game over. They just need to figure out how to do the round-ups in an orderly fashion.

TJ, I'm right with you on this one. We need to be doing SO much more. I shouldn't even be typing this righ now. I should be going door-to-door.
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

I had always thought that

I had always thought that the next presidential elections belonged to Hillary or Obama. Ron Paul and or Kucinich would be of more value to the movement if they sponsored an investigation backed by the truth movement. Even this limited objectives may fail too, but getting there may provide enough media attention on the topic to reach more people who need to be told. If it does succeed even just to acknowledge that OCT was a sham, then a lot more people can be awakened.

The presidential elections is most likely to go to candidates with more funds, not with the most truth. I don't think either candidate (Ron Paul or Kucinich) running with 9-11 truth could win even with the movement's support, but if they can be prevailed upon to include 9-11 truth in their campaign then that is also valuable visibility.

If most people in the forum think that any engagement of political institutions is a waste of time and the only viable option is peaceful revolution, then so be it. It would be best to have tried all other options or else have iron clad arguments that it is the best of available options when you present the case for it to a wider audience.

My country did this in 86'. We got mixed results. Booted out a dictator of 20 years, but even now journalists still get picked out from time to time. No regrets, if you need to do it, you gotta do it. However, the oligarchs move in right after the power vacuum and consolidate alliances with the new government. You gotta watch out for that.

Good luck and hoping the nuclear attack exercises don't turn live.

Support a Congressional Investigation of 9-11


I agree, but...

Democracy is part of what we are fighting for. We have to put pressure on th electoral process too, to try to keep it honest. (Rather to make it honest again.) We should be taking the power into our own hands though. Let's start talking boycotts soon, shall we? We need to cut the "NWO" purse strings.

"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

yea but..

It is exciting to see someone up saying such 'radical' things like when he was asked about the troops he said we should bring them home now. Then he was asked, "how would yo do that?"

"March them out just like we marched them in!"

Brilliant idea!

I agree with the lame excuses about 'waiting' and 'he's being set up' . I mean come on. Who is going to dictate 9/11 Truth? Take off the regulators...remove the governor swtich from the engines.

There is no reason 9/11 Truth should not be mentioned whenever Ron Paul or any candidate for that matter, makes a statement.

Even if Americans don't buy a 9/11 Truth argument from Ron Paul, they will eventually be exposed to it and will then say "that damn Ron Paul guy was on to something".

I'd rather be known as the candidate that lost while yammering on about those 'nutty 9/11 conspiracy theories' then known as the candidate who lost by just 'playing the game' as they say.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

wishful thinking.... and then some.

You gotta love the optimism, RT. However, until 'we' come to the cold, hard realization that the elections are a sham all this optimism is just self-delusion. I really am surprised so many who know the truth about 911 still think the American people actually have a say.

my thoughts exactly

but I don't love this kind of optimism--I'm suspicious of it. people shouldn't waste any energy on candidates without the balls to LEAD.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


We do have a say.

It's just not through "representative democracy" anymore. We need to mobilize like they do in France and Germany... We CAN take control of the system if we use our brains. Boycotts, aggressively spreading informaiton, protests... We need to start using more of the tools in our toolbox. Right now we're only focusing on drawing attention. Start cutting off funding to the corporate world. QUIT BUYING SHIT YOU DON'T NEED.

"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine


That logic is faulty and imho shows you don't really understand the big picture beyond 9/11 Truth. If 9/11 Truth blew wide open tomorrow and everyone involved was caught, tried, and hung, and nothing else in this country was changed, we would still be doomed. 9/11 Truth is just a piece in larger puzzle, and Ron Paul is aware of all of those pieces. I would be fine with him becoming pres and simply saying we should "reinvestigate 9/11". In the meantime doing away with the Federal Reserve, fiat currency, fractional reserve banking, baseless and illegal extortion via "federal income taxes", and the scurge of huge govt beauracracies would be some of the multitude of underlying problems we would all benefit from being solved - after that 9/11 truth would quickly take care of itself.

Theres an old saying "you can't shine shit, only smear it". Well if we only focus on 9/11, then we are trying to "shine shit". If we fix everything else that are more "foundational" problems, we are well on the road to doing away with the criminals responsible for 9/11. Ron Paul is just the man that could go in and clean house, and he is the only candidate proposing exactly those things. He has done so for 27 years in that viper's den, sesspool, we call the House of Representitives.

Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

Well Cattle...

If you're right, then let's hope Mr. Paul doesn't go the way of JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King, Malcom X, Senator get my point, I think.

I do get your point

but the alternative candidates, or the alternative of doing nothing equates to "game over"

Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

Who said anything about

Who said anything about doing nothing? I'm talking about alternatives here..and I don't mean alternative candidates. I mean alternative COURSES OF ACTION.

Hear Hear.

I strongly agree with BOTH of you on this, TJ and Cattle. I think we are left with little else BUT alternative courses of action now, but I still think we shoud push for better representatives in the process. We will have to change and strengthen the system, but maybe that can be done through both radical action OUTSIDE the system, and a gradual process of healing WITHIN the system.

"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

Much truth in this comment

Much truth in this comment but please remeber 9/11 Truth is THE wedge issue of all time.
There has never been anything like it.

Once this issue is blown open, anything can happen and much will.
Effective political action must have good strategy.
As I see it, our best strategy is force 9/11 Truth, and then deal with whatever comes up.
One thing we can all see is that a lot of thngs are going to come up.

First things first.
First Truth, then the Consequences.

You said it

Amen, RT.

have you seen

the video over at student scholars for 9/11 Truth? They attend a Paul rally and question him about it. He seems to be open to the idea, but not as informed as we are. Seems like if 9/11 Truth were just a bit more mainstream credible that he'd be all over it.

Callers OVERWHELMINGLY Support Ron Paul

Did anyone watch C-SPAN this morning???? Earlier when they were fielding calls about last nights debate nearly every caller supported RON PAUL. It was unbelievable! Democrates, Independents and Republicans called in saying he was by far the winner of both debates. Severeal people voiced their utter disdane for the media (mostly FOX) not speaking about Ron Paul or giving him the time of day. One said that money talks and that is why they (media) will only really spend time on candidates for any party that has money to spend on advertisement. One person said he supported Paul and threw in that he thought they (gov.) knew about 911 before it happened.

I just could not believe how many callers were in total support for Ron Paul. WOW. Maybe people are really waking up! This is refreshing. This gives me hope that when 911 truth does seep further into the mainstream, we have a real chance to start reparing our country.


That's great news.


That room is filled with sheep. I used to think 9/11 was the result of blowback. I think a lot of people did when they first started researching 9/11. Rudy is a POS, and so are the POS's that set up, and ran this "debate" (Fox News).

It infuriates me to no end to see Rudy standing on that stage, using the murders of 2,973+, and the propaganda about those attacks, to get the Fox News zombies in the audience to applaud.

If I were Ron Paul, I would have said, "Rudy, if you want to talk about 9/11, that's fine by me. Let's talk about how the largest Firefighter Union in the country recently released a statement condemning your run for the Presidency because of how callously you treated their brothers after 9/11..."

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up


I was PRAYING someone would have brought that up to stick it to that disgusting Rudy.
To see him use the Fort Dix hoax as evidence of American-soil terrorism and to constantly say things like "I KNOW Terror....personally"..... I wanted to spit like a llama.

Yes, it is very disturbing

Yes, it is very disturbing to hear those with their heads in the sand to applaud that Evil Bastard. They can't and won't see that they are being used. He makes me sick. I am also dissapointed in any official from NY that doesn't stand up for 911 truth like Bloomberg or Clinton. What are they waiting for???? Don't they love their city and the people that live and die there???? They are all guilty of cover-up for not speaking out about what they HAVE to know about by now. How can they sit in silence about this issue when they work for that city everyday? It is sad and simple sick and evil to be idle on this.

Clinton???? HA!!!

Tonya, with all due respect, I think you need to do more research. The Clintons have the same agenda as the Bushes. Learn about our govenment and history on issues other than 9/11. Seeing the big pictre will help you understand what the game really is.

I was almost sick to my stomach to hear Ghouliani's comments. Such smug grandstanding. He's a worm, and he'll face the consequences.

We need to get behind Ron with even more force now. He will bring real issues into the public eye with him. It is in our interest to keep him in the race as long as possible.

"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine


I have little doubt that that audience was hand selected much like most of Bush's appearances.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

Will Ron Paul endorse 9/11

Will Ron Paul endorse 9/11 truth?

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Ron Paul will NOT get close to winning and has NO chance

The time for doublespeak and evasiveness is far past gone in the U.S.

It is NOT about blowback. It is about a carefully constructed, deliberate Psy Op orchestrated among criminals of the world - INCLUDING murders in the U.S. government, military, and intelligence infrastructure.

And this criminal facet of the public infrastructure KNOWS we KNOW.

Why else are they threatening that it is only a matter of time when a nuclear bomb will be exploded in a U.S. city - particularly Washington or New York.

"Honorable" FBI Director Robert Mueller is warning us...

Don't kid yourself. The U.S.A. Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, and all the camps being set up across America are for A REASON.

You WILL shut your mouth if pandemonium breaks out because of another staged event. And, who knows, your friends might start turning you in to the Department of Homeland Security too in all the terror the masses will psychologically experience.

Obviously, according to the Washington Post, the Bush Administration is getting ready for some kind of showdown...

9/11 Truth is hitting too close to home for the orchestrators. Don't think they are just going to lie around (LIE, they do) and just be run over by a bunch of Winston Smiths who won't keep their mouths shut.

If I were running for

If I were running for President and knew I had no chance, I would definitely come out for 9/11 truth. But I wouldn't call for a new investigation - that is too safe. I would act like a prosecutor and lay out the facts while I was on some sort of live broadcast. But I wouldn't do that unless I was ready to die. ('Early' heart attack, one-car accident, 'suicide,' helicopter crash, plane goes down with 'ice' on the wings.) I'm not ready to be Wellstoned yet -- my kids are too young! In the abstract, I'd be ready to die or be put in a camp if I thought my deeds could make a real difference. But when push comes to shove, that's a tough thing to think about doing or ask someone else to do. And I am, after all is said and done, a coward.

Ron Paul must think he has a chance. It's encouraging that he is against the tax system and the federal reserve monetary scam. That is pretty fucking brave of him right there. (Being anti-choice is a mistake, however; outlawing abortion just makes infanticide more likely, along with incompetent attempts at abortion. Compelling women to bear and/or rear unwanted children is a non-starter. Only a man would think that being anti-choice is a moral position to hold.)

Back to the point: The poor guy doesn't want to die. Can you blame him? Most of us don't even sign our real names here.

E Vero

I don't understand the "he

I don't understand the "he doesn't wanna die" rhetoric. If he didn't wanna die then why would he put up ANY kind of fight at all? Does he really think that making small waves is "better than nothing". If so, then what's the point in making small waves that'll just settle back down again without having attained the desired results?
If somebody is going to run for president who claims to be socially progressive, it really is "all or nothing". If he's concerned about his physical safety, he shouldn't be running for public office. Let's be reasonable here. The fact is, if true change is to happen, the waves have to be huge and sustained. Small waves will only make the opposition laugh their victory laugh.
After watching last night's "debate", it's apparent to me that Ron Paul is a nice story-teller type of fatherly figure, but he came off as very weak and impotent.

if you don't want to die

in another false flag attack or worse, you had better start speaking out for the truth, period.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Ron Paul is never going to

Ron Paul is never going to get close to the presidency. He's already been anoited the "quixotic candidate", a "second tier" figure, comic relief to many head shakers.

Were we really looking for Paul to step up - at the Republican Presidential Debate in South Carolina - and speak some 9-11 Truth??

Did you hear the raucous applause Rudy and Tancredo got for their no holds barred, torture ain't enough, "We need a Jack Bauer" answer to homeland security?

What were we expecting here?


moments like those make me wonder why i even CARE about the average American and their freedoms.

The notion of an audience salivating over discussions of a robust torture policy is something right out of "1984."

do you people really think

that the audience at any debate, especially a fox debate, is a true random representation of the common american public?
wake up

Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

Fake audience.

Wise up. A carefully selected TV studio audience of a couple hundred sociopaths, V.S. landslide victories in EVERY online poll, with tens or hundreds of thousands of voters... He has public support. The media will try to bury him.

"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

Watch His Back

Saw this article after the first debate. Very timely now.


Good article, Tired! -E

Good article?

"The crucial issues in the debate of course were the fact that “front-runner” Mitt Romney is a staunch homosexualist; he did everything he could to advance the cause of sodomy as governor of Taxachusetts."

Yeah, If your a homophobic mongoloid. Don't get me wrong romney's a piece of shit, but c'mon do we really want to trade Fascism for Theocracy?

Two of my sisters are gay

I guess I'm a homosexualist, since I love and support them.

Many strange ideologies cross paths in this blog. I appreciate warriors like Alex Jones, but if I read them too deeply, it all devolves into Satanism and prophecy and apocalypse. Too much for this areligous secularist.

"Too much for this areligous

"Too much for this areligous secularist."

Well, if the occult thing is true...and there's evidence that it is, you can be sure they'd smile at reading that. They WANT it to be "too much" for us.

Leave no stone unturned.

Not too much to handle...

...just too much crap muddying up the waters. I realize occultists exist and that they believe everything in that area. There certainly is evidence of that. I don't believe it's real. I don't believe in a god, a devil, a heaven or a hell. I don't believe in Zeus or Odin. I may be wrong and I accept the consequences. Occultism is a religion like any other.

Take any of those teachings, replace the good and bad figures with Dumbledore and Voldemort, or Gandalf and Sauron, and that's religion to me.

I also don't put too much stock in any one person. Like I said, I like the things Alex Jones says. I met him at the last 9-11 protest at Ground Zero. I don't buy into much of what he puts out there, like the Global Warming hoax, as he calls it.

I don't know what to think

I don't know what to think of Alex Jones. He does so much great work, then says the most ridiculous things. It's like 2 steps forward, 3 steps back with him at times. I just don't get him at all.
In his Bohemian Grove documentary (available on google video I believe) he spends about 20 minutes insulting the Bohemian Grove PROTESTERS!!! I couldn't believe my eyes or ears. And he went on and on about it. And now the global warming stuff. Isn't his timing a little off? (to say the least)

it's pretty clear that religion is bullshit...

...but AJ is right, I think, about the "global warming hoax." He never said that global warming is not occuring--just that there's no evidence to support the idea that such warming is due to human interference.

Here's a video to watch:

You'll be shocked to learn that global warming appears to be due to magnetic activity on the sun. Other planets are warming, too, and they have no humans or animals to cause any problems. Ice core samples show that temperature increases precede carbon dioxide increases by about 800 years -- so the correlation between carbon dioxide increases and a rise global temperature is just that, a correlation. As any intro stat book will tell you, correlation does not mean causation. Most of the global-warming crowd cite data from, at most, the last one hundred years. We aren't even as warm as we were in the middle ages; in the 1970s there was a scare going around about us entering a new ice age!

And, as AJ and others point out, global warming is the perfect globalist cause celebre -- pollution knows no national boundaries, taxes can be levied at will, and heavy regulations are needed to reign in our carbon emisssions! Panic, man! In reality, carbon dioxide is less than one percent of our atmosphere, and human-made carbon emissions are a small fraction of that.

I really HATE that I seem to be agreeing with Georgie Porgie (back when he refused to sign the Kyoto agreement), but there you are.

Here's a good article to read; it mentions what financial stake Al Gore has in us all believing in global warming.

WRH just posted a link to this article, which looks good, too:

I was compiling...

As many photos as I could last night of "elites" giving that devil-horn hand sign. I think if I can find about 10-15 more, it's something worth mentioning. I've got 30 right now, but some are from the same occasion, just different camera angles. The Bush clan does it constantly. Add this to the Skull & Bones memberships and Bohemian Grove... Hitler had occult tendencies, Prescott Bush had ties to Hitler... This should probably be looked into eventually.

I was thinking about this about a month ago. Look at the influence of religion in the world. Look how widespread christianity is. Look at the positions of power that chrisians hold. Look at the influence of the Vatican. Now, if there are several billion people on earth who believe in god, and many of them are in very powerful and influential positions, where are all the satanists? Do we really believe that with 6 billion people on earth, the only satanists are some isolated teenage head-bangers, who all grow out of it eventually?? There MUST be adult satanists and occultists out there, and some of them MUST attain positions of power. Add to that the fact that "evil" people lust for power more than "good" humble people. And satanists and occultists would obviously have to keep their activities hidden.

"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist."

Personally, I'm not a "believer" but I know there are "believers" and "heretics" out there. Satanic beliefs would explain much of our foreign policy! I don't think this has to become some kind of holy war or witch-hunt (literal witch-hunt) though. I think we can strip these scum of power through purely conventional, secular means.
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

That 'devil-horn' sign

I've seen that explained (credibly or not) as a gesture used by fans of the University of Texas Longhorns football team, who play in Austin, where W used to be governor. 'Hook 'em horns!' is their battlecry.

For whatever that's worth....

I know.

I read a Wiki article about it. It aparently has some other meanin in Italy too. We'll see. If I can find enough photos of "elites" doing it in inappropriate settings... then there might be something to it. It's not a terribly common gesture (outside of heavy-metal concerts), and it isn't a natural hand position. It doesn't happen "by accident" in other words.

"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

for what it's worth

In Italy means "your spouse has been unfaithful," or even more insulting, "you have been cuckholded."

I would go with the UT-fan interpretation -- big TX connection afterall for hte Bushes after all. But, in Texas, UT-Austin is considered a liberal bastion. So Bush is unlikely to be a fan.

So neither explanation makes sense.

UT, wife is a whore, you have been cuckholed...

None make sense in many of the photos I found. I've got Prince Abdullah doing it in a photo with Putin, I've got Ahmedinejad (sp?) doing it in front of a crowd... What can it mean in Iran?? Bush doing it in a photo with the Queen.

Look at this site:

I've collected at least that many, only with all the rock-stars and other celebs weeded out.

Thaksin Shinawatra of Thailand!?!?! I don't know if we can count that, his thumb is out... I was doing some reading on him about 3 years ago, and apparently he has been jailing or executing drug abusers and petty criminals... Sounds pretty satanic to me!!
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

What the hell is this!?!?!?

Uhhh... King Serpent devouring a human?!?!


"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

Hi Consciousness, I looked

Hi Consciousness,
I looked at your pictures. It is very strange indeed. I agree that neither the UT nor infidelity explanation could work. But let's suppose they are devil worshippers. First, such worship would not mitigate or exascerbate their guilt for any crimes committed. (I don't believe in hate-crimes legislation.) Second, I find devil-worship no more or less irrational or bizarre than worshipping Jesus or God. It's merely an extra layer of absurdity.

From a psychological standpoint, I think that there is some research on devil worship, at least in the case of child molesters. Committing crimes under the guise of devil worship appears to fucntion as a convenient way for people to avoid owning up to having unsavory desires. They may even believe that they are worshipping the devil when they carry out these sordid crimes. Lots of these people who diddle little kids (GB Sr, priests, etc) are so incapable of owning their own feelings that by definition they feel that it is a force outside themselves (which is called the devil if they are of the Christian mindset) that leads them astray.

It's something to keep an eye though -- because most Americans are Christian and would be horrified if they thought that these people were in fact engaging in "idolatry."

okay, you're right

about the "homosexualist" stuff - that was bizarre, to be sure. I am definitely not homophobic. THere's plenty of research, in fact, that people (men at least) who are homophobic are unconsciously gay - that's if you measure penile arousal in response to viewing homeoerotic pictures.

I totally disregarded that stuff. I also have to, when reading AJ, disregard all the christian mumbo-jumbo. Relatively few people share all the right views on all the issues.


I've nearly came to blows w/ rednecks & idiots on this topic.

Simply for stating the fact that if they think homosexuality is a choice then they must be resigned to the fact that they could wake up tomorrow & want to suck another guy's c**k. LOL, they don't like that too much.

Need positive comments and

Need positive comments and votes here if you have a few moments:

just did.. please go help

just did.. please go help out!

Police State USA...

By Ron Paul
August 10th, 2004


Last week’s announcement that the terrorist threat warning level has been raised in parts of New York, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C. has led to dramatic and unprecedented restrictions on the movements of citizens. Americans wishing to visit the U.S. Capitol must, for example, pass through several checkpoints and submit to police inspection of their cars and persons.

Many Americans support the new security measures because they claim to feel safer when the government issues terror alerts and fills the streets with militarized police forces. As one tourist interviewed this week said, “It makes me feel comfortable to know that everything is being checked.” It is ironic that tourists coming to Washington to celebrate the freedoms embodied in the Declaration of Independence are so eager to give up those freedoms with no questions asked.

Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. This doesn’t stop governments, including our own, from seeking more control over and intrusion into our lives. As one Member of Congress stated to the press last week, “people who don’t want to be searched don’t need to come on Capitol grounds.” What an insult! The Capitol belongs to the American people who pay for it, not to Congress or the police.

It is worth noting that the government rushes first to protect itself, devoting enormous resources to make places like the Capitol grounds safe, while just beyond lies one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the nation. What makes Congress more worthy of protection from terrorists than ordinary citizens?

To understand the nature of our domestic response to the September 11th, 2001 attacks, we must understand the nature of government. Government naturally expands, and any crises- whether real or manufactured- serve to justify more and more government power over our lives. Bureaucrats have used the tragedy of 9-11 as an excuse to seize police powers sought for decades, such as warrantless searches, internet monitoring, and access to bank records. It should be no surprise that the recently released report of the 9-11 Commission has but one central recommendation: bigger government and more spending at home and abroad.

Every new security measure represents another failure of the once-courageous American spirit. The more we change our lives, the more we obsess about terrorism, the more the terrorists have won. As commentator Lew Rockwell of the Ludwig von Mises Institute explains, terrorists in effect have been elevated by our response to 9-11: “They are running the country. They determine our civic life. They shape our private life. They decide how public resources are spent. They may dictate who gets to be the next president. It should be obvious that the government doesn’t object. Not at all. The government benefits, by getting ever more reason for ever more money and power.”

Every generation must resist the temptation to believe that it lives in the most dangerous time in American history. The threat of Islamic terrorism is real, but it is not the greatest danger ever faced by our nation. This is not to dismiss the threat of terrorism, but rather to put it in perspective. Those who seek to whip the nation into a frenzy of fear do a disservice to a country that expelled the British, fought two world wars, and stared down the Soviet empire.

Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.

I think it's possible Dr. Paul is being what he considers to be, and what may very well be, smart. He doesn't want the "Conspiracy Theorist" label. I wonder how many Americans looked up Iran and 1953 last night.

I just sent him this letter...

Dear Dr. Paul,

First, let me congratulate you on your magnificent performances in the last two debates, in spite of the fact that they were rigged against you. On August 10th, 2004, you wrote an article entitled, "Police State USA", and in it was the following paragraph:

"To understand the nature of our domestic response to the September 11th, 2001 attacks, we must understand the nature of government. Government naturally expands, and any crises- whether real or manufactured- serve to justify more and more government power over our lives. Bureaucrats have used the tragedy of 9-11 as an excuse to seize police powers sought for decades, such as warrantless searches, internet monitoring, and access to bank records. It should be no surprise that the recently released report of the 9-11 Commission has but one central recommendation: bigger government and more spending at home and abroad."

I need to know from you Dr. Paul whether or not you support the efforts of the 9/11 Truth Movement. As of right now, the 9/11 Truth Movement is your biggest supporter. I don't care if you think 9/11 was an "inside job", but I do care if you want absolute truth, absolute accountability, and absolute justice for the crimes of 9/11. The families of the fallen, the sick and dying 9/11 first responders and NYC residents, not to mention this country and the world, need this.

Please tell me you support our efforts, and that if elected, you will do the right thing, and re-open an investigation. It's what the majority of the families want, and it's what the majority of the people of America want as well.

I have followed your efforts for a long time, and you have always come across as honorable, and trustworthy. Please remain true to yourself.

Sincerest Regards,

Jon Gold

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

the blowback theory is very

the blowback theory is very legit when it comes to many forms of terrorism. 9/11 is clearly not one of those cases. your better than most Ron Paul but you are clearly still a politician. what a dissapointment. though im not surprised at all.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

"The threat of Islamic terrorism is real"

Not exactly real, Mr. Paul. The threat of faked Islamic terror is real, and if you can't admit that then you have no business seeking my support.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


eck, i know. its pathetic.

eck, i know. its pathetic. its almost as if they feel an obligation to make that disclaimer whenever they say anything even mildly critical of the "war on terror" or its origins. Paul has my tepid support, hes better than any of the other goons that are running. though of course thats not saying much.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Have you considered

that with the way the media has played this thing and with the - actual war- that is going on that we might see a case or two of actual terrorism that isn't wholly instigated by the NWO world controllers? Do you honestly believe that they control everything to that extent? Do you believe that we are working in vain here? I think that there definitely is the possibility now (a much, much greater possibility now - thank you very much Mr. W) for an actual act of terrorism. I think that the odds are still not that great at all, but it's a cultural mainstay in many parts of the world. Try taking a vacation to the lovely Chiapas mountains just a few short miles south of us if you don't believe me.

That being the case I have to also believe that there could be (gasp for air on this one kiddos) - something GOOD happen - that wasn't planned by the NWO world controllers either. Think about it. If all the vote fraud activists keep it up, and we get some reasonably accurate results, there is no reason whatsoever that Ron Paul couldn't win the GOP nomination and then the whole damn thing next year. Vote fraud's already got mainstream traction, and there has been some pretty good news coming out of their camp lately. If Dr. Paul earns the GOP nomination at the ballot boxes, what's the GOP gonna do? Tell America that it no longer believes in the democratic process? Tell America that he's not rich enough to lead us? Come on, if you can't see the possibility of something good coming out of everything that so many people are getting involved with, then why are you a part of it? There's a million different ways that things could go our way. Let's look at the possibilities for real change here.

not mutually exclusive

blow-back and a govt. conspiracy are not mutually exclusive concepts.

I believe the hijackers were genuine in their attack, I just think they didn't realize it served a larger ulterior purpose and that shadowy elements w/in the U.S. intelligence community were involved (while Israeli Intel watched--at least).

explaining to the American public in one minute what blow-back means is a lot easier than laying out the evidence indicating govt. (or quasi-institutional U.S.) complicity/conspiracy in the 9/11 attacks.


More than a little disappointed that Ron Paul supports the blowback theory.

"I will not withdraw from this war even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me." -George W. Bush

I'm not disappointed because

I'm not disappointed because I'm not surprised.

disappointed too

Yeah I'm with you Abby totally, he should have called for a new inquiry into 9/11 and said that he didn't support the findings of the 9/11 Commission. It's disappointing.

None of the candidates except Dennis Kucinich have even questioned 9/11, BUT even Dennis Kucinich isn't a 9/11 truther. None of them are.

At the end of the day it will be Billary vs 'GHOUL'liani

From a drop of water, a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagra without having seen or heard of one or the other. So it is that my name is Sherlock Holmes, it is my business to know what other people don't know

nope, ghouliani will not get the nod

Romney will. And he could beat Billary.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Shillary attended Bilderberg in 2006.

To my knowledge Romney has never attended. My money is safely on 'kinder, gentler fascism'. I'll vote for what good it will do. I just wish, if I'm going to waste my vote, there was an 'none of the (Shills) above' choice.

Giuliani, of all poeple,

attacked Ron Paul for this position and demanded he apologise.

Nothing is going to change

Does Ron Paul know 9/11 is an inside job?

Looks like he doesn't know or refuses to see it.

I put my faith in John Conyers for a bit. but after the Democrates got control, nothing has happened to change our situation. Conyers let us down.

Nothing is going to change with Ron Paul. I am getting more depressed.

He had his chance to say something and didn't take it. and it appears in this blog, some are making excuses for him. ack. Ron Paul will let us down too.

Let's find Peace

It's gonna come down to

It's gonna come down to hitting the streets. It seems inevitable.

some of us HAVE been hitting the streets

but apparently not enough... still I had a great conversation with a guy outswide of starbucks yesterday who was just learning about stuff, and this morning as I got ion the city bus the driver said he liked my sign (9/11 Truth Now) Less than a year ago another driver tried to kick me off his bus for having another truth sign. We're making progress--in fact we can't be stopped if we perservere. Ron Paul won't do it for you--you gotta do it yourself. That goes for all of us.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force



totally agree.

For what it's worth...

"Does Ron Paul know 9/11 is an inside job?"

Today Alex Jones was asked the same kind of question, except that the person asking wanted Ron Paul to be up front about being a truther. Alex said that Ron Paul is a truther. However, he doesn't feel that is appropriate to come out about that now, or some such. I haven't downloaded the mp3 yet so, I can't get his exact words until then.

Personally, I wish that Ron Paul would come out if indeed he does reject the OTC. However, it is evident that the MSM and the other candidates will use that against him and go into a viscious frothing and foaming attack mode the likes of which we have probably never seen. They are scared to death and you can see it in their eyes and hear it in their words. Perhaps more Americans can see this, too. As much as Ghouliani has played his 9/11 cards, it certainly hasn't been effective in destroying his competitors. I can't help but see Nosferatu everytime is see that slimy little cretin. I don't doubt that he gives manypeople the creeps. So, maybe Ron Paul is doing like Muihammed Ali? Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

It appears to me that Ghouliani and MacCaine are tanking much more quickly than I would have ever hoped possible. Maybe it's best lhat these two blood-sucking war-mongers be left in the dust first before Ron Paul publicly advocates or promises a new investigation upon election. I don't see how ROMknee or any other candidate could successfully wave the bloody shirt any more effectively than Ghouliani hasn't already. Besides, the Truth Movement is doing very well in opening the eyes of the American people. We are all impatient. But this is politics.

9/11 Truth will ultimately win out. Of that, there is no doubt in my mind. 9/11 Truth will ultimately favor Ron Paul because of his stance against just about everything that has been put in place based upon the lie(s); pre-emptive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, positioning against Iran, PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions Act, etc. Whether Ron Paul gets the credit he deserves now by winning the nomination or when later history books are written still remans to be seen. Regardless, I feel that in the long run, 9/11 Truth stands the best chance of seeing the full and unfiltered light of day with Ron Paul in the White House than with any other candidate from any other party or political affiliation. And that is only one of the many reasons why I support Ron Paul for president in 2008.

"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~~ Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Director Building and Fire Research Laboratory (NIST)


"Read Only Memory"? He is pretty f***ing robotic, isn't he? He'd be just as bad as McCain or... Well, maybe not as bad as Ghouliani. Romney is 100% puppet. He'll have David Rockefeller's hand so far up his ass, you won't be able to tell where Daddy War-Bucks ends and Howdy Doody begins. Romney will be essentially the same as Rudy or McCain or Billary.

"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine


Any mention of anything other than the MSM version

by a real candidate is a step forward for 9/11 Truth and mainstream politics. It's taken me more than five years of reading and researching all the different "reality" or "truth" issues like 9/11 Truth to get to a point where I feel like I have a good idea of how things actually happen and of the hidden history that you'll never learn in school. Mainstream Americans haven't bothered taking action on those issues yet, but we're getting it started. Most Americans have a genuine distrust of Big Brother and corporations. However, to expect that one candidate could shove a 9/11 Truth red pill down the throats of enough Americans to wake them all up single-handedly is wholly unrealistic; and to think that a viable candidate would willingly paint himself a conspiracy theorist is stupid. Any viable candidate is not going to openly support 9/11 Truth until the movement is bigger. We have to talk to enough people ourselves to grow the movement so that the movement can get there, and it's happening. 9/11 Truth is one very important aspect of a larger anti-oppression movement that Ron Paul definitely supports and always has.

We've got LCFC coming out in a few months, and, like it or not, that's going to bring a lot of publicity to the movement. Once the floodgates have opened, candidates will be much more willing to approach the subject. It'll be a fiery, fiery issue for a long time. Giving up now without trying, gets us nowhere. I don't want to see anyone else killed over this, let alone Ron Paul, but it might come to that. The civil rights movement didn't exactly miraculously appear from out of nowhere overnight. The women's rights and labor movements didn't just all of a sudden happen without years of hard work being put into them. When 9/11 Truth gets that big, it's not going to have happened because we gave up and used defeatist attitudes the whole time. I don't trust a damn thing that has to do with the super-rich elite, but I still get my driver's license renewed every few years. I still use the same bank that thousands of other people use. I still pay my Internet bill without getting crazy about supporting the communications industry that has spread all the lies about 9/11.

As we transition this issue with word-of-mouth, letters to the editor, etc., other issues will come into play. People will slowly open themselves to the idea that "Hey, maybe if we hadn't of fucked with everybody for the past 60 years and co-opted the entire oil industry, well, maybe those guys wouldn't hate us so much? Maybe if we were a little more peaceful ourselves, we wouldn't be facing so much anti-Americanism?" Once that perspective is understood, the underlying psychological aspect that our government and leaders aren't really the infallible bastions of righteousness that they're portrayed to be sinks in on a level deeper than "they're probably a little bit corrupt" or "they probably did some unspeakable things to keep us safe - that's what the secrets are" or "that Bill Clinton sure is a BJ-getting slickster." That's when the larger issues surrounding the money come into play. That's when people start to get to the point of being able to believe that there really were a number of people from within the government that did play a role in making 9/11 happen. That's when the big picture becomes a possibility. That's why blow-back is a step forward from the status quo. That's why we look so crazy to so many Americans still - they literally don't have the capacity to believe a lot of this. That's why we've got to take what comes our way and make the best of it, and not get too disappointed when viable progressives don't push the full-on agenda that they might otherwise push. We'll get to the full-on 9/11 Truth agenda as a movement, but that's why it's not at all in our best interest to ignore or bash people who can help us get there.

Ron Paul has what it takes to serve in Washington - he's done it for 27 years of his life. His track record is unlike that of any other politician out there. He's got support from a very diverse group of people, many of whom are starting to seep 9/11 Truth into the public debate. He is a veteran of winning elections with outsider viewpoints. He knows how much he can get away with saying outright. Just because he isn't screaming about 9/11 Truth every chance he gets doesn't mean we should turn our backs on him. We're not going to get there without help, and we're not going to get there without transitioning to at least a basic level of mainstream credibility.

"Most Americans have a

"Most Americans have a genuine distrust of Big Brother and corporations."

I'm sorry, but this just isn't the case. "Most Americans" have become so dumbed down in the last decade that they in fact EMBRACE corporations. We're in big trouble it seems.

that's one side of the coin

"Most Americans have become so dumbed down in the last decade that they in fact EMBRACE corporations." Most of these same Americans will also tell you about how dirty politics is; how greedy and wrong the rich and powerful are; constantly bitch about some payment they get screwed over on, some company procedure, or some governmental BS of some sort; use phrases like "don't let the man get you down!"; or otherwise show some level of latent, inherent distrust of the system. What we're facing is more of an apathy due to a lack of widely supported alternatives. Most of the people that I've met are so apathetic because they:

1)have recognized the inherent failures to some extent
2)feel completely powerless to do anything about it
3)don't even know where to start if they did get involved
4)haven't yet had a direct personal experience of being severely wronged by the system
5)have families, friends, or jobs that provide them the impetus to -not- follow the rabbit down the rabbit hole
6)are comfortable enough where they are that they don't want to rock their own boats

Most agree that they'd like for the world to be a better place, but it's hard to motivate people to challenge their entire world view so drastically and put forth such a self-guided effort. And let's face it, we ourselves all embrace corporations to some extent - I doubt your computer was hand-made or manufactured by a small local company! And yes, we are in big trouble, but it also seems like the masses have been in big trouble for the past few thousand years.

I agree, Dr. J

...with your point of view. It's too much for most people to jump right into MIHOP. Maybe it would be helpful if people could think back to the time when the veil was lifted and they became 9/11 truthers. Did you have a conversation with someone? Were you just watching the video footage of the towers falling? Did you happen across a 9/11 documentary?

I'm doing research trying to figure out the best way to reach people by using the social psychology research on persuasion, conformity, denial, and the personality research on characteristics that might predispose one to be more amenable to alternative viewpoints. This 9/11 issue is like a giant gestalt problem -- like an optical illusion. You see things only one way until one day you see the other side; then, nothing is ever the same, you can't go back to your old way of seeing the world.

Intelligence definitely has nothing to do with it, because I see lots of smart colleagues who appear totally brainwashed; their reactions to my broaching the subject made me aware of how unprepared they are to see the truth. It is much like that "matrix" film of a few years back. Astonishing how blind people can be, and how defensive when confronted with alternate viewpoints. I've had students say to me, "but I just don't want it to be true that the gov't was in on 9/11 so therefore I cannot listen to any evidence supporting that idea." Amazing!

The same is true for global warming, HIV-AIDS, and a host of other issues. I guess people want to believe their their gov't is benign, is looking out for their best interests, etc., like a good parent. Someone said in an earlier posting on this website that they'd met an Italian person who was totally on board with the 9/11 truth movement, and also could discuss with ease multiple other false-flag terrorism incidents. But when it came to discussing the Red Brigade, they were completely defensive and insistent that the RB attacks could _not_ have been staged.

False patriotism -- my government, right or wrong -- is what we're dealing with.

Sorry for blathering on. I remain yours in spirit, if not yet in body,
E Vero

Hey, E Vero

I read your profile, specifically the part about not knowing where to look. I recommend starting with some of the documentaries at Check out the ones that aren't directly about 9/11 to get a bigger picture. Any of the major 9/11 books listed on the 9/11 sites are good. I got started with books: 'No Logo' by Naomi Klein, 'A People's History of the United States 1492 - Present' by Howard Zinn, the first couple of Disinfo books: 'Everything You Know Is Wrong' and 'You Are Being Lied To' by Russ Kick, and went from there. Just surfing the net can be extremely useful too. You never know what you'll come across. Check out some of the links on the left panel - they're pretty good.

Thanks, Dr J. I am learning

Thanks, Dr J. I am learning a lot on this site -- between you, Kate, Lazio, Lukery, and Student, I've learned a lot.

I'll check out the books you suggest, too. I started the Zinn book - must confess, it was so painful to read what Columbus did to the Native Americans. I couldn't keep reading. But I must. I assume that he goes through all the false-flag stuff, right? And I heard that he's a truther, too. An added bonus. I love the title, "everything you know is wrong, " because that's how I feel nowadays. There are no anchors. Nothing feels real. Elections faked, torture is okay now, bill of rights gutted, we're invading countries left and right. Fucking nightmare. I want to get out but cannot I just want my country back. Why should I leave?

The podcasts site was good, too. I couldn't watch the Jon Gold documentaries for some reason (related to quicktime) but I loved the idea of goign door to door and taping ordinary people's responses. Someone said earlier on this blog that they didn't feel like most Americans deserve their rights (or something like that). I feel that way, too, sometimes. Reading the NYTimes comments on the Rosie article was a reminder of how willfully deluded people are. There is this (admittedly funny but also sad) video from NZ I think called "chaser's war on everything" -- many episodes, in one they interview Americans. Hilarious and sad -- makes me understand why GWB even has 24% approval.

E Vero

It gets scary

when you start seeing that things you once only thought might be happening are just the tip of the iceberg. The other day I told someone with just a touch of sarcasm "1984 was soooo 23 years ago - we're way past that now!" Some of my friends think I'm a bit nutty with my opinions. Some know all about all the same sorts of things. The secret is to keep going. Don't get too bothered by it. Things were probably just as bad for the common Romans, the feudal serfs and commoners throughout the middle ages, and under any number of corrupt regimes throughout history, but we're all still here living our lives. Don't lose your mind over these things. Just walk away for a couple of weeks or do whatever you gotta do to maintain your sanity and enjoyment of life.

I looked up the whole gestalt thing - very interesting. Sounds a little like eastern enlightenment, but western. I agree that the whole world view transition would be very fitting for looking at from a gestalt perspective. I'm fond of the 'Bodhicharyavatara' myself.

I went through the same thing with the Zinn book. He covers a ton of material that you never learned in school, and it doesn't get any easier to read. He touches on most of the false-flag stuff America did, and a whole lot more.

it is scary

...things you thought you'd never see here. Never again see anywhere. Humans are capable of great destructiveness. It's sad that science, once a tool of enlightenment, is now regularly used against enlightenment ideals.

Once in a while I'll see a funny film that distracts me from all this shit. It's weird nowadays to just feel happy, but then I remember what's happening around me, and I sink back into the abyss. It is a recognizable grief response. LIke after someone you love dies; you can temporarily forget about it while you sleep, perhaps even dreaming of the person. Upon awakening, however, the realization returns to envelope you in the loss all over again.

Remember Edna, who waved from the gash in one of the towers? I dwell on her sometimes; I can not quite imagine what she must have gone through. This makes me think that a fair trial and lifetime imprisonment is far, far too good for these people.

Hannity Abuses Ron Paul

Listen as Sean "Neocon" Hannity tries to back Ron Paul into a corner. Hannity has no clue about his "party", and it's obvious here with this attack.


Is that man allowed on television? And it is OBVIOUS that Hannity is trying to paint him as a "Conspiracy Theorist." So obvious in fact, that I don't think Ron Paul is going to give them what they want. Which is why he's being cautious.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up


Dr. Ron knows exactly what he is doing.



"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~~ Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Director Building and Fire Research Laboratory (NIST)

Malkin and Gibson connect Paul to truth movement

If this video has been place previously, my apologies.

Paul didn't HAVE to come out for 9/11 truth. The neo-cons are doing their level-best to do it anyhow.

Here's neo-con Malkin on Fox's John Gibson show trying to connect Ron Paul to truth movement:

Scroll down and click the video

They can't explain the Mineta Testimony:

Davin Coburn of Popular Mechanics takes beating from Charles Goyette:

Ron Paul on Wolf Bltizer

FYI: I think I just heard Wolf say that Ron Paul will be on in the next hour.

Here it high quality

Wolf Blitzer from CNN interviews Ron Paul day after debate:

When this page first loads, you'll see that it says "download" in the upper left. You'll have to click to open or save and then wait until it's done.

Here's the youtube version:

They can't explain the Mineta Testimony:

Davin Coburn of Popular Mechanics takes beating from Charles Goyette:

Be sure to Google Ron Paul every day

To see how this search giant is painting the American mind.

Look at the biased news front.

Michigan leader of the GOP asks for Paul to be banned from future debates?..... somebody's scaaaarrrred.......... BOO!
Together in Truth!

Perfect example of how the media works

Check these stories..... all in different publications. Sometimes they don't even change the title.
Another peak at the AP.

Do we have indpendent thought and reporting anymore?
Together in Truth!

Ron Paul is being censored

Ron Paul is being censored by Zogby. He is not on the poll for the 2nd debate. Scroll down.

This is the same Zogby that held a poll on 911 correct?

Reading this thread alone

Reading this thread alone makes it obvious why nobody can ever endorse the truth movement. Have you folks lost all touch with reality?

Ron Paul is the last chance before armed rebellion, escape or slavery. Look at the big picture. Will you be crying 'inside job' when you're herded into a fucking fema cattle-car? How could this even be an issue? WHAT OTHER CANDIDATE can you possibly be thinking about? And if the answer is none than you should be fleeing right now because it's too late.

If you had only policed yourselves better and kept the crazy to a minumum (as I implored before) then we would be a political force. As it stands, this movement is thoroughly infiltrated and nothing but a political liability.

If you want to go that route fine, but stop talking shit and arm yourself then because that's the only option left.

IF you guys ever came up for air you'd notice that the Truth Movement has taken a monster hit in credibility in the last few months. It's your own fault, for allowing the craziest of shit to blossom among you. Where do you think that comes from? It's fucking planted!

And finally, the reason I came here... you've got Phil Jayhan aka POD MAN running around both demanding Ron Paul declare for his personal pet 9t11 theory AND elsewhere declaring him a crazy conspiracy theorist.

What the fuck? Get your house in order before you start making demands on others. The so called 'Truth Movement' lately has done a whole hell of a lot to push me towards being a debunker.

well stated

I'd love to be a part of something more than a bunch of blogs and referring people to videos with an annoying soundtrack and lack of professionalism. The blogs get worse. Reality. Reality. Reality. You just can't shove these things down people's throats and expect them to immediately turn an about-face because of something a bunch of whining paranoid Internet bloggers are saying. 9/11 Truth has the capacity to be a major movement if the players would put some time into being a little more professional about it. It sounds like the personalities of the pushers of 9/11 Trutth are turning more people off than the Truth itself. If things don't come around soon, I'll probably have a new name and a residence in Canada, or a FEMA camp, or a closet full of shotguns aimed at the 300 Chinese men in my backyard.

I really enjoy reading your posts Doc.

Forget about Canada, my friend. Haven't you heard? NORTH AMERICAN UNION. Supposedly their founding documents are being torched too. I'm Canadian, and I'm heading home in a few days. I told myself about 2 years ago that if the U.S. invaded Iran, I was out of here. That time was drawing near so I was gearing up to leave, then I came across Steven E. Jones and thermite. Obviously this was the nail in the coffin. But as I searched deeper, I discovered that my country is being sucked into this black-hole as well.
(Be careful reading this. It is highly propagandistic and cannot be taken at face value. Watch out for unfounded assertions and doublespeak/newspeak.)

"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

Thanks for the compliment

It feels good to be appreciated. Yeah, I've read a little about the NAU off of prison planet and WRH. Doesn't surprise me at all. I don't have time to watch that video right now, but I will within the next couple of days. I saw a sci-fi show a couple of years ago where popular human culture had degraded to the point where people were all so repressed and completely uptight from being a part of an absolute totalitarian society that everyone was sterile. The self-repression caused it. The government, media, and all business had been formally merged with absolute martial law at all times - worse than in V for Vendetta. There was a small group of people that had escaped by relating humanely to others and using the most basic common sense. Within a few weeks everyone who escaped was fully potent and healthy again. They formed a spy network and helped the two or three women a year who still got pregnant to escape to their peaceful community where they were all waiting to outlive the 'system'. I wanna go live with them!

I've seriously considered moving many places, but haven't found anywhere better than where I'm at here in America. Isn't it sad? Third-world countries will eventually get much worse than they already are, and first-world countries are all being systematically merged. I figure my best bet is to find a few people to live with that aren't stupid and know what's going on, and then generally keep to ourselves. I figure a small rural community would be the best bet, somewhere where the people still do real things like garden or farm, and visit with neighbors. A friend told me the other day that her eight-year-old had visited a neighbor's house and got beat up by the twelve-year-old that invited him, who then offered him drugs! What the fuck?!?

I constantly struggle with wanting to become totally revolutionary, and knowing that peace is the ultimate goal. I believe out of necessity that all is not lost and that things can and will change. I just don't believe that things can get much worse before common everyday citizens just start killing cops and politicians. America's the most violent nation in the world. The majority of the people really aren't as stupid as they put on a lot of times, they just haven't been pushed completely over the edge yet. If the NWO elites do pull off another major staged false-flag attack, there's not going to be anything they can do when average American citizens take to the streets with shotguns. It's creepy the way all the big republicans talk about it too. They're always saying "there IS going to be another attack" and then add something about especially if you elect a terrorist-loving democrat! Rudy G. said it confidently with a sly smile during the last debate - made me sick.

I'm rambling, and tired. More fun later...

no organization

The lack of a coherent voice is the result of having no leaders and no structure. This is a public blog site so it is expected to have a diversity of views - including those of infiltrators.

The movement itself ought to have a way to distill information, to state official positions, whether as a result of moderated concensus of all or on the decisions of a designated leader.

Support a Congressional Investigation of 9-11


Neo – CONNED ! Ron Paul July 10,2003


July 10, 2003

Neo – CONNED !

The modern-day limited-government movement has been co-opted. The conservatives have failed in their effort to shrink the size of government. There has not been, nor will there soon be, a conservative revolution in Washington. Party control of the federal government has changed, but the inexorable growth in the size and scope of government has continued unabated. The liberal arguments for limited government in personal affairs and foreign military adventurism were never seriously considered as part of this revolution.

Since the change of the political party in charge has not made a difference, who’s really in charge? If the particular party in power makes little difference, whose policy is it that permits expanded government programs, increased spending, huge deficits, nation building and the pervasive invasion of our privacy, with fewer Fourth Amendment protections than ever before?

Someone is responsible, and it’s important that those of us who love liberty, and resent big-brother government, identify the philosophic supporters who have the most to say about the direction our country is going. If they’re wrong—and I believe they are—we need to show it, alert the American people, and offer a more positive approach to government. However, this depends on whether the American people desire to live in a free society and reject the dangerous notion that we need a strong central government to take care of us from the cradle to the grave. Do the American people really believe it’s the government’s responsibility to make us morally better and economically equal? Do we have a responsibility to police the world, while imposing our vision of good government on everyone else in the world with some form of utopian nation building? If not, and the contemporary enemies of liberty are exposed and rejected, then it behooves us to present an alternative philosophy that is morally superior and economically sound and provides a guide to world affairs to enhance peace and commerce.

One thing is certain: conservatives who worked and voted for less government in the Reagan years and welcomed the takeover of the U.S. Congress and the presidency in the 1990s and early 2000s were deceived. Soon they will realize that the goal of limited government has been dashed and that their views no longer matter.

The so-called conservative revolution of the past two decades has given us massive growth in government size, spending and regulations. Deficits are exploding and the national debt is now rising at greater than a half-trillion dollars per year. Taxes do not go down—even if we vote to lower them. They can’t, as long as spending is increased, since all spending must be paid for one way or another. Both Presidents Reagan and the elder George Bush raised taxes directly. With this administration, so far, direct taxes have been reduced—and they certainly should have been—but it means little if spending increases and deficits rise.

When taxes are not raised to accommodate higher spending, the bills must be paid by either borrowing or “printing” new money. This is one reason why we conveniently have a generous Federal Reserve chairman who is willing to accommodate the Congress. With borrowing and inflating, the “tax” is delayed and distributed in a way that makes it difficult for those paying the tax to identify it. Like future generations and those on fixed incomes who suffer from rising prices, and those who lose jobs they certainly feel the consequences of economic dislocation that this process causes. Government spending is always a “tax” burden on the American people and is never equally or fairly distributed. The poor and low-middle income workers always suffer the most from the deceitful tax of inflation and borrowing.

Many present-day conservatives, who generally argue for less government and supported the Reagan/Gingrich/Bush takeover of the federal government, are now justifiably disillusioned. Although not a monolithic group, they wanted to shrink the size of government.

Early in our history, the advocates of limited, constitutional government recognized two important principles: the rule of law was crucial, and a constitutional government must derive “just powers from the consent of the governed.” It was understood that an explicit transfer of power to government could only occur with power rightfully and naturally endowed to each individual as a God-given right. Therefore, the powers that could be transferred would be limited to the purpose of protecting liberty. Unfortunately, in the last 100 years, the defense of liberty has been fragmented and shared by various groups, with some protecting civil liberties, others economic freedom, and a small diverse group arguing for a foreign policy of nonintervention.

The philosophy of freedom has had a tough go of it, and it was hoped that the renewed interest in limited government of the past two decades would revive an interest in reconstituting the freedom philosophy into something more consistent. Those who worked for the goal of limited government power believed the rhetoric of politicians who promised smaller government. Sometimes it was just plain sloppy thinking on their part, but at other times, they fell victim to a deliberate distortion of a concise limited-government philosophy by politicians who misled many into believing that we would see a rollback on government intrusiveness.

Yes, there was always a remnant who longed for truly limited government and maintained a belief in the rule of law, combined with a deep conviction that free people and a government bound by a Constitution were the most advantageous form of government. They recognized it as the only practical way for prosperity to be spread to the maximum number of people while promoting peace and security.

That remnant—imperfect as it may have been—was heard from in the elections of 1980 and 1994 and then achieved major victories in 2000 and 2002 when professed limited-government proponents took over the White House, the Senate and the House. However, the true believers in limited government are now shunned and laughed at. At the very least, they are ignored—except when they are used by the new leaders of the right, the new conservatives now in charge of the U.S. government.

The remnant’s instincts were correct, and the politicians placated them with talk of free markets, limited government, and a humble, non-nation-building foreign policy. However, little concern for civil liberties was expressed in this recent quest for less government. Yet, for an ultimate victory of achieving freedom, this must change. Interest in personal privacy and choices has generally remained outside the concern of many conservatives—especially with the great harm done by their support of the drug war. Even though some confusion has emerged over our foreign policy since the breakdown of the Soviet empire, it’s been a net benefit in getting some conservatives back on track with a less militaristic, interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, after 9-ll, the cause of liberty suffered a setback. As a result, millions of Americans voted for the less-than-perfect conservative revolution because they believed in the promises of the politicians.

Now there’s mounting evidence to indicate exactly what happened to the revolution. Government is bigger than ever, and future commitments are overwhelming. Millions will soon become disenchanted with the new status quo delivered to the American people by the advocates of limited government and will find it to be just more of the old status quo. Victories for limited government have turned out to be hollow indeed.

Since the national debt is increasing at a rate greater than a half-trillion dollars per year, the debt limit was recently increased by an astounding $984 billion dollars. Total U.S. government obligations are $43 trillion, while the total net worth of U.S. households is about $40.6 trillion. The country is broke, but no one in Washington seems to notice or care. The philosophic and political commitment for both guns and butter—and especially the expanding American empire—must be challenged. This is crucial for our survival.

In spite of the floundering economy, Congress and the Administration continue to take on new commitments in foreign aid, education, farming, medicine, multiple efforts at nation building, and preemptive wars around the world. Already we’re entrenched in Iraq and Afghanistan, with plans to soon add new trophies to our conquest. War talk abounds as to when Syria, Iran and North Korea will be attacked.

How did all this transpire? Why did the government do it? Why haven’t the people objected? How long will it go on before something is done? Does anyone care?

Will the euphoria of grand military victories—against non-enemies—ever be mellowed? Someday, we as a legislative body must face the reality of the dire situation in which we have allowed ourselves to become enmeshed. Hopefully, it will be soon!

We got here because ideas do have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences, and even the best of intentions have unintended consequences. We need to know exactly what the philosophic ideas were that drove us to this point; then, hopefully, reject them and decide on another set of intellectual parameters.

There is abundant evidence exposing those who drive our foreign policy justifying preemptive war. Those who scheme are proud of the achievements in usurping control over foreign policy. These are the neoconservatives of recent fame. Granted, they are talented and achieved a political victory that all policymakers must admire. But can freedom and the republic survive this takeover? That question should concern us.

Neoconservatives are obviously in positions of influence and are well-placed throughout our government and the media. An apathetic Congress put up little resistance and abdicated its responsibilities over foreign affairs. The electorate was easily influenced to join in the patriotic fervor supporting the military adventurism advocated by the neoconservatives.

The numbers of those who still hope for truly limited government diminished and had their concerns ignored these past 22 months, during the aftermath of 9-11. Members of Congress were easily influenced to publicly support any domestic policy or foreign military adventure that was supposed to help reduce the threat of a terrorist attack. Believers in limited government were harder to find. Political money, as usual, played a role in pressing Congress into supporting almost any proposal suggested by the neocons. This process—where campaign dollars and lobbying efforts affect policy—is hardly the domain of any single political party, and unfortunately, is the way of life in Washington.

There are many reasons why government continues to grow. It would be naïve for anyone to expect otherwise. Since 9-11, protection of privacy, whether medical, personal or financial, has vanished. Free speech and the Fourth Amendment have been under constant attack. Higher welfare expenditures are endorsed by the leadership of both parties. Policing the world and nation-building issues are popular campaign targets, yet they are now standard operating procedures. There’s no sign that these programs will be slowed or reversed until either we are stopped by force overseas (which won’t be soon) or we go broke and can no longer afford these grandiose plans for a world empire (which will probably come sooner than later.)

None of this happened by accident or coincidence. Precise philosophic ideas prompted certain individuals to gain influence to implement these plans. The neoconservatives—a name they gave themselves—diligently worked their way into positions of power and influence. They documented their goals, strategy and moral justification for all they hoped to accomplish. Above all else, they were not and are not conservatives dedicated to limited, constitutional government.

Neo-conservatism has been around for decades and, strangely, has connections to past generations as far back as Machiavelli. Modern-day neo-conservatism was introduced to us in the 1960s. It entails both a detailed strategy as well as a philosophy of government. The ideas of Teddy Roosevelt, and certainly Woodrow Wilson, were quite similar to many of the views of present-day neocons. Neocon spokesman Max Boot brags that what he advocates is “hard Wilsonianism.” In many ways, there’s nothing “neo” about their views, and certainly nothing conservative. Yet they have been able to co-opt the conservative movement by advertising themselves as a new or modern form of conservatism.

More recently, the modern-day neocons have come from the far left, a group historically identified as former Trotskyites. Liberal, Christopher Hitchens, has recently officially joined the neocons, and it has been reported that he has already been to the White House as an ad hoc consultant. Many neocons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. One of Strauss’ books was Thoughts on Machiavelli. This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelli’s philosophy. Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss. Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, and William Kristol. All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsey; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; Dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some varying degree.

The godfather of modern-day neo-conservatism is considered to be Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, who set the stage in 1983 with his publication Reflections of a Neoconservative. In this book, Kristol also defends the traditional liberal position on welfare.

More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:


They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.

They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.

They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.

They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hardball politics is a moral necessity.

They express no opposition to the welfare state.

They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.

They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.

They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.

They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.

They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.

They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.

They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.

Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.

9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.

They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)

They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.

They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

Various organizations and publications over the last 30 years have played a significant role in the rise to power of the neoconservatives. It took plenty of money and commitment to produce the intellectual arguments needed to convince the many participants in the movement of its respectability.

It is no secret—especially after the rash of research and articles written about the neocons since our invasion of Iraq—how they gained influence and what organizations were used to promote their cause. Although for decades, they agitated for their beliefs through publications like The National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Public Interest, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, and the New York Post, their views only gained momentum in the 1990s following the first Persian Gulf War—which still has not ended even with removal of Saddam Hussein. They became convinced that a much more militant approach to resolving all the conflicts in the Middle East was an absolute necessity, and they were determined to implement that policy.

In addition to publications, multiple think tanks and projects were created to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) led the neocon charge, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) another organization helped by the Bradley Foundation. This occurred in 1998 and was chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. They urged early on for war against Iraq, but were disappointed with the Clinton administration, which never followed through with its periodic bombings. Obviously, these bombings were motivated more by Clinton’s personal and political problems than a belief in the neocon agenda.

The election of 2000 changed all that. The Defense Policy Board, chaired by Richard Perle, played no small role in coordinating the various projects and think tanks, all determined to take us into war against Iraq. It wasn’t too long before the dream of empire was brought closer to reality by the election of 2000 with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld playing key roles in this accomplishment. The plan to promote an “American greatness” imperialistic foreign policy was now a distinct possibility. Iraq offered a great opportunity to prove their long-held theories. This opportunity was a consequence of the 9-11 disaster.

The money and views of Rupert Murdoch also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post, and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine. This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. It would have been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powell’s State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdoch empire. Max Boot was satisfied, as he explained: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad.” This attitude is a far cry from the advice of the Founders, who advocated no entangling alliances and neutrality as the proper goal of American foreign policy.

Let there be no doubt, those in the neocon camp had been anxious to go to war against Iraq for a decade. They justified the use of force to accomplish their goals, even if it required preemptive war. If anyone doubts this assertion, they need only to read of their strategy in “A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” Although they felt morally justified in changing the government in Iraq, they knew that public support was important, and justification had to be given to pursue the war. Of course, a threat to us had to exist before the people and the Congress would go along with war. The majority of Americans became convinced of this threat, which, in actuality, never really existed. Now we have the ongoing debate over the location of weapons of mass destruction. Where was the danger? Was all this killing and spending necessary? How long will this nation building and dying go on? When will we become more concerned about the needs of our own citizens than the problems we sought in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who knows where we’ll go next—Iran, Syria or North Korea?

At the end of the Cold War, the neoconservatives realized a rearrangement of the world was occurring and that our superior economic and military power offered them a perfect opportunity to control the process of remaking the Middle East.

It was recognized that a new era was upon us, and the neocons welcomed Frances Fukuyama’s “end of history” declaration. To them, the debate was over. The West won; the Soviets lost. Old-fashioned communism was dead. Long live the new era of neoconservatism. The struggle may not be over, but the West won the intellectual fight, they reasoned. The only problem is that the neocons decided to define the philosophy of the victors. They have been amazingly successful in their efforts to control the debate over what Western values are and by what methods they will be spread throughout the world.

Communism surely lost a lot with the breakup of the Soviet Empire, but this can hardly be declared a victory for American liberty, as the Founders understood it. Neoconservatism is not the philosophy of free markets and a wise foreign policy. Instead, it represents big-government welfare at home and a program of using our military might to spread their version of American values throughout the world. Since neoconservatives dominate the way the U.S. government now operates, it behooves us all to understand their beliefs and goals. The breakup of the Soviet system may well have been an epic event but to say that the views of the neocons are the unchallenged victors and that all we need do is wait for their implementation is a capitulation to controlling the forces of history that many Americans are not yet ready to concede. There is surely no need to do so.

There is now a recognized philosophic connection between modern-day neoconservatives and Irving Kristol, Leo Strauss, and Machiavelli. This is important in understanding that today’s policies and the subsequent problems will be with us for years to come if these policies are not reversed.

Not only did Leo Strauss write favorably of Machiavelli, Michael Ledeen, a current leader of the neoconservative movement, did the same in 1999 in his book with the title, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, and subtitled: Why Machiavelli’s iron rules are as timely and important today as five centuries ago. Ledeen is indeed an influential neocon theorist whose views get lots of attention today in Washington. His book on Machiavelli, interestingly enough, was passed out to Members of Congress attending a political strategy meeting shortly after its publication and at just about the time A Clean Break was issued.

In Ledeen’s most recent publication, The War Against the Terror Masters, he reiterates his beliefs outlined in this 1999 Machaivelli book. He specifically praises: “Creative destruction…both within our own society and abroad…(foreigners) seeing America undo traditional societies may fear us, for they do not wish to be undone.” Amazingly, Ledeen concludes: “They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.”

If those words don’t scare you, nothing will. If they are not a clear warning, I don’t know what could be. It sounds like both sides of each disagreement in the world will be following the principle of preemptive war. The world is certainly a less safe place for it.

In Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, Ledeen praises a business leader for correctly understanding Machiavelli: “There are no absolute solutions. It all depends. What is right and what is wrong depends on what needs to be done and how.” This is a clear endorsement of situational ethics and is not coming from the traditional left. It reminds me of: “It depends on what the definition of the word ‘is’ is.”

Ledeen quotes Machiavelli approvingly on what makes a great leader. “A prince must have no other objectives or other thoughts or take anything for his craft, except war.” To Ledeen, this meant: “…the virtue of the warrior are those of great leaders of any successful organization.” Yet it’s obvious that war is not coincidental to neocon philosophy, but an integral part. The intellectuals justify it, and the politicians carry it out. There’s a precise reason to argue for war over peace according to Ledeen, for “…peace increases our peril by making discipline less urgent, encouraging some of our worst instincts, in depriving us of some of our best leaders.” Peace, he claims, is a dream and not even a pleasant one, for it would cause indolence and would undermine the power of the state. Although I concede the history of the world is a history of frequent war, to capitulate and give up even striving for peace—believing peace is not a benefit to mankind—is a frightening thought that condemns the world to perpetual war and justifies it as a benefit and necessity. These are dangerous ideas, from which no good can come.

The conflict of the ages has been between the state and the individual: central power versus liberty. The more restrained the state and the more emphasis on individual liberty, the greater has been the advancement of civilization and general prosperity. Just as man’s condition was not locked in place by the times and wars of old and improved with liberty and free markets, there’s no reason to believe a new stage for man might not be achieved by believing and working for conditions of peace. The inevitability and so-called need for preemptive war should never be intellectually justified as being a benefit. Such an attitude guarantees the backsliding of civilization. Neocons, unfortunately, claim that war is in man’s nature and that we can’t do much about it, so let’s use it to our advantage by promoting our goodness around the world through force of arms. That view is anathema to the cause of liberty and the preservation of the Constitution. If it is not loudly refuted, our future will be dire indeed.

Ledeen believes man is basically evil and cannot be left to his own desires. Therefore, he must have proper and strong leadership, just as Machiavelli argued. Only then can man achieve good, as Ledeen explains: “In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to ‘enter into evil.’ This is the chilling insight that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired and challenging…we are rotten,” argues Ledeen. “It’s true that we can achieve greatness if, and only if, we are properly led.” In other words, man is so depraved that individuals are incapable of moral, ethical and spiritual greatness, and achieving excellence and virtue can only come from a powerful authoritarian leader. What depraved ideas are these to now be influencing our leaders in Washington? The question Ledeen doesn’t answer is: “Why do the political leaders not suffer from the same shortcomings and where do they obtain their monopoly on wisdom?”

Once this trust is placed in the hands of a powerful leader, this neocon argues that certain tools are permissible to use. For instance: “Lying is central to the survival of nations and to the success of great enterprises, because if our enemies can count on the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability is enormously increased.” What about the effects of lying on one’s own people? Who cares if a leader can fool the enemy? Does calling it “strategic deception” make lying morally justifiable? Ledeen and Machiavelli argue that it does, as long as the survivability of the state is at stake. Preserving the state is their goal, even if the personal liberty of all individuals has to be suspended or canceled.

Ledeen makes it clear that war is necessary to establish national boundaries—because that’s the way it’s always been done. Who needs progress of the human race! He explains:

"Look at the map of the world: national boundaries have not been drawn by peaceful men leading lives of spiritual contemplation. National boundaries have been established by war, and national character has been shaped by struggle, most often bloody struggle."

Yes, but who is to lead the charge and decide which borders we are to fight for? What about borders 6,000 miles away unrelated to our own contiguous borders and our own national security? Stating a relative truism regarding the frequency of war throughout history should hardly be the moral justification for expanding the concept of war to settle man’s disputes. How can one call this progress?

Machiavelli, Ledeen and the neocons recognized a need to generate a religious zeal for promoting the state. This, he claims, is especially necessary when force is used to promote an agenda. It’s been true throughout history and remains true today, each side of major conflicts invokes God’s approval. Our side refers to a “crusade;” theirs to a “holy Jihad.” Too often wars boil down to their god against our God. It seems this principle is more a cynical effort to gain approval from the masses, especially those most likely to be killed for the sake of the war promoters on both sides who have power, prestige and wealth at stake.

Ledeen explains why God must always be on the side of advocates of war: “Without fear of God, no state can last long, for the dread of eternal damnation keeps men in line, causes them to honor their promises, and inspires them to risk their lives for the common good.” It seems dying for the common good has gained a higher moral status than eternal salvation of one’s soul. Ledeen adds:

"Without fear of punishment, men will not obey laws that force them to act contrary to their passions. Without fear of arms, the state cannot enforce the laws…to this end, Machiavelli wants leaders to make the state spectacular."

It’s of interest to note that some large Christian denominations have joined the neoconservatives in promoting preemptive war, while completely ignoring the Christian doctrine of a Just War. The neocons sought and openly welcomed their support.

I’d like someone to glean anything from what the Founders said or placed in the Constitution that agrees with this now-professed doctrine of a “spectacular” state promoted by those who now have so much influence on our policies here at home and abroad. Ledeen argues that this religious element, this fear of God, is needed for discipline of those who may be hesitant to sacrifice their lives for the good of the “spectacular state.”

He explains in eerie terms: “Dying for one’s country doesn’t come naturally. Modern armies, raised from the populace, must be inspired, motivated, indoctrinated. Religion is central to the military enterprise, for men are more likely to risk their lives if they believe they will be rewarded forever after for serving their country.” This is an admonition that might just as well have been given by Osama bin Laden, in rallying his troops to sacrifice their lives to kill the invading infidels, as by our intellectuals at the AEI, who greatly influence our foreign policy.

Neocons—anxious for the U.S. to use force to realign the boundaries and change regimes in the Middle East—clearly understand the benefit of a galvanizing and emotional event to rally the people to their cause. Without a special event, they realized the difficulty in selling their policy of preemptive war where our own military personnel would be killed. Whether it was the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, or the Maine, all served their purpose in promoting a war that was sought by our leaders.

Ledeen writes of a fortuitous event (1999):

…of course, we can always get lucky. Stunning events from outside can providentially awaken the enterprise from its growing torpor, and demonstrate the need for reversal, as the devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 so effectively aroused the U.S. from its soothing dreams of permanent neutrality.

Amazingly, Ledeen calls Pearl Harbor a “lucky” event. The Project for a New American Century, as recently as September 2000, likewise, foresaw the need for “a Pearl Harbor event” that would galvanize the American people to support their ambitious plans to ensure political and economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential “rival.”

Recognizing a “need” for a Pearl Harbor event, and referring to Pearl Harbor as being “lucky” are not identical to support and knowledge of such an event, but this sympathy for a galvanizing event, as 9-11 turned out to be, was used to promote an agenda that strict constitutionalists and devotees of the Founders of this nation find appalling is indeed disturbing. After 9-11, Rumsfeld and others argued for an immediate attack on Iraq, even though it was not implicated in the attacks.

The fact that neo-conservatives ridicule those who firmly believe that U.S. interests and world peace would best be served by a policy of neutrality and avoiding foreign entanglements should not go unchallenged. Not to do so is to condone their grandiose plans for American world hegemony.

The current attention given neocons is usually done in the context of foreign policy. But there’s more to what’s going on today than just the tremendous influence the neocons have on our new policy of preemptive war with a goal of empire. Our government is now being moved by several ideas that come together in what I call “neoconism.” The foreign policy is being openly debated, even if its implications are not fully understood by many who support it. Washington is now driven by old views brought together in a new package.

We know those who lead us—both in the administration and in Congress—show no appetite to challenge the tax or monetary systems that do so much damage to our economy. The IRS and the Federal Reserve are off limits for criticism or reform. There’s no resistance to spending, either domestic or foreign. Debt is not seen as a problem. The supply-siders won on this issue, and now many conservatives readily endorse deficit spending.

There’s no serious opposition to the expanding welfare state, with rapid growth of the education, agriculture and medical-care bureaucracy. Support for labor unions and protectionism are not uncommon. Civil liberties are easily sacrificed in the post 9-11 atmosphere prevailing in Washington. Privacy issues are of little concern, except for a few members of Congress. Foreign aid and internationalism—in spite of some healthy criticism of the UN and growing concerns for our national sovereignty—are championed on both sides of the aisle. Lip service is given to the free market and free trade, yet the entire economy is run by special-interest legislation favoring big business, big labor and, especially, big money.

Instead of the “end of history,” we are now experiencing the end of a vocal limited-government movement in our nation’s capital. While most conservatives no longer defend balanced budgets and reduced spending, most liberals have grown lazy in defending civil liberties and now are approving wars that we initiate. The so-called “third way” has arrived and, sadly, it has taken the worst of what the conservatives and liberals have to offer. The people are less well off for it, while liberty languishes as a result.

Neocons enthusiastically embrace the Department of Education and national testing. Both parties overwhelmingly support the huge commitment to a new prescription drug program. Their devotion to the new approach called “compassionate conservatism” has lured many conservatives into supporting programs for expanding the federal role in welfare and in church charities. The faith-based initiative is a neocon project, yet it only repackages and expands the liberal notion of welfare. The intellectuals who promoted these initiatives were neocons, but there’s nothing conservative about expanding the federal government’s role in welfare.

The supply-siders’ policy of low-marginal tax rates has been incorporated into neoconism, as well as their support for easy money and generous monetary inflation. Neoconservatives are disinterested in the gold standard and even ignore the supply-siders’ argument for a phony gold standard.

Is it any wonder that federal government spending is growing at a rate faster than in any time in the past 35 years?

Power, politics and privilege prevail over the rule of law, liberty, justice and peace. But it does not need to be that way. Neoconism has brought together many old ideas about how government should rule the people. It may have modernized its appeal and packaging, but authoritarian rule is authoritarian rule, regardless of the humanitarian overtones. A solution can only come after the current ideology driving our government policies is replaced with a more positive one. In a historical context, liberty is a modern idea and must once again regain the high moral ground for civilization to advance. Restating the old justifications for war, people control and a benevolent state will not suffice. It cannot eliminate the shortcomings that always occur when the state assumes authority over others and when the will of one nation is forced on another—whether or not it is done with good intentions.

I realize that all conservatives are not neoconservatives, and all neocons don’t necessarily agree on all points—which means that in spite of their tremendous influence, most Members of Congress and those in the administration do not necessarily take their marching orders from the AEI or Richard Perle. But to use this as a reason to ignore what neoconservative leaders believe, write about it and agitate for—with amazing success I might point out—would be at our own peril. This country still allows open discourse—though less everyday—and we who disagree should push the discussion and expose those who drive our policies. It is getting more difficult to get fair and balanced discussion on the issues, because it has become routine for the hegemons to label those who object to preemptive war and domestic surveillance as traitors, unpatriotic and un-American. The uniformity of support for our current foreign policy by major and cable-news networks should concern every American. We should all be thankful for CSPAN and the internet.

Michael Ledeen and other neoconservatives are already lobbying for war against Iran. Ledeen is pretty nasty to those who call for a calmer, reasoned approach by calling those who are not ready for war “cowards and appeasers of tyrants.” Because some urge a less militaristic approach to dealing with Iran, he claims they are betraying America’s best “traditions.” I wonder where he learned early American history! It’s obvious that Ledeen doesn’t consider the Founders and the Constitution part of our best traditions. We were hardly encouraged by the American revolutionaries to pursue an American empire. We were, however, urged to keep the Republic they so painstakingly designed.

If the neoconservatives retain control of the conservative, limited-government movement in Washington, the ideas, once championed by conservatives, of limiting the size and scope of government will be a long-forgotten dream.

The believers in liberty ought not deceive themselves. Who should be satisfied? Certainly not conservatives, for there is no conservative movement left. How could liberals be satisfied? They are pleased with the centralization of education and medical programs in Washington and support many of the administration’s proposals. But none should be pleased with the steady attack on the civil liberties of all American citizens and the now-accepted consensus that preemptive war—for almost any reason—is an acceptable policy for dealing with all the conflicts and problems of the world.

In spite of the deteriorating conditions in Washington—with loss of personal liberty, a weak economy, exploding deficits, and perpetual war, followed by nation building—there are still quite a number of us who would relish the opportunity to improve things, in one way or another. Certainly, a growing number of frustrated Americans, from both the right and the left, are getting anxious to see this Congress do a better job. But first, Congress must stop doing a bad job.

We’re at the point where we need a call to arms, both here in Washington and across the country. I’m not talking about firearms. Those of us who care need to raise both arms and face our palms out and begin waving and shouting: Stop! Enough is enough! It should include liberals, conservatives and independents. We’re all getting a bum rap from politicians who are pushed by polls and controlled by special-interest money.

One thing is certain, no matter how morally justified the programs and policies seem, the ability to finance all the guns and butter being promised is limited, and those limits are becoming more apparent every day.

Spending, borrowing and printing money cannot be the road to prosperity. It hasn’t worked in Japan, and it isn’t working here either. As a matter of fact, it’s never worked anytime throughout history. A point is always reached where government planning, spending and inflation run out of steam. Instead of these old tools reviving an economy, as they do in the early stages of economic interventionism, they eventually become the problem. Both sides of the political spectrum must one day realize that limitless government intrusion in the economy, in our personal lives and in the affairs of other nations cannot serve the best interests of America. This is not a conservative problem, nor is it a liberal problem—it’s a government intrusion problem that comes from both groups, albeit for different reasons. The problems emanate from both camps that champion different programs for different reasons. The solution will come when both groups realize that it’s not merely a single-party problem, or just a liberal or just a conservative problem.

Once enough of us decide we’ve had enough of all these so-called good things that the government is always promising—or more likely, when the country is broke and the government is unable to fulfill its promises to the people—we can start a serious discussion on the proper role for government in a free society. Unfortunately, it will be some time before Congress gets the message that the people are demanding true reform. This requires that those responsible for today’s problems are exposed and their philosophy of pervasive government intrusion is rejected.

Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. A few have, and others will continue to do so, but too many—both in and out of government—close their eyes to the issue of personal liberty and ignore the fact that endless borrowing to finance endless demands cannot be sustained. True prosperity can only come from a healthy economy and sound money. That can only be achieved in a free society.

Ron Paul

As an observer of American politics since 9/11 and becoming involved in the truth movement in the U.K.I find that the media coverage by Fox news is a complete stitch up.Hannity and Colmes are an absolute disgrace,the moderators in the debate the other evening did their level best to trap Ron Paul,who is the only true candidate on stage.Ron Paul will not be selected to run for the presidency as this was obviously shown in the debate poll,Fox loathe truth irrespective of the result,we live in an age of celebrity,and heaven help you because THEY want Giuliani to succeed.To THEM Ron Paul is the obverse of the celebrity,here is a guy prepared to face humiliation in the face of adversity,if he is a truther that will come later,let him become established before you put all your eggs into one basket.

Hannity and Colmes and all the other right-wing media junta will stop at nothing to expose any flaws in the argument,these parasites continually feed the Narcissistic love-fest of Fox celebrity.Their two faced benefactor Murdoch promotes this kind of behaviour,and calls it cutting edge journalism,this guy is a pariah over here,what with his seemingly influential political turkey friends advocating war through his many right -wing revolting,cheap jibe newspapers,this is were the war really is being stoked up.The sooner the right-wing accepts that truth is the pre-cursor to a civilised society and that deliberate de-stabalisation is not,then we all have a fight on our hands.It is a fight we must win 9/11,7/7 what next?

It is these people that control the media and their lackeys they employ who speak their thoughts,these are the ones who's sole desire is to dis-credit,humiliate and above all try and de-humanise the logical arguments put forward by those in the truth movement and beyond.We cannot allow this to happen,we have to challenge the likes of Hannity,Colmes and O Reilly,lets bring them to the table of justice and true debate,and not let them hide behind the facade that they speak for the majority of the people,they do not,we know who they speak and who they represent.

How long Ron Paul is allowed to carry on is know doubt up to Fox,he has to be backed this is a great opportunity for decent honest debate,the guy needs support and not be swallowed by the sharks at Fox.

Michigan GOP leader wants Paul barred from future debates

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — The chairman of the Michigan Republican Party said Wednesday that he will try to bar Ron Paul from future GOP presidential debates because of remarks the Texas congressman made that suggested the Sept. 11 attacks were the fault of U.S. foreign policy.

What a country.

From Paul's site:

Press Release
Why Hasn’t Rudy Giuliani Read the 9-11 Commission Report?

May 16, 2007


ARLINGTON, VA – During the "First in the South" GOP debate in South Carolina last night, one thing was made clear: Rudy Giuliani does not understand how to keep America safe.

When Congressman Ron Paul, who has long served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, explained how 50 years of American interventionism in the Middle East has helped compromise our national security, Giuliani interrupted saying he had "never heard anything so absurd." This statement is particularly troubling coming from the former mayor who tries to cast himself as a security expert, since Dr. Paul's point comes directly from the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission Report.

"Rudy Giuliani has tip-toed around the issues of abortion, guns and marriage. The only issue he has left is security, and he doesn't even get that right," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "It is clear from his interruption that former Mayor Giuliani has not read the 9-11 Commission Report and has no clue on how to keep America safe."

I support Paul 100%

Frankly, I am very surprised at the reaction of people in this forum. It indicates a lack of real understanding behind the problems in the world at large, of which 9/11, as traumatising as it was, is just a symptom of the underlying malaise. We need an in depth investigation into 9/11, but we also need wholesale policy changes that would protect us from a future "event".

If you look at Paul's voting record over his many years in Congress, it is easy to see he is a man of integrity and has testicles the size of beachballs. He voted against the Patriot Act and the Iraq neo-colonial attack. He has consistently voted according to his principles as a libertarian, a lover of freedom, the constitution and the bill of rights. No other candidate can say the same.

He is against the IRS, Fed, ie the monetary repression of the people. He is against the military-intelligence-industrial complex, ie the physical repression of the liberty of the people. He is against regulating the internet, ie freedom of expression and information for the people. There are many, many more issues of course, but as a defender of the constitution, with its inherent wisdom, he is definitely on the right track. Once these issues are dealt with, we are well on the way to eliminating the NWO and all those people bent on world domination through control and fear, of which 9/11 was just an act, not the whole play by any means.

So damn it, support Ron Paul!

I would just like to add that before I came across him a few months ago, I didn't think a politician like him actually existed. Kind of like what Einstein said about Gandhi.

Bottom line is: Ron Paul is not bought and paid for, like the rest of the candidates. End of story.


"Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." Albert Einstein


Now we see what would happen if we ever DID get a politician on a vocal and public quest for 911 Truth.
Ron Paul merely suggested blowback and he's being treated like an unAmerican punk, and that's when he IS discussed in the media, which is rare.

Omitted from polls, mocked, and trivialized.....and ignored.