Ron Paul Interviewed By Glenn Beck on CNN PT.6 12-18-07

Beck reminds us again that we are a dangerous as group, ( 9/11 Truth movement ) how did he arrive at thinking that conclusion?

The 9/11 Truth Movement...

Made Ron Paul. Also, no one I know condones sending Glenn Beck death threats. I wonder which 9/11 Truth Movement he's referring to.

Who Is? Archives

Beck the Hypocrite...

While no one is our movement condones death threats on anyone...the same does not hold true for Mr. Beck.
It was not that long ago that Glenn Beck openly called for Michael Moore's death and pontificated whether or not he should be the one to do it. Had only Ron Paul known that and challenged Beck on that it would have made for an interesting response. Don't worry too much about Ron's current polling numbers, Jimmy Carter and John Kerry were both polling at under 5% before the first primaries.

Peace Out

Richard D. Brinkman

Richard D. Brinkman

BECK CAN HURL DEATH THREATS FREELY BUT someone who threatens Glenn who's most likely a provocateur agent or disruptor of the 911 truth movement and Beck carelessly groups us all as dangerous and by that endangering our lives; ( Thanks for spreading your way of peace for the holidays Beck) CNN is the one who's dangerous by promoting hate, racism and terrorism by allowing this nut case (SICK TWISTED FREAK, RODEO CLOWN, RECOVERING ALCOHOLIC and NON JOURNALIST) to have a mike and audience...Very irresponsible to National Security Time Warner...What is your reason for this?

"who's most likely a

"who's most likely a provocateur agent or disruptor"

^ Exactly.

"who's most likely a

"who's most likely a provocateur agent or disruptor"

^ Exactly."

I fear this might eventually snowball into an active government campaign. Have agent disruptors hidden among us and at a pre-chosen time hurl out obscenities and other things to discredit our movement in the eyes of the sleepwalking public. If the ante is actually upped, will our response be proportionate? Are we ready to meet logistical challenges?

Agents provocateurs

Follow the example of this guy at the SPP meeting at Montebello Quebec. Confront and expose the traitors within.

There is an american who is not scared to say what he thinks ...

Herblay FRANCE

bonjour ,

There is an american who is not scared to say what he thinks and has already paid a lot for his courage.
Speaks well, is intelligent , honest , human and an icone for the 911 mouvement. You know who I mean ? The one that for years who has stuck her guns despite everything we have put against here !

In case you do not know I will tell you : vote for Cynthia McKinney

Yours John

I'm getting sick of being told to have faith in Ron Paul

Faith is for religions.

If he wants my vote he'll have to work for it, just like anyone else.

Ron Paul used the truth movement as a base for his campaign. Then he told us to keep quiet and stay away so we don't hurt his chances. Now he openly disparages us. Ron Paul supporters tell me that he is the most honest man ever and then in the same breath they explain why he has to lie about 9/11. "First we have to get him elected." If he can openly talk about dismantling all these government institutions how is it that he can't acknowledge that millions of Americans rightfully have serious questions regarding 9/11?

Being cagey is one thing - openly disrespecting those of us who are fighting for truth is another.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

There is no reason for having faith in Ron Paul...

Daryl Bradford Smith, wether you like him or not, has just outed Ron Paul for writing a book together with Lewis Lehrman in 1993:"The case for gold"
Lewis Lehrman is at the Board of Directors of Project for the New American Century!

Sounds familiar does't it?
BTW: Returning to the gold standard doesn 't change one thing as gold is controlled by the same people who brought us 9/11. The power to issue money should belong to the GOVERNMENT, not to private companies.

...and Glenn Beck...he makes me vomit!

Returning to the gold standard is a step in the right direction

Right now our currency is issued & regulated by the Federal Reserve Bank--a private, for profit organization! It is a huge scam that charges us interest for our own money. This interest is then paid back mainly via the illegal income tax regulations. Moreover, our dollar is no backed-up by gold, nor anything else. It's basically a risky, worthless IOU.

Critique of the gold standard

I agree that it is a step in the right direction because inflation of the money supply would be controlled.

However, for the dollar to be standardized, the government would need to be in charge to enforce this. The gold standard has already been tried and it has failed because the gov't didn't stick to it. Wouldn't a system where the people didn't have to rely on the government to do "the right thing" be better?

From my learning, the best solution is to repeal the legal tender law concerning the U.S. dollar. As it is now with this law, if I refuse a payment because I don't want to accept U.S. dollars, the debt is considered annulled. So, if this law was repealed competing medium of exchanges would be able to flourish as people could refuse the U.S. dollar and accept the medium they preferred.

Also Columbo: the dollar is not worthless--even thought it is still a paper currency, people still widely attach value to it. As long as people continue assigning worth to it, it will not be worthless.

Just want to note that I

Just want to note that I highly recommend Murray Rothbard's What Has Government Done to our Money? It really helped to clarify some of my thinking on this issue.

Here's a free .pdf of it if you're interested:

Ron Paul...

...does not believe it would be realistic to go back to a gold standard, he doesn't even plan to abolish the federal reserve if he is elected, he just want to bring competition to the dollar in the form of gold and silver currency, which would of course greatly profit the central banks and weaken the dollar even further, paving the way for the amero...

read and educate yourself...

Yes, he wants to bring in competition...

He wants to do this by repealing the legal tender law on the US dollar. If this was done, the Federal Reserve would not need to be abolished--it would die off from the competition.

However, would this pave the way for the Amero as you claim? Possibly. But, as long as there is not a new legal tender law forcing people to accept it as payment, we could keep using the medium of exchange that we prefer. So, the introduction of the Amero wouldn't pose a problem.

Regarding your statement that competing silver and gold currencies would greatly profit the central banks, I believe that might be incorrect. Yes, if the price of gold and silver appreciates, the central banks who have holdings in them could profit accordingly (if they sold). However, that is just one of the effects. For example, the Federal Reserve is a central bank, and as I mentioned the competition would eventually kill it off. That is much more devastating that some profits it could potentially realize from selling its gold and silver holdings!

Another effect would be that the value of all other paper currencies would decline relative to any gold and silver currencies. If the good you're business (here the central banks) is producing is now worth less, your business has become less profitable. Thus overall, I suspect that competing currencies would have very detrimental effects on central banks.

Latest Pathetic Mud-Slinging Attempt Smears Ron Paul...

....Lewis E. Lehrman, the co-author of Ron Paul's 1993 book "The Case for Gold," was later a signatory to the infamous Project For a New American Century document, a pre-9/11 Neo-Con blueprint which yearned for a "new Pearl Harbor" to justify U.S. military expansionism across the globe.

The fact that the book itself is a sober argument for a return to the gold standard is ignored while Paul's affiliation with Lehrman is seized upon as evidence that Ron Paul is a "Zionist shill" and "part of the New World Order."

Of course, anyone with a shred of common sense would realize that a 10-term Congressman stretching back over 30 years would have had relations and affiliations with all kinds of people whom he didn't necessarily agree with on a host of issues.....

Re: giving the gov't the control over the money supply

I think that would be incredibly dangerous to give the government a monopoly like that. As Milton Friedman once said:

“We have forgotten the basic truths that the founders of this country knew so well, that the greatest threat to human freedom is a concentration of power within the hands of government or anyone else."

Of course the Federal Reserve system that is in place now is even worse--it's a government granted monopoly to private corporations.

I think the best solution is to leave the money supply up to the people.


your comment makes me vomit.
what a joke. so a guy knew a guy who then later becomes some scumbag.
I bet you knew a few people who later became scumbags, do you not? Does that make you as bad as them?
So a guy shows you something about Paul that he considers to be bad, you just suck it right up and regurgitate to everyone else?
What sounds familiar is this ridiculous 'conspiratorial' viewpoint on everything that doesn't purely go your way.
Ron Paul, the only decent politician by far that has a chance and is picking up momentum...gets thrown in the garbage to you as some shill because he doesn't committ political suicide by agreeing with us on 9/11.

"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 191
German philosophe

Look at this shill

Look at this shill "FredHendrik" jumping in to sow division and inject anti-Semitic disinfo garbage. People are pissed at Ron Paul and rightly so on one level, but the guy made a mistake that’s all. And he has already called for a new investigation, so it’s clear to me he was suckered and manipulated into agreement by Beck here, who knows what was in the "Threatening Video" (other than agent provocateur feds) it might have really thrown RP.

wow,. you will go to slander to defend your boy RP ?

there is nothing "anti-Semitic" about FredHendrik's comment,. PNAC was never an institution of the "simetic" people ?

it is sad that some of you are so far up RP ass that you have to belive in things that man has never said, and in face denies publicly!!! and then come up with eleborate myths to keep him in the truth movement where he has never actually been,. and to slander people for dissagreeing with your loonyness is just sad.

Thank you!

I'm not anti-anything exept anti-criminality or anti-injustice.

I would recommend Cynthia McKinney actually for she dares to defend the truth!
We don't know if Ron Paul will do that even if he gets elected!
At the moment he is a disappointment for 9/11 truth.

More important even is NOT the choice for the right canditate for there might be none to save us, but to keep educating the people through street-action, etc.
Every street-action counts, the votes...we simply don't know!!!

I really don't hear Dr. Paul "disparaging" or "disrespecting" us

Glenn Beck cunningly intertwined himself getting serious death treats with a missile hitting the Pentagon & remote-controlled planes at the WTC. I think Dr. Paul handled this devious line of questioning very well.

Furthermore, I don't think the Glenn Beck Show, at this point in time, is a good venue for Dr. Paul to reveal that 9/11 was an inside job.

"Furthermore, I don't think

"Furthermore, I don't think the Glenn Beck Show, at this point in time, is a good venue for Dr. Paul to reveal that 9/11 was an inside job."

Then perhaps Dr. Paul should choose his venues more wisely/strategically/pick your word.

And...I'd say that any venue is acceptable to announce that 9/11 was an inside government operation. You don't?


why would the Beck audience swallow Beck's lies and spit out Beck's truths?
They swallow what EVER Beck tells!

YT: Ron Paul has "used the truth movement as a base...

for his campaign" ? I would disagree. As far as I know, his campaign hasn't tried to consciously garner support from the 9/11 truth.

He has indicated that he thinks government investigations are more or less coverups. But I haven't heard him ever say that 9/11 was an inside job.

And YT, regarding people telling you to have faith in him--don't! Faith is defined as the trusting in something despite an absence of evidence. Therefore, it's is opposed to reason and it is thus irrational.


"Then he told us to keep quiet and stay away so we don't hurt his chances."

When exactly did he do this?

Paul Is A 9/11 Skeptic But ...

But obviously he can't 'go there' so to speak, in the middle of a presidential race. And I don't think his supporters should try to compel him to support 9/11 Truth until the election process is over.

As for Glenn Beck's following quote provided for Ron Paul's consumption at the end of the interview (right after the completely debunked missile at the Pentagon question):

"The planes that hit the World Trade Center towers were remotely controlled."

Does Glenn actually believe that low grade, substance abusing, non religious patsies with U.S.girlfriends and a tendancy to purchase adult videos, actually flew the 9/11 planes into U.S. targets?

What he should have said...

If he is was on our side is, "Glenn, for years, the media, yourself included, have tried to frame the questions of the 9/11 Truth Movement by citing only a few examples of some of the theories that have taken shape. Those theories only exist because those who should answer our questions about that day, refuse to do so. However, the legitimacy behind the claim that we need a new investigation into the attacks is solid." Nothing wrong with a statement like that during an election cycle. We made that man who he is, and he's turned his back on us. That's how I see it.

Who Is? Archives

Jon: has "he turned his back on us" ?

As far as I know he has never said that 9/11 was an inside job. If that's correct, then he never was "with us." And if he never was "with us", how can he have turned his back on us?

P.S. I think your "what he should have said" statement is really sharp! However, I don't think Ron is very knowledgeable on 9/11 and thus he wouldn't feel confident saying that. But, if he ever does become knowledgeable that would be an excellent line for him to use.

To not even acknolwedge...

That there is a "problem" (several as a matter of fact) with the official account, and that we need a new investigation that holds people accountable for their actions, is turning his back on those who got him to where he is today. I guess that's an opinion, but I really can't see any other way of interpreting what he's done.

Who Is? Archives

(double post)


MP3 Audio Clip - Ron Paul and Paul Garmin

Thursday June 21, 2007
Ron Paul Talks About Government Run Investigations Such As the 9/11

* source = ?

More MP3 Audio Clips >

Did Paul do the right thing?

I would think that had Ron Paul fallen for Beck's question (a question that he would NEVER ask any other candidate) it may have been political suicide for Mr. Paul. He should have perhaps mentioned that the 9/11 commissioners had publicly indicated that allot of information was withheld during the investigation and that there are questions that have gone unanswered. He could have reminded Glenn Beck that the government had been involved in false flag terrorism in the past (i.e. The Gulf of Tonkin). But for him to have said that 911 was an inside job would have crippled all the strides he has made in the past couple months. The MSM would either crucify him or label him as a complete whack job and no longer grant him ANY interviews. This being said, should Ron Paul become president or at the very least win the GOP nomination he could very well at that point call for the need of a new investigation. He will have allot on his plate should he win and I'm sure bringing the troops home will be first on his list of things to do. God help us all if Rudy or Hillary or John McCain end up winning. The war will never end if that happens. My biggest fear right now is for Ron Paul's safety (especially if he does very well in the first few primaries). Alas, I can't vote but I will be praying for my American neighbors that the voting is fair and that Ron Paul becomes the next president.

Peace Out.

...but then again, if he

...but then again, if he blew it wide open, he might have the best shot and expose all the other cronies.

What he should have said was, "there are a lot of unanswered questions around 9/11." Tapping into that line of thinking and drawing on skepticism and distrust of the government would only make his position stronger.

Paul Will Open A New 9/11 Investigation

But I'm just not sure he should make 9/11 Truth a part of his campaign.

There are still too many vultures out there who will spin 9/11 Truth in such a way as to undermine Paul.

And there are too many uninformed people out there who will listen to such vultures.

I feel Beck was trying to be such a vulture at the end of the interview. Paul was smart enough to leave it alone.

Lets just try to get Paul elected first.

End The War

i"m supporting Dr. Ron Paul because as the chief executive, he can end the global resource war that we are providing the "muscle" for. There's a reason we consume 35% of the world's resources and its not because we're good looking.

Actually, at this point I am

Actually, at this point I am quite happy in the knowledge that if the evidence supports it -- and as we all know, it DOES -- Ron Paul as President will open a new investigation into 9/11. But for his presidential bid, he is simply doing too well to derail it with something as controversial as 9/11 truth (no matter how important an issue it may be). I say let's continue to do our job and leave him alone to do his.

Besides, he's due to appear face-to-face with Tim Russert on Meet the Press this Sunday, so he will likely have to address this issue again in some form or fashion. I expect he'll be ready this time!

The smirk on Beck's face at the end of the interview

says it all. Take a look, he was very proud of himself.

"It (9/11 Truth) is a

"It (9/11 Truth) is a growing movement and quite honestly, I think it is a dangerous movement."

Give me a break. We need to educate Mr. Beck. Most of the people I have met in the 9/11 Truth movement are courageous, caring, critical thinking, and tuned-in people who deeply love their country (and WORLD for that matter) and worry about the future of their children and grandchildren.

I can understand why he wont

I can understand why he wont get into the 9/11 conspiracy when asked about it. His political adversaries would be all over him like white on rice. If he were to be elected president and still said the same things about the topic, then I would have a problem with him. At this point he has to play the mainstream media game in order to not appear too radical to the John and Jane Does out there in TV land. Perfectly understandable in my humble opinion.

Beck is a Tool

Ignore him at will . . . continue the infowars.

Its Dangerous To The Lying Liars

We're entering a paradigm shift because the majority of Americans are waking up. Rarely do I meet people who call me nuts . . . most people are afraid . . . but most people are afraid of their own shadows. Patriotism is risky but necessary.

The danger is switching off your feelings and becoming "comfortably numb".

What is this guy's...

... email address?

Thanks. Keep...

... sending him well thought out, constructive emails.

He should have at least defended his supporters who question

Plus, Mr. Paul didn't defend any of us one bit. He gave Beck the same line as he gives on his White Supremacist supporters. Ron Paul's ideas are not so revolutinoary that he is our political savior. The point to me of the 9-11 truth movement is that putting the truth to the all the people is the most revolutinary thing that can be done at this point, not some theoretical conversations about why we shouldn't be involved with the UN and go back to backing our money with a precious metal. These are important issues that we need to discuss, but meanwhile we're living under a treasonous and murderous coup. I would hope that Dr. Paul, who appears to be an honest man with integrity, would see the importance and ethical and legal responsibility in calling that out. I'm not into these "just get him elected and then you'll see what he can do for us" lines. The truth around 9-11, right now, would change the entire political coversation. Ron Paul can't do that. He's just one man. One man who could speak the truth that changes everything.

“Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool.” –Plato

"We must speak the truth about terror." --George W. Bush

On target.

You are on target here, Shumonik. No "political savior" would be so weak-kneed as to dismiss any acknowledgment of THE key (the 9/11 crimes and public misconceptions) to dismantling the coming police state, just for political expediency. Shocking that someone so "truthful" would let that slide by like he has no clue. It was a really bad sign that in this so-called interview he couldn't even leave a trace of doubt about the official story. That we should "wait" for his intelligence to awaken to facts only AFTER he is in office is, literally, (to borrow R Paul's) word, preposterous. Support Cynthia McKinney, who has always called it as it is, or Dennis Kucinich, who has a small toe jammed in the door to truth -- but don't waste your support on someone who will gut our infrastructure and civil protections against corporations, with a dim hope that he will also look into what might have happened on 9/11, if his curiosity is awakened. Enough with faith-based politics!

You cannot put your oen

You cannot put your oen personal ambitions ahead of 9/11 truth- that is the important issue.

The fact of the matter is: All the exposure he is getting, If he openly made 9/11 truth a key issue in his campaign, the topic would be propelled into the mainstream- onec it is out there and people are looking at the edivence it speaks for itself and he would win the election.

I dont know anyone who has seen the edivence ans still believe the 'official story'- so I can only assume that the only problem must be people have not seen it.

If Ron Paul talked about it everytime he was on T.V it would become a huge issue- at the beginning the other candidates would use it against him, but as more and more people hear about it and see it- they would see how important it really is.

Realistically he is not going to win the election anyways- he should use his position to spread the message if he is truly passionate about change.

He quotes Ghandi- would Ghandi back away from an issue as important as this for fear that it may effect his career.

If he believes in 9/11 truth he must concentrate on spreading the message before his own ambitions of winning the election.

I think he does stand a good chance of winning

He polls at up to 10% already, against all odds. He hasn't even started running his ad campaign yet. It's very early, and he's only gaining momentum. Realistically, all he has to do is win the Republican nomination and the whole game changes. As he says, his base is drawing on many who didn't vote last election. Those who are fed up with both parties.

In that interview, he does not make a strong statement about a desire to re-investigate 9/11. In fact, he states that he is not even LIHOP, blaming the failures on incompetence with a subsequent cover-up. But that's okay, in my mind. If he wins, he can reverse many of the police state policies that the Bush administration has enacted since 9/11. Stop the bleeding. And he won't get in the way of us if we put together a case for re-investigating 9/11. But he needs to win first. Any other candidate will continue down the path we've been heading. Ron Paul is the only one calling for real change. It doesn't mean he can promise everything during his campaign.

"It doesn't mean he can promise everything during his campaign."

Or that he should.

Good post, benthere.

"I can't totally withdraw

"I can't totally withdraw from Vietnam right now. If I did I would be branded as a communist appeaser. But I can do it after I'm re-elected - so we better make damn sure that I AM re-elected."

JFK said this to confidant Wayne Morse (or Kenneth O' Donnell, can't remeber which one} shortly before they gunned him down. Politicians sometimes have to keep their true opinions and plans to themselve's if they want to get elected.

We Don't Need Ron Paul To Believe Inside Job

We need Ron Paul to allow the conversation to happen without censorship. He can be silent if he wishes . . . we will speak!

We don't need the great leader . . . that's not what Dr. Paul is about . . he is about the constitution and about liberty.

>>He can be silent if he

>>He can be silent if he wishes . . . we will speak!

The gymnastics that Paul supporters will engage in to reframe everything he does as right or "not the problem" is amazing! Now he "can be silent" and yet he's touted as "the truth candidate" in unsolicited emails everyday.

I'm frankly sick of having Ron Paul forced on us all the time and because I'm so sick of it I'm working on an essay to talk about how sick I am of it.

He is NOT the "truth candidate" already! What has he done in congress -- he IS a congressperson afterall, isn't he? -- to expose truths??

Ghandi also had a good sense of timing, and I think Ron Paul

does too. The election is still 11 months away.

What I laugh at is people

What I laugh at is people who think they live in Ron Paul's head. They know all his thoughts. Because he's had integrity everywhere else, he MUST know 9/11 was an inside job!!!
Wrong. Ron Paul has never been on the side of 9/11 truth. The only shred of that is that he said a new investigation would be nice. That the investigations of these events are more or less coverups. The fact he takes the side of the commission report before the 9/11 truth movement so often means most likely what he meant by coverups is that they are covering their asses for the ineptness. Not necessarily some inside job.
He has not turned his back on us. He's just easy to talk to, even if your beliefs are rather different on a subject than what he believes.

This assuming the largest things from the smallest clues is really what gives us a bad name.
I don't want to be associated with it and I can see clear as day why people are so pissed off hearing stuff from 9/11 truth folks...a good lot of them ARE tinfoil hat type people.
Ron Paul is still low in the polls. The topic would NOT necessarily be propelled into the mainstream. There is no real likelihood for that to happen. Where do you get this? Simply because he knows how to raise money and get a lot of supporters?

Maybe the very reason he gets so many supporters and raises money so well is the fact he's taking on the government, without any sense of sounding conspiratorial at all.
Saying he's not going to win the election only helps secure him from not going to. I'm so sick to death of hearing this crap about "he doesn't have a chance". Of course he doesn't if people just write his chances off because of their static, narrow minded forecasting. Nobody seems to know what the hell it means to change likelihood and be dynamic. Obviously if you don't practice for the game, you're not likely to win the game. If more people support him, that makes him more likely to win.

Besides, what Ron Paul is hoping to change falls directly into the machinations for what caused and desired a 9/11. Even if he has no idea about 9/11 inside job, at least his other efforts will be for towards thwarting the chances of something similar happen again.

Of course, he's going to get assassinated isn't he?
Well, life sucks doesn't it? Why don't we just sit here, rot and die? why bother with anything?

"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 191
German philosophe

(double post)


IMO some very good insights...

there Thrashaero!

Check out this article that touches on what you were saying about his chances: Ron Paul and the 'Polls' by Jane Aitken.

Glenn Beck is a Warmongering Thug

The Mad Corporate World of Glenn Beck

SOLOMON: “A major — a major advertiser for CNN is the largest military contractor in the United States, Lockheed Martin. So when you and others –”

BECK: “I got news for you, Norman. Norman –”

SOLOMON: “– promote war — when you and others promote war on this network –”

BECK: “Norman — Norman –”

SOLOMON: “– we have Lockheed Martin paying millions of dollars undisclosed. So I would quote you –”

BECK: “Norman — Norman –”

SOLOMON: “Promoting but not disclosing is a bad way to go.”

BECK: “Norman, let me just tell you this. First of all, Lockheed Martin is not a — not a corporate overlord of this program.”

SOLOMON: “It’s a major advertiser on CNN.”

BECK: “That’s fine. That’s fine. Advertisers are different. But let –”

WOW! you RP guys are over the damn top!

Did you not just watch that video? He does not support 9/11 truth . PERIOD! I find it laughable to read your comments that he is lieing now, and if we only ELECT him, he will wake up and speak the truth? That is'nt even a democratic rational!!! lie his way into office., and you support that?!? Shame!
What lines are you guys reading between ? There was another interview here where he did the same thing,. total dennial of 9/11 truth. What is it,. if he denies the 9/11 truth three times jesus will come back or some other hair brained rapture myth,. People that support a guy in the hopes that he will majically flip possions AFTER you elect him are friggin' nuts! Just admit that you are far right wing idealogs and that has absolutly nothing to do with 9/11 truth,.
Purely on political points; RP proposes limiting the federal government and massivly reducing it, HOWEVER he does not address the CORPORATE POWER that will be fully unregulated and unaccountable to the people in any way save for your insain NON-democratic vote with you dollars right wing pipe dreams,. please set me straight argue with me! I WANT to debat this right wing ideology ,.as if you reason through it, it will not work except for the ultra wealthy entrenched corporate interests. How does NOT regulating corporate pirates, that already own and control nearly every thing in America, free us from their tyrany??? It has never been the governemet that frightens me it is the government doing the bidding of the wealthy elites in stead of the people. Governement can be reformed to do the bidding of the people and to oppose the concentrations of wealth and power that ARE the problems!

Wake up Ron Pauler' s the man is not a Truther !

On the other issue of this whack job interviewer's claims that the Truth Movement is 'dangerous' and issueing 'death threats' you should be very concerned about that! Sounds to me like more ground work for a coming purge of all opposition to the fascist Cheney/Bush war mongering death machine. If this keeps up we can all expect to meet in a DoHS camp in the near future! We can chat about RP and thruthiness then,. Peace!

Ron Paul is a Free Speecher

We don't need him to believe in 9/11 although I have heard him on the Alex Jones show get very close to it. I don't think Dr Paul is a truther, I think I am a truther and Dr Paul would move mountains to maintain my right to speak freely.

I'm not a "Ron Pauler", I am an American citizen and at this moment, RP is the best choice.

Perfection is the enemy of progress.

Ron Paul supports the constitution...

... and thats all that is needed. As long as free speech is preserved, illegal wiretapping is stopped, illegal search and seizure is stopped, the suspension of habeas corpus is stopped, then the Truth movement will succeed. Those rights were granted to prevent a corrupt fascist state from taking hold, by allowing the citizenry to stand up and oust a corrupt regime. Thats why those rights are under attack.

Ron Paul may not be a Truther, but he preserves (reinstates actually) the tools we need to win.

An out of the closet Truther will get his ass handed to him by the corporate media, we don't need that, we just need our rights.

That's it in a

That's it in a nutshell...

Great summation Somebigguy!
Truth Revolution: The Eleventh of Every Month


Firstly, again I say, Ron Paul doesn't need to agree with 9/11 truth in order for him to be for a new 9/11 investigation (which he is).

Secondly, he didn't come up with the idea of keeping the size of the federal government small for the benefit of the people -- that one belongs to the Founding Fathers! That being said, I'll go with the document that established this great nation or ours, The Constitution of the United States, in lieu of your paranoid fantasies about corporate takeovers and whatnot.

Besides, the idea in question is to remove the majority of existing federal power and transfer it to the states, that is to shift from cooperative federalism back to a confederation, or at the very least dual federalism, not abolish federal power altogether. I think the way things are going now, we're headed right back to what we seceded from in the first place; namely, the old British unitary system of government that most especially existed around 1776.

Corporate power has made the government...

....just a tool to achieve it's ends: government spending that goes to the war-profiteering corporations. Business interests now own the government.

We need real government oversight that represents the American public, not "foxes guarding the henhouse".

While Ron Paul makes many good points about radically shrinking government spending on the war machine and reforming the corrupt money system; I haven't heard him address checking corporate power....

9/11 Truth ends the 9/11 Wars

Corporate power...

Altruist: A limited government might be one of the most effective ways to limit corporate power as there would be less government for corporations to manipulate and lobby.

Also, libertarians are for the elimination of corporate welfare. I believe that would be a very effective way to reduce their power.

And in case, corporate power is nothing compared to that of government. For example, does a corporation have the power to repeal the Constitution, put people in jail, make laws, declare war, command a military?

Sounds like Blackwater to me...

Ask Blackwater employees about that one. When we don't have effective oversight of corporations, we lose. Look as the conditions of the Guilded Age. Watch what is going to happen if the media consolidation bill continues forward in the Senate. As citizens we need to have checks on ALL sources of power. In government at least we are supposed to be able to vote out the criminals (if we could wrest the vote back from their control, that is); with corporations -- good luck.

Ron Paul is bizarre...

He is willing to openly challenge such institutions as the Fed and IRS, but he won't touch the 9-11 with a 10 foot pole? As someone has noted here, he could have just mentioned that there are legitimate issues with 9-11 and a new investigation is in order, but seeing him steering so wide and clear around 9-11 issue is bizarre... If he is following a strategy to get elected, why even promise to dismiss the Fed? This is one major reason right there to "deal with him"! (Wasn't that the same reason why Kennedy was killed?).

Personally, I don't think he will do anything for the 9-11 movement, if he is so afraid to shed any light to even the most obvious and superficial aspects of 9-11.

That being said, I still think Ron Paul is the best candidate out there for now. If he follows through what he has promised so far, we will be much better off and much closer to the constitutional, lawful society that was originally intended. That would open a door for someone else to re-open 9-11 investigation (as somebody in this thread has pointed out already). We don't need a superman who will do everything for us, we need someone to lay the foundation, to give a chance for someone else to build on it.

I have to give a little credit to Glenn Beck. For all the shill he is, I think he did a good thing by mentioning that the truth movement is growing. I think that can make a few Joe Sixpacks to scratch their heads: Why is this movement growing? Maybe I should look the issues up myself?

I think sometimes as 9/11 truthers we overestimate

the ability of most people to handle the reality of 9/11 truth. While it surely did not come easy to most if not all of us at first, it almost certainly has been absorbed by our community in a way that may often blind us to the real extent of its controversy. Acceptance of such a nightmare does not come easy to most people, I'm actually happy to say. Unfortunately, real change needs to be made in the world and that will at least require more 9/11 truth exposure than currently exists.


Best major candidate out there at this time with Gravel and Kucinich close by in terms of dedication to a constitutional restoration. But Cynthia McKinney actually questioned Rumsfeld straight up and invited 9-11 truth researchers into Congress. I want more from her. If she had said we are living under treason while she was a congressperson there would have been a media flare up to attack her. Instead, she le herself get railroaded with her Capitol Hill Police confrontation. I really think one congressperson expresssing the treasonous truth of 9-11 on the floor or in a press conference could open up the conversation in a big way. I would say to Paul supporters that they truth squad him over and over respectfully and intentionally. Keep presenting facts to him and ask him about treason and misprision of treason. The entire Congress needs to know that they are heading towards treason trials rapidly. We need to h old this line and imagine its possibility into reality. No more Candidate Paul will save us if we can get him elected. Even if we , as people dedicated to outing the truth around 9-11, choose to take on and support candidates, we must remember that, especially at this point, they are much more expressions of the will of the people than leaders with bright ideas showing us the way. Kucinich needs to be confronted in the same way. Are you down with treason or are you going to help hold it to justice? simple question.

“Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool.” –Plato

"We must speak the truth about terror." --George W. Bush

The FED + IRS compared to 9/11

I don't understand why you are surprised that he talks about the FED and the IRS but not 9/11.
Isn't the government complicity in the murder of 3000 citizens much more controversial than wanting to do away with two institutions because of economic and constitutional reasons?

Not the whole government!

You could get just the ones responsible and bring them to justice.
Is it a taboo these days that any organisation has some criminals in it?

No, the reason is Paul protects the criminals who did 9/11 and are in control of the fed AND the gold. Simpel truth.
So he can talk about abolishing the fed but not about 9/11.

Ron Paul will reveal 9/11 Truth & Stop War on Terror

Ron Paul will reveal 9/11 Truth & Stop War on Terror.

He will also stop the War on Drugs, which is even worse than 9/11, and pardon everyone ever convicted of a federal drug "crime".

I have two friends, one of whom is a legislative assistant in RP's congressional office, and anther who is a former congressional staffer for RP. Both have confirmed to me that RP is aware that 9/11 was an inside job. We have to wait until the republican primaries are over for him to start speaking out on this.

Red Baiting

Beck employs the tactic of "Red-baiting" on Paul.

Red-baiting-"Red-baiting is the act of accusing someone, or some group, of being communist, socialist or, in a broader sense, of being significantly more leftist at their core than they may appear at the outset. The term is used mainly with the intention of discrediting the individual's or organization's political views as dishonest and/or haphazard. The implication in red-baiting is usually that the target represents an ill-intentioned external force which has no proper place in a given political party, coalition, or union."

Becks claustrophobic psyop is the rhetorical equivalent of a large bully child stabbing a beautiful animal in front of the rest of the kids to instill order while sanity is out for the evening. Ron Paul sensed the menace and strenuously avoided being drawn in.

Exactly. The only reasons Glenn Beck did the interview were

1) To monopolize on the exposure he'd get on the web and YouTube from interviewing Ron Paul. He was interested in getting more viewers to his show.

2) To force Ron Paul to answer the question of 9/11 Truth.
A) If he came out in support of it, it would be the infamous Dean screech all over again, ending the campaign before it started.
B) If he came out against it, it would divide us all against Ron Paul. Glenn Beck designed his interview for that to happen.

3) To make Ron Paul look bad. Throw in the death threats and that becomes clear too. The rest of the friendliness was only there to throw him off his guard. The sound bites are all that matters.

To keep yourself alive in these situations speak the deep truth

If JFK had been more open and vocal about his serious plans, it would have been much harder to cover-up his murder. Same goes for all you Paul supporters. If you want your man to be safer from assassination attempts he should speak the truth about 9-11. That's how you make it difficult for the invisible government to liquidate you. If RFK and MLK had spoken about JFK's killers, it would of mad it much harder to get rid of them and cover it up. And, plus it's the right thing to do.

“Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool.” –Plato

"We must speak the truth about terror." --George W. Bush

Does Ron Paul know some of the truth or not?

I would like to know what his supporters think. There seems to be a divide with some folks thinking he knows but cant say yet and others who think he just hasn't done the ivestigative work. I mean in that case, it's not alot of work to be done really. Especially for someone bright like Dr. Paul. Just pointing out the whole anthrax affair hints strongly at a larger inside job. Ron Paul has said specifically that he doesn't think 9-11 was an inside job. He's wrong about the touchstone issue of our time. I do respect his integrity to his values, but this is a major stumbling block to calling yourself a constitutionalist. Treason has its own section under Article III. I say his supporters have a responsibility to question him and push him smartly and strongly towards confronting this obvious hypocrisy, whether knowing or unknowing, in his Constitutionalist campaign. If he doesn't have the overall ability to call out murderous treasonous coup-complicity in the White House and beyond, is he really qualified to restore and defend the Constitution? I disagree with the angle of some of his political thought (I say back our currency in renewable energy capability, and that strong national sovreignty and a strong role in the global community, i.e. UN and more are not at odds, but mutually constitutive) but if he had the intellectual and moral fortitude to speak the truth around 9-11 on CNN as a presidential candidate, I would strongly consider voting for him. As it is, he is an interesting addition to a presidential race that ultimately must be made transformative by We the People. Glen Beck's not added much at all to deepen the dire state of American discourse and his entire oeuvre isn't worth commenting on much beyond this sentence. We need leaders, not icons. Glen Beck's neither and Ron Paul's still trying to decide, which means all of us must step up now.

"Which means all of us must step up now"

That is just right!
Again, simple truth.

When I watched the interview

When I watched the interview I was just waiting for Glenn Beck to do something, well, Glenn Beckish. Then right before the commercial break, Beck tells RP that he is going to send him a YOUTUBE video where his life was threatened. Beck says that he is not going to show the YOUTUBE video to the audience so who knows what was on the video RP saw during the commercial break. All I know is that when they came back from the break RP had a different look on his face.

When RP said "preposterous" my heart dropped. I understand the argument of playing politics but I was a 9/11 truther long before I was a RP supporter, so I know how this comment hurt a lot of people.

I have been thinking about this a lot the last two days and playing out the different scenarios. While the comments really did hurt, it is my opinion that it was a design by Beck/CNN. Just the way the interview was handled, Beck wanted to french kiss RP, it doesn't seem right. It is also my opinion that since 9/11 truthers form the base of his support, the design was a psyop directed at us in order for us to rethink our support for RP. It is just another attempt from the MSM to play mind games with us. There are always playing mind games. What if the MSM could take away the RP base weeks before the primary?????

I am not going to fall for this again. Glenn Beck lost his own poll on his own website when he questioned 9/11. He has been sent thousands of emails with facts about 9/11. I bet he really didn't know how many of us there are out there. So keeping that in mind you have got to believe something was going to happen during that interview. Just like Bill Maher, Beck will touch everything but 9/11 truth.

I am going to stay registered as a republican so I can vote for RP in the CA primary. I will also continue to give RP my time and at least see what happens on Super Tuesday. RP still has a lot of momentum and he is much much better than any member of the GOP and there is no good candidate with a chance on the Democratic side. Is there a Green Party primary? I don't think so, and in that case if November comes and RP isn't there I can still give my vote to Cynthia McKinney.

Bottom Line......RP could have given a better answer, he didn't, I hated his answer, but he still has my support and so does Cynthia but there is no Green Party primary. Register Republican, vote for RP and if does not work we still have Cynthia (we have choices!!!!!)

Interesting Art

I see you're keep it moving up there in the valley.
A nuanced and well-reasoned reaction. I have not given myself over to any candidate yet, 9-11 truth is too foundational an issue and too much of a moral and intellectual litmus test under fire to give my energy and support to a candidate who wont really deal with it honestly and courageously. Would I be happy if Ron Paul gets the nomination? I sure would. But I cant work for him or vote for him. Part of it is that I also think the Republican and Democrat parties are beyond saving in this current form. It's been too long for both in supporting a move towards tyranny. They need to be defeated if they are to be saved. I think Ron Paul is more interesting and powerful as a candidate running independently after the primaries. He could join up with someone like Paul Craig Roberts and represent the Liberational Right, while Cynthia McKinney is running on the Liberational Left. My idea of an interesting and transformational election season in '08 is a triangulation of the two-party dictatorship.

Ron Paul-Liberational Right
McHuckRomniani-Authoritarian Right
Bloomberg-billionaire boys club like Perot that pulls from the middle of both Repubs and Dems
Obamwardston-Authoritarian Left
Cynthia McKinney-Liberational Left

I think you might actually see a President Paul or McKinney in this situation, and more importantly, a real political dialogue.
I think I'll write this up as a blog entry and see what people think.

I'm glad he kept his mouth shut ...

Whether Ron Paul is a believer that 9/11 was an inside job or not, I somehow don't see him hindering a new 9/11 investigation. Had he opened up and said anything remotely like 9/11 was an inside job, it would have made him look like a wierdo, and anyone who ever wanted something bad to pin on Paul would have been all over that like flies on $hit.

I don't know exactly what his stance is, but if the man has any sense, and I think he does, he'd deny anything that would screw his chances to get him to the White House. Lie ... ignore, call us nuts, I don't care!! He won't be able to do crap about 9/11 if he doesn't get the to the WH. If he's lying about this issue, fine. What do I care? It's one lie I can live with because at least there's hope that his lie won't stay a lie forever. When he said what he said about 9/11, I breathed a sigh of relief. I was almost pleading for him to lie. The man is far from stupid ... I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. 9/11 aside, he is still the only person I want to see in the WH.

I gotta comment on this one

because you hit the nail right on the head! I too panicked for a moment there thinking Ron Paul was going to argue the point about 9/11 truth -- which I felt would have been a VERY bad idea. Sure, some of the words he used like "bizarre" and "preposterous" hurt a little bit, but I feel they were necessary. I actually was very relieved when he hardly had anything to say about the subject. The way you know he was playing possum is when he didn't even bother to say anything against Glen Beck who basically framed the 9/11 truth message as somehow dangerous (almost implying a desire to curtail the First Amendment) when the entirety of the interview up until then had been about Constitutional rights and liberties! Go figure!

Lying about or avoiding 9-11 is not a political good

If you really want what Ron Paul says he is about, the best way to get it is through the truth about 9-11 breaking into mainstream debate as soon as possible, not hoping you can sneak Ron Paul past all the fascists controls, locks and backdoors. Ron Paul's not the last hope for America. Combined, his supporters are a much larger part of the hope remaining for America's future then his occupancy in the Whitehouse would be. The dialogue in America is what needs changing much more than any occupant of the Whitehouse.

Ron Paul once again had the chance to be the 1st presidential candidate to speak the truth about the pivotal geo-political moment of the new millenium on mainstream television and he said words like "bizarre" and "preposterous" about a theories alot less-so than the federally-sponsored beliefs he once again backed.

He shoulda said "Yeah those are preposterous-sounding theories, but what's really bizarre and horrific is that they are much more believable than the ones the Necon Feds want us to believe."

“Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool.” –Plato

"We must speak the truth about terror." --George W. Bush

Don't agree ...

"If you really want what Ron Paul says he is about, the best way to get it is through the truth about 9-11 breaking into mainstream debate as soon as possible, not hoping you can sneak Ron Paul past all the fascists controls, locks and backdoors."

You should know what we are up against. We've been screaming the truth for six years and it hasn't gotten us anywhere why would Ron Paul shouting it do any better?

If a little possum or slight of hand is necessary, I see nothing wrong with it. It might even be possible that if he WERE screaming 9/11 was an inside job and stated that if he were elected President he was going to do something about it as part of his political campaign, how likely is it that we'd find Mr. Paul being introduced to a bullet or a convenient car accident? After 9/11, nothing would surprise me.

Well, RFK kept his mouth

Well, RFK kept his mouth shut about his suspicions regarding JFK's assassination (after having initially thwarted a real investigation for complex reasons), but stated privately that he planned to use the presidential office to launch a new investigation. Look how well he fared.

Let's suppose for a moment that he hadn't kept his plans under his hat, that during his campaign he had been more open about his disdain for the Warren Commission's conclusion. He might have been assassinated either way, but the entire country would have been awakened to both the JFK coverup and, subsequently, the State's interest in silencing RFK as a candidate. We certainly wouldn't be where we are 40-odd years later in the resolution of either murder.

Both Lincoln and JFK ran afoul of the central banks by initiating alternative currencies, so if Paul were really a threat to them, he is aware of the risks. As David Griffin says when asked if he is afraid when speaking out: "If they leave me alone, I can continue my work. If they take me out, my books go to #1 on the bestseller lists. Either way, it's a win-win."

As I've said before, any of the seemingly anti-establishment public figures who are confronted by 9/11 activists (Goodman, Chomsky, et. al.) can similarly rationalize their silence by believing that the good work they are able to achieve in other areas will be stopped cold by overt 9/11 skepticism. When we hold them to account, but rationalize away the responsibility from a "savior candidate," we're doomed. Paul knows damned well that his campaign has been enormously assisted by GCN, WTPRN, etc., and that those audiences were largely coalesced by the truth movement. He advertises on programs solely dedicated to 9/11 issues, so his managers are well aware of this huge swathe of his support. Do you really think that a Republican candidate talking about 9/11 would have no impact on the national conversation?

The guy has this and only this time to use his current media spotlight as a bully pulpit. If he fails to do the right thing now, why should you expect more from him after winning the election -- when they sit him down, show him the Rookie Presidential Training Video (otherwise known as the Zapruder film), and then ask, "Any questions?"

Funny stuff...

Rookie Presidential Training Video... Ha! That's cute!
Although this is very funny, I believe that something like that is actually happening where they (whoever "they" may be) have a serious talk with a freshly elected president and tell him how things really are... On campaign trail you can sometimes hear very interesting stuff from a candidate, but it's amazing how subdued and quiet they become once they get in office.

I think people are giving too much credit to the president in the first place. This is partly thanks to the media brainwashing. The relative unimportance of the Chief Executive has been really obvious during GW Bush tenure -- the "decider" is sent away in every chance possible and we find him cutting brush in his Texas "ranch" more often than working in the White House. When you have somebody resembling an intelligent person in the office, like Bill Clinton, for example, you can easily be fooled by illusion that the president actually decides something in this country. Maybe we should not be so extatic about ANY candidate, even those who promise to get back to the founding principles of this country.

I agree that Ron Paul should at least raise the conciousness that the 9-11 Commission was flawed. If he steers so wide around 9-11, it is most doubtful that he would do anything when he gets elected. Can you just picture peoples' surprise if, once in the office, he announces that he is proposing a new 9-11 commission? People would just say: WTF? We have never heard you criticising the previous one. Also, didn't you just characterize the alternative theories as "bizarre" and "preposterous"? Haven't you got something more important to do, like saving Soc. Sec. or dealing with mortgage fallout?

Fixing a problem must always begin with raising awareness first. How do you expect to have popular support if the masses are unaware that a problem exists? Still, it doesn't mean that, if he gets elected, somebody else will not do that. But I am very doubtful that it will be Ron Paul himself.

All very great points

All very great points raised. My worst fear about Ron Paul is that he may be a wolf in sheep's clothing, or if you will, a trojan horse. Quell the truth movement into having faith in him so we elect a member of the GOP. Paul gets elected (or at least takes votes away from other candidates) and behold: the Republican party retains control of everything. Ron Paul may be a tool to FOOL us into keeping the Republicans in power. I don't trust any politician at all. And if I had to, it would be Ms. McKinney.

And besides, why are we still giving so much power and faith to a presidential candidate? Even if his intentions are for the good of the Constitution, he's only one man. There is still a "shadow" government behind the scenes running the show. I don't think they would even need to assasinate him to strip him of his ability to effect real positive change.

I don't trust the entire game. The power still lies in WE, THE PEOPLE. If only we all could understand this rather than just uttering the nice-sounding words. Real power rests in our ability to shut down city intersections and business-as-usual. By the time we collectively realize this, we may be directly dealing with Blackwater-type traitors. Let's hope we wake up before then.