Ron Paul & Swiss Cheese


Topic: Ron Paul

Ron Paul & Swiss Cheese

The perceived threat of Islamic fundamentalism is keeping many voters from considering Ron Paul for president. That perception is based on the official story of 9-11, the swiss cheese of explanations. Pointing out the holes is easy, getting people to look is not, but that is the key to widespread acceptance of his message.

by James Goodfellow


I participated in my precinct Republican Party caucus last weekend. I am happy to announce that Ron Paul won our county. While I was there, I had the opportunity to speak with several people about their candidate of choice. The one position that McCain, Huckabee, et al. supporters completely reject from Ron Paul, and one I couldn't immediately counter in casual conversation, was the threat of Islamic terrorism.

Oh I tried the old standbys: the reason there are so many terrorists now is directly related to the number of middle eastern folks coming home to find their families blown to little bits around the front yard: put yourself it their shoes: the west has been meddling in the middle east for 2,000+ years, etc. None of it worked; I needed hard facts.

The one common thread I was able to recognize was that they all had swallowed the 9-11 kool-aid. That is, they had bought the "official" story of that fateful day hook, line & sinker, and were convinced it was us vs them. Now, I don't claim to know what happened, but I have a pretty good idea of what didn't, and that is the "official" story. There is simply no way that version of what happened is anywhere near the truth; there are too many blaring holes in that fairy tale. Here are but a few:

In light of the preceding links, I think it's safe to say that there is reasonable doubt that Islamic terrorist are responsible for the 9-11 attacks. As I said earlier, I have no idea who is responsible, but it makes no more sense to accuse Iraqis "because they hate our freedoms" than it does to accuse say French Canadians, because we don't, as a nation, support their independence efforts from the rest of Canada.

I say this only to ask if it is prudent to lash out at a politically charged patsy to the tune of $275,000,000 per day, with the inevitable death & destruction on both sides, when it is quite uncertain just who it is we should retaliate against.

I realize Ron Paul won't touch that political third rail, with good reason, but that is the key to winning over a large percentage of the huge "protect me from the terrorists" crowd. The people I spoke with are good citizens. They feel a moral obligation to retaliate. They want justice. So do I. Where we differ, is the target of our vengeance. Get enough of them to question the official fairy tale and just maybe they'll reconsider their support for this war and turn the tide of this election.


Ron Paul is an illusion. I appreciate his talks about the Federal Reserve and his appearances on Aaron Russo's film, but as far as since then I've been disappointed to say the least. His public condemnation of the 9/11 Truth movement on the Glenn Beck show and in the Public Debate blew the truth right through me. If he is working behind the scenes I appreciate that, but now that he has scaled back his presidential bid, why won't he come out now asking the questions, simple questions, of the Jersey Girls and others? He is weak. Why won't he stand up for election fraud? He is weak.

And now he wants to take the energy we have and put us on some rally in Washington D.C. Tire us out or something? With all the money we gave that fool he said on the Alex Jones show that it was too complicated/expensive etc. to organize a "march" on washington. He'd rather just hold a rally at a single location. Organizing a march required funds and organization to block off streets etc. We marched before and this big guy can't organize a march, but basically is renting a free speech zone for us to sit in. WEak.

Cynthia McKinney has more integrity in her fingers than this bro has. That's just the bottom line.

Its so hard to trust

I want to be told the whole truth not half

To the resistant...

one might try explaining that all the prosecutions of so-called "terrorists" in the U.S. have been sting operations, and the plots have been concocted by the FBI or intelligence agencies, and not by the so-called "terrorists. But the FBI has plied these cases as if alleged terrorists concocted the plots, and the press has also pretty much reported these plots as originating from the accused, which demonstrates outright deception on the part of the press. Generally, when there are prosecutions of alleged terrorists anywhere in the world, one can safely assume that they are the result of sting operations. I did calm a distraught woman one day using this information. We laughed at the end of our conversation, she realizing she had nothing to fear, and also what a sham the whole thing was.

Also, one can always refer to the article “Is There Still a Terrorist Threat?: The Myth of the Omnipresent Enemy,” by John Muller in the September/October 2006 issue of Foreign Affairs. I don't know why this article is not cited more often. Mueller asks why there have been no terrorist incidents in the United States during the past several years since 9/11. “One reasonable explanation,” Mueller says, “is that almost no terrorists exist in the United States and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad.”

“A fully credible explanation for the fact that the United States has suffered no terrorist attacks since 9/11,” Mueller continues,” is that the threat posed by homegrown or imported terrorists . . . has been massively exaggerated.”

Those are just two suggestions for undermining the false belief that Moselms are forming terrorist cells in the United States etc.

Cynthia McKinney

She is one of my heroes.

I listen to Alex everyday and he has not been happy with the course the Ron Paul campaign has taken. I wish they would take their millions of dollars and run national TV commercials educating the American people about what's going on.

The elections are a farce . . . I think Dr. Paul's group were not prepared for the massive corruption and rigging of the elections. Becoming president is not possible without support from the 1% elite.

And some of you talk like you know what the plan is for this summer's meeting in D.C. I heard Dr. Paul's announcement and he said that he didn't want to spill the beans because of the forces that are working against him/us.

Turf issues drive me nuts . . . . reminds me of work . . . . dysfunctional organizations . . . we don't have time for that.

I like Ron Paul, but it's time

for him to speak more openly about the truths of this administrations crimes & go after them.

He is not going to be elected President & therefore doesn't have to watch his ass or be do carefull
with his words. Get aggresive Ron!

I was heartened that he voted for not allowing the telco's immunity.