Support 911Blogger


David Corn: Rand Paul and His 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist Friend

Rand Paul and His 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist Friend
On Alex Jones' radio show, Paul agrees with a dark view of the New World Order.

By David Corn | Thu May. 20, 2010 10:10 AM PDT

Rand Paul, after winning the Kentucky Republican Senate primary on Tuesday, has run into reality—that is, the gap between his political and policy positions and mainstream notions. The Tea Party darling hit immediate trouble when he defended holding his victory celebration at a private country club by citing Tiger Woods [1]. More serious [2], appearing on Rachel Maddow's show, Paul noted [3] that he would not have fully endorsed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That is because he doesn't support the government infringing upon property rights—such as the right of a business owner to discriminate on the basis of race.

Paul, like his father Ron (the libertarian Republican congressman), fancies himself a strict constitutionalist opposed to globalists and what he and others in the so-called "Patriot movement" call the New World Order. And this view of politics has led Paul to keep unusual company—such as his appearances on the radio show [4] of Alex Jones, an anti-government conspiracy theorist and one of the more prominent proponents of the idea that the Bush administration was complicit [5] in the 9/11 attacks.

Jones, who sees big government conspiracies elsewhere, as well, has been an enthusiastic supporter of both Ron and Rand Paul. Both men have appeared on his show, which, of course, doesn't mean they endorse his 9/11 views and other opinions. (Last December, Rand Paul's campaign communications director, Chris Hightower, resigned after a blogger exposed Hightower as an anti-Christian who believed that the US government was responsible for 9/11. The Paul campaign, asked by a local newspaper, if Paul agreed with Hightower on 9/11, said [6] it was a "complicated situation" with "truth on both sides.") But Rand Paul has shown sympathy for Jones' overall view of a world of global conspiracies, and he has expressed support for some of Jones' unconventional ideas.

During a July 23, 2009 show, Jones, decrying the Wall Street bailout, asked [7] Paul, "This isn't really socialism….Isn't this more akin to fascism?" Paul replied, "You're exactly right." Later on the show, while Jones was denouncing cap-and-trade legislation (which he says could lead to "toilet paper taxes") and calling for investigating Al Gore, Paul noted that should the climate bill become law, "we will have an army of armed EPA agents--thousands of them." These EPA troopers, according to Paul, would be free to burst into homes and apartments to determine if they were meeting energy-efficiency standards.

Paul also didn't say anything when Jones raised an odd charge about the Federal Reserve. During a rant about the Fed, Jones claimed "we know that the Federal Reserve was clearly implicated in the kidnapping of a congressman's baby" and commended Paul for his "courage" in taking on the Fed. Paul replied, "I appreciate that," and he told Jones that he could not mount his Senate run "without you."

Throughout this particular show, Paul graciously accepted Jones' support for his pending Senate candidacy. He gave the impression that he and Jones were like-minded foes of the globalists and international financiers plotting to undermine, if not destroy, the United States for their own gain. And Paul noted [8] that career politicians are no match for this enemy force: "the ones that evolve to the top of the Republican and the Democratic Party end up being the people who don't believe in anything…and they get pushed around by the New World Order types."

A month later, Paul was again a guest on Jones' show. "I can't stress enough how important this race for the Kentucky senator is," Jones exclaimed [9]. Paul replied, "You're right."

9/11 Truth should remain A-political...

Its very, very important that the 9/11TM remain distant from ALL political parties...

...especially the Libertarians-Ron Paul-Rand Paul types...

And the Tea Party Movement is death for the 9/11 TM...for sure...

Lets just stick to evidence, science, facts and sophisticated international political overview...

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice...

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

Jones and Rand and Corn: opposite sides of a triple sided coin

what a combination.

Jones: as I have written here many times, his nationalist views on the U.S. state, immigration, and global warming are extremely worrisome to any good radical. good on 911, but piss poor in just about any sane political reality.

note to Jones: it's capitalism stupid.

Corn: liberal rich kid that believes that the U.S. state is a democracy, and the kind of guy who rubs elbows with the elite from his college days. any good radical can see through this guy. how does he know that members of the U.S. establishment had nothing to do with 911? apparently because he knows these people, and they just wouldn't do something like that.

note to Corn: it's empire stupid.

Rand: appears to be a racist libertarian, and has the audacity to attack Evo Morales as a "dictator" (democratically elected with 64% of the vote) because he attacked capitalism for it's destruction of the planet. As a good anti-capitalist and environmentalist, I support Morales obviously correct statement.

note to Rand: it's capitalism and empire stupid.

'nuff said

I couldn' agree more..

I prefer to stick with the science re 9/11...But upon further examination, the evidence seems to point in a direction that includes rogue elements of the US government and the right wing governments of one or more of our allies. I think people like Amy Goodman and David Corn know this..and the potential reaction from some of the more violent groups in this country, should the truth be revealed, scares the hell out of them...that..or they have been threatened or blackmailed.

The state of journalism

Corn and Goodman are simply dishonest journalists. They can always quit and earn money in a more honest way doing something else. Include Rachel Maddow in this group.

Show "Climate" by influence device

Deniers abound: And in the pockets of BP and other oil giants

At this point, those who ignore the data on anthropogenic warming (much like 9/11 supporters of the official story who ignore our scientific data) should be consider suspect, and possibly paid shills by the oil industry.

The *empirical* data supporting anthropogenic warming is out (and has been for a long time), and the National Academy of Sciences just released 3 new reports that confirm the hypothesis. This article was just published yesterday:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/05/20-10
reports can be found here: www.nationalacademies.org

It seems that only those who worship at the alter of laissez faire capitalism, or believe that the finite natural resources of the earth belong to us north americans, are the most gullible listeners of Alex Jones and Rand Paul.

Is Cap and Trade a sick joke that market traders use to profit from? Yes, absolutely. What do you expect from predatory capitalists? But that has nothing to do with the science behind anthropogenic warming. It's akin to saying that because the BUSH administration and American Empire benefited from 9/11, they could not be responsible for making it happen.

Let's see here

You brought this up.
You imply I'm a shill.
You ignore my points.
You attack a straw man, hypocritically.

You get voted up.

Show "You aren't alone" by Kerberos
Show "Count me among the "deniers" and oil industry shills then." by Adam Ruff

Dig deeper - you might find more oil

The deniers have no scientific basis in fact. While I was busy investigating 9/11, I gave them the benefit of the doubt, since we see evidence of other massive crimes elsewhere. But that changed when I looked into the supposed ClimateGate scam. Then it became very clear that deniers are putting out nothing but misinformation and disinformation, confusion and subterfuge.

I know the science is fairly complex, but not so complex that you can't see through the flaws in the arguments of the deniers. Adam, you say you have studied and debated this, but I can pretty much guarantee that you have gotten things very wrong, judging from what you have written in your comment.

After arguing with a bunch of local WeAreChange folks who were supporting the global warming denial with similar arguments to yours, I was angered enough to get activated and speak out about this. The denier arguments remind me so much of 9/11 OCT supporters, it makes me wonder about how much these people who claim to believe in 9/11 truth really understand the science behind it.

I'd suggest you watch a few videos from the ClimateCrocks series, which I have been helping with.

What We Know about Climate Change - good background.
Birth of a Crock - my favorite for showing how it happens.
Flogging the Scientists - another great expose, exposing the nonsense of denial.
Debunking Lord Monckton, Part One - covers melting ice caps and sheets, and the supposed recent cooling trend.

More people in America are confused about global warming compared to most other places, partly because of the very same massive media psy-op you complain about. There is, in fact, a disproportionate voice given to the deniers by reports trying to be "fair" to both sides, as if there is any reasonable case for the denial side at all. It is vastly disproportionate in comparison to our very solid understanding of global warming that is only getting more solid as the remaining questions are answered.

...

Good post.

But one thing I notice is that other issues divide the 9-11 truth-seeking community. It looks best to me for us to stick with exposing the 9-11 fraud, and educating people about it. That is what we agree on. Other topics act as wedges.

Student you are right this is not the place for this discussion.

I would like to point out that I was not the one who started the man made global warming meme on this thread however. I will be glad to discuss the subject elsewhere with anyone who thinks I have not done my homework on the subject. Just let me know where you would like to discuss it and I will be happy to source all of my statements above. For here though the topic is David Corn and Alex Jones and all I have to say about that is that Corn has proven himself to be a gatekeeper for the OCT and a MSM whore. I have zero respect for Corn and flush anything he says right down the toilet. Alex Jones on the other hand is usually (not always) correct about his major contentions. If you do in depth research on his major meme's you find they are based on truthful and factual information. He is not perfect though and for that some people condemn him but those individuals need to remember the old warning "let he who is free from sin cast the first stone".

Global Warming and 911

Unlike the so called "scientific evidence" used to support the "Official" 911 story, the scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming and has been assembled by thousands of real scientists from around the world from multiple studies ranging from satellite data , tree ring studies , atmospheric research, oceanographic research, ice core research, historical geographical temperature measurements, geological studies and of course direct observation of biological studies, and much more. The inescapable conclusion from all these studies is that there is a marked trend pointing to global warming. What is worse is that although the science points to increased atmospheric CO2 due mainly to human activity as being the principal cause, this will soon be beyond our ability to reverse! As the globe warms up all kinds of positive feedback effects come in to play. Examples of this are already evident.
In areas of arctic tundra there are vast amounts of methane held back by what was considered permanently frozen soil and snow. There are now areas where the frozen soil and ice are starting to melt releasing methane into the air in ever increasing quantities. Atmospheric methane although short lived compared to CO2 is orders of magnitude more powerful than CO2 as a green house gas and I assure you that the green house effect is verified science. As the oceans warm up, and again there is no doubt that they are, they become less able to absorb atmospheric CO2 and this leads to higher acidity damaging the biological ability of oceanic life to lock up carbon from CO2.
This is all based on real science by proper dedicated scientists not pseudo "scientists" paid to shill for the interests of the big fossil energy companies. Have you forgotten that Dick Cheneys principal backers for the PNAC and the 911 false flag attack are the same oil companies that now spend multi millions on denying the reality of global warming?
However if you want to join a group of AGW deniers you could always go to http://www.facebook.com/ClimateGate. I occasionally go there myself to try to set them right :-)
I invite other supporters of AGW to go there help expose their nonsense .

Show "Inescapable conclusions" by influence device

Climate is complex, but the evidence is clear

Steve112: "..there is a marked trend pointing to global warming."
influence device: "In other words, there hasn't been any significant warming for over a decade."

Your "in other words" is not logically connected. If you are suggesting that a long-term warming trend over many decades backed by many independent disciplines doesn't discount the possibility of a short-term cooling, then indeed we are in agreement since the two are fairly independent. But looking at only the most recent decade of changes is not statistically significant (i.e. not enough data given a slow change, momentous as it is), so it is not scientifically valid to claim there is either warming or cooling based on that alone.

In fact, the long-term average global warming is also associated with an increase in short-term local extremes in climate changes. Higher highs as well as some lower lows, more variability, more instability. We see that positive feedback cycles (e.g. ice caps and permafrost melting) cause any warming to increase the tendency for further warming. But, yes, there are also negative feedback cycles, though they don't seem to be acting quickly enough or globally enough or strongly enough to compensate, and thus probably contribute to more local instability.

I would guess that despite disagreements we might have about global warming, we can agree that we need to clean up our act and eliminate non-renewable fossil fuel usage, particularly oil. Controlling world oil production was one of the main motivations for going to war in the mid east, which was excused as a war on terror, which was justified by the false flag 9/11 operation (to blamed al-Qaedal) , and the subsequent false flag anthrax attacks (to blame Iraq).

Off the grid

How long do you mean by a long-term average, and how many years with increasing CO2 but without warming would make you doubt CO2 drove it?

Although I appreciate your reply and I agree that oil is a large factor in the wars, I don't think most people should be expected to eliminate, or even reduce, non-renewable fossil fuel usage until alternative energy is made available. I see no positive effects of CO2 taxes or carbon markets (except to corrupt governments and hedge fund hyenas) as I don't believe in CAGW, and artificial scarcity creates a lower standard of living for the majority. People who already have a low standard of living are hit hardest, and many die. Life on earth generally benefits from a warmer climate (for many reasons) and more CO2 in the atmosphere (for plants). One reason CO2 historically follows temperature, and not the other way around, is because warmer temperatures are beneficial to life, and life produces CO2.

Are you aware of the Club of Rome, and Malthusian dogma in general (population bomb etc.)? Although Malthus was proven wrong, similar scare tactics have been used to manipulate populations against resource hungry 'others' throughout human history. The Club of Rome's idea was to extend this concept to humans in general, using 'real or imagined' threats like 'global warming' to do so. I don't believe it is a coincidence that we have a CO2 scare and an oil scare at the same time.

Ideally I'd personally like to see energy companies nationalized, grid energy made free for personal use, and the oil men and their enablers stripped of their assets and permanently removed from positions of power, at least. But it seems nationalizing anything is of questionable value when the government is owned by an oligarchy of terrorists.

Interconnected problems and solutions

Given the number of variables that contribute to climate changes (e.g. the sunspot cycle, one of the factors, is about 11 years), and its year-to-year variability, it is reasonable to expect it takes on the order of at least a couple decades of data to conclude that there is a warming trend, regardless of correlating that trend with a particular cause. I'm sure you understand that the longer the period, the greater is the statistical significance, or certainty. 15 years is barely adequate, according to what Phil Jones really said. See BBC asks CRU's Phil Jones the climate version of "When did you stop beating your wife."

The connection with human-generated CO2 being the most important cause of the global warming is separate from the certainty of the warming trend itself. See Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming Here is an outline of the argument:

1. Atmospheric CO2 levels have been rising dramatically over the last century (about a 30% increase in the last 250 years).

2. Human activity (mostly industry) is emitting twice as much more CO2, with nature absorbing about half of it.

3. CO2 and other greenhouse gases do trap heat - this is the greenhouse effect.

4. The planet is accumulating heat (this is the warming trend) at a rate that is consistent with the models of how much heat we would expect to be trapped by the CO2 (and other greenhouse gases, etc).

Step 4 of that argument does depend on accurate climate modeling (which is based on lots of other empirical evidence), so you should read How reliable are climate models?

Life does benefit from warmer temperatures, up to a point. Changes in climate are generally not so good for life, however, until it adapts, which can take more time than the climate changes allow. Atmospheric CO2 does increase with increasing temperature, but that results in the positive feedback of a further increase in temperature. The initial warming after many ice ages was probably due to other triggers besides CO2, but that doesn't stop the later CO2 increase from further increasing the temperature.

Yes, natural cycles do occur, but we have created a huge unnatural ecological imbalance with our rapid increase in CO2 emissions. And we need to act fast to have a chance at reversing the damage and avoiding the consequences. I believe we do have time to convert over to 100%+renewable+energy+by+2030, and we can probably use some of our energy to scrub excess CO2. Avoiding socio-economic inequities and hardship will be that much harder the longer we delay.

I do know about overpopulation fears, and I have written a Letter to an Overpopulation Alarmist. I'm thinking of writing another letter to an overpopulation denier. I believe the appropriate response is somewhere in the middle between the extremes of alarmism and denial. While the World Population is Stabilizing we are by no means out of danger, and the worst is probably yet to come, and the most developed parts of the world (us) will probably be hurt more than those already living closer to the land.

So I am hopeful that by writing this we can all move a little faster in the direction we need to go rather than continue to fight among ourselves to the benefit of no one but the status quo.

Directions

Thanks, I'm aware of the argument, I just don't find it at all convincing. I also don't believe your overpopulation fears are warranted, but I'm encouraged by your letter to the genocidal 'alarmist'. I'm afraid in many ways CAGW reminds of eugenics, which was widely presumed scientific in the early decades of the last century.

It seems we must disagree on this issue, but you seem genuinely concerned, and I hope more moderate views such as your own prevail if the theory continues to be taken seriously.

Show "The Science Behind Solargenic Global Warming" by Kerberos

This is genuinely funny

This is genuinely funny. People who claim to adhere only to scientific reasoning ignore and suppress scientific evidence inconvenient to their political agenda.

WARNING THE ENVIROMENT IS CHANGING

this site used to be about 911.

The climate always changes

I just find it amusing that people get into their politico-cultic mindset and reject anything, valid or not that calls their unexamined conclusions into question. I spent several years looking into the pre and proto-history of temperate Europe (Celts, Germani, Balts and etc.) and started to ask myself what role climate played in all of this. What I discovered forced me to rethink my entire world view - something I have done several times in the past few decades.

I'm more interested in why the oil companies poked a hole in the sea floor without an "OH SH!T!" backup plan. Or how many decades it will take before we really hit "peak oil", etc.

Climate change due to the consumption of fossil fuels is really not that big of an issue when seen in the geological time-frame. It's a flash in the pan. We are going to consume the available fossil fuels within a few centuries. After that, who knows? I don't know what global warming implies, what's diving it, or how reliable the measurements are. Anybody who thinks he or she knows these things with a relative degree of certainty really doesn't understand the questions.

Back when the dinosaurs roamed Earth the global temperature was significantly higher than it is now. There was far more vegetation. Earth was not an Al Gorian desert.

BTW I ride a bicycle to work, and you?

Well, hypocrite?

Good resources

These are really well produced. Great resources. Thanks for this.

Show "What a shame! My scientists had to draw their graphs by hand" by Kerberos

Note to cburn-David Corn knows what's what

and he won't risk his career etc. Rand is an intellectual lightweight who is trying to capitalize on current anti encumbent rhetoric. His recent endorsement of Israel is very worrisome to all good radicals. Jones may be a nationalist , may even be wrong on the enviroment, but has the story right more often than wrong and at least speaks 911 truth with a bullhorn! As far as I'm concerned it's save the Republic first, along with 911 truth and the rest is for another blog, stop dominating the rap jack.

Political opinions

It seems some people think their own 'traditional' political opinions are more important than the truth about 911, and are quite willing to attack members of the movement who disagree with them.

9/11 Truth is only half the story

I am not a 9/11 truth activist first and foremost. I am a radical anti-authoritarian activist first, which means i put 9/11 truth in the context of understanding the nature of U.S. empire and totalitarian capitalism, and the implications that that has for humanity, the earth, and all of it's species.

If we refuse to address the nature of the state and it's military force (i.e. military misadventures on behalf of corporations), then we only position ourselves to see another false-flag attack occur that will be used to advance this agenda.

Alex Jones' politics are diametrically opposed to mine. That is true. My goal in seeking 9/11 truth is to expose American Empire, and to prevent the corporate/military takeover of the earth's resources for excessive consumption. I am not a nationalist. Corporate globalization only means that resistance to its destructive force has to be global.

I highly recommend that people read Dr. Daniele Ganser's book, "NATO's Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe". More than any other book i have read, it explains how the CIA organizes terrorist groups to prevent popular movements from gaining state power. This is false-flag 101.

Similarities

"Alex Jones' politics are diametrically opposed to mine. That is true. "

I'm not so sure they are. For instance, he calls America a corporate fascist state. You're both anti-globalist. You're both aware the government is engaged in illegal wars and false flag terror campaigns, and you'd like them to stop. I suspect you have similar views on the banking fraud. The list goes on. You are both on the same side as far as I'm concerned; your opponents are the sociopaths in control.

As a self described radical anti-authoritarian, do you consider Jones to be more authoritarian than yourself in any way? A global CO2 tax sounds pretty authoritarian to me.

The point of this blog is 911 truth

Alex Jones has done considerable work in this cause. I don't appreciate people misdirecting the blog into other agendas. I am not a capitalist and I have many other views which I do not share in this blog because it's about 911 truth and the brave people who support that cause. I don't agree with Alex Jones on many subjects etc. I personally feel the economic model is failing humanity and the planet etc. However, I do support the US constitution and feel that the American Republic was a great experiment which helped create what was a good way of life with hope for Americans and the world. Nuff said.

Shabby journalism

"Both men have appeared on his show, which, of course, doesn't mean they endorse his 9/11 views and other opinions."

So.... what was this article about, again?

give praise and criticism

I think the concern for the fed and the right of banks to loan $10 for every dollar they deposit is a worthy concern, right wing as it is.

Libertarianism assumes no significant role for community, a particularly bad choice in a time of crisis

It particularly is weak in addressing environmental concerns.

Climate Change deniers should think twice before siding with oil companies

Radical left environmentalists generally don't support cap n trade

"Radical left env'sts generally don't support cap n trade"

The best idea I've heard is a carbon tax where the proceeds would be immediately and automatically returned to people perhaps in the form of lowered sales taxes. That way demand is diverted from high carbon use without taking money away from people as a whole. It's still a kind of the "social engineering" that Libertarians tend to dislike, but sort of like a tobacco "sin" tax where the money is devoted to lung cancer treatment.

David Corn is a proponent of

David Corn is a proponent of the same type of insult blogging you can find on any page of the JREF Forum.
Funny that his Nation colleague, Robert Scheer, had a very different take on Rand Paul:

http://www.thenation.com/article/whos-afraid-rand-paul

I haven't read anything by Corn for some time and find this latest a disappointment. Has David drunk the debunk Kool Aid instead of doing some in depth journalism and studying the credible science we have to offer the 9-11 controversy? Substitute Glen Beck's name for David's and I can't seem to see the difference.

I met Corn on a Nation cruise years ago and was surprised that this Washington insider got cold feet when he met Kissinger at a party. Couldn't confront him about his war crimes, instead, leaving Kissinger to comment that Clinton didn't have the nerve to be a war criminal. Weird. That's right from Corn's mouth. Maybe if Corn could grow some mental kahoonas, he could turn his impressive intelligence towards understanding how real power works in the world....something Alex Jones has a much better understanding of.

And Rand Paul? No politician gives you everything. I have serious questions about Paul's views on Civil and corporate rights, but I can't help feeling joyful about his openness to our views on 9-11 and his commitment to reforming or replacing the Fed.

Give the man a chance and please send excellent 9-11 researcher, Gregg Roberts to a paying job on this guy's advisory team. Are you listening Gregg?

John

I saw the Rachel Maddow show

and I think it was a disaster for Rand Paul. Why well-meaning politicians take the bait like he did is beyond me. The answer to the question (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Would you support a law that allows business owners to refuse service to black people?" is an emphatic "NO". Then, you say "but I'm also a strong believer in property rights and hope that a compromise that satisfies both sides of the issue can someday be reached." And then you move on to the next topic. What you don't do is rant on about the largely irrelevant history of the abolishment of racism in Boston while marginalizing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through total avoidance of the question repeatedly being asked of you by the shows host.

Honestly, you guys have to see this one to believe it.

Watch the video here:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/20/pauls-views-on-civil-right...

Yes Mekt, that was an

Yes Mekt, that was an embarrassing performance by Paul and it ought to disturb every one. Good for Rachel but hey, she isn't exactly a journalistic wonder herself. She recently ran this showy piece on Oklahoma City "bomber" Timothy McVeigh that was a total official story interview. See Michael Wolsey's excellent interviews with Chris Emery, Charles Key and VZ Lawton, for the real story :

http://visibility911.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=110425#

http://visibility911.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=265495#

http://visibility911.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=269264#

Had Rachel been more interested in scholarship than sensationalism, we might have seen a much different show. Rachel, sadly lacks journalistic courage when it matters most. During the 20 year anniversary of the sinking of Greenpeace's flagship, The Rainbow Warrior", she had right wing nit wit, Tucker Carlson on her show on the now defunct Air America. Carlson was a sort of "regular" on her show. He accused the Greenpeace activists as being "eco-terrorists" for interfering with French nuclear testing in French Tahiti. The French, in a government sponsored "conspiracy", bombed and sank the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland New Zealand in 1985, killing my friend and fellow photographer Fernando Periera. I called the show immediately, to try and get on the air to counter Mr. Carlson and educate him as to who the real "terrorists" were, but Rachel's producer, upon quickly consulting with her, decided, that this confrontation would be "too controversial". Wow, too controversial, to have an actual Rainbow Warrior crewman confront a lie! Well, hard ass journalism isn't easy. Thank God there are folks like Michael Wolsey. Rachel could learn a thing or two by checking his show out.

Thanks for the information

and sorry to hear about the loss of your friend.

Apples and thumb tacks

Corn clearly links the Paul's to Alex Jones on 9/11 then, in the midst of it says, "Both men have appeared on his show, which, of course, doesn't mean they endorse his 9/11 views and other opinions."

I agree with the comment above that the need to investigate, enlighten, and hold accountable those responsible for 9/11 is a national not a partisan issue. At the same time, at least this candidate discussed 9/11as a real issue. Who else does that (once elected)?

I was going to say that Corn's column is more "inside the beltway" esoterica. Upon reflection, I think it's more characteristic of a recent non fiction best seller, "Mean Girls." The gossip is multidimensional and pervasive.

Comments are worth reading

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/rand-paul-and-his-911-conspiracy...

example:

The banking system fascist?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu May. 20, 2010 11:08 AM PDT.

The banking system fascist? Holes in the 9/11 Commission Report?

Stuff! Lunacy!

Thank you, MJ, for this vigilant piece of left gatekeeping. Outstanding!

* recommend this (121)

I'll say!

Corn and Mother Jones both getting a thorough and well deserved ass kicking in the comments.

What we can expect...

We can expect the media to demonize Rand Paul.
We can expect the media to demonize Alex Jones.
We can expect the media to demonize 9/11 Truth.
We can expect attempts at divisiveness.

That's Show Biz! !

Until we all (and I do me WE) realize that anything that comes through the tube is entertainment and lies we will be subject to whatever crap "they" want to feed us and their disease will become OUR disease. We will be forced to play their game. That's a game you can't win.

Until Rachel Maddow addresses the 9/11 Truth movement or 9/11 itself, one way or another, it's probably best to stop watching her and all "news" programs, getting our information from trusted sources. It takes too much energy from our personal lives and tasks and, as the above poster has pointed out, makes us vulnerable to divisive strategies.

I, for one, will have my TV on Turner Classic Movies or baseball and that's it.

I WILL Not Watch Broadcast or Cable TV

Gave it up four years ago.

I think it's time that Alex put their feet to the fire!

Rand and Ron Paul need to step up to the plate and answer the tough questions! Where do they stand on a REAL Investigation? Do they beilieve the official conspiracy story? What are they planning to do about it? Fine your're anti-big government, you say you want to audit the FED, but I want a real answer on 911! If you really want to support the US and it's people and constitution then stand up for the truth or don't waste my time.

Where do they stand on 9/11

That's the issue here. As far as I know neither has supported a new investigation nor said they don't believe the official story. I may be wrong, and if so please give me a source. Otherwise I don't like their economic ideas and I think Libertarianism in general basically boils down to what marxists (but not only them, e.g., Adam Smith) have always said about the state, that its main reason to exist is to protect the property of the richer from the poorer, and that's not the only thing I want from a state. I like public libraries, schools, roads, firemen, environmental protection, and a whole lot more. I think the protection we mostly need today is protection from rich corporations, not protection from the poor. On the other hand, I really like Ron Paul's anti-imperialism (does Rand share it?) and I think I don't like the Fed, although I'm not sure I understand the issues.

But my rant aside, where do they stand on 9/11?

Rand Paul is a total neocon

He favors a constitutional amendment banning abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.

He supports a business' "right" to deny service to black people.

In any case, he doesn't have much of a shot of winning the senate seat. Carry on.

Beware your source the MSM.

Beware your source the MSM. They are nothing but liars. In point of fact if the MSM smears them they are probably worth looking at while if they love them you should RUN THE OTHER WAY!

neocon Randal Paul:

"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.' I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business," he said. "I've heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it's part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it's always got to be someone's fault instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen."

It's just downright un-American to criticize BP!

I will take heart in the fact that the losing Democrat in the primary race got more votes than Rand Paul.

Rand Paul: Neo-Con?

How is Rand Paul a total neo-con? The abortion issue is not front and center of neo-con ideology. Prominent neo-cons, such as David Frum and Charles Krauthammer, support abortion rights. Neo-cons never have invested much of their time and resources into opposing abortion. Their obessession has been and will always be Israel.

Besides, why can't we just admit that Roe Vs. Wade was unconstitutional and anti-democratic. States should have the right to determine whether or not abortion is legal or illegal. Roe vs. Wade superseded state law and the will of voters. As well, it was a moral disaster for America.

On immigration issues, neo-cons range from being ambivalent to support for total amnesty. The ascendancy of the neo-cons in the conservative movement largely removed immigration as a topic of concern from mainstream "conservative" publications, like the Wall Street Journal and The Weekly Standard.

No, he doesn't support a business's right to deny black people service. He believes in freedom of association. Should the government have the right to tell you what kind of people you can invite over for dinner?

The mainstream media is always sent into a tizzy whenever someone brings up an issue they consider "settled." If we cannot offend and affront the powers that be we have no hope for success on 9/11. Fashionable nonsense should always be challenged, no matter how long it has been settled.

p.s. Obama is the one who is continuing the worst polices of the neo-con inspired Bush years, Immigration, Imperialism and Insolvency. Pick your poison.

Maybe you're right

and I've been using the term neocon too broadly. Maybe Confederate would be a closer fit?

Confederate

"Federal bailouts reward inefficient and corrupt management, rob taxpayers, hurt smaller and more responsible private firms, exacerbate our budget problems, explode national debt, and destroy our US dollar. Even more importantly, any bailout of private industry is in direct violation of the Constitution. It is a transfer of wealth from those who have earned to those who have squandered."
Rand Paul

A Confederate might say:

"Well somebody told us Wall Street fell
But we were so poor that we couldn't tell
Daddy was a veteran, a southern democrat
They oughta get a rich man to vote like that
"
Alabama, Song+of+the+South