Support 911Blogger


Rep. Kind agrees to debate Barrett; Sly endorses Barrett; Barrett producing Air America Programming

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wednesday, May 14th, 2008

Rep. Ron Kind Agrees to Debate Kevin Barrett
Unexpected Offer Comes as Barrett Announces Challenge to Veteran Congressman

In an unprecedented breakthrough for both the Libertarian party and the 9/11 truth movement, Rep. Ron Kind has agreed to debate his Libertarian challenger for Wisconsin's 3rd District congressional seat. (Watch the youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_dCg_QYEeA )

The first Barrett-Kind debate will undoubtedly draw national media attention. It will be the first time a federal office-holder has agreed to debate a leading figure from the 9/11 truth movement. And it is apparently the first time that a major-party incumbent in a three-way race has agreed to debate the third-party challenger rather than the major-party challenger. (Kind and Barrett may be kind enough to invite the third candidate, Republican Paul Stark, to participate in the debates, despite the increasing irrelevance of the collapsing Republican party.)

Kind's acceptance of Barrett's debate offer came just minutes after Barrett's official announcement of his candidacy at Kind's listening session in Sparta, Wisconsin.

Barrett said he was surprised and pleased by Kind's stated willingness to debate. "My respect for him just went up a couple of notches," Barrett said. "Unlike Steve Nass, Mark Green, and the 60 state legislators who wanted me fired from my job at the UW due to my political views, Ron Kind apparently has the guts to face me in a free and fair debate. I'm happy to have found a worthy opponent."

Alongside the national media, the Wisconsin media will be interested in the debates, not only due to the unusual nature of the race, and Barrett's refreshingly candid approach to the issues, but also because Kind has been widely touted as a likely candidate for governor.

Barrett and Kind will be working together to schedule the debates as the campaign heats up.

In more good news for the Barrett campaign, WTDY talk radio host Sly has endorsed Barrett's candidacy. The endorsement represents another unprecedented breakthrough, since it is the first time a major mainstream talk radio host has endorsed a pro-9/11-truth candidate for public office. The endorsement came on Sly's radio show Friday.

Finally, Richard Greene, host of the nationally-syndicated Air America show "Clout," has chosen Kevin Barrett to produce his "Month of Truth" radio shows every Thursday night in May. Last week's show featured Barrett, along with engineer Tony Szamboti, physics professor Steven Jones, and architect Richard Gage debating the demolition of the World Trade Center against former Special Forces operative John Brown. This Thursday, May 15th, Rob Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Craig Ranke of the Citizen's Investigation Team (CIT), and Barrett will debate the question of what happened at the Pentagon against one or more yet-to-be-named opponents. The show runs 8-10 pm Central at http://airamerica.com/clout/ and on Air America stations around the USA.

Updates on these and other campaign stories will be posted at Barrett's website, http://www.barrettforcongress.us

Contact: Kevin Barrett, kbarrett@merr.com (608) 583-2132
Rolf Lindgren, Barrett Campaign Advisor rolfusaugustusadolphus@yahoo.com (608) 279-5889

Dr. Kevin Barrett
Libertarian Congressional Candidate, Wisconsin's 3rd District: www.BarrettForCongress.us

Radio Journalist: GCN, NoLiesRadio, RBN, and WTPRN

Author,
Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie

Editor,
9/11 & American Empire: Christians, Jews, and Muslims Speak Out

I hope Kevin wears a better suit next time...

I am torn. I look at Kevin Barrett here:

http://www.infowars.com/articles/commentary/barrett_finally_made_slow_fl...

and I see one of the most enlightened approaches to 9/11 activism I have ever seen. Every opening he had to inform these officers about 9/11, he nailed.

Then I see Kevin Barrett endorsing TV fakery, but I forgive him because a bunch of people got caught up in it when it first came out and he doesn't seem to talk about it anymore so I give him the benefit of the doubt and just think he has moved on from it like everyone else has too.

But in this video Kevin Barrett fits the textbook description of crazy sounding conspiracy theorist. First of all, Kevin, you are running for Congress. Please tell me the anarchist in you isn't telling you to campaign in track pants. Shower, shave, suit. It's a rule for a reason. You look like my seventh grade gym teacher in this video, not a respectable college professor running for congress. We don't want to look like crazy people we want to look like them so that they take what we say seriously BECAUSE IT IS SOME GODDAMN SERIOUS SHIT! Apologies for the cussing, just gets me a little angry sometimes. Ron Kind is the poster boy for the All American team. Looks are everything in this superficial country and if you go up against Ron Kind looking like this it won't matter if you have Dick Cheney on tape laughing maniacally about jet fuel, thermate and "those idiots who believe Popular Mechanics," no one will pay attention to anything you have to say.

Kevin I don't mean to insult you or bash you in any way and I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I am a big fan of yours I have listened to your radio programs alot over the years. I would really like to see you knock one out of the ball park in this debate. It means alot to a whole lot of us, and I hope you take it as seriously as possible.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

"Kevin I don't mean to insult you or bash you in any way"

I think we should set-up an account at Men's Whorehouse to buy Kevin new suits.

(I'm working on my screeching "leave Kevin alone" youtube video)

FYI TV fakery will not be a

FYI

TV fakery will not be a part of Dr. Barrett's campaign. He will focus on the strongest consensus facts regarding 9/11, including WTC 7, controlled demolition, failure to Intercept, and questions about the hijackers.

There is a big difference bewtween debating stuff on the Internet, and running a real political campaign.

Voting Machines

Kevin is aware that voters do not determine elections in the United States of America. I think he is trying to use the election as a forum for getting in front of the public to deliver his message. Dr. Barrett is a very honorable man.

http://www.radiodujour.com/hosts/barrett_kevin/index.html

No offense...........

to Mr Barrett. I appreciate your stance for the truth, but the one man i think that can convice the massies is Richard Gage.
He put's it in the simplist terms. An obvious no brainer.
Yes Dr. Jones has an awesome advanced discription, but when it comes to pointing out the (Holy Sh*t) i never stop to realize that. ..............It's Gage all the way.

Convise the massies

I agree . . everyone be quiet . . .only Richard Gage should speak . . . and I hope Kevin never wears a suit . . it is the uniform of the corporate borg.

So you hope...

...Kevin Barrett can win a congressional seat but also that he never wears a suit because it is, as you put it, the uniform of the corporate borg? So we should not attempt to dress the part simply because we will look like a corporate borg. Nevermind what Kevin Barrett will be saying, or that people will be way more apt to listen to him if he dresses the part. No let's shoot ourselves in the foot coming out of the gate by refusing to wear a suit. Brilliant tactic how about Kevin wears a tinfoil hat too so he can really not be part of the corporate borg. What a ridiculous statement and I hope you were sarcastic as sarcasm is hard to detect over the web. Once 9/11 truth comes out, the perpetrators are behind bars and the Bush administration's semi-fascist legislation is overturned, then we can have a national debate on the borgness of wearing a suit WHEN YOU ARE RUNNING FOR FUCKING CONGRESS! Until then how about we try and look serious about our intentions so the public will treat this issue with the seriousness it deserves.

Or maybe I'm just a corporate borg too even though I don't own one suit and I work as a waiter. You choose AJFan. Grow up.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." -The Declaration of Independence

When running for congress

if the people could actually vote and the votes were counted they would vote for a guy in a Nike T-Shirt this time around.

i have waited tables in my life . . it is very hard work.

I agree with you on Richaed

I agree with you on Richaed Gage. Dr. Barrett has a link to Gage's website on his homepage. Unfortunetly, Gage does not live in the 3rd congressional district of Wisconsin.

But wherever Gage lives, he should run for public office.

I'd like to know...

How Kevin Barrett got control of the "Month Of Truth". The first show shouldn't have been, and tonight's show should not be as far as I'm concerned. Richard should be having family members, and REAL experts about what happened on. People who went to every Commission hearing. People that know what they're talking about. Not people promoting theories about what they think happened.


Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

Good advice, Jon, I will

Good advice, Jon, I will pass that along to Dr. Barrett. Dr. Barrett would appreciate the names and contact info for guests whom you might suggest, and their area of topic. In the meantime, he is having difficulty finding real experts to defend the government's theory regarding 9/11, so any help would be appreciated.

I suggested him

is how

why . . because Richard Greene was looking for a debate between "scholars/experts".

i'm not sure why Richard Greene asked me, but he did and it was at the last minute and I knew Kevin could pull all of the scholars/experts together. I think he did a great job.

Webster Tarpley...

Referred to me, Michael Wolsey, Arabesque, and Col. Jenny Sparks as COINTELPRO in a public place on the last anniversary of 9/11, and not one individual, including Kevin Barrett bothered to speak up to correct him. Then he was responsible for the Kennebunkport Warning fiasco. He should not have been a guest. Tonight's guests are going to tell us about what they think happened at the Pentagon, and two simple questions will basically make them look like fools. If a missile hit the Pentagon, "what happened to the passengers?", and if the plane flew over the Pentagon, "where did that plane go if not into the Pentagon?"

We've seen it 1000x before. Sorry if I'm not enthusiastic.


Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

Jon; Dr. Barrett likes to

Jon;

Dr. Barrett likes to take the high road, and stay out of catfights between feuding activists, especially in a public forum. Catfights make bad impressions on newbies. Webster Tarpley is at fault for that, not Dr. Barrett.

FYI

Here is another place you can go and debate Dr. Barrett and post comments (without registering):

Rep. Ron Kind Agrees to Debate Kevin Barrett
http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/15/rep-ron-kind-agrees-to-debate-kevi...

Well...

I hope we don't have Jim Fetzer, Judy Wood, Nico Haupt, and Morgan Reynolds on to talk about "Exotic Weaponry", "TV Fakery", and "Cartoons".


Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

Morgan Reynolds doesn't live

Morgan Reynolds doesn't live in Wisconsin, so I don't see how he would be involved in Barrett's campaign. Nico Haupt, not sure if heard of this person, but I doubt he lives in Wisconsin either.

Dr. Fetzer does live in Wisconsin, and is a good friend of mine. However, Dr. Fetzer does not live in Barrett's district, and is not very campaign savvy. He may assist Barrett with signature collection, however, you need 1000 valid signatures collected in June to be on the ballot.

While others hurl insults at Dr. Fetzer for his sometimes bizarre beliefs, I've tried to be proactive, and tried to debate him on the facts and evidence, to some positive effect.

Please note that 9/11 Truth minutia is not part of a real political campaign. Dr. Barrett will be talking about the consensus 9/11 Truth facts and evidence, as well as defending civil liberties, bringing our troops home, stopping the Drug War, and defending the US Constitution, these are parts of Barrett's campaign.

Dr. Barrett has done a lot for 9/11 visibility, and intends to do much more in the future.

The idea here is to try to expose the Libertarian movement, the peace movement, and the Ron Paul movement, to the 9/11 Truth movement who are receptive to it. But Dr. Barrett can also expose 9/11 Truth to the voting general public like few other 9/11 Truth leaders have been able to do.

Response to Kevin Barrett's PR manager

"Dr. Barrett likes to take the high road, and stay out of catfights between feuding activists, especially in a public forum. Catfights make bad impressions on newbies. Webster Tarpley is at fault for that, not Dr. Barrett."

I'm sorry but I feel I should respond to this. First of all, framing the controversy as a "catfight" is dishonest, considering that virtually all of the slander and attacks came from Webster Tarpley in RESPONSE to 9/11 activists pointing out the fact that he was attacking Cindy Sheehan. For speaking out about these attacks against Sheehan, Tarpley began to slander 9/11 activists for more than a month. I documented the slander and it was the most ridiculous and outrageous attack on 9/11 activists by a supposed "leader" that we have ever seen in the history of the 9/11 truth movement.

If you feel I am making an exaggeration, you can read the slander here:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/09/webster-tarpley-arabesque-cosmo...

For anyone to frame these attacks as an "catfight" is absurd. Pointing out that someone is making attacks is not an attack. If I am a reporter, and I report that person X is attacking person Y, I am not making an "attack" against person X, am I? Conflating critique or criticism with ad-hominem is a straw-man.

Now, your comments about Mr. Barrett in particular are interesting, because he himself participated in this slander. On his radio show, he said the following:

"I know Tarpley was being sort of tongue in cheek [calling 9/11 truth activists Wolsey, Cosmos, Arabesque, and Col Sparks COINTELPRO agents]... but no. 1 that's just not a not a smart thing to do [Barrett proceeds to ignore his own good advice]--no. 2 even though I agree that two of the four people he named---that is the ones who had aliases who are afraid to operate under their own names--[disgusted voice] these people are obviously frauds and plants, bogus.

Hill: "They're children playing with computers".

Barrett: Maybe that's it. I don't know, those people I have no use for, whatever Webster wants to say about them I happily endorse. The people with real names that he called out were actually good people. Maybe misguided on this particular issue... throwing them in with these two false names--COINTELPRO people who are intelligence fronts or idiots, whoever they are was completely mad. It was really unfair to those two real human beings. I told him so, I gave him a really hard time after that."
http://mp3.wtprn.com/Barrett/0807/20080702_Wed_Barrett2.mp3

So not only is your framing of the entire controversy dishonest, but Mr. Barrett, who you represent as his "Public Relations" manager has participated in the slander. And here you are saying that Barrett is "above" catfights. Well, apparently, he is not, because here he is accusing me of being a COINTELPRO agent without any evidence.

As a short side note--notice that Barrett says that activists were "misguided" about this issue. The real issue--the one that Barrett and others continuously EVADE is that we said: personal attacks against activists are wrong and divisive. How can anyone say with a straight face that we are "misguided" about this issue--the ONLY issue that is relevant in regards to the controversy. It continuously amazes me how this simple issue is continuously re-framed and avoided.

Now as if this was not bizarre enough, Mr. Barrett made a "call for unity" shortly before this recent attack on myself.
http://9-11.meetup.com/270/messages/2996054/

I agree that there should not be attacks on activists. However, you can't have unity with people who insist on attacking other activists. This should be obvious. Keeping the above "call for unity" in mind, now we see that Barrett is slandering 911blogger as a "racist" site.

"Meanwhile those who promote the ridiculous LIHOP "blame Pakistan" and "blame the Saudis" Islamophobic hang-outs have been endlessly promoted at [Reprehenser]'s new version of 911blogger; evidence implicating Israel and Zionists is off-limits; and people like Elias Davidsson, the son of Nazi holocaust survivors who proves there were no Muslim hijackers, and Jay Kolar, whose work supports Davidsson, are downplayed or ignored...while Muslim account-holders and those who share their perspectives are expelled. It is as if [Reprehenser] and company are desperately trying to save the "blame the Muslims" core of the 9/11 psy-op, even after the official story has unraveled.

American society is so permeated with double-standards, so drenched in an ideology of Jewish superiority and Muslim inferiority, that people like [Reprehenser] of 911blogger can effectively ban all Muslims and Muslim-friendly perspectives and not only get away with it, but perhaps not even fully understand what they're doing. Islamophobia has become like the air we breathe -- toxic, omnipresent, and unremarked-on."
http://www.barrettforcongress.us/lamadrid.htm

Why is Barrett making "calls for unity" with people like Jim Fetzer, but spreading lies that 911blogger is a "racist" site, and that I am a COINTELPRO operative?

On what basis is Kevin Barrett attacking me as a "COINTELPRO" agent? What have I said about Kevin Barrett that would make him say such a thing about me? Well, for starters, I wrote an article than entirely quoted Kevin Barrett and his own words. You can read it here: http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/03/kevin-barrett.html

The entire article is essentially a collection of direct quotes by Kevin Barrett. Is this the first time that Barrett has made accusations against someone for quoting his own words? In fact, it is not:

According to wtc7.net:

"MUJCA.com is apparently mostly the work Kevin Barrett. Before August 2007, 9-11 Research expressed concerns about Barrett's apparent sympathy with Holocaust deniers, based on previously published conversations with the OilEmpire.us webmaster archived here. However, we removed quotations from that conversation after Barrett wrote to us to express his belief that our excerpt of it was libelous."
http://911research.wtc7.net/resources/web/activism.html

That's right. Apparently, quoting the words of Kevin Barrett is now evidence of "libel" or that you are a "COINTELPRO agent". His behavior is so obviously transparent, that your job as his PR manager must be extremely difficult.

And it appears that you aren't above slander or "cat fights" either. You called activists at truthaction "bat shit insane".
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3608&highlight=&sid=1381ef9...

This gets back to my CORE issue: Attacking activists is wrong and divisive. Criticizing Mr. Barrett and others for their divisive statements is not an attack. I'll repeat myself: Reporting attacks is NOT an attack.

Mr. Barrett is running for Congress and he is "representing" the 9/11 truth movement. I think we should DEMAND better behavior from someone who claims to represent the 9/11 truth movement, and if we don't demand it, we are going to be burned, and we are going to be discredited. Remaining silent about the destructive behavior of supposed "leaders" of the 9/11 truth movement is among the most damaging and serious problems that we face. Pretending that there is NOT an issue, allows the problems to continue, and for the movement as a whole, to be continuously misrepresented and discredited.
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth

Show "Backing up a little bit..." by Erin S. Myers

Visit Caustic Logic

Visit Caustic Logic's blog if you are interested in seeing the latest debunking of CIT: http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/. I'm occupied with more important issues right now than debating people who promote--and admit that they promote mass hallucination theories.

Kevin Barrett and his PR Manager Slander 911blogger, Truthaction, and 9/11 Activists
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/kevin-barrett-and-his-pr-manage...
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth

Show "Thanks for that..." by Erin S. Myers
Show "If this were a popularity contest, I'd understand..." by Erin S. Myers
Show "Well, as of 14:30 Aug/5..." by Erin S. Myers

Erin.

You were in the moderation queue for several months. I don't remember what you got thrown in last time, but calling people cowards just because you are getting downvoted is not cool. The system is anonymous for now, and will not change soon.

Time for a time out.

Jon; Barrett, it turns ot,

Jon;

Barrett, it turns ot, DID critisize Tarpley for that comment.

Only very belatedly...

..after many of us made a stink about it. And did I mention the time I blocked his email and he emailed me--from a different address? Exactly like "the911stalker".

That Barrett--all class....
_____________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/
http://truthaction.org/forum/
http://www.911blacklist.org/

Ouch

"i'm not sure why Richard Greene asked me"

Interesting.

I guess then he wouldn't be responsible himself for the disaster of claims that no passengers were killed at the Pentagon. How did he get your number?

I'm being modest

you are a "one trick pony" my friend

and . .

No passengers were killed at the pentagon

Kind agrees to include Libertarian in debates

Kind agrees to include Libertarian in debates

By REID MAGNEY / La Crosse Tribune

U.S. Rep. Ron Kind has agreed to include Libertarian Kevin Barrett in campaign debates later this year.

Barrett, a 9/11 skeptic from Lone Rock, announced his candidacy Monday in Sparta just before Kind held a listening session.
In the hallway, Kind and Barrett spoke amicably, and Barrett asked about debating. Kind replied, “I’m sure we will during the course of the campaign. Absolutely. I usually look forward to those as the year progresses.”

Barrett issued a statement later saying his respect for Kind “just went up a couple notches,” and called it a breakthrough for the “Libertarian party and the 9/11 truth movement.”

Kind’s spokeswoman, Anne Lupardus, said Wednesday that debates will be “much later” in the year and will be about all the issues and not focused on Barrett’s theories about 9/11 conspiracies.

On Wednesday, Republican Paul Stark of Eau Claire said he’d be happy to debate Kind and Barrett. “Oh, yes. The sooner the better,” he said. “Here in western Wisconsin we have a stark difference between all three candidates. In a sense that’s a good thing.”

However, Stark called Barrett “a controversial man,” and said, “As an American, as a Wisconsinite, I am offended that he will teach our young people in schools and walk around telling people that 9/11 was an inside job.”

Barrett grabbed national headlines in 2006 when he taught an elective class at the University of Wisconsin-Madison about Islamic culture and religion that included discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

READ COMMENTS:

http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2008/05/15/news/z02barrett0515.txt