Ron Paul, Part MCXII
David Weigel | May 20, 2007, 1:01am
There may well be other news in the world right now, but I want to follow up on the Ron Paul-Michelle Malkin kerfuffle.
In our last exciting episode, Malkin triaged her attacks on Paul and built a new case that he might be a 9/11 conspiracy theorist on a web post by the group that confronted him after a house party.
Here's what Student Scholars for Truth is saying about Ron Paul and his good buddy Dennis "The Truth About 9/11" Kucinich:
In regards to Rep. Ron Paul, he states twice in the Student Scholars video that he believes that the first 9/11 investigation was one in which there many “cover-ups.” Paul also claimed he “never automatically believes anything the government does when they do an investigation.” Additionally, he has been on the Alex Jones show several times. Ron Paul knows very well that something is very wrong with the official explanation of 9/1l. However, like Dennis Kucinich he cannot look right into our cameras and proclaim “9/11 WAS A SELF INFLICTED WOUND!” Through acknowledging the legitimacy of the 9/11 Truth Movement’s concerns, these candidates are expressing their support for our cause.
I repeat: This has no place on the GOP presidential debate stage.
Since I am a journalist, I asked Justin Martell (the leader of Student Scholars, who quizzed Paul) about this statement. He responds:
In regards to the article that I wrote that Malkin cites, where I stated that candidates cannot look into our camera's and proclaim "9/11 was a self inflicted wound," it has been taken out of context. You must understand the position I am writing from. Many members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, or 9/11 Wingnuts as some have so eloquently described them, won't give anyone the time of day unless they fully commit to the "inside job" standpoint, and that article was in response to many emails I had received from supposed supporters telling me that I should have been more aggressive and that if a candidate won't go on the record and say 9/11 was an inside job, then "to hell with them." And I was merely responding to those people, and trying to tell them that just because a candidate does not share their exact views about 9/11 does not mean he or she should not be supported.
This onion is pretty much peeled. Paul does not think there was a conspiracy behind 9/11, has said so, and has persuaded Martell that he thinks so. But Martell and other members of Student Scholars like the way he answered their questions and he/they encourage 9/11 truthers to support Paul (or Dennis Kucinich). If anyone thinks that failing to kick 9/11 truthers out of your event is or having some 9/11 truthers support your campaign is grounds for being kept out of the debates, I guess he/she can argue that.
In fairness, I admit that the
LGF poll Malkin links to is pretty sweet.
I don\'t know who I am anymore | May 20, 2007, 3:38pm | #
Ed and Co
You're conflating the man's personal views with what he would do as policy.
Ron Paul is a Christian. But he is not anti-secularist. His varying, seemingly conflincting positions on different things show, more than anything, an independent thinker who operates on his principles and beliefs rather than an ideolog.
He often votes his conscience. His stance on abortion and gay marriage are examples of this.
His stance on abortion is particularly interesting, more so than his stance on gay marriage. He departs from typical Libertarian thinking on this and somewhat from his usual non-governmental intervention stance. For example, he voted FOR the ban on partial-birth abortions. He's voting his conscience.
However, his stance on abortion is different from the usual 'Pro-Life' right in that, rather than appeal to moral hysteria and government coersion, Paul goes once again to the core of the issue in arguing that abortion is simply murder of a potential person and that that person should be awarded all the protections anyone should.
I don't know if he believes abortion should eb outlawed outright, but he is definitely believes government, esp. federal gov., should not be involved one way or another. I think he believes the ultimate decision should be local and state, but ultimately INDIVIDUALLY.
He is very firmly FOR separation of church and state and against government intervention in personal affairs and moral busy-bodying; the kind that both those on the right AND the left like to indulge in.
The quote cited by Edward is more a reflection of his personal beliefs, what he would wish it would look like, not an outline of enforced policy.
Thus I don't believe you have to worry about Inquisition or Theocracy coming from the likes of Ron Paul.
I dont know who I am anymore | May 20, 2007, 6:47pm | #
Here's a question for conspiracy buffs: does New World Order necessarily mean...
Again I do not espouse these ideas but,
As far as I understand it, here's the basic run down:
For the conspiracy theorists, the New World Order is a goal of a one world government espoused by the moneyed Elite.
These elite today are comprised of the international bankers, the 'money-traders,' who have historically controlled all the money and dictated policy to governments by controlling the money supply to such governments.
In essence, they are ones who dictate actual government policy. They own the governments.
These include the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve, both private banks, and the IMF, World Bank etc. are all related.
Then you get into the various manifestations of the Elites through history and culture. The Illuminati, Secret Societies like the Free Masons and Skull and Bones, blah blah blah and their symbolism.
Some conspiracy groups take a distinctly anti-jewish, or anti-Zionist, as they call it, view which could be construed as anti-semitic.
It so happens many of the bankers are and have been Jewish: Wolfowitz, Greenspan, Rothschilds, etc. You'll see banners at these sites saying things like 'Fight Zionists!'
And you have some association with these ideas by White Supremacists ans Neo-Nazis because it fits neatly with the idea of the 'Evil Jew' behind all the world's problems.
Alot of these fringe groups are the ones that do alot to discredit alot of these ideas.
Alot of these ideas are very interesting. In particular monetary theory and the idea of private banks like The Fed having so much influence. Didn't famed economist Milton Friedman basically share these views?
Thanks to the lunacy of some of these fringe groups, these ideas are all lumped together as "crazy conspiracy theory".
If there is merit to some of them, then maybe mainstream journals and intellectuals should start supporting and giving legitamacy to the ideas that have some base in fact.
Here's a few videos on Google Video that spell most of it out if you're interested. Very interesting, actually:
Freedom to Fascim by Aaron Russo
The Money Masters by Bill Still
Again, I'm not a conspiracy theorist or a spammer.
I dont know who I am anymore | May 20, 2007, 9:35pm | #
http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_10/woolsey-fed.html
Hmmm, very interesting. Thanks for an opposing view.
However, in skimming through your article I can spot several things that seem to support those crazy 'conspiracy theorists.'
I am currently too drunk and lazy to continue further, but here is one example:
"The rough equivalence between the interest the Fed earns from the government and the amount it transfers to the U.S. Treasury causes most economists to see these financing issues as a shell game. Since nearly all the interest paid on debt sold to the Fed is transferred back to the U.S. Treasury, there isn't really any interest paid. The government uses the Fed to partly finance its deficit by creating money and spending it. The end result is no different than if the U.S. Treasury just printed up "greenbacks" and spent them. The process is just a bit more "efficient" than the ancient practice of melting down silver coins and mixing in lead."
"The [...] interest the Fed earns from the government and the amount it transfers to the U.S. Treasury causes
most economists to see these financing issues as a
shell game." ?
Most economists?? Are "most economists" crazy conspiracy theorists then?
"The end result is no different than if the U.S. Treasury just printed up "greenbacks" and spent them."
If the end result is the same, then why do we need The Fed then? Get rid of it!
"The process is just a bit more "efficient" than the ancient practice of melting down silver coins and mixing in lead."
Ohhhh, it's more "efficient." Well, I'm an old-fashioned kind of guy. Gimmie the "old" method back.
Getting back to basics, what really is money? Is gold, a chunk of soft metal that looks pretty, any more intrinsically valuable than a piece of paper? You can't even do anything with it. Steel is more valuable.
No, it is just an agreed upon form of bartering that is more conveniant, just like seashells were to some groups of natives.
It seems to me, then, banks like The Fed and others liek them, have discovered, manufactured, the Philosopher's Stone- the ancient goal of alchemists, the substance that could turn anything into gold! They, in essence, can manufacture gold out of thin air, by controlling the printing of money. Eventually it won't even be paper money anymore, but numbers on a computer-electronic trnafers and credit cards.
Am I wrong?
I dont know who I am anymore | May 20, 2007, 11:28pm | #
Attempting to move on from off-topic and sophomoric economic debates with uneducated morons like myself:
If I remember High School economics class (I never went to college) governments, or course, couldn't just print (i.e. counterfit) more money because this would devalue the currency, right? The more you have of something, the less it's worth; the basic law of supply and demand, right?
But isn't this what Ron Paul and others are basically saying about the dollar? That since The Fed took over in 1913, the dollar has been steadily, and stealthily I might add, devalued?
He's an educated man, right? A Doctor.
Haven't other prestigious, super educated economists said, that the incredible feat of the Fed and the "genious" of folks like Alan Greenspan, has been to keep this up for so long? Without an inflation/devaluation implosion of the currency ala Argentina?
So then Ron Paul, and others who raise similar points, must be simplistic dopes who just 'don't get it.' Barring that, they must be conspiracy theorists.
Man, I really wish I could afford to go to one of those expensive colleges where they teach how things really work. The I wouldn't have to listen to conspiracy theorists.
