Showing posts with label Alex Jones. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alex Jones. Show all posts
Monday, April 29, 2013
Sunday, June 03, 2012
Alex Jones Protests Bilderberg: "They Eat Children"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Besides hating conspiracy theories, they are freaking hilarious.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Ron Paul: A ‘blame America first’ Republican
Rich Lowry said it before I could, but then people have heard of him.
From: NYPOST.com
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is in a bid to make history in Iowa. Can he become the first marginal, conspiracy-minded congressman with an embarrassing catalog of racist material published under his name to win the caucuses?
In 2008, the surest way to get applause in the Republican primary debates was to excoriate Ron Paul. This year, the Texas libertarian stands much closer to the emotional center of gravity of the party in his condemnations of government spending, crony capitalism, the Federal Reserve and foreign intervention. He brings 100-proof moonshine to the GOP cocktail party. It can be invigorating and fun, if you ignore the nasty adulterants.
It may be the ultimate commentary on the weakness of this Republican field that it hasn’t even been able to produce a respectable out-there libertarian.
Paul can be a winsome figure in his irritable, absent-minded-professor way. Invariably wearing a suit jacket that looks a size or two too big, he has stood out in the debates for his knowledge and for his entirely consistent worldview applied to any problem, politics be damned.
He gives listeners reason to smile or nod a couple of times every debate, and reason to wonder if he has been reading too much Noam Chomsky.
He tends to bring any conversation back to the malignancy of US foreign policy. In the final debate in Iowa, he rambled on about how worries about the Iranian nuclear program are “war propaganda,” but if the Iranians get the bomb that they’re not developing, that’s entirely understandable, since we’re “promoting their desire to have it.”
Jeane Kirkpatrick famously condemned the “Blame America First” Democrats; would that she had lived long enough to condemn the “Blame America First” libertarians.
In the debate, Paul went on to warn against a push “to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims,” as if a country that has resorted to force of arms to save Muslims from starvation (Somalia), from ethnic cleansing (Bosnia, Kosovo) and from brutal dictators (Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) is bristling with an undifferentiated hostility toward all Muslims.
This isn’t an expression of an anti-interventionism so much as a smear. It goes beyond opposition to American foreign policy to a poisonous view of America itself.
Paul never knows when to stop. He lets his suspicion of centralized power slip into paranoia worthy of a second-rate Hollywood thriller about government malevolence. In January 2010, he declared: “There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything, they run the military.”
On his latest appearance on the radio show of the conspiracy-mongering host Alex Jones, he opined that the alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador on US soil was “another propaganda stunt.” He exclaimed that the latest defense bill authorizing the indefinite detention of enemy combatants will “literally legalize martial law” (yes, “literally”).
Paul’s promiscuousness with his ideological bedfellows — he hails members of the John Birch Society for their fine educations and respect for the Constitution — accounts for the disgrace he brought on himself with his newsletters in the 1980s and 1990s. As journalist James Kirchick exposed, they were full of race-baiting and rancid Israel-bashing.
Paul maintains he didn’t know what was being written in the first person under his name. To this day, he says he doesn’t know who wrote the copy. Has he asked?
During some dozen Republican debates, not one journalist thought to query Paul about the newsletters that would be disqualifying for anyone else.
Iowa caucus-goers are protective of their pre-eminent place in the nominating process. If they deliver victory to a history-making Ron Paul, no one should take them as seriously again.
From: NYPOST.com
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is in a bid to make history in Iowa. Can he become the first marginal, conspiracy-minded congressman with an embarrassing catalog of racist material published under his name to win the caucuses?
In 2008, the surest way to get applause in the Republican primary debates was to excoriate Ron Paul. This year, the Texas libertarian stands much closer to the emotional center of gravity of the party in his condemnations of government spending, crony capitalism, the Federal Reserve and foreign intervention. He brings 100-proof moonshine to the GOP cocktail party. It can be invigorating and fun, if you ignore the nasty adulterants.
The fight over Ron Paul isn’t a battle for the soul of the Republican Party so much as for its standards. Throughout his career, Paul hasn’t been able to distinguish between fringy cranks and aboveboard purists. He has taken a principled anti-government position and associated it with loons and bigots.
It may be the ultimate commentary on the weakness of this Republican field that it hasn’t even been able to produce a respectable out-there libertarian.
Paul can be a winsome figure in his irritable, absent-minded-professor way. Invariably wearing a suit jacket that looks a size or two too big, he has stood out in the debates for his knowledge and for his entirely consistent worldview applied to any problem, politics be damned.
He gives listeners reason to smile or nod a couple of times every debate, and reason to wonder if he has been reading too much Noam Chomsky.
He tends to bring any conversation back to the malignancy of US foreign policy. In the final debate in Iowa, he rambled on about how worries about the Iranian nuclear program are “war propaganda,” but if the Iranians get the bomb that they’re not developing, that’s entirely understandable, since we’re “promoting their desire to have it.”
Jeane Kirkpatrick famously condemned the “Blame America First” Democrats; would that she had lived long enough to condemn the “Blame America First” libertarians.
In the debate, Paul went on to warn against a push “to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims,” as if a country that has resorted to force of arms to save Muslims from starvation (Somalia), from ethnic cleansing (Bosnia, Kosovo) and from brutal dictators (Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) is bristling with an undifferentiated hostility toward all Muslims.
This isn’t an expression of an anti-interventionism so much as a smear. It goes beyond opposition to American foreign policy to a poisonous view of America itself.
Paul never knows when to stop. He lets his suspicion of centralized power slip into paranoia worthy of a second-rate Hollywood thriller about government malevolence. In January 2010, he declared: “There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything, they run the military.”
On his latest appearance on the radio show of the conspiracy-mongering host Alex Jones, he opined that the alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador on US soil was “another propaganda stunt.” He exclaimed that the latest defense bill authorizing the indefinite detention of enemy combatants will “literally legalize martial law” (yes, “literally”).
Paul’s promiscuousness with his ideological bedfellows — he hails members of the John Birch Society for their fine educations and respect for the Constitution — accounts for the disgrace he brought on himself with his newsletters in the 1980s and 1990s. As journalist James Kirchick exposed, they were full of race-baiting and rancid Israel-bashing.
Paul maintains he didn’t know what was being written in the first person under his name. To this day, he says he doesn’t know who wrote the copy. Has he asked?
During some dozen Republican debates, not one journalist thought to query Paul about the newsletters that would be disqualifying for anyone else.
Iowa caucus-goers are protective of their pre-eminent place in the nominating process. If they deliver victory to a history-making Ron Paul, no one should take them as seriously again.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
The Company Ron Paul Keeps
From: The Weekly Standard
The Republican Jewish Coalition announced this month that congressman Ron Paul would not be among the six guests invited to participate in its Republican Presidential Candidates Forum. “He’s just so far outside of the mainstream of the Republican party and this organization,” said Matt Brooks, executive director of the RJC, adding that the group “rejects his misguided and extreme views.”
Paul’s exclusion caused an uproar, with critics alleging that his stand on Israel had earned the RJC’s ire; an absolutist libertarian, Paul opposes foreign aid to all countries, including the Jewish state. “This seems to me more of an attempt to draw boundaries around acceptable policy discourse than any active concern that President Dr. Ron Paul would be actively anti-Israel or anti-Semitic,” wrote Reason editor Matt Welch. Chris McGreal of the Guardian reported that Paul “was barred because of his views on Israel.” Even Seth Lipsky, editor of the New York Sun and a valiant defender of Israel (and friend and mentor of this writer), opined, “The whole idea of an organization of Jewish Republicans worrying about the mainstream strikes me as a bit contradictory.”
While Paul’s views on Israel certainly place him outside the American, never mind Republican, mainstream, there is an even more elementary reason the RJC was right to exclude him from its event. It is Paul’s lucrative and decades-long promotion of bigotry and conspiracy theories, for which he has yet to account fully, and his continuing espousal of extremist views, that should make him unwelcome at any respectable forum, not only those hosted by Jewish organizations.
In January 2008, the New Republic ran my story reporting the contents of monthly newsletters that Paul published throughout the 1980s and 1990s. While a handful of controversial passages from these bulletins had been quoted previously, I was able to track down nearly the entire archive, scattered between the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society (both of which housed the newsletters in collections of extreme right-wing American political literature). Though particular articles rarely carried a byline, the vast majority were written in the first person, while the title of the newsletter, in its various iterations, always featured Paul’s name: Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Political Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, and the Ron Paul Investment Letter. What I found was unpleasant.
“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks,” read a typical article from the June 1992 “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism,” a supplement to the Ron Paul Political Report. Racial apocalypse was the most persistent theme of the newsletters; a 1990 issue warned of “The Coming Race War,” and an article the following year about disturbances in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C., was entitled “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” Paul alleged that Martin Luther King Jr., “the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” had also “seduced underage girls and boys.” The man who would later proclaim King a “hero” attacked Ronald Reagan for signing legislation creating the federal holiday in his name, complaining, “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”
No conspiracy theory was too outlandish for Paul’s endorsement. One newsletter reported on the heretofore unknown phenomenon of “Needlin’,” in which “gangs of black girls between the ages of 12 and 14” roamed the streets of New York and injected white women with possibly HIV-infected syringes. Another newsletter warned that “the AIDS patient” should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,” a strange claim for a physician to make.
Paul gave credence to the theory, later shown to have been the product of a Soviet disinformation effort, that AIDS had been created in a U.S. government laboratory at Fort Detrick, Maryland. Three months before far-right extremists killed 168 Americans in Oklahoma City, Paul’s newsletter praised the “1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty” as “one of the most encouraging developments in America.” And he offered specific advice to antigovernment militia members, such as, “Keep the group size down,” “Keep quiet and you’re harder to find,” “Leave no clues,” “Avoid the phone as much as possible,” and “Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”
If the above were not enough to place Paul beyond the pale for the RJC, what the congressman had to say about Jews and Israel would probably be a deal-breaker. No foreign country was mentioned in the newsletters more often than Israel. A 1987 newsletter termed it “an aggressive, national socialist state,” and another missive, on the subject of the 1993 World Trade Center attack, concluded, “Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.” In 1990, the newsletter cast aspersions on the “tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of expertise.”
This is just a sample of the hateful and conspiratorial nonsense that Paul promoted for decades under his own name. His response to the revelations was nothing short of unbelievable. “The quotations in the New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed,” he said. “When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit.
Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.” In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer two days after the article appeared, Paul waved away accusations of racism by saying that he was “gaining ground with the blacks” and “getting more votes right now and more support from the blacks.”
Yet a subsequent report by Reason found that Ron Paul & Associates, the defunct company that published the newsletters and which counted Paul and his wife as officers, reported an income of nearly $1 million in 1993 alone. If this figure is reliable, Paul must have earned multiple millions of dollars over the two decades plus of the newsletters’ existence. It is incredible that he had less than an active interest in what was being printed as part of a subscription newsletter enterprise that earned him and his family millions of dollars.
Ed Crane, the president of the Cato Institute, said Paul told him that “his best source of congressional campaign donations was the mailing list for the Spotlight, the conspiracy-mongering, anti-Semitic tabloid run by the Holocaust denier Willis Carto.”
This sordid history would not bear repeating but for the fact that the media love to portray Paul as a truth-telling, antiwar Republican standing up to the “hawkish” conservative establishment. Otherwise, the newsletters, and Paul’s continued failure to name their author, would be mentioned in every story about him, and he would be relegated to the fringe where he belongs. But Paul has escaped the sort of media scrutiny that would bury other political figures. A December 15 profile of Paul in the Washington Post, for instance, affectionately described his love of gardening and The Sound of Music and judged that “world events have conspired to make him look increasingly on point”—all without any mention of the newsletter controversy.
Though present at nearly every Republican debate, he has yet to be asked about the newsletters. Had Paul’s persona and views changed significantly since 2008, this oversight might be understandable. But he continues to say and do things suggesting that, far from disowning the statements he has claimed “do not represent what I believe or have ever believed,” he still believes them.
In the four years since my article appeared, Paul has gone right on appearing regularly on the radio program of Alex Jones, the most popular conspiracy theorist in America (unless that distinction belongs to Paul himself). To understand Jones’s paranoid worldview, it helps to watch a recent documentary he produced, Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, which reveals the secret plot of George Pataki, David Rockefeller, and Queen Beatrix, among other luminaries, to exterminate humanity and transform themselves into “superhuman” computer hybrids able to “travel throughout the cosmos.” There is nothing Jones believes the American government isn’t capable of, from “[encouraging] homosexuality with chemicals so that people don’t have children” to blowing up the Space Shuttle Columbia, a “textbook psychological warfare operation.”
In a March 2009 interview, Paul entertained Jones’s claim that NORTHCOM, the U.S. military’s combatant command for North America, is “taking over” the country. “The average member of Congress probably isn’t a participant in the grand conspiracy,” Paul reassured the fevered host, essentially acknowledging that such a conspiracy exists. “We need to take out the CIA.” On Paul’s latest appearance on the Jones show, just last week, he called allegations that Iran had attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States a “propaganda stunt” of the Obama administration. In a January 2010 speech, Paul announced, “There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup” against the American government. “They’re in businesses, in drug businesses,” the congressman added.
Likewise, Paul’s insistence that America should be a “friend” of Israel is belied by public statements like one from a November 22 GOP debate: “Why do we have this automatic commitment that we’re going to send our kids and send our money endlessly to Israel?” This is an echo of Pat Buchanan’s 1990 claim that if the United States went to war against Saddam Hussein it would be on behalf of Israel, and that “kids with names like McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales, and Leroy Brown” would be the ones doing the fighting and dying. The assertion that American soldiers are risking their lives to protect Israel and not the United States is as false today as it was two decades ago.
Last, Paul continues to be the favorite candidate of those who believe that the United States either orchestrated the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, or allowed them to happen in order to create the pretext for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s not hard to understand why. In a December 9 speech to supporters in Iowa, Paul had this to say: “Just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately before there was any assessment there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq.”
Paul’s more mainstream supporters have always explained away his popularity with 9/11 “Truthers” as an unfortunate consequence of his altruistic, if at times naïve, libertarian ethos: The man just loves freedom so much that he’s loath to turn away backers who may think differently from him. To anyone who bothers to look into Ron Paul’s record, that claim is simply not credible.
The Republican Jewish Coalition announced this month that congressman Ron Paul would not be among the six guests invited to participate in its Republican Presidential Candidates Forum. “He’s just so far outside of the mainstream of the Republican party and this organization,” said Matt Brooks, executive director of the RJC, adding that the group “rejects his misguided and extreme views.”
Paul’s exclusion caused an uproar, with critics alleging that his stand on Israel had earned the RJC’s ire; an absolutist libertarian, Paul opposes foreign aid to all countries, including the Jewish state. “This seems to me more of an attempt to draw boundaries around acceptable policy discourse than any active concern that President Dr. Ron Paul would be actively anti-Israel or anti-Semitic,” wrote Reason editor Matt Welch. Chris McGreal of the Guardian reported that Paul “was barred because of his views on Israel.” Even Seth Lipsky, editor of the New York Sun and a valiant defender of Israel (and friend and mentor of this writer), opined, “The whole idea of an organization of Jewish Republicans worrying about the mainstream strikes me as a bit contradictory.”
While Paul’s views on Israel certainly place him outside the American, never mind Republican, mainstream, there is an even more elementary reason the RJC was right to exclude him from its event. It is Paul’s lucrative and decades-long promotion of bigotry and conspiracy theories, for which he has yet to account fully, and his continuing espousal of extremist views, that should make him unwelcome at any respectable forum, not only those hosted by Jewish organizations.
In January 2008, the New Republic ran my story reporting the contents of monthly newsletters that Paul published throughout the 1980s and 1990s. While a handful of controversial passages from these bulletins had been quoted previously, I was able to track down nearly the entire archive, scattered between the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society (both of which housed the newsletters in collections of extreme right-wing American political literature). Though particular articles rarely carried a byline, the vast majority were written in the first person, while the title of the newsletter, in its various iterations, always featured Paul’s name: Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Political Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, and the Ron Paul Investment Letter. What I found was unpleasant.
“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks,” read a typical article from the June 1992 “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism,” a supplement to the Ron Paul Political Report. Racial apocalypse was the most persistent theme of the newsletters; a 1990 issue warned of “The Coming Race War,” and an article the following year about disturbances in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C., was entitled “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” Paul alleged that Martin Luther King Jr., “the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” had also “seduced underage girls and boys.” The man who would later proclaim King a “hero” attacked Ronald Reagan for signing legislation creating the federal holiday in his name, complaining, “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”
No conspiracy theory was too outlandish for Paul’s endorsement. One newsletter reported on the heretofore unknown phenomenon of “Needlin’,” in which “gangs of black girls between the ages of 12 and 14” roamed the streets of New York and injected white women with possibly HIV-infected syringes. Another newsletter warned that “the AIDS patient” should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,” a strange claim for a physician to make.
Paul gave credence to the theory, later shown to have been the product of a Soviet disinformation effort, that AIDS had been created in a U.S. government laboratory at Fort Detrick, Maryland. Three months before far-right extremists killed 168 Americans in Oklahoma City, Paul’s newsletter praised the “1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty” as “one of the most encouraging developments in America.” And he offered specific advice to antigovernment militia members, such as, “Keep the group size down,” “Keep quiet and you’re harder to find,” “Leave no clues,” “Avoid the phone as much as possible,” and “Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”
If the above were not enough to place Paul beyond the pale for the RJC, what the congressman had to say about Jews and Israel would probably be a deal-breaker. No foreign country was mentioned in the newsletters more often than Israel. A 1987 newsletter termed it “an aggressive, national socialist state,” and another missive, on the subject of the 1993 World Trade Center attack, concluded, “Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.” In 1990, the newsletter cast aspersions on the “tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of expertise.”
This is just a sample of the hateful and conspiratorial nonsense that Paul promoted for decades under his own name. His response to the revelations was nothing short of unbelievable. “The quotations in the New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed,” he said. “When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit.
Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.” In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer two days after the article appeared, Paul waved away accusations of racism by saying that he was “gaining ground with the blacks” and “getting more votes right now and more support from the blacks.”
Yet a subsequent report by Reason found that Ron Paul & Associates, the defunct company that published the newsletters and which counted Paul and his wife as officers, reported an income of nearly $1 million in 1993 alone. If this figure is reliable, Paul must have earned multiple millions of dollars over the two decades plus of the newsletters’ existence. It is incredible that he had less than an active interest in what was being printed as part of a subscription newsletter enterprise that earned him and his family millions of dollars.
Ed Crane, the president of the Cato Institute, said Paul told him that “his best source of congressional campaign donations was the mailing list for the Spotlight, the conspiracy-mongering, anti-Semitic tabloid run by the Holocaust denier Willis Carto.”
This sordid history would not bear repeating but for the fact that the media love to portray Paul as a truth-telling, antiwar Republican standing up to the “hawkish” conservative establishment. Otherwise, the newsletters, and Paul’s continued failure to name their author, would be mentioned in every story about him, and he would be relegated to the fringe where he belongs. But Paul has escaped the sort of media scrutiny that would bury other political figures. A December 15 profile of Paul in the Washington Post, for instance, affectionately described his love of gardening and The Sound of Music and judged that “world events have conspired to make him look increasingly on point”—all without any mention of the newsletter controversy.
Though present at nearly every Republican debate, he has yet to be asked about the newsletters. Had Paul’s persona and views changed significantly since 2008, this oversight might be understandable. But he continues to say and do things suggesting that, far from disowning the statements he has claimed “do not represent what I believe or have ever believed,” he still believes them.
In the four years since my article appeared, Paul has gone right on appearing regularly on the radio program of Alex Jones, the most popular conspiracy theorist in America (unless that distinction belongs to Paul himself). To understand Jones’s paranoid worldview, it helps to watch a recent documentary he produced, Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, which reveals the secret plot of George Pataki, David Rockefeller, and Queen Beatrix, among other luminaries, to exterminate humanity and transform themselves into “superhuman” computer hybrids able to “travel throughout the cosmos.” There is nothing Jones believes the American government isn’t capable of, from “[encouraging] homosexuality with chemicals so that people don’t have children” to blowing up the Space Shuttle Columbia, a “textbook psychological warfare operation.”
In a March 2009 interview, Paul entertained Jones’s claim that NORTHCOM, the U.S. military’s combatant command for North America, is “taking over” the country. “The average member of Congress probably isn’t a participant in the grand conspiracy,” Paul reassured the fevered host, essentially acknowledging that such a conspiracy exists. “We need to take out the CIA.” On Paul’s latest appearance on the Jones show, just last week, he called allegations that Iran had attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States a “propaganda stunt” of the Obama administration. In a January 2010 speech, Paul announced, “There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup” against the American government. “They’re in businesses, in drug businesses,” the congressman added.
Likewise, Paul’s insistence that America should be a “friend” of Israel is belied by public statements like one from a November 22 GOP debate: “Why do we have this automatic commitment that we’re going to send our kids and send our money endlessly to Israel?” This is an echo of Pat Buchanan’s 1990 claim that if the United States went to war against Saddam Hussein it would be on behalf of Israel, and that “kids with names like McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales, and Leroy Brown” would be the ones doing the fighting and dying. The assertion that American soldiers are risking their lives to protect Israel and not the United States is as false today as it was two decades ago.
Last, Paul continues to be the favorite candidate of those who believe that the United States either orchestrated the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, or allowed them to happen in order to create the pretext for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s not hard to understand why. In a December 9 speech to supporters in Iowa, Paul had this to say: “Just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately before there was any assessment there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq.”
Paul’s more mainstream supporters have always explained away his popularity with 9/11 “Truthers” as an unfortunate consequence of his altruistic, if at times naïve, libertarian ethos: The man just loves freedom so much that he’s loath to turn away backers who may think differently from him. To anyone who bothers to look into Ron Paul’s record, that claim is simply not credible.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Why Is Drudge Linking To Alex Jones's "Info Wars" Site?
As I normally do on a daily basis I visited the Drudge Report. On the left hand column there are three links regarding Texas Governor Rick Perry.
The first link is this: National Journal: Perry Road Tests Stump Speech
The second link is this: NBC NEWS:Perry: Stand Up and Stop Apolgizing
The third link? Infowars.com.: Bilderberg Approved Perry Set To Become GOP Frontrunner
This is apparently not the first time Drudge has linked to that charlatan Alex Jones, but this piece is absolutely ridiculous. Drudge loses credibility by linking such crap on his site.
First there's the title. Rick Perry if he gets in will be formidable,but does anyone really think he becomes the automatic front runner? He's well known with conservatives and in Texas, but relatively unknown to most Americans. Most polls that include Perry have him in single digits.
The lead paragraph:
There's more:
The rest of the article goes on with Jones's usual conspiracy nonsense even suggesting that Perry's participation in an Istanbul conference violated the "Logan Act".
Oh and of course the conspiracy to nominate Rick Perry is to stop Ron Paul's momentum.
Matt Drudge does yeoman's work sifting through items for our perusal, but someone needs to call him on this crap. It's embarrassing to intelligent and thoughtful discourse.What a waste.
The first link is this: National Journal: Perry Road Tests Stump Speech
The second link is this: NBC NEWS:Perry: Stand Up and Stop Apolgizing
The third link? Infowars.com.: Bilderberg Approved Perry Set To Become GOP Frontrunner
This is apparently not the first time Drudge has linked to that charlatan Alex Jones, but this piece is absolutely ridiculous. Drudge loses credibility by linking such crap on his site.
First there's the title. Rick Perry if he gets in will be formidable,but does anyone really think he becomes the automatic front runner? He's well known with conservatives and in Texas, but relatively unknown to most Americans. Most polls that include Perry have him in single digits.
The lead paragraph:
"Every indication suggests that Bilderberg-approved Texas Governor Rick Perry is set to become the front runner in the Republican race to challenge Barack Obama for the presidency, illustrating once again how a shady, secretive and undemocratic global elite holds the reigns of true power while Americans are distracted by the delusional notion that they have a genuine choice in 2012."Isn't it great to know that the world's most trafficked website (?) is perpetuating Alex Jones's absurdities that our Republic is a sham?
There's more:
"Texas Governor Perry, a protégé of Karl Rove, is very good at acting like a down-home populist, but that’s all it is – an act. Perry is George W. Bush 2.0."I may not be an expert on Texas politics but I have a clear impression that the Perry's and the Bush's don't care for each other. Have we ever heard Karl Rove's name mentioned in connection with Perry's tenure as Lt. Governor and now Governor? In point of fact, Karl Rove actively supported Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison in her primary effort to defeat Rick Perry's bid for a third term just last year. Perry crushed her and Rove and his Bush supporters went down to ignominious defeat at the hands of Perry in the GOP primary. I'm quite certain G.W., Rove and Senator Hutchison (who's retiring) would not categorize Perry as Bush 2.0.
The rest of the article goes on with Jones's usual conspiracy nonsense even suggesting that Perry's participation in an Istanbul conference violated the "Logan Act".
Oh and of course the conspiracy to nominate Rick Perry is to stop Ron Paul's momentum.
Matt Drudge does yeoman's work sifting through items for our perusal, but someone needs to call him on this crap. It's embarrassing to intelligent and thoughtful discourse.What a waste.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Note To Obama (And Everyone Else): Conspiracy Theories Never Die or Fade Away
I utterly detest,loathe,hate,despise and any other word you can think of to express how I feel about conspiracy theories. I take history too seriously and know it well enough to discard conspiracy.
I would be sympathetic to Obama regarding his birth certificate if it weren't obvious to me that he let it fly under the radar because he believed it labeled all of his critics as crazy and detached from reality. Sadly, due to the efforts of the "Publicity In Chief" Donald Trump, "birtherism" had entered the mainstream and was sucking up all the oxygen while important were tossed aside. Obama's declining poll numbers and Trump's rising numbers made it necessary to end the debate, at least in the world of the rational. Pure politics drove the release as the fringe found mainstream outlets.
Sadly, as the President acknowledged it will not satisfy everyone. Par for the course as history goes. We have a film of a President being assassinated yet many dispute the assassin as Lee Harvey Oswald. Many have latched onto James Earl Ray's assertion that he did not kill MLK. Sirhan Sirhan? It had to be someone else.
Conspiracy theories are not confined to assassins. You have those who insist that "Gnostics" were the real Christians overwhelmed by the "phony" Christianity of the last 1800 years. The Knights Templar? What didn't they have their hand in? From protecting the bloodline of Jesus to inventing America as the Freemasons.
There are theories that are similar. FDR was accused of knowing about the attack on Pearl Harbor and of course plenty of people think George Bush knew about 9/11 and some think he orchestrated it. Or Dick Cheney. Then there's Edwin Stanton who some think was in on the assassination Lincoln. And who can forget Reagan making a deal with Iran not to release the hostages before the 1980 election or his bringing crack to the inner city? Yawn.
The more rational among us will let this rest, but of course the Orly Taitz's and Alex Jones's of the world will find "holes" in the certificate and feed Jerome Corsi's new book on the subject as the truth.
So,let me take a moment to predict the charges on why the long form is false in the eyes of hard core "birthers". In bullet format:
*It's printed on paper that wasn't invented in 1961
*The paper was too thick or too thin than was normal in 1961
*The ink is too dark or too faded
*The handwriting is not from the same hand
*The birth certificate did not identify him as a Muslim or have college transcripts.
*It wasn't written in Hawaiian
*It's a fraud because we know his parents were really Darth Vader and Alex Jones
*The flip side has a "Made In Kenya" stamp.
*Just Because (stick out your tongue while saying)
*Obama can't be telling the truth because he's never told the truth.
Just a little bit tongue in cheek, but as I'm typing this I'm betting the long awaited release of the long form has been torn to shreds as a fraud. Blah blah blah. Time,history and conspiracy theories keep rolling along.
I would be sympathetic to Obama regarding his birth certificate if it weren't obvious to me that he let it fly under the radar because he believed it labeled all of his critics as crazy and detached from reality. Sadly, due to the efforts of the "Publicity In Chief" Donald Trump, "birtherism" had entered the mainstream and was sucking up all the oxygen while important were tossed aside. Obama's declining poll numbers and Trump's rising numbers made it necessary to end the debate, at least in the world of the rational. Pure politics drove the release as the fringe found mainstream outlets.
Sadly, as the President acknowledged it will not satisfy everyone. Par for the course as history goes. We have a film of a President being assassinated yet many dispute the assassin as Lee Harvey Oswald. Many have latched onto James Earl Ray's assertion that he did not kill MLK. Sirhan Sirhan? It had to be someone else.
Conspiracy theories are not confined to assassins. You have those who insist that "Gnostics" were the real Christians overwhelmed by the "phony" Christianity of the last 1800 years. The Knights Templar? What didn't they have their hand in? From protecting the bloodline of Jesus to inventing America as the Freemasons.
There are theories that are similar. FDR was accused of knowing about the attack on Pearl Harbor and of course plenty of people think George Bush knew about 9/11 and some think he orchestrated it. Or Dick Cheney. Then there's Edwin Stanton who some think was in on the assassination Lincoln. And who can forget Reagan making a deal with Iran not to release the hostages before the 1980 election or his bringing crack to the inner city? Yawn.
The more rational among us will let this rest, but of course the Orly Taitz's and Alex Jones's of the world will find "holes" in the certificate and feed Jerome Corsi's new book on the subject as the truth.
So,let me take a moment to predict the charges on why the long form is false in the eyes of hard core "birthers". In bullet format:
*It's printed on paper that wasn't invented in 1961
*The paper was too thick or too thin than was normal in 1961
*The ink is too dark or too faded
*The handwriting is not from the same hand
*The birth certificate did not identify him as a Muslim or have college transcripts.
*It wasn't written in Hawaiian
*It's a fraud because we know his parents were really Darth Vader and Alex Jones
*The flip side has a "Made In Kenya" stamp.
*Just Because (stick out your tongue while saying)
*Obama can't be telling the truth because he's never told the truth.
Just a little bit tongue in cheek, but as I'm typing this I'm betting the long awaited release of the long form has been torn to shreds as a fraud. Blah blah blah. Time,history and conspiracy theories keep rolling along.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
