The two faces of Ron Paul
Chris Sarns Sun, 11/25/2007 - 6:21pm
Ron Paul, April 24, 2004
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=2372
The failure to understand the nature of the enemy who attacked us on 9/11, along with a pre-determined decision to initiate a pre-emptive war against Iraq, prompted our government to deceive the people into believing that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the attacks on New York and Washington.
Ron Paul, March 12, 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hLVhgm_glc
"I don't think you have enough evidence to show that somebody deliberately lied."
- Chris Sarns's blog
- Login to post comments
Quote out of context - heres the video cited
--
Truth Revolution: The Eleventh of Every Month
Bad Post
Impeachment is like a grand jury indictment, where you need solid evidence. We do not have that evidence collected in a form that is legally admissable. We all know Bush & Cheney are liars. So does Ron Paul. That is not the same thing as saying we have enough evidence to show that somebody deliberately lied in a court proceeding. This evidence could be collected by official investigators, but it hasn't.
If Ron Paul were president, he could just order the FBI to release all the secret documents that show 9/11 was an inside job, rather than have another stupid investigation like the 9/11 commission. If Ron Paul were president, you can bet that secret CIA documents would start leaking like the Amazon river.
Or a false flag at the WH
Or a false flag at the WH destroying all traces of documentation + giving cheney a reason to grab power (until his pacemaker gets zapped by DEW! - ok enough wild speculation - need coffee...
--
Truth Revolution: The Eleventh of Every Month
In or out of context, still duplicity
The first statement he says our government deceived the people.
In the second he says there isn't enough evidence.
The evidence to convict is already in the public domain.
Read the Resolution.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.333
Cheney repeatedly lied and made misleading statements.
Ron Paul changed his tune and voted to kill the Resolution.
Impeachment resolution
The indisputable evidence that Cheney lied about reasons for going to war is in the impeachment resolution.
(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction:
(A) `We know they have biological and chemical weapons.' March 17, 2002, Press Conference by Vice President Dick Cheney and His Highness Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Crown Prince of Bahrain at Shaikh Hamad Palace.
(B) `. . . and we know they are pursuing nuclear weapons.' March 19, 2002, Press Briefing by Vice President Dick Cheney and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem.
(C) `And he is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time . . .' March 24, 2002, CNN Late Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.
(D) `We know he's got chemicals and biological and we know he's working on nuclear.' May 19, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(E) `But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons . . . Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.' August 26, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at VFW 103rd National Convention.
(F) `Based on intelligence that's becoming available, some of it has been made public, more of it hopefully will be, that he has indeed stepped up his capacity to produce and deliver biological weapons, that he has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon, that there are efforts under way inside Iraq to significantly expand his capability.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(G) `He is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(H) `And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.' March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Vice President pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and Congress of the United States.
Voting Records Spell It Out
>>If Ron Paul were president, you can bet that secret CIA documents would start leaking like the Amazon river.
Give me a break!
What questions has Ron Paul, as US congressperson, asked of anyone in the Bush Administration about 9/11? It's been SIX YEARS. What attention has he EVER brought to the issue of what happened that day until he was running for president? What legislation did he create to expose cover-ups, like the fake investigation into the assassination of MLK? What marches has he participated in for justice? What rallies has he spoken at against war?
None.
Cynthia McKinney has done all of the above.
http://www.oilempire.us/cynthiamckinney.html
Okay, so Ron Paul didn't want to stick his neck out and get crucified. So let's look at Paul's voting record. Maybe there's something meaningful there.
Ron Paul on the Issues
* Property rights are the foundation of all rights. (Sep 2007)
* Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
* Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
* Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
* Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer
* Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
* Voted NO on granting Washington DC an Electoral vote & vote in Congress. (Apr 2007)
* Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
* Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)
* Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)
* Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000)
* 'Take marching orders from Constitution; not from al Qaeda.' (Sep 2007)
* Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
* Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
* Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
* Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
* Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
* Repeal the gas tax. (May 2001)
* Replace coal & oil with alternatives - strongly opposes . . .
http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/q11_2006.asp
http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm
So let's see, Paul says he's a constitutionist, but wants prayer in the schools.
Paul says he's a Libertarian but he wants the government to decide on abortion.
He even supports oil companies and drilling in Alaska. In fact, his own website doesn't even list "energy" on his issues page at all.
Sounds like a Bush dream so far.
Sort of leaves me wondering why anyone is calling him a "truth" candidate just because he's suddenly saying things that people want to hear during his presidential election (just like Howard Dean did in 2004), and is packed with position contradictions that we have to do pretzel twists to rationalize for him.
You don't get it
There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution authorizing all the things you want Ron Paul to vote for. Your comments undermine the 9/11 Truth movement which claims to be defending the Constitution. Ron Paul votes NO on every bill that contains anything at all unconstitutional, which includes riders on bills that he might otherwise vote for.
Your comments are extremely divisive and disruptive of the 9/11 Truth movement as most 9/11 Truthers support Ron Paul.
RonPaul2008.com is getting more than 23 times as much web traffic as 911Blogger because it has unified around honesty.
Ron Paul has raised over $17 million this year, compared to a whopping $30,000 at 911truth.org
Your negativity on almost everything is a big reason why no one donates to 9/11 Truth. Another reason is the extremely poor strategy decisions made by 9/11 truth leaders like yourself. Ron Paul has a postive message.
You are one of the main reasons I have left the 9/11 Truth movement to support Ron Paul, who will not only get to the bottom of 9/11, but also end the federal war on drugs which is even worse than 9/11.
LC prompting Ron Paul
It is unfortunate that Dylan and Jayson are backing this charlatan.
Ron Paul does not support the truth movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfdq6hoe-XY
Q: 9/11 was orchestrated by the government, you do not support that theory?
RP: ABSOLUTELY NOT!
The result is a change of focus on the LC forum and a split in the Truth Movement.
There is now a Ron Paul section "Outside 9/11"
Here are some comments from Ron Paul supporters:
eric_cartman
Posted: Dec 2 2007, 05:29 PM
ya, the ron paul revolution is way more important than 9/11 truth.
AlexAmore Dec 2 2007, 07:35 PM
Cheney is just one man and taking him out won't likely bring us closer to 9/11 truth.
mynameis
Posted: Dec 2 2007, 11:07 PM
Why should we believe Kuccinich is telling the truth any more than Cheney?
Since Ron will not be the
Speaking for Ron by saying he doesn't support the truth movement is like saying he doesn't support the JFK movement. I don't think the truth movement is divided but we have more reasons to unite for liberty. Sure there will be a few fringe, who will not balance their activism but will jump ship completely and forget their roots. Ron Paul is a fulcrum right now like 9/11 and the 9/11 wars so be tactful about it and we can learn from this.
Since Ron will not be the one doing the investigating and Ron believes in a real criminal investigation, not a coverup, I think we have more important things to worry about like the fact that Kucinich has no chance against HiIlary and he is a far cry from RP. McKinney doesn't have the momentum. If Ron doesn't get the nomination, I will either write him in or vote for Cynthia.....I guess.
Please listen to Michael Badnarik talk about why Ron Paul makes sense and learn about the difference between rights and privelages:
ISR With Special Guest Michael Badnarik: Nov 28, 2007 - MUST HEAR IF YOU ARE VOTING IN THE PRIMARIES!!
http://intelstrike.com/radio/?p=5
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/#Paul
Congressman Ron Paul, MD – 9-term Congressman from Texas, 1979 - 1985, 1997 - present. Currently, candidate for the Republican nomination for the 2008 Presidential election. Member of the House Financial Services Committee, the International Relations committee, and the Joint Economic Committee. On the Financial Services Committee, he serves as the Vice Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee. 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for President. Physician. Former Flight Surgeon, U.S. Air Force.
* Audio interview The Alex Jones Show 1/18/07: "Dr. Ron Paul, Texas Congressman exploring a run for President, appeared on The Alex Jones Show Wednesday and had the following to say about 9/11:
Caller: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I'm tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?
Congressman Paul: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don't have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there's not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn't going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on." http://www.total911.info
* Radio interview on Wake Up America with Pat Gorman 6/21/07: In response to a caller's question about the 9/11 investigation.
Congressman Paul: Well, I think he was asking about, you know, who ultimately is to blame and whether or not it deserves more investigation. There was one investigation. They spent a lot of money and very extensive and I think he indicated that they didn't even mention the third building that went down (WTC Building 7).
Government investigations, as a general rule, aren't very good because when the government does it, they generally protect the government. And whether it's investigating 9/11, or, you know, Ruby Ridge, or Waco, they tend more to be coverups than anything else.
The truth is I don't know exactly all that transpired. I don't know if anybody knows the absolute truth, but there's reason to be very suspect of what's happened. And I am convinced that the 9/11 Commission Report did ignore some very, very important things like the third building, as well as why did those numerous Arabs from Saudi Arabia with the name of bin Laden get to go home when none of us were allowed on airplanes. That always amazed me, as well, especially since the 15 out of 19 came from Saudi Arabia. And then they turn around and they use this as an excuse to go into Iraq. So, you know the whole thing, whether it's strictly 9/11 but it's the repercussions from 9/11 that led to the useless and needless war, that all needs looked into just for the sake of the future of our country. ...
Pat Gorman: It seems that we've got this propaganda machine that has just started to really blow up and being out of control. Like, you know, tell them whatever we want them to hear. Don't tell them the truth. ...
Congressman Paul: Yeah and I think that's true. The only way that can work is you have to terrorize the people, our people, in a different way than, you know, what terrorism is really is all about, but we terrorize them by building up tremendous fear. You know, "If you don't do something, if you don't give up your liberties and if you don't invade this country, we're all going to be blown up." You know, so they have to terrorize us and build great fear that something terrible is going to happen to our country unless we sacrifice our liberties and go to war." http://media.putfile.com
http://9-11.Meetup.com/322
Many hands make light work!
RRREMA=research, realize, react, educate, motivate, activate
"It's been said, and I think it's accurate, that my husband was obsessed by terrorism in general and al-Qaida in particular." (Hillary
Point well taken
ETA:
He supports a new investigation but he ABSOLUTELY does not believe 9/11 was an inside job.
He says it was "blowback".
We cannot wait and hope for his nomination and fair elections.
Impeachment is on the table now.
The indisputable video evidence that Cheney lied about WMD's is in the public domain and listed in the impeachment resolution. [see above]
RP: I don't think you have enough evidence to show that somebody deliberately lied."
RP's grandiose statement to the House:
"I voted to table this resolution not because I do not share the gentleman from Ohio's desire to hold those responsible for the Iraqi debacle accountable; but rather, because I strongly believe that we must follow established protocol in matters of such importance."
RP knew sending it to committee was effectively killing it.
There was no need to send it to committee.
Kucinich had already done an investigation.
He had the evidence to convict in hand.
If RP were sincere, he would have voted with his friend.
You may not like Kucinich but he's one of the few people in the Congress who have the courage to say it like it is.
Cheney lied us into a war!
He must be held accountable now, not maybe a year from now.
Another example of RP's double talk.
He puts earmarks into congressional bills for his district, knowing the bill will pass, and votes against it so he can say: "I've never voted for an earmark in my life."
Then he admits that:
"it doesn't cut any spending to vote against an earmark"
He accepts the money and the goodwill it buys him saying:
"congress has the responsibility to spend the money"
RP is talking out of both sides of his mouth again.
He claims to be against big government but he's in there earmarking like a big dog.
He brings home the bacon and claims he has never voted for pork.
In the first nine months of the federal government’s 2006 fiscal year, Paul’s district, which includes Galveston, received more than $4 billion in federal aid, but when congress decided to send billions of dollars to victims of Hurricane Katrina he said: [July 2006]
Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rgTqSu-ZVFM