Debunking the slander about Obama's Citizenship.

Now I wasn't an Obama supporter obviously, being a rather devout Ron Paul fan etc.

But after the past few weeks of arguing with the dishonest insanity I see rampant on Republican and Libertarian discussion groups and mailing lists, I've learned a lot about the facts involved around many of the lies being told about Obama and I have to say that it's given me a lot more respect for the moral high ground his campaign has stuck to.

I wanted to include below a message I sent to one of the groups I'm a part of in response to their several times a day repetition at this point of the lies about Obama's Citizenship. I wanted to illustrate how desperately they keep telling these lies and how little effect it has to show them the facts and the evidence to the contrary.

Excuse my obviously aggravated insults therein, I think if you start reading back through the past few weeks of exchanges, you'll start to understand why I started resorting to using such accurate, if juvenile, monikers to address them.

(In response to Scott saying he was glad he'd signed a petition against Barack Obama challenging his Natural Born Citizen status.)

Because you're an idiot who can't read? Grow up you pathetic child.

I'll illustrate here for everyone how thoroughly I've debunked your childish insistent and desperate lies here.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kirstenandersenfanclub/message/29653
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kirstenandersenfanclub/message/29659

And for the sake of thoroughness:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kirstenandersenfanclub/message/29658

Every time you tell this lie again, dishonorable as you are, I'm going to paste this message again from now on showing that you've been told the truth repeatedly but have no interest in the truth or the facts. Only in intentionally trying to spread misinformation and lies to try to win an argument through dishonorable and dishonest means, through scare tactics and slander.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

---

I tried to stop you from saying these stupid lies again.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kirstenandersenfanclub/message/29653

If you read those you'd know that you're lying (not that you don't already know, which you do. You just don't care because you can't help it but be a stupid liar).

Obama's step-father couldn't have renounced his citizenship and I linked the US Code section a few weeks ago that explicitly stated that fact. MORON.

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

*F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN*

Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.

I've covered this before.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kirstenandersenfanclub/message/29271

See that? I pointed this out to you THREE WEEKS AGO.

It's pathetically obvious at this point that you have no interest in the truth. You deny all evidence and FACTS presented to you that debunk your lies and desperate conspiracy theories. If you were interested in truth, you would acknowledge things like what I pointed out above and STOP REPEATING THE LIES.

GROW UP.

---

Of course you won't acknowledge that the state government, local government, health department and everyone else there has explained what the difference is between them, why the certificate looks the way it does, even had some of the people their show their certs as well that DID look identical etc.

HONESTY. TRY IT SOMETIME.

I've explained all this before and linked you to numerous articles clearly explaining it. You stink of desperation and a pathetic need to flatly ignore the truth when it's right in front of you.

First link is more for Scott to explain the matter of jurisdiction in the case and why Berg's case was so amateur and unfounded. It's pretty embarrassing to read actually (and unlike some people here, I actually read the entire thing.)

http://www.flds.ws/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/obama-surricks-10242008-ruling-2.pdf

Then this one for Aaron about citizenship and travel etc.

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

Then we move on to the pages that explain the situation:

• http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081031/BREAKING01/81031064/0/BREAKING04
• http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
• http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
• http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-birth-certificate-30-oct30,0,1742172.story
• http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news
• http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20081031/NEWS0106/810310417/1104/election3
• http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/12/obama-is-an-american-no-really/

Having read those, is it starting to sink in yet?

Maybe you need to go back and read them again... and pay close attention.

Let me know how it goes. :)

At this point Aaron has basically resorted to even more pathetic attempts at slander and has challenged me to come fight him in person to force him to be honest. Something that for any mature, rational, intelligent adult would have long since been accomplished by the repeated presentation of the facts, with evidence, with references, and with repeated explanations of the subject matter. As they say, you can lead a horse to water... *sigh*

Ron Paul is the Thomas Jefferson of our time and the only viable 2008 Republican option.

As Allen Holm states in his The Conservative Voice article Reasons for Republicans to Vote Paul, "Ron Paul is going to win the nomination of the Republican Party or the party is going to lose in the general election. Take that as a guarantee. One I would bet money on."

He closes out his excellent article with a number of quotes that I literally thought were from Ron Paul when I started reading. They so poignantly illustrate how Congressman Paul's stance echoes that of the author of our Declaration of Independence and one of the most influential founding fathers of our country.

We should also take a moment to note that yesterday Ron Paul set another campaign record by raising over six million dollars in 24 hours, beating his previous record of $4.2M in 24 hours, which was itself a record in the GOP.

http://ronpaulgraphs.com/dec_16_vs_nov_5_total.html

We should also take note again of the blatant, if not criminal, bias being shown by the mainstream media in openly trying to keep Ron Paul out of the limelight.

"You say Ron Paul doesn't have a chance? But who is giving you that idea? The major media outlets."

“I am for preserving to the states the powers not yielded by them to the union; and for preventing the further encroachment of the executive branch on the rightful powers of congress. I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple, and for retiring the national debt, eliminating the standing army, and relying on the militia to safeguard internal security, and keeping the navy small, lest it drag the nation into eternal wars. I am for free commerce with all nations, political connections with none…. I am for freedom of religion, and for freedom of the press. And against all violations to the Constitution to silence our citizens” - Thomas Jefferson on his positions for the 1800 election.

“Paper is poverty…it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself” –Thomas Jefferson

“I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power, the greater it will be” –Thomas Jefferson

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them” –Thomas Jefferson

“I sincerely believe that banking institutions having the issuing power of money, are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies” –Thomas Jefferson

“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God; it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” -Thomas Jefferson

“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution.” —Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Paine, 1798

Restore the Republic. Restore the Constitution. Restore Freedom and Liberty to our nation.

Please vote for Ron Paul for President of the United States of America in 2008.

Washington Post explicitly lists 1st through 4th, and 6th place winners. No mention of Ron Paul.

Several of the Mainstream Media outlets today reported on the Iowa Straw Poll results and conspicuously failed to make any mention of the fact that the "long shot" candidate Ron Paul had beaten both Giuliani and McCain by a sizable margin, with over four and a half times as many votes as Giuliani and McCain combined. Not only did they not report on that important fact, many of them simply neglected to mention him at all, completely skipping his place in the top 5 candidates as they listed the results. Probably the most egregious of these omissions was that of the Washington Post article on the Straw Poll results.

The Washington Post article explicitly lists the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and then 6th place candidates, conspicuously skipping over Ron Paul at 5th place. They even go on to discuss the 7th, 8th and 10th place candidates.

No mention of Ron Paul whatsoever in the entire 1,361 word article.

They discuss Giuliani and McCain, both of whom Ron Paul beat in the poll and they even discuss Fred Thompson, who is not even a Presidential Candidate.

The only people not discussed besides Ron Paul were the 9th and last place (11th) candidates, Duncan Hunter and John Cox.

It's odd that the candidate that finished in the top five, and had the unanimous recognition elsewhere of having easily the most visible, enthusiastic, and large crowd of supporters, only rivaled in size by Romney's group but not in enthusiasm, would not be mentioned. That the candidate widely called a long shot would garner almost 10% of the votes and place in the top 5, ahead of both McCain and Giuliani who are considered big name front-runners.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee finished second with 18 percent of the 14,302 votes cast, and Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas ran third with 15 percent. Huckabee and Brownback had waged a fierce battle for the allegiance of Iowa's social and religious conservatives. An ebullient Huckabee said Saturday night that the outcome will give his campaign a significant boost and vowed to coalesce those conservatives in Iowa and other early-voting states.

Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, the most outspoken opponent of current U.S. immigration policy, finished fourth with 14 percent. Former Wisconsin governor Tommy G. Thompson was sixth at 7 percent. He had said he would quit the presidential race if he failed to finish in the top two, and his campaign said late Saturday that he would make an announcement within 48 hours about his candidacy.

Fox News also conspicuously fails to mention Ron Paul at all in
their article, along with MSNBC following suit in their article. CNN lists the poll results in a sidebar, but makes no mention of Dr. Paul in their article either.

On the other hand, the LA Times mentions Dr. Paul a few times in its article on the Straw Poll, and Reuters also included Dr. Paul in their coverage. The New York Times has an excellent article with a few paragraphs about Ron Paul's great genuine support where supporters came from all over the country of their own volition, unlike the Romney and Brownback supporters who were bussed in and had their tickets paid for.

Iowa Straw Poll Results for the 2008 Republican Presidential Candidates
Candidate	Number of votes	Percentage of total votes
Mitt Romney	4,516 Votes	31.6%
Mike Huckabee	2,587 Votes	18.1%
Sam Brownback	2,192 Votes	15.3%
Tom Tancredo	1,961 Votes	13.7%
Ron Paul	1,305 Votes	9.1%
Tommy Thompson	1,039 Votes	7.3%
Fred Thompson	203 Votes	1.4%
Rudy Giuliani	183 Votes	1.3%
Duncan Hunter	174 Votes	1.2%
John McCain	101 Votes	.7%
John Cox	41 Votes	.3%
14,302 Total Ballots Cast

Important letter about Ron Paul and the Iowa Straw Poll.

I received an email in my In-Box this morning and wanted to be sure to spread the word.

We can already see the spin in action with the results of the debates Monday morning, where in spite of overwhelming support for Ron Paul and his absolute dominance of the ABC on-line poll afterward, Mitt Romney was hailed as being the strong winner and so on. Having read the actual poll data (PDF) from the ABC poll (not the on-line poll) that the article was based on, I noticed some interesting statistics. While 62 percent had previously been contacted by telephone by the candidates' campaigns, 72 percent said they'd never visited any of the candidates' websites. This further reinforces the idea that the polls are out of touch with the more "wired" or "connected" younger generation who are generally only available by mobile phone and are much more likely to have done on-line research of the candidates.

(On a related note, an obstacle for Ron Paul's campaign also comes from the fact that many other party voters, including a good portion of Democrats, are also supporting Ron Paul and are thus, because of their party affiliations, unable to participate in the early polls and primaries etc. This prohibits them from being able to support Ron Paul fully until after it may be too late unless they switch their party affiliation for this election to allow them to participate in these early stages.)

Below is an explanation of what happened and the attempts being made to prevent it from taking place at the Iowa Straw Poll in Ames on August 11th, in only 4 days. If you can, please do your part to make sure a fair and honest poll is taken in Ames! This is a poll that can make or break campaigns!

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2007-08-05.htm

That link is a must read to understand what is going on in Ames, only 4 days from now!

Dear Friends of Liberty:

Please read the following two articles and then watch the two videos.

Iowa Republicans See Romney As Straw Poll Winner

an informal survey of Iowa Republican Party leaders, conducted by Real Clear Politics, shows high expectations for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

Of the 30 Republican officials - representing county parties around the state and the party's Central Committee - who responded to the survey via email, 93% picked Romney to win in Ames.

Complete article here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/iowa_republicans_see_romney_as_1.html

Protecting Ron Paul, the Rest of the “2nd Tier” and America

(Thanks Bob for this valuable information.)

Now picture this:

On Tuesday, August 7, 2007, a letter is delivered to the Iowa Republican Party and the State and County Boards of Elections. The letter is signed by various good-government and election reform organizations and holders of $35 tickets that entitle them to vote in the Ames Straw Poll. The letter says that unless the following 10-point program is agreed to, a court order will be sought to enjoin and prohibit the Ames Straw Poll until the reforms are agreed to:
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2007-08-05.htm

Ron Paul Delivers the Best Moment in the GOP Debates

Please watch the video here, and then scroll down the page to Ron Paul on Fox News “Big Story”:
http://laist.com/2007/08/06/ron_paul_delive.php

This week in Ames, Iowa is critical. Any and all help will be much appreciated.

We Need Your Help!
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/events/iowa-straw-poll/

Thanks,

Joe Thornton

It's shocking to note that in the article on Real Clear Politics, Ron Paul did not register in any of the 4 different polls they did.

Not only did they make the following statement about him:

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, a libertarian in the truest sense of the word, did not receive a single vote in the poll. The lone anti-war voice on the GOP stage, Paul would be unlikely to earn support, or even notice, of people involved in Republican circles enough to be an elected board member.

But he was not even listed as a result in the 3 other polls:

• Candidate with the most to lose in the straw poll
• Candidate with the most to win in the straw poll
• Candidate most likely to win in 2008

So according to the 30 "Iowa Republican Party leaders" that Real Clear Politics selected to poll, none of them felt that Ron Paul was even significant enough to mention.

To put that into perspective, even John Cox, who ranks the lowest out of all 2008 Republican candidates, who has not attended any of major debates and has the least donations of any 2008 Presidential candidate, was ahead of Ron Paul and was picked as more likely to win the 2008 Presidential election than John McCain, Mike Huckabee or Sam Brownback.

But Ron Paul, who has attended all of the major debates, dominated the on-line polls, has good funding and a higher ranking in the overall polls, doesn't even register a blip on the radar or even a mention in 3 out of their 4 polls.

Real Clear Politics contacted almost 300 officials from the Iowa Republican Party and these statistics were based on the responses of the 30 officials who responded.

I also noted the stances of some of the other Real Clear Politics editors, here are some of their other comments about Ron Paul:

"He has no chance of winning the 2008 Republican nomination." --Mark Davis

"We know one element of the comparison is already apt [Between Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater]: Paul will not be President of the United States." --Gregory Scoblete

I think it goes without saying that these mysterious 30 "Iowa Republican Party leaders" are not representative of the American people or even necessarily the Iowa Republican party constituency, representing less than %0.001 of them.

Back on the straw poll itself, just to add insult to injury, let's have a look at the system they're using for the polls. Pay special attention to the equipment they're using.

Next Saturday, from 10 am to 6 pm, more than 25,000 residents of the State of Iowa will arrive on the campus of Iowa State University in Ames. They will be 18 years of age or older. They will be there to choose one man from a list of eleven men as their choice to be the next President of the United States of America.

At one of 60 vote stations they will receive a paper ballot. They will pencil in an oval next to the candidate of their choice. They will enter the paper ballot into a machine that will scan the entire ballot and record the vote. After voting, each voter will place a thumb into a container of purple ink.

After scanning each ballot the machine will deposit the ballot into a “black box” within the Diebold machine. At 6 pm each machine and black box are transported to a centralized “tabulation” room. The door to the room will be closed to the public.

The ballots are not removed from their black boxes or counted. Instead, a button on the machine is pressed. In response, the machine ejects a slip of paper showing the number of votes recorded by that machine for each candidate. The results are tabulated. Someone then leaves the room and announces the results of the vote to the assembled media representatives. Each person casting a vote will have paid $35 to do so. The ten men on the list are all Republicans. The Iowa Republican Party is sponsoring the event, which is known as the Ames Straw Poll, also the Iowa Straw Poll.

For a little background on Diebold:
http://reddit.com/search?q=diebold
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold

Diebold has a notoriously bad reputation, and the use of their systems here only increases my apprehension.

Ron Paul is the most financially supported, by military personnel and veterans, 2008 Presidential Candidate.

Based on the July 2007 Quarterly Finance Reports to the Federal Elections Commission, Ron Paul is the most supported candidate in terms of financial support by Military Personnel and Military Veterans.

Units are contributions in dollars, rounded to the nearest dollar, by employees of the respective military organizations.

Source: Finance Reports for the 2007 July Quarterly.

I have included the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, as well as the Army National Guard, Air National Guard, Coast Guard and any military veterans.

These statistics include the contributions of employees who recorded or indicated their military branch. Contributions where no employer was specified were naturally not included.

One statistic of note that I'd like to shed a little further light on is the contribution numbers of Barack Obama. It has recently been revealed that Obama has been counting anyone who bought a ticket to one of his speeches, bought a bumper sticker, t-shirt, coffee mug etc... as a campaign contributor by having them also give their information and counting the money as campaign donations, thus giving him an extraordinarily high number of contributors and an inflated total of donation dollars. At this time I am not aware of any of the other candidates using such methods.

Even given Obama's dubious campaign finance reporting, he still trails behind Ron Paul.

All 2008 Presidential Candidates
Name	Total	Army	USN	USAF	USMC	USCG	Vet
Ron Paul	24,965	6,975	6,765	4,650	1,500	0	5,075
Barack Obama	22,866	10,535	1,206	5,695	650	250	4,531
John McCain	17,425	6,925	6,305	1,795	1,600	0	800
Hillary Clinton	10,550	0	3,550	400	0	0	6,600
Bill Richardson	5,325	425	750	2,400	0	0	1,750
Mitt Romney	3,851	2,351	0	1,500	0	0	0
John Edwards	2,504	250	1,360	645	250	0	0
Rudy Giuliani	2,320	1,450	370	250	0	0	250
Mike Huckabee	1,750	250	0	500	1,000	0	0
Tom Tancredo	1,550	100	0	300	150	0	1,000
Duncan Hunter	1,000	0	1,000	0	0	0	0
Joe Biden	800	0	500	0	0	0	300
Mike Gravel	150	0	0	150	0	0	0
Sam Brownback	71	71	0	0	0	0	0
Dennis Kucinich	50	0	0	0	0	0	50
Tommy Thompson	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Chris Dodd	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Jim Gilmore	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
John Cox	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Republican Party Candidates
Name	Total	Army	USN	USAF	USMC	USCG	Vet
Ron Paul	24,965	6,975	6,765	4,650	1,500	0	5,075
John McCain	17,425	6,925	6,305	1,795	1,600	0	800
Mitt Romney	3,851	2,351	0	1,500	0	0	0
Rudy Giuliani	2,320	1,450	370	250	0	0	250
Mike Huckabee	1,750	250	0	500	1,000	0	0
Tom Tancredo	1,550	100	0	300	150	0	1,000
Duncan Hunter	1,000	0	1,000	0	0	0	0
Sam Brownback	71	71	0	0	0	0	0
Tommy Thompson	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Jim Gilmore	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
John Cox	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Democratic Party Candidates
Name	Total	Army	USN	USAF	USMC	USCG	Vet
Barack Obama	22,866	10,535	1,206	5,695	650	250	4,531
Hillary Clinton	10,550	0	3,550	400	0	0	6,600
Bill Richardson	5,325	425	750	2,400	0	0	1,750
John Edwards	2,504	250	1,360	645	250	0	0
Joe Biden	800	0	500	0	0	0	300
Mike Gravel	150	0	0	150	0	0	0
Dennis Kucinich	50	0	0	0	0	0	50
Chris Dodd	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Percentages:

All 2008 Presidential Candidates
Name	Percentage	Name	Percentage
Ron Paul	26.23	Duncan Hunter	1.05
Barack Obama	24.02	Joe Biden	0.84
John McCain	18.31	Mike Gravel	0.16
Hillary Clinton	11.08	Sam Brownback	0.07
Bill Richardson	5.59	Dennis Kucinich	0.05
Mitt Romney	4.05	Tommy Thompson	0
John Edwards	2.63	Chris Dodd	0
Rudy Giuliani	2.44	Jim Gilmore	0
Mike Huckabee	1.84	John Cox	0
Tom Tancredo	1.63

Republican Party Candidates Name Percentage Ron Paul 26.23 John McCain 18.31 Mitt Romney 4.05 Rudy Giuliani 2.44 Mike Huckabee 1.84 Tom Tancredo 1.63 Duncan Hunter 1.05 Sam Brownback 0.07 Tommy Thompson 0 Jim Gilmore 0 John Cox 0

Democratic Party Candidates Name Percentage Barack Obama 24.02 Hillary Clinton 11.08 Bill Richardson 5.59 John Edwards 2.63 Joe Biden 0.84 Mike Gravel 0.16 Dennis Kucinich 0.05 Chris Dodd 0

Based on a smaller, incomplete sample of the Republican Party from http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/07/16/military-support-for-the-republican-candidates.

I wondered what the results were for all of the Republican and Democratic candidates and decided to go through the data myself and compile a full listing of all the candidates listed with the Federal Election Commission for the July 2007 Campaign Finance Report.

More polls excluding Ron Paul, followed by confusion among the clueless.

In response to http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jul/17/election_central_morning_roundup

Poll: Other/Undecided Leads GOP Race
In a new AP/Ipsos Poll, 25% of Republican respondents say they are either undecided or would prefer someone other than the current field — more than the vote share of any actual candidates listed in the poll. Compare this to the Democratic side, where only 13% of respondents are undecided or prefer none of the above. In the horse-race numbers, Rudy Giuliani leads the GOP side with 21%, followed by Fred Thompson at 19%, John McCain at 15%, and Mitt Romney at 11%. Among Dems: Hillary Clinton 36%, Barack Obama 20%, Al Gore 15%, and John Edwards 11%.

How hard is it to figure out that the "Other" category is getting so many hits because you're not putting Ron Paul as an option?

At this point in the race it's really starting to seem like they're excluding him intentionally out of a fear of him actually winning. It's undeniable that he's a strong contender and a viable candidate who is participating in the debates, is all over the news, and wholly dominates almost all on-line or text in votes that he's actually been included in etc. Not only that but he tops John McCain in campaign finances and is the top candidate in financial support from the US Military branches.

This has gotten to the point where polls can no longer claim ignorance of him or pretend that he's not a viable candidate.

Why not to vote for Rudy Giuliani and instead vote for Ron Paul.

I've seen a number of examples in the past few months of why not to vote for Rudy Giuliani. Shining examples of his lack of knowledge of international issues, foreign policy, our own military history, and even the most fundamental issues regarding the mayorship of his own City.

First we have the infamous case of Giuliani's attack on Ron Paul at the May 15th Republican "debates", which included the following exchange:

Ron Paul: So there's a lot of merit to the advice of the founders and following the constitution. And my argument is, that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. When you do that, the wars don't end.

Wendell Goler (FOX News panelist): Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?

Paul: What changed?

Goler: The non-interventionist policies?

Paul: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East. I think Reagan was right: we don't understand the irrationality of Middle-Eastern politics. So right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican, we're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us.

Wendell: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attacks, sir?

[muted applause]

Paul: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it. And they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They've already now since that time have killed 3400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

Rudolph Giuliani: Wendell, may I make a comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11.

[15 seconds of loud applause]

Giuliani: And I would ask the Congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that.

Wendell: Congressman?

Paul: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the Shah, yes, there was blowback. The reaction to that was the taking of our hostages. And that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

Given the short amount of time allowed for responses, Paul was not allowed to adequately rebut this ridiculous claim on Giuliani's part, but the following day Paul offered several responses, and a reading list for Giuliani. Paul explained that Giuliani's assertion that he had never heard of anything like the blowback scenario that Paul spelled out was odd considering that the CIA themselves had covered the concept no less than 8 times in the 9/11 Commission report, which he would have thought that Giuliani, as mayor of New York at the time, would have read.

From the 9/11 Commission Report (As written on http://ronpaul.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/06/ron_paul_and_th.html):

• pg. 57- The Persian Gulf War, seen by many as perhaps the most effective military victory in American history, had unintended consequences that American policymakers could never have predicted. When Saddam invaded Iraq, the US gathered a coalition, based out of Saudi Arabia, to liberate Kuwait. At this time, Bin Ladin "proposed to the Saudi monarchy that he summon mujahideen for a jihad to retake Kuwait." The Saudis said no and jumped in bed with the Americans. After further protests, Bin Ladin was booted from his homeland and went into exile. This cemented Bin Ladin's hatred of both the Saudi monarchy and the US, as they were now in partnership desecrating the holy lands.
  
• pg. 59- Bin Laden's first fatwa against the US (1992) was first and foremost a protest against American occupation of Muslim holy lands, specifically Saudi Arabia. It was not a call to kill Americans because they were rich and free, it was a call to expel American troops from Arab lands.
  
• pg. 48- Bin Ladin's 1996 fatwa against the United States was not a blanket condemnation of America and a call to arms to destroy the American nation. The fatwa declared the limited aim of driving US soldiers out of Saudi Arabia. The American presence in Saudi Arabia, a byproduct of America's promise to protect the Saudis from Saddam during the Persian Gulf War and beyond, infuriated Muslim fundamentalist because in their eyes, infidels were occupying the holy land. Bin Ladin also spent significant energy condemning the Saudi government for allowing this occupation.
  
• pg. 49- In discussing the grievances aired by Bin Ladin against the United States, the 9/11 Commission Report specifically calls out "the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of the sanctions imposed after the Gulf War". Listen again to Guiliani's rebuke of Ron Paul over the idea of our involvement in Iraq playing in part of motivating al-Qaeda to attack America. If this is the most absurd explanation Guiliani has heard regarding the motives behind the planners and implementers of the 9/11 attacks, then I wonder (with dread) what he has been listening to.
  
• pg. 49- also lists American support of Israel as a major grievance of Bin Ladin.
  
• pg. 51- al-Qaeda's ultimate ambition is not specifically the destruction of the US- it's the establishment of the Caliphate to unify all Muslims. To Muslim fundamentalists, America's extensive involvement in the internal affairs of sovereign Muslim nations (the Shah, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Jordan, etc) props us secular governments and delays the future ascendancy of the Caliphate. Attacking America is not an end in itself, just a means (one of many) to another end. If they hated countries just for their freedoms, you would expect enormous terrorist attacks in Switzerland, Luxembourg, Iceland, and dozens of other countries. You don't, there's a reason.
  
• pg. 147- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the operational mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks and the Bojinka Plot, attended college in the United States and lived here for several years. Obviously, someone who lived here and then later orchestrated a murderous assault on our country hated us because of the freedoms, pleasures, and raunchy behavior we enjoy? No, it was because he hated our strongly favorable foreign policy preference for Israel.
  
• pg. 362- The Report reiterates that Muslim fundamentalist's hatred for America stems from "grievances stressed by Bin Ladin and widely felt throughout the Muslim world." These grievances are absolutely political- US military presence in Arab lands, favoritism towards Israel, and policies perceived as anti-Muslim. The 9/11 Commission Report does not list our freedoms or wealth as a contributing motive for terrorist attacks against our nation.

The reading list that Paul offered to Giuliani was as follows:

• The 9/11 Commission Report


• Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire by Chalmers Johnson


• Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror by Michael Scheuer (the former Chief of the CIA’s bin Laden Unit, Alec Station)


• Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism by Professor Robert A. Pape of the University of Chicago

I should also point out something interesting that I've noticed. I've checked MSNBC, The Washington Post, CNN, Fox News, The LA Times etc... and there is no record of the article. What makes this odd is that the article was there. On the Washington Post site, the article was under the title of "Candidate Paul assigns reading to Giuliani - washingtonpost.com", on MSNBC the article was under the title "Paul offers reading list to Giuliani" and oddly Paul's main page on MSNBC still links to the article which no longer exists.

I hate to cry conspiracy, but when an article that was on many of the major media sites suddenly disappears from them, and searches of those respective websites returns no new URL for the page, and even links to the article from other articles on that same site report that the pages no longer exist, it bears the question "what happened to the article?"

Fortunately the article was widely quoted and covered on numerous other sites, but it's curious that it's now notably absent from many of the major media outlets.

Luckily Reuters still has the article. We can also see a video of Wolf Blitzer's interview with Ron Paul the following day on YouTube.

Following that debacle, we have yesterday's news that Guiliani is yet again making absurd and ignorant claims about US foreign policy and military matters.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/06/giuliani-vietnam/

As the article clearly illustrates, Giuliani yet again couldn't be farther from the truth. This time his error is even more blatant than the last.

It seems to me to be increasingly evident that Giuliani has a fundamental lack of knowledge and understanding about our own government, our foreign policy, our military history and a variety of other pertinent issues, while in contrast Ron Paul has consistently demonstrated a deeper knowledge of our own history, the foundations of our government, our foreign policy, our economic system etc. The contrast should be clear to anyone who does even a cursory investigation into the facts.

For the sake of our nation, please vote for Ron Paul in 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
http://ronpaul2008.com/
http://ronpaultv.om/
http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/
http://ronpaul.typepad.com/
and many more.

Get informed.

Excellent article on Ron Paul's historical relationship with Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson

I just read an excellent article that sheds some light on the issue surrounding the possible reluctance of people who might be hesitant to vote for Ron Paul on the grounds that they feel his reforms might be too radical.

The author goes on to cover the legacies of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, who both made similar, if not even more radical, changes during their presidencies, and how that actually garnered them re-elections and massive public support after initially narrowly winning the elections.

An excellent read!