26 Responses for "Saul Anuzis Should Read the First Amendment"

1. Gary May 17th, 2007 at 10:56 am 1

   This has nothing to do with the First Amendment…Ron Paul can speak all he wants…but if the Michigan GOP is paying for or sponsoring the debate, they have every right to exclude a nut job that thinks US policy was responsible for 9/11. Let him find his own venues to speak at.

2. prandtl May 17th, 2007 at 11:20 am 2

   Well if they have to include Ron Paul they may as well let that John Cox guy in… the random guy who’s running and had that reception at CPAC.

3. FreeRepublicans.com May 17th, 2007 at 11:36 am 3

   Gary is right, this is not a 1st Amendment issue.

   It is a group-think issue.
   It is a sacred dogma issue.
   It is a single issue purity test issue.
   It is an ignorance of history - world and Republican Party.

   The South Carolina GOP and FoxNews locked out John Cox and had every right to. He sued them and was promptly batted down by the judge.

   If the GOP wants to kick Ron Paul out it is their right, but there are many Republicans that may just follow him.

   No one thinks or ever thought he could win the nomination - but how the party treats him will determine the future of Republican and Libertarian relations.

4. Gary May 17th, 2007 at 1:44 pm 4

   Let’s get a few facts straight here. The Libertarian Party and libertarianism in the vein of National Review and a large segment of the Republican Party are not the same.

   Ron Paul is the Libertarian Party extremist form of libertarian. If he left the party and took every one of his supporters with him…it would do NOTHING to the GOP.

   Lest we forget, this is not Mr. Paul’s first presidential run. He ran as a Libertarian candidate in 1988 and took an outstanding, overwhelming percentage of 0.5% of the vote….wow….Pat Buchanan got more votes on the Reform Party ticket.

   If he wants to stay in the party that’s fine…he’s more than welcome especially his fiscal policies….but it doesn’t mean he gets to say nut case theories on 9/11 that one expects from MoveOn.org without repercussions. If he wants to bolt…let him go…it will not make even the smallest dent in the GOP.

5. FreeRepublicans.com May 17th, 2007 at 1:57 pm 5

   To deny that Western Policies since the fall of the Ottoman Empire to try to mold the Arab World into our image has amplified and magnified the Islamic hatred for non-Muslims is a sign of a mental defect.

   America is not to blame for 9/11.

   But our actions and policies of the last century have shaped the world we live in today.

6. Gary May 17th, 2007 at 2:35 pm 6

   If our policies were NOT in place what do you think the world would look like today? Arab/Islamic aggression left unchecked would have made the Holocaust look like a side-show. We are talking about an insanity that the world still does not realize.

7. FreeRepublicans.com May 17th, 2007 at 3:04 pm 7

   We are talking about an insanity that the world still does not realize.

   Exactly.

   Europe doesn’t realize it, the Chinese and the Russians want to empower it and profit from it, and we’re left holding the bag for the world, that doesn’t sound like good odds.

8. Pete May 17th, 2007 at 3:47 pm 8

   Wow. This is exactly why I left the Republican Party and went independant. You guys are just as closed-minded as the democrats.

   Ron Paul speaks the truth. Perhaps a few of you should read up on the 1953 Iranian coup that brought the Shah into power. That’s the root of all this animosity. Yet you guys still cling to stupid slogans like “They hate our freedoms”.

   My eyes are opened. I’m out. Never again will I put “R” on my voter registration card until you guys return to the principles that our founders based this nation on. You’re all as bad as the democrats. What exactly do you stand for?

9. Ed May 17th, 2007 at 5:55 pm 9

   This has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment, but has everything to do with how badly the Republicans are going to get destroyed in the general election. Another group of special interest owned imperialist hawks who have no more vision than the neo-socialist democrats. I dont know what’s sadder, having a fundamentally flawed vision of goverment (democrats) or having the correct one and ignoring it.

10. Sam Berninger May 17th, 2007 at 6:00 pm 10

    Agreed, Pete. The line of “they hate us for our freedoms” is a big load of bullshit.

11. Sam Berninger May 17th, 2007 at 6:43 pm 11

    Gary - “but if the Michigan GOP is paying for or sponsoring the debate, they have every right to exclude a nut job that thinks US policy was responsible for 9/11. Let him find his own venues to speak at.”
    ——————————————————————————

    He isn’t trying to keep him out of Michigan debates, Gary. He is trying to keep him out of ALL debates going forward.

12. Michael May 17th, 2007 at 6:51 pm 12

    When will the Republican Party stand up for its own values! This is quite disconcerting to see Republicans ban a candidate. Why doesn’t Anuzi just ban all the candidates he disagrees with and we can just go forward with a “selection” instead of an “election.” Forget Michigan, I’m moving to New Hampshire.

13. Ryan May 17th, 2007 at 8:24 pm 13

    On the Constitution, there was a great debate among the founding fathers over the role of the United States abroad. Hamilton argued in the Federalist Papers and other writings for a vigorous foreigh policy. Furthermore, he predicted that the United States would surpass everyone as the global power for a number of reasons.

    A very plausable argument can be made that Hamilton’s vision of America and its Constitution, which he argued so strongly for, fit our current foreign policy. Jefferson was stuck in this utopian vision of the United States being agricultural, but Hamilton understood where the United States was heading. His vision of America became reality while Jefferson’s view looks very odd compared to the course of American history.

14. Mike May 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am 14

    “. . . to exclude a nut job that thinks US policy was responsible for 9/11.”

    “. . . but it doesn’t mean he gets to say nut case theories on 9/11 that one expects from MoveOn.org without repercussions.”

    I . . . don’t know what to say to this. It is one thing to argue that American policy has no effect on Radical Islamic hatred of America. It is something else entirely to say that just to suggest that the concept of “blowback” is valid and might be a factor in American foreign policy is the sign of being a nut job!

    Honestly, the only person who isn’t being rational here is you. Blowback exists, it doesn’t mean we don’t go ahead and kill the enemy, but it does mean that we are aware of why we are fighting radical Islam.

15. Joseph T McCarthy May 18th, 2007 at 12:26 am 15

    There are two ways to make an argument: on the merits, and on the demerits of the opposing argument. Ron Paul has done the latter; he says we should look at what the terrorists say.

    Well, an obvious observation: If Ron Paul had a better argument at the debate, he would have used the better argument. He didn’t, which means even HE doesn’t believe that his chips add up at the end of the night.

16. Mike May 18th, 2007 at 8:24 am 16

    I know, I know it is poor logic to believe anything that your enemy says, but sometimes they are being honest. Al-Qaeda wants to fight the secular Muslim dictatorships around the world. They can’t because when they do we thwart them. That is why they hate us: blowback.

    That doesn’t mean we are wrong to oppose them, but why is it so hard for you to understand their motives. They could give a shit about women driving in the west. If the west let them conquer the Middle East they wouldn’t give us a second thought.

17. Sam Berninger May 18th, 2007 at 11:58 am 17

    In all honesty, not to sound like one of those wacko nut job libs, but it really does all come down to oil.

18. Mike May 18th, 2007 at 1:05 pm 18

    I disagree, there is oil in Mexico and Venezuela, both underdeveloped countries because their leaders are stupid and corrupt. We could have regime change there and it would be far, far better for both American companies and the economy as a whole if we did that.

    The Middle East being stable could be about oil, I would agree with that, but clearly there are good models to follow (Oman, UAE) and poor models to follow (Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya). The US is far too incompetant to govern itself, let alone direct world affairs through subterfuge, bribes, and even warfare. All of our meddling in the Middle East has been a disaster to date, I don’t see why we think it could work in the future considering the morons at the CIA and State.

19. Gary May 18th, 2007 at 1:55 pm 19

    The reason why what Ron Paul said makes him a nut case is the same reason why liberals are nut cases when they talk about serial killers or other assorted murderers. Ron Paul wants us to understand what motivated the terrorists or why they did what they did and what the US did to contribute to their actions.

    It is the exact same thing the liberals do when they us that a murderer killed someone because he was abused as a child, or society failed him/her, or because of this reason or that. The truth is that the reason is completely and totally irrelevant. There are lines that are crossed and when those lines are crossed the strong arm of justice must be laid to bear.

20. Gary May 18th, 2007 at 2:11 pm 20

    “it does mean that we are aware of why we are fighting radical Islam.”

    This is the crux of it all and where 90% of Americans fail to see the truth. We are NOT fighting radical Islam because of Israel. We are NOT fighting radical Islam because of our support of moderate Arab states. We are NOT fighting radical Islam because we went to war with Iraq in 1991. We are NOT fighting radical Islam because we were involved in Middle Eastern politics.

    We are fighting radical Islam because it has a dedicated, large following of Nazi-style ideologues bent on establishing a new Islamic Caliphate that stretches from the old borders of India (Bangeladash) through the Near East, Middle East, Caucuses, Balkans, North Africa, and Spain and Portugal. They are of one purpose and one purpose only and that is establishing this Caliphate with Sharia law being enacted wherever they can establish it. They are genocidal and not capable of reason or appeasement. They are identical to the ideology of Adolf Hitler except that they cloak it in Islam.

    Until the Western World wakes up and faces this reality and stops saying insane things like American policies fanned the flames and may have contributed to the actions of the 9/11 terrorists; we face eventual defeat and destruction.

21. Mike May 18th, 2007 at 2:22 pm 21

    “We are NOT fighting radical Islam because of Israel. We are NOT fighting radical Islam because of our support of moderate Arab states. We are NOT fighting radical Islam because we went to war with Iraq in 1991. We are NOT fighting radical Islam because we were involved in Middle Eastern politics.”

    I never suggested we were. It takes two to tango. They wouldn’t fight us, just like they ignore Mexico, China and South Africa currently, if we weren’t keeping them in check on their home turf. Because it is us and not some other nation keeping them in check we have become their target.

    The series of domestic terrorism attacks on us going back to the major 1993 world trade center bombing are a result of Radical Islam realizing that they won’t achieve anything in the Middle East without first cowing America into submission. Why did they attack Spain? Because Spain was in Iraq. They needn’t bother with Spain anymore (on a purely strategic basis) now that Spain has been scared into submission.

    Do they still hate Spain as a western nation? Certainly, but that doesn’t mean they waste resources attacking Spain when they would rather attack Australia or Britain which are both still unbowed and unafraid of radical Islam.

    There is a big difference between hating a country and actually attacking it. If the US weren’t a threat to them, they would let us be. Now I am not saying that we should stop what we are doing, Ron Paul is very wrong in that regard, but let’s be clear why we are a target and they don’t care about Mexico.

    We are right to fight them and we are right to fight them on their turf in the Middle East, but their hatred of us doesn’t motivate them nearly as much as their rational assesment that unless we let them alone, they are doomed to failure.

22. drageses May 18th, 2007 at 2:54 pm 22

    I see the whole thing as a phony debate unless the borders are sealed, Muslim immigration is halted, and defense of Western Civilization is used to refer to the people and culture rather than meaningless abstractions like “freedom.” We can’t simultaneously be told that this is an exisistential fight to the death but the enemy is a tiny minority of Islam who “hate freedom” for some mysterious reason. (I think conservatives should also be a lot more worried about the European demographic situation and the terrorists from European Muslim communities rather than spending all our attention on Iraq.)

    Secondly, we should act like grown ups and examine foreign mature from a mature perspective — not scream hysterically that someone suggesting “blowback” exists means that he thinks the government was behind 9/11 (which many Foxnews commentators have accused Paul of believing). For God’s sake, this is for the position of Commander in Chief.
    Can we at least expect a level of knowledge that any undergrad who’s taken an IR class would have?

23. Mike May 18th, 2007 at 3:26 pm 23

    “Can we at least expect a level of knowledge that any undergrad who’s taken an IR class would have?”

    This is America in 2007! Are you kidding me? Our Republic is only as strong as the people in it and right now it is weak as hell. I am only glad that elections are as infrequent as they are and that most people that the good sense to know that they have no clue about the nature of the world they live in.

24. Edward May 18th, 2007 at 9:20 pm 24

    Obviously Gary knows more than James Fitzgerald, of the FBI’s behavioral analysis unit who stated before the 911 Commission that the 911 hijackers sympathized with the Palestinian plight as part of their motivation. Gary must also know more than Michael Scheuer, former head and creater of the Bin Laden unit in the Central Intelligence Agency, who believes that the 911 attacks were carried out in part against the United States’ support for O.I.L. (Oil, Israel, Logistics). Damn Gary, your foreign policy credentials must be astonishing compared to these two bozos i mentioned above.

25. Saul Anuzis May 18th, 2007 at 10:11 pm 25

    RNC Debate Petition…getting lost in the rhetoric

    After consulting with my fellow RNC members, I believe there isn’t anything to be gained by advancing a petition aimed solely at removing Congressman Paul from the debates. The primary is and will continue to work itself out.

    I do however think we should continue to look at the bigger picture, the problem of how our party is going to adapt to the new realities of this very long primary season.

    Congressman Paul’s controversial statements about the United State and who’s to blame for 9-11, combined with the splendid reaction of Mayor Giuliani and then my own heated reaction, stole the spotlight from the bigger point I really wanted to make and still think is important – continuing these “debates” as they are currently structured is not to our benefit, nor to our candidates, not to our party, nor to the country.

    This is a very important process and it’s critical that we get a chance to get to know our leading and most viable candidates better. The idea of 10 candidates each getting a little over 6 minutes each and competing for the best “sound bite” of the evening isn’t very helpful in determining who our nominee should ultimately be.

    NO one, at NO time, ever implied or said we should censure, restrict or deny any candidate the right to Free Speech. Specifically, Ron Paul, who is a sitting Congressman, will always have the same right as any other American and/or anyone in America has to express themselves. However, there is no constitutional right to participate in a party run debate or forum.

    Although my initial response and what prompted me to action were the Congressman’s comments blaming America for 9-11, this discussion should really have NOTHING to do with the positions individual candidates take. We obviously have a difference of opinion on many issues…and I expressed my personal outrage and let that get in the way of the bigger question.

    I am and have always been a big supporter of open primaries, open discussion and the sharing of broad and diverse opinions. At the same time, I think it makes sense to at least discuss various options of making these debates/forums more useful and informative. Setting certain standards or criteria for folks to participate is NOT censorship or infringing on anyone free speech. Everyone has the right to run a commercial, put up a website or buy soapbox.

    Every candidate has the right to run…some with a chance of actually winning the nominations and others just for the sake of making a point or two. But the party also has the right to arrange their venues in such a way that best serves this interest of the party. We have given 10 candidates 3 hours of national TV time. Our many local and state parties have opened our doors to them. And we have certainly invited all them to help us raise money J. In short, the so called 3rd tier candidates have had their chance to make an impression and if they cannot poll beyond 1 or 2 percentage points of support, they are simply getting in the way of the real debate of how to move our party and our country forward.

    Finally, I want apologize to the RNC and our State Committee leadership (and my wife) who received obnoxious, annoying and disruptive emails or phone calls. My best advice to you is to ignore them (and/or just blame me).

26. Gary May 19th, 2007 at 4:24 pm 26

    “Damn Gary, your foreign policy credentials must be astonishing compared to these two bozos i mentioned above.”

    No…I’m just not brainwashed into being spoon fed everything the “experts” say. Need I remind you of the countless cadres of “experts” that tell us we need to “understand” the criminal mind or that “society” leads people to commit murder.

    Just because an “expert” says something doesn’t mean that common sense is thrown on the ground and stomped on.