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.

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).

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.