The Future of Music

Since I was old enough to appreciate music, I remember being very concerned about the state of the music industry (and music, in general). When I first started listening to good music, I was listening to bands like Van Halen, Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers, Aerosmith, and classics like Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra and The Beatles. My musical tastes even began to branch out into genres like Classical, Jazz, and Blues.

However, you have to keep in mind that, while I was listening to this kind of music, another genre was gaining popularity, and it seemed unstoppable. The early 80’s gave rise to Rap and Hip-hop. Music, it seemed, would never be the same. And, that isn’t a compliment.

Let me state this right up front. Rap and Hip-hop, for the most part, suck. It is awful, awful stuff. I can scarcely bring myself to attach the word “music” to it.

As if Rap and Hip-hop music weren’t bad enough, the larger problem with these genres is the world in which they exist. It is commonly referred to as the “Hip-hop culture.” It is a culture which idolizes criminals and thugs and boosts them to god-like stature. I would dare to say that it even glorifies the lifestyles and behaviors of pimps. But, in fact, Rap and Hip-hop songs use the word “Pimp” so often, and in so many contexts, that they have virtually redefined the word.

That is another common trend found in Rap and Hip-hop music…the butchering of the English language. These "artists" mispronounce words so badly, and use them in improper contexts, that they have essentially created a new language. In a lot of cases, they will even intentionally change the spelling and pronunciation of a word and create a completely new word (i.e. the word “Soldier” is now “Soulja” and its meaning is completely different.)

Despite the faults of Rap and Hip-hop, and their incomprehensible natures, they have become a powerhouse in the music world. Today, Rappers and Hip-hop "artists" are at the top of the charts. It’s sad. But, it’s true. And, it makes me that much more concerned for the future of music.

But, even now, they are a few glimmers of hope out there. There are still artists who take a lot of pride in their craft, and work very hard to create good music.

There is hope for the future of music. And, it is stories like this that prove it:

Overall music sales during the Christmas shopping season were down an astounding 21% from last year. From the week of Thanksgiving up through the day before Christmas Eve, 83.9 million albums were sold, a decrease of 21.38 million from 2006's 105.28 million.

With the kind of crap that the music industry is producing, this is welcomed news. Perhaps people are starting to catch on that the music industry, which is dominated by Rap and Hip-hop "artists," is not doing its job. They are not producing music.

So, sales were down this Christmas. But, who was the top-selling artist of the Holiday season? That should give us a glimpse into the type of music people are interested in:

Josh Groban is the rare person in the music industry singing a happy jolly tune this holiday season…

Groban's "Noel" has crossed 3.5 million in sales to become the top-selling disc of the year.

Groban's holiday album claimed its fifth straight week at No. 1, selling 757,000 copies to trump the debut session of Mary J. Blige's "Growing Pains" (Geffen), which sold 629,000 copies, according to Nielsen Soundscan. "Noel" is the first Christmas album ever to hold the top spot for five consecutive weeks.

When I spoke of glimmers of hope in the music industry, Groban is definitely one of those. If you haven’t heard of him, look him up. He is one of the most talented male vocalists…and I don’t just mean of the ones recording today. He may be one of the most talented singers of all time. In no way am I exaggerating. He is a true musician.

It's very good to hear that Groban is outselling the overrated hacks of Rap and Hip-hop. It seems, for the time being, that people are appreciating good music.

I truly look forward to the day when people remember their love for talented musicians. That will be the day when people stop funding the thugs who are destroying music, and start supporting artists who take pride in their craft and the art of song.

Consensus? What Consensus?

For the past 2 years, the Left has been telling us that the Global Warming debate is over. The science is settled. The numbers are in.

"The scientific debate is over. We're done."
- CNN's Miles O'Brien on July 23, 2007
(O'Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming "are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry.")

"While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so. These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case."
- Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine on November 21, 2007

"This discussion is behind us. It's over. The diagnosis is clear, the science is unequivocal -- it's completely immoral, even, to question now, on the basis of what we know, the reports that are out, to question the issue and to question whether we need to move forward at a much stronger pace as humankind to address the issues."
- UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007

"More than half of the mainstream media have rejected the scientific consensus implicitly — and I say 'rejected,' perhaps it's the wrong word. They have failed to report that it is the consensus and instead have chosen … balance as bias."
- Al Gore at the Media Ethics Summit II in 2007

"The misconception that there's disagreement about the science has been deliberately created by a relatively small group of people."
- Al Gore from "An Inconvenient Truth"

"The debate is no longer over society's role in global warming, it is a matter of degrees."
- NBC reporter Ann Thompson on August 14, 2007

"After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such debate [on global warming]."
- ABC reporter Bill Blakemore on August 30, 2006

Do you see what I mean? These people seem to be absolutley convinced that there are no credible voices speaking out against the Religion of Global Warming.

Or, at least, that's what they want YOU to believe. But, it just ain't the truth.

I've already told you about the Petition Project, which has been signed by over 19,000 scientists who wish to speak out against the so-called "consensus." Also, the Senate recently issued a report documenting over 400 scientists from more than two dozen countries who object to the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming:

These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media."

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.

Read the full list of scienitists, then tell me that there is a "consensus." Al Gore and these other left-wing media hacks are liars. I don't know how to state it any other way.

*SIDE NOTE: As eager as the mainstream media is to bombard us with stories about any report critical of the War in Iraq or those which seem to put a black-eye on the Bush Administration, I wonder how long it will take them to report this. I'm not holding my breath.


How To Stop Global Warming

For years, environmentalists have come up with new ideas for slowing or even stopping Global Warming. Most of these ideas are...(how can I put this?)...INSANE. Noted Global Warming expert Sheryl Crow (sense the sarcasm) even came up her own idea for using just one square of toilet paper each time you drop a deuce. Naturally, after she was ridiculed for her stupidity, she claimed it was all a "joke." Sure it was.

These environmentalists, however, are not joking. They have developed what they consider to be completely rational and logical methods for combating Global Warming. And, they say all of this with a straight face.

Via the Herald Sun:
1. Get rid of humans.
Greenpeace co-founder Paul Watson insists we "reduce human populations to fewer than one billion".

2. Put a carbon tax on babies.
Prof Barry Walters, of the University of Western Australia, says families with more than, say, two children should be charged a carbon tax on their little gas emitters.

3. Cull babies.
Toni Vernelli, of green group PETA, says she killed her unborn child because of its potential emissions: "It would have been immoral to give birth to a child that I felt strongly would only be a burden to the world."

4. Sterilise us all.
Dr John Reid, a former Swinburne University academic, gave a lecture on ABC radio recommending we "put something in the water, a virus that would be specific to the human reproductive system, and would make a substantial proportion of the population infertile."

5. Ban second children.
Says Melbourne University population guru Prof Short: "We need to develop a one-child family policy because we are the global warmers."

6. Feed babies rats' milk.
PETA campaigner Heather Mills, ex-wife of Paul McCartney, says cows' burps are heating up the world and we should use milk from other animals: "Why don't we try drinking rats' milk and dogs' milk?"

7. Eat kangaroo, not beef.
Greenpeace says kangaroos don't belch like cows, so are greener and should be eaten first.

8. Shut industries.
Greens leader Bob Brown says we must scrap all coal-fired power stations and our $23 billion export trade in coal.

9. Wash less.
Says actor Cate Blanchett: "I have little races with myself, thinking: 'Oh no, I'm not washing my hair, I only need a two-minute shower'."

10. Sweat more.
The green-crusading editor of the (airconditioned) Age says we should turn off airconditioners in summer: "Our consumer society has long abandoned the fan or the cold bath as the way to keep summer at bay."

11. Use human corpses as fertiliser.
Robert Larkins, founder of the Victorian Environment Defenders' Office, wants gassy cremations banned and humans buried where trees can use their bodies for food.

12. Use coolies, not machines.
Climate Care is offering to offset emissions from jet travel by hiring poor Indians to use manual treadle pumps -- once used in British prisons -- rather than diesel pumps to pump irrigation water: "Sometimes the best source of renewable energy is the human body itself."

13.Ban cars on alternate days.
Local pollster Hugh Mackay says "cars' emissions are stealthily killing us" and we could "halve the fleet, at one stroke, by adopting the odds-and-evens number plate system."

14. Use horses instead.
The French National Stud Organisation says horses are already replacing petrol-powered vehicles in 70 French towns, and should be used to pull school buses.

15. Stop flying.
Green author George Monbiot says flying is too gassy: "It is becoming morally unacceptable now to fly to go on holiday."

16. Ban street lights.
Ivan Brooks, a mayor in Adelaide, says street lights should go off after midnight to save emissions.

17. Ban Christmas lights, too.
Spain's Ecologistas and Accion environment groups says Christmas lights should be banned before Christmas day, to save energy.

18. Ban Hanukkah candles.
The Arkada green consulting firm is running a "Green Hanukkah" campaign asking Jews to use one less candle to "save the planet."

19. End democracy.
Says green academic Mayer Hillman, author of How We Can Save the Planet: "When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it. (Carbon rationing) has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not."

I would laugh, but these nutcases are considered to be quite rational by our media and the mindless followers of the Religion of Global Warming. They are thought to be the brightest minds in the world, here to offer there genius in pursuit of our salvation.

And, their movement is gaining momentum.


The Wealthiest 1%

“The truth of the matter is that the tax policy in America has been established by big corporations and the wealthiest Americans. That's why we have tax breaks for the top 1 percent and 2 percent…What we ought to be doing instead is getting rid of these tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans

“Lots of people come on [CNBC] who, you know, are gung-ho, protect the tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans, that will not work if the economy slows down. You need to get money in the pockets of tens of hundreds of millions of Americans, and that's what I intend to do.”

“We will also turn the page on an approach that gives repeated tax cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans even though they don't need them and did not ask for them.”

“From 2003 to 2005 -- the increase in income for the top one percent exceeded the total income of the bottom 20 percent. Given that, what would be wrong with letting the tax cuts for the top one percent expire?

These statements were made by leading Democrats. The first three are attributed to John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, respectively. The last is attributed to George Stephanopoulos, the supposedly unbiased, objective reporter from ABC News. (By the way, before becoming an elite member of the left-wing mainstream media, Stephanopoulos was a senior political advisor for the Clinton White House. So, it should come as no surprise that his bias tilts far to the left.)

But, these statements are nothing new. It is the same mantra we have heard since Bush’s tax cut plan was passed in 2001. For the past 6 years, Democrats have constantly whined and complained about the “wealthiest 1% of Americans” and the “super rich” being pampered by the Federal Government at the expense of the middle and lower classes.

It’s odd how none of them ever mention exactly what percentage of the entire national tax burden falls on the wealthiest 1%. You might be interested to know that the top 1% of wage earners in this country pay 39% of the tax burden. But, I digress.

The media and Democrat politicians alike love to characterize Bush as pandering to the “super rich.” But, as is usually the case, their facts are little...skewed. Under the Bush Administration, the wealthiest Americans have seen their tax burden INCREASE. Not, only that, their tax burden increased at a rate greater than any other previous administration.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Based on the latest available tax data, no Administration in modern history has done more to pry tax revenue from the wealthy.

Last week the Congressional Budget Office joined the IRS in releasing tax numbers for 2005, and part of the news is that the richest 1% paid about 39% of all income taxes that year. The richest 5% paid a tad less than 60%, and the richest 10% paid 70%. These tax shares are all up substantially since 1990, and even somewhat since 2000. Meanwhile, Americans with an income below the median -- half of all households -- paid a mere 3% of all income taxes in 2005. The richest 1.3 million tax-filers -- those Americans with adjusted gross incomes of more than $365,000 in 2005 -- paid more income tax than all of the 66 million American tax filers below the median in income. Ten times more.

Notably, however, the share of taxes paid by the top 1% has kept climbing this decade -- to 39.4% in 2005, from 37.4% in 2000. The share paid by the top 5% has increased even more rapidly. In other words, despite the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003, the rich saw their share of taxes paid rise at a faster rate than their share of income.

It goes to show you that politicians such as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards have perfected the art of class warfare. They pander to people who have an unfettered, unapologetic hatred for anyone who dares to be financially successful. It has nothing to do with the facts at hand.

It should be noted that all of the Democrat Presidential candidates speak of letting the Bush tax cuts expire and soaking the rich with new taxes. Based on this new information, I have to ask…How much is enough? The top 1% already pays 39% of the tax burden, which is a huge increase from what they were paying just a few years ago!

When will enough be enough? What percentage should they be paying?


Government Schools...Gotta Love 'Em

Government schools just love their zero-tolerance policies. Zero-tolerance policies allow the mindless Government employees (i.e. the faculty) to act without actually having to use the mass of gray and white matter located about 3 feet above their ass. For any Government employee, this is the ideal situation, since they aren't in the practice of actually thinking for themselves.

I have shared stories before in which zero-tolerance policies have been used to arrest and punish students for the most ridiculous offenses. And, the stories keep pouring in. Today's story comes from Ocala, Florida.

A 10-year old girl at Sunrise Elementary School has been arrested and charged with possession of a weapon on school property. The school's principal has also suspended the student for 10 days.

So, what kind of weapon did she have on campus? Did she have a gun hidden in her locker? Was she brandishing a machete in front of her friends?

Not even close:

School officials say the 5th grader was brown-bagging it. She brought a piece of steak for her lunch, but she also brought a steak knife. That's when deputies were called.

It happened in the cafeteria at Sunrise Elementary School. The 10-year-old used the knife to cut the meat.

She brought a kitchen knife in her lunch bag to use on a steak! It get's better.

"She did not use it inappropriately. She did not threaten anyone with it. She didn't pull it out and brandish it. Nothing of that nature," explained Marion County School Spokesman Kevin Christian.

But a couple of teachers took the utensil and called the sheriff. When deputies arrived, they were unable to get the child's parents on the phone, so they arrested her and took her to the county's juvenile assessment center.

The hyper-sensitive Government teachers freaked out. No surprise there. But, here is the real kicker. This next statement sums up the absurd nature of zero-tolerance policies and why Government employees can't be trusted.

They are not ALLOWED to practice rational thought.

School officials said it doesn't matter what the knife was being used for. They said they had no choice.

"Anytime there's a weapon on campus, yes, we have to report it and we aggressively report it because we don't want to take any chances, regardless," Christian said.

"It doesn't matter how innocent the situation was. It doesn't matter that there was absolutely NO danger or threat presented. We have no choice. We have to report it."

That is why zero-tolerance policies suck. That is why the majority of Government schools and the employees located therein suck. They are not allowed to think for themselves. They are not allowed to act as rational human beings. They can not be trusted to assess the situation based on the facts.

They are required to act as mindless drones, following arbitrary policies set by bureaucrats who have little to no grasp on reality.

Folks, these people are in charge of educating your children. Be afraid.


Moral Relativism

Many on the political left view the War against Islamic Terrorism through the prism of moral relativism. They even question our use of the word "terrorism" when we describe Islamic radicals. According to them, George Washington, Ben Frankiln, and the rest of the founding fathers were also "terrorists." It all depends on which side of the fight you are on.

They rationalize the heinous acts of the Islamic radicals by claiming that the United States is imperalistic and corrupt. We are the invaders. We are bad guys. Cindy Sheehan has even gone so far as to label the Islamic terrorists (the same terrorists who killed her son Casey) as "freedom fighters."

This is how many on the left view victims. Who is to decide who is good and who is bad? It's all relative.

Would you like to know what separates us from them? Would you like to know why we are the good guys and they are the bad guys? It's because of stuff like this:

MARDAN, Pakistan — The bomb that ravaged Benazir Bhutto's homecoming processional in October appears to have been rigged to the clothes of a baby who was held up for the former prime minister to embrace, Mrs. Bhutto said.

A man approached her armored truck, Mrs. Bhutto recounted, and was trying to hand across a small child as her motorcade inched through the thronged streets of Karachi. She remembers gesturing for the man to come closer.

"It was about 1 or 2 years old, and I think it was a girl," Mrs. Bhutto told The Washington Times in her first public remarks about the baby.

"We feel it was a baby, kidnapped, and its clothes were rigged with explosives. He kept trying to hand it to people to hand to me.

These sick monsters will strap bombs onto children and use them as weapons. They are pure evil.


The True Goals Of The Global Warming Movement

The recent Global Warming conferences in Bali have provided us with many interesting stories. Al Gore used this conference as an opportunity to join sides with anti-American Europeans and bad-mouth his own country:

"My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali."

During the Bali Conferences, the Church of Global Warming has even taken the time to reveal its true motivations and goals:

A global tax on carbon dioxide emissions was urged to help save the Earth from catastrophic man-made global warming at the United Nations climate conference. A panel of UN participants on Thursday urged the adoption of a tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.”

Schwank said at least “$10-$40 billion dollars per year” could be generated by the tax, and wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.”

The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained.

The tens of billions of dollars per year generated by a global tax would “flow into a global Multilateral Adaptation Fund” to help nations cope with global warming.

"A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources," said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.

It is Global Socialism, plain and simple.


Climate Skeptic

A topic I return to time and time again on this blog is the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. I like to refer to it as the Religion of Global Warming because it has become just that.

There are a lot of blogs out there that deal with this topic. But, there is one, in particular, that I have become very fond of. It is called Climate Skeptic. The author is Warren Meyer, a small business owner in Phoenix, Arizona.

Warren is one smart guy. Read his blogs Climate Skeptic and Coyote Blog, and you will see exactly what I mean.

Warren has (to quote The Princess Bride) a “dizzying intellect.” He has such a deep understanding of different areas of science and economics that I have a hard time keeping up with him. But, his posts always make for a good read.

The best part about his blogs is that he approaches his subjects from a completely intellectual perspective. He doesn’t rely on emotionally-charged arguments or unfounded claims. Logical persuasion is the primary weapon in his arsenal.

If you want to read more material concerning the topic of Anthropogenic Global Warming than you can wrap your mind around, check out his blog Climate Skeptic. He has written several amazing pieces (which can also be found on Coyote Blog) such as The 60-Second Climate Skeptic as well as an 80+ page dissertation titled A Laymen’s Guide to Man-Made Global Warming.

Recently, Warren even branched out into the world of film by creating his own documentary which rebuts many popular Global Warming myths and asks the all-important question "What is Normal?"

Read his blogs. Watch his film. You won’t understand it all (at least, I don’t). But, you’ll definitely be better educated for it.


It's funny because it's true

As most of you know, I'm not a huge fan of kids. They're loud, they're annoying, they're messy...this list could go on for a while.

I understand that all parents think THEIR child is the exception to this. THEIR child wouldn't ever do anything to annoy someone else. THEIR child is a perfect angel. Parents, trust me when I say that no one else around you agress with that. Your child can be quite irritating.

I am also aware of the fact that kids will be kids. They scream, they run around restaurants, they whine, they cry, and they don't know any better. It's all a part of their nature.

But, if "kids will be kids," PARENTS MUST BE PARENTS. Stop acting like everything your child does is adorable. Stop acting like your child is a perfect angel. Hang up the cell phone and control your damn kid.

I think this cartoon perfectly sums up the sentiment I'm trying to express:


Ron Paul

The Presidential campaigns are in full swing. On the Democrat side, the only names you hear are Clinton and Obama. The race for the Democrat nomination is between these two. The Republican nomination is a slightly more complicated. Four front-runners have emerged: Giuliani, McCann, Romney, and Huckabee.

But, there is one more candidate on the Republican side who has gained a lot of attention. This guy has an Internet following like nothing I’ve ever seen before. At every turn in cyberspace, or the real world, his supporters are shouting at the top of their lungs. His base is energized and ready for a fight.

That candidate is Ron Paul. Before I go any further, it is important to note one thing. Officially, Ron Paul is a Republican. He currently serves in the House of Representatives as a Republican and he is running for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. However, Ron Paul is a Libertarian at heart. In 1988, he ran as the Libertarian nominee for the Presidency. Many of his positions (such as National Defense, the Patriot Act, the War on Drugs, and the Federal Reserve) conform to the platforms of the Libertarian Party and stand in direct opposition to the official platforms of the Republican Party. Mind you, I’m not being critical of his positions on those issues. I’m simply stating that he agrees with Libertarian views much more than he does with Republican views.

I’ve expressed on a number of occasions that the recent Republican leadership in Washington has forced me to abandon the Republican Party on principle. I still agree with them on a number of issues, and I would continue to vote for Republican candidates who represent my views. However, they are no longer the Party of small Government or limited spending. They have lost touch with their Conservative roots. Therefore, I can no longer call myself a Republican. I commonly refer to myself as a Libertarian (although I have a few disagreements with their official positions).

As I have grown older, my world view has shifted on a number of issues. I have found myself more committed to the ideas of true freedom and individuality. To his credit, Ron Paul represents this view as well.

Paul is committed to the idea of smaller Government and an emphasis on individuality. On many of his positions, I am in complete agreement. There are things that I really like about Ron Paul.

Alas, I cannot support him. There are two primary reasons.

First, his views on the War against Islamic Terrorism. Admittedly, he favored fighting the Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan. He voted for military intervention on that front. But he opposed, and continues to oppose the War against terrorists in Iraq. He, like many opponents to the Iraq War, claims that terrorists were not in Iraq before we invaded. We haven’t accomplished anything there. We have made the situation worse.

I disagree. I still believe that Saddam Hussein was a threat to us and served as an ally to the Islamic radicals. Removing him from power was the right decision.

Ron Paul believes that it was a mistake to intervene there. In fact, he has adopted a rigid non-interventionist foreign policy. Basically, he believes that if we don’t mess with them, they won’t mess with us.

In my opinion, this as a HUGE mistake in judgment. The Islamic terrorists have stated on many occasions that they will not stop until the United States is completely destroyed. It is not their desire to simply drive us from the Middle East. They hate our very existence. They seek our eradication.

Before World War II, there were many in the United States who believed that we should not get involved. Hitler’s campaign was Europe’s problem. Should we have remained inside our own borders? Should we have accepted the belief that if we don’t mess with Germany, they won’t mess with us?

Of course, there is something to be said about reducing our military presence throughout the world. There is an argument to be made that we involve ourselves in too many conflicts that don’t affect us. But, the War against Islamic Terrorism is not one of those. I believe that defeating the Islamic radicals is vital to our survival. Because of that, I cannot support Ron Paul.

But, there is a second reason. And, this speaks directly to his rationality. In order to gain support for his campaign for the Presidency, Ron Paul has pandered to a group of people which I find not only detestable but completely lacking in credibility. That group is the 9/11 Truthers.

“Truthers” believe that the United States Government was behind the attacks on the World Trade Center. Different elements of the group believe that the Government either knew about the attacks ahead of time and allowed them to occur, or that the Government was directly responsible for the planning and coordination of the attacks as well as the subsequent “cover-up.” Truthers should be denounced by every elected official as the nutcases that they are. They should be lent no credibility whatsoever.

Yet, Ron Paul has found a niche with these people. Not only has he indulged their desire to reopen investigations on the 9/11 attacks, but he has also appeared on the Alex Jones Show (If you don’t know who Alex Jones is, look him up. But, beware. You are entering the land of the insane.).

I understand that Presidential candidates must reach-out to different segments of the population to gain support and momentum for their campaign. But, the line has to be drawn somewhere. I’d say that line should be drawn at the “Tin-Foil Hat Brigade.” No candidate should give credence to a group like this unless they want their rationality seriously questioned.

I don’t want this to sound like “guilt by association.” I am not suggesting that Ron Paul is a 9/11 Truther simply because he appeared on the Alex Jones Show. Ron Paul has done a fine job of implying that all by himself.

Several months ago, Paul was questioned by a representative with the “Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth.” Here is the exchange that took place:

Student: We’ve heard that you have questioned the government’s official account.

Paul: Well, I never automatically trust anything the government does when they do an investigation because too often I think there’s an area that the government covered up, whether it’s the Kennedy assassination or whatever.

Student: So I just wanted to say, you know, we’ve talked to Dennis Kucinich and he says that he’s willing to, you know, investigate it. He would advocate for a new investigation.

Paul: Into 9/11?

Student: Yeah, into 9/11. I mean, if it was Dennis Kucinich and you, there’d be congressional support. You know what I mean? So you wouldn’t be the only one.

Paul: It’d be bipartisan, too. And I’ve worked with Dennis a lot on a lot of these issues.

Student: So I mean, would you advocate for a new investigation into 9/11?

Paul: Yes, I think we have to look at the details of it.

Maybe he’s just clamoring for any support that he can find. Maybe he actually “questioned the government’s official account.” Either way, Paul has a problem. He's pandering to conspiracy theorists.

That is why I cannot support Ron Paul.