Iowa Vote Fraud Official

Jeffrey Phelps writes for the Denver Conspiracy Examiner:

It’s official, or is it? Once again the establishment is showing it’s cards in an obvious attempt to defraud Ron Paul from the nomination, as Iowa GOP ‘officials’ purposely disrupt and permanently invalidate the 2012 Iowa Caucus.


The official Caucus website, in conjunction with the Des Moines Register, had to come forward Thursday to claim the official results can “never be certified” after 8 different precincts turn up invalid results due to “missing votes” and changing stories.

For the first time in history, the Iowa GOP decided to change the final vote count to a “Secret location” for what was claimed to be “security concerns.” The unprecedented change in venue came as a shock to most Iowans who are used to seeing the final results tallied at State Party Headquarters in Des Moines, in full view of the public.

This time, however, instead of business as usual, all of the final results were to be counted at an undisclosed location, completely hidden from public scrutiny, the seemingly ‘new’ business as usual.

What played out as a result was a mockery of democracy as Iowa election officials permanently skewed the results of the caucus, illegally miscounting and completely dismissing votes for Ron Paul, many of which were ironically from precincts that Romney lost in ’08.

Other missing or “uncounted” votes were expected to be heavy Ron Paul supporting, major populated areas and college town precincts, now leaving the true winner forever in question…

[More from the Denver Conspiracy Examiner]

67 Comments on "Iowa Vote Fraud Official"

  1. Mamagriff50 | Jan 23, 2012 at 12:03 pm |

    I am not a Ron Paul supporter, I am a Dem.. Currently I do not support anyone. There is nobody running worthy of my vote. But I demand all votes be fairly and honestly counted in an election! But there hasn’t been an honest election in years….So sad. I do think that I will not be voting for a very long time. Election officials have lost my trust, totally. This story only proves what I have known for years, (Bush), there fixed.

  2. DeepCough | Jan 23, 2012 at 12:04 pm |

    Hey, since when do REPUBLICANS care about DEMOCRACY?

  3. Jin The Ninja | Jan 23, 2012 at 12:30 pm |

    a bit off topic but…isn”t the entire notion of electoral colleges
    anti-democratic? specifically designed to enfranchise the original
    founders (white landowning wealthy slave owning men) into a ruling
    aristocractic class?

    ‘representative politics’ =code word for you’re too f*cking dumb to decide how to run the country you pay to ‘maintain.’

    don’t even get me started on first-past-the-post. it’s just as broken
    (if broken means never meant to work in the first place) if not more. oh
    thank you british colonial masters  for providing us with the pretense
    of modern democracy, while embracing neo feudal capitalismo and it’s

    ron paul should at the very least have a “fair “chance, regardless of my
    personal feelings towards his politics, he is being marginalised.

    however, while his platform would deprive profits from many of those in collusion with the fascist corporatocracy. in it’s place would rise complete corporate governance, rather than public-private collusion, as such is the end result of free market libertarianism.

    so on one hand, it makes sense that the corporate media ignores him.
    on the other, it makes total sense why he provokes such a mixed reaction even in the face of his marginalisation.

    however, simply, as an exercise in american civics, he SHOULD be given equal treatement to any other candidate, and vote fraud certainly, is illegal, unethical etc. etc.

  4. Anyone who thinks the Republican Party would let Paul have the nomination is living in Fantasy Land.

    • Not enough people want to vote for him?! Conspiracy! Drones! Sheeple!

      • NoneDareCallitaConspiracy | Jan 23, 2012 at 4:05 pm |

        “Not enough people want to vote for him?!” –  False.

        “Conspiracy!” – True. 

        “Drones!” – True.

        “Sheeple!” – Very True.

      • Yes, Republicans are drones and sheeple led around by a conspiracy.

  5. Liam_McGonagle | Jan 23, 2012 at 12:42 pm |

    Sorry, but exactly to whom should this be a surprise?  In Wisconsin we’ve just seen two elections stolen by Republicans–and we’ve got photographic evidence of stuffed ballot bags with missing/incorrect control tags to prove it.

    This, in my mind, running for the Republican nomination is just another strategic blunder by Paul.  Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

    • You really have a stick up your ass over Paul huh?  Guilt by association fallacy for those keeping score at home.

      • Jin The Ninja | Jan 23, 2012 at 2:07 pm |

        `guilt by association`

        jesus, mary, joseph, and the all the saints in heaven.

        he`s a MEMBER of the republican party by CHOICE. pointing that out is not an ad hominem.

        • Example.

          All white people are thieves.
          Ron Paul is white.Therefore he is a thief.

          Obviously the inference that all white people or all republicans are the same is  illogical.  Third parties are given the shit end of the stick when it comes to getting on ballots or receiving support in general.  A smart strategy by Dr. Paul with the option to run as an independent open if he is not allowed to win by the establishment.

          Hope that clears it up.

          I’m sure it could be argued that this is not a pure example and is more akin to something else.  I’m not a lawyer, I don’t want the alpha nerd bonus from the disinfonauts.  I just want people to be a little more critical while still keeping the big picture in mind.


          • Jin The Ninja | Jan 23, 2012 at 2:34 pm |

            double post.

          • Jin The Ninja | Jan 23, 2012 at 2:34 pm |

            But did i say all republicans are crazy, reich-wingers with corporate-funded agendas? NO.

            but in practice, that seems to be the case.

            However like i told you in another post, there are some repubs like ron paul, barry goldwater (libertarian-minded) whom i can APPRECIATE if not outrightly support.

            Barry Goldwater has decried his OWN republican party dozens of times, the current republican bureacrats have all but had his name erased from the ranks.

            The republicans have proven themselves (same with the dems) to be completely untrustworthy. Critical thought would infer that it would be stupid to support any of them.

            A smart policy you say? Well i am not alone in thinking, that this policy was the same as Obama’s ‘hope and change.’ i think we can both agree that was total bs.

            He SHOULD be an independent OR run libertarian. IF a third party CANNOT be elected, that SHOULD be like a red warning siren that the system is failing you the voter. Democracy is not made of PARTIES it’s made of PEOPLE.

            paul has a platform that MANY people could at least get behind. the label of republican is a total turn off for a lot of them. simply pointing that out should be interpreted critically, rather than as an attack on paul’s character.

            Although you have disputed my left-libertarianism, i in fact like ron paul for a lot of reasons. that doesn’t make him or politics immune. I would offer my thoughts on anyone running.

            Democracy is Dissent. it’s not ‘party bus with paul.’

            i liked Jack Layton (deceased head of the NDP, he was a great social campaigner and generally progressive), HOWEVER i have written SCATHING criticisms of him on disqus. and i used to live in his wife’s district (who also is an MP), and as a naive undergrad voted for her. (the NDP btw is a 3rd party and won a lot of seats in our last federal election).

            I do not reserve legitimate criticisms for anyone. you shouldn’t take it so personally.

          • Calypso_1 | Jan 23, 2012 at 2:58 pm |

            Cammy I love how you start one reply with ‘stick up your ass’ and end another with ‘peace’  and a bunch of sad attempts at dialetic gibberish in between.  Dialetic is to RESOLVE argument not to constantly sustain your own unalterable monolithic, megalomaniacal viewpoints. 

            You may now resort to rambling about building 7.  Carry on.

          • Jin The Ninja | Jan 23, 2012 at 3:22 pm |

            arigato gozaimasu, calypso-san.

            dialectic is the epitome of critical reasoning. you have be able to reason both points, and articulate why you agree or why you disagree (WHY being the operative word).

            i know you know this, but you reminded WHY dialectic reasoning cannot work when one’s views are as you say monolithic.

            monoliths refer to things than are un changing, it’s not about agreement, but the discourse behind it.

            i am not nearly as smart as i think i am, but even i recognise i can be schooled;)

          • > i am not nearly as smart as i think i am,

            Do you really think that?

          • Jin The Ninja | Jan 23, 2012 at 5:23 pm |


            for the record, i know i am pretty damn smart.

            but i’ve met many who have surpassed me academically, and intellectually, so i know i am not nearly as clever as many.

            i think in print my grad student self-satisfied smugness comes across much more strongly than in real time;)

          • Replying here because of the funnel effect on type above.  
            Jin I don’t really care what you say about me.  I will speak my mind.  All I did was clarify my position as again I was misunderstood and misrepresented.
            I don’t need to resort to name calling to attempt to make my point here and I didn’t there.  I simply responded in kind to posts that dismissed with fallacious reason a good man who is willing to stand up to the big bullies of the world.  

            Notice that no one has responded to my reasonable challenges to their assertions.  Most likely because they cannot.  

            If you would like to attempt to exercise the dialectical discourse you have seen lacking in my attempts by all means do so.  

            You’ve basically just launched a bunch of aspersions and expect me to take your efforts at “dialectical” discourse seriously?
            As for megalomania, yeah, sure buddy, you don’t know me so for you to determine this is who I am because of a disagreement in perspective is telling.

            So if you want to talk about any of the questions raised, feel free to do so.

            Oh and I’m still waiting to hear back.  What exactly do you do to make the world a better place, besides kissing up to strangers online in pointless spectacles of bickering ninnies? 
            As for the other shit talking you did, sorry I dont’ really care to be considered an “intellectual”.   It is funny though that you think this would bother me, perhaps it is you who wants to be seen as an intellectual along with the masses of derelict “intellectuals” haunting this forum?  How does the quote go, “the world is full of educated derelicts” yes yes that sounds right.

            I’m not here on disinfo to have “intellectual” pissing contests, I’m here to share information with the world that isn’t shared via normal channels.

            I’m also here to defend the honor of people who are in the good fight.

            What are you here for?

          • Hey Calypso,

            Show me oh wise master by standing up for something, anything on this board.  Just what are the supposed “unalterable monolothic, megalomaniacal viewpoints stranger”?  I’d love to hear this.   

            I was talking to Mc_Gonagle because the pattern is emerging that some folks here will just say about anything to attempt to smear Ron Paul.
            I have this odd habit of standing up for people with integrity and who risk much for liberty.  If that bothers you then perhaps you too should remove said stick from your own pious asshole.

            So what do YOU stand for??  

          • Oh and what do you have to say about Building 7 and again what are YOU doing about it?  

            I share information about Building 7.  It gives people the opportunity to make informed decisions about the path their country (empire) is taking and hopefully to have the cajones to do something about it.
            If that equates with rambling than again it’s pretty obvious where your head is.

            Let that Ray of sunshine hit you in your third eye.

          • Calypso_1 | Jan 24, 2012 at 7:40 am |

            More anal penetration imagery, testicles, rays of enlightment….

            remind me to stay away from you at the FEMA camps.

          • Too lazy to do research and report huh?  Yeah better stick to weak retorts from the scatologically sensitive perspective.  The “ray” is just a personal reference for my own amusement.  The anal penetration imagery is your overblown fixation on my comment to another anonymous poster, I just ran with it because it obviously bothers/excites you.

            You needn’t worry about me at the FEMA camp, just your own imagination.

            Oh by the way what are you trying to resolve with your own “dialectical” failings Mr. Kettle?

            Obviously nothing.

          • Jin The Ninja | Jan 24, 2012 at 3:07 pm |

            camron, you can feign at pseudo-intellectualism all you want, but every point is circular every logic redundant, redacted and over-simplified. after  a ponder last night, i must laugh at myself for ever taking you so seriously- for thinking your posts impenetrable, for becoming disconcerted at your implications, but you’ve made it clear, that you will NOT tolerate legitimate discourse, even in disagreement, from your platform of ron paul/building 7
            ‘truth’ there could be civil discussion, there could be fact based, academic approaches to discussing topics, even if your opinions were solely based on personal experiences demonstrated by anecdotes written cogently, that would  be so much more sympathetic than the hysterical rhetorts and obtuse reasoning.

            i hate to descend to name-calling, but i am bloody fed-up, it is simply stupid of you  to continue on this rampage and expect to garner interest in your talking points, and in fact all you’ve accomplished thus far, is demonstrate your anti-intellectual anti-academic opinion as to quote calypso “megalithic, and megolomaniacal.”

          • Calypso_1 | Jan 24, 2012 at 3:34 pm |

            Camron’s become  a pernosa non grata on several thruther boards over the years – well known for intransigent, humorless, harrassing behavior. 

          • Still waiting on any evidence you may have to substantiate your shit talking.
            How would you know which “truther” forums I visit then?  You stalking me?  Seems like I should watch out for you at the Fema Camps 😉

            Oh name one if you can.  Simple challenges seem to be more than you can manage.
            tsk. tsk.

          • Still waiting on any evidence you may have to substantiate your shit talking.

            How would you know which “truther” forums I visit then?  You stalking me?  Seems like I should watch out for you at the Fema Camps 😉

            Oh name one if you can.  Simple challenges seem to be more than you can manage.
            tsk. tsk.

          • Mr Willow | Jan 23, 2012 at 4:50 pm |

            Obviously the inference that all white people or all republicans are the same is  illogical.

            The inference that Ron Paul had a choice to be white is illogical. 

          • Well you alone made that inference.  

          • Mr Willow | Jan 24, 2012 at 1:29 pm |

            Jin points out that Paul is running as a republican by choice

            You reply with a ridiculous analogy involving white people, implying that being white is a choice, regardless of whatever prejudice ascribed to them. 

            You made it first. 

          • Nope, you misunderstand me.  Scroll up and read through again.  What is said is that to use the guilt by association fallacy that because Ron Paul is running as a republican that he is no different than them is what I was writing in response to.  
            It would be equivalent to saying that all white people are the same regardless of their individual history or character.
            Obviously this is not true and an example of fallacious logic.

            The rest you misconstrued and created.  
            I never implied anyone can choose their pigment.

            Though Sammy Sosa apparently has.

            Please read the transcript from the top if you have any further questions.


          • Mr Willow | Jan 24, 2012 at 2:21 pm |

            Liam: This, in my mind, running for the Republican nomination is just another strategic blunder by Paul.  Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. 
            (pointing out that Paul’s choice to not run as a third party candidate [nearly] guarantees that he won’t get the nomination, because his ‘colleagues’ will resort to dirty tactics [like the fraud detailed in the article] ensuring he won’t)

            Camron:  Guilt by association fallacy for those keeping score at home.
            (claiming Liam said that because he is running as a republican, then he is the same as a republican)

            Jin: he`s a MEMBER of the republican party by CHOICE. pointing that out is not an ad hominem.
            (pointing out that Paul could simply run as a third party candidate at any time and his obstinance in the matter is slowly making him unelectable—not because of his lack of merit, necessarily, but because of the crowd he is choosing to associate himself with)

            Camron: Example.

            All white people are thieves.Ron Paul is white.Therefore he is a thief.

            Obviously the inference that all white people or all republicans are the same is  illogical. 
            (attempting to compare the prejudice some people have with caucasians in terms of being thieves with the prejudice some people have with republicans in terms of being underhanded.)

            But if you were paying attention to the conversation you would understand that you are making a false analogy, because Ron Paul can choose at any moment, of his own volition, to run as a third party candidate (whereäs I, as a white person, for example, cannot overcome the prejudices of some by changing the colour of my skin on a whim). 

            Him changing parties would not ensure that he becomes president, but it would increase his chances monumentally since he would no longer have to a) rely on republican voters to win primaries, which is the only way he will get the nomination or b) trust in his colleagues to play fair. 

            Remaining a republican candidate is only hurting his chances. Pointing that out, to quote Jin, is not ad hominem.

          • Jin The Ninja | Jan 23, 2012 at 5:36 pm |

            i just noticed this thanks to mr, willow,

            “all white people or all republicans are the same is  illogical.”

            but nearly all republicans are white and/or racist.

            how is that for logic?

      • Liam_McGonagle | Jan 23, 2012 at 4:23 pm |

        “You really have a stick up your ass over Paul huh?”

        That seems like a really odd thing to say for someone who keeps posting propaganda pieces for Ron Paul.

        Calm down, Wiltshire.  Take a break.  Splash some water on your face.  Take a second to actually think about what’s being said. 

        I said that it’s a strategic mistake for Paul to think he can win the nomination of a corrupt party. Not that he’s corrupt. Learn to read.

        You aren’t doing yourself any favors by coming off as erratic, irrational and hostile.

        If I wasn’t voting for Paul before, you’ve just convinced me not to ever.

        • Jin The Ninja | Jan 23, 2012 at 4:28 pm |

          you’ve made it impossible for me not to follow you on disqus now…

        • Yes, you have an anal fixation with Ron Paul.  You feel the need to attempt to disparage him by any means apparently.   Do you understand why Dr. Paul has chosen to run as a Republican?  Do you understand the stranglehold the 2 party system has on the voting process?  
          Also what exactly do you do to promote a better day in this world?  I’m curious?  Do you think constantly attacking the only candidate who is willing to discuss and remove the following blights to our collective lives and our Constitution is a good idea?

          -NDAA, You know, the modern hertical purge button our government decided to give itself in the guise of the ‘war on terror’. 

          -The Federal Reserve, The $lave Ma$ter responsible for much of the misery of the world.

          – Ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, is 10 years not enough for you?

          Just a few examples that are more than enough reason to prioritize supporting Dr. Paul rather than wasting everyone’s time with blatant anti-Paul propaganda that amounts to nothing more than random and fallacious smears.  

          So let me ask you again McGonagle, another anonymous champion of nothing, what are you doing to stop any of the above?
          Take the stick out of your ass and think long and hard on it before you answer 😉 

        • “If I wasn’t voting for Paul before, you’ve just convinced me not to ever.”

          Let’s just say I wasn’t holding my breath for you to vote Paul for obvious reasons.

        • I’ll rehash a past comment regarding Paul-ites and splice in a comment I’ve often used regarding Jesus.

          1) Paul fans are a lot like dogs. Damned loyal…and thats generally a great quality…but they’re also usually as dumb as a box of rocks once you move past the talking points they’ve all memorized like monosyllabic commands. “Sit!” “Beg!” “Fetch!” “End Fed!” “Legal Pot!” “Stop War!” “Roll Over!”. For the record, I like a lot of Paul’s keypoints that are bandied about…I really do…but to get them I’d have to agree to take a ride on the libertarian pro-business anti-regulatory train…which is about 90% of how America got into its current woes…so Doc Paul not only isn’t the cure…he’s the problem…like trying to cure cancer with cyanide.

          And as for Mr Paul…I think of him much the way I think of Jesus and Eminem: For all I know, they might be terrific fellows in person…but I’ll probably never know because all I’ve met are their annoying a-hole fans..

    • To be clear the whole “Lie down with dogs get up with fleas bit” is what I disagree with.  Also in regards to “strategic blunders”, what do you know about running an election?  You think you know more than them, what experience do you have to presume such confidence? 

       Perhaps it is strategic to be featured in television debates to an audience of millions reminding patiently those who were once considered to be conservative what that actually means by thoroughly embarrassing one by one all of the hypocrisy & truly anti-american rhetoric espoused by the latest puppets.  
      Perhaps he is being effective and still has the ability to run as an independent if the GOP manages to censor him entirely thus exposing themselves as completely owned and enabling the average citizen to finally get fed up and awaken to our grim state of affairs.  Remember the article above shows that they made sure we didn’t have a real vote count and most likely all three results were manufactured (Newt wins SC? REALLY?  Give me a fucking break)  Thus it is apparent that Ron Paul is chosen by the majority of Republicans ( He also wins every online poll, those are harder to control apparently)  I just want a fair election in my country alright. Can we agree that obviously the establishment does not want him to win because he is actually willing to address and remedy things like oh I don’t know, NDAA, The FED and of course the “Never” ending war on terror.  Kinda important if you give a fuck about the future.
      There are many reasons and strategies you haven’t considered and since you apparently can’t imagine them, in your mind  they must not exist and you feel obligated to leave a bs comment ending with slander.  All of which are based on a fallacious concept of his political strategy.  You are ignoring massive amounts of information obviously.Thus for someone who complains all too often about Paul it is apparent that you have some sort of odd attraction to attacking him.  Perhaps you are just offended by some policies he holds and that is fine.  Try to have a sense of priority.  After 12 years of Bush, Id say Paul is about the best thing we have going for our Country at the moment.  If you can’t see that I really can’t take much of what you say seriously. 
      Hopefully we won’t have to continue this debate from a FEMA camp as part of NDAA round ups…..

  6. I don’t understand how in today’s society you could justify the idea of anonymity when voting for a president or a representative. And it’s been getting worse, now with computerized voting you don’t even have material evidence of the vote. Here’s my idea of a voting system for america :
    -step one : you wait in line, and when it’s your turn you stand in front of a camera and say who your voting for.
    -step two : the votes are counted publicly by viewing the tape. That way you can watch your part online and see that your vote was counted.

    Once again, the idea that voting should be anonymous seems stupid when put against the possibility of knowing we had fair election and live in a democracy. Why not ? I mean a good reason why, saying “that’s the way it’s always been” doesn’t work.

    • The problem is, we are NOT supposed to live in a democracy. We are suppose to live in a REPUBLIC! 

      Video taping every voter is not a very cost effective way of counting votes. 

      • Mamagriff50 | Jan 23, 2012 at 1:50 pm |

        But it’s probably the only honest way….and a Democratic REPUBLIC isn’t free.

        • Neither is a representative democracy, which is what we have now. We’re screwed either way.

  7. Obviously, every vote should be counted.  If I were an Iowan, I’d be more than a little insulted by the implication that my vote could only have gone to the white supremacist literature publisher, but I’d take all the help I could get on this.

    • So you believe whatever the media tells you to believe I take it.  Do you have any facts to share or will you just peddle the latest gossip that has already been discredited.  

      Anyone else notice the massive uptick in random folks trying to character assassinate Ron Paul on here?  Disinfo you must get attention after all.  

      There is no implication, but of course you didn’t read the article.

      • It’s demonstrably true that Paul published hate literature.  He doesn’t defend them as his own writings, “taken out of context” like he used to, but even he hasn’t made any attempt to deny that he published them.  You state with certainty that I didn’t read the article.  I’m willing to bet you’ve never read Paul’s newsletters.

        I don’t think “discredited” means what you think it means.  Your candidate is discredited.  He spent decades discrediting himself.  His lunatic ideas about inflation discredit him even now.  Switching from paper fiat currency to gold coinage makes the money supply finite and drags us back to the days of feudalism.  Don’t worry about good ol’ Uncle Ron, he’ll strike it rich; half of his personal wealth is invested in gold mines.  He’ll exploit the money scarcity he created, just like he exploited Stormfront and the Montana Militia all those years, selling them his merchandise to finance his campaigns until their support became too embarrassing. Do you own a gold mine? If not, he’s actively trying to chew you up and shit you out too. “Sheeple,” indeed.

        If you’re insinuating that some sinister conspiracy to keep Paul from turning this nation into Somalia for WASPs the way God intended is the only reason I’m posting, I’ve frequented Disinfo long enough that I can remember back when Alex Burns* used to turn this site into a recruiting board for the Temple of Set on a slow news day.  I miss those days sometimes.  I miss his skepticism.  I miss Howard Bloom.  The articles read like they were written with a smarter audience in mind than you.

        The only reason why there’s a massive uptick in criticism of Paul on this site lately is that this election has seen a movement of single issue anti-war voters, mostly very young, who take for granted federal civil rights legislation, federal labor laws, and what little federal protections on reproductive rights and the environment are left.

        *post edited for accuracy. Alex Burns, not Jones. Freudian slip on my part.

  8. JakeDrevendore | Jan 23, 2012 at 2:27 pm |

    Can’t we all just vote for Ron Paul and see what happens?  Lets shake things up a bit, huh? Any other candidate is just going to make things worse, why not take a chance with someone who loves the constitution. Does anyone honestly believe this country will be worse off than it is now if he get elected?

    This “give up because the media and establishment wont let him win” attitude has to change.  

    I’m a democrat BTW. (changing to republican so my vote counts in the primary) If my vote is actually counted.  

    • Latex Bill | Jan 23, 2012 at 2:54 pm |

      Hells no, this goof isn’t getting my vote! It’s a shame that he’s being screwed like this, but I have no wish to see the nightmare that Paul would happily unfold. Reproductive rights are far too important to throw away, not to mention the other garbage he wants to implement.
      If I have to hold my nose and pick a turd, I’ll stick with the one we have.

      • JakeDrevendore | Jan 23, 2012 at 3:42 pm |

        Are you really this ignorant? “Reproductive rights” are going to be left up to the state in Ron Paul’s eyes.. Your “Pro Choice” rights are fine under him, unless your state changes it’s stance on the issue. Your fooling yourself here.  

        WOW! This is why some people wont vote for him? Are you people really this stupid? 

        This country is so fucking screwed if people think the way you do. 

        • Jin The Ninja | Jan 23, 2012 at 4:11 pm |

          you can’t be serious with your comment. the ONLY reason there is a federal protection of abortion rights is to guarantee women the CHOICE. if you actually KNEW ANYTHING about reproductive rights and abortion providers in the US, it is EASILY demonstrable that in STATE hands, those rights are severely diminished and under attack. constantly opposed by reich wingers.

          case models

          Mississippi or Arkansas among the most repressive.

          as a libertarian (which i assume you are) how can you EVEN defend the denial of body sovreignty to women in the CHOICE of reproductive healthcare.

          i thought right-libertarians were also civil libertarians. being a civil libertarian means you don’t allow state lawmakers to choose what is morally acceptable according to their religious views.
          this means, men who are not women, do not plan to become women, (cis-gendered) should NOT be denying women’s right to CHOOSE and even more than that limiting their personal autonymy

          some women will choose abortion for MANY different reasons, in every state, and if there is a DESIRE and a NEED, why should any gov’t ban it outrightly?

          seems outrageous to even posit the notion. state hands do not increase civil rights.

          point. blank. period.

          • JakeDrevendore | Jan 23, 2012 at 5:06 pm |

            I am very serious! You don’t know me or my views, so try not to jump to any conclusions. 

            All I’m saying is that Ron Paul will leave the abortion issue up to the states. The PEOPLE in that state can then decide whether or not to allow it. I’m just sick of people saying they wont support Ron Paul because he is pro-life. As if his views are somehow going to affect the laws in their state, they wont!  

            That was my point. 

            You say that if the federal law protecting abortion rights were to be overturned then the states leaning to the right are going to outlaw abortion? OK, so what? The majority of people in the state wanted that, so what’s the problem? Isn’t this how it’s suppose to work, the majority vote rules? I don’t want the federal government mandating laws which the majority in my state disagree with. What the fuck kind of world do you want to live in? 

            I see your point of view, but I do not agree with how you seem to view the process as bad. It can have a good or bad outcome, but it’s up to the people to decide. Don’t knock Ron Paul for wanting to use the process that gives us a right to choose. Look at the federal marijuana laws right now for example. The government says it’s illegal no matter what. Even if the states say otherwise, so you end up with huge problems and people getting their livelihood stepped on. This is the result of mandating laws federally. 

            For the record, I’m pro-choice. 

          • Jin The Ninja | Jan 23, 2012 at 5:19 pm |

            You are acting as if lawmakers on the state level(their process) is somehow MORE democratic, when in fact it is not. most states would not hold a referendum on the issue haley barbour anyone? they just make the law accordingly. your logic is circular.

            I want to live in a world with universal healthcare, and people’s body autononmy respected, and not dictated by religious views. that’s a real liberatarian view by the way, in case you can’t recognise it.

          • JakeDrevendore | Jan 23, 2012 at 5:32 pm |

            Ahh, I see now. You have no faith in your fellow man. I understand this view also. Religions have ruined this world and corrupted our neighbors. What you want is sound logic forced upon an illogical society. Good luck with that, it’s everyone’s wish. 

            Also, don’t ever let your intelligence remove your ability to be humble. 

          • Jin The Ninja | Jan 23, 2012 at 7:07 pm |

            hmm this is JUST a guess, but isn’t the seperation of church and state GUARANTEED by the constitution?!

            i thought i smelled a rat.

            i’m not an atheist by the way, i am a secularist.

            “Faith in my fellow man ?” what i interpret that as, is faith in un-read, un educated southern christian white men.

            no, sorry don’t have any faith in those.

        • The value of States Rights, for better or worse, is the consolidation of culture. It comes from the understanding that no matter how hard we try to implement a synthetic macro-culture, it will only succeed with an active intervention, be it war, or covert tactics.

          States Rights views are antithetical to this, Allowing 50 states autonomy, is the most realistic way to let chaos breech through and let the system’s only enemy rise: an uncontrollable nation.

          For this reason, and this reason alone, I support Ron Paul. I may not agree with (m)any of his views, and he would not agree with (m)any of mine, but I think we’re all starved of a little organic reality.

      • Reproductive rights? You have the right to put a dick in a pussy, don’t you? That thing coming out has just as many rights as the two making it.

    • In all honesty, can’t we just have a mock debate between Paul and Obama. Thats really all that I want to see… I mean whatever happens its still going to be business as usual anyways…

  9. Tio Holtzman | Jan 23, 2012 at 3:26 pm |

    Voter fraud?  In America??? How believable. Truly.

  10. Total bullshit. Does no one understand that primaries are not official elections? They’re created by parties alone. The government is not involved and never has been. The party system functions separately and generally without rules. You don’t have a right to vote in these shenanigans and, in fact, they didn’t exist until 1910 and most state’s parties didn’t start using them until 1968.
    So, not only is this not “the first time in history” that such a thing has happened, it’s been the norm for most of the time the US has existed.

    I would argue that popular presidential candidate selection mobilizes factions, hurts compromise, and tends to selects candidates who function poorly in Washington–all in all, leading to shitty candidates and highly polarized politics. 

     Read Nelson Polsby!

  11. I’m a bit confused by the breathless ranting about Ron Paul being shafted by the Republican establishment when he himself admits this is really no more than political theater.

    Paul’s not running in winner-take-all states.That means he’s willingly giving up tons of delegates, and only going for percentages in states that offer proportional delegates. 

    Ipso facto, he cannot win enough delegates to get the nomination, and he knows it. He even planned it that way. He’s making a statement, and at best is shooting for a speech at the convention. He’s not trying to be president.

    The thing is, the press has been covering elections a lot longer than Paul has been running, and they already know that a candidate who won’t run in winner-take-all states like Florida has no chance. Hence there’s not much point in seriously considering a candidate who isn’t serious about his candidacy. 

    Do the Paulites realize this?

    • I’m an ex-RP supporter & I think he’s planning on running as an Independent.

      • True, good point. But he’s so cagey about that it’s hard to know where he really stands. If the race between Obama and the eventual Republican nominee is close, I kind of doubt he’d want to play the next Perot or Nader, splitting the conservative vote, but maybe he could care less.

        My dissonance spidey-sense just trips whenever RP supporters tear into the media for not covering him as much as the other candidates when the writing was on the wall months ago that he wouldn’t really be competing for the party’s nomination.

        If they want to complain about how the media isn’t questioning his candidacy as an Independent, or at least raising that possibility whenever they talk about the primaries, that’s different. But if Ron Paul did raise the spoiler flag, under the new super-pac laws he’d be crushed in an avalanche of negative advertising, making a run as an Independent stillborn before the first trimester.

        Anything else just smacks of faux-outrage at pageantry.

    • Calypso_1 | Jan 25, 2012 at 7:13 am |

      There is much the ‘Paullites’ don’t realize – naturally, being a young, naïve, freshly awakened political entity.  It will be interesting to see what degree of cohesiveness this constituency is able to maintain and how they politically mature.  Despite annoying encounters with the lowest common denominator (common to any group) I, for one, am glad to see these voices in American politics (along with the Occupy Movement), as I believe it represents the flow towards a strange attractor to move the system away from its dipolar stasis.  Finding those individuals within these movements who are prepared to shed attachment to personality cult or collective anonymity and become individual agents of change within the system, or create parallel functions ready to integrate or succede takes time. 

  12. They choose what they choose…

  13. Calypso_1 | Jan 24, 2012 at 8:20 pm |


    “Still waiting on any evidence you may have to substantiate your shit talking. How would you know which “truther” forums I visit then?  You stalking me?  Seems like I should watch out for you at the Fema Camps 😉 Oh name one if you can.  Simple challenges seem to be more than you can manage.” tsk. tsk.

    Stalking you…just consider it ‘research’.  You realy thought harassing faculty at GaTech wasn’t going to get you noticed?…I believe you called him “Satan’s little helper”  ; ) 
    “Name one”  well allow me to use your own words – from wearechangeatlanta
    “Here is my response that was again censored on
    Hi Bob,
    This is Camron Wiltshire
    You banned me like you ban anyone who points out the absurdity and depravity of your sophistry. I’ve nothing to hide, thus I have requested you debate your position in an academic setting. The only setting fitting for information of such a crucial nature. If you had not censored me for no other reason than arbitrary rules you make up apparently on the spot, then I would be happy to post under my name as I did until the point you censored me. Anyone willing to do research will realize I was censored for no reason other than I was asking questions that exposed you as a faux skeptic.Bob all you are is an ad hominem spewing machine. You have no scientific ……..”BLAH, BLAH, BLAH ad infinitum SSDD

    • I thought you smelled familiar.  First of all when it comes to reading comprehension, you should take greater pains yourself.   Anyone who can stomach more than a few minutes at “skeptical” humanities should realize it is anything but a “truther” forum.  So you still have not provided one “truther” forum where I am “persona non grata”…. Hahaha.  What you mean to say is I exposed those douche bags for the apologist faux skeptics they are and wrote up a piece expressing exactly what hoops they jump through to avoid scientific realities that don’t jive with their fantasies.   

      The best part is when you google Bob Blaskiewicz’s name now our post is the number one result.  We have had numerous faux malware reports in retaliation,  but thankfully were able to get them cleared up.  I guess some people just really dont’ like being exposed.  

      Yeah we brought some heat to Tech, had Richard Gage and Manny Badillo pay a visit to the Nano Materials department and guess who comes sprinting up sweating through his tweed blazer?  Yep, what a coincidence!  Oh we also had an obvious spook try to scare us away from campus.  I guess that is what happens when you get the president of the University on camera receiving materials from the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and asking him why not have a debate at Ga. Tech (2nd or 3rd best Engineering school in the nation, with a nanotech department to boot, oh and massive feeding trough for the DOD but I digress)

      Yep you see when you do real activism you get noticed by lame motherfuckers. 
      It seems like the fleas from Skeptical Humanities have followed me on to Disinfo.  I have a fan club apparently.  All because I speak the truth about 9/11, how fucking interesting.
      So I guess to you asking tough questions amounts to “harassment”  tell me why exactly are you here at disinfo?  You do realize they are kinda into this whole journalism, questioning power type thing right?  It’s kinda like a David Duke chatting up sistah’s at blackplanet…

Comments are closed.