Posted on 07/28/2007 7:48:00 PM PDT by Nan48
Well, good for Tancredo! At least his message is getting out!
it's true, she may have 'planted' herself. Nevertheless, her actions don't do anything to make Ron look like a candidate worthy of votes.
See post 70.
My response to the discussion so far is that no one has yet credibly challenged the central issues raised by the RenewAmerica article I posted.
Those issues are these:
(1) No matter who the ejected woman was (or what she believes), she asked a valid question, and Fred skirted it. He even lied—obviously—when he claimed he knew nothing about the CFR’s involvement in the NAU/SPP.
The public record surrounding the NAU/SPP describes the CFR as a central player in this “executive” initiative to dissolve our borders with Mexico and Canada. This is not merely a “conspiracy theory” (as gondramB characterizes it in #142), but a verifiable, long-term CFR project accompanied by published CFR plans, priorities, and directives. To dismiss out of hand Fred’s connection with the CFR (and in turn its connection with the NAU/SPP) is thus unsettling, I believe.
(2) The woman did not begin protesting her ejection until her ejection was already in process. That is clear from the video. She was NOT ejected for her outburst—but began her outburst only upon learning she was being removed.
That sequence is undeniable.
(3) The woman did not—despite what posters keep misrepresenting—blurt out anything about a conspiracy regarding the “towers” that went down on 911. She mentioned only the disturbing collapse of World Trade Center 7, an event that concerns intelligent, responsible observers, engineers, building officials, scientists, etc. She may believe 911 itself was a conspiracy, but she mentioned only WTC 7 in her outburst, calling WTC7 an “inside job.” Continually exaggerating what she said in an effort to discredit her is not a reasonable response to what happened to her.
(4) The handlers of Thompson—no matter who they were—initiated the disturbance by trying to eject the woman solely because she asked Fred a question he didn’t like. (Look as his expression afterward—he clearly was irked by what she asked.) As far as who those handlers were, the notion that the initiators of the ejection were police is unfounded. The police apparently did not get involved until fully three minutes after the woman pressed Fred about his CFR connection. Someone accompanying Fred called the police to eject the woman in direct response to her question. That’s obvious.
These facts lay the chief blame for the fiasco at the feet of Thompson and his people, not the ejected woman.
(5) Thompson is indeed being groomed by Bush insiders—that is clear from the links provided by the article. A reasonable observer who has no emotional attachment to Thompson would have no difficulty seeing this fact, or the disturbing indications that contradict the “official” myth created by Fred’s handlers that Fred is somehow rising to the top of the polls entirely on his own merits.
How does a mediocre senator whose main accomplishment during eight years in the Senate was that he is credited with engineering passage of the McCain-Feingold bill, and whose name is largely unknown to the general public, suddenly emerge as a major player in the 2008 election before even announcing? It can’t be attributed to his exceptional competence, knowledge, experience, leadership, charisma, public recognition, etc. That’s preposterous. By undeniable indicators, he’s being groomed by very powerful and savvy insiders, and those insiders have extensive and deep connections with Bush that no other candidate can boast.
This is not a “grassroots” phenomenon, as billed. It’s fraudulent to the core. Do we really want a continuation of the globalist, open-borders Bush administration? The conservative “base” of the GOP will reject Fred when they learn more about him—and his handlers know this. Hence the “touchiness” of his handlers in the incident at issue.
I did listen ,she asked he answered,he moved on to someone else and then she started hollering about 9-11.
Shades of lunacy.
Your chronology of events is wrong. She didn’t say anything about the World Trade Center being an inside job untill after the police started to forcibly remove her from the building. The only comment that she made after Fred finished answering her question and before the police grabbed her was her objection to someone grabbing her arm who she told to stop grabbing her that she hadn’t done anything wrong. She may well have some crazy views but it does appear that Thompson’s campaign had her removed because she was asking questions that he didn’t care to have to answer. So, I think this incident does raise some questions about Thompson’s willingness to answer tough questions.
The questions about the North American union were legitimate, but the World Trade center questions were overkill and made her be the kooky one.
After taking a break for a little while and doing my best to consider alternate opinions,I still think the same way.
Questioning a high profile person,who is a possible candidate for the office of our President is a good thing to do,in my opinion. As far as I could tell the woman did not commit a crime,yet she was treated like a criminal.
I don’t want to hurt your feelings,but I didn’t think she was treated right. It doesn’t matter what question she asked.
I’ve watched other videos which showed people being forcibly removed from meetings because they challenged the speaker,although they were not violent or inciting violence.
I want to live in free country,where people can engage in honest dissent and be free to question deeply those who want to serve in public office. The woman’s motivation is unknown to me,I can only form an opinion from the video.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.