Kevin Barrett, the controversial Libertarian for Congress in Wisconsin, is doing very well in the polls, as are the issues he is basing his campaign around. In a new poll conducted by Voice Broadcasting, Barrett is at 13.1%. That is higher than any other Libertarian candidate for Congress (running in a three-way race) in the entire nation and higher than any other Libertarian in Wisconsin, according to the Barrett campaign. Also, 70% of registered voters in Barrett’s district oppose the bailout, which the incumbent supports.
106 Comments
Comments are closed.
I have a collection of Richard Gage interviews and youtube videos on my archive page at:
http://www.radiodujour.com/people/gage_richard
Radiodujour.com is listed at ae911truth.org as a suggested internet resource.
http://www.ae911truth.org/links.php
Additionally:
David Ray Griffin
http://www.radiodujour.com/people/griffin_david_ray
Dr. William Pepper
http://www.radiodujour.com/people/griffin_david_ray
Dr. Kevin Barrett
http://www.radiodujour.com/people/barrett_kevin
Kevin Barrett Campaign: New poll: Barrett could ride bailout anger to set Libertarian record in election
10/13/2008
“Calls on Voters to say “Hell, No!” to Ron Kind
70% of the registered voters in Dr. Kevin Barrett’s congressional district (3rd district, Wisconsin) oppose the $700 billion banker bailout, according to a scientific poll released today. The poll was conducted by Voice Broadcasting, Inc. out of Arlington, Texas, and was commissioned by the Kevin Barrett for congress campaign. The poll was conducted on October 8 and 9.
70% of the registered voters in Ron Kind’s district represents about 205,000 voters.
The exact wording of the poll question was:
“Do you favor the $700 billion dollar banker bailout?â€
537 people were polled with a statistical margin of error of about 4%.
Kevin Barrett said:”
READ THE REST:
wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=138803
Anti-semitism is a bad term for Judaeophobes and haters, particularly since most semites aren’t Jews, and many of those don’t particularly like Jews either.
By anti-Zionists, I mean those like Duke and Ahmedinejad who say that a Jewish state has no right to exist (which it doesn’t, but only because no state has the right to exist, not because it is run by Jews.) They basically make anyone who disagrees with Israeli policy look like anti-Semites. Similarly, those who advocate 9-11 governmental conspiracy theories make anyone who says that our foreign polcy provokes terrorists look like conspiracy nutcases.
Oops, wrong story.
Holy crap. I just checked it and since last night about 1500 more people voted and most of them voted for Nader. I’ll bet it’s posted on a Nader-related site somewhere, too.
If it’s posted in places that support one candidate, it’s obviously going to tilt the poll one way or another.
GE, the first part of your comment is what I meant. Some people just take things too far. And they make the rest of the cause look bad, is what I think Hugh was saying.
Some anti-Zionists take things too far, just like some pro-life people take things too far, etc. Anyone who advocates violence against the innocent is wrong, but it doesn’t make their cause wrong. The Zionists, of course, built their state on terrorism, so if they could effectively be targeted with acts of terrorism, it would be justifiable. Individuals have the right to resist occupation, too.
I don’t want to speak for Hugh, but it seems like he’s saying that some anti-Zionists just take it way too far. For example, just because the Israeli government has committed terrible acts doesn’t mean that anyone should condone or support acts of terrorism.
And a lot of people are either offended by those who take it too far or think they’re crazy, and then they turn against the entire cause. Even if it’s mostly comprised of legitimate concerns over Israeli foreign policy.
“And not a single person witnessed government employees planting bombs in the WTC in the weeks before 9/11?”
Over 300 people heard bombs go off in the WTC.
“Even though most of the sane public doesn’t know/believe that bombs were in the WTC?”
Only insane people believe that WTC 7 fell from thermal expansion.
“Also, do you have any credible evidence whatsoever that this whole scenario happened, or are you pulling this shit out of your ass?”
Callers on FL93 and FL11 reported that the hijackers had guns.
I think you mean qualm.
What’s wrong with being an anti-Zionist?
It seems that the 911 Truthers do to people with legitimate quelms about foreign policy what anti-Zionists do to people with legitimate quelms about Israeli policy.
Barrett and his henchman are mentally unstable and their “theories” are obviously moronic. That doesn’t mean the government’s official story is true, Hugh. Although I admit, even the implausible official story is more plausible than the ridiculousness Galileo outlined above.
“1) the plan was simple. They planted bombs in the WTC, they confused the military with war games, and the hijackers bailed out after installing remote control devices into the cockpits.”
And not a single person witnessed government employees planting bombs in the WTC in the weeks before 9/11? Also, do you have any evidence of these remote control devices existing? Surely, someone in the government would have witnessed the manufacture of these remote-control devices?
“2) FL77 killed the people at the Pentagon when it crashed into it. Yes, people are scared by plane crashes, but they are to the level of bejesus by bombs and crashing buildings.”
Even though most of the sane public doesn’t know/believe that bombs were in the WTC?
“3) The hijackers shot the pilots with guns, locked the doors, installed the remote control apparatus into the cockpits, and jumped out while the planes were in radar FAA gaps. If you put the remote control apparatus into the plane before its hijacked, the pilots would find it.”
And, again, nobody witnessed any agents jumping out of parachutes? Also, do you have any credible evidence whatsoever that this whole scenario happened, or are you pulling this shit out of your ass? Whatever doubts I have about the official conspiracy theory, it still makes 100 times more sense that the garbage you’re telling me. It’s people like you that make me glad I’m not a Truther anymore.
Y’know, these 9/11 conspiracy theories might actually make a pretty good James Bond movie. The ending would have to be changed, though.
““The plan was simple, not complicated. A complicated plan never would have worked.â€
Circular logic. Explain how it was simple.
“There were no missiles at the Pentagon. They put bombs in the WTC to scare the living bejesus out of people.â€
And I suppose that 120 people died of spontaneous combustion at the Pentagon, then? Also, would flying the planes into the buildings have been sufficient to scare people, while lowering the risk that they would get caught in their operation?
“No. The CIA agents parachuted out of the planes before they crashed. These agents have no reason to kill themselves.â€
And I suppose you have some eyewitness accounts of people jumping out of parachutes out of planes? Also, even if they did parachute out of the plane, how could they have made sure the plane hit its target? Did they parachute out near the WTC, where they would have been in plain sight? Did they parachute somewhere else and somehow remotely control the passenger plane to hit the WTC? If the latter, they why is the presence of CIA hijackers even necessary, if the plane was remotely-controlled anyway?”
1) the plan was simple. They planted bombs in the WTC, they confused the military with war games, and the hijackers bailed out after installing remote control devices into the cockpits.
2) FL77 killed the people at the Pentagon when it crashed into it. Yes, people are scared by plane crashes, but they are to the level of bejesus by bombs and crashing buildings.
3) The hijackers shot the pilots with guns, locked the doors, installed the remote control apparatus into the cockpits, and jumped out while the planes were in radar FAA gaps. If you put the remote control apparatus into the plane before its hijacked, the pilots would find it.
And also, the original Constitution (not the evil one we have now) did NOT prescribe an “American state,” but a union OF independent and sovereign states. Big difference.
mscrib – No shit. The Constitution was a centralist, mercantilist coup against the republic; which is why Patrick Henry, Sam Adams, and James Monroe, among many others, opposed its ratification. Constitutionalism is obviously statist. That is such an obvious statement that it is ridiculous that even needs to be made. It is a philosophy that says because something is in the Constitution — i.e. slavery (at one point) or income taxation (at another), then it is acceptable.
The original Constitution, prior to the non-ratified 14th amendment and the subsequent “Progressive” amendments, was not nearly as bad as the Koran though, in that membership was voluntary. In this way, the Constitution, originally, was perfectly compatible with anarchism.
“Trent – The Koran prescribes an Islamic state. Islam is a statist religion. Period.”
The Constitution prescribes an American state. Constitutionalism is a statist political philosophy. Period.
“The plan was simple, not complicated. A complicated plan never would have worked.”
Circular logic. Explain how it was simple.
“There were no missiles at the Pentagon. They put bombs in the WTC to scare the living bejesus out of people.”
And I suppose that 120 people died of spontaneous combustion at the Pentagon, then? Also, would flying the planes into the buildings have been sufficient to scare people, while lowering the risk that they would get caught in their operation?
“No. The CIA agents parachuted out of the planes before they crashed. These agents have no reason to kill themselves.”
And I suppose you have some eyewitness accounts of people jumping out of parachutes out of planes? Also, even if they did parachute out of the plane, how could they have made sure the plane hit its target? Did they parachute out near the WTC, where they would have been in plain sight? Did they parachute somewhere else and somehow remotely control the passenger plane to hit the WTC? If the latter, they why is the presence of CIA hijackers even necessary, if the plane was remotely-controlled anyway?
“If the government were to commit a false flag terrorist attack on its own soil, why would they need to make it needlesly complicated, thus increasing the probability that somewhere in the operation, something could go wrong?”
The plan was simple, not complicated. A complicated plan never would have worked.
“Why would they need to send missles into the Pentagon or plant WTC 1 & 2 with bombs or pull WTC7?”
There were no missiles at the Pentagon. They put bombs in the WTC to scare the living bejesus out of people.
“Also, how do you seek to explain where all the passengers in the four hijacked flights went? Did they just vanish into thin air?”
The passengers all died where the planes crashed; at the WTC, the Pentagon, and Shanksville.
“Were there suicidal CIA agents on the flights who hijacked the planes?”
No. The CIA agents parachuted out of the planes before they crashed. These agents have no reason to kill themselves.
“Did the government use “remote control†(a ridiculous hypothesis)?”
Yes.
“Did they send missles into the towers and send the aformentioned planes somewhere else (an even more ridiculous hypothesis)?”
No.
I never said it did, Hugh.
G.E.,
The Koran doesn’t prevent Muslims from being libertarians any more than it prevents Christians and Jews from being statists.
borderline should have a strike-through it.
Mike,
BTW, I don’t believe in the widely accepted 9/11 conspiracy theory because the government tells me to, I do it because the alternative hypotheses are borderline complete absurdity.
Trent – The Koran prescribes an Islamic state. Islam is a statist religion. Period.
s/borderline/complete
Borderline?
BTW, I don’t believe in the widely accepted 9/11 conspiracy theory because the government tells me to, I do it because the alternative hypotheses are borderline absurdity.
Galileo and Andy,
If the government were to commit a false flag terrorist attack on its own soil, why would they need to make it needlesly complicated, thus increasing the probability that somewhere in the operation, something could go wrong? Why would they need to send missles into the Pentagon or plant WTC 1 & 2 with bombs or pull WTC7? Also, how do you seek to explain where all the passengers in the four hijacked flights went? Did they just vanish into thin air? Were there suicidal CIA agents on the flights who hijacked the planes? Did the government use “remote control” (a ridiculous hypothesis)? Did they send missles into the towers and send the aformentioned planes somewhere else (an even more ridiculous hypothesis)?
“Criticizing Islam, a phony and evil statist religion, is not a war crime.”
Statist?
Clearly you are unfamiliar with Dean Ahmad’s work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret_of_Freedom_Institute
http://www.reason.com/news/show/33315.html
http://www.minaret.org/
Andy – Read Galileo’s comments linked above, RE: Barrett’s Islamo-supremacism and Fatwa against Kind.
Barrett is just like an Israel-first neocon; except he’s just an Israel-last (Muslim first) Bizarro world version… And maybe in that Bizarro world, he’s a libertarian, too.
“Hugh Jass // Oct 11, 2008 at 8:12 pm
I am a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. I believe that 19 men conspired to hijack 4 planes with boxcutters. I don’t see why other supposed “conspiracy theorists†wish to make the situation more complication than it has to be, remembering Occam’s Razor.”
Yeah, don’t think to hard. You might give yourself a headache. It is a lot easier to believe everything that the government tells you to believe.
In Galileo’s words:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/07/kevin-barrett-charges-incumbent-opponent-with-making-false-and-libelous-statement-about-iranisrael/#comment-5008
Click the link and read through… Islamo-fascist for real.
Criticizing Islam, a phony and evil statist religion, is not a war crime.
“I am a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. I believe that 19 men conspired to hijack 4 planes with boxcutters. I don’t see why other supposed “conspiracy theorists†wish to make the situation more complication than it has to be, remembering Occam’s Razor.”
What’s your evidence that the hijackers had boxcutters?
“Barrett doesn’t support free speech, Andy. He called for a congressman’s death for speaking ill of Islam.”
That’s BS. Barrett calls for 9/11 war crimes trials. The jury will decide if the defendents committed war crimes.
You defend juries, right?
Barrett doesn’t support free speech, Andy. He called for a congressman’s death for speaking ill of Islam.
I am a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. I believe that 19 men conspired to hijack 4 planes with boxcutters. I don’t see why other supposed “conspiracy theorists” wish to make the situation more complication than it has to be, remembering Occam’s Razor.
“Barrett is an Islamo-fascist, and that he could score anything other than 0% on any libertarian scale proves the scale isn’t worth a damn.”
As far as I know, Barrett oppeses military interventionism and the war on drugs, and he is in favor of free speech and equal rights for gays. This doesn’t sound like an “Islamo-fascist” to me.
Barrett sounds more to me like a guy who holds some libertarian views, but who is confused on economic issues.
“Until such evidence — even one measly item — is found, “think†and “9/11 was an inside job†don’t belong in the same sentence, because if you believe 9/11 was an inside job, what you’re doing isn’t ‘thinking.'”
The people who aren’t thinking are the ones who believe the statist propaganda that 9/11 was carried out by Muslims with box cutters and another Muslim hiding out in a cave in Afganistan.
“G.E. // Oct 11, 2008 at 11:15 am
I “didn’t get it†like Stato doesn’t get it.
He “doesn’t get it†like Karl Marx doesn’t get it.
Big difference.”
Prior to that you were a Green, so your views on economic issues went through more development than that to get to where you are now.
Barrett does hold libertarian views on a lot of issues, the problem is that he has held on to a lot of leftist economic views which are more appropriate for a Green Party candidate than a Libertarian candidate.
Barrett should study Austrian Economics and not run as a Libertarian again until he gets it.
“you’re confusing non-semitic Khazar Kingdom descended Jewish people with semitic non-Khazar Kingdom descended Jewish people.”
You mean that hypothesis that nobody except anti-Semites agree with and has already been debunked through genetic evidence?
“And Deran is a socialist which is worse than all of the above.”
Worse than anti-Semitism? Socialists (many of them at least) are just misinformed or delusional, but they still have good intentions. Anti-Semitism is just blind hatred…
Does O.J. support armed robbery?
How come no coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial on IPR?
Why did they kick all the black people off the jury?
Why did the judge let O.J. out on bail?
She gave him 10 more years to find the real killer!
Barrett opposes armed robbery of the citizenry to fund the Israeli apartheid regime. Good.
But he supports that same armed robbery to be redistributed to the elderly via the “great program” (his words) of Social Security.
Does Barrett support old American Jews receiving Social Security, or just gentiles?
“Pull It!!”
Oh, I see. Barrett isn’t an anti-Semite. He’s just an anti-Jew Holocaust denier who supports and promotes the work of virulent anti-Semites.
Ask him for his evidence that Larry Silverstein is a “traitor, mass murderer, and insurance fraudster,” Galileo, as I have repeatedly done. When he says you should be killed for asking that, maybe you’ll get an idea of why he’s got a vendetta against that successful Jewish businessman.
What do you think of someone who claims to stand for the “truth” but who prints blatant lies again and again, and when it’s pointed out to him –with copious evidence– why those are lies, never corrects a single one, and accuses his critics of being traitors?
Honestly, Galileo, what do you call that sort of person?
And you may not have noticed this, but his “coalition” for 9/11 truth consists of two people, neither of which is a Jew.
It may be that the few Jews he lists as “endorsers” ( http://www.mujca.com/endorsers.htm ) have no idea of his despicable claims, or his clear mental illness.
Well, that’s enough time spent on this creep.
And Deran is a socialist which is worse than all of the above.
I love it:
:”This guy is an Islamo-fascist for real.”
“The Nolan chart is an abomination”
G.E. is really all abt being the Pope of libertarian capitalism!
Barret is an obvious anti-semite, and a Truther. Both which qualify him as a nutter. Of course Cynthia McKinney and Chuck Baldwin fall into that unsavory stew of Truthers as well.
Ralph Nader doesn’t. Bob Barr, I don’t know, and who really cares at this point?
G.E. on the other hand, just young an ill informed.
Barrett is still a member of MUJCA. He did not resign, he took a leave of absence from leadership until the election is over.
Barrett opposes foreign aid to Israel.
“Barrett did not resign from MUJCA, he only let control of the organization go while he runs for office.”
…in other words, he resigned.
“In regards to the other question, I think you’ve confused white supremacists with rednecks.”
Rednecks are isolationists? Ha.
I don’t think I’m incorrect in my assertion that the Stormfront crowd is isolationist.
Barrett did not resign from MUJCA, he only let control of the organization go while he runs for office. You can’t run a non-profit while you run for office according to FEC rules.
In regards to the other question, I think you’ve confused white supremacists with rednecks.
“The Nolan Chart is an abomination.”
It’s a propaganda tool. Like all propaganda, it can backfire.
“Most white supremicists [sic] are pro-war nutjobs, unlikely to support Barrett.”
Like all those nutjobs on Stormfront who supported Ron Paul? From what I’ve seen, most white supremacists are isolationists.
“Barrett runs an organization called MUJCA, the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance, at mujca.com”
Not true, Barrett resigned from MUJCA.
you have confused racial pedigree with ethnic pedigree. You have also confused religion with race. Religion and race have nothing to do with esch other. Barrett converted to a Semitic religion.
You’re really obsessed with racial pedigree, aren’t you?
I came from my momma. That’s all I know or care to know.
you’re confusing non-semitic Khazar Kingdom descended Jewish people with semitic non-Khazar Kingdom descended Jewish people.
You are confusing your ass with the hole in your head that’s making you confuse National Socialist / Islamofascist Keven Barrett for a “libertarian.”
you’re confusing those who speak semitic languages with ethnic semites.
Most Muslims are not Semites. Another lie from the Barrett campaign.
A majority of Muslims are non-Arabs.
“Most white supremicists are pro-war nutjobs, unlikely to support Barrett.”
Not true at all.
Most white supremacists hate Jews enough to embrace Islam. Just like Barrett.
Barrett runs an organization called MUJCA, the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance, at mujca.com
Barrett is also the co-author and co-editor of a book with Jewish authors working in collaboration with him; “9/11 and American Empire, Muslims, Jews and Christians Speak Out”.
Barrett is pro-Semite.
Anti-semite is a term commonly used to refer to people who are prejudiced against Jews, Galileo Galilei.
But Barrett is running on the idea that 9/11 was an “inside job”, so it does matter if he thinks that or not.
“Or do you really think that 13% of people in his district are anti-Semitic Islamofascists?”
Barrett is pro-Semite. He converted to Islam 13 years ago and most Muslims are Semites.
Barrett is also clearly anti-fascist, as he opposes the partnership between big government and big business.
Since Barrett is a Muslim, he might be “Islamo”, so you got one out of three correct.
“In seven years, not so much as one single item of credible evidence suggesting that “9/11 was an inside job†has ever been presented by any of the advocates of the hypothesis.”
When it comes to voting, that doesn’t matter. If people believe it was an inside job, that’s what counts. The Da Vinci Code sold pretty good and I’ve seen no evidence for that conspiracy.
OJ Simpson just got convicted of a massive conspiracy, even though no evidence was presented to the jury that any conspiracy existed.
TheOriginalAndy: “I don’t see him as being a discredit to the 9/11 Truth Movement from what I’ve heard.”
Unfortunately, you’re absolutely right. The 9/11 “truth” movement was largely started by paranoid anti-Semitic loons. Barrett just takes it a step farther by saying there’s no such thing as Islamist terrorism and that anyone who disagrees with him should be killed.
@Galileo Galilei: All the polling data show are that people don’t know much about Barrett. You don’t actually think he advertises his delusions, violent fantasies, and hatred, do you? Or do you really think that 13% of people in his district are anti-Semitic Islamofascists?
Galileo,
You write:
“The poll shows that those who oppose the war, the bailout, and think 9/11 was an inside job support Barrett.”
In seven years, not so much as one single item of credible evidence suggesting that “9/11 was an inside job” has ever been presented by any of the advocates of the hypothesis.
Until such evidence — even one measly item — is found, “think” and “9/11 was an inside job” don’t belong in the same sentence, because if you believe 9/11 was an inside job, what you’re doing isn’t “thinking.”
“Barrett is a good choice if you like deeply disturbed white-supremicists who spew nothing but hatred and lies.”
The polling data shows no evidence of this. The poll shows that those who oppose the war, the bailout, and think 9/11 was an inside job support Barrett.
Most white supremicists are pro-war nutjobs, unlikely to support Barrett.
Barrett is a good choice if you like deeply disturbed white-supremicists who spew nothing but hatred and lies.
The Nolan Chart is an abomination.
Barrett is an Islamo-fascist, and that he could score anything other than 0% on any libertarian scale proves the scale isn’t worth a damn.
Barrett scores Libertarian on the Nolan Chart; 100% for civil liberties and 70% for economics.
Barrett links to great Libertarian sites on his website Barrettforcongress.us:
“Libertarian Websites
Join or Read About the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin
Join or Read About the Libertarian Party (national)
Bob Barr for President
Libertarian Pledge
International Society for Individual Liberty
Other Libertarian Websites
Please watch ISIL’s Classic Video:
The Philosophy of Liberty
World’s Smallest Political Quiz
The Founders’ Constitution
Libertarian Philosophy & News (state, war & markets)
Economic News
Third Party News
Alternative News”
His site is also chock full of great Libertarian quotes. Don’t believe the anonymous crap peddled on the Internet, believe what the Barrett campaign says himself.
Remember, Barrett is new to the Libertarian party and has dropped many of his old ideas.
Believe in the power of Libertarian ideas, its working on Barrett.
Barrett also just interviewed Dave Macko (L for congress in Ohio) yesterday on his radio show.
Macko endorsed the Barrett campaign.
I “didn’t get it” like Stato doesn’t get it.
He “doesn’t get it” like Karl Marx doesn’t get it.
Big difference.
TheOriginalAndy – just read his Wikipedia article. The man is clearly off his rocker…
“31 G.E. // Oct 11, 2008 at 1:10 am
Saying Barrett “is not a solid Libertarian†on “some†economic issues is like saying Adolph Hitler wasn’t quite sufficiently tolerant of Jews.
This guy is an Islamo-fascist for real.”
GE, a couple of years ago you “didn’t get it” on some economic issues either. You came around, maybe Barrett will as well at some point.
Barrett does hold many libertarian views, but I agree that he is lacking on economic issues and this should disqualify him from being a Libertarian Party candidate (and I say this as someone who otherwise likes the guy).
Considering that his economic views are off the mark for a Libertarian, he should have run as an independent this time.
“32 G.E. // Oct 11, 2008 at 1:10 am
And a massive discredit to the 9/11 Truth Movement.”
I don’t see him as being a discredit to the 9/11 Truth Movement from what I’ve heard.
And a massive discredit to the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Saying Barrett “is not a solid Libertarian” on “some” economic issues is like saying Adolph Hitler wasn’t quite sufficiently tolerant of Jews.
This guy is an Islamo-fascist for real.
Andy – if you’re excited about Duensing’s campaign, is there any news about it we could post here? Send it to us and we’ll get to it as soon as we can!
I spoke to Kevin Barrett at the LP National Convention in Denver. He’s a nice guy, and he’s not a “gibbering loon”.
The only reason that I’m not supporting his campaign is because he doesn’t get the emtire “Libertarian picture” when it comes to economics. Hopefully he will come around on these issues at some point.
I wish that Jim Duensing’s campaign for Congress in Nevada was getting more traction. Jim is also a 9/11 Truther but he’s a more solid Libertarian than Kevin Barrett.
“G.E. // Oct 10, 2008 at 6:08 pm
What an outrage.”
The only thing that I find to be outrageous about this is that Kevin Barrett is not a solid Libertarian on some economic issues.
Other than that, I see this as a good thing because it shows that 9/11 Truth is a popular issue.
“Hugh Jass // Oct 10, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Sounds line Kevin Barrett would fit in better as the National Socialist Party’s candidate, given his support for Holocaust deniers.”
This is an absurd statement.
Sounds line Kevin Barrett would fit in better as the National Socialist Party’s candidate, given his support for Holocaust deniers.
Since men and women are equal. Since Fathers, equal parents to Mothers…I find it of grave concern that these children find themselves with the parent that has a control problem, and not with the parent, who wants to share time, expenses, and responsibilities equally.
It’s the person gathering all the control to herself, the person seeking all control, and obtaining it….in general, that is the person with the control issues.
The courts allow parenting of all sort within intact families, but in a divorce, they strip one parent of any real parenting duties.
In truth, that should end. Children should have equal access to both parents even during a divorce.
Only if, one parent has been proven guilty of a crime, i.e. not simply a request from one parent, as is the case in a restraining order…restraining orders require no proof, no hearing, the accussed need not even be present (in most states)…but if there was actual due process involved in determining one parent to be unfit…in that case only, I could see granting custody to one parent.
As you can tell, this type of thing stripping parents from their children, is really offensive to some.
The problem you have, that we all have, as independents, is this habit of very selectively denying mainstream histories, and then at other times, taking anything the media says, as verbatim and gospel.
I don’t support this Barrett, I know nothing about him. But I know for an absolute fact, in divorce cases, restraining orders are issued without cause, to anyone who asks for them. That is standard practice, and part of a modern divorce.
The taking of the children, also part of the control process. In the end, he will be paying child support, and glad for a few moments with his children each year.
Claims of violence and striking children, etc…can generally be ignored as pure vitriol.
The claims are always written that way. Why do you suspect you are being fed a story at times, and completely blind and trusting at others.
no…his anti-semtic remarks, are good enough to mark him as a loon. But if he’s a good father, he wants to see his children, and he’s going to press the court a bit…and thats normal, and if you don’t think it is, you must not love your children.
Hell would break loose if you tried to set me apart from my children.
Oh, and Barrett was arrested last month for violating a court order forbidding contact with his family. He not only contacted them, but allegedly struck his son. http://www.thonline.com/article.cfm?id=216183
Okay, I’ll stop. You get the idea.
Quoth MRoberts, quoting Kevin “Gibbering Loon” Barrett:
“it is likely that Mr. Bush will be hanged, not shot, for treason.”
I disagree with Barrett on two points here:
1) When Bush is executed, it will not be for being behind 9/11 (at least not until and unless some evidence that that’s the case emerges — none has yet), but for the invasion/occupation of Pola … er, Iraq; and
2) The federal government executes by lethal injection, not hanging.
“I can’t believe Jesse Ventura endorsed this guy.”
^One of the reasons I had assumed Barrett’s sanity.
I can’t believe Jesse Ventura endorsed this guy.
Ah, I see that Barrett has taken down his website where he published the addresses of people he hates and encouraged people to “protest” at their homes. I guess a potential Congressman has to think of these things. http://wheretheylive.org/
(From Wikipedia) Barrett first drew attention to his views by writing letters to the editor of the Madison Capital Times and Wisconsin State Journal, in which he claimed that Muslims had nothing to do with the attacks: “As a Ph.D. Islamologist and Arabist I really hate to say this, but I’ll say it anyway: 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam.”
In a YouTube video, Barrett confronts journalist Amy Goodman at an event…then asks her to sign Holocaust denier Eric Hufschmid’s 9/11 book. Later, on his radio show, Barrett says this about Goodman: “Amy, you will one day find yourself on the scaffold, condemned to hang alongside the other Goebbels-style traitors and mass-murder-coverup-conspirators from the corporate media you pretend to criticize. …Your silence and lies about 9/11 have murdered over half a million Iraqis and destroyed Constitutional governance in the USA.”
“Cheney may be the worst mass murderer and traitor not just in US history, but in the history of the world.”
“it is likely that Mr. Bush will be hanged, not shot, for treason.”
“I appreciate the difficulty you guys must be having doing your job right now, with tens of millions of Americans calling for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and company to be prosecuted and (presumably) executed for 9/11 high treason.”
“When this thing hits the fan, the leadership in our nation’s corporate media may just end up dangling from the end of a rope.”
“Flight 93 [sic] is a Goebbels-style propaganda flick designed to incite war crimes. The people who made it should be put on trial.” (The film won many awards in 2006. Barrett claims that there was no attempted takeover of the plane by passengers and that it didn’t crash in PA.)
“Journalists who act as propagandists for war crimes may one day find themselves on the scaffold.”
“Anybody who has drawn a paycheck from the major mainstream journalistic outlets in the past should be up on the scaffold for the crimes of high treason and crimes against humanity.”
“By blinding people to the need to take the only effective action, [Noam Chomsky] is bringing on disaster. If he convinces even one person to do something other than work for 9/11 truth, he may as well have personally murdered all 6 billion people on earth.”
Yeah, Kevin Barrett is insane. I realize that now. My mistake…
@ darolew: I’m afraid that Barrett (a Muslim, btw) is anything but praiseworthy. he is a severely disturbed person:
“The Holocaust as it is taught in the US is a hideously destructive myth” – Kevin Barrett
Barrett says it’s a “Zionist Big Lie” that the “Germans hated the Jews for no reason.”
Barrett names name one of the most egregious white-supremicist neo-Nazis, Ernst Zundel, as someone whose work deserves consideration.
“Every single bombing of a mosque or a market in Iraq has been done by false flag terrorism. There are no indigenous Muslim resistance people doing that.”
About me and World Trade Center landlord Larry Silverstein (about whom Barrett has shown absolutely no wrongdoing about anything): “If you are not aware that you’re covering up for that traitor and mass murderer and yes insurance fraudster Silverstein, you’ll figure it out when you’re beside him on the scaffold. I’ll be saving this email as evidence for your trial.”
Eh, I’ve been looking at his Wikipedia page and his campaign website (which is terribly designed btw), and it’s clear I was fairly ignorant of the fellow. I thought he was a standard 9/11 Truther, but also a libertarian-leaning antiwar liberal. That’s all I heard about him on IPR. Guess there’s always more to the story…
darolew,
Imagine a Muslim, 9/11 Troof version of Wayne Root.
Then lock him in a room with Lyndon LaRouche for a couple of months, doctor his food with PCP, and give him an occasional random knock on the head until he drools a little and can’t quite make his eyes focus.
Now you’re starting to get close to Barrett.
The Libertarians will never win office because they insist on being libertarian? Not true; lots of Libertarians aren’t libertarian, and they still don’t win elections.
I mean, good luck and all with your party, but willingness to compromise is not enough to get elected…
This is why the Libertarians will never win office. They refuse to compromise. The ModernWhig Party does
“I’m just asking this out of curiousity: you don’t think there’s room for “left libertarians†in the party?”
No, because libertarianism is a specific ideology which gets diluted when liberals and conservatives start laying claim to it.
It was probably a mistake to call it the “Libertarian” Party, a broader coalition might’ve worked out better.
“And if not, what party should they belong to?”
Greens…Democrats…Independent…whichever works for them.
“Mike Gravel is not a gibbering loon. Please don’t compare him to Barrett.”
I’ll admit I’m not too familiar with Barrett. Perhaps the comparison was not appropriate.
darolew,
Mike Gravel is not a gibbering loon. Please don’t compare him to Barrett.
I’m just asking this out of curiousity: you don’t think there’s room for “left libertarians” in the party? That is, those who believe in both the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution and personal liberties.
And if not, what party should they belong to?
(Personally, I believe everyone should be independent, so I’m just asking you…)
“Wow, the anti-Semitic hate-mongering loon who claims 9/11 was an “inside job†and says his perceived enemies (including me) should be executed as traitors, is polling 13.1%?”
Eh? If true, perhaps I should retract my kind words above….
Barrett, like Gravel, is very praise-worthy liberal. I wish we had more people like Barrett and Gravel in office. They more than make up for national healthcare and other fallacies by their other stances (in Barrett’s case, this does not include his 9/11 fallacies).
However, I wish they weren’t running as “Libertarians”…
Wow, the anti-Semitic hate-mongering loon who claims 9/11 was an “inside job” and says his perceived enemies (including me) should be executed as traitors, is polling 13.1%?
People up there must not know the Kevin Barrett I know. How sad.
“What an outrage.”
LOL! What’s the outrage? That the recent fad of “laisse faire” “free markets” is so entirely discredited among voters, or that a candiate of the recently deceased LP should have the analytic capacities to understand what works and what has not worked?
You can listen to Dr Barrett’s interview with Joy Cardin on Wisconsin Public Radio here:
http://www.radiodujour.com/people/barrett_kevin
“Barrett is at 13.1%. That is higher than any other Libertarian candidate for Congress in the entire nation”
This refers to three-way races with a republican & democrat.
In two-way races, Libertarians will often poll up to 20% or so usually.
G.E. is back!
🙂
Proof that true libertarianism cannot and will not ever work. Barrett, who has been endorsed by the Catholic Trotskyist Party of America, will indeed outpoll all real libertarians and help bring about true socialism..
What an outrage.