"Texas Congressman Ron Paul has been banned from attending a presidential forum just two days before the New Hampshire Primary by Fox News.
The forum is due to be screened by Fox on January 6th 2008 but it won't include the Republican fundraising frontrunner and a contender who is set to garner over 10% of the vote in New Hampshire.
This is another blatant ploy to sideline Ron Paul and pretend as if he isn't going to play a crucial role in the campaign when even mainstream news media are now admitting that to be the case.“Given Ron Paul’s support in New Hampshire and his recent historic fundraising success, it is outrageous that Dr. Paul would be excluded,” said Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “Dr. Paul has consistently polled higher in New Hampshire than some of the other candidates who have been invited.”
“Paul supporters should know that we are continuing to make inquiries with Fox News as to why they have apparently excluded Dr. Paul from this event," he added.
The fact that Ron Paul broke all records by raising over $6 million dollars in one day this month matters little to the Neo-Con hierarchy at Fox News, who have thrown their weight behind Hillary Clinton's warmongering platform.
The Texas Congressman's fundraising haul gives him a real chance of picking up momentum quickly as the early primaries fly by, which is exactly what the establishment fear and are trying to derail.
Paul has been excluded from many major online polls in the last few months and was also initially blocked from attending a Republican presidential forum in Des Moines Iowa in June.""Ron Paul Excluded from Fox News Forum
Larry Fester
USA Daily
December 29, 2007
Republican fund raising frontrunner Ron Paul will be excluded from a Fox News Forum scheduled for just two days before the New Hampshire Primary.
Paul’s campaign said that according to the New Hampshire State Republican Party and an Associated Press report, Republican presidential candidate and Texas Congressman Ron Paul will be excluded from an upcoming forum of Republican candidates to be broadcast by Fox News on January 6, 2008. The decision appears to have been made by Fox News.
“Given Ron Paul’s support in New Hampshire and his recent historic fundraising success, it is outrageous that Dr. Paul would be excluded,” said Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “Dr. Paul has consistently polled higher in New Hampshire than some of the other candidates who have been invited.”
Snyder continued, “Paul supporters should know that we are continuing to make inquiries with Fox News as to why they have apparently excluded Dr. Paul from this event.”
Ron Paul made history on December 16th when he raised over 6 million dollars in one day. The amount is more than any other political candidate in history has accumulated in one day. In fact, Paul financially speaking is in the best position to win the Republican nomination and is already funded through February 5th when 23 states are up for grabs.
There is a loophole regarding FCC equal time laws for breaking news and debates. Media conglomerates have been giving far less speaking time to Ron Paul during presidential debates and have given scant coverage to his campaign during newscasts. Regardless, Paul has embarrassed alleged frontrunners by raising more money than they have during the fourth quarter, remarkably from 50 and 100 dollar donors. Paul’s campaign has continuously drawn larger crowds than his opponents as well.
The ultimate embarrassment may be to Fox News, especially if Paul wins the New Hampshire primary two days after the forum.
While Paul has consistently registered poorly in media generated polls, his fund raising, and sizable crowds attending his rallies across the country, has made it obvious that he has enormous support.
Paul continues to campaign to end the federal income tax and the Federal Reserve’s inflation tax by returning to ‘Sound Money’ policies. Paul promises to end the Iraq war and bring U.S. troops home immediately. He also promises to repeal the Patriot Act, protect the Bill of Rights, and the U.S. Constitution.
Paul supports a non-interventionist foreign policy and has promised to secure America’s borders to strengthen national defense."
I'm sorry, Ron Paul, you are a better man than I.
Because I say FUCK FOX!!!!
Here is a better letter-writer than me:
John Armstrong
Nolan Chart
Saturday December 29, 2007
Below is a letter I sent to Fox this morning asking them to explain Ron Paul's being excluded from the January 6th New Hampshire Round Table style debate. If and when I hear back, I will update the post and share their response below.
Email Title: A Sane Ron Paul Supporter
Dear Fox News,
I have trusted your integrity as a major news network since the 2000 election. I am a staunch republican who registered to vote in the state where I was attending college in 1996; I proudly displayed my Jesse Helms sticker on my dorm room door in uber-liberal Chapel Hill. Seeing all of the ridiculous liberals there made me even more conservative. I grew up with a family who loved me but financially had very little. After graduating I have since gone on to build a multimillion dollar (and growing) business. I understand from personal experience the importance of integrity, personal responsibility, hard work, foresight, and making good decisions. My respect for these principles coupled with diligent research of all of the candidates has caused me to support Ron Paul's bid for the Republican Party nomination. For a Carolina grad to support someone who graduated from Medical School at Duke, you know there have to be some pretty solid reasons to justify that support.
I am not writing you to rant about the "unfairness of the Mainstream Media" or to accuse Fox of being a "puppet of the Neo-Cons" as I am sure many of the others who support Dr. Paul's candidacy are. I am just trying to understand candidate Paul's exclusion from the January 6th roundtable debate. I want to be able to watch Fox and not feel like I have to read between the lines like I do when I watch the liberal network media that Fox was created to balance. Please help me understand how someone who:
Will be the 4th quarter's leading Republican (if not overall) fundraiser,
Has indications that he could place as high as 3rd in the Iowa Caucus to be held three nights prior to the roundtable event,
Has a voting record that is so conservative it would make an Amish legislator look like Ted Kennedy,
Is a ten term Republican Congressman,
Truly believes in a smaller federal government as his voting record shows,
Has reasoned analysis based on extensive study for his reasons for not supporting the war in Iraq and his markedly different idea for how to conduct the war on Islamo-Facism (which is quite different than the "hippy" crowd's reasons on these issues),
Has never voted to raise taxes,
Has been married to the same woman for 50 years,
Served in the Air Force as a flight surgeon,
Is the only candidate discussing incredibly important issues like monetary policy,
Returns part of his office's budget to the Treasury each year,
Doesn't accept money from special interests,
Has done the seemingly impossible in awakening a previously apathetic general public to our political system and process,
could not be invited to the debates. The only non-conspiracy theory possibilities I can deduce myself are:
His poll numbers are low (but higher than some of the candidates who are invited).
He hasn't ruled out running as a third party candidate and this could hurt the Republicans' chance of beating whomever they face in the general election so there is no need to give him face time.
He doesn't support the War in Iraq and this somehow makes him not a "real" Republican.
He isn't electable.
These last two issues seem most likely.
As for the first issue, I doubt the executives at Fox will ever read this, but if you (the individual) are still reading, please click thie link below.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm.
It is from one of Paul's 2002 speeches and explains why he didn't and doesn't support our military action in Iraq. If you read it, you will see the reasoned; sensible nature of this man and understand that he in no way belongs in the "pacifist hippy" camp in which he seems to be thought of by mainstream republicans. Although he has attracted many of those people as his supporters (which is something no other GOP candidate can say).
For the second issue, isn't electability determined by the voters? Did I miss a memo on that one? When Fox News says, "We report, you decide" does that really mean "We decide, then report, and you decide between our pre-screened options?" Does Fox not realize that Republican Party Loyalists will support whoever is nominated from our party? Does Fox not understand the impact creating these new Republicans (many of whom will be voting for decades to come) could have on our Party? Has Fox thought about the possibility of the loss of all small "l" libertarians from our party, or even the rise of the large "L" libertarian party if Paul’s supporters feel as if our candidate is unfairly omitted?
Does Fox not remember that the reason we were obliterated two years ago in the mid term elections was due to the one issue on which mainstream Republicans (the ones being polled) seem to disagree with Paul most (the War) yet it's also an issue where most Americans agree with him? When Clinton got destroyed halfway through his first term, he made adjustments so that he could win in 1996. Our strategy hasn't changed in the last two years, and anyone running against an Anti-War (for the wrong reasons) democrat while carrying the same old Republican mantle will likely not be electable in a general election anyway.
Maybe I'm wrong about these things (and hopefully I am if Paul isn't nominated) but doesn't Fox owe it to Americans to really let them decide? Please help me understand the exclusion of Dr. Paul from the roundtable debate on January 6th so that I don't have to join the conspiracy theory camp.
Humbly,
John Armstrong
Copyright © Infowars.net All rights reserved.
Printed from: http://infowars.net/articles/291207Letter.htm"
"The Media Hounds Unleashed on Ron Paul -- How the CIA Will Use Liberals to Destroy the Anti-Empire Candidate"
Bill Douglas
Op Ed News
Saturday, December 29, 2007
THOSE DEMOCRATS WHO DON'T KNOW HISTORY, ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT:
When Bill Clinton was first running for President, he had a revolutionary challenger in the Democratic Primary, named Jerry Brown. Brown had been the former Governor of California, as well as the State Chair of the California Democratic Party. He had been revolutionary, pushing hard for labor rights for farmworkers to protect them from agri-industrial poisons, he’d funded those large wind energy projects along the length of California, and had introduced satellite conference calls to California Government. The corporate interests he threatened needed to divorce this man of the people, this man of vision . . . from the people he served so well. So, they called him “Governor Moon Beam.”
The name caught on. What it was in reference to, although few in the media or public looked beyond that funny name as they laughed at Brown, was Brown’s idea of using satellite phone technology for meetings. Rather than having state legislators fly back to Sacremento everytime they needed to meet, they could use this new technology and save time, energy, etc. Of course today, everyone, all companies use this technology, and it was brilliant back then. But, “Governor Moonbeam” was the label some bright boys hired by the corporate powers Brown was slapped with. It made people laugh at him. It worked.
Then years later after serving as California State Chair of the CA Democratic Party, Brown decided to run for President. BUT, he refused to take a donation over $100. WHY? Because he’d learned as State Chair that money had taken over politics. He had raised more money than any other Chair before, but no matter how much he raised, they always needed more. Brown said that in that system you lose touch with real people, real needs. You lose touch with the reality of America, when you only have time to sit down with people who can write multi-thousand dollar checks.
So in his Presidential campaign, Brown lived among ordinary people, depended on them for rides, and broke bread with them at their tables. He refused to accept more than $100 donations from any one person. The corporate media made fun of him.
Then Brown won Colorado, beating Bill Clinton soundly. The foundations of American power were shaken. Almost immediately, Ted Koppel’s Nightline, brought on several anonymous, hooded figures, to character assassinate Brown. It was all lies but Koppel didn’t seem to care, and the public didn’t care. Oh, those who really knew Brown were outraged, but the public bought it. His campaign was ruined, and Bill Clinton, the chosen one, sailed into power so that he could later enable trade agreements that would decimate American labor, and war crimes abroad.
His crimes included ad hoc bombings, boycotts and sanctions designed to starve human beings into submission, and supporting ethnic cleansing in brutal counterinsurgency warfare, and the devastation by bombing designed to return rogues to the stone age and keep them there. Of course it was “all for a good cause” we were told. I bought it. I thought, geez he’s a Democrat, this can’t really be a bad thing.
On June 26, 1993, Clinton bombed Baghdad to pay them back for an unproven plot to kill President George Bush. Eight Iraqi civilians, including the distinguished Iraqi artist Layla al-Attar were killed in the raid, and 12 more were wounded. This kind of unilateral action in response to an unproven charge is a violation of international law.
In 1998 Clinton bombed Afghanistan and the Sudan. Unknown numbers were killed in Afghanistan (and by the missiles that accidentally landed in Pakistan), and the pharmaceutical factory destroyed in the Sudan was the major source of medical drugs in that poor country. All evidence points to the fact that the Sudan factory destroyed had no connection whatever to chemical weapons or Bin Laden, and was bombed on the basis of insufficient and poorly evaluated data. But following the attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa, Clinton felt compelled to act for internal political reasons once again, and there are no international constraints or costs to him or his country if he chooses to bomb small and weak countries to score political points at home.
Clinton’s sanctions on Iraq were brutal. According to UNICEF, more than one-million Iraqi children under five suffered malnutrition, which resulted in 4,000 to 5,000 children dying per month beyond normal death rates.
In the US war against Yugoslavia under Clinton, there were attacks on Yugoslav Television and 60% of overall NATO targets were civilian, including 33 hospitals and 344 schools, and 144 industrial plants. Targets included hotels, libraries, museums, churches, monasteries, youth centers, theatres, and housing estates.
And today, we have a Hillary and Obama, darlings of the corporate media, who will end the war in Iraq . . . sort of . . . and have made no indication they will in any way change the business as usual in global politics and war empire.
Then, on the other hand, we have Ron Paul, who wishes to decimate the CIA militarist global empire and end this misery that supports resource theft and slave labor markets for corporations.
Who will the media make fun of? Who will the media smear?
What I find the saddest, is that Liberals and Progressives, who’ve I’ve worked side by side with in anti-war and human rights causes . . . will bleat like sheep, and parrot all the character assassinations the CIA plants in their corporate media lackey’s mouths.
It will be liberals and progressives who will turn on the last greatest hope we have of saving our democracy and ending the brutal CIA run global corporate empire. After 9/11, when the Democrats were licking the boots of Bush and the neo-cons, there was one shining knight who stood tall against them. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney demanded to know what happened to the $2.3 TRILLION Rumsfeld said the Pentagon "lost." She demanded to know more about the connections between Bush and the Bin Laden family, and she demanded to know who ordered the mysterious war games to be held coincidentally on 9/11/2001, and why they were not called off when the attacks began.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RvLL--vSsA
For her courage her own Democratic Party leaders turned on her or turned away from her as the CIA controlled media hounds were unleashed upon her. This brave woman is now the Green Party Candidate, and if she garners the kind of support Ron Paul has, the CIA controlled media will turn on her again. And as before, the Democratic leadership will parrot the media's attacks on her.
Suddenly, I wake up and can hardly believe that I ever knew these people in the first place. It’s like invasion of the body snatchers, and they are all screaming their alarms at Ron Paul, the one candidate who has not been replaced with the soul of a CIA militarist pod.
On NBC's Meet the Press last week, Ron Paul shook the foundations of the illegal war mongering power structures of America. He'll have hell to pay. His only hope is that the people he is standing up for, the average peace and justice loving American, will stand up for Ron Paul.
Full article here.Printed from: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/291207Hounds.htm
"Paul Most Searched GOP Hopeful"
Seattle Times
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Ron Paul registers in the single digits in most polls, but he's the top searched Republican presidential candidate on Google, according to the Web site's trend history.
A large volume of hits for Paul in the last 30 days are coming from Iowa, as voters there prepare to caucus Jan. 3. The same holds true for most of his rivals, with the exception of Mitt Romney and John McCain.
Disproportionally, more of Romney's searches in that span are coming from Utah, the seat of his Mormon faith. More of McCain's hits are disproportionally coming from New Hampshire, where he won the Republican presidential primary in 2000.
People sought more information about the contenders around news events.
Fred Thompson saw a spike in searches in early September, about the time the actor-politician announced his bid for the White House. He's now lower than he was in April. Romney saw an increase in the days surrounding his Dec. 6 speech on his faith.
Mike Huckabee has been surging in the polls and seeing an increase in the number of people searching for his name. While he's a far second behind Paul, he's just ahead of Romney.
McCain and Giuliani aren't searched as frequently, the site's search pattern shows.Printed from: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/291207Searched.htm
