Conspiracy to eliminate Ron Paul

[Jack White]

http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com

All Out War on Ron Paul

Joel Skousen

Editor - World Affairs Brief

(excerpt)

In the first GOP debate, Ron Paul came out of nowhere to capture the

growing pro-Constitutional and anti-war sentiment of the viewers. His

poll numbers doubled the others and had to be suppressed. In the

second debate this week Fox News hosts were gunning for him, jabbing

with questions tainted by skepticism and innuendo about his "being

out of step with the Republican party." When Paul dared utter that

American interventionist foreign policy was in large part responsible

for 9/11, they allowed Rudolph Giuliani to jump into the debate out

of turn to denounce him. The denunciations have been non-stop ever

since, even threatening to deny Paul a place in any future debates.

As Andrew Sullivan, perennial GOP critic said of Paul's rising

star, "They're scared, aren't they? The Internet polls show real

support for him [Paul]. Fox News' own internet poll placed him a

close second, with 25 percent of the votes from Fox News viewers

[actually Paul was running first with 30%, well into the polling]. We

have a real phenomenon here -- because someone has to stand up for

what conservatism once stood for."

Presidential candidate Ron Paul merely uttered the mildest form of

criticism -- that US incessant interference in the Middle East

provided a major provocation for terrorists--a conclusion backed up

by the establishment's own 9/11 Commission! Yet Rudolph Giuliani had

the gall to say, "I don't think I've heard that before, and I've

heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11."

During the debate, Paul specifically said that terrorists attacked

the United States "because we've been over there; we've been bombing

Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [intervening]." Fox

News White House correspondent Wendell Goler jumped on this

opportunity to make Paul look extreme: "Are you suggesting we invited

the 9-11 attack?"

Paul replied: "No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor.

Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us

because we've been over there..." He then recounted Reagan's decision

to pull out of Middle East intervention after the Beruit bombing of

Marines, that "we don't understand Middle East politics."

"I think Reagan was right," Paul said. "We don't understand the

irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building

an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14

permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in

our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need

to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if

somebody else did it to us. (some applause.)Then Giuliani jumps in

and is given time to rebut (improperly--magically his microphone is

live, while all others are off): "Wendell, may I comment on that?

That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary

statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11

[Giuliani never misses an opportunity to say 'I was there' though he

never admits having known the WTC were going to collapse and having

failed to pull his first responders out of the buildings in time to

save their lives.], that we invited the attack because we were

attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard

some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause and

cheers.) Then he demands that Ron Paul renounce his statement (even

greater applause from the pro-Bush audience), but, Ron Paul sticks to

his assertions.

As Pat Buchanan said, "After the debate, on Fox News' Hannity and

Colmes, came one of those delicious moments on live television. As

Michael Steele, GOP spokesman, was saying that Paul should probably

be cut out of future debates, the running tally of votes by Fox News

viewers was showing Ron Paul, with 30 percent, the winner of the

debate. Brother Hannity seemed startled and perplexed by the votes

being text-messaged in the thousands to Fox News saying Paul won,

Romney was second, Rudy third and McCain far down the track at 4

percent.

Doug Kendall thinks there is a smear campaign against Paul: "By now,

it is painfully obvious to most people in the freedom movement that

Republican presidential hopeful, Ron Paul, has been targeted for

elimination--by his own Party. The politically-connected elite within

the Republican Party, along with allied organizations and operatives,

are working overtime to make sure that Ron Paul is burned at the

stake for daring to speak the truth and defy the Good Ol' Boy system.

"In all honesty, Dr. Paul should have known that he would be set up

in the second debate--after he scored so high in poll after poll,

following the first debate--and after he made it clear that he would

not tow the neo-con, police-state, Giuliani-style 'war' on terror

line.

"Everyone from Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, so-called "conservative"

news websites and columnists, and even local talk radio shows have

done everything in their power to define Ron Paul as a 'nut-

job,' 'dope,' and 'moron,' calling for his removal from the debates

because his views are supposedly 'dangerous' for the country."

Alex wallenwein adds more: "After the debate, Ron Paul appears as a

guest on Fox News' Hannity and Colmes show. Hannity goes wild on Paul

and Paul again refuses to back down, but can't hardly get a word in

sideways between Hannity's irate rants.

"The following day, Paul is interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN and is

asked whether he will take the opportunity to back away from his

statements. Ron Paul retorts that it is Rudy Giuliani who needs to

apologize to him for unjustifiably blowing his top on him and

insinuating that he is 'un-American.' Ron affirms that he is indeed

an American because Americans have the right to disagree with bad

policy, and America's foreign interventionism in the Middle East is

bad policy and therefore can and should be challenged.

"Fox News anchor, John Gibson, recently stated that the second

presidential debate got a little 'spicy' after 'Paul suggested that

the US actually had a hand in the terrorist attacks.' He even went so

far as to attempt to link Paul to the 911 Truth crowd and Rosie

O'Donnell--whose picture they flashed, twice, during the five-minute

segment, along with the tagline, 'ROSIE O'DONNELL STRONGLY BELIEVES

IN 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORIES.'

Gibson said that the 911 Truth movement has infected people like

Rosie O'Donnell, and one in three Democrats, and many other Americans

evidently, including Congressman Ron Paul. To make matters worse, he

brought columnist and Fox News contributor, Michele Malkin, into the

segment and said he would have expected to hear something like this

from the Democrat debates.

In perfect neo-con style, Malkin stated, 'Ron Paul really has no

business being on stage as a representative of Republicans,'

apparently because of the 911 Truth movement 'virus.'

Paul Joseph Watson explains what Malkin means: "Malkin defines 9/11

truth as a 'virus' and repeats the term over and over to ensure Fox's

geriatric 80-plus viewers don't forget it. Malkin resorts to the

usual fodder of smearing 9/11 truth as a leftist fringe movement,

despite the fact that we are routinely shunned and attacked by the

liberal media, both mainstream and alternative. Gibson and Malkin

then recoil at the temerity of the suggestion that bombing third

world countries breeds hatred and characterize it as a tin-foil hat

conspiracy theory! Of course, those poor people in the Middle East

love being bombed and to suggest otherwise is unpatriotic!

"Malkin cites Popular Mechanics, the Hearst Publishing yellow

journalism rag that is edited by a tabloid TV critic as her bastion

of credibility for standing up to 9/11 truthers, despite the fact

that the magazine's 9/11 hit piece has been debunked over and over

and is the target of Professor David Ray Griffin's new book ,

Debunking 9/11 Debunking.

The Giuliani Setup: One of my subscribers is a producer and explained

that the debate was clearly rigged, judging by the tainted questions

asked of Ron Paul and the favorable "opportunities" given to the top

candidates. He also noted that the attack on Paul showed some signs

of collusion by Fox because Giuliani's microphone was turned on so

that he could rebut Paul. How did Giuliani get an open mic? The

microphones of non speakers are always in the off position when their

turn is over so as to not feed in noise to the system. His was left

on when Paul was speaking. I think Fox was just waiting for something

Paul would say that would give Giuliani a chance to respond and

denounce.

Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media tends to agree: "Fox News has a

reputation as a conservative news channel and many Republicans rely

on it for news and information. But its handling of this debate

raises serious questions about the channel's commitment to

being 'fair and balanced.' It seems to be emerging as an arm of the

Giuliani-for-president campaign. Honest conservatives should demand

better coverage."

Ron Paul's rising star has to be shot down before it gets out of hand

and now they have the issue to use against him. This intolerance for

dissent is telling about how rigid and unprincipled the media has

become. Patriotism has become so sacrosanct that the media will brook

no opposition at all without inferring treason--mindless patriotism

is essential toward herding the masses into more war and globalist

intervention.

DISTORTIONS: Now they've got Ron Paul where they want him. They will

brand him as some kind of "Holocaust Denier." They will continue to

denigrate and distort his position and trumpet it to the world. He

won't be given enough time to refute the charges. Remember, it takes

lots of time to recite the small bits of evidence pointing to US

involvement in 9/11, and even if people had the will to listen (which

they do not) it's impossible to do on TV when you are only given some

30 seconds to respond. The distortions have already begun. Justin

Raimondo of anti-war.com summarizes:

Several media figures mischaracterized a response that Rep. Ron Paul

gave at the Republican debate, with some asserting that Paul

had 'blamed' the United States for the 9-11 terrorist attacks and

others simply accepting Rudy Giuliani's misrepresentation of Paul's

statement that the United States had 'invited the attack.' In fact,

Paul did not blame the United States for the 9-11 attacks or say that

the United States had 'invited' the attacks. He said the attacks were

a response to U.S. actions in the Middle East and stressed the

importance of understanding the motivations of those who want to

attack the United States. Moreover, the media largely ignored Paul's

further comments on those remarks after the debate, including his

assertion that 'Americans didn't do anything to cause' the attacks

[referring to ordinary Americans, and not the leaders, who Paul

privately knows were complicit].

"During a post debate interview, Fox News host Sean Hannity asked

Paul: 'Are you suggesting that our policies are causing the hatred of

people that would cause them to want to kill us?' Paul responded: 'I

think it contributes significantly to it, and this is exactly what

our CIA tells us.'Yet when describing the confrontation between Paul

and Giuliani during the debate, numerous media figures claimed that

Paul 'blamed' the United States for 9-11 or said that the United

States was 'responsible' for the attacks, and they made no mention of

his subsequent clarification. In addition, some not only accepted

Giuliani's interpretation of what Paul said but praised Giuliani's

response."

The "kick him out" club is growing. The chairman of the Michigan

Republican Party Saul Anuzis said Wednesday that he will try to bar

Ron Paul from future GOP presidential debates because of remarks the

Texas congressman made that suggested the Sept. 11 attacks were the

fault of U.S. foreign policy. Go here to sign a counter petition to

ensure Ron Paul stays in the debates:

http://www.petitiononline.com/RPRNC08/petition.html

While most of the establishment world is crowing that "this was

Giuliani's night" the internet crowd hardly agrees. Justin Raimondo

has a few choice comments about Rudolph "the Thug" Giuliani: "In

response to Ron Paul's reasonable and informed contention that our

interventionist foreign policy created the 'blowback' that gave rise

to Al Qaeda, and 9/11, Rudy Giuliani burbled 'I don't think I've ever

heard that!'

"Of course he hasn't heard it: he's so busy pandering to the worst

instincts of red-state fascists Republicans, calling for a national

ID card, and drooling at the thought of torture that he has no time

for a reality-based assessment of American foreign policy. That

bullying would-be Mafia don, who looks and acts like someone out

of 'The Sopranos,' demanded that Ron Paul 'withdraw his remarks and

tell us he didn't mean it.' Paul's answer, 'I believe the CIA is

correct when it warns us about blowback. We overthrew the Iranian

government in 1953 and their taking the hostages was the reaction.

This dynamic persists and we ignore it at our risk. They're not

attacking us because we're rich and free, they're attacking us

because we're over there [overthrowing governments].'

"As even the dumbos [bush cheerleaders] over at FreeRepublic.com

acknowledge, Rep. Paul is factually correct. Bin Laden's fatwa gave

his reasons for the attack, and the savaging of Iraq -- pre-invasion -

- is front-and -center.."

RON PAUL IS THE TALK OF THE TOWN: Paul is being interviewed

constantly as the media keeps trying to vilify his position. I'm not

sure its working. But, this uproar isn't going away. They will build

upon it and distort it until Ron Paul is transformed into

an "unpatriotic extremist." Think how they would crucify your editor

and the other millions of Americans who are convinced that US

government involvement was much more than mere provocation.

Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution

permitted.

Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief

http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com

editor@worldaffairsbrief.com

[William Kelly]

I don't know much about this guy except he's a stict libertarian who came to my attention when the Emmet Till Bill passed the House by a 4?? - 2 vote. I checked to see who the two dissenters were - much like the Tonkin Gulf Resolution vote - and it was Ron Paul and a Conservative - Supremist from Georgia.

For some reason Paul doesn't doesn't think anything deserves support or funding unless it's expressly written in the Constitution. It appears he is a Radical Libertarian Isolational Fundamentalist, a term I just coined - RLIF. Maybe the acronymn can be rearranged to say something meaningful. RLIF goes against the grain of both traditional Conservative Republicans, who take their dole from no bid defense and energy contracts, and liberal democrats who want to funnell taxes into social services.

I didnt notice Air Conditioning in the Constitution.

BK

[Jack White]

I don't know much about this guy except he's a stict libertarian who came to my attention when the Emmet Till Bill passed the House by a 4?? - 2 vote. I checked to see who the two dissenters were - much like the Tonkin Gulf Resolution vote - and it was Ron Paul and a Conservative - Supremist from Georgia.

For some reason Paul doesn't doesn't think anything deserves support or funding unless it's expressly written in the Constitution. It appears he is a Radical Libertarian Isolational Fundamentalist, a term I just coined - RLIF. Maybe the acronymn can be rearranged to say something meaningful. RLIF goes against the grain of both traditional Conservative Republicans, who take their dole from no bid defense and energy contracts, and liberal democrats who want to funnell taxes into social services.

I didnt notice Air Conditioning in the Constitution.

BK

From Wikipedia:

Ronald Ernest Paul (born August 20, 1935) is a 10th-term Congressman from Lake Jackson, Texas, a member of the Republican Party, a physician, and a candidate for the Republican nomination in

the 2008 presidential election with strong grassroots support.[2] He has represented Texas's 14th congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1997 and represented Texas's 22nd

district in 1976 and from 1979 to 1985. Paul also ran for President in the 1988 presidential election as the nominee for the Libertarian Party, while remaining a registered Republican.

Ron Paul has been referred to as a conservative, a constitutionalist, and a libertarian.[3] He is an advocate of states' rights, free trade, fewer taxes, smaller government, national sovereignty, and a

non-interventionist foreign policy.[4] Paul supports reduced government spending and reduced taxes. As congressman, he states that he has never voted to raise taxes or to approve an unbalanced

budget.[5] He has called for the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the federal income tax. He also voted against the USA PATRIOT Act, the Iraq War Resolution, and the Military

Commissions Act of 2006.

[Duane Daman]

" Everyone from Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, so-called "conservative"

news websites and columnists, and even local talk radio shows have

done everything in their power to define Ron Paul as a 'nut-

job,' 'dope,' and 'moron,' calling for his removal from the debates

because his views are supposedly 'dangerous' for the country."

Sounds familiar doesn't it Jack ? ... These are the same sad tactics used by a few of the neo-con disinformation artists on this very forum .

Interesting article on the radical right and their agenda of suppressing not only freedom of speech but the truth , on the Fox Noise Network .

Edited August 16, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Len Colby]

I wonder if Jack or Peter can provide links to any scientific polls (as opposed to Internet ones) which show Ron Paul with anything better than single digits or close to last place.

[Scott Deitche]

I wonder if Jack or Peter can provide links to any scientific polls (as opposed to Internet ones) which show Ron Paul with anything better than single digits or close to last place.

He doesn't and that's part of the issue usually with the "dark horse" candidates. Winning one debate in a Fox News poll didn't translate to higher poll numbers. Here's a long list of all the available polls and he doesn't even rate in the tops among Republican voters:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...nation-192.html

I like having him around- always nice to see a breath of fresh air in the usual garbage stew of candidates- though I won't be voting for him.

[Len Colby]

I wonder if Jack or Peter can provide links to any scientific polls (as opposed to Internet ones) which show Ron Paul with anything better than single digits or close to last place.

the running tally of votes by Fox News viewers was showing Ron Paul, with 30 percent, the winner of the

debate. Brother Hannity seemed startled and perplexed by the votes being text-messaged in the thousands to Fox News saying Paul won, Romney was second, Rudy third and McCain far down the track at 4

percent.

Exactly what part of, "scientific polls", did you fail to understand? A poll based on text message and presumablly internet and phone voting doesn't qualify. As someone who claims to hold a science degree from Yale I presumed you understood what a "representative sample" is.

why are you always in your posts REQUIRING others to do work,

Jack claimed Paul is leading in the polls, you claimed he has 30% backing, it up to you to back your claims not for me to debunk them Also you are asking we to prove a negative, no matter how many scientific polls that I could point to showing him at the back off the pack with single digits wouldn't prove that there wasn't one that showed otherwise

take time...why don't you post what you think...put your information out

Quite ironic coming from someone who almost never provides documentation for his claims.

[Len Colby]

I wonder if Jack or Peter can provide links to any scientific polls (as opposed to Internet ones) which show Ron Paul with anything better than single digits or close to last place.

He doesn't and that's part of the issue usually with the "dark horse" candidates. Winning one debate in a Fox News poll didn't translate to higher poll numbers. Here's a long list of all the available polls and he doesn't even rate in the tops among Republican voters:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...nation-192.html

I like having him around- always nice to see a breath of fresh air in the usual garbage stew of candidates- though I won't be voting for him.

Despite their conservative bent (I can do without their editorials) I like RCP as probably the best single site for poll data.

So just who do you think you'll be voting for?

[Scott Deitche]

I wonder if Jack or Peter can provide links to any scientific polls (as opposed to Internet ones) which show Ron Paul with anything better than single digits or close to last place.

He doesn't and that's part of the issue usually with the "dark horse" candidates. Winning one debate in a Fox News poll didn't translate to higher poll numbers. Here's a long list of all the available polls and he doesn't even rate in the tops among Republican voters:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...nation-192.html

I like having him around- always nice to see a breath of fresh air in the usual garbage stew of candidates- though I won't be voting for him.

Despite their conservative bent (I can do without their editorials) I like RCP as probably the best single site for poll data.

So just who do you think you'll be voting for?

I'll pass on that question. I voiced my political opinion once on here. That was enough abuse for me. :-)

Edited August 19, 2007 by Scott Deitche

[Jack White]

I wonder if Jack or Peter can provide links to any scientific polls (as opposed to Internet ones) which show Ron Paul with anything better than single digits or close to last place.

He doesn't and that's part of the issue usually with the "dark horse" candidates. Winning one debate in a Fox News poll didn't translate to higher poll numbers. Here's a long list of all the available polls and he doesn't even rate in the tops among Republican voters:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...nation-192.html

I like having him around- always nice to see a breath of fresh air in the usual garbage stew of candidates- though I won't be voting for him.

Despite their conservative bent (I can do without their editorials) I like RCP as probably the best single site for poll data.

So just who do you think you'll be voting for?

I'll pass on that question. I voiced my political opinion once on here. That was enough abuse for me. :-)

Fill it out, get it notarized at any bank, etc., and send it in; if we can find 1306+ Iowans who voted for Ron Paul at the Straw Poll on August 11, 2007 -- then we have absolute proof that they rigged the published vote count. As we start 300 affidavits are already in hand.

http://www.total411.info/

Establishment Media Ignores Ron Paul Straw Poll Success

Press lauds Romney's victory in meaningless Iowa contest,

yet barely acknowledges Texas Congressman's sweep of Alabama and New Hampshire

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet

Monday, August 20, 2007

The establishment media has sought to bury and scoff at Ron Paul's dominating success in the Alabama and New Hampshire straw polls, while exalting the meaningless Iowa contest as a bellwether benchmark of national sentiment simply because their stooge Mitt Romney was the winner.

The Texas Congressman completely demolished the opposition in the Alabama straw poll, achieving 216 votes (81%) compared to Romney's 14 and Giuliani's 7.

He also trounced the contest's only southerner, Mike Huckabee, by a clear 210 votes.

The Alabama state primary will play a very prominent role in next year's presidential election because it is expected to be moved forward and become one of the first.

Ron Paul was also victorious in New Hampshire this weekend after garnering 73% of the vote at the Strafford County GOP straw poll.

All the candidates had representatives in New Hampshire and Paul easily beat off Tancredo and Huckabee, who were there in person. A PR attempt on behalf of the Romney campaign to place signs all around the venue got a return of just 26 votes.

The significance of straw polls can be debated back and forth, but what can't be argued is the fact that Mitt Romney received lavish coverage from the media after his success in Iowa - despite the fact that the Iowa straw poll has historically proven to be meaningless - yet Paul's victory in Alamaba and New Hampshire was met with muted dismissal.

"Now, granted, Alan Keyes won the last contested GOP straw poll in 1999, followed by Orrin Hatch, with eventual nominee George W. Bush coming in third," writes Outside the Beltway's James Joyner, "But Pat Robertson won the Iowa straw poll in 1987 and the press still pretends that contest is meaningful. Indeed, the winner in Ames has only gone on to win the nomination once. George H.W. Bush won the poll in 1979 and went on to lose the nomination to Ronald Reagan. Then, Bush lost the poll in 1987 (to Robertson) only to win the nomination. The other George Bush won in Ames in 1999, though, and also won the whole thing. So they’re 1 for 4!"

If the race was on a level playing field and the establishment media afforded as much attention to Ron Paul's success as they gave Mitt Romney after the Iowa straw poll, the Texas Congressman's campaign would be given unstoppable momentum, which is why at every turn the press have sought to dismiss, ridicule and ignore the only Constitutional candidate on the roster - Congressman Ron Paul.

[Len Colby]

Do the two of you a) not understand the meaning of the term scientific poll

not understand what a “straw poll” is or are you c) being intentionally obtuse?