Fox News Dirty Tricks Against Ron Paul No “Mistake”

Fox News Dirty Tricks Against Ron Paul No “Mistake”

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
February 17, 2011

Forgive me for being cynical, but Fox News’ claim that airing the wrong CPAC footage and then introducing an interview with Ron Paul on the false premise that he had been booed was merely a “mistake” rings somewhat hollow, especially given the fact that Fox, along with the rest of the establishment media networks, have for years consistently denigrated the Congressman’s presidential aspirations with a myriad of dirty tricks, lies and smear campaigns.

As we highlighted yesterday, in a shocking act of mass public deception, Fox News attempted to skew Ron Paul’s 2011 CPAC straw poll win by representing it with footage from the previous year’s CPAC event, at which Mitt Romney supporters had loudly booed the result and Paul supporters had been absent due to a Campaign for Liberty meeting running late

Fox News host Bill Hemmer framed his interview with Paul by immediately bringing up the boos, despite the fact that the real footage of this year’s CPAC poll result showed Paul’s victory being met with a loud chorus of cheers and applause.

In a statement provided to Mediaite, Fox’s Senior Vice President of News Michael Clemente attempted to defuse the growing controversy over the incident by claiming it was all a harmless broadcasting error.

“We made a mistake with some of the video we aired, and plan on issuing a correction on America’s Newsroom tomorrow morning explaining exactly what happened,” said Clemente.

Really? It is plausible that this was just another “mistake”? How about the myriad of other “mistakes” Fox News makes a habit of committing, mistakes that coincidentally all serve to disparage Congressman Paul’s message of liberty and freedom, along with his chances of becoming president?

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 
  
  

“It’s certainly plausible that Fox News merely made a mistake in pulling up the wrong video,” adds Mediaite, noting that the explanation is unlikely to “Satisfy Paul supporters who seem to believe the network tried to disguise how much support the congressman has amongst the GOP base.”

Was it another “mistake” to omit Paul’s name entirely from a Fox News survey last week that asked who would make the best president? Was it a “mistake” that relative nobodies like John Thune and Jon Huntsman were included in the Fox poll and yet Paul was blacklisted entirely despite his CPAC success two years running?

Was it another “mistake” on behalf of Fox News to exclude Paul from a January 6 2008 presidential forum event because they saw the prospect of anti-war opinions being voiced by the most conservative member of the House as a “threat”?

Was it a “mistake” for Fox News to claim that their own May 2007 presidential poll, which Ron Paul won, was unreliable, because online Paul supporters had skewed the result, despite the fact that the survey was conducted via cell phone text messaging and no online votes were taken?

Was it a mere “mistake” for Fox News host Sean Hannity to deride the Texas Congressman’s runaway success in the text messaging poll as nothing more than “Paulites” flood voting, when in reality only one vote per cell phone number was allowed? Hannity’s contention that Ron Paul supporters were “were simply dialing in over and over again” was nothing more than a brazen lie intended to dismiss the Congressman’s widespread popularity. No one at Fox News bothered to correct Hannity and no retraction was issued.

Was it another “mistake” when Fox News started editing Ron Paul’s name out of Associated Press stories they syndicated before the 2008 presidential campaign?

Was it a “mistake” for Fox News to denigrate the fact that Ron Paul received the most campaign donations from members of the U.S. military by attributing it to “libertarian mailing lists”?

Was it a “mistake” when Fox News attempted to smear Ron Paul for having the audacity to appear on the Alex Jones Show and the nerve to merely converse with people who commit the thought crime of not completely trusting the official government version of 9/11?

Was it a “mistake” when Fox News rigged the structure of their entire May 2007 presidential debate and used it as a vehicle for all the other candidates to viciously attack Ron Paul, while Fox’s pre-screened audience rapaciously applauded calls for torture and warmongering?

Was it a mistake when Fox News directors conspired to censor Ron Paul supporters from appearing in camera shots during the Mackinac Republican Conference on September 22, 2007, when they were caught on film stating, “I don’t want these Ron Paul people, but I need shots of audience”?

Was it a “mistake” for Fox News to ignore a story every other news outlet was obliged to report, the record-breaking $4.2 million in campaign donations that Ron Paul achieved in a single day, while instead choosing to obsess about a man in Texas who sat in a bath tub full of snakes?

Were all of the examples contained in the video below showing rampant Fox News and other networks’ bias against Ron Paul simply “mistakes” or something more?

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

Are all these examples merely “mistakes” or are they hard evidence of the fact that Fox News, in alliance with every other establishment media news network, has a deeply ingrained bias against Ron Paul’s message and is scared stiff of him ever building enough momentum to have a chance of becoming president?

—

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.

Ron Paul: I Can Beat “Warmongering” Obama

Ron Paul: I Can Beat “Warmongering” Obama

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
February 15, 2011

During an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Congressman Ron Paul dropped perhaps the biggest hint yet that he is preparing to announce his campaign for the presidency, affirming he has the ability to unite Republicans, independents and progressive to defeat the “warmongering” Barack Obama.

Asked if he could beat Obama, Paul responded, “The reality is it would be very, very difficult, but if you look at the polls, and there aren’t that many, my appeal is to a lot of independents and a lot of progressive Democrats who are sick and tired of Obama for opting out of cutting back on some of this militarism,” adding that his numbers would be even bigger when stacked up against Obama than they would be in a Republican primary.

“He’s a war monger,” Rep. Paul added. “He’s expanding the war. My numbers would be much bigger running against Obama than they will be running against some conservative in the Republican primary.”

Indeed, an April 2010 Rasmussen poll showed that Paul was almost level with Obama if the two were to go head to head for the presidency. Following a 15 point bounce in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings, Obama has pulled away from all potential Republican candidates, but given the momentum Paul could build with his energetic grass roots base, beating Obama would be a distinct possibility.

Despite the fact that a Rasmussen poll released last week showed that Paul was ahead of Sarah Palin in terms of having the ability to beat Obama, a Fox News poll released yesterday, which showed all of the establishment Republican candidates trailing Obama by some margin, did not even include Paul in the survey.

Exemplifying again how the establishment consistently tries to derail Paul’s momentum by ignoring his very existence, obscure names like John Thune and Jon Huntsman were included in the Fox poll and yet Paul was omitted entirely.

During the MSNBC segment, the Congressman pointed out that the debate over military spending was a matter of semantics, arguing that the issue had little to do with “defense” and more to do with propping up the US military-industrial complex and occupying foreign countries.

“I think the problem we have is with the semantics,” said Paul. “They have conditioned us all to use the word defense spending. Who wants to cut defense? I don’t want to cut defense. I want a stronger defense.”

“I want to cut the militarism, the interventionism, the stuff that hurts us, that makes us more vulnerable,” he added. “If we separate defense from militarism, maybe more people would be willing to accept it. Who wants to be on record who says I just voted against the defense budget.”

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 
  
  

“I think it’s a perception and a semantics problem that we have to try to reeducate the people to understand what we’re talking about.”

Paul’s ostracization by the self-proclaimed “conservative” Young Americans for Freedom organization, a group that vehemently supported the Democrat-led war in Vietnam, for his refusal to support the interventionist and neo-liberal expansion of the US military-industrial complex, should be worn as a badge of honor.

“It is a sad day in American history when a one-time conservative-libertarian stalwart has fallen more out of touch with America’s needs for national security than the current feeble and appeasing administration,” YAF’s Senior National Director Jordan Marks said in a statement.

By lumping Ron Paul in with the “feeble and appeasing” Obama administration, Marks attempts to make a distinction between Obama and his predecessor George W. Bush, by portraying Obama as weak on “defense,” when in reality, the Obama war chest has been bigger than anything ever passed under Bush year upon year. Obama’s 2011 war chest swelled to more than 700 billion dollars – that’s more than Bush ever got.

Indeed, as soon as Obama took office his first action was to send 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan and to expand the Bush-era bombings in Pakistan, as well as opening up a new front in Yemen. There are more US troops deployed globally under Obama than there ever were under Bush.

Bush and Obama have both followed identical interventionist foreign policies that mainly revolve around carpet bombing goat herders in broken-backed third world countries, something that Paul rightly points out has nothing to do with the “defense” of the United States.

The fact that Obama has a bigger military budget than Bush ever did gives a pretty clear indication that occupying and invading foreign countries has nothing to do with true conservatism – it comes from the foundational beliefs of those whom the Young Americans for Freedom organization would undoubtedly champion – neo-cons who are nothing more than Trotskyites – they believe wholeheartedly in the welfare-warfare state.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

Ron Paul should be honored to be kicked out of this pitiful little group – because it only crystallizes his character as a real conservative, while the Young Americans for Freedom are nothing more than a mouthpiece for neo-cons who have more in common with historical Marxists than they do the founding fathers of America.

Ron Paul is a true icon of genuine conservatism – every policy he embraces would have a ringing endorsement from the founding fathers – who staunchly advocated a non-interventionist foreign policy.

—

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.

Trump: Ron Paul Has “Zero Chance” Of Beating Obama

Trump: Ron Paul Has “Zero Chance” Of Beating Obama

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
February 11, 2011

Prospective presidential candidate Donald Trump caused a sensation at the start of yesterday’s CPAC event when he dismissed Ron Paul’s chances of beating Obama in 2012, saying the Texas Congressman had “zero chance” of winning the election.

“By the way, Ron Paul cannot get elected, I’m sorry to tell you,” Trump told the CPAC crowd, to a chorus of both boos and applause.

“I like Ron Paul, I think he’s a good guy, but honestly I think he has zero chance of getting elected, you have to win an election,” the billionaire socialite added.

In actual fact, the Texas Congressman has a greater chance of beating Obama in 2012 than someone who the Republican establishment is likely to throw their weight behind next year – Sarah Palin.

A Rasmussen poll released Monday showed that Paul leads Palin in being able to build a campaign that would prevent Obama from securing a second term. The poll shows that in these early stages, Ron Paul would poll 35% of votes to Obama’s 44%, where as Sarah Palin would attract 38% to an Obama count of 49%.

The figures mean that at this time the Texas Congressman would score 2% more of the overall vote than the former governor of Alaska.

Those numbers are also based on the fact that Obama is still riding high on a recent 15 point bounce in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings, a lead that is sure to subside as the election nears. Once Paul is able to mobilize his hugely effective grass roots base, which outstrips anything the likes of Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich or Mike Huckabee can call upon, a 9 point deficit is far from insurmountable.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 
  
  

Indeed, before the Tucson shootings when Obama was at one of the lowest ebbs of his popular approval, a YouGov/Polimetrix study found that establishment Republican candidates like Palin, Gingrich and Romney were all losing popularity at a similar pace to the president. Only Ron Paul has bucked this trend.

In addition, an April 2010 Rasmussen survey found that a hypothetical 2012 election race between president Obama and Texas Congressman Ron Paul would result in an almost dead heat, with Obama just one per cent ahead.

Democrats who voted for Obama in 2008 will only be motivated to do so again if Republicans put forward a compromised candidate who can easily be characterized as George W. Bush 2.0. If Ron Paul runs against Obama, huge numbers of Democrats will take a back seat, and some may even switch allegiances, such is the profound sense of betrayal many liberals now feel towards Obama’s completely unfulfilled promises of hope and change.

Donald Trump is completely wrong in his assertion that Paul has “zero chance” of beating Obama. Indeed, once the establishment media gets its teeth into the likes of Palin, Romney, Gingrich and indeed Trump himself, their compromised backgrounds will almost guarantee Obama the victory, whereas Paul’s squeaky clean track record cannot be as easily distorted.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

By the time the campaign season is in full swing, and the mud begins to stick to the names of establishment Republican candidates, Ron Paul may be the only contender who can beat Obama in 2012.

—

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.

Poll: Ron Paul Has Greater Chance Of Beating Obama Than Palin Does In 2012 *

Poll: Ron Paul Has Greater Chance Of Beating Obama Than Palin Does In 2012

 

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
February 8, 2011

A Rasmussen poll released Monday indicates that Congressman Ron Paul has a better shot of beating Obama in the 2012 presidential election than Sarah Palin would, should both decide to run on the GOP ticket.

As Paul is seemingly on the verge of announcing another presidential bid, The poll shows that more American voters would side with Ron Paul is he were to be pitted against Obama than would vote for Palin.

The poll shows that in these extremely early stages, Ron Paul would poll 35% of votes to Obama’s 44%, where as Sarah Palin would attract 38% to an Obama count of 49%.

The figures mean that at this time the Texas Congressman would score 2% more of the overall vote than the former governor of Alaska.

With a sustained campaign behind him once more, Paul’s figures would undoubtedly shoot up. Indeed, at the height of the backlash against Obama last year, a similar Rasmussen survey found that a hypothetical 2012 election race between Obama and Paul would result in an almost dead heat.

Of course, we should not be surprised by the figures, given that Ron Paul was the figurehead at the inception of the Tea Party movement, which consisted of a small but dedicated team of people who organized Boston Tea Party re-enactment protests in 50 different cities in late 2007, in support of Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign.

The libertarian themed protests became extremely popular, and continued throughout 2008 and into 2009, prompting thousands of people to engage in peaceful political protest.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 
  
  

Since that time the movement has been co-opted by the establishment GOP and figures such as Palin, who is as much a pro-war hawk as the neocons responsible for miring the US in two endless, devastating and extremely costly wars.

Other candidates ranking high against Obama in the poll included the usual GOP establishment crowd of Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.

As we have previously highlighted, perhaps the only saving grace for Obama is the fact that those Republican candidates have all lost popularity at a similar pace to the President. If Obama were to run against any of these individuals, he would probably still win, such is American’s increasing disdain for the two party monopoly.

Ron Paul would be the only Republican candidate to carry a message that resonates with the American people, his thoroughbred anti-war and anti-big government stance.

Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate to have voted against the Iraq war.

Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who will not seek to lead the U.S. into yet more military confrontations.

Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who is not compromised while the likes of Romney and Palin have more skeletons in their closet than a fancy dress boutique.

Ron Paul is the only candidate period who has promised to abolish the IRS, the Federal Reserve and end the fraudulent fiat-based money system that is crippling America’s economy while lining the pockets of the ultra-rich.

Rasmussen surmises from its findings that it is safe to assume that the president’s actual vote total on Election Day 2012 will be close to his overall job approval rating at the time. Therefore, if Obama’s job approval ratings improve from this point forward, it is likely that his support will increase against all Republican candidates. If his job approval ratings fall, his numbers are likely to weaken against all potential candidates.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

Ron Paul has no better chance to become President than in 2012 and we urge him to accept the challenge and provide millions of Americans with genuine hope that the country can still be rescued from its current spiral of terminal decline.

—

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.