". . . a republic, if you can keep it."
On September 23rd, 23 US Senators are holding a $500 per plate fundraiser in Washington DC for Trey Grayson. This deck stacking favoritism in a hotly contested GOP primary is unacceptable!
Join in the fight and help Rand Paul deliver a knock out punch to establishment republican candidate Trey Grayson on the same date!
I think he predicts 9/11.
Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, is running for Senate in his home state of Kentucky. Rand is a medical doctor, and a strong supporter of the constitution and individual liberty. DONATE NOW
Ron Paul is certainly getting more mainstream media attention than he did when he ran for President, but the censors are still at work.
Justin Miller deserves credit for his Atlantic article pointing out how Gallup and Rasmussen polling agencies are ignoring Ron Paul as a potential 2012 candidate. They list Tim Pawlenty and Haley Barbour, but no Ron Paul. Justin Miller makes the rather obvious case for Ron Paul’s consideration.
Rasmussen: “In a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, it’s close to a three-way tie when GOP voters are asked whom they would vote for � from among a list of six prominent Republicans – in the 2012 party primary in their state: 25% say Romney, while 24% say Palin and 22% opt for former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.
After that, GOP primary voters list former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (14%), while Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty each received one percent (1%) of the vote. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate.”
(What a convenient list of establishment candidates.)
Kudos to Justin Miller, but I feel he should have at least acknowledged the widespread censorship and slander Ron Paul faced during his presidential campaign. I detailed much of it here: Censoring Ron Paul – Why the rEVOLution will not be televised, back when I was a fledgling blogger. I saved my own copies of only some (not all) of the offending coverage. Unfortunately, some of the most glaring examples have been removed by the news sources.
Lets not be surprised that Rasmussen is ignoring Ron Paul now. They even did so DURING the election:
(click for saved web page)
And this poll was AFTER Ron Paul’s 6-million-dollar money bomb.
Fox “News” ignored Ron Paul’s second place finish in Nevada:
(click for larger image)
Fox “News” also edited Ron Paul out of AP news stories.
USA Today cover story / photos / candidate-profiles covered four of the five candidates still in race at the time. The excluded candidate was . . . (drum roll) . . . Ron Paul.
MSNBC debate bias
Romney: 21 minutes, 11 seconds (12 answers and asked 1 question)
McCain: 16 minutes even (12 answers and asked 1 question)
Giuliani: 13 minutes and 50 seconds (10 answers and asked 1 question)
Huckabee: 12 minutes and 11 seconds (8 answers and asked 1 question)
Paul: 6 minutes and 31 seconds (5 answers and asked 1 question)
The CNN/YouTube debate went for 35 minutes before Ron Paul got a question. He received the least amount of time, and only four question. (Giuliani got nine.) Hear Ron Paul comment.
Washingtonpost’s post-debate commentary excluded Ron Paul.
In a staggering display of selective perception, NY Times columnist Bob Herbert laments the GOP’s militancy, completely ignoring Ron Paul’s presence. This is especially asinine, as Herbert’s own beliefs most closely resemble Paul’s. Herbert mentions all GOP presidential candidates in his column except . . . (surprise, surprise) . . . Ron Paul.
CNN’s Glenn “Bandwagon” Beck held a political poll and excluded Ron Paul
BBC news’s election guide excluded Ron Paul.
Israel’s Haaretz newspaper ranks almost all the candidates on Israel-issues (except Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich).
(click for saved web page)
Ahead of Florida Primary, extensive Miami Herald article does mention Paul, once, right at end.
LA Times poll excludes Ron Paul.
Real Clear Politics polls exclude Ron Paul.
Article about CBS news censoring Ron Paul from graphics and commentary (removed)
CNN puts up the words “Blaming America for 9-11” under Ron Paul during this video. Unfortunately, the video has been removed.
MSNBC’s Hardball:
Given Giuliani’s abysmal performance in the election, you wonder who decided he was 1st tier, and Ron Paul was 3rd tier.
Two NY Times articles attack Ron Paul on 24 Dec 2007. The NY Times then apologizes, sort of.
See Also:
(thanks Eric C.!)
The list goes on. Check out my old post Censoring Ron Paul – Why the rEVOLution will not be televised to see more. Unfortunately, there are many dead links.
UPDATE: Also check out The Orange Line – anatomy of a smear campaign.
Please consider contributing on August 20th to the Rand Paul money bomb.
Ron Paul rebuts all the arguments for Federal Reserve secrecy on the House Floor, 30 July 09:
With well over half the House (281 co-sponsors) and over a third of the Senate (20 co-sponsors) supporting opening the Fed’s books, how the hell is the leadership still ignoring this!?
Wait . . . I’m not sure I want an answer.
(here)
They are scared. They are scared of people like you and me. I’m so proud of America.
Incidentally, Ron Paul rebukes the argument made by the Washington Post here:
Notice his shout out to Rep. Spencer Bachus (R – AL).
See also:
“Last week I was very pleased that hearings were held on the independence of the Federal Reserve system. My bill HR 1207, known as the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, was discussed at length, as well as the general question of whether or not the Federal Reserve should continue to operate independently.
The public is demanding transparency in government like never before. A majority of the House has cosponsored HR 1207. Yet, Senator Jim DeMint’s heroic efforts to attach it to another piece of legislation elicited intense opposition by the Senate leadership.
The hearings on Capitol Hill provided us with a great deal of information about the types of arguments that will be levied against meaningful transparency and how the secretive central bankers will defend the status quo that is so beneficial to them.
Claims are made that auditing the Fed would compromise its independence. However, by independence, they really mean secrecy. The Fed clearly cherishes its vast power to create and spend trillions of dollars, diluting the value of every other dollar in circulation, making deals with other central banks, and bailing out cronies, all to the detriment of the taxpayer, and to the enrichment of themselves. I am happy to challenge this type of ‘independence’.
They claim the Fed is endowed with special intellectual abilities with which to control the market and that central bankers magically know what the market needs. We should just trust them. This is patently ridiculous. The market is a complex and intricate thing. No one knows what the market needs other than the market itself. It sends signals, such as prices, that should be reacted to and respected, not thwarted and controlled. Bankers are not all-knowing and cannot ignore the rules of supply and demand. They might act as if they are, but their manipulation of the market just ends up throwing it wildly off balance, which gives us the boom and bust cycles.
They claim the Fed must remain apolitical. No organization is apolitical that relies on the President to appoint the Chairman. In fact, it is subject to the worst sort of politics – power to create trillions of dollars and affect the value of every dollar in the country without the accountability of direct elections or meaningful oversight! The Fed typically enacts monetary policy that is favorable to particular administrations close to elections, to the detriment of long term considerations. They do this partly because of the political appointee process for the Chairmanship.
The only accountability the Federal Reserve has is ultimately to Congress, which granted its charter and can revoke it at any time. It is Congress’s constitutional duty to protect the value of the money, and they have abdicated this responsibility for far too long. This was the issue that got me involved in politics 35 years ago. It is very encouraging to finally see the issue getting some needed exposure and traction. It is regrettable that it took a crisis of this magnitude to get a serious debate on this issue.” (Read more from dailypaul.com)
