FOX Loses Credibility as New Hampshire GOP Drops Debate Sponsorship for Snubbing Ron Paul

CNN interviews Ron Paul and Fox is made to look like the neocon shills they are. There was no valid justification for excluding him from a FOX televised debate in New Hampshire and the biggest rebuke came from the more honorable state GOP party which immediately dropped sponsorship for their media interventionism and gross bias. FOX refused to report, again, or for their viewers to decide.

This is also one of the most powerful and brief position statement, contrasted with Romney and Huckabee, on taxes, including justification for abolishing the income tax! Why would republicans be against this, unless they do not value freedom and love big government?

Iowa Debate: GOP Candidates Awake to Economic Crisis--Sort of

Note Fred Thompson's quote. Almost sounds like Ron Paul doesn't he? But they offer no concrete proposals as does Ron Paul and their cheer leading for "optimism" (e.g. blue-blood Romney) is a denial of the severity of the problem that Americans already realize. Ron Paul offers the real solution, to eliminate the Income Tax cut the Federal government back to Constitutional limits and stop excessive spending particularly on a trillion dollar war policy. At least Thompson has acknowledged the truth, while hedging on solutions. So republican voters should bear this in mind as an issue that is as equally important now as the war.

clipped from news.yahoo.com In a debate that did not address hot campaign trail topics like the Iraq war and immigration, the Republicans found plenty of room for agreement on the need to rein in federal spending, bring down taxes and achieve energy independence. The focus on economic issues gave the candidates a chance to lay out already published plans to ease growing public worries about the economy and reduce a federal debt they said was becoming a national security threat. "Our country has a $9 trillion debt. A good chunk of that is owned by China. We're bankrupting the next generation, without any question," said Fred Thompson, the former Tennessee senator and Hollywood actor. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who has fallen behind Huckabee in Iowa polls after leading for months, said the future was bright and the country's leaders should not "wring their hands." "We need leaders up in Washington that will rein in excessive spending," he said.

Republican Debate: FOX Distorts, Won't Let You Decide; Ron Paul and Why Hannity Should be Fired

Fox claims in their so-called electronic journalism efforts that "We report, you decide", and claimto be "fair and balanced". But as usual, FOX proved itself to be unfair, unbalanced, and the direct intervention of journalists, hosts, and debate questioneers into the candidates responses--subjecting them to personal ridicule, insulting their intelligence, disrespecting their tenure of public service as Congressmen or other authorities--is a violation of the ethics of journalism in such a Debate Format, and an obvious attempt TO CONTROL THE APPEARANCE AND OUTCOME of some candidates--something the arrogant Sean Hannity was deliberately doing, as if he were not interviewing a Congressman but taking "a caller" for a talk show. This is a direct violation of the code of ethics for journalism, and contrary to FOX's own self-righteous and false claims of "fair and balanced".

Pejorative insults, condescending remarks, arrogant interjections, bias and misleading statements, derogatory and dismissive assertions (without facts or evidence) for the purpose of (not clarifying or reporting but) injuring and impugning a candidates responses are unacceptable as far as journalistic ethics. (Don Surber could learn a thing or two about ethics in journalism as well).


We are not alone in our assessment. Consider the following from the Society of Professional Journalists:

Seek Truth and Report It

Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:

— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.


— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.



— Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.


— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.



— Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.



— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.

— Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.

CONCLUSION NO. 1

From this we may conservatively assert that Sean Hannity and other FOX questioners violated these journalistic ethical standards. They did NOT brand their interviews as "commentary or opinion" and attempted to "misrepresent", "distort", and prevent the "open exchange". Sean Hannity talks as if HE HIMSELF IS THE CANDIDATE. That is not reporting. That is distorting. This disqualifies Sean Hannity as a "professional journalist".

But Sean Hannity, unprofessional journalist, violating the plain and obvious code of ethics in a post-debate "interview" (i.e. inquisition), was not satisfied at this. While he himself urged viewers to text message their votes, he then dismisses the vote results (where Ron Paul was winning)--without evidence, and with direct insults! In other words, "We report" was not only violated but "you decide"!

Here is how DownsizeDC reacted to his dismissal of the text voting, and proof that it was a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth--an outright lie!

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h

---

Subject: Ron Paul and Sean Hannity



Ron Paul's downsizing message won the support of 33% of the viewers who participated in the phone-in poll after the September 5th Presidential debate on FoxNews.

Sean Hannity of FoxNews didn't like that result, so he fibbed to his audience about it.

Hannity repeatedly groaned, "Oh no, not again," and claimed that "Ron Paul's 3% - the tiny, insignificant fringe of Ron Paul supporters" - were voting multiple times.

False. A Ron Paul supporter showed what happens when you try to vote more than once.

A RAW Story commenter provides a second confirmation.

Fact: you can't vote more than once, and Sean Hannity should know this, since his network set up the phone poll.

Sean Hannity wants to silence and marginalize the downsizing message, and he's willing to fib to convince people that only a tiny fringe supports smaller government.

We must make Hannity retract his false statements about the FoxNews phone poll so that the downsizing message has a fair chance to be heard, without being marginalized.

Please use the form below to send Hannity a message, setting him straight, and demanding that he tell the truth to his audience. You can send your message here.

You can also follow-up with a phone call to FoxNews at this number: 1-888-369-4762

Please forward this message to concerned friends so that Hannity and FoxNews hear complaints from as many people as possible!

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation

Another excellent analysis and article, Ron Paul Railroaded by FOX News Debate, captures and disproves this outrageous lie and "conspiracy theory" of "text spamming" (pay attention Don Surber) by both Hannity and Colmes thus:

5. Dismissing the Phone Poll

Upon learning that Ron Paul was blowing away the field in the Fox News “who won the debate” telephone poll, Sean Hannity sighed in frustration and said “I’m sick of this.” Ron Paul also was the early winner of the first Fox News debate. One has to ask, if they’re sick of Paul winning, why don’t they stop conducting the poll? Colmes then laughs off the Paul victory, stating that the Paul supporters are just dialing in repeatedly. This caused me to raise an eyebrow. The text-voting is no-charge. Is Fox News really counting multiple text-votes like some American Idol episode?

To test this hypothesis, I voted for Ron Paul via text twice. I got two text-messages back from Fox. The first:

FOX News UVOTE: Thank you for voting! Watch Hannity & Colmes for the results.

The second message I got from Fox was:

You have already voted on tonight’s debate. Thank you for your participation.

Now, if you think that Paul supporters are sitting in a warehouse with a farm of activated cell phones using each one to text in to the Fox News poll, maybe you could see where Colmes is coming from. (watch somebody try). Somebody should tell the correspondents that, in fact, you cannot vote twice. The reason that Ron Paul continues to win these post-debate polls is because he has the kind of supporters who care about their candidate and are willing to pick up a phone and dial a few numbers when necessary. It’s enthusiasm, plain and simple. It’s amazing how people can get excited about the message of liberty.

What else is interesting about this recent victory is that Hannity accused Ron Paul supporters of spamming the polls after the FIRST Fox debate. I didn’t text vote then, so I’m not sure if spamming was even possible at that time. What I do remember is that after the first debate, Paul got a huge lead, then slowly lost ground to Romney throughout the night (maybe Romney supporters started spamming?). This time, Ron Paul got the lead and kept it easily, finishing with a 33% to 18% (Huckabee) lead - a landslide. If they did fix the spamming issue between the first and second debates, it obviously worked in Paul’s favor.

ast, it would be very easy for Fox to recognize that Ron Paul did well in their poll and leave it at that, but they choose to go out of their way to discredit their own numbers - and ONLY because Paul won, they wouldn’t have the same attitude if Romney ever wins one of these things (which he won’t because he’s a waffler and people don’t trust him).

6. Sean Hannity

He gripes constantly with Ron Paul as though he’s offended that he’s in the race. Letting this guy near a forum that coins the slogan “we report, you decide” is like inviting Hitler to a bar mitzvah. It’s a trap.

-------------

Conclusion No. 2

Therefore we may again conservatively assert that Sean Hannity, Allen Combs, and our local Don Surber, violate the code of ethics of professional journalists by making GROUNDLESS ASSERTIONS AS IF THEY ARE FACT AND THUS INSERTING THEMSELVES INTO THE JOURNALISTIC PROCESS AND INTERFERING AND CONTROLLING PUBLIC PERCEPTION. Recall again from the journalists' code:

Journalists should:

— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.

The public has a right to demand that FOX live up to its claims "as advertised" of "we (merely) report, you (not us) decide". Journalists that violate their own claims and the journalistic code of ethics, like Sean Hannity, SHOULD BE FIRED, for they dimish the credibility of FOX and make its "advertised claims" untrue.

This should outrage intelligent thinking West Virginians, especially republican conservatives, who should desire a higher ethical standard for their own party's debates and political processes. This made one former Marine so indignant he wrote the following:

What Sean Hannity needs to learn before giving history lessons

September 6, 2007 – The pompous Sean Hannity last night had the audacity to tell the Honorable Congressman Ron Paul that he (Hannity) was going to give Congressman Ron Paul a history lesson. If I had been sitting next to Hannity at that very moment, with God as my witness, I would have knocked Hannity’s teeth down his throat. To be certain, Sean Hannity is one of the few human beings that I can thing of that if I ever start to hit, I will have to be pulled off of before I beat to death. I honestly do not know if I could stop beating this bastard relying upon my own restraint.

Maybe it is Hannity’s pursed-lipped approach to his self-righteous piteous politics that so enrages me – or maybe it’s simply the fact that I sense he is a big wimp that wouldn’t survive even the first week of Marine Corps boot camp. Having spent 10 plus years in the Corps and having served as a Marine Corps Drill Instructor on Parris Island, SC I believe grants me the liberty to make such a personal assessment of this worthless chicken hawk and hater of authentic liberty and freedom.

May his tribe increase, and public demand for ethical standards drive Sean Hannity off the air for violating FOX's own ethical and advertised claims of "fair and balanced"--"we report, you decide". Reliance on this medium for "news and information", while perhaps entertaining, is contrary to an educated public and is the bastion of nothing less than political propaganda.

WATCH AND SEE FOR YOURSELF:
Watch Ron Paul "educate" the frustrated Sean Hannity

Ron Paul Detractors, like Don Surber, Need a Wake Up Call

This post is dedicated to Don Surber of the Daily Mail, and to the republican "establishment", that so far is afraid of debating the candidacy, issues, voting record, and principles of Ron Paul forthrightly while hurling ad hominim attacks alone. What are they afraid of? Is this a reflection of just how the neoconservative and CFR controlled republicans view a traditional republican or paleoconservative--or the Constitution?

Could it be that Don Surber does not represent what all republicans, based upon issues, think? Recently, along with paleoconservatives for some time, more republicans have begun to vocally oppose more Bush policies--e.g. illegal immigration amnesty, North American Union (SPP agenda that has made national news and local talk radio), REAL ID (bi-partisan opposition West Virginia legislation is drafted and pending), provisions of the PATRIOT ACT, and even the Iraq War where Rep. Capito opposed a "surge" (at first) and heavy-weight Senators Warner and Lugar made arguments to draw down in Iraq (after all 70% oppose the war as wrong), and finally talk of "limited government" has returned to be again revived and debated. Funny, even the non-candidate Fred Thompson is starting to sound more like Ron Paul by talking about "states rights".

But why has the Constitution been decimated by THIS PARTICULAR republican administration (hijacked by particular neoconservative RINOs and CFR members like Cheney, who pushes NAFTA)? Why are the "just war" principles of Christianity (sober, regulated rules that determine when war is justified or not) not open for discussion and application, why is gross perjury and secrecy of this administration defended, why is its corruption not condemned, and why is the "threat of terrorism" so grossly and absurdly exaggerated, when the probability is greater of being struck by lightening? (Irrational fears, paranoia, are the cause of fanaticism and dangerous over-reaction, including unjust wars and "security measures"). Why is the new republican party controlled by FEAR and therefore most be overly defensive (rallying the wagons at any criticism whatsoever; branding any critic a "leftist"), too closely attaching Bush himself to the Platform (thus making a man instead of principles the issue), ready to finally overthrow the Constitution itself (completely) under the plea of a greatly exaggerated "necessity"--the tyrant's plea?

Is eliminating the (Communist) Income Tax and IRS, challenging the Federal Reserve and paper money policy, and limiting government's power (consistent with the Constitution) A THREAT TO THE NEW REPUBLICAN PARTY? Are republicans now for big government or limited--which is it?

RON PAUL WOULD ACTUALLY DO WHAT MOST REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR DECADES! WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REAGAN REPUBLICANS OF STATES RIGHTS AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT, LOW TAXATION, WHO ARE NOW BEHOLDEN TO THE RINOs CHENEY AND BUSH?

Eyes are being opened recently, on an issue by issue basis, while it was once considered "Bush-bashing" (all fake images should be smashed as a rule) and virtual blasphemy to criticize this President, as if to oppose him was to oppose God (as Rove the agnostic crafted it) and be an atheist!


It is the candidate most closely tied to the right position ON ISSUES that should receive a party nomination. Why does the "liberal media" then subtely oppose Ron Paul? Don't you all see why? THINK man...this will be the most important primary, since the Civil War, in American history, where the Constitution hangs in the balance, the very definition of freedom from government oppression. All the flag-waving in the world cannot hide the truth, and republicans should be like the Bereans of Corinth, who "were of more noble mind" because they deliberated and investigated for themselves soberly and did not follow in blind trust, even the apostle Paul, or any other party.

(linked to original source)

Ron Paul Detractors Need a Wake Up Call

Szandor Blestman

August 17, 2007

I've noticed a number of people on the Internet complaining about Ron Paul supporters recently. Many of them have the same complaint, that Ron Paul supporters are too pervasive. They call them Ron Paul spammers. They claim that a very few people are so dedicated to Ron Paul's candidacy that they have skewed all the polls and made it appear as if Ron Paul has more support than he actually does by voting for him again and again. On Digg, they claim that there is a core of supporters that wait for a Ron Paul article to come out so they can Digg it and catapult it to the front page. If that were the case, they were taking time off when my articles came out.

These detractors need to think for a moment. I don't know which candidates they support, but those candidates are getting support of very few people in the online community. One must wonder why some of these candidates don't have that kind of support. One must wonder why Mitt Romney doesn't have dozens of technologically savvy supporters going online to spam the polls or to create a buzz on Digg. One may wonder the same about John McCain or Rudy Giuliani supporters also, or the supporters of any of the other republican candidates. Could it be that the supporters of the other candidates simply aren't as excited about their candidate as Ron Paul's supporters are? Doesn't it make you wonder why Ron Paul supporters are so excited? And I personally don't think that it is in fact true that Ron Paul supporters are low in numbers and spamming the Internet. In fact, I think the number of Ron Paul supporters is growing day by day despite the fact that the Ron Paul detractors have tried to keep this from happening.

Another tactic some Ron Paul detractors use is name calling. They claim Ron Paul supporters are crazy. Since when is it crazy to speak out about someone you believe will make a difference, especially if that someone is doing something as important as running for president? Since when does following a dream make you crazy? They claim his supporters are on the fringe of society, that they are mostly 9/11 truthers and conspiracy theorists. Well, I don't think that's so true. I think a lot of everyday regular people are supporting Ron Paul. I've talked with a number of people who support Ron Paul and the subject of 9/11 or conspiracies hardly come up. And even if some of them are 9/11 truthers or conspiracy theorists, what's wrong with wanting to know the truth? What's wrong with asking questions, especially when those questions haven't been answered satisfactorily? What's wrong with not believing everything you see on the TV news? Do you believe everything the television news people tell you to believe? If you do, you might want to rethink that position and start getting information from other sources. There's nothing wrong with comparing and contrasting different points of view to try to get a better understanding and a more complete picture of the world around you. They claim Ron Paul's policies are too impractical, that he is too much of an idealist. Since when is being an idealist a bad thing? Isn't that what our founding fathers were? Since when is it impractical to speak of freedom and liberty? Again, our founding fathers risked their very lives speaking out about such radical ideas. How long ago was it that the United States of America became a place where dreams died? When was it that spies were unleashed to see to it those same dreams could not be resurrected?

There's something else Ron Paul detractors don't seem to understand. Ron Paul supporters are supporting more than just Ron Paul, they are supporting ideas. Oh sure, Ron Paul is a very amicable person. Unlike most politicians, he answers questions straight on and doesn't dodge them. He doesn't try to answer in a way that everyone agrees with. He speaks his mind and it doesn't matter to him if he loses votes doing so. He is that rarity of rarities, an honest politician. Perhaps that's why they are so angry, because they know they support someone who is not honest. Perhaps that's why Ron Paul's supporters are so excited, because this is something they've never seen in their lives. But his honesty is not the idea I was talking about earlier, the idea is freedom. The idea is a smaller, less intrusive government. The idea is to give the people back control in their lives rather than having the government decide everything for them. It is the ideas of freedom and liberty that Ron Paul supporters are supporting. It is these ideas that have gotten them so excited.

The main stream media tries to ignore Ron Paul, as do the other candidates. Why do you suppose this is? He scores first in many online polls and still the media ignore him. His supporters generate a loud buzz and still the media ignores him. He came in fifth in a questionable Iowa straw poll and still the media ignores him. Today he came in third in the Illinois straw poll and the media will still probably try to ignore him. Why are they so afraid to report on him? Could it be because they don't want his ideas to get out? Could it be because they're afraid his ideas will resonate with the general public? Could it be that, for whatever reason, they're trying to push someone on us that will somehow promote their interests? Perhaps the main stream media is just behind the times and really doesn't realize what a phenomenon Ron Paul is becoming. I really don't know, but I do know that Ron Paul is everywhere on the Internet and nowhere on the main stream media, with the exception of a couple of cutting edge shows. That simply seems strange to me.

Whatever reason one may decide to berate Ron Paul or his supporters, it might be helpful to step back and consider what you're really against. Are you honestly just mad because there are so many articles out there praising Ron's policies and his stances on the issues? Then why are you reading them? Is there someone with a gun at your head forcing you to read them? Then don't read them and leave the rest of us who want to read about Ron Paul alone. Are you mad because your candidate isn't able to generate the kind of grass roots support and Internet buzz that Ron Paul is able to generate? Then write articles about how great your candidate's big government tax and spend programs are going to be and try to create that buzz yourself. Perhaps you're against a certain issue that Ron Paul is for. Fine, then make that argument and make an intelligent, well thought out argument supporting your point of view, don't simply dismiss those who support an opposing point of view by calling them names. Or, perhaps you're against freedom and liberty. Perhaps you're against the constitution. Maybe you're one of those who feel the constitution is a quaint antiquity and the bill of rights just gets in the way of your security. Perhaps you simply don't want to make your own decisions in your life and feel the government should mandate everything for you from what you learn in school to the kind of job you do to what doctor you see for your health care. Perhaps the idea of an endless war on terror appeals to you. Whatever the reason, you're going to have to defend your position. Ron Paul has rubbed the magic lamp and now the genie is out. The ideas of freedom and liberty are once again loosed upon the world and they are gaining support. Name calling and ignoring Ron Paul and his supporters will not make them go away. People care again. If nothing else, politics in America has changed because of Ron Paul, and I think that's a good thing.

Finally, this humorous video, demonstrates how the GAME IS PLAYED, and how FOX wants to CONTROL WHAT REPUBLICANS THINK, hardly "fair and balanced" here. Just what is Hannity afraid of here?

FOX News Interviews Ron Paul In Depth Post Debate

FOX News Interviews Rep. Ron Paul on Iraq, Iran, Immigration, Social Security & Gun Control

Reported by Marie Therese - August 5, 2007 -

Earlier this afternoon, FOX News host Julie Banderas interviewed outspoken Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul. Paul was loudly cheered during this morning's Republican Presidential debate that aired on ABC's This Week, because it seems that his message resonates with more and more Republican voters. Banderas admitted that FOX News had received a large number of emails about Rep. Paul's political philosophy and noted that she used those as the basis for this two-part interview. Rep. Paul is the only Republican calling for immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and he made a persuasive case for his point of view. Videos below the fold.

RON PAUL INTERVIEW, PART 1

RON PAUL INTERVIEW, PART 2

| Email this page to a friend

JFK airport plot 'a US setup'; Daughter Claims Hoax to Boost Propaganda for Neocon Republicans

[Ed. Do recall, that Guliani made reference of these spurious events--which Ron Paul doubted could be prosecuted as claimed--as "evidence" of continous fear-mongering claims of terrorism, and that the "war on terror" is "not a bumpersticker".]

JFK airport plot 'a US setup'

06/06/2007 08:17 - (SA)

[see original via link on title above at news24.com--South Africa news media]

Port Of Spain - The four suspects in an alleged terror plot to bomb a New York airport were set up in an elaborate plan by the US Republican party to retain hold of the White House, the daughter of an arrested suspect claimed on Tuesday.

Huda Ibrahiim, daughter of Amir Kareem Ibrahiim, one of four men accused of plotting acts of terrorism against the United States, said US justice officials had engaged in entrapment in breaking up the alleged plot.

Huda, 20, speaking on behalf of the Trinidad and Tobago and the Guyanese Shi'ite Muslim community, read from a prepared statement in a press conference at a hotel in Port Of Spain.

She said the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) informant key to breaking up the alleged plot had presented himself as an Islamic missionary from the United States while visiting the homes of Abdul Kadir and Amir Ibrahiim.

The FBI's informant [ed. provocateur], whom she called "the source", "is the only person culpable of any of the activities mentioned in the complaint.

Intent to entrap

"The source visited our brothers with the specific intent to entrap them in activities they know nothing about, never agreed to and did not participate in," said Huda.

Her 62-year-old father, 56-year-old former Guyanese parliamentarian Abdul Kadir, along with Russell De Freitas and Abdel Nur, both of Guyanese heritage, allegedly plotted to blow up fuel-tank pipelines at New York City's John F Kennedy International Airport.

Ibrahiim, a Trinidadian, and Kadir appeared in Trinidad court on Monday while Nur gave himself up to local authorities on Tuesday. All three men are facing extradition to the US where De Frietas has already been arraigned.

"We believe that the persons responsible for the arrest of our brothers are doing it for a purpose other than the protection of the people and interests of the USA," Huda said.

"They have apparently done so in the interest of shoring up a lame duck presidency and increasing the lame chances of the Republican party being returned to power in November 2008", said Huda, whose father is a retired government accounts clerk.

'Sure of their innocence'

She also said her father was afraid to fly, was not computer literate and does not use the internet.

"We are absolutely sure of their innocence. Neither of these men and we believe no one in our community participates in activities as those alleged in the public statements or in the filed complaint of the Department of Justice", she said.

As believers in Islamic Sharia, they followed the cardinal principles of the Koran, she said, including the principle that the blood of civilians is sacred.

"To our Muslim brothers and sisters we swear by Allah, the Lord of Muhammad, that we have not participated in any terrorist plot against the United States," she added.

[Fair Use Notice. For educational purposes only]

IT WORKS LIKE THIS, BASED UPON FALSE EVIDENCE:

_________________________________________________________________

More.....Three stories worth reading. The JFK airport "terror plot" has the typical suspicious and contradictory evidence, while the "suspects" had no explosives in their possession, and the usual FBI "informant" (i.e. provocateur) again is present. (Again, doubtful a conviction to prove "intent" for conspiracy will be found in court, unless they plea out in fear of torture). The news articles Sunday had contradictory elements, claiming that the explosions and fire could have devastated neighborhood under which the pipelines run, then experts state in same articles there is no way fire could travel said pipelines. Coincidentally this always seems to pick up the closer to primary campaigning (two more Presidential debates this week) or when indictments of the Bush administration fly. Britains distrust their government and the official story of 7/7 as much as Americans do 9/11, because the evidence does not fit the stories, and these events both took place during "war games" and/or "terrorist drills", that just happened to go live. So much propaganda to debunk, so little time. People need to read the details to find the "devil" in them. Sensational headlines are never later retracted when the case falls apart. In 6 years there have been ZERO TERRORIST ATTACKS in the U.S., while borders and ports are open wide, and we are told "jihadists want to kill us all". Any teenager could do better and we would have witnessed numerous real events if that lie were true.

GOP chief: We need more terror attacks on US soil 'to appreciate' President Bush

03 Jun 2007

The Republican Party of Arkansas, which was beaten decisively in last year's election, needs to dedicate itself to running next time on an anti-tax, pro-highway and pro-education agenda, its new chairman [Bryant businessman Dennis Milligan] said... Milligan said he's "150 percent" behind Bush on the war in Iraq. "At the end of the day, I believe fully the president [sic] is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country," Milligan said.

Survey: 'government hasn't told truth about 7/7' 04 Jun 2007 A quarter of Muslims polled think the authorities involved with staging the 7/7 London bombings. A Channel 4 News survey of 500 British Muslims, carried out by GFK NOP, has found that nearly a quarter don't believe the four men identified as the London bombers were responsible for the attacks. And a similar number say the government or the security services were involved. Nearly six in ten of those polled believe the government hasn't told the whole truth about the July the 7th bombings - and more than half say the intelligence services have made up evidence to convict terrorist suspects.

JFK Airport Plot Has All the Hallmarks of Staged Terror --Near-retarded "ringleader", paid government provocateur mirrors legion of previous cases

By Paul Joseph Watson 04 Jun 2007

An alleged plot to blow up fuel tanks, terminal buildings and fuel lines running beneath Kennedy International Airport has all the hallmarks of being another staged terror alert, having never advanced beyond a rudimentary planning stage while being prodded and provocateured by a paid government informant. In every single major terror sting we have researched in the west since 9/11, not one single plot has been absent the ingredient of a government provocateur, save the cases that were outright manufactured by imaginative government propagandists in alliance with the corporate media.

Updated: NHPR Interviews Ron Paul; Paul says U.S. abandoned "just war theory of Christianity" is Greatest Moral Problem

By Laura Knoy on Tuesday, June 5, 2007.

listen to interview here:

The longtime Texas Congressman is low in the polls, but has made a name for himself as THE anti-war candidate on the Republican side. Paul’s also known as a libertarian, espousing limited government and a free market and who has long advocated a return to the gold standard. He joins us in studio to talk about his presidential aspirations. We'll talk with him about the issues, including Iraq, and get his thoughts in advance of the Republican debate later this evening.

Guest

• Ron Paul, Republican Congressman from Texas and presidential candidate

Interview is great, discusses WAR, HEALTH CARE, THE CONSTITUTION AND ROLE OF GOVERNMENT, MONEY, ECONOMICS, FOREIGN POLICY, CONGRESS, "FEAR-MONGERING", THE RECENT JFK "terror plot", HIS PERSONAL AND FAMILY BACKGROUND AS DOCTOR, AIR FORCE SURGEON, GROWING UP ON FARM, ETC.


LISTEN TO NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC RADIO HERE--REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE #3

Congressman Ron Paul (Protestant, strict constitutionalist) defends Christian doctrine of "just war" (i.e. self defense, last resort, etc.) against what "Neocons preach"

GULIANI (Roman Catholic imperialist and fascist) SAYS U.S. Military Role is for "NATION BUILDING" (see video below).