Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 05:19 | #

LOX NEWS 

“We <strike>report</strike> distort.  You decide.” 

(Oh, and ... uhhh ... good luck “deciding” — after our <strike>reporting</strike> distorting, any “deciding” you do won’t be worth jack, because you won’t know what in the hell you’re talking about ... We like things that way ....)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 05:26 | #

Cherchez le juif.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 05:36 | #

There’s got to be a Jew pulling Fox’s levers in this specific outrage.  There’s no other explanation.  Jews strongly dislike Ron Paul and my guess as to the reason is it’s twofold:  1) they have a feeling he’d be unpredictable on Israel/Iran/Iraq, and 2) they sense he’d be bad for the success of race-replacement, something they very much want to see go to completion. 

Jews don’t want anything throwing the monkey wrench into race-replacement before it’s irreversible. 

Jews’ number-one concern is Israel, and their number-two concern is getting Euros race-replaced and permanently out of the way as rivals.  Those are the number-one and number-two most important things in the universe for Jews.

Posted by Tyrone on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 07:24 | #

Ha!  Allah has already won and the people of color will mate you out.  There is nothing you can do about it.

Posted by VLC on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 08:03 | #

There’s got to be a Jew pulling Fox’s levers in this specific outrage.

Peter Chernin ?

http://www.natall.com/who-rules-america/

Jews don’t want anything throwing the monkey wrench into race-replacement before it’s irreversible.

they panicked when Buchanan was becoming popular in the primaries in 1996. Here’s WLP on the jews’ hatred of Buchanan which is very similar as the one they have for Paul:

http://www.natall.com/free-speech/fs963a.html

I’m sure that most of our readers have been observing with some interest the Republican primaries these past few months. And I’m sure that you’ve noticed, as I have, the most interesting feature of these primaries: namely the frantic attacks by the controlled media and by the other Republicans on candidate Patrick Buchanan.

The controlled media keep telling us that their polls show that most voters believe Buchanan is “too extreme.” That is simply the media’s way of trying to move the herd toward that view. They want people to think, “Pat Buchanan can’t win, because he’s too extreme. We know he’s too extreme, because we heard it on TV.” And, of course, the other Republican candidates are echoing the same line: Buchanan is an extremist, they say.

Now, just what is it about Buchanan that’s extreme?

Is it his statement that if he becomes President he’ll stop the flood of illegal immigration from Mexico? Is it now considered “extreme” for a Presidential candidate to be in favor of enforcing U.S. law and protecting our borders? Some people apparently think so.

Or is it Buchanan’s position on foreign trade which makes him an extremist? Is he an extremist because he believes that American workers should not be forced to compete for jobs with Chinese coolies or Mexican mestizos? Is he an extremist for pointing out the simple truth that Washington’s present policy of uncontrolled foreign trade is destroying one basic American industry after another and is exporting hundreds of thousands of American jobs overseas? Is that “too extreme”? The people who slant our television news programs say it is. Mr. Dole and the other Republicans say it is.

(...)

No, Buchanan’s policies certainly aren’t extreme. The other Republicans aren’t worried that the voters will reject those policies. Instead they’re afraid that the voters will approve of those policies. They’re afraid that Pat Buchanan will be able to build mass support for protecting our borders, for enforcing our immigration laws, for bringing back American jobs and rebuilding American industries which have been exported to the Third World.

(...)

And basically that’s why the Jewish media are attacking him so viciously. They can’t tolerate a politician who has any considerations other than what the Jews might think. Basically they can’t tolerate a politician who doesn’t jump when they whistle. If he won’t apologize and grovel now, there’s no telling what he might not do if he’s in the White House. He might not send all of those billions of dollars from American taxpayers to Israel every year. He might not appoint Jews to half of his cabinet positions and to the head of the CIA and to every Supreme Court vacancy, the way Clinton has. He might not send U.S. troops when and where he’s told to send them. He might not base his policies on what’s good for the Jews instead of on what’s good for America. That’s why they hate him. That’s why they’re trying to convince the voters that he’s an extremist.

Posted by VLC on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 08:12 | #

James Bowery if you’re reading this please make a new blog post and paste this entire William Pierce commentary. Most people reading this website weren’t awakened 10 years ago so let’s go back in time and look at the parrallels between Buchanan and Paul and the media and the GOP’s establishment reaction to both men

Posted by VLC on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 08:32 | #

and check out this answer by Ron Paul in the Fox News debate that many say (I don’t watch live TV) has been cut in the following replay of the debate :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1-DtVLMopY

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:57 | #

The BBC reports:-

In Saturday’s other contest, Mitt Romney won Nevada’s Republican caucus, taking 52% of the vote with 99% of the returns counted.

Ron Paul, the only other Republican seriously to campaign in the state, came second with 14%, ahead of Mr McCain with 13%.

Did Fox use bad data to get McCain into second on 15%, or did they just add a couple of per cent?

Posted by Jean West on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:54 | #

At 5:30 this morning I posted this to the DailyPaul forum (the natall URL is to Who Rules America)—In the other two, the URL is to Rosner’s Israel ranks the Candidates):

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/27649

NYT is unbelievable

On January 20th, 2008 jwest says:

Nothing is more believable than that the owners of newspapers and television should use their power to block people that won’t further their interests and promote people who will. Why else do you think they bought up the entire media, including Hollywood, and keep it securely in the hands of themselves and their kin, if not to control?

I’ve never been a member of the group that put this report together, nor do I support them; but indisputable facts are indisputable facts, regardless of who compiles them. http://www.natall.com/who ...

In order to understand what effect this monopoly ownership has on what Americans are allowed to see or not see, one has only to understand what it is that the group in control wants for the benefit of its own group—usually masked as a universal benefit or a benefit for an underdog.
___________________
I also posted these two:

The puzzle which must be solved

On January 20th, 2008 jwest says:

There’s no puzzle. Everything’s going as planned:

http://www.haaretz.com/ha...

_________

Ron Paul’s real competitor

On January 20th, 2008 jwest says:

Ron Paul’s real competitor is the Jewish Lobby. Supporters have to stop floundering; it’s not the CFR. The “Christians” screaming for Huckabee are not Christians. They’re Christian Zionists, in other words, they’re part of the Jewish Lobby

http://www.haaretz.com/ha ..

Posted by Charlie Prince on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:17 | #

The millions of dollars Ron Paul has raised for this futile political campaign could be far more productively invested in the creation of an alternative media. The lesson of this election cycle is that the mainstream media still has the power to pick our candidates and set the national agenda. Like the conservatives, Paul has only enjoyed the success that he has because he is able to run around this to some extent. Success for us lies more in getting our fellow citizens to unplug themselves from the media than in votes at the ballot box.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 03:51 | #

The lesson of this election cycle is that the mainstream media still has the power to pick our candidates

Considering that most of today’s young people end up with nearly $100k in student loan debt before they have their first home mortgage, the “lesson” you describe was the best educational deal they’ve gotten and are likely to get in their lives.

It took me about a decade from the first time I saw something was seriously wrong with media control till I could “name the Jew”.  Nowadays, information is far more accessible and the situation in the middle east is a far more awesome and naked demonstration of Jewish media power which more directly hits at the very flesh of the young people.

Moreover, the money available in the money bombs simply would not have been available for more enlightened projects because the people themselves are so oppressed they can’t think straight—yet.

Posted by Jean West on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:30 | #

The list for my State is owned by a homosexual Jew and moderated by a Jew.  My messages, however remote a connection with Jews there might be, are not posted.
Here’s the blurb that advertises a local meet-up group in my state:

This group is about getting Ron Paul elected.

“...Bismarck explained to an American sympathizer the strategy behind these laws that guaranteed every German national health insurance, a pension, a minimum wage and workplace regulation, vacation, and unemployment insurance. ?My idea was to bribe the working classes, or shall I say, to win them over, to regard the state as a social institution existing for their sake and interested in their welfare,? he said.”

Marching to Bismarcks Drummer: The Origins of the Modern Welfare State
By Richard M. Ebeling - on FEE website

_________________________

Posted by Jean West on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:56 | #

I think the Ron Paul campaign presented an opportunity for exposure that was well worth the money invested in it.  But like the White “movement” it lacks visible leadership and strong lines of communication.  “Leaders” don’t want to associate with “followers”—maintaining their own importance is primary—in the White “movement” dueling with “important” Jews is much more satisfying than interacting with like-minded underlings.

Trying to educate Ron Paul followers is hard work, given the transient nature of the forums.  Last night I posted URLs to the CSMonitor’s empire builders’ neocon page on which the faces, all Jewish, can be clicked for bios, and to the PNAC website, specifically the letter to Bush, scroll down to the signatures.

These URLs were in response to neocons being named as Bush/Cheney+a few others, none of whom were Jewish.

This morning, my comment is gone.  You can’t educate people with a moving marquis, which is what the various Ron Paul forums are; nothing stays put.  The woman who owns the DailyPaul and is active in GOP politics is a CFR freak; she doesn’t *think* it’s the CFR, she *Knows* it’s the CFR.

JW

Posted by Anti-Ron Paul on Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:11 | #

“I think we could be much more generous with our immigration.”
-Ron Paul

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:00 | #

Yes, Ron Paul isn’t the best candidate for immigration—Tancredo is (or was)—but he _is_ the best candidate for Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and a number of other critical issues literally no one in the Republican party will deal with; and Tancredo was _far_ from the best candidate from a foreign entanglement perspective.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 07:51 | #

“Ron Paul isn’t the best candidate for immigration — Tancredo is (or was)”  (—James B)

Here is an excellent review by Marcus Epstein, up tonight over at Vdare.com, of Ron Paul’s weaknesses on immigration, written not in condemnatory style but a mildly chiding tone of “gentle correction” if only Paul and his handlers will acknowledge it and accept to change a few things in ways that could increase their chances of doing well. 

(Marcus Epstein, by the way, who is excellent on immigration issues — who, I strongly suspect, “gets it” in the MR.com sense of “getting it” —  is half-Jewish, half-Korean.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 01:34 | #

NumbersUSA sizes up the candidates vis-à-vis immigration, below.  Notice Ron Paul more or less consistently rates not an A+ or even an A, but somewhere in B territory.  That’s all right — he’s still the best candidate on immigration, because none of the ones rating A or A+ can be trusted once in office.  He can.  With him, what you see is what you get, and B is damn good compared to what we’ve been getting.  The ones rated A+ would, if elected, immediately change to F-minus-infinity the day after Election Day.

What has been the previous record of immigration actions while in elected office?

POOR—Hillary Clinton
POOR—Barack Obama
POOR—John Edwards
FAIR—Rudy Giuliani
FAIR—John McCain
GOOD—Mike Huckabee
GOOD—Ron Paul
EXCELLENT—Mitt Romney

For additional details see Roy Beck’s candidates’ grid.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 24 Jan 2008 06:35 | #

Completely apart from immigration, a Ron Paul presidency would help redress the white/non-white demographic imbalance by taking away opportunities for U.S. federal bureaucrats to use blood-sucking non-white parasitic leeches to suck the life-blood out of young white couples, taking away all their financial wherewithal to start families or even to get married in lots of cases, to the benefit of non-white couples who are empowered by D.C. to take the blood they’ve sucked out of whites with Washington’s blessing and start their own non-white families without limit, having all the non-white babies they want because the young white couples are forced by Big Brother to pay for it.  A Ron Paul presidency would put an end to that injustice which cries out for redress, and you’d start,at long last, to see some reversals in the comparative birth-rate graphs in the article linked herewith.  The point is, the demographic blessings of a Ron Paul presidency wouldn’t be limited solely to immigration (though there’e be blessings on the immigration front as well):  they’d be broader than that, much broader.  They’d be a HUGE start in the right direction, HUGE.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 02:35 | #

Some good stuff from Ron Paul on immigration.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:38 | #

Norma McCorvey, who was “Jane Roe” of Roe v. Wade, has endorsed foe-of-legalized-abortion Ron Paul for president.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 04:31 | #

An exasperated potential Ron Paul supporter lets him have it with both barrels because of his or his handlers’ failure to “get” certain crucial aspects of the immigration crisis:

My biggest concern about Ron Paul is his support of “the free exchange of labor” Paul just doesn’t get it — yet.

Americans are losing jobs to foreigners who simply should not be allowed to fill them.  Our educated middle class is dying in the face of unwanted foreign competition that we don’t need.  Perhaps Paul’s bad information is because Americans hurt by H1-B and L1 visas have not met with him or his staff to explain the harmful results of such naive policies.

While campaigning in San Francisco, Paul said that if foreigners come here “voluntarily” (yes, he used that word) to work and find a job, they should be allowed in.  The realization that such people would be taking jobs from Americans has not hit Paul.

At several points in his speech, Paul referred to Americans as “consumers.”  He believes “consumers” (market forces) will decide who should enter and work in the US.  But that puts cheap-labor corporate greed mongers in the driver’s seat of our immigration policy.

Paul needs to realize that Americans are “citizens,” not merely “consumers.”

Furthermore, Paul must understand that most Americans consider even legal immigration an invasion of our nation, an undeclared war, and adding these unskilled, uneducated, high-fertility immigrants goes against the people’s will.

Though a doctor, Paul seems oblivious to the reintroduction of deadly diseases brought by his “voluntary” foreign workers, diseases that had either been eradicated or simply did not exist in America before open borders.  Why should we import and be exposed to these?

Paul’s comment in the Univision Spanish-language debate that Americans are “jealous” if they are not bilingual troubles me.  I speak Spanish, and yesterday had two Safeway workers whom I asked for help decide to speak Spanish to each other while I stood there.  In Spanish, I asked why they did not speak English.  Their nasty, surly replies and sneers displayed their contempt for me.

My advice to them:  This is our nation: speak our language.

All other Republican and Democrat candidates are far worse than Paul on immigration and foreign workers, despite their empty promises.

Paul’s trump card is his support of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and national sovereignty.  Without a nation, none of the rest matters.

Posted by Prozium on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 06:27 | #

According to Alex Linder, the racial rhetoric from Ron Paul’s newsletters was penned by Lew Rockwell as part of a “redneck outreach” strategy.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:48 | #

Prozium, you’re talking about the Ron Paul newsletters from umpteen gazillion years ago the Jews dug up recently and are using to try to take Paul down?  Or are there recent newsletters?  Either way, it’s surprising Lew “Never-Saw-An-Open-Border-He-Didn’t-Like” Rockwell ever in his life had it in him to “pen racial rhetoric,” whether “for redneck outreach” or anything else.  He’s an anti-racist pro-open-borders pro-race-replacement wacked-out élitist whose “ideas” give the impression he’s from the “always actively engaged” segment, let us call it, of the dope-legalization wing of the Libertardian Party, who gets nothing right apart from opposition to 1) the Jewish-WASP Wars For (Respectively) Israel And Oil and 2) the IRS.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:23 | #

Due to ineptness, Ron Paul’s handlers are missing chance after chance to package their guy as the alternative whom immigration-aware white voters are looking for — and the result is these all-important voters basically don’t even know he exists:

Interestingly, the New York Times survey also reveals that immigration was the second-most important issue to Republican primary voters, named by 26% vs. 40% for the economy.  Only 16% named Iraq.  But in a state whose near-lynching of Senator Lindsey Graham was among the first signs that the Kennedy-Bush amnesty/immigration-surge bill was going to fail, McCain, who supported it, got a quarter (24%) of those naming immigration.  He even got a quarter (26%) of the gratifying majority (52%) of South Carolina Republican voters who thought illegal immigrants should be deported.  Ron Paul, who got an appalling 4% of both groups, is missing a huge opportunity by not stressing his commitment to national sovereignty.  [Emphasis added.]

Trust me, guys, packaging yourselves as the alternative to McCain on immigration is not rocket science .... Yes you can take that to the bank ... Really and truly ... Just trust me on this one, OK??????????

Attention Ron Paul’s handlers:  WILL YOU CLOWNS WAKE UP, PLEASE????  HOW MANY MORE GOLDEN OPPORTUNITIES DO YOU TURKEYS PLAN ON BLOWING????

Thanks and have a nice day.

Posted by Blue Balls on Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:24 | #

McCain is just so much more of a maverick and independent and that’s why he is beating Ron Paul. He is the voice of change and grassroots revolution.

Join the McCain Revolution!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:26 | #

In a new podcast, Joe Guzzardi chats with Todd Hartley about the primaries both Dem and GOP, giving his views (among others) of why John McCain definitely WON’T be the candidate, and mentioning several times that Ron Paul is the candidate of choice for voters who are concerned about immigration (but unfortunately is not even on the radar screen in some of these key primaries because his amateurish staff doesn’t know how to position him to maximum advantage with respect to immigration).  Listen to Hartley hint at some of the mountain of dirt his people have dug up on McCain, by the way (Hartley’s a resident of McCain’s state of Arizona and they know this stuff out there):  stuff like using his political contacts in D.C. to sidestep rules that forbid the siting of sports stadiums right in the airliner flight-paths of nearby airports!  Hartley says there’s as much dirt and sleaze on McCain as there was on Clinton circa 1990 and calls him “Bill Clinton with fewer cigars.” 

At the interview’s end Todd Hartley divulges the astonishing news, which he says he’s got from reliable sources, that the head of the “conservative” publishing house Regnery endorses McCain!  (Unfricking believable!!!) 

And Patrick Cleburne throws up his hands at the heartbreaking ineptness of the Paul campaign in failing to capitalize on the issue that had a good-to-excellent chance of making Paul the next president, if only he’d known how to play his cards right.

(To listen to the Hartley interview with Joe Guzzardi, on the little control panel that comes up at the linked page, click on the tiny rightward-pointing “start” arrowhead at bottom-left.  The interview will begin just after Hartley’s preliminary messages.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:07 | #

OK I admit it’s not entirely the fault of the Paul campaign:  it couldn’t be more obvious that word has gone out from the honchos of the Jewish-controlled mainstream media that all mention of Paul, publicity given to his campaign, coverage of it in any way, or inclusion of Paul in debates, is strictly forbidden.  Unless you’re getting most of your news from the internet Ron Paul is one-hundred-percent blacked out by the MSM, all news of his campaign in massive Jewish-controlled MSM lockdown.  Officially he doesn’t exist. 

The Jews are big at remembering Nazi book-burning.  What do they think they’re doing here (or with their years-long thwarting of an English-language version of Solzhenitsyn’s book)?  The same thing:  some knowledge is STRENG VERBOTEN! 

The Jews, when they’re in power, are not democrats but book-burners, right up there with the best of them.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:53 | #

A “Pentagon insider” who has observed McCain in action in D.C. from up-close questions his mental stability.

Posted by Blue Balls on Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:41 | #

RE: Mental Stability.

Moron (Bush), Lecher (B. Clinton), Mentally Deranged (McCain), Plutocrat (H. Clinton)...

Sounds like a list of 4/5th century Ceasers.

Posted by anthem blue cross on Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:43 | #

Great blog I hope we can work to build a better health care system as we are in a major crisis and health insurance is a major aspect to many.