Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts

Ron Paul...snubbed by Fox TV, why? Dangerous views!


Well, jovial Ron Paul - with all the bedside manner of a country doctor - has been poppin' up on the boob tube, here and there, over the past couple of days expounding his - um - views.

On the Tonight Show the other night, Jay noted that the reason he invited Paul on as a guest, was due to an incident which occurred in recent days.

"Seems to me, you should be kicking some a**," Leno joked.

Of course, as Joe Public is undoubtedly aware, Fox TV snubbed Mr. Paul when they refused to allow him to participate in the Republican debates this past weekend.

An irate caller, on a popular talk show angrily lamented, "...it's the fault of the mainstream media. They always ignore Mr. Paul."

I'll admit, few outlets reported the news of the rejection at Fox, in spite of the fact it was newsworthy.

So, protesters gathered outside Fox, to stand by their man.

"Fox said it was because the table wasn't big enough," one angry supported snarled, then he gave a look into the camera, as if to say, "...and, I was born yesterday."

Surely, if Fox was unable to afford adequate furnishings for the debate, Mr. Paul and his generous supporters would have coughed up some dough for a custom-made conference table, capable of accommodating all the candidates interested in participating.

When Leno asked - "Why the rejection?" - at first, Mr. Paul shrugged.

Heh, the man's a gentleman; it's doubtful he'd sling mud, right?

With a little coaxing and cajoling from Leno, he relented - alleging in the final analysis - that it was because his views opposed "theirs".

"They're supporting another party," he grinned, with a wink to the audience.

Well, at this juncture, I guess it's time for me to step up to the plate!

This past summer, I penned a blog, which was featured on a Fox TV Web site for the filmmakers' TV reality show, "On the Lot".

Daily, I took potshots at all the candidates; after all, each was fair game to me.

In spite of my vitriolic barbs, aimed at their candidates, no "giant hand" ever stretched down from on high at the corporate offices to silence me, nor was there any attempt by management at the TV Station, to throw a monkey-wrench into my blog postings, or censor my material.

Who knows, maybe Rupert Murdoch just likes me?

Some argue that Fox rejected Paul because his views are too controversial, too dangerous. Is that it, then?

Well, he does allege the "Shaw of Iran" was put into power by the CIA.

And, the underdog candidate argues that the reason terrorists are engaging in their violent, despicable acts, is easy to fathom. Huh?

In sum, Paul takes the simplistic position that, "Terrorists don't like the U.S. occupying their country." That's why they engage in terrorist acts, he alleges.

"Would the citizens of the United States like it if their country was occupied?"

Good point.

But, his reasoning may be off the mark.

After all, I recall that Osama bin Laden has criticized the North American ethic, and also expressed his distaste for "consumer" consciousness and its excesses.

And, there is the issue of Allah.

I am inclined to concur from his stance, the very thought of our existence, has rankled bin Laden and his gang of extremists no end.

I am willing to bet that bin Laden perceives Americans as mere pests, a scourge upon the earth, to be exterminated!

In view of this, I am inclined to take the position that the extremists are a real threat, to be reckoned with.

Suicide bombers - for one - underscore the severity of the situation; the practice clearly establishes that the "enemy" has a completely different mindset which is dangerous.

Who do you know in Norh America that would strap a bomb on their body, and die for a cause - in the name of one God, country, Jesus, John Smith, Buddha, L. Ron Hubbard, or Mickey Mouse?

When asked what was wrong with U.S., Paul reacted without hesitation, "We're broke, and we're printing too much paper money".

Jay joked on the heels of this comment, "What's wrong with that?"

Well, it was evident at this point, that Mr. Leno is oblivious to the basics of economics, the function of the U.S Treasury, how inflation occurs, and why the dollar becomes devalued.

Curiously, when Leno asked the Republican candidate who he'd choose as a running mate, in the event he broke on through, he chortled, "Anyone who agrees with me!

At this point, he chastised his opponents, and their rant for "change".

"There would not be any need for war or change, if they read the Constitution and followed it," he opined, to loud cheers from the audience.

Good luck, on the campaign trail, Mr. Paul.

I wish it was all that easy.

Presidential Candidates....need sense of humor!



In recent days, Bill Clinton appeared on the Charlie Rose talk show, and was visibly agitated about comments candidates made about his hubby, Hill.

Not since the heady days of the smoking - er - blue dress...have I witnessed slick Willy so incensed over an alleged "attack".

Actually, there has been a tendency in the Presidential race over the past few weeks for candidates to be awfully touchy about silly issues; in fact, as soon as comments on the campaign trail have hit the sounding board, all of 'em have reacted ferociously - taken swipes, defended their positions - whatever.

It strikes me that the candidates are awfully sensitive, overly-so.

If you ask me - Obama, Clinton, and Edwards - have all engaged in conduct which smacks a lot of grammar school shenanigans...you know, that - "he said, she said" - kind of mentality, stuff.

Grow up, folks, you're in a Presidential Race.

Ron Paul...who is he? Red, White & Blue, American!



On the West Coast, the media has focused on the "Big 3" candidates for the Presidential Race - Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, and John Edwards; but until now, Ron Paul has remained a mystery, to many.

Which begs the question...who is Ron Paul?

In the weekly newspaper, "People's Weekly World", opinion writer Jim Lane reports that he surfed over to Ron Paul's web site (www.ronpaul2008.com) and was able to rustle up a thumbnail sketch of the Presidential Candidate from Texas.

According to Lane, Paul's platform has simple-minded appeal, for American voters.

For starters, he notes that Mr. Paul is a lone rider in the Republican camp, because he apparently opposes Bush's wars and occupations abroad.

That should land him a handful of votes, eh?

The pundit goes on to report that Mr. Paul is prone to despise the..."so-called free trade deals and World Governmental organizations like the - "International Criminal Court" (ICC), "NAFTA", "GATT", "WTO" and "CAFTA".

Yeah, it's quite an alphabet soup for me to fathom, too!

Allegedly, the bold-faced Texan wants to stop the "NAFTA" highway.

And, Lanes adds, Paul condemns government spying on the citizenry - and for this reason - would like to overturn the Patriot Act.

Amen, to parts of it anyway...

Although the candidate - rearing his ugly head from behind in recent days - appears to support Social Security, Lane contends that he's a little off-base in his assessments because he oversimplifies the issue of taxing benefits and is completely mistaken about undocumented workers receiving social security benefits.

Many of Ron Paul's ideas are quite controversial too, according to Mr. Lane.

Apparently, Paul is strongly pro-gun, and anti-abortion, and condemns the United Nations.

Along the campaign trail, that should raise the ire of some.

Also, Paul opposes eminent domain - not because it is misused for corporate interests - but because he believes "property is sacred".

Ah, that platform postion will appeal to many down on the farm.

At at time when the dollar is low, and causing concern among financial analysts and the common American Joe, Paul touts returning to the Gold standard.

Well, okay!

Another position on immigrants will probably split votes, depending on who is polled; after all, Paul is anti-immigrant in stance.

Lane goes so far as to allege that Ron Paul is under the impression that there is..."no reason why the government should play any role whatsoever in stopping racism..." (!)

In sum, Lane concludes:

"What Rep. Ron Paul advocates, in short, is the idea that raw capitalism, its "invisible hand" unchecked by centuries of democratic workers' struggles, would solve all ills in 2008. It would be true, if our ills were those of serfdom or outright slavery. Capitalism did, indeed, put an end to barbarism and bring an economic system with increidibly higher standards of production and fewer horrors from the caprices of royal aristocrats. But that was 400 years ago, and this is now."

You can e mail your own thoughts & responses to Mr. Lane at: flittle7@yahoo.com

People's Weekly World is a member of the International Labor Communications Association and is published weekly.
Staff Members belong to The Newspaper Guild/CWA, AFL-CIO.

Blog Archive