Media bias against Ron Paul: CNBC proves the reality
Immediately after the most recent Republican debate CNBC ran an online poll for all the candidates. Ron Paul’s support so overwhelmed the others that CNBC quickly took down the poll. MSNBC was doing a similar poll and the Ron Paul landslide results were essentially the same.
The Internet was a buzz over the Main Stream Media bias against Ron Paul. As further evidence of that bias, Congressman Paul was asked the least number of questions and received the least air time minutes during the debate. A tabulation of these results can be found here. When Giuliani and Thompson get 18 questions and 14+ minutes and Ron Paul gets 5 questions and less than 6 minutes, then it can be concluded that the fix was in. Chris Matthews of MSNBC, Maria Bartiromo of CNBC, John Harwood of CNBC and Gerald Seib of the Wall Street Journal, as moderators and questioners, wear this open prejudice as much as the networks.
CNBC’s embarrassment for pulling the poll was so overwhelmingly that a network big cheese tried to ‘splain his actions in a piece titled “An Open Letter to the Ron Paul Faithful.” Click here to read it. You will find a vacuous justification of why curtailing free expression and short-circuiting participation in the political process is supposedly a good thing.
The following is a challenge letter sent to CNBC and its managing editor, Allen Wastler, at this email address – [email protected] – that was listed at the end of his letter.
Thank you for a brief flash of accountability in posting the letter titled “An Open Letter to the Ron Paul Faithful”. Your acknowledging the removal of the debate poll, because Ron Paul was trouncing everyone else, is noteworthy. However, your letter defines prejudice, negative bias and hypocrisy. The function of the news media in America is not one of censorship.
The Main Stream Media and all politicians regularly exhort the populace to get involved, register to vote, become part of the solution, express your views in the process and be active. These days are different than the early 1990’s and before. The Internet is about as ubiquitous as the phone but with a greater capacity for feed back from the people. You asked the viewers to communicate their responses/views about the debate and you got it. The Internet worked, even if the result was not what you and The Powers That Be at CNBC wanted.
Your letter whimpers about the Ron Paul supporters overwhelming the poll results. Were the McCainiacs, Thompsonians, Giulianites, Huckabeeans, Brownbackers or other supporters precluded, blocked or inhibited in anyway from voting? No.
So instead of commenting on the lifeless ineptitude of the supporters for the vaunted mainstream candidates, you decided to shut down the option of open participation for all. Why? Because Ron Paul is a real threat of awakening the American people to the reality of the socialist/communist political establishment that is consuming America and of which you are an integral part.
A suggestion … why don’t you Scroogle “US Constitution”, open the first web page listed from Cornell University Law School and click on Article 1. Then scroll down to Section 8, Paragraph 11 and read about the war powers of Congress. Never mind, the heavy lifting has been done for you.
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
Only Congress has the right and power to declare war. It does not have the authority to cede its decision making power for declaring war. Correspondingly, the President has no Constitutional authority to take the nation to war only to execute what the Congress decides. To read the limited scope of the President’s powers click here.
Congressional resolutions cannot transfer the war-making powers to the President neither can an Executive Order. Congressional resolutions like the one passed before the current Iraq War did not modify the Constitution. In order for the President to lawfully initiate a war the Constitution would have to be modified under Article V, which has not happened. The criteria for a valid Article V modification of the Constitution can be read here.
Since you are likely reading the Constitution for the first time, if you go just past Article 1, Section 8 there is a news scoop for you and your network. Read Article 1 Section 9, Paragraph 2 where it states the following:
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Currently GWBush is demanding Congress to immunize retroactively (retroactive means ex post facto) Internet communication firms for their participation in his criminal, warrantless wiretaps of American citizens. Quoting from the New York Times on October 10, 2007:
President Bush said that he will not sign the bill if it does not give retroactive immunity to U.S. telecommunications companies that helped conduct electronic surveillance without court orders.
For either the President or members of Congress to suggest an ex post facto law to be passed is a form of treason defined as either Rebellion/Insurrection in the US Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 15, Section 2383, where it reads:
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Or qualifying as Seditious Conspiracy under US Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 15, Section 2384,
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
If you have any brains, guts or conscience, then you will instruct one of your talking-head newsreaders to deliver a brief Public Service Announcement. That PSA would inform the public of their Congressional and Executive leadership again doing criminal violence to the rule of law.
But if you were to perform this requisite function as a member of the Fourth Estate, it would upset the fascist corporate interests that run/own your network. The same Fabian Socialist Financiers who seek to bury a sovereign America and establish global socialism, which is anathema to the individual rights of the American citizen enumerated (not granted) in the Constitution.
The Constitution, that Ron Paul upholds and defends unlike any other Republican or Democratic presidential candidate, defines a little “r” republic and NOT a democracy. A democracy is the tyranny of the majority and a pernicious form of socialism. A republic is based on the unalienable rights and inherent freedoms of the individual, which are not privileges licensed by the government. Republics and Democracies are not the same. They are political enemies. The Framers of the Constitution knew that explicitly and wrote accordingly.
So the gauntlet concerning your undeniable bias against Ron Paul and the foundational truths of the Constitution has been delivered and is lying at your feet.
Will you answer this challenge in substance or slither away in silence?
One more question … in light of the ruling generals in Myanmar recently unplugging the Internet to suppress news of those freedom demonstrations, does CNBC do public relations and political consulting for that military junta?
“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”