Ron Paul's opinion of Fox News, Fox interviewer Agrees!
Uploaded by: fagan411
Video Description:
Ron Paul gives his opinion of Fox News.
Americans, join the Ron Paul Revolution!
http://www.ronpaul2008.com
Tags for this video: 2008 bias fascism fox main media MSM news Paul President Ron stream
Find more videos in the "News" category
See more videos uploaded by fagan411
Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Tell a friend:















NEVER HAvE I SEEN THIS TYPE OF POLITICIAN>>
NOT FOR POWER OR CONTROL OR FINANCE...
A REAL LEADER>>>>
See you guys @ the polls. :)
Its true HIDDEN MEANING uncovered through my ANAGRAM ....
by re-arranging the following (62) letters ...
FOXNEWS: LIES, FEAR and SMEAR PROPAGANDA ....
FOR THE CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS !! >>> Result of these same (62) letters now re-arranged =
FOREVER RATS, FIXED ON A PRO-WAR AGENDA ....
FALSE~PRESSMAN, CONS THE NAIVE PUBLIC !!
Visit >>> FoxAttacks(dot)com
PASS IT ON ...
Go Ron Paul!
95% of Blacks and 67% of Latinos went on Obama, whereas whites kept their historical 43% dem 57% rep track. So the question is: would so many (minority) reps still have jumped ship to Obama if he was running aganst Ron Paul? Well, I doubt. Only another Black person will ever be able to beat Obama now, unless whites start voting racist like blacks and latinos.
The first-ever Black (or first-ever female, for that matter) President HAS to be. If a white male President messes up, we say, "Gee, that guy was a lousy President."
But you know — you just KNOW — that if Obama messes up, all too many people will be saying, "See what happens if you let a Black person* be President?"
(* or less polite words to that effect)
Ditto female, had Hillary won and messed up.
But, he let me down. I don't mean by not doing better in the Primaries. I mean by his policies, his beliefs, his positions.
He is NOT — repeat: *NOT* — a libertarian. He's a neo-confederate (NOT to be confused with a Neo-Conservative — he most definitely is NOT THAT!).
This is a vital distinction.
so, in regards to Ron Paul, can you please compare and contrast HIS relationship to libertarianism and neo-confederatism (if that's even an "ism").
A libertarian is one who holds the Inherent and Unalienable Rights of Personhood as the ultimate force in politics and government.
A neo-confederate (so-named to distinguish them from the original Confederate States of America which included slavery) is one who holds that "States' Rights" is the ultimate power.
Now, what do we hear Ron Paul actually saying?
"We don't dictate to the states" (true enough on the face of it).
He has stated that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the States, that the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified under duress by the former Confederate States and so is invalid (which is how he can oppose Birthright Citizenship, which is explicitly stated in the Fourteenth).
He has said that States should even be able to establish official State religions! This would of course be VERY oppressive to the rights of the people of other religions in such States.
Thus, he is no libertarian, but a neo-confederate.
He calls himself "The Champion of the Constitution." But WHICH Constiutution?
In 2003, in an essay on the alleged "War on Christmas," he wrote that the Declaration and Constitution are "both REPLETE WITH references to God."
However, the Constitution of the CONFEDERATE States of America DOES explicitly invoke "Almighty God"!
Is THAT the Constitution he's the "Champion" of!?
You see, there IS NOT NOW, nor was there EVER (even before the Civil War), nor was there ever INTENDED TO BE, ANY SUCH *THING* as "States' Rights"!
The clear and plain language of the Declaration of Independence AND the Bill of Rights BOTH make plain that ONLY PERSONS have, or CAN have, RIGHTS! NO Government at ANY level, or any OTHER non-Person entity, can have Rights of ANY kind!