Only Ron Paul Can Defeat Hillary Clinton

Only Ron Paul Can Defeat Hillary Clinton
Which is why the corporate elite that have already selected the New York senator are doing their best to blackball the Texas Congressman - including Yahoo! who lied by claiming Paul had not filed papers to officially run, and omitted him from their website coverage Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, May 10, 2007

[align=left] [align=left] [align=left] [align=left] [align=left] [align=left] [align=left] [align=left] [align=left] [align=left] [align=left] [align=left] There is only one Republican candidate that can prevent Hillary Clinton from walking into the Oval Office after the next election and that's Ron Paul - which is why the corporate interests that have already selected Hillary are busy trying to stem the tide of a populist onslaught to bring the Texas Congressman to the attention of the American people.
Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate to carry a message that resonates with the American people, his thoroughbred anti-war and anti-big government stance, but the establishment press have done their level best to keep Paul in the shadows while lying in claiming that every participant featured in last week's debate was pro-war.
Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate to have voted against the Iraq war.
Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who will not seek to lead the U.S. into a military confrontation with Iran, something also that Democrats Obama, Clinton and Edwards have all vowed to keep "on the table."
Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who is not compromised while the likes of Giuliani and Romney have more skeletons in their closet than a fancy dress boutique. He holds true conservative values unlike the vehemently pro-abortion Giuliani and Romney.
Ron Paul is the only candidate period who has promised to abolish the IRS and end the fraudulent fiat-based money system that is crippling America's economy while lining the pockets of the ultra-rich.
Every other Republican candidate besides Ron Paul stands no chance of coming out on top if they go up against Hillary Clinton for the 2008 presidency.
This is a message particularly directed at people who consider themselves conservatives despite voting for George W. Bush on two occasions - get behind Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton is guaranteed to be the next President of the United States.
For all the reasons mentioned above, we are witnessing a clear agenda to marginalize and discredit Ron Paul on behalf of the corporate media, while burying the fact that he won last Thursday's debate hands down.


Nowhere was this more evident than in a May 8th Washington Post editorial entitled 'Building a Better Debate' in which the Post exposed itself as perhaps the most prominent media organ for those who wish to control and suffocate the democratic process in America.
The editorial was basically a manifesto for restricting the debates to include only the establishment's most well groomed appointees and kicking Ron Paul off the podium.
The wider media plot to censor and sideline Ron Paul has been documented here all week and the latest example was Yahoo's decision to include Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter, whose combined support in the polls trails Ron Paul's, on their 2008 coverage page, yet omit the Texas Congressman altogether.
[/align]
[/align]

[align=left] [align=left]"Stunned, I actually called Yahoo and left a voicemail message for their chief communications officer, and included my email address," writes Thomas E. Woods, Jr. of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. "In their emailed reply, I was told: "According to the latest FEC filings, it is our understanding that Congressman Paul has not officially entered the 2008 Presidential race, but has only gotten to the stage of forming an exploratory committee."[/align]
[/align]
[align=left] "Huh? Unannounced candidates are allowed into the debates? Can't possibly be true, I thought. So I simply went to the Federal Election Commission website, and after three seconds of searching I found Ron Paul's filing statement, dated March 12. (That's funny: I was told Yahoo had consulted "the latest FEC filings.") Well, here are Ron Paul's documents right here.
[/align]

[align=left] [align=left] So Yahoo! are now stacking lies on top of their censorship in claiming that Ron Paul has not even officially entered the race, despite the fact that this was announced on CSPAN by Paul himself two months ago.
Yahoo! have made numerous promises to add Ron Paul to their list but it hasn't happened yet.
In addition, ABC News, who initially also scrubbed Ron Paul from their online poll, are deleting comments supportive of Paul from their messageboards.
Other large media organizations are deleting votes from Paul's tally on polls, citing multiple voting by the same people as the reason, despite the fact that the polls only allow one vote per IP address.
Though Ron Paul is still obviously a long shot for the Oval Office, purely because he's the only candidate besides Gravel that isn't completely bought and paid for, the fact that the corporate media have to go to these lengths to try and stem the wave of popular support for Paul only exposes their true agenda.
And for that we thank them and invite them to continue their tactics - because by acting like bullies, censors and hostile to the true democratic process, more people will be turned off by their lies and seek alternative avenues for the truth.
[/align]
[/align]
[/align]
[/align]
[/align]
[/align]
[/align]
[/align]
[/align]
[/align]
[/align]
[/align]

the pro-war bilderberg publication certainly doesn't want to see ron paul in the white house...

Washington Post Editorial Arrogantly Dismisses Ron Paul; Says He Should Be Kicked Out Of Debates [align=left]Building a Better Debate
Too many candidates talking about too much [/align]
[align=left]Washington Post
Wednesday May 09, 2007 [/align]
IF YOU TUNED IN to the recent Republican and Democratic presidential debates, you may have had the same reaction as many viewers looking at the crowded stages: Who's that? The Democratic debate in South Carolina featured eight candidates, while 10 crammed into the GOP debate in California last Thursday. Voters trying to sort out their presidential choices aren't helped by debates cluttered with the likes of Mike Gravel (hint: he's a former senator from Alaska) on the Democratic side and Ron Paul (hint: he's a libertarian House member from Texas) among the Republicans. If the standard is that any declared candidate is entitled to a podium, we're going to end up with even more crowded stages in 2012.
One possibility would be to allow viewers to vote off one candidate after each debate; it seems to work well for other TV programs. But there may a better way to improve the debate system, though this would need to be done carefully and slowly. For starters, as this process continues, debate organizers ought to think about using various tests to narrow the fields. Has a candidate demonstrated any indicia of viability or seriousness: standing in the polls, ability to raise money, trips to the state where the debate is taking place? When Mr. Gravel says he's not running to win, that ought to be grounds enough to toss him out. Yes, at this early stage, poll standing alone isn't enough to exclude a candidate; some serious, experienced candidates are mired in the single digits, and they ought to be given their chance to catch fire. But as the process moves forward, the bar for inclusion should move higher.


Another solution to a still-crowded field would be to structure the debates more usefully to assess the quality of candidates' thinking. Would it be too much to ask for 90-second answers? Or for a format in which candidates could question each other? The best would be to give sustained attention to a single topic, or at most a few areas. Why not one debate on economic issues such as taxes, spending and trade, another on Iraq and foreign policy, more on domestic issues such as health care, education, the environment and immigration? Even if debates aren't this rigorously formatted, certainly they could benefit from more focus on a few topics, rather than Thursday's attention-deficit-disorder-style debate, which skipped from belief in evolution (three candidates didn't) to organ donation to I. Lewis Libby.
It can be argued that debates will be more important than ever this election, with its compressed and nationalized primary calendar. It's in everyone's interest to rethink how they are conducted.

Defeat the Media Clones [align=left] Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Lew Rockwell.com
Thursday May 10, 2007 [/align]
So how does the Establishment deal with a Ron Paul candidacy? What else did you expect? By ignoring him as much as possible.
The Reuters headline following the May 3 GOP debate: "2008 Republicans back war."
All right, you say, perhaps thatâ??s just a crude summary. A headline canâ??t say everything, after all, and the article itself will surely disambiguate the candidates. Itâ??s certainly newsworthy that a nine-term Republican congressman had been a fierce opponent of the war from the beginning, and made his antiwar position clear time and again during the debate. Naturally this will get some play.
But not even a hint of that in the Reuters article by John Whitesides. I mean, hey, didnâ??t you read the headline? The 2008 Republicans back war!
Hereâ??s the entire coverage of Ron Paul: "Also participating were Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, Reps. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, Ron Paul of Texas, and Duncan Hunter of California."
Well, thatâ??s just a smash-up job there, Mr. Whitesides.
That wasnâ??t an isolated case. On the Liberty and Power blog, David Beito reports: "Later that night, CNN's post-debate spin segment sank to an even greater low. The panel included Arianna Huffington and some neo-con guy from The Weekly Standard. Nobody mentioned Paul's views. The ever-insufferable Huffington, who either did not watch the debate or lied about what she saw, self-righteously proclaimed that all of the ten candidates supported the war. Nobody challenged her. Are we to be spared nothing?"
The creepy Dick Morris is in a category all his own. First, he declared John McCain the winner. Now anyone who watched the debate had to be wondering if McCainâ??s, well, weirdness was meant for laughs. At the same time, you almost had to admire how he could be at once stilted and robotic, and yet also crazed and menacing.
But back to our subject: Morris ignored Paul altogether. Now he managed to find time to mention Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Tommy Thompson â?? heck, he mentioned every other candidate besides Ron Paul, even listing specific winners and losers. Since a candidate like Ron Paul isnâ??t allowed to exist in Dick Morrisâ?? world, he apparently couldnâ??t win or lose.
Now we have the phenomenon of Yahoo News inexplicably excluding Ron Paul from its list of GOP candidates. Yet right there are Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter, whose combined support in the polls trails Ron Paulâ??s.

Stunned, I actually called Yahoo and left a voicemail message for their chief communications officer, and included my email address. In their emailed reply, I was told: "According to the latest FEC filings, it is our understanding that Congressman Paul has not officially entered the 2008 Presidential race, but has only gotten to the stage of forming an exploratory committee."
Huh? Unannounced candidates are allowed into the debates? Can't possibly be true, I thought. So I simply went to the Federal Election Commission website, and after three seconds of searching I found Ron Paul's filing statement, dated March 12. (That's funny: I was told Yahoo had consulted "the latest FEC filings.") Well, here are Ron Paul's documents right here.
To Yahoo's credit, after I sent them this documentation I was told that they would have a page for Ron Paul up within a week.
But apparently it's going to take persistence and vigilance to ensure that Paul is treated fairly. As of yesterday, for example, ABC News began deleting and banning posts about Ron Paul, as well as posts complaining about this deletion policy. See this article.
Since that post was written, ABC has begun blocking all comments about Ron Paul.
The same media establishment that bought the Iraq propaganda package and then claimed to be oh-so-sorry is now trying to keep out of the limelight the one presidential contender who has actually bucked the establishment and does something other than parrot government/media slogans. But thatâ??s what the mainstream mediaâ??s purpose is: to define the nature of our political debate and make sure no fundamental questions are ever raised.
No, I donâ??t mean that the heads of these organizations held a special meeting and after exchanging the secret handshake pledged to keep mum about Paul. My point is that no such meeting is necessary. As shills for the establishment, they think alike on everything that matters. While marginal debate is to be permitted here and there, truly independent voices are to be demonized, drowned out, or, better yet, ignored altogether. (Ask Amy Goodman of the leftâ??s Democracy Now! program why she doesnâ??t close up shop and just let ABC and Fox give us our news.) The media establishment likes the status quo just the way it is.
This is all the more reason for people interested in Ron Paul to talk about him, write about him, and light up the Internet about him. (I wrote this piece as a quick intro to Paul so people could quickly and easily show their friends what made him so unusual and admirable.) Not only will you serve the cause of genuine political debate in this country â?? if we wind up with Rudy and Hillary, what on earth will they have to debate about? â?? but youâ??ll also tick off the race of clones who give us only the news they think we need. Thatâ??s reward enough, isnâ??t it?

Just for shits and giggles you should set up a poll running Billary against Ron Paul.....he'd have my vote!:thumbsup:

Have a good one!:s4:

I know who can defeat Hillary.....










OPTIMUS PRIME! MWHAHAHAAHHA!!!

Anyone else notice that prison planet makes a bigger fuss than Ron Paul himself? I wish him luck but he is just an internet fad and is why he will win internet polling. Go ask a thousand random people on the street of at least voting age and you will see he will fall way short of anything he gets on here. Most people do not follow politics online and have no clue who he even is. Its not mainstream media's fault the public is ill informed on the candidates.

"Just for shits and giggles you should set up a poll running Billary against Ron Paul.....he'd have my vote"

You could run a rock against Hillary and it would get my vote.

You could run a rock against Hillary and it would get my vote.
Exactly how I feel about any repubes!