Monday, February 4, 2008

Ron Paul and Pius IX

John Zmirak, of Taki's Top Drawer, offers a provocative argument in favor of the Ron Paul Revolution and what could be called Tory anti-statism:

It seems clear that the public sphere in America is irretrievably secular. So the only logical response of Christians must be to try to shrink it. Instead of attempting to baptize a Leviathan which turned on us long ago, we’d do much better to cage and starve the beast. We should favor low taxes—period, regardless of the “good” use to which politicians promise to put it. We should oppose nearly every government program intended to achieve any aim whatsoever. We can make exceptions here and there: We can favor the protection of innocent lives, which would cover things like fixing traffic lights and throwing abortionists into prison. But that is pretty much that. Christian public policy should focus not on capturing the power of the State but shrinking it, to the bare minimum required to enforce individual rights, narrowly defined. Likewise, the share of our wealth seized by the state must be radically slashed, to allow for private initiatives and charities that will not be amoral, soulless, bureaucratic and counterproductive (like the secular welfare state). Instead of asking for handouts to our schools in the forms of vouchers, we should seek the privatization of public schools—which by their very nature, in today’s post-Christian America, are engines of secularism. And so on for nearly every institution of the centralized State, which has hijacked the rightful activities of civil society and the churches, and which every year steals so much of our wealth to squander on itself that we can barely afford to reproduce ourselves.

Zmirak concludes, that while he would essentially prefer a return of the Hapsburg dynasty and that the unity of the crown and altar can be persued in some communities, it cannot be done so here in the good ole USA:

In many cultural contexts, the State can fruitfully employ its power to promote the faith and morals held in common by a community. But that can’t happen here. Not in America. Several of our Founders, and generations of our lawyers, have seen to that. We have no more reason to cooperate with the secular state than Irishmen have to trust the British Crown. And that’s how I reconcile Ron Paul with Pius IX.

Saturday, February 2, 2008

Colbert on Ron Paul

Stephen Colbert, political satirist and practicing Catholic, has a hillarious piece on Ron Paul's latest performance at the Republican debate:

Friday, February 1, 2008

The Federal Reserve is No Magisterium

Nicholas von Hoffman writes in The Nation:

Paul is the contender who seems to understand that the Federal Reserve Board is not the Vatican and that its chairman, Ben Bernanke, is not the pope. It's a fixed practice by our politicians to treat whoever is the chairman of the Fed as though he were endowed with infallible powers.

On Wall Street, the sharper ones know better. They understand that lowering interest rates every time the stock market swoons will eventually, or even a lot sooner, bring a world of pain down on us. As it is, thanks to the Fed, interest rates are lower than the rate of inflation. This anomalous condition is called "negative interest," and for savers it means that their money is disappearing even as it rests safely tucked away in certificates of deposit.

Our country's pervasive monetary ignorance is finally yielding to the wise instruction of Ron Paul and the bitter lessons of current experience. Inflation has been a problem in this country for many years, primarily from the fractional reserve banking practices of the Federal Reserve system. To Catholics who are interested in the moral problems behind economic phenomena, I urge a reading of this great essay by Professor Jorg Guido Hulsmann called "The Cultural and Spiritual Legacy of Fiat Inflation":
The spiritual dimension of these inflation-induced habits seems to be obvious. Money and financial questions come to play an exaggerated role in the life of man. Inflation makes society materialistic. More and more people strive for money income at the expense of personal happiness. Inflation-induced geographical mobility artificially weakens family bonds and patriotic loyalty. Many of those who tend to be greedy, envious, and niggardly anyway fall prey to sin. Even those who are not so inclined by their natures will be exposed to temptations they would not otherwise have felt. And because the vagaries of the financial markets also provide a ready excuse for an excessively parsimonious use of one’s money, donations for charitable institutions will decline.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

National Catholic Register on Ron Paul

Today's headline piece in the National Catholic Register, "Ron Paul Draws Passionate Support", by Charlie Spiering features two quotations from yours truly:

Paul stands alone among the Republican presidential candidates as one who voted against the Iraq war, stating that it was unconstitutional, since it never received a congressional declaration of war. If elected president, Paul promises to withdraw troops from Iraq.

Thomas Peters, who runs the blog American Papist, contributes to a blog called Catholics for Ron Paul. He noted that since the Vatican hasn’t spoken magisterially about the Iraq war, Catholics can continue to debate the issue. “He [Paul] has philosophical and rational reasons for why he thinks that American involvement isn’t the best choice,” said Peters. “He examines the question using principles of just war theory, specifically speaking about the Christian tradition of a just war,” he added.

Paul mentioned the Vatican’s comments regarding the Iraq War when paying tribute to John Paul II’s legacy. “The Pope’s commitment to human dignity, grounded in the teachings of Christ, led him to become one of the most eloquent spokesmen for the consistent ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia and the death penalty,” he said on the floor of the House of Representatives on April 6, 2005, four days after the Pope’s death.

Although initially a supporter of the death penalty, Paul changed his position after studying the issue throughout his political career.

Some religious voters remain skeptical about a vote for Paul, as his strict interpretation for the Constitution pits him against federal legislation to ban prostitution, drugs and homosexual “marriage.”

Peters said, “Ron Paul voted against the marriage amendment, but only because he thought it was non-constitutional, not because he doesn’t think marriage isn’t a union of a man and a woman.”

Ron Paul addressed the March for Life yesterday, but sadly I missed it. There were several Ron Paul supporters at the March, some of them carrying "Ron Paul for Life" banners.

Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade) endorsed Dr. Paul for President yesterday, as Casey Khan predicted on Monday.

Monday, January 21, 2008

Ron Paul & Jane Roe

The word on the street, with regard to tomorrow's March for Life, is that Norma Leah McCorvey, Jane Roe of the infamous Roe v. Wade, is going to hold a press conference with Dr. Paul at 10:30am at the Phoenix Park Hotel on the Hill.

According to David Freddoso at National Review Online, "The campaign would not directly answer whether she's going to endorse Paul, but they sure hinted at it."

For more on Ron Paul's pro-life views see here & here.

For a fresh approach to the abortion problem, see the We the People Act: HR 300, proposed by Ron Paul.

Friday, January 18, 2008

America: Ron Paul and Catholic Social Teaching

Micheal Sean Winters has written a ridiculous blog post titled "Ron Paul, Libertarianism, and Catholic Social Teaching" for the left oriented Jesuit publication America. Nice title for a piece where only one mere sliver of Catholic Social Teaching is even mentioned. Further, he takes a very narrow view of libertarianism, namely the libertine variety that is often associated with places like the Cato Institute and he claims the libertarian patron saint is none other than the uber-egoist Ayn Rand. Of course, if this was libertarianism properly understood, as a universal philosophy of living life, then Catholics have no place holding such a political philosophy.

However, if there were ever a patron saint of libertarianism, particularly in the modern era, it would probably be the Catholic political philosopher Lord Acton, who famously stated that "Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end." While Acton holds such a high view of liberty, it should be noted that this view does not go beyond what is political. In other words, Winters is correct when he says "[Catholics] do not value human autonomy..." Naturally, the human person is more than just some automaton living out an existence of extreme independence. From birth, we are dependent on parents. At extreme old age and infirmity, we are dependent on our children and our siblings. In our economy, we are interdependent on the actions of our fellow man by making mutual gains from exchange, trade. Most importantly, as Catholics we are dependent on God. Without, the Lord the Giver of life, we'd have no life. Without the sacrifice of the Son on Calvary, we'd have no Resurrection. And so we come to the highest end of humanity, to love the Lord our God with all our hearts and all our souls. Thus, it is not a necessary condition that libertarian political ideal need be construed to encompass all facets of a persons life beyond its practice politically.

Libertarian political thought can be summarized as the Golden Rule in negative form, do not to your brothers as you would have not done to you. This ideal should be seen as a bare minimum for human interaction, and not as a complete universal to human interaction. Caritas to our fellow man is still required, but it does not follow that it is to be carried out through means of brute force and coercion. The Catholic or Christian libertarian simply looks to follow the Golden Rule in negative form regarding political interaction, and in positive form for the balance of his human interaction.

I'd recommend Winters look beyond the libertines to other sources of libertarian thought before spouting his mouth off about things he does not understand. Reading authors like Locke and Cicero, as well as to Catholic sources like John of Salisbury and the Spaniards at Salamanca of the Late Scholastic period to get a sense of where libertarians might be coming from. Besides since when was the Cato Institute the Libertarian Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? Winters argues that since Cato once had a vile conference promoting a book on genetically altered "Designer Babies", that this passes for libertarian thinking everywhere. Winters seems to have no idea that the Cato Institute has never had nor ever will have any amity with Ron Paul. And as to why he didn't get the memo from his New Republic buddies on their well timed smear of Ron Paul, I don't know? In any case, Ron Paul has always been outside what is often held as mainstream libertarianism, namely because he's a pro-life country doctor and family man, that views libertarianism as a political philosophy and not as some means to live a life of decadent license. Ron Paul doesn't exasperate people like Winters at their cosmopolitan dinner parties with talk of eliminating traffic signals. No instead, Paul just goes home to see the grand kids.

So while we're talking about life, liberty, and Catholic Social Teaching, let's see how Winters measures up Paul.


Winters, like most others, derides Ron Paul's foreign policy as isolationist. What practitioner of Catholic Social Teaching does Winters site in refutation? That Catholic paragon known as Harry Truman of course. Winters could at least cite George Weigel or Father Neuhaus, but Truman? You know, the only man crazy enough to deploy nuclear weapons against human beings at two of Japan's largest Christian cities. So, in a truly nuclear move, "[Paul's] isolationist foreign policy views were happily repudiated by Harry Truman and GOP Sen. Arthur Vandenberg more than 50 years ago." I guess the murders at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a smashing success in destroying the idea of an "isolationist" foreign policy. Maybe Winters is referring to the United Nations and all the fruitful works that have resulted with its interventions in Korea, Palestine, and the Balkans. But, then again, mass death comes with the blue helmets too. In any case, in calling Ron Paul a "wingnut" Winters fails to address Paul's invocation of St. Augustine's Just War thesis or his call to consider the Golden Rule when thinking about foreign regimes. It is quite disconcerting when an author at a prominent Jesuit publication derides a non-interventionist foreign policy invoking peace, diplomacy, and trade in an off handed manner by means of Harry Truman, an acolyte of belligerent warmongery. Paul's foreign policy can be rightly described by John XXIII's encyclical, Pacem in Terris, as a method to regulate relations between the US and other states by the principle of freedom. "This means that no country has the right to take any action that would constitute an unjust oppression of other countries, or an unwarranted interference in their affairs." Which is exactly what Ron Paul has consistently called for on the floor of the House of Representatives, in the GOP debates, and on the campaign trail. As for Truman's foreign policy, you know the Satanic idea that we have to kill them over there before they might try to think about killing us over here, Elizabeth Anscombe gets it right reminding us of Saint Paul who argued that we must not do evil that good may come:

"When I say that to choose to kill the innocent as a means to one's ends is murder, I am saying what would generally be accepted as correct. But I shall be asked for my definition of "the innocent". I will give it, but later. Here, it is not necessary; for with Hiroshima and Nagasaki we are not confronted with a borderline case. In the bombing of these cities it was certainly decided to kill the innocent as a means to an end."

Gold Standard

If one does not understand how the Federal Reserve operates, essentially by what is called fractional reserve banking, I can understand how they might not be alarmed by what is being done to our currency. However, through the means of merely printing money with no disciplined approach, the Federal Reserve has dramatically decreased the purchasing power of our currency. To those who worry about the ideal of a Just Wage, they should consider Ron Paul's arguments in favor of the gold standard as a means of reigning in a regime of monetary permissiveness that has consistently operated to serve the best interests of Wall Street bankers and corporate America. Further, monetary permissiveness has hurt most those living on fixed incomes, particularly the elderly. It is my understanding that all government policies, in light of the CST, should consider the common good rather than the private interests of a business elite. I'd hope writers at America who show concern for America's poor would consider how a stable currency comports with a view to the common good, in contrast to the chaos and hyper-speculative activity that results from fractional reserve banking.

Social Welfare Programs

It is true that Dr. Paul wishes, in the long run, to eliminate Federal welfare programs as well as federal income tax. However, he does take the realistic view that Social Security, Welfare, and VA benefits are programs that people have become dependent on which will take time to eliminate. He has consistently said that by reigning in our interventionist foreign policy, that he would use such funding to continue provide Federal welfare for those in need. Which brings us back to libertarians and understanding the human coniditon, where Paul recognizes the fact that many are dependent on such programs and that it would be inhumane to cut people from them cold turkey. Of course what is at stake for these people is their dignity, and as such, it is the hope of some Catholic libertarians that when government forms of welfare are eliminated, private forms of Catholic charity can more than fill the gap with the vigor and love which they have been renowned for hundreds of years. It's time to stop crowding out charity based on caritas, with the bureaucratic form, dull and lifeless.

Next time, when Micheal Sean Winters writes about Ron Paul's policy ideas and Catholic Social Teaching, maybe he could address them substantively, based on research about Ron Paul's actual ideas and not on some libertine caricatures. Hopefully he'll actually address, in some manner, the social teaching of the Church.

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Ron Paul, Race, & Life

The last few days have been a trying time for Ron Paul and his followers with regard to past newsletters. There is no denying that some of the content of these newsletters are particularly objectionable. Here is the now famous assertions about these newsletters which have come up in The New Republic. Of these reported newsletters, some, though not all the material is objectionable. The comments that deserve condemnation, are the characterizations of black people as "animals" and "fleet footed." These comments are racist and they violate the commandment that we shall "love our neighbor." There are also some objectionable and potentially slanderous comments about Dr. Martin Luther King. Without proof of these allegations about King, such comments violate the commandment to not bear false witness against our neighbors, which I think includes the dead.

Ron Paul has said in apology, "The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin... I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

These past actions present an opportunity and should be seen as a blessing by the Ron Paul movement, as well as by the conservatives and libertarians who are advancing this small but growing political revolution. So let us take this opportunity to examine Ron Paul's consistent views on life and liberty and how they comport with a view of race that is rooted in agape, or love of fellow man. Of course, humanity itself does not exist without life, and as Paul has correctly explained, without life, there is no liberty. From the teaching of the Church, we know that life begins at conception. As such, Ron Paul has introduced Federal legislation recognizing this fundamental precept.

An ongoing discussion in the pro-life movement is the notion that the proliferation of abortion and contraception, originating in the Progressive Era of the 1900's, had a substantial eugenic motive to root out blacks, Catholics, and other minorities for the supremacy of the white race. Planned Parenthood foundress, Mary Margaret Sanger is often regarded as one such supremacist. In speaking about her Negro Project, Sanger states:

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Enter pro-life advocate Dr. Alveda King. King is the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King and a victim of a forced abortion as well as one of her own choice. King reports that since 1973, 15 million black people have met the fate of abortion such that "[r]oughly one quarter of the black population is now missing."

“The great irony,” King said, “is that abortion has done what the Klan only dreamed of.”

Naturally, it makes sense that Sanger did her time with the evil Klan.

Which brings us back to Ron Paul. Dr. Paul, a pro-life obstetrician, makes a natural ally with Dr. Alveda King. He offers a fresh approach to the federal pro-life strategy in seeking to eliminate all funding of Planned Parenthood, as well as eliminating Federal court jurisdiction to hear cases regarding sexual matters and abortion. By such elimination of judicial review of such cases, they can be remanded to the states, where at least some pro-life states can enforce the law against such a murderous act. The murder of so many which includes a disproportionate number of blacks and hispanics, is as King argues, genocide.

In giving her testimony to life, King says:

"So I want to remind you, that the babies are lights too, and they have life. And so as we choose life, then we're giving life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all people, and that is really the civil rights issue of the day."

Therefore, the Ron Paul Revolution would do well to heed the wisdom of the true heir to Martin Luther King's civil rights legacy, and speak out against the hard hearts which bring about the hatred which leads to both the evils of racism and abortion.

To that end, here are some more pro-life resources:

Priests for Life
National Black Pro-Life Union
Bioethics Defense Fund

Update: Next Ron Paul Money Bomb is the day before the March for Life, Martin Luther King Day.

Saturday, January 12, 2008

The State Cannot Replace Caritas

The comboxes have had some great discussion lately. One of our commenters correctly states in regards to Ron Paul's stance of a de facto foreign policy:

"Neglecting the rest of humanity and hiding behind our own borders in wealth and prosperity with a 'too bad for you' attitude isn't compatible with Christianity."

Absolutely correct! However, it does not follow that government and the use of force must be the particular means of serving the rest of humanity. Actually, it means we are required to do a whole lot more. It means that we as Catholic Christians have the positive obligation to help the rest of the world by giving more with our gifts of time, talent, and treasure. We must do this through the Church, through private charity, and by giving with our right hand so that our left knows not. Of course, this means more prayer for, more reflection of, more listening to, and more understanding about the rest of the world. Too often in our age, we are willing to let the state serve as our proxy for caritas.

Friday, January 11, 2008

Some Advice for Ron Paul

Did anyone notice this?

Is it just a coincidence that Fox News excluded Ron Paul from the pre-primary debates and then lost market share in the primary night ratings? What does this say about how the public are perceiving Fox News as fair and balanced?

Ron Paul has an opportunity because people are beginning to see him not as a silly old man (a la Gravel), but rather as a man of character who is being beat-up on for standing on selfless principle by enormously powerful forces.

Think of this as a good movie. What is needed for him to win.

First you need the audience/public to identify and empathize with the hero. This, has happened with the exclusion from the Fox debate and the money bombs (small guy winning over the big guys). The smear campaign is designed to destroy empathy with the hero.

After empathy we need a conflict, a battle where our hero is seen fighting the good fight.

This is what Ron Paul has to do.

1. He has to defend himself better and present his ideas in fresh terms that exposes the other candidates for what they are.

2. He has to stop the "class room style" tone, and adopt a "I'm here to save the nation" tone that is deeply seriousness and forceful (but not angry) [his voice should be deeper and stronger and he should talk more slowly when making his points]

3. When he is laughed at or set-up by the other candidates or Fox News, he has to chastise them for "playing fun" and "having a good time" when the American people are facing gravely serious issues in this election. He kind of did this last night when asked about 9/11 Truthers. He responded by saying, "May I contribute to this substantive debate?" That scored points. He needs to speak on behalf of the American people, so that when the others attack him, we see them attacking the American people.

As the campaign progresses, the economy will grow in importance as an issue. Ron Paul has to frame his arguments from the point of view of Ma and Pa American. He has to take on a populist tone, but with his substantive principles. He has to attack the other candidates as a champion and defender of the American people.

Yes our Constitutional Republic is at stake, yes Austrian Economics tells us that we are headed for a fall, yes the war is a fraud of the military industrial complex, but tell us from Ma and Pa perspective.

Ron Paul did this beautifully in the McCain exchange about 100 years in Iraq. He said that McCain had no right to commit 5 generations of boys and girls to die in Iraq. This kind of framing is what is needed for his arguments. And he needs to make these arguments in a deeply serious way, while directly going after the other candidates (and needs to prepare follow up comments for their likely comebacks).

For example, it is not enough to say we are going bankrupt, or that we don't have the money, Ron Paul has to talk about this from the perspective of middle class Americans in a concrete and personal way.

In short, the hero of this movie has to become the voice of the American people and fight for them. He has to be a zealous doctor fighting for his patient against the parasites that are killing her.

When the antagonists comes after Paul, it will be the American people who they are attacking, not him or his ideas.

Ron Paul has so much substance and principle, he just needs to place it in the service of the American people and fight for them on the issues, more so than his (very valid and powerful) ideas.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Paul's Finest Moment

I've been a little down of late, with the poor results in New Hampshire and the latest smear attempts with regards to the old newsletters, but tonight's debate was a truly inspiring performance by Ron Paul. Here's my comment on his performance over at LewRockwell:

Lew, I think it was when the silly moderator tried to take Paul out of the substantive debate by harping on his de minimis following by 911 truthers. He forcefully but politely asked to be included in the actual debate, to which he was, where he performed masterfully. Also, I think the doctor deserves credit for keeping up the good fight for peace and freedom. Unlike the others on that stage, who are there seeking power for their own personal glory, Paul is not there for himself, but the cause. I'm sure there are times, especially when the smear artists are in full effect, that he would like to go home and spend his time with his noble family. But Paul keeps on going. He keeps advancing the argument and instructing the ignorant in the face of laughter and ridicule; in spite of his own self-acknowledged faults. While he may not even realize it himself, he's teaching us libertarians, both cosmopolitan and provincial, how to act with courage, fortitude, and dignity. So in short, what we are currently witnessing by Ron Paul in his struggle to keep on in the face of adversity and seemingly insurmountable odds, is his finest moment.

Here is blessing reminder for Ron Paul: "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God."

And a blessing to all libertarians and the Ron Paul Revolution: "Blessed are they that hunger and thirst for justice: for they will be satisfied."

Ron Paul Mentioned on EWTN

The good doctor's stellar pro-life record is mentioned on EWTN.

Friday, January 4, 2008

Fox News, You Had Me at "Spin"

Well the first caucus is over and it is time to take a moment and remember how it all started back at the first Republican Debate. Fox News was there to help us all figure out who can and who can't be elected President.

Ah, remember the good old days when Rudy was "The Man" Fox News wanted us to love?

Isn't it fun to remember?

Didn't Ron Paul kick Rudy's butt in Iowa?

It is fun to remember, isn't it?

Here is your moment of virtue: Ron Paul's humility vs. Fox New's smarmy arrogance. Enjoy!

Why Fox News is Excluding Ron Paul

Fox News is coming under a lot of pressure for excluding Ron Paul from their up coming Presidential Forum, but they are fighting tooth and nail to keep him out.

Their excuse is so stupid, it makes one want to vomit for the sheer evil that it attempts to veil.

From the very first debate, they have consistently lied to the American public about Ron Paul and have tried every dirty trick in the book to murder his campaign. But it hasn't worked and now they are scared because no matter how often they say "Ron Paul can't win," his support keeps growing.

Why does Ron Paul scare Fox News?

Because Fox News represents the interests of global elites, including banking elites.

Have a look at who is on the Corporate Governance of News Corporation (the owner of Fox News). Among these is Andrew Knight, the director of the Rothschild Investment Trust. The Rothschild's are the world's bankers.

Ron Paul has been a consistent and articulate critic of central banking in America.

The Federal Reserve is a privately owned central bank (no one even knows who owns it) that gets to print money out of thin air, control the supply of money by lending that money to the Government and to big business, and then Jane and Joe America gets the privilege of paying for that money through oppressive income tax to the IRS (see Ronald Regan's Grace Report, "100 percent of what is collected [of the income tax] is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt" - that is, 100% of your income tax goes directly to private bankers to pay down the interest on the loans that Government has taken to pay for the Warfare State, the Welfare State and maintain its empire around the world).

The system of central banking and the "inflation tax" that it makes possible is why "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." It is not for lack of hard work that there is a shrinking middle class, it is because the very system in which we work is stacked aggressively against the poor and middle class.

For Ron Paul's entire political career he has been a lone voice in the wilderness crying out for justice on these issues and the restoration of the Constitution.

You see, the Constitution doesn't call for a central bank (and in fact, we don't need one), and the Federal Income Tax is un-Constitutional (which is why your senator will call it the "voluntary" income tax on the senate floor), and our fiat money system is also un-Constitutional because it calls for hard currency backed by silver and gold (our Founding Father's fought against central banking and fiat money because they know how it would turn the American people into slaves to the "Money Power.")

Ron Paul has been articulating the philosophical, moral, legal, economic and most of all Constitutional foundations for the Liberty we so dearly love in America.

The global elites would rather you be stupid sheep and keep working 60 hour weeks just to make ends meet and then give up to 50% of the fruits of your labor to the central bankers.

The Washington elites would rather you be stupid sheep and do what you are told so they can continue spending like a drunken sailor and send our country into an economic crash that will make the Great Depression look wonderful.

And the media elites are owned by interests working against the American people and American sovereignty.

That is why Fox News doesn't want Ron Paul to be at the forum this weekend. Fox News wants to dictate who can and can not be your President.

Since when was it the Media's job to pick our President?

Fox News wants you to believe that their mobile studio isn't big enough to fit Ron Paul at the table.

They don't want you to believe that it has anything to do with the powerful message that Ron Paul is spreading across this country. A message of freedom, peace and prosperity.

Fox News, a new day is dawning!

Go Ron Paul!