First I compliment 'Logical Premise' for his warning that Ron Paul : the unanswered question is an opinion piece. It is also evident that he has "been reading and writing on this site for a tiny jot of time, reading a LOT, writing a little". He may even have read some of my prior columns, but if he did he chose to not heed my words presenting questions about undisputed evidence of MSM complicity in rigged US presidential elections. Maybe, like most voters, he was just too busy.
Thanks to the MSM, there's little doubt that a majority of [then] eligible voters heard in 2000 that most of them did not vote for GWB. Thanks also to the MSM a majority of eligible 2008 voters have not heard public debate of majority rule. Hence my first unanswered question on what electorates hear: Why are electorates hearing no public debate of majority rule during this campaign? Whether electorates would heed such debate is another question.
I also compliment 'Logical Premise' for publicly admitting he "very well could be TOTALLY, COMPLETELY off in my assessment of how this campaign has run". Could he admit that so far this campaign has run essentially like those before it? Republican and a Democrat nominees will be chosen by delegates from those candidates perceived to have the best chance of getting more votes than their traditional opponents. In doing this will delegates consider polls of candidates and their policies published and debated in the MSM [particularly as debated on television]? If we admit that delegates will consider polls of candidates and their policies published and debated in the MSM, clearly MSM conducting and reporting [or not] of such polls is up to MSM editors.
Given this media influence, can this campaign be run differently to get a different result than in the past? It would certainly be different if a majority of eligible 2008 voters did vote for either the Republican or the Democrat nominees! So how would this campaign need to be changed, and would such a result even be better? If anyone wants to debate on the side of minority rather than majority rule they'll find evidence in the links cited here, that both Ron Paul and Washington Post columnist Michael Kinsley are with you!
My second unanswered question is a longer one. If editors or their controllers claim to be serving the public [by such slogans as "We report. You Decide."] consistently suppress or misrepresent relevant facts and debate, including polling results, will the electorate hear that they may be committing fraud. Note that this is a separate allegation to that above of MSM [particularly the Washington Post] complicity in rigged US presidential elections, for which I take full responsibility.
Readers wanting an answer to Gary Trieste's unanswered legal question may also want to consider what jurisdiction they bring editors or their controllers into before serving notices. The burden of proof depends on whether before a civil or criminal court [think O J Simpson]. Civil courts require proof "on the balance of probabilities" while criminal courts need proof "beyond reasonable doubt".
However even if we do manage to get someone on say Rupert Murdoch's payroll into a court somewhere, there is one more unanswered question on what electorates will hear. What will electorates hear other MSM broadcasters and publishers report of such a case and its progress in court?
Finally if electorates hear none of the above questions before November, should that stop Ron Paul, or any other candidate with only a minority of voters choosing to heed them, being declared winner in 2008 and taking his oath in 2009? You may be surprised to learn that the precedent legal case, which voided a 1919 election was decided in 1920. Such is the power of the MSM controllers.
UPDATE:
'Logical Premise' has taken the time to comment and clearly we agree on the fundamentals of my article. However he has also presumed that I support Ron Paul. Like 'Logical Premise' I respect him as good man and a fine, upstanding Christian, and I admire his courage "under fire". However I would not vote for him even if I was eligible.
I had hoped that all the evidence of how the controllers of MSM editors maintain what Joel S. Hirschhorn in The Evolution of Evil called faux democracies is reason enough to refuse to vote in any election conducted by such states. In fact I join Joel S. Hirschhorn in his call to Boycott elections. Most eligible US voters already do but they then submit to the coercion by state officials because they believe [as I once did] the MSM propaganda about democratic government.
©2008 Multimediamonitor, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Saturday, February 2, 2008
Last modified: Sunday, February 3, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of Multimediamonitor only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Multimediamonitor is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Multimediamonitor of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Multimediamonitor |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Logical Premise
Date: 2008-02-02 15:46:19
Oh, I don't disagree with you. The MSM is utterly corrupted, by money , by having it's hand in politics, by being a fulcrum of mind control in this country.
But it stretches my credulity to believe that, out of all of the people on the planet, only a few million people who support Ron Paul have the mental acuity to bother to not get their news from the TV and read what is on the internet.
I've read his site, I disagree with 95% of the man's views, but I've shown it to friends even so, and THEY disagree with his views. Most of the logical people I know think (as do I) that Dr. Paul is a good man and a fine, upstanding Christian. But we see the world differnetly. That neither means I am blind, stupid, a sheep, under a spell, or mislead by the MSM. I've seen many different government systems and I enjoy historical study, and I simply fail to see the solutions evident.
IQ tests and my success in life tell me I am not stupid. Perhaps I am insane, deranged?
You ask"If editors or their controllers claim to be serving the public [by such slogans as "We report. You Decide."] consistently suppress or misrepresent relevant facts and debate, including polling results, will the electorate hear that they may be committing fraud."
Of course they won't. There have been strong evidences of vast amount of voter fraud for years. The electorate doesn't care because the electorate realizes that the only reason elections are even run in this country are to determine who is getting the barest majority of the vote. Once that is decided, I have no doubt the results are twiddled to fit whatever pattern the powers that be in the government want.
I 'm not such a fool, however, to believe that the President has the power. You honestly believe someone elected every four years through a Byzantine process that is so opaque and easily frauded, when all around him the people in charge of the military, intelligence gathering, and the economy go on for decades in office, is in CHARGE?
No, sir. The MSM is clearly acting against your canidate, but if you have heard his message ,then anyone else could have. I think there are two issues here. For the percentage of people too busy or too stupid or who don't have internet access and who depend on MSM for political news, yes your point is VERY valid. For people who have read his stuff, that's where my question comes in.
If the MSM is taken to court, there will have to be a very strong case made that there was a conspiracy to exclude certain canidates from coverage. If that is made the government won't survive the outcome, regardless.