I The Person
columnist: John Armstrong

Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
Is Fox News Killing Reagan Conservatism or Just Ron Paul and Fred Thompson?

---

Did you know that Fox News/News Corp. Execs are among Hillary Clinton's biggest Contributors?

---

by John Armstrong
(Libertarian)
Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Reagan Conservatives, before you read this article I want you to know who is writing it. The rest of you can skip to the article that begins after the next paragraph. John Armstrong is just a pseudonym, but if you have a good reason for wanting to know my real name, email me and I will be glad to tell you; I'll even give you my phone number or meet you for coffee when I'm home or in a town near you. I grew up on a farm in West Tennessee. I now live in Franklin (just south of Nashville) and have become a successful businessperson. I registered Republican in 1996 when I was attending liberal-haven UNC-Chapel Hill so I could vote for Jesse Helms and Bob Dole. I voted for Bush twice. I supported the invasion of Iraq six years ago. I loved Fox News.

But then something happened. I turned off my television and started to educate myself about the issues that Conservatives used to believe in but now only give lip-service to. These are the issues about which Fred himself challenged his opponents during the debates. I found that the Party of Reagan and Helms had become something else entirely different while I was sleeping. The words of a hymn my mom played on the piano of my Southern Baptist home church best describe the last six months of my life during this awakening process. Those word are: "I once was lost, but now am found; Was blind, but now I see." I am not a nutjob for Ron Paul. I am just like most of you; or at least like what you raised your sons to be. If I hadn't stumbled upon Ron Paul and read about him myself, I would have been a Friend of Fred as well. Now that we've cleared that up, here's the article (if you repost this, please start below--I'll probably repost it myself under a different name starting there):

Fred Thompson consistently called himself the only true conservative running for the GOP nomination.

Ron Paul supporters would argue that their candidate is even more conservative than Mr. Thompson, and his voting record on issues like abortion, government spending, and taxes would support this claim. Compare his record to Fred's if you'd like. Here it is:

Voting Records of GOP Candidates

So what is stopping the people who liked Fred because of his conservativism from jumping aboard the Ron Paul bandwagon?

Likely, it's the War in Iraq.

As any true Fox News watching Conservative will tell you, Ron Paul is a liberal pacifist who can't be trusted to keep us safe from Terrorists.

What few true Conservatives know is that Fox News executives (as of last July) had donated over $40,000 to HILLARY CLINTON!!!! It's true, click the link below.

[Link edited for length]

By December the amount executives at Fox News' parent corporation News Corp. had donated through a PAC to Clinton had reached $93,000, making them Clinton's 20th largest donor at the time. Here's a link to the article where I found this information:

[Link edited for length]

Despite the fact that Fox News personalities openly disparage Senator Clinton on air; if you consider yourself a true Conservative, you have to ask yourself this question: what do these contributions mean?

One possible answer is that they mean nothing. People in a free country are welcome to support whomever they wish for whatever reasons they choose.

Another meaning could be that Fox News secretly wants Hillary to win so that they can bash her for 4-8 years and increase their ratings to sell more advertising. In that case, it's not a bad investment because there would certainly be plenty to report.

Yet another interpretation of these donations is that Fox News is a business and it's always good to place some money on the horse favored to win so that it doesn't come back to haunt you later.

Perhaps they just wanted to say thanks to her for not meeting Bill's, um, desires thus creating the story that turned Fox News into a major news network.

Regardless of how it's interpreted, the real question that must be asked by Real Conservatives is this: If the people running the network we trust for Fair and Balanced News are giving our dollars (the ones we spend with their advertisers) to our supposed Enemy #1, while simultaneously bashing her, what other duplicities exist in their coverage of this presidential race?

To put it another way, your husband may tell you how morally opposed he is to strippers, but when you see a $1,000 withdrawal on your bank statement at "Monica's Cigar Gentleman's Club" it might be time to ask a few questions and figure out what's going on.

Here are a few good questions for starters:

If Fox wants to see Hillary lose, why didn't they give the money to John McCain since polls show he's the one GOP candidate who could beat her?

If News Corp supports Conservatives, why didn't News Corp execs give this money to Fred Thompson instead of Hillary Clinton?

If they report and we decide, why didn't they let Ron Paul into their debate before New Hampshire?

If the spin stops there, why has their paid pollster Frank Luntz twice specifically dismissed Ron Paul's performances in debates when text polls from the same debates declared him the winner?

If they believe in the Constitution and the First Amendment, why was Ron Paul's response to a question about electability edited out in the rebroadcast of the South Carolina debate?

Why did an article I wrote yesterday in support of Ron Paul but with a sneaky name which someone reposted on hannity.com get taken down when it made it onto the 'hot topics' part of the page? In fairness, this may have violated one of the board's terms of usage that I haven't read. Man, I sound like an abused woman defending her assailant because at one point she really loved him and thought he loved her too. I think Hannity was the first person that made me google "libertarian" when he described his views by using that word. Funny how times change. Even with overwhelming evidence of censorship, and this one is personal, I still don't want to believe. Here's the link, I post; you decide. Click on all of the links to check it out for yourself.

[Link edited for length]

What is it, true Conservative Friend of Fred, that Fox News doesn't want you to know about Ron Paul? And why don't they want you to know it?

Could it be that his position on Iraq is grounded in Conservatism and in the Constitution he swore to protect? Although you may have heard differently, he is not a pacifist, liberal, pandering to voters in order to win an election like a far left Democrat. Want proof? If you can read these questions Ron Paul asked in Congress before the invasion and still honestly believe that Ron Paul's reason for not supporting the War are either unpatriotic or liberal, or that he isn't actually interested in catching the people actually responsible for what happened that September day, I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona you might be interested in buying as well.

Could it be that Fox News doesn't want you to remember the original reasons we were sold for going into Iraq because they have somehow done such an incredible job of tying that invasion (which is ruining the value of your dollar, making America less safe, but is making Rupert Murdoch wealthier) to Terrorism, Patriotism, and spreading democracy?

Could it be that if Conservatives knew the truth and actually elected Ron Paul, Fox News wouldn't have much to report about any more since he actually looks at solutions to problems instead of blaming the Democrats for everything?

Is it possible that Ron Paul is accused of "blaming America" for 9/11 so that you will dislike him enough to not find out that he is really just stating the same reasons the C.I.A. and 9/11 commission report listed as a major contributing factors (our interventionist foreign policy and permanent bases in Muslim countries) for those attacks? After all why research a statement made by a "crackpot who hates America"? Especially if that person has no chance of being elected? Ignore the man behind the curtain.

Can you really not see that Fox may have something to gain by keeping the Most Powerful Country in the History of the World afraid of a band of angry mountain nomads and theocratic leaders by giving them scary names like "Islamojihadist-fascists" and "Evil Dictators"? The more afraid you are, the easier you are to control. Don't believe me? Imagine what you would do if you had a gun to your head that you would otherwise never consider.

If Fox is so steadfast in its position to win the War, why don't they ever tell us what it actually means to win and how we'll know when we have? Could it be that they really don't want it to end?

Is it possible that Fox News doesn't want you to know the truth about Ron Paul? You know, that truth about him actually being a conservative. But not just a conservative, a Reagan Conservative as financial guru Donald Luskin explained so well in his endorsement of Ron Paul for President in the National Review yesterday.

Could it be that they don't want you to know these things because Fox News really doesn't want a Real Conservative to win?

Think about it; if they did want a Conservative to win,why didn't they support your man Fred instead of Hillary Clinton?

Just asking.

These things may all seem slightly conspiratorial. If so I apologize for wording the message poorly. Six months ago, I may have felt the same way. My answers to these questions would have been very different than they are today. Then again, if you'd asked me if I believed that News Corp execs would be among Hillary Clinton's largest donors six months ago, the answer to that question would have also been very different than the one I'd give today. In both cases, the first answer would have been based on idealism, and the second would be based on objective facts. On which will you base your decision ?

Hunter, Tancredo, and Fred are dead. Paul is in the cross-hairs. Will you learn the truth or just do as you're told?

Your Fellow American,

John Armstrong

Like this Article? Thumb it.

Digg it if you know how; I don't.

Want to send it to friends? Send it to yourself first using the link below and then forward it to avoid spam filters.

Comment, it's fun.

Want a date or to assail me privately? Send pictures or comments to: [link edited for length]. Otherwise, post below.

As always, unlike the NFL, you have the author's permission to give accounts of, rebroadcast, retransmit, reproduce, or do anything else you'd like with this article to promote the Restoration of our Republic. Please post the link if you do repost this because I sometimes update the articles after their initial writing. But if you don't, don't worry about it--the message is more important than any minor corrections.

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
154 thumbs so far

©2008 John Armstrong, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Last modified: Friday, July 18, 2008

The views expressed in this article are those of John Armstrong only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. John Armstrong 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 John Armstrong of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.