The more that Ron Paul is pushed by his supporters to TV exposure, the farther he drifts away from the GOP presidential nomination.  I don’t think his propagandists realized that forcing him into the limelight in fact dims his future.

It is much easier to sell a refrigerator to the Eskimos than to sell an “unelectable” candidate to the public.

Here in this FoxNews Panel discussion attended by mixed Party representatives and representatives of the Media, Paul indicated he will not support a GOP 2012 standard bearer if it is not him!  So the Panel decided he was no use to the Republican Party and just threw him out of the Debates.

 Is still there any doubt why the Media is continuously IGNORING him?

There are several tapes here. Click on the tape that shows a committee hearing where Paul’s publicists were projecting his bravado at the expense of Fed Chairman Bernanke – the pitch was Bernanke was no match to Ron Paul’s “Economics”.

On the contrary, Bernanke, a master economist with a Ph.D. in Economics – his bread & butter – in fact ignored Ron Paul for asking “bizarre” questions on Economics only he knows.

Asked by the Panel why Bernanke did not answer or appeared slow or disinterested in answering Ron Paul’s questions on Economics, on the state of the economy and a litany of faults of the Federal Reserves, the Texas Congressman was asking “bizarre” questions – the bored Bernanke retorted.

Unable to understand the function of the Fed, Bernanke had to explain to Paul why the Fed was created. There was an insinuation of some kind of hanky-panky or “monetary piracy” going on in the daily transactions of the Fed. Bernanke assured Paul: It’s not what you think.

Paul was non-stop talking about his Economics and on the state of the economy, which holders of Ph.D. in Economics heard for the first time. There were no answers to those strange questions on Economics because those questions were “bizarre” – Bernanke.

That's some of the silliest talk I've heard you say yet, V.T..

What are the debates for? Aren't the debates there to show the public what the candidates' platforms are, and what their thinking is on all kinds of subjects?

Almost nobody had heard of Obama up until a few short months before the election. Yet, here he is... President.

The opinion of a lot of people, that Ron Paul is not electable, is the exact reason he should be included in the debates... to find out if the American public thinks he is not electable.

Consider the video in this article. There were people in the video suggesting that R.P had a solid 7% backing. That's a tremendous amount of backing for someone who has some pretty radical-seeming ideas about freedom. That doesn't sound like someone who is necessarily not electable. It sounds more like someone who might have a chance if he were introduced to the nation through the debates.

Personally, I think that you and the media are afraid of freedom. You're afraid that if R.P. does get elected, you might have to give up your welfare check, and actually put yourself on the line by maintaining a real job.

Just like when I had Mormons "HELP" me move my business out of their "KINDNESS"... I ensued about $40,000 + in damages and almost lost my entire business that my entire life work was poured into due to PASSIVE-AGRRESSIVE FRENEMIES.  Don't trust that people that push Ron Paul, really want Ron Paul to win...  Not to difficult for a parasite to glom on and  try to make Ron Paul look bad. 

PureTrust, right and wrong again!

Yours: "That's some of the silliest talk I've heard you say yet, V.T." WRONG. I’m not the one who took Ron Paul out of the GOP Debates for being useless to the Republicans [he indicated he will not support a GOP nominee unless it is him]. The Panel at FoxNews.com represented by discussants of DIFFERENT and OPPOSING political orientations agreed that he is useless to the Republican Party and decided to yank him out of [ignore, pull out] the GOP Debates. I did not "talk" about it as if you heard me talking in a dream … I REPORTED it!

If you want I will forward to them this "silliest talk" you have heard … yes to them to whom you should have directed your comment in the first place – not to me.

Yours: "Personally, I think that you and the media are afraid of freedom. RIGHT. Not just the Media but also 92% [the remaining 7% are his television-scripted "supporters"] of the voting population nationwide are "afraid" [your word] of the kind of "freedom" that Ron Paul has in mind, i.e. the freedom to drink raw milk and eat unpasteurized milk products which is freedom to contract diseases associated with it and the freedom to spread an epidemic, and the freedom to farm and serve farm products to the public as food that are not fit for human consumption and lately was recorded as not even fit as feed for hogs!

Yours: "You're afraid that if R.P. does get elected, you might have to give up your welfare check, and actually put yourself on the line by maintaining a real job." Absolutely WRONG. R.P. getting elected President? That’s even a bad dream. It’s not going to happen even if the crow turns white. [Bakadude]

Sorry if this kills your hope that someday R.P. is going to be President – that possibility is not even close to a Chinaman’s chance of getting elected President in this country!

Besides, as a reminder to all and sundry, the American people ARE NOT THAT STUPID … the voting population will never …never ever reward Ron Paul the U.S. presidency after he absolved Al Qaeda terrorists of the 911 attacks and blamed the American people of the infamy!

With this, I am tapping heads in Ron Paul’s dream world … wake them up to face reality.

Oh, baka, I mean, V.T.. You're so fun. Now you "REPORTED it."

It says right in the FP part of the article that Ernie reported it. Look above. "Reported by Ernest Hancock."

Chuckle, chuckle.

VT, I guess that you and Ernie Hancock know more than Dr. Paul, a man who is an MD, years your seniors (I am certain) and that you ONLY WANT US ALL TO KNOW HOW MUCH THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS CONTROLLERS REALLY DO LOVE ALL OF US...   Is that why you can't purchase anything today with a slight amount of some kind of POISON?  I've heard that even "natural flavors" and "lake" is poison, the source, not sure of... but would it surprise me after learning about aspartame?  Not at all.  After all our controllers don't want population control, no, not at all, that is why these elites think nothing of bombing and warmongering killing thousands upon millions for profit.

You guys are too much.  I mean really.  I see perhaps some people are just yanking chains ya think?

Ernie reported it? No, he actually did not!

Oh, PureTrust my friend … when will I ever stop explaining to you what you hardly understand or if you do, refuse to understand? Here, let me go back to the blackboard again:

This news event about Ron Paul being thrown out of the GOP debates, occurred in Fox News Channel, picked up by YouTube, and "reported" by Ernie. In Journalism, the real meaning of the word "Reporter" refers to one who either witnessed or heard about the occurrence of an event and telecast, broadcast it on the radio, televise or show it on TV [broadcast journalism] or write and publish it [print journalism]. By doing this, THE NEWS REPORTER HAS ALWAYS AN "INPUT" in it ... in layman's term -- an "explanation" of the event or occurrence of an event. The FOUR-Ws in newsreporting is no longer required in Development Journalism [since space is limited, I hope you have studied Journalism so that I do not need to elongate this basic portion of newsreporting any further.]

In this sense, without an INPUT in it, Ernie is simply a "gatherer" or a "collector" of news or articles that have already been REPORTED by a REPORTER or written by an author. In this news report – Take Ron Paul Out Of The Debates – Ernie has NO input – I have, and you have read it. So in Journalism, by definition, I am a Reporter and Ernie is merely a medium of transfer of information of this event to this website. "Reported by" is actually a misnomer. This is supported by proof as to how news are transferred to FP.com under the misnomer "reported by", according to the written instructions of the Publisher how to do it if you move news reports reported by others to this website.

Consequently, the words "Reported by Ernest Hancock" does not mean that he is a "Reporter" per illustrations of the meaning of this term in the science of Journalism that I taught in the Academe. He is merely a "gatherer" or "collector" of news or events that had already been reported by YouTube from Fox News Channel.

Observe FP.com’s published procedure how without any INPUT Ernie merely "transferred" this news event to this website:

1. "Discover a news story, article, or Opinion on another website" [that has already been reported or written by a reporter or author].

2. State your name or personal "information and "e-mail address".

3. Put the "Story date" and Source [reporter, author, publication or website] where you got it.

4. "Describe" it in a sentence or two or in a paragraph just to identify it as to what kind of a "news category" it is.

5. State the Url link.

6. Then go to the News Category and click on it, and lo! it is done! There is no requirement of any explanation whatsoever why and how it happened, or what it means once Ron Paul is thrown out of the GOP debates [INPUT] … the very soul or essence of the news report. Ernie didn’t do this – I did.

If you follow the above-stated procedure, then presto! … Fox News Channel’s "Take Ron Paul Out Of The Debates" reported in the Internet by YouTube, and "gathered" or picked up by Ernie, now appears in FP.com’s front page!

Let me help you understand what Internet Journalism called SOCIAL MEDIA means.

A news or news event that occurs is reported by the public, not necessarily by Journalists or Publishers like Ernie. I must tell you that the current modern information technology is amazing … anyone’s ipod, cellphone camera, and what have you, "captures" those happenings or news events, then posted in the Internet and shared by the whole world. You have an idea what the likes of Twitter or Facebook means, haven’t you?

Anyway, to cut this tutoring short, I witnessed this event that occurred in Fox News Channel through YouTube and collected by Ernie, and I REPORTED it to the public and to you and to the rest of the Internet readers [the world shares]. I used the word "reported" in a journalistic sense where a reporter puts his "input" in it, not just picked it up and transferred it to this website like what Ernie did.

There are more interesting information of Social Media for you to know and learn from so that you will no longer make unkind remarks to what I am doing which by not understanding or knowing it you have badly mistaken as a "silly talk" on my part. My wife, a journalist, always describes me as "knowledgeable and kind-hearted" because I always tend to to forgive those who know not what they do, even though it hurts.

I hope that what you have just learned from me is not too mind-boggling to you. I don’t want to overload your cubicle much more upset you with this new discovery or surprise knowledge that I have just shared with you.

We are in the same mutual self-admiration club. As you said, I challenge your capacity to think just as you attract my attention to respond to you. Sharing the Light is always a pleasure!

P.S. By the way, if Kim Dryer’s tragic experience is true as she narrated it below, she is the first Reporter of criminals that infested the Government no one can deny, including me. I must state it here again that her injury, the anguish and the agony she is currently suffering which made her so angry, touched me. Ditto.

Chuckle, chuckle. Now you are calling Freedom's Phoenix a liar because they are the ones who said, "Reported by: Ernest Hancock?" You may be a study in journalism, but why are you trying to use semantics to cover yourself?

Oh I get it. You approve of and uphold the "system." And that is what they do all the time. It is called "double-speak" where you place some other meaning on words than the standard meaning that is evident from the way they are used.

The economic messages that Ron Paul is delivering, are messages that are based on standard text-book economics, which have been in successful practice for hundreds (maybe thousands) of years. For the last 100 years or so, politicians and bankers and economists have deviated from what works, in an attempt to find something better. Our messed up economy, both in the U.S. and around the world is the result.

Virtually all of the potential candidates are propounding some form of the current economic systems, systems that are proving right now that they don't work. And the one popular potential candidate who is saying that we should get back to what works, he is the one they are trying to keep out of the debates.

If we were NOT talking about peoples lives had family fortunes, if we WERE talking about excess money and property that we had to spare, and if we were in a gambling mode, yes, then let's go ahead and play. But that is not what is happening around the world. This deviation from sound economics is hurting us all. The only people gaining pleasure from it are those who like to hurt others. Let's get back to what works. That's Ron Paul's message. Shouldn't this message be heard in the debates?

If you want to twist that into what you will, go ahead... Lots of shill phonies on FP site.  Lots of controls much like Facebook as well.  That is not what I said.  I couldn't help but notice however how he chose to report CRAP.  Now why would anyone report CRAP and not put in in a way that identifies the reason for reporting it, and commentary...   I see more disinformation on here, much of it seems CIA, NSA, you name it.  I mean, I didn't even get notification about Ed Foster and Jennifer Jones from Quartsite and I actually MARCHED IN THE MARCH unlike certain so-called self appointed "heroes" who are regular authorities and controllers on here.  In fact, I even have a RICO suit about this very thing!  So why was I not informed?  Just saw a comment about it for the first time this morning. 

PT … I am talking about genuine Economists who had a FORMAL education in Economics. You are talking about Ron Paul who had a formal education in Medicine, who believed that by studying Medicine he is an "Economist", better than holders of Ph.D. in Economics like Dr. Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserves.

Let’s stick to the facts of what Ron Paul is saying when he thinks he is an "economist". In the Video congressional hearing on the subject of Economics, two protagonists were involved … Dr. Paul and Dr. Bernanke – and definitely one of them is a FAKE economist!. Do I need to ask you which one of them is a counterfeit?

Here’s the bubble you printed: "The economic messages that Ron Paul is delivering, are messages that are based on standard text-book economics …" You should have shown at leas an example of Ron Paul’s "messages" to prove that what you are saying is not a bubble.

Weird messages to create an economy for the U.S. without a Central Bank or without an income tax, an economy that does not print money – and a lot more of this kind of Ron Paul "econofake" messages are definitely NOT BASED ON STANDARD-TEXT-BOOK ECONOMICS!

You think this would make me laugh? No … your joke is too serious even for a bit of a chortle …a snigger or hilarious chuckle.

One more time: In the mind of your pseudo-economist, this "econofake" works for as long as he remains in his forty winks or televised catnap and the klieg light doesn’t wake him up to reality.

No one in his sane mind would buy this kind of Ron Paul economic "messages". And you are saying that Ron Paul is "the one popular potential candidate who is saying that we should get to what works …" what works … an economy without a Central Bank and without income tax works? In this Millennium, that kind of economy won’t work … and will never … NEVER work. What standard economic textbooks are you talking about? Gracious me!

Well, I grant that it is even hard for any layman coming out of the cold to figure out what a "standard-text-book economics" looks like.

Had you been to graduate school in Economics, I would not have wasted my time talking to you about Economics.

Okay, having said that, this is how the basic standard of a normal mind functions in understanding this issue: It takes a GENUINE Economist to talk sensibly of genuine economics, and it takes a FAKE economist to talk foolishly of counterfeit Economics.

Kim Dryer, I support your right to direct your anger towards a Government for what they did to you..

You are quite right, V.T.. The Professional Economists are very powerful people. Through their advice, the bankers and politicians together were finally able to drag a once powerful and proud nation of free people down into the dust of slavery.

Finally, they brought us to all kinds of taxation without any true representation.
Finally, they took away our land through foreclosures and eminent domain.
Finally, they took away our businesses and herded us into the cities to slave for them.
Finally, they were able to humble this nation of proud and free people by economically moving them into slavery.

But the Professional Economists aren't as powerful as you think they are. Why not? Because it took them a hundred years to do it, that's why. And if it gets much worse, the people won't have anything else to lose. So they will get up and put the Professional Economists and bankers and politicians back into their box. Occupy Wall street, etc., is just the tiniest of beginnings of the actions of the people to do just this.

Not letting Ron Paul into the debates will only infuriate more and more of the people, bringing on the demise of the Professional Economists and bankers and politicians much sooner. When it happens, where will YOU hide?