Rigged Debates And
By Joel Skousen
World Affairs Brief
America's political king-makers may not have absolute control, but they do
have effective control. Much of the manipulation of public perception comes
through the establishment media, who serve as the self-appointed sponsors of
presidential debates. When a candidate like Rep. Ron Paul, with millions of
grass-root supporters, threatens to break through they sideline him as
"second tier," limit his camera time, and suppress the overwhelming public
support on post-debate web polls. When even that fails to work, we see them
arrest reporters outside the debate arena who dare ask 9/11 conspiracy
questions of the mainstream candidates.
The media used to be able to get away with reliance only upon the two party
system (where the winner takes all votes) to exclude the rise of third
parties. All they had to do to precondition the public to the preferred
candidates was to announce on the evening news that such and such a list of
candidates were the "front runners, according to experts." Media moguls and
other king-makers in America have always excluded less known candidates from
debates by setting an artificially high percentage of popularity as a
barrier to entry. Establishment pollsters also manipulate polling results by
framing the questions to ignore minor candidates or using sophisticated
computerized lists to poll a higher percentage of predictable voters in
areas with known demographic values.
While these tactics are still very much in use, the Powers That Be (PTB) are
having to scramble for new ways to counter the growing influence of the
internet, which has created an independent venue for non-mainstream
candidates to bypass the media blackout.
FreeMarketNews.com has taken the lead in crucial reporting on this heighten
form of political manipulation: "During the recent presidential
debates--certainly the Republican one--CNN executives gave 'second tier'
candidates less time and exposure than 'first tier' candidates [Giuliani,
McCain, and Romney]. They did so without informing the public and in fact
seemingly misled the public during the debates and afterward about their
actions and intentions. After the recent Republican presidential debate, CNN
executives evidently manipulated internal political polls, made it difficult
for the public to find information on the real 'winner'--small-government
conservative Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex), according to widespread Internet
results." Here's the evidence:
"- GOP candidates were seated so that the 'first tier' candidates had center
"- Second tier candidates received, in some cases, only half as much time as
first tier candidates.
"- CNN moderators stated continuously that 'all' would have a chance to
answer every question, but then ran out of time before these promises could
"- After the debate, behavior that seemed to marginalize certain
candidates--especially Ron Paul--was just as obvious.
"- CNN anchors spent a good deal of time interviewing 'major' candidates,
but far less time with increasingly popular 'second tier' candidates. The
fervent support of some second-tier candidates on the 'Net--especially
free-market proponent Ron Paul--is a major news story, but one that CNN
"-CNN put up a 'visual' after the debate but then promptly pulled it. At the
time it was pulled, it apparently showed candidate Ron Paul (R-Tex) winning
the debate by a significant majority.
"-Later, CNN put up a web-based comments page about the debate but took that
down, as well. The 'vanished' comment page has been posted at several
alternative news websites. It features numerous positive comments about Ron
"-CNN has also seemingly made it fairly difficult to find its web-based GOP
Poll on the debate's winner. Once again, Ron Paul is firmly entrenched as
the leader, and in several other Internet polls as well."
I would add to that, that questions are sometimes tailored to make major
candidates look good, and marginalize lesser candidates by trying to trip
them up or make them look extreme. In all debates so far, no embarrassing
questions have been asked of the majors which would highlight their conflict
of interest, establishment links and/or corruption: i.e., Giuliani's
financial relationship with CINTRA, (the foreign corporation that is
building one leg of the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) highway system. The TTC
is part of the "NAFTA Superhighway"); or Hillary Clinton's financial
relationship with InfoUSA, (an outsourcing company run by Vin Gupta of India
that has channeled millions into the coffers of Bill and Hillary Clinton).
On the substance of the debate, one set of responses by the mainstream
candidates was particularly galling. Commentator Paul Craig Roberts
describes it best: "All of the leading Republican presidential candidates
openly and nonchalantly endorsed using nuclear weapons against Iran unless
Iran abandons its right to enrich uranium under the non-proliferation
treaty, to which Iran is a signatory (unlike nuclear-armed Israel, India,
and US puppet Pakistan).
"What is moral degeneracy if it is not using nuclear weapons to murder
masses of innocent civilians and spread deadly radioactivity over vast areas
merely in order to force a country to do as we order? If this isn't
barbarism, what is barbarism?" Roberts also said, correctly, that "War
without a just cause is murder, not war."
ASK CONSPIRATORIAL QUESTIONS AND GO DIRECTLY TO JAIL
We've observed for years how anyone holding conspiratorial views is
denigrated mercilessly on mainstream talk shows--especially those pretending
to be conservative (Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck et al.). After this week's
GOP debate, it is clear the intolerance for journalists who ask the wrong
questions has gone to another level entirely.
Matt Lepacek, a freelance reporter working for Infowars.com who claimed to
have proper press credentials at CNN's Republican debate, was arrested by NH
State Police at the command of Giuliani's press secretary after asking a
question about Giuliani's foreknowledge of the collapse of the World Trade
Center twin towers. Giuliani is denying he ever indicated he was forewarned
even though there are dozens of internet copies of his TV audio interview
with Peter Jennings in which he said, "I was told that the World Trade
Center was gonna' collapse."
Another cameraman stringing for Infowars got the confrontation on tape: www.infowars.com...
The most burning question is why were New Hampshire State Police arresting a
reporter merely on the non-verbal signal from Rudy Giuliani's press
secretary? The police are scrambling to determine whose name they are going
to put on the paperwork justifying the arrest, and are refusing to release
that name until the hearing on July 1. This could result in a major lawsuit
for illegal arrest and violation of 4th Amendment rights.
Lepacek also had a web cam hidden on his person which continued to record
the sounds of his interaction with police in the patrol car after the
arrest. The police threatened him with secret detention for espionage just
because of the presence of a hidden camera. While this is ludicrous on its
face, legally, it does indicate that the influence of the federal secret
prison system has filtered down to state levels. Apparently, State Police
are willing to funnel people into this new American Gulag as
I predict that one of two possible scenarios will play out here. Either
State prosecutors will try to plea bargain this out of existence (with a
monetary payoff to Lepacek in exchange for immunity against lawsuits) or
they will shop for a judge who will slap a gag order on all proceedings and
deny that any of Lepacek's rights were violated. Lepacek was arrested for
criminal trespass, which will be based on the presumption that he did not
have a press pass. Note in the video that the Police took him away without
making a determination about a pass. They were acting on orders of
Giuliani's press agent.
World Affairs Brief, June 8, 2007. Commentary and Insights on a Troubled
Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted.
Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief