A recent article from Jay Root of the Fort Worth(less) Star Telegram characterized The Hon. Ron Paul as an advocate of drug dealers and child pornographers.
Those of us familiar with Dr. Paul realize that this is a blatant and malicious misrepresentation. The article, though the majority of it seems to be accurate, is intended to form negative opinions in people of Dr. Paul. By placing Dr. Paul with items that people already have negative opinions, they tie those feelings to him. The sentence is placed at the head of the article so that few will continue to read the positive information about Congressman Paul.
I contacted Mr. Root in an email that read:
I am aghast at your portrayal of Ron Paul. Within the opening sentence of your article you state, "He spoke out against putting dope dealers in federal prison, opposed a bill to crack down on child pornography..." This egregious mis-characterization of The Hon. Dr. Ron Paul is breathtaking.
His opposition to the "War on Drugs" (which has been as successful as the war in Iraq) does not equate to being "against putting dope dealers in federal prison." It is as if I said, "Jay Root loves killing little babies," just because you wrote an unflattering article about some one that is against abortion. Now, Jay Root may like killing babies, but to attempt to reach that conclusion from reading an article (or a voting record on a bill) is misleading to say the least.
If you call yourself a "journalist" you throw the term around very loosely.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
An Open Reply to Wonkette and Redstate.com
Your Business is to shine; therefore you must by all means prevent the shining of others, for their Brightness may make yours the less distinguish'd. To this End,
1. If possible engross the whole Discourse; and when other Matter fails, talk much of your-self, your Education, your Knowledge, your Circumstances, your Successes in Business, your Victories in Disputes, your own wise Sayings and Observations on particular Occasions, &c. &c. &c.;
2. If when you are out of Breath, one of the Company should seize the Opportunity of saying something; watch his Words, and, if possible, find somewhat either in his Sentiment or Expression, immediately to contradict and raise a Dispute upon. Rather than fail, criticise even his Grammar.
3. If another should be saying an indisputably good Thing; either give no Attention to it; or interrupt him; or draw away the Attention of others; or, if you can guess what he would be at, be quick and say it before him; or, if he gets it said, and you perceive the Company pleas'd with it, own it to be a good Thing, and withal remark that it had been said by Bacon, Locke, Bayle, or some other eminent Writer; thus you deprive him of the Reputation he might have gain'd by it, and gain some yourself, as you hereby show your great Reading and Memory.
4. When modest Men have been thus treated by you a few times, they will chuse ever after to be silent in your Company; then you may shine on without Fear of a Rival; rallying them at the same time for their Dullness, which will be to you a new Fund of Wit.
Thus you will be sure to please yourself. The polite Man aims at pleasing others, but you shall go beyond him even in that. A Man can be present only in one Company, but may at the same time be absent in twenty. He can please only where he is, you where-ever you are not.
The Pennsylvania Gazette, November 15, 1750 Benjamin Franklin
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
$100 by 100,000 people on November 5, 2007 = Major Momentum
DONATE NOVEMBER 5
There has been a call to arms (to put your hand into your wallet) for all those who love and cherish their liberty. An unnamed website has had more than 3,000 people noted that they read "Ron Paul spammers needed." In this article, the writer proposes that 100,000 people donate $100. I propose here that you, the reader of this, donate what ever you have. Whether it is 100 cents or $1,000. It is time to show how powerful Dr. Paul's message of Liberty resonates with the American public. On November 5, Ron Paul supports will exhibit how much they care about their beloved country. If you talk about how much you care about your freedom, then put your Money Where your mouth is.
DONATE NOVEMBER 5
There has been a call to arms (to put your hand into your wallet) for all those who love and cherish their liberty. An unnamed website has had more than 3,000 people noted that they read "Ron Paul spammers needed." In this article, the writer proposes that 100,000 people donate $100. I propose here that you, the reader of this, donate what ever you have. Whether it is 100 cents or $1,000. It is time to show how powerful Dr. Paul's message of Liberty resonates with the American public. On November 5, Ron Paul supports will exhibit how much they care about their beloved country. If you talk about how much you care about your freedom, then put your Money Where your mouth is.
DONATE NOVEMBER 5
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Why call this reporting?
For those concerned with MSNBC's discussion or lack there of regarding Ron Paul, you might like to know that:
He won the debate based upon the MSNBC poll with 36%. Romney was the closest behind with 29%. But MSNBC's coverage of Congressman Paul's positions left a great deal to be desired.
Keith Olbermann's Countdown on May 3rd, "Debate Catch Phrases" segment Olbermann says, "The front runners unwilling, certainly, to directly criticize the President, only Senator McCain choosing to acknowledge previous mistakes in Iraq. But still saving his strongest words for someone else, Osama bin Laden."
Olbermann chooses to only talk about the front runners. (This ignores the fact that any minute now the candidates copious amounts of fund-raising will inundate everyone of us with commercial after commercial from the front runners until our eyes bleed.)
MSNBC has been consistent in their coverage. Olbermann's conduct was the same when he and Mathews commented after the debate.
Chris Mathews acknowledged that the front runners were given more time because the people were more interested in them, and Why not?
Of course they are not just a front runner because more people are familiar with them. (Oh, wait! We cannot let reason dictate our actions. I mean it only makes sense to overlook those candidates the media already ignores. Why should the MSNBC concern itself with informing the public?)
Or
"Media misleads Public and ignores true conservative in the GOP."
Don't worry, I will not charge you for these ideas.
He won the debate based upon the MSNBC poll with 36%. Romney was the closest behind with 29%. But MSNBC's coverage of Congressman Paul's positions left a great deal to be desired.
Keith Olbermann's Countdown on May 3rd, "Debate Catch Phrases" segment Olbermann says, "The front runners unwilling, certainly, to directly criticize the President, only Senator McCain choosing to acknowledge previous mistakes in Iraq. But still saving his strongest words for someone else, Osama bin Laden."
Olbermann chooses to only talk about the front runners. (This ignores the fact that any minute now the candidates copious amounts of fund-raising will inundate everyone of us with commercial after commercial from the front runners until our eyes bleed.)
MSNBC has been consistent in their coverage. Olbermann's conduct was the same when he and Mathews commented after the debate.
Chris Mathews acknowledged that the front runners were given more time because the people were more interested in them, and Why not?
Of course they are not just a front runner because more people are familiar with them. (Oh, wait! We cannot let reason dictate our actions. I mean it only makes sense to overlook those candidates the media already ignores. Why should the MSNBC concern itself with informing the public?)
On May 4, Chris Mathew's Hardball the segment titled, "Who won the debate?"
During the analysis of the debate, which appears to be just a string of clips, the reporter omits Congressman Paul's opposition to the war.
They just ignore it.
As opposed to supporting a moderate Conservative, Olbermann and Mathews just want to characterize Republicans in general.
Why point out the differences between the candidates? Why acknowledge the stance of a moderate, when the similarities make for "good" news?
When Olbermann discusses conservatism in his segment "Debate Catch Phrases," he does not include Paul's comment about the role of government.
Actually I did not find in any of their clip montages a Ron Paul soundbite.
On May 3, 2007, MSNBC's Tom Curry wrote an article titled "No Social conservatives on the '08 ballot: McCain, Guiliani, Romney not wholly in tune with the Right." This is not news and is misleading.
First, every one should know that McCain, Guiliani, and Romney are not social conservatives. That is obvious.
Guiliani is pro-abortion, anti gun, pro illegal immigrant
Romney advocates Socialized health care,
McCain is anti gun
Second, Congressman Paul is a conservative and is running.
So by creating this piece of non-news, this "journalist" has conjured up something to write about.
Well if your so devoid of ideas, use these topics.
"Republican Congressman Ron Paul did not vote for Iraq War, but wants to win everything to win it any way."
"Social conservative Congressman Ron Paul vows to kill the inflation tax, which gorges on the wealth of the middle class."
"Congressman Ron Paul wants to help the middle class by stopping the flow of illegal immigration." (I hear Lou Dobbs is making a killing in the ratings with this topic.)
During the analysis of the debate, which appears to be just a string of clips, the reporter omits Congressman Paul's opposition to the war.
They just ignore it.
As opposed to supporting a moderate Conservative, Olbermann and Mathews just want to characterize Republicans in general.
Why point out the differences between the candidates? Why acknowledge the stance of a moderate, when the similarities make for "good" news?
When Olbermann discusses conservatism in his segment "Debate Catch Phrases," he does not include Paul's comment about the role of government.
Actually I did not find in any of their clip montages a Ron Paul soundbite.
On May 3, 2007, MSNBC's Tom Curry wrote an article titled "No Social conservatives on the '08 ballot: McCain, Guiliani, Romney not wholly in tune with the Right." This is not news and is misleading.
First, every one should know that McCain, Guiliani, and Romney are not social conservatives. That is obvious.
Guiliani is pro-abortion, anti gun, pro illegal immigrant
Romney advocates Socialized health care,
McCain is anti gun
Second, Congressman Paul is a conservative and is running.
So by creating this piece of non-news, this "journalist" has conjured up something to write about.
Well if your so devoid of ideas, use these topics.
"Republican Congressman Ron Paul did not vote for Iraq War, but wants to win everything to win it any way."
"Congressman Ron Paul wants to help the middle class by stopping the flow of illegal immigration." (I hear Lou Dobbs is making a killing in the ratings with this topic.)
Or
"Media misleads Public and ignores true conservative in the GOP."
Don't worry, I will not charge you for these ideas.
Friday, May 4, 2007
MSNBC ignores Congressman Paul's opposition to the Iraq war
Olbermann continually ignores Congressman Ron Paul’s position against the Iraq War. HE continually insinuates that all conservatives are for the war.
When Olbermann May 2: Most Americans reject the war, but many conservatives do not. They vote in primaries, and they'll be watching Thursday's debate. "Countdown" host Keith Olbermann talks with Chris Cillizza of washingtonpost.com.
“Independents and democrats are clearly soured on this war. They want a time line. They want our troops out. Republicans, especially conservative Republicans, are still sticking by the president, are still sticking buy the surge strategy …”
After the Presidential debate on May 4, Olbermann and Mathews reviewed the video clips and candidate answers.
Again they began talking about the Iraq War. Olbermann and Mathews both assert that ALL Republicans were for the war. And that all Republicans still favor the war.
But NO ONE can say that Olbermann did not know Congressman Paul’s stance.
On May 1: Compared to "Mission Accomplished," the president's veto announcement represented a considerable downsizing of stage-management. Keith Olbermann talks with Howard Fineman of Newsweek.
Olbermann “You mention the debates at the Reagan library two nights from now. is there a chance that one of those Republicans even one of the ones out of the mainstream might fervently come out against the President’s position about Iraq?”
Fineman states, "I think that there already is one, Ron Paul, who is a libertarian from Texas. I think he is going to do it.”
The truth is Congressman Paul does oppose the Iraq war; he did from the beginning.
He voted against it.
How much journalistic research does it take to find this information out. Looking at the Congressional record? His voting record?
One has to ask if this is done to keep people in either the perpetual conservative/liberal, right/left, or Democrat/Republican paradigms?
When Olbermann May 2: Most Americans reject the war, but many conservatives do not. They vote in primaries, and they'll be watching Thursday's debate. "Countdown" host Keith Olbermann talks with Chris Cillizza of washingtonpost.com.
“Independents and democrats are clearly soured on this war. They want a time line. They want our troops out. Republicans, especially conservative Republicans, are still sticking by the president, are still sticking buy the surge strategy …”
After the Presidential debate on May 4, Olbermann and Mathews reviewed the video clips and candidate answers.
Again they began talking about the Iraq War. Olbermann and Mathews both assert that ALL Republicans were for the war. And that all Republicans still favor the war.
But NO ONE can say that Olbermann did not know Congressman Paul’s stance.
On May 1: Compared to "Mission Accomplished," the president's veto announcement represented a considerable downsizing of stage-management. Keith Olbermann talks with Howard Fineman of Newsweek.
Olbermann “You mention the debates at the Reagan library two nights from now. is there a chance that one of those Republicans even one of the ones out of the mainstream might fervently come out against the President’s position about Iraq?”
Fineman states, "I think that there already is one, Ron Paul, who is a libertarian from Texas. I think he is going to do it.”
The truth is Congressman Paul does oppose the Iraq war; he did from the beginning.
He voted against it.
How much journalistic research does it take to find this information out. Looking at the Congressional record? His voting record?
One has to ask if this is done to keep people in either the perpetual conservative/liberal, right/left, or Democrat/Republican paradigms?
Ron Paul's Neo-conned Speech
In this day the Neo-conservatives have pulled off the greatest deception.
These self-admitted Trotskyites, who describe themselves as a liberal mugged by reality, have portrayed themselves as conservatives. Even though their philosophy violates every aspect of conservative values the dumbed down American public eats their tripe.
The neo-cons advocate preemptive wars, which violate the Just War concept.
They do not hesitate to unleash this Pandora's Box.
In actuality, they advocate this.
They believe that America must use its moral authority to change the world.
They think that the US can create democracy at the barrel of a gun.
They act as if American money and citizens will never run out.
The neo-cons and their ilk have besmirched the conservative banner.
Unless conservatives assert themselves and correct their public image, they will be tarred and feathered by the actions of a bunch of Trotskyites.
The neo-cons have tapped into an old and familiar Communist trick. They have attempted to re-establish the battleground. By using a Gramiscian-like semantical change, the neo-cons have redefined conservatism.
Conservatism becomes big government.
Globalism.
Endless and unfinished wars.
Open borders.
More taxes.
Greater government intrusion into privacy.
Corruption to maintain hegemony.
In actuality Conservatism is:
Local Government
less regulations, hence less interference
less taxes, but less programs
the government does not offer to be the savior of the people
Ron Paul's "Neo-Conned Speech" serves as one of the most important speeches about the George W. Bush Administration's foreign policy.
These self-admitted Trotskyites, who describe themselves as a liberal mugged by reality, have portrayed themselves as conservatives. Even though their philosophy violates every aspect of conservative values the dumbed down American public eats their tripe.
The neo-cons advocate preemptive wars, which violate the Just War concept.
They do not hesitate to unleash this Pandora's Box.
In actuality, they advocate this.
They believe that America must use its moral authority to change the world.
They think that the US can create democracy at the barrel of a gun.
They act as if American money and citizens will never run out.
The neo-cons and their ilk have besmirched the conservative banner.
Unless conservatives assert themselves and correct their public image, they will be tarred and feathered by the actions of a bunch of Trotskyites.
The neo-cons have tapped into an old and familiar Communist trick. They have attempted to re-establish the battleground. By using a Gramiscian-like semantical change, the neo-cons have redefined conservatism.
Conservatism becomes big government.
Globalism.
Endless and unfinished wars.
Open borders.
More taxes.
Greater government intrusion into privacy.
Corruption to maintain hegemony.
In actuality Conservatism is:
Local Government
less regulations, hence less interference
less taxes, but less programs
the government does not offer to be the savior of the people
Ron Paul's "Neo-Conned Speech" serves as one of the most important speeches about the George W. Bush Administration's foreign policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)