Ron Pauls "Neo-Conned" speech given July 10, 2003

Loading...

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?)

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.)

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?

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.