Saturday, December 3, 2016

Ron Paul

by -
fake news

Last week a liberal college professor released a list of “fake” news sites, but the ones that she left off are more telling.

Ron Paul, the former third party candidate for president decided to help all the liberals in the U.S. that want to ban “fake” news sites, he made a few additions.

The anti-conservative list of fake news included sites like InfoWars, Breitbart and Independent Journal Review, but none of those sites are fake or misleading. It’s a list of just conservative sites. Even Project Veritas is on the list and it is a non-profit organization.

Ron Paul released a new list that included actual sources to his claims of indiscretions. The list is littered with liberal media giants and all have been proven to deliver false or misleading news in order to help out Hillary Clinton and her campaign.

List of the real

The difference is that every news agency on this list actually tried to mislead the American public during the election.

Breitbart broke the James O’Keefe story for Project Veritas Action that proved the DNC was inciting violence at Trump rallies. That isn’t fake or misleading.

CNN, ABC, MSNBC, New York Times and every other liberal media manipulated the polls and reported on fake news. They actually mislead America and now to cover their mistakes, they want America to ban conservative news sites that call out the corporate media.

Some in the corporate media even helped Hillary cheat. Donna Brazile who worked for CNN at the time, gave Hillary question before debates, then reported that Hillary had won the debates.

The war on fake news is a fake war if the corporate media isn’t also targeted.

First Facebook and Twitter have censored conservative content and Twitter is even banning conservative people. Now they are going after the conservative sites.

Don’t let them, share this article and let your friends know the real list of fake news sites.

by -
campaign-tried-to-buy-endorsements

A longtime aide to presidential candidate, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), has been indicted over payments that allegedly intended to buy an endorsement for Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign.

Former Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), the father of Rand Paul, is a libertarian folk hero, who ran for President in both 2008 and 2012.

Federal prosecutors allege that Jesse Benton–who currently leads Rand Paul’s super PAC but previously worked for Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign– arranged to pay an Iowa state Senator, Kent Sorenson, $70,000 to shift his support from Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) to Ron Paul for the 2012 election. The payments were apparently concealed from others on the Ron Paul campaign, including Ron Paul himself.

Two other former Ron Paul staffers were also indicted for their role in the payout scheme.

This latest blow comes at a bad time for Rand Paul. Paul has continue to slip in the polls for the Republican nomination, and last month announced lackluster fundraising totals.

Worse, it seems that Paul is having trouble even holding on to his father’s libertarian base. Last week, Ron Paul’s former head of fundraising, Jonathan Bydlak, penned an article in Politico, entitled “Why I’m Tired of Defending Rand Paul.”

With the primaries just now kicking into high gear, Rand Paul’s campaign isn’t dead in the water just yet–but it remains to be seen how this latest corruption scandal will affect the reform-minded image that the Paul campaign is trying to project.

by -
Both sides of the isle

[Editor’s Note: This article introduces a weekly opinion column from Joe Seehusen, former Deputy National Campaign Manager for Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign and the current president of The Intelligencer Institute.]

Welcome to this space.

WHAT WE HOPE TO DO:

Here we will look at fundamental questions about our national conversation.

Our aspiration is to understand and shed light on the worldview of people and institutions in positions of leadership in the areas of politics, media, culture, business, academia and entertainment.

What is their perspective? What is their bias?

How do they see the world and what are they trying to achieve?

What is the process they use, to define the perspective and worldview they craft for us to see?

Is it their intention that we use what they show us, and perhaps only what they show us, to form the basis of the decisions we make about issues that are important to us?

They work diligently to frame the conversation they want us to have.

Who are they?

They structure the conversation so we will come to the conclusions they want us to make.

Why do they do this?

We will attempt to address these questions.

WHAT WE HOPE WE WON’T DO:

We will not tell you what position you should take on an issue.

There are plenty of people and groups anxious to audition for that role.

Our focus is the conversation we are having about the issues, not the issues themselves. While we may have an opinion on the issue itself, as might you, that is not the subject of this investigation. We may think policy A is better than policy B, you might agree or disagree, but that is not the focus of this column.

SOME STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES:

This space is reserved for critical thinking and analysis, evidence based debate, reason, logic, relevant research, and common sense to evaluate and spotlight the process where perspective is foundational to how information is given and received. We will weave into our perspective and commentary, a broad spectrum of knowledge ranging from social psychology, economics and philosophy, There is space here for passion, as passion is central to who we are and how we think, but passion tempered with the self awareness of our own human failings. Wanton vitriol, ad hominem, and grumpy ramblings are best left unsaid. Dullards, apparatchiks and trolls .. be gone! … your talents and gifts are urgently needed elsewhere.

We have set high standards for this space, both for the reader and the author. This author begins with the full knowledge that he will fail to live up to the standards he has set for himself. Having said that, as the interest in meeting the standards is sincere, where legitimate shortfalls are pointed out in good faith and with good cheer, we will work to amend them.

TRENDING STORIES

We have not heard much from Hillary after she lost the most incredible election in modern history, but now she surfaces to reach a...