Quote:
Hello Amanda,

I don't "gloss" over anything written in my threads. I might choose not to reply again to subjects that have been discussed to death, or not to relate to unfounded conspiracy theories and I've given my reasons for that many times as well.

What I find interesting is that you chose not to relate to the article in my post above relating to Ron Paul's association with the Freemasons and secret societies a topic you write extensively about in regard to the Elite/Illuminati, globalists and the NWO. Could it be that it sorta puts the kook Ron Paul in a different light? I wonder? Or is this just another topic that'll be brushed off by his supporters as not relevant? Or did you simply not read it as you most likely didn't read Daniel Greenfield's article either? Both of these articles raise questions that should be answered and haven't been ..........yet and most probably won't be answered.

Shalom,

Peter

Quote:

Hello Peter,

You probably noticed that I used notepad and copied and pasted so I could answer to the best of my ability.

I am sorry I did mess up with that page you copied out - I did look at that considered it, but it was not the contents that I was looking for.

What I thought I had linked to was the Search page (which have a long url with unusual letters &% in them) for Causes of Annual Deaths because there is quite a few and this has been a concern of mine - We are being Soft Killed... This issue has nothing to do with Ron Paul - it is mine. I have spoken on this many times, yet I feel you just gloss over these.

Amanda

Quote:
Hello Amanda,

I have a big surprise for you. I'm not gonna reply to your full post cos the majority of it has been discussed in past posts and it appears that you believe if you repeat things often enough you'll tire me out but nothing can be further from the truth and as I said in previous posts it simply starts to bore me.

I will refer to one part only simply for the reason that as usual when you use the Paul and Jones rhetoric and sound bytes you also ignore history and present it in a distorted manner which sounds more like propaganda then true facts and distorting history for the sake of supporting the kook Ron Paul and the Elite/Illuminati issue.

You quoted one sentence "Islam butchered over 250,000,000 infidels over the centuries" and omitted why I wrote that sentence. I'll put in the full quote and your reply that totally ignores history and is full of Ron Paul and Jones sound bytes. My remarks will come after the quote.

Quote:
I wonder why you haven't got the same compassion for the Elite/Illuminati? Sorta a contradiction there I would say. And don't tell me it's cos the E/I killed so many people over the years. Do I have to remind you again that they are the new kids on the block? Islam butchered over 250,000,000 infidels over the centuries so I wouldn't waste your compassion and love on them cos you're in line if you don't submit to their will. They certainly feel no compassion or love for infidels and their handiwork against Christians in many muslim countries is very well documented and proves just that.

http://tempuri.org/tempuri.html

you do not say how many muslims have been killed by Gentiles, Christians and Jews - Military from NZ, Australia, Canada, Britain, US over the centuries - we can kill them but they cannot retaliate.
The military has been stationed in Muslim countries for decades, did they even want us there, did we even ask them? These are the questions one has to ask ourselves. I reckon our respective Govts have been the big bullies on the block.
Then when the soldiers come back wounded or even dead they are treated appallingly. The wounded do not have enough medical insurance to cover all their care, and Military are paid poorly for what they are expected to do. Their families suffer trying to make ends meet. It disturbs me greatly how much these men, women and their families suffer from the traumer - The majority of the Military are Ron Paul supporters, I reckon that in itself tells me alot as they were sent into wars that killed innocent women and children, they saw first hand that it was a farce and they were manipulated and lied too. There are many youtubes of interviews.

Amanda, here you go again trying to mislead and claim that Muslims killed the infidels cos the infidels also killed them. You're talking about the recent past and the 250,000,000 million have been killed over the past almost 1,500 years. Try and forget the Ron Paul sound bytes (if you can), the short history of the Elite/Illuminati and open your history books and read about the history of Islamic conquests and the killings in the name of allah, jihad, koran all for the sake of world domination and an Islamic Caliphate. I posted the history in the past and I'll try to find it and edit the link in here. If not google Caliphate or the historic wars of the Caliphate. You can't change history but you can ignore it and use ridiculous sound bytes and propaganda instead which is exactly what you've done.

Now here's an interesting thing. In your reply you added a link with no explanation (http://tempuri.org/tempuri.html ) and I assumed it was to support what you're planning to write but you miscalculated cos all you did was read the title of the article but failed to read the article. If you did read it you sure misunderstood it. I'd recommend reading the article rather depending on a title that you think supports your views. I'll post the full article below. BTW, in the past I referred to this article cos it shows how future journalists are being brainwashed and taught to be biased while still studying their future trade. In addition it also shows how the on line journalist course is funded by George Soros and his groups. Ooooops.

Shalom,

Peter

Course Instructs Journalists to Take Note That Jihad 'Not a Leading Cause of Death'

By Judson Berger

Published September 29, 2011

| FoxNews.com

A new online journalism course on Islam appears to downplay the threat posed by global jihad groups, suggesting reporters keep the death toll from Islamic terrorism in "context" by comparing that toll to the number of people killed every year by malaria, HIV/AIDS and other factors.

"Jihad is not a leading cause of death in the world," the online course cautions studying journalists.

While that is technically true, researchers at the Culture and Media Institute who examined the online program took exception to that and numerous other claims made in the Poynter News University course

Dan Gainor, vice president at the institute, said the course is sweeping these threats "under the rug," while watering down the section on jihad with inappropriate comparisons.

"Infectious disease, we have government structures to prevent that, and that's great ... in radical Islam we have not even one organization but several organizations that are constantly seeking to kill Americans and others too," he said. "It seems like journalists should not be involved in trying to downplay that."

Gainor's group released a report Thursday morning on the course.

The Islam reporting program is supported in part by a group, the Social Science Research Council, which has received funding from organizations backed by billionaire George Soros.

In the section on jihad, the course informs readers that the word merely means "struggle" in Arabic -- this is something White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan has sought to remind the public of in the past. The course notes that terrorism in the name of jihad has "failed to mobilize Muslims outside of a few territories."

But to illustrate this point, the course references the number of people killed by various causes, implicitly suggesting journalists change the way they report on jihad-related deaths.

"Of the hundreds of murders that occur each day, journalists are far more likely to report on jihad-related incidents than other violence. As a result, news consumers have developed a skewed impression of the prevalence of jihad, relative to other forms of conflict. Context is essential in covering this global story in a way that does not amplify fears of jihad," the course says.

The Poynter course estimates jihad groups have killed about 165,000 people over the past four decades, mostly in Iraq. It notes the biggest toll in the United States was the approximately 3,000 killed on Sept. 11, 2001.

"To give those numbers some context, the FBI reports that approximately 15,000 people in the U.S. are murdered each year. All around the world, more than half a million people are murdered annually, according to the World Health Organization," the course says. "At its peak, jihad organizations have accounted for less than 2 percent of this toll -- in most years, they account for well under 1 percent. (A half-million individuals die each year from nutritional deficiencies, more than 800,000 from malaria, and 2 million from HIV/AIDS.)"

Gainor noted that murder victims mostly are killed in separate incidents, whereas victims of Islamic terrorism often are killed in larger-scale attacks. Also, murder victims typically are not killed in the name of an ideological war against a country.

The online course, which is broken into several sections, also discusses "right-wing activists" bent on linking American Muslims to terrorism. The section includes the good-journalism tip that reporters should check to see if experts they're interviewing "have a bias or a stake in the story you are covering." But then it only cites examples of anti-Muslim groups.

The course also addresses Shariah law without including information of instances where the law is interpreted with harsh consequences.

"In countries governed by strict adherence to Islam, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, Shariah is the law of the land. But in many other Muslim countries, such as Egypt, there are separate civil and Shariah law courts, with the latter governing issues such as marriage and family law, while civil courts decide the rest," the course says.

But the Culture and Media Institute, part of the conservative Media Research Center, noted that in strict countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, people can be stoned to death or flogged for non-violent crimes. In Iran, a pastor who refused to renounce his Christian faith was facing execution after his sentence was recently upheld by an Iranian court -- though an attorney now says he is likely to be acquitted.

The Poynter Institute said in an email to FoxNews.com that it created the course "as a tool for journalists who want to be accurate in educating their audience about the religion and culture of Islam, Muslim communities in the U.S., and the distinctions between Islam as a political movement and the radical philosophies that inspire militant Islamists."

"We believe there is a need to better understand the complexities of Muslim societies and the online course offered by Poynter and Washington State University is a vital resource toward that end," the Poynter Institute said.

"The values underpinning the course are truth, accuracy, independence, fairness, minimizing harm and context -- the core journalistic values on which we build all our teaching here at Poynter."

Quote:
Hello Jim,

First of all this isn't even a Ron Paul approved video but one that was prepared by one of the super PACS supporting the kook Ron Paul. It is interesting that even he's not so spaced out to approve a piece of garbage like that. "Imagine" that!

Even though you think it's one of the best Ron Paul video's you've seen it's simple DEMAGOGUERY with no connection to reality. I wonder if this is going to become the new generation of Ron Paul sound bytes, if so it's quite pathetic and didn't work as the results of the Iowa caucus showed. I never believed he would win in Iowa as I said in previous posts and in my opinion it's downhill from now on and rightly so. Guess all the negative ads didn't do the trick the kook and the ronbots hoped for.

Shalom,

Peter

P.S. Just so you understand what I mean by using the word demagoguery here's the definition:

Quote:
Demagogy (/ˈdɛməɡɒdʒi/[1]) or demagoguery (/ˈdɛməɡɒɡəri/[2]) (Ancient Greek: δημαγωγία, from δῆμος dēmos "people" and ἄγειν agein "to lead") is a strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears, vanities and expectations of the public—typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist, populist or religious themes. What qualifies as demagogy has been the subject of debate and ambiguity since Aristophanes first used the term, in reference to the Athenian statesman, Cleon.

Or as H.L. Mencken defined a demagouge as:

Quote:
"one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."

You can read more here.

Quote:
One of the best Ron Paul videos I have seen. I cannot help but agree with this analogy.
With all the hostility in that part of the world I am surprised other countries don't have forward bases protecting their interests. Oh, I know, "Let the US do it " Well guess what we aren't being paid for our services of policing the world so we the American people want out of that deal ASAP. Let someone else do it we will take care of ourselves as we have done since the Revolution. Just a thought.

Quote:
Hello Friends,

The title of the below article is "Imagine A Ron Paul Presidency" I for one can't imagine a worse nightmare but the below article is insightful and thought provoking.

Parts of the article describe the US military through Paul's eyes and as you can imagine they're not very complimentary to soldiers putting their lives on the line to protect the security of the United States. It also includes some preposterous examples that Paul and the ronbots use in order to further denigrate the military. This guy is a catastrophe and after a B Hussein presidency which was bad enough we would become a second rate country with a president apologizing for past supposed misdeeds at a higher rate then B Hussein the great apologist did. As I said a nightmare

It's well worth the read and who knows it might cause some Paul "fence sitter" supporters to think a bit. The ronbots and Jones junkies are a lost cause, nothing will help with them.

Shalom,

Peter

Imagine a Ron Paul Presidency

Posted by Mark Tapson Bio ↓ on Jan 3rd, 2012

“Imagine for a moment,” a man’s voice intones in an urgent whisper, “that somewhere in the middle of Texas there was a large foreign military base – say, Chinese or Russian.” So begins a video produced by Revolution PAC, comprised of supporters and some former campaign staff of Ron Paul​. The text of the video derives entirely from a Paul speech given in early October, in which the presidential candidate condemns what he deems to be our jackbooted foreign policy and likens our military abroad to an oppressive occupation force, while whitewashing murderous insurgents as freedom fighters.

“Imagine,” the voice continues as the text zooms and veers about on the screen,

that thousands of armed foreign troops were constantly patrolling American streets in military vehicles. Imagine they were here under the auspices of “keeping us safe” or “promoting democracy” or “protecting their strategic interests.”

The analogy, of course, is to our own troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, which Paul and his supporters cite as the reason Islamic fundamentalists hate us, along with such other offenses as our military bases on Saudi soil. And the video’s suggestion is that the justifications noted above for our presence there are mere pretexts.

The video graphics come fast and furious now, and the music and narration escalate in intensity and menace. It’s moving at a pace and volume that steamroll right over any reasoned objections:

Imagine that they operated outside of US law, and that the Constitution did not apply to them. Imagine that every now and then they made mistakes or acted on bad information and accidentally killed or terrorized innocent Americans, including women and children, most of the time with little to no repercussions or consequences. Imagine that they set up checkpoints on our soil and routinely searched and ransacked entire neighborhoods of homes. Imagine if Americans were fearful of these foreign troops, and overwhelmingly thought America would be better off without their presence.

Of course, our troops are doing anything but running around ransacking entire neighborhoods; it is the insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan who are terrorizing innocents. We have gone to such ludicrous extremes to win hearts and minds that we’re more comfortable putting our own troops’ lives at risk than offending the locals. But the video’s denigration of our military and whitewashing of the enemy get worse as the analogy goes completely off the rails:

Imagine if some Americans were so angry about them being in Texas that they actually joined together to fight them off, in defense of our soil and sovereignty, because leadership in government refused or were unable to do so. Imagine that those Americans were labeled terrorists or insurgents for their defensive actions, and routinely killed, or captured and tortured by the foreign troops on our land.

Take a moment to wrap your mind around Paul’s meaning here. He’s saying that al Qaeda- and Iranian-backed mujahideen who are wreaking havoc in Iraq, who massacre Christians and pro-American Iraqis, who gleefully kill Americans, and who are destabilizing the country in hopes of establishing another Islamic fundamentalist state, are freedom fighters who have been falsely labeled terrorists and are no different from Texans banding together in defense of our freedoms and rights against Chinese or Russian soldiers. He’s saying that our troops kill and torture innocent Iraqis routinely.

Now the narrator’s voice hits a fever pitch as he takes this offensive analogy further:

Imagine that the occupiers’ attitude was that if they just killed enough Americans, the resistance would stop, but instead, for every American killed, ten more would take up arms against them, resulting in perpetual bloodshed.

Our troops have never been out to “kill enough” of the Iraqi or Afghan people. This is an outrageous slur, but typical of the Paul mindset which eliminates inconvenient facts in order to assert that America has enemies only because our foreign policy makes them so.

The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas.

Nonsense. The reality is that reality isn’t Ron Paul’s strong suit. The video ends with Paul’s own voice asserting that we must “[cease dealing] with other nations with threats and violence” and instead, “[open] ourselves up to friendship, honest trade and diplomacy.” Right. Because we all know it’s America, not Iran or Russia or China or al Qaeda or the Taliban, that is the entity trafficking in threats and violence, and eschewing friendship, honest trade and diplomacy.

It is certainly possible to make a principled argument against American nation-building in Muslim countries. It is certainly true that there are Muslims, especially in Afghanistan, the graveyard of empires, who want Americans out of these countries. But this video of Paul’s speech is not that principled argument. It is anti-American, military-bashing propaganda that ignores historical and political complexities and “meets the left coming ‘round from the other way,” as Mark Steyn puts it. Keep in mind also that this speech is from a presidential candidate whom a former staffer claims

engaged in conspiracy theories, including perhaps the [9/11] attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11.*

The video was actually first released back in October but has been steadily gaining traction over the internet since then. It has been reposted approvingly on such websites for Islamist apologists as IslamophobiaToday and Loonwatch as a compelling explanation for “why they hate us.” As full of obviously false and offensive analogies as it is, the ad is effective with those Blame America First (and Last) children of Chomsky who believe or are easily convinced that if only America would apologize for its imperialist militarism and sin no more, peace on earth and good will toward men would sweep the globe faster than Santa’s reindeer.

Imagine this instead: Imagine that we have a President of the United States​ whose foreign policy consists of apologizing for America, paving the way for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, standing by while Iran acquires nuclear weapons, and relinquishing our role as the principal actor on the world stage. “But we already have a president like that,” you say. Yes, but now imagine that he is replaced in 2012 by a President who not only perpetuates this self-destructive lunacy but whose “ostrichism” exacerbates it. Imagine that in the wake of Obama’s disastrous reign, when we most need an unapologetic leader who can reverse the tide and reassert American power and dignity, we get four years of, to borrow from Steyn again, “sheer stupid half-witted parochialism” instead. Imagine Ron Paul is our next President.

*The Paul camp has not disputed the substance of these accusations, only dismissed their source as “a disgruntled former staffer who… has zero credibility.”

About Mark Tapson

Mark Tapson, a Hollywood-based writer and screenwriter, is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. He focuses on the politics of popular culture.

Quote:
Doesn't have to be supported by him to be fact. I guess we all are guilty of the demagogy then.

Quote:
Hello Jim,

First of all this isn't even a Ron Paul approved video but one that was prepared by one of the super PACS supporting the kook Ron Paul. It is interesting that even he's not so spaced out to approve a piece of garbage like that. "Imagine" that!

Even though you think it's one of the best Ron Paul video's you've seen it's simple DEMAGOGUERY with no connection to reality. I wonder if this is going to become the new generation of Ron Paul sound bytes, if so it's quite pathetic and didn't work as the results of the Iowa caucus showed. I never believed he would win in Iowa as I said in previous posts and in my opinion it's downhill from now on and rightly so. Guess all the negative ads didn't do the trick the kook and the ronbots hoped for.

Shalom,

Peter

P.S. Just so you understand what I mean by using the word demagoguery here's the definition:

Quote:
Demagogy (/ˈdɛməɡɒdʒi/[1]) or demagoguery (/ˈdɛməɡɒɡəri/[2]) (Ancient Greek: δημαγωγία, from δῆμος dēmos "people" and ἄγειν agein "to lead") is a strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears, vanities and expectations of the public—typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist, populist or religious themes. What qualifies as demagogy has been the subject of debate and ambiguity since Aristophanes first used the term, in reference to the Athenian statesman, Cleon.

Or as H.L. Mencken defined a demagouge as:

Quote:
"one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."

You can read more here.

Quote:
One of the best Ron Paul videos I have seen. I cannot help but agree with this analogy.
With all the hostility in that part of the world I am surprised other countries don't have forward bases protecting their interests. Oh, I know, "Let the US do it " Well guess what we aren't being paid for our services of policing the world so we the American people want out of that deal ASAP. Let someone else do it we will take care of ourselves as we have done since the Revolution. Just a thought.

Quote:
Hello Friends,

The title of the below article is "Imagine A Ron Paul Presidency" I for one can't imagine a worse nightmare but the below article is insightful and thought provoking.

Parts of the article describe the US military through Paul's eyes and as you can imagine they're not very complimentary to soldiers putting their lives on the line to protect the security of the United States. It also includes some preposterous examples that Paul and the ronbots use in order to further denigrate the military. This guy is a catastrophe and after a B Hussein presidency which was bad enough we would become a second rate country with a president apologizing for past supposed misdeeds at a higher rate then B Hussein the great apologist did. As I said a nightmare

It's well worth the read and who knows it might cause some Paul "fence sitter" supporters to think a bit. The ronbots and Jones junkies are a lost cause, nothing will help with them.

Shalom,

Peter

Imagine a Ron Paul Presidency

Posted by Mark Tapson Bio ↓ on Jan 3rd, 2012

“Imagine for a moment,” a man’s voice intones in an urgent whisper, “that somewhere in the middle of Texas there was a large foreign military base – say, Chinese or Russian.” So begins a video produced by Revolution PAC, comprised of supporters and some former campaign staff of Ron Paul​. The text of the video derives entirely from a Paul speech given in early October, in which the presidential candidate condemns what he deems to be our jackbooted foreign policy and likens our military abroad to an oppressive occupation force, while whitewashing murderous insurgents as freedom fighters.

“Imagine,” the voice continues as the text zooms and veers about on the screen,

that thousands of armed foreign troops were constantly patrolling American streets in military vehicles. Imagine they were here under the auspices of “keeping us safe” or “promoting democracy” or “protecting their strategic interests.”

The analogy, of course, is to our own troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, which Paul and his supporters cite as the reason Islamic fundamentalists hate us, along with such other offenses as our military bases on Saudi soil. And the video’s suggestion is that the justifications noted above for our presence there are mere pretexts.

The video graphics come fast and furious now, and the music and narration escalate in intensity and menace. It’s moving at a pace and volume that steamroll right over any reasoned objections:

Imagine that they operated outside of US law, and that the Constitution did not apply to them. Imagine that every now and then they made mistakes or acted on bad information and accidentally killed or terrorized innocent Americans, including women and children, most of the time with little to no repercussions or consequences. Imagine that they set up checkpoints on our soil and routinely searched and ransacked entire neighborhoods of homes. Imagine if Americans were fearful of these foreign troops, and overwhelmingly thought America would be better off without their presence.

Of course, our troops are doing anything but running around ransacking entire neighborhoods; it is the insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan who are terrorizing innocents. We have gone to such ludicrous extremes to win hearts and minds that we’re more comfortable putting our own troops’ lives at risk than offending the locals. But the video’s denigration of our military and whitewashing of the enemy get worse as the analogy goes completely off the rails:

Imagine if some Americans were so angry about them being in Texas that they actually joined together to fight them off, in defense of our soil and sovereignty, because leadership in government refused or were unable to do so. Imagine that those Americans were labeled terrorists or insurgents for their defensive actions, and routinely killed, or captured and tortured by the foreign troops on our land.

Take a moment to wrap your mind around Paul’s meaning here. He’s saying that al Qaeda- and Iranian-backed mujahideen who are wreaking havoc in Iraq, who massacre Christians and pro-American Iraqis, who gleefully kill Americans, and who are destabilizing the country in hopes of establishing another Islamic fundamentalist state, are freedom fighters who have been falsely labeled terrorists and are no different from Texans banding together in defense of our freedoms and rights against Chinese or Russian soldiers. He’s saying that our troops kill and torture innocent Iraqis routinely.

Now the narrator’s voice hits a fever pitch as he takes this offensive analogy further:

Imagine that the occupiers’ attitude was that if they just killed enough Americans, the resistance would stop, but instead, for every American killed, ten more would take up arms against them, resulting in perpetual bloodshed.

Our troops have never been out to “kill enough” of the Iraqi or Afghan people. This is an outrageous slur, but typical of the Paul mindset which eliminates inconvenient facts in order to assert that America has enemies only because our foreign policy makes them so.

The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas.

Nonsense. The reality is that reality isn’t Ron Paul’s strong suit. The video ends with Paul’s own voice asserting that we must “[cease dealing] with other nations with threats and violence” and instead, “[open] ourselves up to friendship, honest trade and diplomacy.” Right. Because we all know it’s America, not Iran or Russia or China or al Qaeda or the Taliban, that is the entity trafficking in threats and violence, and eschewing friendship, honest trade and diplomacy.

It is certainly possible to make a principled argument against American nation-building in Muslim countries. It is certainly true that there are Muslims, especially in Afghanistan, the graveyard of empires, who want Americans out of these countries. But this video of Paul’s speech is not that principled argument. It is anti-American, military-bashing propaganda that ignores historical and political complexities and “meets the left coming ‘round from the other way,” as Mark Steyn puts it. Keep in mind also that this speech is from a presidential candidate whom a former staffer claims

engaged in conspiracy theories, including perhaps the [9/11] attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11.*

The video was actually first released back in October but has been steadily gaining traction over the internet since then. It has been reposted approvingly on such websites for Islamist apologists as IslamophobiaToday and Loonwatch as a compelling explanation for “why they hate us.” As full of obviously false and offensive analogies as it is, the ad is effective with those Blame America First (and Last) children of Chomsky who believe or are easily convinced that if only America would apologize for its imperialist militarism and sin no more, peace on earth and good will toward men would sweep the globe faster than Santa’s reindeer.

Imagine this instead: Imagine that we have a President of the United States​ whose foreign policy consists of apologizing for America, paving the way for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, standing by while Iran acquires nuclear weapons, and relinquishing our role as the principal actor on the world stage. “But we already have a president like that,” you say. Yes, but now imagine that he is replaced in 2012 by a President who not only perpetuates this self-destructive lunacy but whose “ostrichism” exacerbates it. Imagine that in the wake of Obama’s disastrous reign, when we most need an unapologetic leader who can reverse the tide and reassert American power and dignity, we get four years of, to borrow from Steyn again, “sheer stupid half-witted parochialism” instead. Imagine Ron Paul is our next President.

*The Paul camp has not disputed the substance of these accusations, only dismissed their source as “a disgruntled former staffer who… has zero credibility.”

About Mark Tapson

Mark Tapson, a Hollywood-based writer and screenwriter, is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. He focuses on the politics of popular culture.

Quote:

Hello Peter,

Ron Paul relating to Crescent and Cross secret society, I had not heard of this society before.. does sadden me as such a vast amount of professional men and women join Freemasons etc and not knowing the dark side down on the lower rungs, they think it is a christian group whom help their areas as Masonics and other societies, do a whole lot of helpful and charity type work around their districts.

I have not had a chance to do indepth research, if Ron is still involved or renounced his involvement in repentance.. I have had other home issues to see too our animal upkeep in these freezing temperatures being one of them.

I knew of many men back in my home town in New Zealand whom were members. The Masonic Lodge was situated in the same street as all the main line churches! and these members attended our churches with their wives and families.

The freemason / secret society members are not all evil people and consorting with the Global Elite - not all muslims are evil - not all catholics are evil - not all christians are evil, not all Jews are evil not all humans are evil etc etc..Sinners yes, walking in sin, yes..

I am not saying that I condone occult / secret societies, however, walking on the dark side deliberately and choosing to walking in the light are choice actions..One knows the difference.

It also saddens me when many of my friends I have, also 'straddle the fence' of being interested and dabble in astrology, new age movements and many other occult activities, not realising how deceptive it is.

I not believe any of these friends or Ron Paul are actively consorting with the Global Elite. I will need to up my prayer time in these areas.

We see young people moving up the ladder of celebrities Jason Beeber being one of the latest casualties into the occult, it is rife in Hollywood and the pop culture.

The deception of many innocent looking pictures, ornaments, rugs etc we bring into our homes or watch on TV at the movies. I have had to throw out stuff years ago as I learned through prayer and matured in my walk with Jesus because it was not apparent to me at first. I share videos, articles etc. We live in a very deceptive world and we are all surrounded by visual occult objects etc.

Amanda

Quote:
Hello Amanda,

I don't "gloss" over anything written in my threads. I might choose not to reply again to subjects that have been discussed to death, or not to relate to unfounded conspiracy theories and I've given my reasons for that many times as well.

What I find interesting is that you chose not to relate to the article in my post above relating to Ron Paul's association with the Freemasons and secret societies a topic you write extensively about in regard to the Elite/Illuminati, globalists and the NWO. Could it be that it sorta puts the kook Ron Paul in a different light? I wonder? Or is this just another topic that'll be brushed off by his supporters as not relevant? Or did you simply not read it as you most likely didn't read Daniel Greenfield's article either? Both of these articles raise questions that should be answered and haven't been ..........yet and most probably won't be answered.

Shalom,

Peter

Quote:

Hello Peter,

You probably noticed that I used notepad and copied and pasted so I could answer to the best of my ability.

I am sorry I did mess up with that page you copied out - I did look at that considered it, but it was not the contents that I was looking for.

What I thought I had linked to was the Search page (which have a long url with unusual letters &% in them) for Causes of Annual Deaths because there is quite a few and this has been a concern of mine - We are being Soft Killed... This issue has nothing to do with Ron Paul - it is mine. I have spoken on this many times, yet I feel you just gloss over these.

Amanda

Quote:
Hello Amanda,

I have a big surprise for you. I'm not gonna reply to your full post cos the majority of it has been discussed in past posts and it appears that you believe if you repeat things often enough you'll tire me out but nothing can be further from the truth and as I said in previous posts it simply starts to bore me.

I will refer to one part only simply for the reason that as usual when you use the Paul and Jones rhetoric and sound bytes you also ignore history and present it in a distorted manner which sounds more like propaganda then true facts and distorting history for the sake of supporting the kook Ron Paul and the Elite/Illuminati issue.

You quoted one sentence "Islam butchered over 250,000,000 infidels over the centuries" and omitted why I wrote that sentence. I'll put in the full quote and your reply that totally ignores history and is full of Ron Paul and Jones sound bytes. My remarks will come after the quote.

Quote:
I wonder why you haven't got the same compassion for the Elite/Illuminati? Sorta a contradiction there I would say. And don't tell me it's cos the E/I killed so many people over the years. Do I have to remind you again that they are the new kids on the block? Islam butchered over 250,000,000 infidels over the centuries so I wouldn't waste your compassion and love on them cos you're in line if you don't submit to their will. They certainly feel no compassion or love for infidels and their handiwork against Christians in many muslim countries is very well documented and proves just that.

http://tempuri.org/tempuri.html

you do not say how many muslims have been killed by Gentiles, Christians and Jews - Military from NZ, Australia, Canada, Britain, US over the centuries - we can kill them but they cannot retaliate.
The military has been stationed in Muslim countries for decades, did they even want us there, did we even ask them? These are the questions one has to ask ourselves. I reckon our respective Govts have been the big bullies on the block.
Then when the soldiers come back wounded or even dead they are treated appallingly. The wounded do not have enough medical insurance to cover all their care, and Military are paid poorly for what they are expected to do. Their families suffer trying to make ends meet. It disturbs me greatly how much these men, women and their families suffer from the traumer - The majority of the Military are Ron Paul supporters, I reckon that in itself tells me alot as they were sent into wars that killed innocent women and children, they saw first hand that it was a farce and they were manipulated and lied too. There are many youtubes of interviews.

Amanda, here you go again trying to mislead and claim that Muslims killed the infidels cos the infidels also killed them. You're talking about the recent past and the 250,000,000 million have been killed over the past almost 1,500 years. Try and forget the Ron Paul sound bytes (if you can), the short history of the Elite/Illuminati and open your history books and read about the history of Islamic conquests and the killings in the name of allah, jihad, koran all for the sake of world domination and an Islamic Caliphate. I posted the history in the past and I'll try to find it and edit the link in here. If not google Caliphate or the historic wars of the Caliphate. You can't change history but you can ignore it and use ridiculous sound bytes and propaganda instead which is exactly what you've done.

Now here's an interesting thing. In your reply you added a link with no explanation (http://tempuri.org/tempuri.html ) and I assumed it was to support what you're planning to write but you miscalculated cos all you did was read the title of the article but failed to read the article. If you did read it you sure misunderstood it. I'd recommend reading the article rather depending on a title that you think supports your views. I'll post the full article below. BTW, in the past I referred to this article cos it shows how future journalists are being brainwashed and taught to be biased while still studying their future trade. In addition it also shows how the on line journalist course is funded by George Soros and his groups. Ooooops.

Shalom,

Peter

Course Instructs Journalists to Take Note That Jihad 'Not a Leading Cause of Death'

By Judson Berger

Published September 29, 2011

| FoxNews.com

A new online journalism course on Islam appears to downplay the threat posed by global jihad groups, suggesting reporters keep the death toll from Islamic terrorism in "context" by comparing that toll to the number of people killed every year by malaria, HIV/AIDS and other factors.

"Jihad is not a leading cause of death in the world," the online course cautions studying journalists.

While that is technically true, researchers at the Culture and Media Institute who examined the online program took exception to that and numerous other claims made in the Poynter News University course

Dan Gainor, vice president at the institute, said the course is sweeping these threats "under the rug," while watering down the section on jihad with inappropriate comparisons.

"Infectious disease, we have government structures to prevent that, and that's great ... in radical Islam we have not even one organization but several organizations that are constantly seeking to kill Americans and others too," he said. "It seems like journalists should not be involved in trying to downplay that."

Gainor's group released a report Thursday morning on the course.

The Islam reporting program is supported in part by a group, the Social Science Research Council, which has received funding from organizations backed by billionaire George Soros.

In the section on jihad, the course informs readers that the word merely means "struggle" in Arabic -- this is something White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan has sought to remind the public of in the past. The course notes that terrorism in the name of jihad has "failed to mobilize Muslims outside of a few territories."

But to illustrate this point, the course references the number of people killed by various causes, implicitly suggesting journalists change the way they report on jihad-related deaths.

"Of the hundreds of murders that occur each day, journalists are far more likely to report on jihad-related incidents than other violence. As a result, news consumers have developed a skewed impression of the prevalence of jihad, relative to other forms of conflict. Context is essential in covering this global story in a way that does not amplify fears of jihad," the course says.

The Poynter course estimates jihad groups have killed about 165,000 people over the past four decades, mostly in Iraq. It notes the biggest toll in the United States was the approximately 3,000 killed on Sept. 11, 2001.

"To give those numbers some context, the FBI reports that approximately 15,000 people in the U.S. are murdered each year. All around the world, more than half a million people are murdered annually, according to the World Health Organization," the course says. "At its peak, jihad organizations have accounted for less than 2 percent of this toll -- in most years, they account for well under 1 percent. (A half-million individuals die each year from nutritional deficiencies, more than 800,000 from malaria, and 2 million from HIV/AIDS.)"

Gainor noted that murder victims mostly are killed in separate incidents, whereas victims of Islamic terrorism often are killed in larger-scale attacks. Also, murder victims typically are not killed in the name of an ideological war against a country.

The online course, which is broken into several sections, also discusses "right-wing activists" bent on linking American Muslims to terrorism. The section includes the good-journalism tip that reporters should check to see if experts they're interviewing "have a bias or a stake in the story you are covering." But then it only cites examples of anti-Muslim groups.

The course also addresses Shariah law without including information of instances where the law is interpreted with harsh consequences.

"In countries governed by strict adherence to Islam, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, Shariah is the law of the land. But in many other Muslim countries, such as Egypt, there are separate civil and Shariah law courts, with the latter governing issues such as marriage and family law, while civil courts decide the rest," the course says.

But the Culture and Media Institute, part of the conservative Media Research Center, noted that in strict countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, people can be stoned to death or flogged for non-violent crimes. In Iran, a pastor who refused to renounce his Christian faith was facing execution after his sentence was recently upheld by an Iranian court -- though an attorney now says he is likely to be acquitted.

The Poynter Institute said in an email to FoxNews.com that it created the course "as a tool for journalists who want to be accurate in educating their audience about the religion and culture of Islam, Muslim communities in the U.S., and the distinctions between Islam as a political movement and the radical philosophies that inspire militant Islamists."

"We believe there is a need to better understand the complexities of Muslim societies and the online course offered by Poynter and Washington State University is a vital resource toward that end," the Poynter Institute said.

"The values underpinning the course are truth, accuracy, independence, fairness, minimizing harm and context -- the core journalistic values on which we build all our teaching here at Poynter."

Quote:

Hello Peter,

Don't gloat too soon..

There was definitively cheating going on at the Iowa voting.

Lots of talks over the phone from many different people whom were there. There was far more Ron Paul supporters who came out in person..

Lots of different tricks going on..

It is going to take a couple of days to put all these reports into order before publishing. - But whether even proof will make any difference because cheating has been going on for decades.

Can anyone even remember or if there was actually a 'true' vote without cheating in this country?

Amanda

Quote:
Doesn't have to be supported by him to be fact. I guess we all are guilty of the demagogy then.

Quote:
Hello Jim,

First of all this isn't even a Ron Paul approved video but one that was prepared by one of the super PACS supporting the kook Ron Paul. It is interesting that even he's not so spaced out to approve a piece of garbage like that. "Imagine" that!

Even though you think it's one of the best Ron Paul video's you've seen it's simple DEMAGOGUERY with no connection to reality. I wonder if this is going to become the new generation of Ron Paul sound bytes, if so it's quite pathetic and didn't work as the results of the Iowa caucus showed. I never believed he would win in Iowa as I said in previous posts and in my opinion it's downhill from now on and rightly so. Guess all the negative ads didn't do the trick the kook and the ronbots hoped for.

Shalom,

Peter

P.S. Just so you understand what I mean by using the word demagoguery here's the definition:

Quote:
Demagogy (/ˈdɛməɡɒdʒi/[1]) or demagoguery (/ˈdɛməɡɒɡəri/[2]) (Ancient Greek: δημαγωγία, from δῆμος dēmos "people" and ἄγειν agein "to lead") is a strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears, vanities and expectations of the public—typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist, populist or religious themes. What qualifies as demagogy has been the subject of debate and ambiguity since Aristophanes first used the term, in reference to the Athenian statesman, Cleon.

Or as H.L. Mencken defined a demagouge as:

Quote:
"one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."

You can read more here.

Quote:
One of the best Ron Paul videos I have seen. I cannot help but agree with this analogy.
With all the hostility in that part of the world I am surprised other countries don't have forward bases protecting their interests. Oh, I know, "Let the US do it " Well guess what we aren't being paid for our services of policing the world so we the American people want out of that deal ASAP. Let someone else do it we will take care of ourselves as we have done since the Revolution. Just a thought.

Quote:
Hello Friends,

The title of the below article is "Imagine A Ron Paul Presidency" I for one can't imagine a worse nightmare but the below article is insightful and thought provoking.

Parts of the article describe the US military through Paul's eyes and as you can imagine they're not very complimentary to soldiers putting their lives on the line to protect the security of the United States. It also includes some preposterous examples that Paul and the ronbots use in order to further denigrate the military. This guy is a catastrophe and after a B Hussein presidency which was bad enough we would become a second rate country with a president apologizing for past supposed misdeeds at a higher rate then B Hussein the great apologist did. As I said a nightmare

It's well worth the read and who knows it might cause some Paul "fence sitter" supporters to think a bit. The ronbots and Jones junkies are a lost cause, nothing will help with them.

Shalom,

Peter

Imagine a Ron Paul Presidency

Posted by Mark Tapson Bio ↓ on Jan 3rd, 2012

“Imagine for a moment,” a man’s voice intones in an urgent whisper, “that somewhere in the middle of Texas there was a large foreign military base – say, Chinese or Russian.” So begins a video produced by Revolution PAC, comprised of supporters and some former campaign staff of Ron Paul​. The text of the video derives entirely from a Paul speech given in early October, in which the presidential candidate condemns what he deems to be our jackbooted foreign policy and likens our military abroad to an oppressive occupation force, while whitewashing murderous insurgents as freedom fighters.

“Imagine,” the voice continues as the text zooms and veers about on the screen,

that thousands of armed foreign troops were constantly patrolling American streets in military vehicles. Imagine they were here under the auspices of “keeping us safe” or “promoting democracy” or “protecting their strategic interests.”

The analogy, of course, is to our own troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, which Paul and his supporters cite as the reason Islamic fundamentalists hate us, along with such other offenses as our military bases on Saudi soil. And the video’s suggestion is that the justifications noted above for our presence there are mere pretexts.

The video graphics come fast and furious now, and the music and narration escalate in intensity and menace. It’s moving at a pace and volume that steamroll right over any reasoned objections:

Imagine that they operated outside of US law, and that the Constitution did not apply to them. Imagine that every now and then they made mistakes or acted on bad information and accidentally killed or terrorized innocent Americans, including women and children, most of the time with little to no repercussions or consequences. Imagine that they set up checkpoints on our soil and routinely searched and ransacked entire neighborhoods of homes. Imagine if Americans were fearful of these foreign troops, and overwhelmingly thought America would be better off without their presence.

Of course, our troops are doing anything but running around ransacking entire neighborhoods; it is the insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan who are terrorizing innocents. We have gone to such ludicrous extremes to win hearts and minds that we’re more comfortable putting our own troops’ lives at risk than offending the locals. But the video’s denigration of our military and whitewashing of the enemy get worse as the analogy goes completely off the rails:

Imagine if some Americans were so angry about them being in Texas that they actually joined together to fight them off, in defense of our soil and sovereignty, because leadership in government refused or were unable to do so. Imagine that those Americans were labeled terrorists or insurgents for their defensive actions, and routinely killed, or captured and tortured by the foreign troops on our land.

Take a moment to wrap your mind around Paul’s meaning here. He’s saying that al Qaeda- and Iranian-backed mujahideen who are wreaking havoc in Iraq, who massacre Christians and pro-American Iraqis, who gleefully kill Americans, and who are destabilizing the country in hopes of establishing another Islamic fundamentalist state, are freedom fighters who have been falsely labeled terrorists and are no different from Texans banding together in defense of our freedoms and rights against Chinese or Russian soldiers. He’s saying that our troops kill and torture innocent Iraqis routinely.

Now the narrator’s voice hits a fever pitch as he takes this offensive analogy further:

Imagine that the occupiers’ attitude was that if they just killed enough Americans, the resistance would stop, but instead, for every American killed, ten more would take up arms against them, resulting in perpetual bloodshed.

Our troops have never been out to “kill enough” of the Iraqi or Afghan people. This is an outrageous slur, but typical of the Paul mindset which eliminates inconvenient facts in order to assert that America has enemies only because our foreign policy makes them so.

The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas.

Nonsense. The reality is that reality isn’t Ron Paul’s strong suit. The video ends with Paul’s own voice asserting that we must “[cease dealing] with other nations with threats and violence” and instead, “[open] ourselves up to friendship, honest trade and diplomacy.” Right. Because we all know it’s America, not Iran or Russia or China or al Qaeda or the Taliban, that is the entity trafficking in threats and violence, and eschewing friendship, honest trade and diplomacy.

It is certainly possible to make a principled argument against American nation-building in Muslim countries. It is certainly true that there are Muslims, especially in Afghanistan, the graveyard of empires, who want Americans out of these countries. But this video of Paul’s speech is not that principled argument. It is anti-American, military-bashing propaganda that ignores historical and political complexities and “meets the left coming ‘round from the other way,” as Mark Steyn puts it. Keep in mind also that this speech is from a presidential candidate whom a former staffer claims

engaged in conspiracy theories, including perhaps the [9/11] attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11.*

The video was actually first released back in October but has been steadily gaining traction over the internet since then. It has been reposted approvingly on such websites for Islamist apologists as IslamophobiaToday and Loonwatch as a compelling explanation for “why they hate us.” As full of obviously false and offensive analogies as it is, the ad is effective with those Blame America First (and Last) children of Chomsky who believe or are easily convinced that if only America would apologize for its imperialist militarism and sin no more, peace on earth and good will toward men would sweep the globe faster than Santa’s reindeer.

Imagine this instead: Imagine that we have a President of the United States​ whose foreign policy consists of apologizing for America, paving the way for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, standing by while Iran acquires nuclear weapons, and relinquishing our role as the principal actor on the world stage. “But we already have a president like that,” you say. Yes, but now imagine that he is replaced in 2012 by a President who not only perpetuates this self-destructive lunacy but whose “ostrichism” exacerbates it. Imagine that in the wake of Obama’s disastrous reign, when we most need an unapologetic leader who can reverse the tide and reassert American power and dignity, we get four years of, to borrow from Steyn again, “sheer stupid half-witted parochialism” instead. Imagine Ron Paul is our next President.

*The Paul camp has not disputed the substance of these accusations, only dismissed their source as “a disgruntled former staffer who… has zero credibility.”

About Mark Tapson

Mark Tapson, a Hollywood-based writer and screenwriter, is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. He focuses on the politics of popular culture.