Proof the Media has picked your President

I can barely express how truly disappointed I am in the ignorance of the American people and the huge corruption of the news in this presidential election. Call me naive, but I also wasn't old enough to vote until Bush's second term.

First- I watched the MSNBC debates tonight. Censorship is brutal- I won't deny my acclaim for Dr. Ron Paul. But when his total time speaking is 6 minutes and 31 seconds, by far the least- the second least amount belonging to Mike Huckabee at 12 minutes, how can you justify feeding the Romneybot 21 minutes of face time? Sure I can bitch and moan till the cows come home about the blatant censorship of Dr. Paul and things probably won't change...

But, seriously Mitt Romney is the winner? He had the most time talking tonight and from the looks of it he also had a prompter. When asked if he would respond the same way Reagan did... a whisper is loud and clear "he raised taxes" and Romney starts "What by raising taxes?". Sure give me the bullshit answer to this like a good media pawn.

Who said it? Cameras don't have mics. In fact only the moderators and the candidates had mics. MSNBC is going to blame Russert, but did he need to whisper that in order to get a relevant answer from Mitt? If Mitt is a great economic candidate he would know that raising taxes is what Reagan did right? Since he name drops RR frequently enough would he in fact need Russert to add "he raised taxes" to the question? Doubt it. What's more disturbing is that along with his "help" and his 20% of the show air-time, the debate winner er I mean owner is...

Oh that's right- Mitt Romney. He purchased the media empire "Clear Channel Communications" in November of 2006. Those that say he is a good businessman are certainly correct. Clear Channel is an umbrella company consisting of 1200 radio stations, various billboard sites, newspapers and local cable channels like Fox and ABC.

So the news we are getting is from a station that's owned by presidential candidate Mitt Romney- I guess we have our very own explanation for censorship. So if you want to welcome today's soft Republicans in to change the ways of President Bush- with the exception of Ron Paul you are welcoming full control of your lives, even what you watch on TV.

*Another link to Romney's first-hand connection to Clear Channel has been posted, and as of January 11th Bain Capital, Mitt's company, has gotten FCC approval for the buyout- from the Huffington Post.

Another 2008 Candidate a "racist"

The recent findings of sensational news reporters point to a "racist" Ron Paul because of old newsletters.

It is up to the people to decide what candidates are racist. I do find it funny that Fox News, in specific Hannity (who has overt religious views) have neglected to report on another candidate and their belief system.

Romney has been questioned about his political campaign in terms of his religion as a mormon although we frequently claim religion is seperate from politics.

Is discrimination through religion any different?

Democratic front runner Barack Obama belongs to the African found "Trinity- United Church of Christ". Trinity can be seen as practicing Christian faith but also differentiates themself from other churches because they are African based. By African based, I mean ONLY African Americans can belong to the church.

But hey, religion doesn't matter right? Ask Mitt Romney. Or ask Ron Paul about being racist when another candidate practices faith by way of discrimination.

Sean Hannity and his lack of Moral Conduct

Rather than shun "reporter" Sean Hannity of Fox News for his blatent moral misconduct regarding the 2008 Presidential Election, I instead will look at other examples of his bad journalistic nature.

The infamous Rush Limbaugh can be thanked for Hannity's rise to media fame. Rush is the classic example of a hypocrit, defaming drug and alcohol addicts while swallowing his share of oxycontins. He produced a little Rush to ruin airwaves in Hannity, and Fox News' disregard of real journalism made a perfect match for Hannity.

Hannity's past criticisms of Democrats, religion and the war have proved his cynical opinions are not examples of journalism but just that- opinions.

Maybe we outta look into Hannity's study of journalism to better understand why he frequently undermines the Society of Professional Journalism's Code of Ethics.

According to his bios posted on Fox’s web site and his personal web site, Sean has not attended any journalism classes, has no formal training in journalism and has not been a reporter. He was a talk show host on a college radio station and he made a very successful jump to AM radio.

Maybe that explains why he frequently neglects that idea that Journalists should:
— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.

After last night's debate in Myrtle Beach, Hannity claimed that every Republican candidate has a fair chance at presidency with the exception of Ron Paul. He then proceeded to interview all of the participating candidates with the exception of Ron Paul.

It's no secret that I support Ron Paul. However, I can differentiate between the candidates and frequently applaud both Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee.

Fox News also showed three instances of candidates in the debate making remarks toward Ron Paul without showing his rebuttles. The debate also included a question for Ron Paul only that asked what makes him an acceptable candidate as Republicans feel that he is not.

Hannity has attacked the Democratic Party, in particular Al Gore. He has accused Democrats of not caring to investigate terrorist threats post- 9.11.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, however it is the job of a Journalist to report the News. Fox News has failed to represent themselves as a real News station by imposing their biases on viewers.

They more recently made false claims about Clinton's campaign and who would be joining her post-Iowa caucus loss. After these claims were represented as false, they continued to report on it.

It's only a matter of time before Fox News and their head bad guy Hannity become satirical relief and lose their title as a News station. Saturday Night Live or The View are better to compare to Fox News than the likes of any other News station.

Support for Ron Paul; Sign the Petition and Donate

Calling all twixters: that's right 80's babies; those of us who are recent grads or are still in college. The future of this country. If you are not familiar we are referred to as twixters because we are the generation that complains but does not act.

I like to live by the saying "Why curse the darkness when you can light a candle?"

Here's our chance. A petition demanding a recount for the NH primary was started, and those of us Ron Paul supporters who are familiar with the situation and believe it was fraud should sign.

Although my blog isn't widely popular it gained some serious momentum over the past few days. If I was someone noteworthy I would officially endorse Paul. So I am asking for the Ron Paul supporters (twixters in particular) to keep faith. As college students or recent grads who have picked Ron Paul as our candidate, we were and still are onto something.

A real revolution is in his hands and in ours. If we really want to see change we must help bring it. I am asking that we start a mini-twixter campaign. Specifically, as broke students who have climbed into a hole of debt from high student loan interest rates we don't have the finances to spend thousands of dollars on endorsements. But, if every one of us gave $5 to his campaign we could make a difference.

Let's do it. Let's not be the lazy twixters of the past, let's stick with our guts in this critical time. We need to fight back, to take this country back as belonging to the people before it's too late.

Put your five bucks to good use (think: two 22's of Old English, a pack of cigarettes or a subway meal) If you can come up with 5 bucks for those things you can give it to Ron Paul!

Don't forget the Republican debate from Myrtle Beach is on Fox News tonight at 9pm ET!

Voter Fraud confirmed

It has been confirmed that voter fraud did occur in Sutton County, as the town clerk stated that Ron Paul had 31 votes not zero.

A recount costs somewhere around $67,000 and without a financial surge Ron Paul might not be able to demand one. He needs donations to continue his campaign towards freedom.

New Hampshire Primaries- Voter fraud?

The positive from the results of the NH primaries are of course: Obama didn't win and neither did Mitt Romney. As I mentioned previously, Hillary would be doing better had she got more women involved in her campaign- being less androgynous and appealing to women voters by being a woman herself would help. It did help, she won.

Hillary is my first runner up. Meaning if Ron Paul doesn't get the nominee from the Republicans, I will vote Hillary. I feel that she is the most educated and most tactical nominee. She isn't going to bring the revolution, but neither is Obama. The only president that COULD do that is Ron Paul.

McCain is alright to me. I feel like his time was in the past, last election. He is a little too conservative to me. At least Mitt Romney didn't win (I will say it again).

Huckabee is my second runner up, as if Paul and Clinton don't get nominees I will vote for Huckabee. Although I am not a fan of the religious thing, Huckabee takes an American stand point on many things. A lot of this is repetitive so I will instead talk about some of the controversy.

Controversy- more of the buzz word in this campaign than "change" is. I don't want to give the impression of being in this alleged Ron Paul cult that people speak of. I am a newly found Ron Paul supporter, not a radical supporter. I don't show these findings in a way to spark a conspiracy theory, but I cannot find any other explanation for things I have read and seen with my own eyes.

First, a New Hampshire girl claims vote fraud in the town of Sutton. The small town has a tiny population and its citizens are all a tight knit family. They all know who they voted for and can't understand that how three of them have come forward as voting for Paul, yet according to the political map- Paul got ZERO votes in Sutton. They don't believe the fraudulent activity happened at the actual site, but was a mistake made on a larger scale.

In regards to voter fraud, I was personally a victim of suspicious activity yesterday. I do my primary/caucus following by way of CNN. When CNN announced that each county could be followed on CNN.com during the New Hampshire primary, I was intrigued. I wanted to see how each county broke down, so I knew who had the biggest all around following. I wanted to see how Ron Paul/Rudy Guiliani/Mike Huckabee sat in comparison.

I looked county by county, very close calls. Sometimes Paul had the most votes of the three, other times Guiliani or Huckabee did. I was pleasantly surprised to see Paul win two counties. Then I noticed that Pittsfield, a smaller county in New Hampshire, had interesting results. Paul had 168 votes- 25% of the county, however where it said reporting (and every other county reporting votes read 100% reporting) Pittsfield said 0% reporting- although Paul had won the county according to the posted results. I made note of this and showed a fellow Paul supporter.

I was curious to figure out what this meant. I continued looking through the county results and returned about 3 minutes later to the page that had Pittsfield's information. Pittsfield was now 100% reporting- Paul had 71 votes and 10%. How did he lose votes in a manner of 3 minutes. How were 168 people accounted for as voting for him and now 71 were? If anyone has an explanation out there I would love to hear it.

The Facebook-ABC Presidential Debates

My oh my where to start. I finally got to see both parties in a debate sequence. I have always proudly called myself "very liberal" and although this means democrat, I consider myself a centralist. After watching the democrats debate, I was very tempted to call myself a Republican- for better or worse.

Not only did most of the democrats sound uneducated, but they were a huge snoozefest. They got caught up in using political jargon while barely raising their voices over monotone. As I have noted before I initially declared myself Pro-Hillary about 3 years ago, I was super excited to have her in office as the commander in chief. I consider myself fully on board with Ron Paul, but I still support Hillary as I think she is smart and a safe option for President.

However I was intrigued to watch both Obama and Huckabee in action since they stole the Iowa caucuses. Not to mention, Obama's MLK-like speech post-caucus was powerful although without substance.

For the Dems:

Obama
I have found that Barack Obama is the man that epitomizes the whole Twixter argument. By nature he is persuasive; throwing the word "change" around as it is the word we want to hear. He spoke powerfully during his post-caucus speech but overall it was just fluff- no real issues were mentioned. He was more into raising the roof by way of applauding the open-mindedness of America (I suppose because he is a black man). For those of us who would rather accept a candidate because he has the right things to say rather than what he stands for- he is the vote of the 80's babies. If you take the time to do your research you might find he is inexperienced and voted on 300 million going to the Iraq war. During his debate I was bored and unimpressed especially when he spoke of the threat of Nuclear weapons. Using the word "proliferation" repeatedly while babbling away from an actual answer does not prove anything except that Hillary was right in what she said about you.

Edwards
It's hard to imagine that a TORT lawyer is even a democrat. He made his MILLIONS by being a lawsuit lawyer and suing corportations. If you want a better understanding think McDonald's lawsuit- a lady sued McDonald's for being burned by her HOT coffee. Similarly Edwards was a lawyer who represented cases that are comprable to this. I don't dislike Edwards but I feel that he would be better off as a VP to Hillary then head of the white house.

Clinton
Of all the Dem candidates she is by far the most well spoken and articulate. She knows what needs to be done and speaks clearly about issues. I was almost watching the debate ready to criticize her because most of the media is. (and they say the media doesn't influence our beliefs) But, I was impressed with Hillary and if the Dems want a real shot at taking office this year she would be the best representative. I do feel that she would be much more popular had she played up the gender card a bit. Obama is doing so well because he is constantly talking about how the country welcomes change- just as Obama is a minority, so is Hillary as a woman. She needs to talk a bit about things she has done in office that would emotionally strike women because she is almost being too androgynous- and I feel that is her handicap right now.

For the Reps:

McCain
He is almost like the bully. When other candidates were speaking he was sitting in corner laughing like a joker. I don't like the smug thing, I suppose he feels New Hampshire is in the bag for him. Although he is smart and well-spoken on issues, I feel like he and Romney are both too conservative for a post-Bush election.

Romney
I would move to Canada if he was elected. Talk about Nixonlike, Romney is the most blatantly corrupt candidate. He just looks slimey and he has the most money. Mass needs to stop delivering guys like him and Kerry as their presidential hopefuls. He uses his money to attack other candidates and will always find the "grey area" on any issue- nothing is black and white to him. No thank you.

Huckabee
I must say that if I weren't going to vote for Ron Paul I would definitely vote for Huckabee (after Hillary of course). I like his attitude especially in terms of us being more dependant on ourselves. American workers and American products need to be more utilized. The downfall for him is his overly religious nature. Religion isn't tangible to me, so a guy who governs his beliefs around something that is philosophical almost seems troublesome. Otherwise, I like his character.

Paul
All the 80's babies who would rather jump on the bandwagon for Obama than actually do their research could possibly put our country in danger of losing the REAL revolutionist, as Obama is the guy who says but not does. Paul is well spoken and unique. He is without a doubt the guy who thinks outside the box. I loved his answer about oil costs, as most of us fail to realize that the value of the American dollar is the reason behind many of the economy's issues. Bring the troops home, get rid of welfare, and save the middle class. It's hard to knock a guy who hasn't changed his views on most issues and has voted against every tax raise.

However, I must say I am appalled at the media for never covering him. They have people who cover Huckabee, Guiliani, Romney and McCain but never show Paul's speeches or talk about his campaign. How can he be given a fair chance if you are giving the other candidates media exposure but not him. I want a fair and just media (as a journalist myself) and I want every candidate to be treated the same- if not how can I accurately form an opinion. Again, the media should be ashamed of their biases- the media doesn't exist to form biases, they exist to give the news.