www.dworekprzeznaczenia.fora.pl

ierm8ec8

Keywords: , , , , , , ,
(c)
Category:
Ron Paul, Isolationism, and Blatant Yellow JournalismArticle Summary: The crux of yellow journalism and muckraking is the depth to which the trusted media will stoop to malign decent public servants through intentional misrepresentation of the facts. The actual advent of such disreputable printing of malicious and scurrilous drivel in newspapers was [url=http://www.par5club.com/louboutin.php]louboutin[/url] the presidential campaign contest between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams, in 1823-24. The problem with yellow journalism is that a portion [url=http://www.anepf.fr]doudoune moncler[/url] of the electorate always ends up believing the incorrect facts, and voting according to them. Read on the see how Ron Paul has been the victim of yellow journalism.

Article Source: uPublish.info
**NOTE** - has claimed original rights on the article "Ron Paul, Isolationism, and Blatant Yellow Journalism" ... if there is a dispute on the originality of this article ... please contact us via our and supply our staff with the appropriate details of dispute (ie ).
When factually incorrect American history is deliberately invoked by reckless journalists to promote politically popular, yet fallacious, points of view, the honored dead who made that history cry out from the grave for redress and clarification. As such, the editorial that appeared in "The Examiner Washington" on January 3, 2012, which attempted to censure Ron Paul's position on U.S. foreign policy, calling him an isolationist, was yellow journalism in its rawest form, and totally wrong in its contextual rendering of the statements and actions of President's Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Just like when the "Washington Post" egregiously [url=http://www.villazuki.it]woolrich sito ufficiale[/url] portrayed Ron Paul in KKK garb, the "Examiner" is making its own mockery of truth by pragmatically using the 1st Amendment's freedom of the press to deceive and mislead the public interest.

Let's start with the Barbary Pirates in the Mediterranean. According to Jefferson's personal notes written just after his inauguration, in 1801, the great man specifically stated that the actions against the Barbary Pirates were to be defensive only, and that the six frigates that were built during, and after 1794, were to be used by the President only in event of a declaration of war against the United States by the Barbary powers. Congress had, therefore, insisted that, "only in event of a declaration of war of were those [url=http://www.rtnagel.com/airjordan.php]nike air jordan pas cher[/url] ships to be used." In 1801, a flag staff in front of the U.S. Consulate in Tripoli was cut-down, which personally angered a few Federalists in Washington, who personally interpreted that act as a declaration of was against the United States. Nonetheless, Jefferson did not construe the act as a declaration of war, because the other Barbary States (Algiers and Tunis) did not follow the example of Tripoli. According to the notes he wrote [url=http://www.heiv.net/projets/#comment-306465]Will You Join The Christmas Credit-Go-Round - written by Roy Thomsitt[/url] in late May 1801, Jefferson sent a small naval force to the area to protect American ships and citizens on the open sea, not to invade Tripoli. Since Congress did not issue a formal declaration of war, Jefferson jointly told the House and the Senate that "I am unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense." Offensive actions ordered by a U.S. President, without Congressional authorization, were to Jefferson blatantly unconstitutional.

In the same vein, executive orders issued by a President are considered traditional, but hardly constitutional. [url=http://www.kt70.com/~slave/aile/joyful/joyful.cgi]barbour milano outlet Millbro[/url] The [url=http://bbs.koolboo.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2578531]hogan outlet Simplifying the task of choosing the desired ETF[/url] first executive order was issued by President George Washington in the building of the first U.S. Mint. It was strictly unconstitutional, but Congress allowed it to stand (they thought that Old George could do no wrong) which set [url=http://www.burnabystorage.com/barbour.php]barbour italia[/url] an illegal common law precedent that inexorably found its way to the pen of Franklin Roosevelt, when, by vicious executive order, he, in 1941, unlawfully interred (imprisoned) all Japanese-Americans in the United [url=http://www.mxitcms.com/abercrombie/]abercrombie milano[/url] States. Don't you think that the Framers would have specifically included [url=http://www.mxitcms.com/abercrombie/]abercrombie[/url] in U.S. Constitution, in Article 2, the specific legislative power of a standing President to unilaterally create a law, and then enforce and interpret it, if they had thought it proper? Long before the American Revolution, French Baron Charles de Montesquieu stated that "when legislative, executive, and judicial authority is collectively wielded by the same person a dictatorship exists." Thomas Jefferson fully concurred with this basic truth, and James Madison vehemently [url=http://www.corsodiesperanto.it/hoganit.html]hogan outlet[/url] supported constitutional separation of powers in his large contribution to the "Federalist Papers."

The "Examiner" editorial went on to say that President Thomas Jefferson officially backed the Monroe Doctrine, which was egregiously incorrect. How could Jefferson have officially backed the Monroe Doctrine when the doctrine didn't even exist until 1823? Jefferson was President from 1801-1809, and died in 1826. The comments Jefferson made in the winter of his life about the Monroe Doctrine were disparagingly critical of U.S. Congresses allowing Presidents James Madison and James Monroe to establish entangling foreign alliances through supplying aid to South American revolutionaries, such as Simon Bolivar. Jefferson totally agreed with retiring President [url=http://www.dearilievi.it]moncler outlet[/url] George Washington about not establishing entangling alliances. Yet, since around 1920, with the vast supply of revenue available to a spend thrifty behemoth regulatory federal government from un-apportioned income taxation, the feds have been paying nation-states all over the globe millions, if not billions, of tax dollars just to be friendly to the U.S., and paying them to allow the Romanesque U.S. military to establish Air force and Army bases on their soil.

If Thomas Jefferson were here today, he would totally eschew what has happened to his republic and would applaud Rep. Ron Paul for [url=http://www.tagverts.com/barbour.php]www.tagverts.com/barbour.php[/url] his stand against Executive branch police actions and U.S. interventionism, which are brazenly unconstitutional. With the current state of affairs, Jefferson would probably also be maligned for his defense of the U.S. Constitution. It is good to remember that the U.S. Supreme Court can, with impunity, declare that laws passed by Congress, which inexorably violate the U.S Constitution, are constitutional. But does that really make those laws constitutional, which are blatantly against the rights and freedoms of the People of the United States? In [url=http://www.lotogame.fr/louboutin-pas-cher/]louboutin[/url] declaring his official opinion of the Alien and Sedition Acts (very similar to the Patriot Act), passed by the Federalists in [url=http://www.rtnagel.com/louboutin.php]louboutin pas cher[/url] Congress in 1798, Jefferson quipped that the four acts were "as constitutional as a golden calf in the U.S. Senate." So, my advice goes out to "The Examiner," and to all other newspapers who find it convenient to indiscreetly misquote our Founding Fathers. Get your facts and history straight!
Norton R. Nowlin Article Feed :
References:
About the Author: