OK, rather than write another post that some people will take as me screaming when I’m actually pleading with people to pay attention, I thought I would just throw this out there and then ask you a few questions:
The article, which can still be seen on many of the sites that utilize the Associated Press, began: “WASHINGTON — A Republican senator says he sees some in his party favoring a 2016 presidential candidate with an immigration policy that would ’round people up … and send them back to Mexico.’”
The retraction notice explains:
The Associated Press has withdrawn its story about Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., saying he sees some in the his party favoring a 2016 presidential candidate with an immigration policy that would “round up people … and send them back to Mexico.” That quote was in the transcript of “Fox News Sunday” that was distributed after Paul’s interview on the show. A subsequent Associated Press review of an audio recording of the show determined that the transcript had dropped the word “don’t” from that quote, and Paul actually said, “They don’t want somebody who wants to round people up, put them in camps and send them back to Mexico.” [Emphasis added]
OK, I want to start by openly stating that the AP’s original story was not a mistake. There are simply too many layers of editing that these stories go through for this to NOT be caught. Besides, this is political, and, as FDR explained, nothing happens in politics by accident. If it happens, we can bet it was planned that way. So I AM saying the AP originally ran a story they knew was a lie, and they did it to damage Rand Paul’s reputation. Now here are my questions:
1 – What do we do when the press stops being the press and becomes a willing participant with the government and openly shares in the government’s objective to undermine our system of government and our economy? A free and self-governing people have to rely on a free press that acts as a government watch dog, not as a partner with government. When the “media” ceases to perform this function, the people lose their ability to obtain the information they need to perform their duties connected to self-rule.
2—At what point does the First Amendment cease protecting this sort of propaganda? At some point, this becomes subversion: a deliberate attempt to undermine and destroy our system of government. The First Amendment does NOT protect such actions. So when do we start prosecuting for subversion (remember, many of Wilson’s laws are still on the books). At the very least, people such as Rand Paul must be allowed to sue for damages in cases like this: where there is clear intent to harm through false witness and where real damages can be shown.
3 – How do we get people to understand that they cannot trust the “Main Stream Media?” How can we convince them that the MSM has truly become an enemy of our founding ideals and principles? How can we wake them to this threat when our culture does so much to re-enforce the notion that they cannot put lies on TV or in the papers?