Texas Congressman Ron Paul wants to defend the U.S. Constitution, along with our
Why Does The Media Go Out of Its Way To
Censor Ron Paul?
A Second Place Finish In Iowa GOP
Straw Poll Goes Virtually Unnoticed
NewsFocus, by Tim Watts - 081611
The Iowa Republican straw poll has once again called
into question the media's roll in manipulating public opinion. After finishing a
very close second to poll winner Michele Bachman, the media has totally
ignored Ron Paul in favor of much lesser candidates.
Even though Paul was only 152 votes from winning the
top spot, the corporate news media, and even the Republican party, talked of
much farther distant candidates instead.
Paul's finish with Bachman was essentially a near
tie. He had a 2-to-1 lead over his next closest rival, former Minnesota Governor
Tim Pawlenty, and a 6-to-1 lead over Texas Governor Rick Perry, but you wouldn't
know it from listening to the corporate owned news media, or the Sunday morning
pundit shows. Paul's Iowa finish was, for all intents and purposes, essentially
dismissed out of hand by the news media.
Instead, the media has focused on 1) Palin-wannabe
Bachman, who claims she was told to run for president by God, and 2) Perry, who
has recently proclaimed himself to be a prophet. These are claims the media of
old would have had a field day with, yet in today's corporate news landscape
they are accepted with very little question.
The final results of the Iowa
Republican straw poll were as follows: Bachmann (4,823), Paul (4,671), Pawlenty
(2,293), Santorum (1,657), Cain (1,456), Perry (718 write-in votes), Romney
(567), Gingrich (385), Huntsman (69), and McCotter (35).
What is it about Paul that the
corporate news media, and even his own party, have against him?
If you read Brian Montopoli, the
senior political reporter at CBSNews.com, he admittedly states
in his August 16th column,
Is Ron Paul getting unfair media treatment?...
"Critics of the media coverage of Paul have a point," but he
then immediately follows that statement up by claiming,
"Because many reporters see the Texas congressman as having
little chance of winning the nomination, he is often left out of
the discussion - even as an establishment figure like Jon
Huntsman, who badly trails Paul in the polls, is included."
Since when is it the job of news
reporters to decide who is going to win an election? Aren't they
supposed to merely report the facts and then let us decide? This
is just more proof that
our corporate controlled media is not out to give us the truth,
but to lead us in the direction that their corporate masters
According to CBS' Montoploi,
"Paul's relatively strong standing in early polls, this argument
goes, will fade as the field narrows around one or two more
How Mr, Montopoli can make such
an ignorant assessment, being an alleged political reporter, is
quite baffling, especially in light of Paul's undeniably solid
grass roots showing in the 2008 Presidential primaries.
Montopoli goes on to say,
Paul was shut out of the Sunday news shows after his
near-straw poll victory, Bachmann was invited into almost all of
them - and is now being treated by the media as one of the three
frontrunners for the nomination."
Clearly he doesn't sincerely
question the integrity of this media snub as much as he accepts
The CBS political correspondent
then admits that, "Most reporters also don't expect Bachmann
to win the nomination."
He adds, "Even though her
chances of winning are slim... she's simply a better story -
controversial, telegenic, and relatively new to the national
meanwhile, is on his third presidential run, and he's saying the
same things he's been saying for decades - which is admirable,
but not ideal in a media landscape where freshness is what gets
Does anyone else see the
absurdity in this?
Here is a member of the corporate media
machine admitting that being "telegenic" and
"freshness" makes for a more viable candidate,
versus someone who doesn't flip-flop on the issues, sticks to
his guns, and consistently keeps delivering the right message. A "better
story" is apparently worth more to the media than reporting
on the better candidate. At least
shamelessly concedes that this is what the media deems to be the
selling points that matter most to them in presenting
political news coverage.
The Daily Show's Jon Stewart, voted more
trustworthy than today's network anchors, did not miss the
absurdity in all of this.
"He's the one guy in the field - agree with him or don't agree
with him - who doesn't go out of his way to regurgitate talking
points or change what he believes to fit the audience in front
of (him)," said Stewart.
Once again, what is it about Ron Paul that has
the media running away from him?
Even Republican promotional network
FOX News goes out of its way to deceive its viewers and lie
about Paul's candidacy. Why would any organization
deliberately hold a candidate down when they have the best
chance at success in an election?
Paul, like his Democratic
counterpart Congressman Dennis Kucinich (OH), were by far and
away "the choice of the people" for their respective parties for
president in 2008. The problem was, the parties themselves did
not want them, instead ignoring the voice of the people by
refusing to acknowledge them publicly as politically viable
candidates, limiting them from full participation in the
debates, if not shutting them out entirely.
The latter was most certainly the
case for Kucinich who, despite his grass roots popular support,
was banned from many debates. NBC even went so far as to
lie to the Nevada Supreme
Court to hold Kucinich out of the Nevada debate. The company
that owned NBC, General Electric, is also one of the foremost
manufacturers and proponents for nuclear power plants, and one
can certainly speculate that it was not in their best interest
to have Kucinich talking on-air about Nevada's Yucca Mountain
and the sensitive statewide issue of nuclear waste.
So now we shift from 2008 to the
2012 presidential race and again the media news machine is at it
once more, downplaying the significance of a leading candidate.
Again... what is it about Paul
that scares these people?
In a nutshell, three things:
Number one, Paul's staunch
support for dismantling the Federal Reserve is one of the
reasons. It is the one and only issue that he is passionate
about that no one from the Republican party would ever before
embrace, or entertain in any way, until recent last minute
comments from both Bachman and Perry who each are now clearly
offering lip service to a position that Ron Paul has been an
undisputed champion for and a leader of for decades.
Number two, his anti-war stance,
publicly decrying the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since their
inception. Once again, a position that few in the GOP will
staunchly consider or fight for. These were both wars that
Bush-Cheney led us into, so no one will buck the party line such
as Paul has consistently done.
Number three, his conviction to following the
U.S. Constitution, which flies in the face of the Bush Doctrine,
the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the Department of
Homeland Security, TSA, and secret plans (REX
84) to ignore Posse Comitatus laws in the U.S.
Once you understand these three points, that
both he and Kucinich adhere to in defense of "we the people,"
you will better see the real reasons why he is feared by the
current political and corporate power structure.
Quite simply, Ron Paul is not on board with
the current fascist makeover of the U.S. being pushed previously
by both Bush I and II, and now Obama. Paul is a threat to their
plan for a North American
Union, as well as the
New World Order.
This reporter does not
exactly agree with all of Paul's positions on social programs,
however, any candidate willing to heal this nation and reclaim
our stolen national sovereignty by dissolving a corrupt Federal
Reserve System is certainly more than worthy of consideration as
a candidate for president. The last U.S. president who had the
integrity and the guts to stand up to this cabal of
ultra-wealthy multi-billionaires was John F. Kennedy. It's way
past time that we elect another president who is more than
willing to take up the baton where Kennedy left off.
Perhaps the internet response of danielbeatya
to CBS News' Brian
Montopoli says it best...
"All this shows me and others is that if Ron Paul scares you
that bad then - he must gonna be real good for America."
Considering that the only real "change" we
received from the 2008 election is what little we have left in our pockets, it
would seem apparent that the prudent thing for "we the people" would be
to ignore the corporate media and pay more attention to a message that they
appear desperate to keep from us.
Ignore the corporate news shills and the paid-off
political pundits who are out to sway your opinion and instead pay attention to
the one man whose passion is to protect our Constitution, rather than discarding
My hope is that Ron Paul steps away from the
mainstream political trap and runs as an independent, biting back at the GOP
party that appears to do everything it can to run from him and distance his
campaign with conservatives. A strong independent run from Paul would be a
political force to be reckoned with and would be a step in the right direction
for a country clearly caught in the two-party political trap that enslaves us
all, not to mention a fitting payback to a Republican party that refuses to
support his candidacy.
A Ron Paul / Dennis Kucinich ticket would be pretty
attractive to those disillusioned with the current DNC-GOP system. A
Paul/Ventura ticket wouldn't be bad either.
After the 2008 presidential campaign, and now 2012, one thing is glaringly
Ron Paul clearly
scares the current corrupt power structure that has fleeced this country for
so many years, and that fear is looking pretty damn good to quite a few Americans
right about now.
Congressman Ron Paul at his desk with a sign that
says it all about his views on bad government.