President Paul has a nice ring to it. But you'll never hear those words if the mainstream media continues to silence him. With ten months to go before the general election, the only place to see Paul in a flattering light is along a road, under a dazzling, unbiased sun.
Many of my more liberal friends, decent and intelligent people, subscribe to both the Los Angeles Times and New York Times. On Sunday, we often read these pulpy deadweights of newsprint, soiling our fingers and minds with the narrowness of political ideas found there.
You will not find many mentions of Ron Paul in the turgid gruel of the Sunday Editions of either paper. I know because I looked. Of the Sunday, January 20, 2008 editions I estimated more than ten thousand words devoted to the candidates, devoted to the Nevada caucus and South Carolina primary. Aside from a single letter to the editor supporting Paul, I counted only TWO very minor references to the Congressman.
Pass it on; Paul does not exist. Except, that is, along some dusty American highway, with a sign held high by one of his "wacky" supporters.
Is the censorship of Ron Paul intentional? Yes, for four reasons. (1) Paul threatens the equilibrium of the status quo, much as Jefferson, Madison and Adams did, attempting to discuss the individual rights of man and the limited duty of the state. (2) By attempting to disengage the state from unlawful empire-building, Paul threatens the wasteful and corrupt, corporate strangle-hold on America citizens. (3) Paul threatens to disengage Americans from paying taxpayer subsidies to ALL Middle Eastern countries, including Israel , Egypt and Pakistan . And (4) Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and return the US monetary system to the US Treasury.
As Paul supporters know, these are dangerous ideas in a dangerous time. Indeed, every Paul supporter you see pictured here that I met an interviewed wore a handgun strapped to his or her hip. Legally owned and rightful to carry in Arizona. Unlike, of course, the guns brandished illegally, by uniformed servants of the US government, unlawfully deployed to attack and occupy foreign countries.
One would think, with dozens of Pulitzer Prizes between them, both the New York Times and Los Angeles Times would applaud a garrulous old Constitutionalist like Paul. Nope. Instead, like Paul Revere, Ron Paul threatens to awaken the surrounding countryside. One man on a mission can aflame an entire nation. Thus the best strategy is to silence him or take away his horse, his soapbox or his pulpit.
The Times & Times strategy appears subtle and effective. Any mention of Paul, except in a disparaging light, is forbidden. Occasionally a left-handed compliment escapes, as in a lengthy Op-Ed column called "Ronald Reagan Is Still Dead."
NY Times columnist Frank Rich wrote there: "Might some Republican still win? Conceivably, but only if someone besides Ron Paul is brave enough to break out of the monochromatic pack."
Someone besides Ron Paul?
Since Paul, according to Fox and the other Big News bullhorns (Pravda of America), "disappeared" Ron Paul entirely from the Nevada and South Carolina count, he became a non-person and cannot win. So why mention him at all? One need only harken back to those Soviet-era news organizations, like Pravda and Tass, accused of spreading disinformation, as reported by the NY Times in 1991.
Two other lengthy features appeared in the Sunday NY Times. "War, Meet the 2008 Campaign," and an equally ponderous piece called "In Search Of Reagan." I searched in vain for a mention of the man who Reagan called, "the most honest man in Congress," a fellow who could out-Reagan himself. Columnist John Broder mentions all the other candidates, including Giuliani and Thompson, but nowhere does he mention Paul, who beat the other two handily.
Same for the NY Times feature, "War, Meet the 2008 Campaign." Misinformed or simply sloppy, Michael Gordon must not know Paul is the only candidate who refused to support the Iraq war, then and now. Likewise Gordon, who claims to be there in Iraq , must be unaware of the many enlisted men, forced to fight the war, who support the candidacy of Ron Paul. Like most of the other highly paid pundits for these gargantuan American papers, Gordon never mentions Paul in his ponderous 1,500+ word piece.
If you check the masthead of the New York Times and The Los Angeles you would recognize the privileged and the well-positioned controlling the message. Neither the wealthy and well-connected or the ethnocentric and racist want Ron Paul to win, thus he does not exist. According to the New York Times, the old Soviet era Pravda was the "Mouthpiece of the Kremlin for decades." Perhaps that is where the NY Times honed their propaganda techniques.
The Los Angeles Times is no better. One puff piece, in a section called Image, featured the faces of the Anointed ones. Hillary and Mitt, Barack and J-Mac, Rudy and Mike. A couple thousand words devoted to the process of professional make up and styling, to prettify the obscene and hide the ugly messages in glowing smiles. Naturally, no Ron Paul among the faces.
The LA Times neglected any mention of Paul in Nevada , aside from a graph, although Paul finished in a surprising second place in the GOP caucus and beat-AGAIN-media darling Rudy "911 Hero" Giuliani in both states. If Ron Paul garnered even half the positive ink that Giuliani received since losing three buildings, Paul would be the next American president in a landslide.
Meanwhile Fred Thompson (since kaput)--- Hollywood actor with hottie wife-still got plenty of newsprint in the LA Times. Several paragraphs were devoted to the Lyndon Johnson lookalike in Sunday's paper.
Nothing noteworthy inside the Op-Ed section of the LA Times, which resembled a vast wasteland, deserted of political ideas, aside from a letter written by Randy Alcorn, of Santa Barbara , in the Letters section.
Alcorn wrote: "Michael Kinsley's (Times opinion columnist) examination of libertarianism damns it with faint praise while characterizing it with the usual wackiness. The same smug patronization was evident at the Republican presidential debates, where candidates treated Ron Paul as if he were a loon allowed onto the pond with swans. Such condescension is symptomatic of how far America has drifted from the founding principles of individual freedom and minimal government."
Exactly the same ideas, of individual freedom and minimal government, spoken by the Paul supporters pictured here.
Defending the Times, Scott Martelle, LA Times political reporter, emailed me from the road, where he was busy covering candidates, two weeks ago. "We didn't mention Paul because he didn't figure into the debate (wonder why?). If he does well, we'll likely write about him more. If not, probably less. His problem has been he has picked up loud support of a diffuse sort, rather than concentrated in a place where it would help him win some delegates and seize some of the spotlight."
Let's see if Scott is correct. Ron Paul beats Giuliani and Thompson, and raises more money than most of the others. Meanwhile more column inches of the LA Times are devoted to so-called Reality programs, like The Amazing Race, or to a certifiably mad woman named Britney, than to a very sane contestant called Ron Paul.
So you may not see Ron Paul very soon on your local TV or in the leading Big City newspapers, but his supporters, of a very "diffuse sort," (see photos) resemble those early malcontents and gun-toting hotheads called Patriots and Revolutionaries, circa 1776.
Longtime Rense writer, Douglas Herman wrote the political
thriller The Guns of Dallas and lives in a neighborhood near you.