Why they want to destroy Ron Paul

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Nabuchodonosor, Jun 2, 2007.

  1. How will the media destroy Ron Paul?

    We all know the drill by now. Whenever a politician with character and
    principles throws his hat in the ring the media descends on him like feral
    hounds on a pork chop. It’ll be no different with Paul. The only difference
    is that we should all be aware of what’s really going on.

    Did you see the Republican debates?

    Paul won hands-down. He stood out in a crowd of colorless toadies and
    became an overnight sensation on the internet. In fact, an ABC survey
    showed that Paul won the first debate with an 85% majority; while C-SPAN
    showed him at 70%. Maybe the stats are just a fluke of internet voting, but
    it’s sure made the boys in the boardrooms nervous.

    You see, it doesn’t matter if Paul wins or not. What matters is that he is delivering a message that is damaging to America’s biggest powerbrokers---and they don’t like it. They would rather he just shut up and go away. They’ve heard enough about the Military Commissions Act, and
    martial law, and the fraudulent war on terror. They’ve put a lot of energy
    into the new American police state and they aren’t about to let some "no
    account" libertarian destroy all their hard work.

    Right now, the right wing think tanks are probably buzzing like a hornets nest. They have their work cut out for them. The sleeves are rolled up, the
    ash trays are full, and America’s best propagandists are working out the
    details for a full-blown assault on Ron Paul. They want to take him down
    now, before he can cause any more trouble.

    My guess is that they will use a similar strategy to what they used on John Kerry, that is---keep it simple---attack on 3 fronts and repeat the charges
    from every soapbox in America. In Kerry’s case, the mantra was as follows:

    1. Kerry "flip-flops"

    2 He’s a Massachusetts liberal.

    3 He faked his war injuries to look like a hero.

    The effectiveness of this strategy depends on how often the charges are repeated and from how many outlets. The media will have to devise a saturation-campaign similar to the full-blown attack on Howard Dean in the
    2004 Democratic primary. The infamous "Dean Scream" appeared over 900 times
    in the major media in the first 72 hours. Technicians isolated Dean’s holler from the background noise of a crowded convention hall, which made
    him look like he was emotionally unstable.

    It worked like a charm. Dean’s star sunk overnight and the country was
    "spared" the prospect of an antiwar candidate.

    Isn’t that what media is for---to obliterate the enemies of the corporate
    chieftains who enrich themselves through foreign wars?
    My guess is that, sometime in the next 2 weeks, we’ll see a big push by to derail the Paul campaign. Already Sean Hannity, Glen Beck and FOX News have
    taken a few swipes at him, but they proved they are not up to the task. Its time to wheel out the heavy artillery and pound Paul into rubble.

    But what is Paul saying that makes him such a threat to the corporate
    powerbrokers? Is it just because he stands out in a crowd of plaster-hair phonies--or is it because his campaign is focused on the traditional American values of liberty and non-intervention rather than demagoguery and

    This is how Paul summarized 9-11 and our misguided war in Iraq:

    "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for
    10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? Would we be objecting?

    Or this:

    "I believe the CIA is correct when it warns us about blowback. We overthrew
    the Iranian government in 1953 and their taking the hostages was the reaction. This dynamic persists and we ignore it at our risk. They’re not
    attacking us because we’re rich and free, they’re attacking us because we’re over there."

    The rest of the Republican candidates support the "official narrative" that
    Iraq is just a battleground in a larger war against Islamic
    fanaticism---the prevailing myth which is fueled by the media and assures decades of conflict.

    Clearly, the bankers, neocons and weapons manufacturers are not sympathetic
    to Paul’s analysis nor do they want to pollute the public air-waves with
    his common sense alternatives.

    Here’s what Paul has to say about the maneuverings of the Federal Reserve,
    the secretive cabal that controls our money:

    "Congress created the Federal Reserve System in 1913. Between then and 1971
    the principle of sound money was systematically undermined. Between 1913
    and 1971, the Federal Reserve found it much easier to expand the money
    supply at will for financing war or manipulating the economy with little
    resistance from Congress-- while benefiting the special interests that
    influence government.

    Since printing paper money is nothing short of counterfeiting, the issuer
    of the international currency must always be the country with the military
    might to guarantee control over the system. This magnificent scheme seems
    the perfect system for obtaining perpetual wealth for the country that
    issues the de facto world currency. The one problem, however, is that such
    a system destroys the character of the counterfeiting nation’s people--
    just as was the case when gold was the currency and it was obtained by
    conquering other nations. And this destroys the incentive to save and
    produce, while encouraging debt and runaway welfare."

    Do you really think that the board-members of the privately-owned Central
    Bank want the American people to know about the extortionist racket they’ve
    been running for the last 90 years in contravention of the US Constitution?