ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Why isn't Ron Paul getting his due attention in the media?

Updated on August 13, 2011

post debate polling results

In the polls after all of the GOP debates, so far, Ron Paul has not just come out as the winner he has come out as the winner by HUGE margins IE; in the June debate he rated 65.5% and his nearest rival got a mere 14.5% with the "big names like Michele Bachmann having a dismal 5%.
In the August, 12 debate the results were very similar. These are the FOX news results and whether you like Fox or not one must admit that they are most representative of conservative republicans. In the far more left leaning MSN polls the margins aren't quite as huge, but he still beats his opponents by double numbers and was the only candidate who came out above the second place "there was no clear winner" option. Ron showed 35% with the next runner up at only 11%, again Bachmann and Romney were very low.

So my question, or point, is that Ron isn't getting hardly any press; and much of what he does get is negative. Why?

My theory will sound like a conspiracy theory, and I am not one to buy into such things but consider this one.
Ron Paul wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve. Contrary to what most Americans believe, the Federal Reserve has nothing to do with the government. It is no more Federal than Federal Express. It is a completely private enterprise owned and run by the worlds wealthiest and most elite. Yet it controls our banks and our money. In fact if you look at any US currency the very top line reads "Federal Reserve Note" and they control the US Mint and the printing of all US currency.
These wealthy elite also control the highest echelon of the media; and it is my theory that they are torpedoing Ron Paul's candidacy intentionally.
Before you write me off as just another loony I will point out one other thing.
People, especially Americans, are saying we are involved in the Middle East for oil. Think about this; we were already buying all of the oil involved from relatively stable existing governments, at the going rates. Why rock the boat and spend trillions of dollars, and kill hundreds of thousands of people including our own, when the resulting oil costs won't change, and will in fact be more expensive?
But guess who owns all of the major arms makers? Guess who owns all of the major players in "Nation building"? That's right it is the same wealthy elite who control the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve not only control US currency and banks they control most Western banks including most, if not all, of the members of NATO and the IMF.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Borsia profile image

      Borsia 6 years ago from Currently, Philippines

      The problem I see with the Occupy crowd is that in all of the interviews I have seen or heard they can't form a sentence let alone a concept. I'm sure there are some better ones, we don't see much down here.

      The few who could form a thought were basically spouting communism or anarchy, neither of which work.

      Like most Libertarians I believe that the Federal Government should be exactly what is defined in the Constitution; and not a bit more.

      I see that the Democrats just passed a $662 Billion defense spending bill. I would bet anything that they can't tell you exactly where that money is going to go penny for penny, probably not rounded down to the nearest Billion.

      I also see that the Federal Reserve, in order to support Obama's stimulus plan, created $7.7 Trillion out of thin air. That is more than 1/2 of the GDP.

      Quite a trick for a private corporation that has nothing to do with the Government. They then gave that money to the banks at a rate on .001% and the banks passed it on at 3% Giving them a profit of over $13 Billion. Funny they weren't supposed to make any profit from us bailing them out! But they made sure that their higher ups got huge bonuses from that money, the same higher ups who were responsible for the mess. (Damn I'm in the wrong business, I can loose money just as well as they can.)

      It is late at night here and my numbers may not be perfect but check out the Jon Stewart show on the Comedy Channel website.

      I for one find it rather frightening when I have to go to the Comedy Channel or Al Jeezera to get the true news!

    • Credence2 profile image

      Credence2 6 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

      Hi, Borsia, I am just left of center, politically. The libertarian idea works at about 1/3 for me. I embrace their idea of reining in the military and foreign entanglements and avoiding all the moral preachy stuff.

      The Occupy movement is relatively new, it has only been about 3 months. I am hoping that the aimless protests leads to tangible demands on the politicians to address concerns. It is obviously having an effect, with all the disparaging comments from the GOP. In 1968, another group defined once as rabble brought down a sitting president and laid the groundwork for a contention campaign that fall. We are contemporaries, you and I, and I am sure that you remember.

      While I am not libertarian, Ron Paul with his integrity and courageous and straight talk has spiked my interests in the libertarians. He and Huntsman are the only ones that can stand tall, without hypocrisy. The rest of the GOP contenders are flakes. In my opinion, courage, conviction and authenticity covers a multitude of sins.

      You have interesting perspectives, I will keep reading, Cred2

    • Borsia profile image

      Borsia 6 years ago from Currently, Philippines

      Thanks Credence2; I'm probably just as far from the extreme right as I am from the extreme left. There are a few Libertarian planks that I don't support but they are few.

      Sadly I don't see a big uproar about changing the processes of government. I thought it might come out of the "Occupy" group but from what I have heard and seen they have trouble constructing a sentence let alone a cohesive thought.

      Ron Paul has it about 2/3 right as far as I can see. I certainly don't agree with him on some social issues, like abortion.

      That means the he "gets it" 2/3 more than anyone else running so far.

    • Credence2 profile image

      Credence2 6 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

      Borsia, I wanted to check you out. I see that you are true to the libertarian banner and not just another rightwinger. This article speaks of power in Washington and internationally that seek to manipulate us all. I certainly cannot disagree. The points that you make about Ron Paul are true.