That's ap-pauling

Corruption wins votes

So I recently found out about this man called Ron Paul. To many Americans the name may be slightly familiar but not as much as Romney, McCain, Cruz etc... Although he was just as successful as a candidate than any of them. So, why have we heard so little of him? This is precisely the reason behind this article.

Ron Paul studied as a doctor (Duke university) and enlisted in the army to serve as a flight surgeon in the 60's. From there until the 80's he worked as an obstetrician-gynecologist before dropping his surgical gloves off on the counter and taking to the podium and microphone of the political sphere. He's been in Politics now for over 35 years, sticking firmly to his guns and whose predictions have come to the fray as the United States government systematically have ignored his suggestions.

Paul is fundamentally a Liberal, and campaigned first to run for president in the Libertarian party in 1988, but converted to Republican when it became clear that there were only really ever two parties in the running, all others simply have no chance in being elected. He ran in the 2008 and 2012 elections, but only got as far as the primaries, perhaps due to media bias and poll corruption.

There is clear evidence pertaining to this, but because of Ron Paul's previous lack of coverage, and failings to take him seriously, the strength he has to stand up and declare corruption would not only be ignored, but likely be used against him in a campaign to besmirch his reputation further. Frequently the leading broadcast stations; CNN and FOX news in particular blatantly refused to talk about him, and even when listing graphs, frequently missed him out or put him in such a way as to belittle him and make it appear he was doing worse than he actually was. And when finally they had a graph where he was shown as to be top, they put it in reverse order to give the wrong impression, and impressions are a lot in politics. The way a campaign works is that the campaigner, or runner tries to promote him/herself so that the public feel confident enough in that person to have trust that that person will do a good job. Jon Stewart (Daily Show)was outraged by the lack of coverage Paul was getting and said so on his show; showing clear evidence of this and saying for every time he was talked about, Romney or Perry were given 60 times as many mentions. Campaign stories showed Paul bottom with 2% and Perry at 17% and Romney at 14% out of 10 candidates (PEW research centre 2011).

The consequences of the media circuit when clearly lying to the public means that for a large portion of the public who haven't spent hours pouring over the campaigns, they see the graph and that displays the 'top tier' of candidates, ones outside it generally are out of the running because people don't want to waste their vote. If there are 5 people in the running and you like the person who 'appears' fifth, then you'll be inclined to rethink this because your vote for last place is likely to go to waste. You'll likely look at the top three and decide which one is the least worst. This is largely the result of the media's blatant corruption, so that they control the nominees and the idea that the people have the power of choice, is a massive misconception, and really the choice has been already made.

The Maine Scandal was completely ignored too – where whole towns of votes went missing and supporters for other candidates tallied votes. Also 'potential storms' meant some caucuses were called off despite the fact that no storm actually manifested. All of this though was shunned and the leading news stations completely played deaf ear to it all. He who speaks loudest is heard, and within no time, FOX and CNN were pettifogging with other issues and talking about the current runners, sparing no time for these allegations.

So what makes him such a danger to the ruling body of the United States' elite? Good question, opponents tend to call him a radicalist, saying his reform measures are extreme and no one in their right mind would vote for him. Though, time and again Paul states he is in complete agreement with the constitution, and would frankly like the government to move more towards the constitution and less in the direction of the conservatism (in the nasty sense). Chiefly, he has three main parts of his reform measures; one, in terms of the military, spending is out of control, and it's not doing the country any favours. The American people though are still bound up with fear and have concerns over other powers developing weapons to be used on them, so it wouldn't do to simply say reduce the military budget, for criticism would come in the form of 'vulnerability'. In actual fact, a large portion of Ron Paul's campaign money he raised came from various parts of the military, the reason being, that it Ron Paul suggests removing infrastructure and expensive military sites around the world and relocating back to the US. Being firmly resolute against wars and encouraging conflicts through direct military involvement in foreign affairs, he aims to reduce the death tolls of American soldiers and rightly views the affairs of other nations as their own. And it is right, by trying to spread democracy through military means, generally sparks revolutions and descent in those nations. Imagine having a civil war and a larger country comes in to support one side (for whatever reason) and bombs the hell out of both sides in the hope that the war will end. Half the country will be immensely pissed off. Not to mention the entire history of conflicts over the past 60 years or so which came as a result of resource acquisition or a feigned moral high-ground. Generally though it comes down to war mongers who are capitalists with the aim of raising huge profits from selling arms and military resources.

The second part of Ron Paul's reforms would be to change the banking system. At the moment the banking system is filtered through the central reserve bank, an extortionate and completely unnecessary component of the banking system; leading to high interest rates and a compulsion for the government to borrow high sums for large gains. His plan would be to legislate for the central reserve abolition act, giving power once again to the government and not the greedy elite. William Jennings Bryan before the 1913 central reserve bill was passed said that "Big financiers are back of the Aldrich currency scheme." He asserted that if it passed, big bankers would "then be in complete control of everything through the control of our national finances.

The third reform would be to reduce the taxation of the public and reduce the size of the government. With more arms, there is not an increased reach the government reaches, but not only does it get all knotted up, it simply interferes too much into people's affairs. A government which micromanages everything is completely inefficient. In a competitive social environment, businesses and social care can find a better way than any head which is not even in the room.

Obviously Ron Paul has a lot of other proposals, but the key issues are to bring the military back from overseas, to get rid of the messy central reserve and bring back the gold standard, and to reduce government meddling and reduce the number of laws which have been put in place to cage the social class into a place where they care not free at all. And in the 'land of the free', that really is the key issue. All of these reforms would mean changes to the system across the board, and that is why the 1% are afraid. They are in a position of power where the people have virtually no way to compete. The country is in incredible debt, the welfare system is failing, the people have fewer liberties and corruption runs deep into all aspects of life. The way to power now is to propagate an idea of fear, a fear of 'the other'; whereby people stay subdued and compliant on the basis that an enemy is within reach and only the government can protect you from them. If you watch or hear any rally or speech it is 80% fear. If you don't vote me then this. That person is this, and that is dangerous. Then have the 20% saying how great they are as candidates. It's sickening to watch a debate as it revolves almost entirely the personality and history of the person, and not the issues. People can relate to people, but when it comes to abstract proposals and legislation, people don't have the time or patience for it. A candidate is often voted on the basis of looks, confidence and how well they ridicule others. Politics is becoming more of a pageant of people than an analysis of policy and reform. So long as you go along with the flow and say very little to offend anyone (which means virtually nothing), then you are likely to do well. Currently Donald Trump is running for president, and his success clearly shows the failings of the election system as well as the complete disregard of the voter to policy and intellectual understanding. It comes down to this petty feud between us and them. And if the leader is standing up saying you are great and they are bad, then you like the feeling and go along with it because it automatically puts you in the right. Trumps speeches are childlike, his choice of words are of the lowest level in the current election race, his knowledge in politics is woeful and above all, his tenacity for hate-mongering (racism) and hypocrisy is astounding.

America, you need to take a long look at yourself and accept the fact that you're pawns, and that patriotism is a ploy to command obedience to a system of control which has all the cards.