Ron Paul Had The Mainstream Media Pegged A Long Time Ago

By Chris Rossini

​Ron Paul fans understood that something was very fishy about America's mainstream media back in 2008 and 2012. But the understanding was limited and remained on a very localized scale.

Well, after the election of Donald Trump in 2016, the rest of America has finally caught up. 

There's no hiding it now. 

​America's mainstream media walks in virtual lockstep in their opposition to President Trump and they're not afraid of everyone knowing it. You don't need to wear a tinfoil hat to notice.

As usual Ron Paul himself was way ahead of the game, even before his fans were able to see reporting like this when he ran for president:

Here's Ron Paul back in 2006, which was two years before his first presidential campaign. He describes the one-party state and its mainstream media megaphone:

"Though there’s little difference between the two parties, the partisan fights are real...True policy debates are rare; power struggles are real and ruthless…This is especially noticeable when the establishment seeks to unify the people behind an illegal, unwise war. The propaganda is well-coordinated by the media/government/military/industrial complex."

The same holds up today.

The mainstream media is anti-Trump 24 hours per day, except when Trump unconstitutionally uses the military overseas. When Trump dropped the "mother of all bombs" and attacked a runway in Syria, the media took a breather from bashing him. They fell in love with the illegal military actions.

However, once the bombing stopped and it was clear that more wasn't coming, it was back to around-the-clock Trump bashing.

​Dr. Paul continued in 2006 to describe the danger of government's megaphone:

This collusion is worse than when state–owned media do the same thing. In countries where everyone knows the media produces government propaganda, people remain wary of what they hear. In the United States the media are considered free and independent, thus the propaganda is accepted with less questioning.

Should the American mainstream media continue to be considered free and independent?

Usually freedom and independence produces variety and a wide-range of opinions and options. Conformity, on the other hand, comes from the iron grip of control and power.

Isn't it peculiar that arguments that don't fall into the narrative of the mainstream media are supposed to be considered "fake news"?

Isn't it peculiar that services like Facebook and Google are appointing members of the mainstream media to act as monitors and censors?

The same people that portrayed Ron Paul as "Someone Else" are going to tell us that something is "fake news"? 

Ron Paul had it right, before it was cool to ignore the mainstream media.

This is important to keep in mind when they're trying to sell us on the next illegal and unconstitutional war.