Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul vs. Tim Russert of Meet the Press

As one of the many frequent viewers of the longest running news interview show in TV history it appears Meet the Press (or MTP) still holds firm to every semblance of mainstream dogma while still trying to position themselves as presenting both sides. Perhaps they mean both sides of one side of the coin?

The true tests of journalism are telling the truth and telling it objectively. With so many glaring examples of how they've failed it is amazing they can still count on the dwindling audience they still serve. There may be still a few who believe the press serves as some kind of Fourth Estate serving the public in honourable fashion by protecting them against the occasional swindle and getting them the latest entertainment, sports and weather.

In the future we will report to you with how and why the mainstream press has failed you the general public. Now we wish to focus on but one of them. The December 23, 2007 appearance of Republican candidate for President Ron Paul of Texas on Meet the Press. How did they actually handle someone with truly different ideas? Ideas stepped in uncovering real solutions the enormous financial problems now facing this country?

When a Ron Paul, a Republican now and former one time independent Congressman from Texas took the Meet the Press hot seat that Sunday, it did not take long for the Tim Russert, the shows host, to dredge up some very questionable tactics in attempting to smear Mr. Paul's campaign.

This article will explore and add a few vital missing details about Paul's comments. Sadly, Russert refused to fully elaborate on any of these points you are about to review in this very article.

What is apparent about Russert's tactics is that he engaged more in debunking and attempting to smear Paul's campaign than helping explain why he has the positions he has. This will no doubt affirm for many that corporate America, in particular the media is responding to pressure from above to marginalize Dr. Paul's campaign and whenever possible him personally.

Debunking is just one of several primary tactics to cloud and misinform the general public. Whether it is done for profit at the expense of human life such as was the case with the pharmaceutical Vioxx (one doctor puts the estimated death toll as the result of heart complications and other problems at over 100,000) or keeping the public confused as to the source of our financial problems it is not in the publics best interest.

Within this article are excerpts and elaborations of the actual interview, which can be viewed in its entirety at www.mtp.msnbc.com

Russert uses quite an array of debunking tactics asking Paul questions about his campaign platform nearly 20 years ago, attacking his use of earmarks, even engaging in a bit of an ad-hominum attack labeling him inconsistent when the opposite was true. Inferred ridicule was amply applied when it came to his positions on public schools, subsidies, the CIA, FBI etc. If you want to view how the mainstream attempts to marginalize candidates with something major to say, watch this interview at the aforementioned website.

To his credit Russert did acknowledge that Mr. Paul's campaign had raised more money since October but nothing was said to explain this kind of momentum. Russert than immediately jumped on one very important part of Mr. Paul's platform while carefully avoiding mentioning another.

MR. RUSSERT: Let's start right at the very top, the issues. This is what you have been saying on the campaign stump, "I'd like to get rid of the IRS. I want to get rid of the income tax." Abolish it.

REP. PAUL: That's a good idea. I like that idea.

MR. RUSSERT: What would happen to all those lost revenues? How would we fund our government?

REP. PAUL: We have to cut spending. You can't get rid of the income tax if you don't get rid of some spending. But, you know, if you got rid of the income tax today you'd have about, as much revenue as, as we had 10 years ago, and the size of government wasn't all that bad 10 years ago. So there're sources of revenues other than the income tax. You know, you have, you have tariff, excise taxes, user fees, highway fees. So, so there's still a lot of money. But the real problem is spending. But, you know, we lived a long time in this country without an income tax. Up until 1913 we didn't have it.

This would have been a great moment for Russert to bring up Paul's other desire to get rid of the Federal Reserve, which is no more Federal than Federal Express. This agency represents a concept known as central banking, which was kicked out of this country by President Andrew Jackson in 1838 after a long and bitter battle with bankers, and British interests who were ready to reap enormous profits by saddling America with this system. While Andrew Jackson recognized this demon for what it was, President Woodrow Wilson had already been sold a bill of false bill of socialist goods and backed the bill that put the Federal Reserve into action before Christmas in December 1913. A good recommendation to read on the foreign interests and secrecy surrounding the manipulations that put Wilson into the oval office to help pass this Fed Reserve Act is the 1994 book, The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin (ISBN 0-912986-18-2) The true history behind this parasitic institution which governs the production and flow of our currency should be required reading for anyone who calls themselves patriotic.

Russert's assertion of all the lost revenues if we abolish the IRS was hardly the complete story. Before 1913, America was making money with no national debt without an income tax and this was due to exactly what Ron Paul mentioned, he used the word "tariff". It was President Woodrow Wilson who helped eliminate this tax to imported goods thereby denying the U.S. countless millions in trade dollars from other countries. How was this financial deficit to be made up? By enforcing a graduated income tax on the people of the United States. When the U.S. trades today it still faces tariff barriers with many countries, while they get quite a pass when they trade here, you may ask how is that fair? You're right, it isn't. In fact most of the container shipping from China is not even inspected, if one wanted to ship some mayhem our way get it in through Long Beach, California would be one of the paths of least resistance to follow. The inequities of trade would have been a great subject to explore and provide the viewer with a rare moment in media history. Did it happen? Most certainly not, instead Russert stayed on course throwing verbal grenades at Paul's campaign.

Ron Paul's foreign policy has been the bull's eye of many conservative critics'. Paul's position is more of a Jeffersonian stance, which believes you get better results in managing foreign policy through trade instead of troops. Paul seems to recognize the long-standing history of interference and manipulation of countries, regimes and resources in the Middle East. When it came to Russert's interpretation of this it mostly came out to a discussion in dollars. Paul laid out what it would save if our policy were more Jeffersonian. Oddly enough its close to the same amount the IRS collects from taxpayers. Now if we had that tariff back we could begin to get ahead of that game.

MR. RUSSERT: Let's talk about some of the ways you recommend. "I'd start bringing our troops home, not only from the Middle East but from Korea, Japan and Europe and save enough money to slash the deficit."

How much money would that save?

REP. PAUL: To operate our total foreign policy, when you add up everything, there's been a good study on this; it's nearly a trillion dollars a year. So I would think if you brought our troops home, you could save hundreds of billions of dollars. It's, you know, it's six months or one year or two year, but you can start saving immediately by changing the foreign policy and not be the policeman over the world. We should have the foreign policy that George Bush ran on. You know, no nation building, no policing of the world, a humble foreign policy. We don't need to be starting wars. That's my argument.

MR. RUSSERT: How many troops do we have overseas right now?

REP. PAUL: I don't know the exact number, but more than we need. We don't need any.

MR. RUSSERT: It's 572,000. And you'd bring them all home?

REP. PAUL: As quickly as possible. We--they will not serve our interests to be overseas. They get us into trouble. And we can defend this country without troops in Germany, troops in Japan. How do they help our national defense? Doesn't make any sense to me. Troops in Korea since I've been in high school?

To his credit Paul does admit he would withdraw as quickly as possible, but for most who acknowledge the serious threat displayed by radical/fascist Islam, it may be too quick. There is a growing consensus among experts on the subject that any quick departure would once again enforce the message America does not have the will to deal with terrorism in the long run and over the past twenty years that has proved disastrous.

Would sympathy for the cause of fascist Islam wane if we did pull out? Would it be harder to recruit Judaists to detonate themselves in crowded super markets for a one-way ticket to party down in their heaven?

How about the constitutional exercise of actually declaring war? With more and more power being transferred to the Executive Branch it is becoming obvious that the safeguards our founding fathers so brilliantly set up are being overwhelmed.

Russert continues to hammer Paul with unlikely scenarios like Iran invading Israel to which Paul replies, "Well, they're not going to, that's like saying Iran is going to invade Mars." Certainly with over 300 nuclear weapons and a pretty sophisticated military Iran will not run over a highly militarized state like Israel, unless it gets a lot of neighborly cooperation and the U.S. stands idly by watching. Is that really likely? Russert continued to hammer the Israeli question anyway.

MR. RUSSERT: This is what you said about Israel. "Israel's dependent on us, you know, for economic means. We send them" "billions of dollars and they," then they "depend on us. They say, `Well, you know, we don't like Iran. You go fight our battles. You bomb Iran for us.' And they become dependent on us."

Who in Israel is saying "Go bomb Iran for us"?

REP. PAUL: Well, I don't know the individuals, but we know that their leaderships--you read it in the papers on a daily--a daily, you know, about Israel, the government of Israel encourages Americans to go into Iran, and the people--I don't think that's a--I don't think that's top secret that the government of Israel...

MR. RUSSERT: That the government of Israel wants us to bomb Iran?

REP. PAUL: I, I don't think there's a doubt about that, that they've encouraged us to do that. And of course the neoconservatives have been anxious to do that for a long time.

Paul's response to naming the individuals involved not in the best vein of sound bit proficiency, but his statement is basically sound. Perhaps if Russert were more inclined to do his homework on the subject he would have found Paul was really onto something. What is that?

What is noticeably absent from any question about our relationship with Israel is just how they have manipulated our foreign policy and US dollars for their advantage. A former Mossad Agent Victor Ostrovsky who authored two books on his experiences (By Way of Deception and The Other Side of Deception in 1994, ISBN #0-06-017635.0) claimed that the bombing raid on Libya by the United States in 1986 was done by a group of Israeli commandos under the name of Operation Trojan. The goal of the operation was toplant a device in an apartment near Qadhafi's headquarters in Libya which would relay misleading transmissions made by a disinformation unit in the Mossad, called the LAP, or LohAma Psicologit (a psychological warfare unit). As they knew the U.S. would not believe the signals any other way they actually got an apartment less than three blocks from the Bab al Azizia barracks which housed Qadhafi's headquarters.

The Trojan cylinder was six feet long and seven inches in diameter and took two men carrying to the fifth floor of the apartment to pop it open and activate it. The United States intelligence officials possibly confused by a willingness to believe the worst took the bait. A long series of messages was sent thru the Trojan making it appear that groups of terrorist organizations were receiving messages from Libya. Mossad officials even confirmed these signals for US authorities, That was certainly neighborly now wasn't it?

The reason France and Spain were uncooperative was simply because they believed the signals were not genuinely Libyan in origin, they also warned the U.S.

There have been many other equally damaging and costly manipulations and misinformation fed by Israel to the U.S. to get a desired response. Apparently U.S. intelligence operations are either too infiltrated, influenced or both to catch on.

On April 14, 1986, one hundred and sixty U.S. aircraft would be involved in delivering sixty tons of bombs to three locations in Libya. This would send a clear message to any doubters as to what side the U.S. was going to take and also gave the Mossad a shot in the arm as they manipulated the whole incident to begin with. This also shot down a deal to get U.S. hostages released from Lebanon and helped keep Hezbollah (Party of God) in focus as the number one enemy to the west.

Russert would ask about cutting off all aid to Israel and while Paul would emphatically respond "Yes" he also added he would cut off aid to the surrounding Arab countries, which is two or three times more than what we send to the Jewish state.

Russert than brought up an older debunking comment about Paul's statement concerning the 9-11 tragedy. Paul said, "They don't come and attack us because we're rich and free, they attack us because we are over there."

Russert feigned complete ignorance on the subject as he said, "How have we provoked al Qaeda?"

This is a very large question and could have taken up the rest of MTP, but Paul did a nice job of summarizing a few of the high points of influence and control exerted in the Middle East, stating

"Read what Osama bin Laden said. We had, we had a base, you know, in Saudi Arabia that was an affront to their religion, that was blasphemy as far as they were concerned. We were bombing Iraq for 10 years, we were--we've interfered in Iran since 1953. Our CIA's been involved in the overthrow of their governments. We're bought right now in the process of overthrowing that nation. We side more with Israel and Pakistan, and, and they get annoyed with this. How would we react if we were on their land--if they were on our land? We would be very annoyed, and we'd be fighting mad."

The 1953 reference which was not explained has to do with the well-known intelligence plot by the CIA and its British counterpart MI6, to overthrow of Iran's very popular Prime Minister Mohammad Mossaddeq. In a document regarding the coup (available at the website: http://www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1.php) the late Dr. Don N. Wilber, an expert on Persian architecture who wrote the secret history of this operation along with assessments in March of 1954 reportedly cited many faulty evaluations, shifty allegiances and mistakes which took out Mossaddeq in 1953 because he had nationalized the oil interested which were mostly British owned by the Anglo Iranian Oil Company. Mossaddeq was actually educated as a lawyer in Europe and was known for some rather eccentric habits like having meetings around his bed, guess that made napping easy.

Eventually it would be a more Anglo sympathetic replacement that would be hoisted don the throne, his name Mohammad Reza Shaw Pahlavi, more commonly known as the Shah of Iran. This would last until 1979 when he would be toppled by religious clerics who would face an immediate war with Saddam Hussein and Iraq late in 1979. This would lead to additional complications triggered by the dealing of US intelligence officials like William Casey to delay the release of over four-hundred Iranian hostages until after the November 1979 Presidential election between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan was decided. This has been commonly known as the October Surprise and although formal, official investigations have not concluded the deals made by than VP candidate and former head of the CIA, George H.W. Bush did take place in Paris in October of 1979, there is convincing evidence to the contrary.

The Iranian Revolution would provide a fertile seeding ground for many radical Islamic groups who hate the U.S. and its Anglo allies. The U.S. has worked hard at removing leaders who don't cooperate with the U.S. goals or interests and supporting those that do, even if they have odd ideas about shopping or police tactics. Why this is still a surprise to anyone is in itself surprising.

This is not a suggestion that is always a good idea. These actions, like the one in Iran have had poor long-term consequences. The only reason Russert is trying to seem to be amazed at Paul's position is because his mission was to debunk and not to inform.

Russert went out of his way to bring up things Paul said during his 1988 Libertarian Presidential bid which is not part of his platform now. Russert's claims that Paul wants to abolish the CIA, the FBI, public schools, farm subsidies, etc was another example of how his team worked at hauling out half of the statement while allowing the smallest of windows for Paul to explain any of it. Speaking in powerful sound bites is definitely a skill needed when you are being debunked.

Paul does provide some defense, stating it was part of his platform 20 or 30 years ago and while he is not for abolishing the FBI or CIA today, he doesn't want them fighting secret covert wars or spying on people like Martin Luther King Jr.

What is tragic on the part of Russert is the issues of Orwellian surveillance, government control of education, subsidization are simply ignored. Once again Russert follows his debunking mentality and uses a disgruntled employee statements comments Paul made privately after 9-11. Even with the use of that statement Paul was honest enough to admit he might have been too pessimistic immediately after 9-11, stating, "it has caused this reaction and this uprising in this country to say, "Enough is enough. We don't need more Patriot Acts; we don't need more surveillance of our people. We don't need national ID cards. We don't need the suspension of habeas corpus. What we need is more freedom." So in one way I was pessimistic, but in another way, now, I'm more encouraged with the reception I'm getting with this message."

Paul supports states rights and when the discussion comes up about education, Russert spins it into "you want to abolish public schools" while the real issue is about government control of what is taught in school through the Department of Education. It would be an important moment if the hidden agenda behind government involvement in every aspect of our lives would surface. It just so happens that the graduated income tax, the establishment of government Departments of Education, Transportation, Labor, factories, agriculture, corporate farming, regional planning and abolition of all privately owned property, are all part of the 10 top planks of the infamous Communist Manifesto.

No, this is not an attempt to label everyone in government conscious communists, just a way of alerting you how the powerful are tempted by the regulations and laws, which offer them enormous financial and social control. Anyone in business knows laws and regulation can make or break you.

After Russert has warmed up he practically does a monologue against Paul citing no fewer than five quotes from two newspapers and the Congressional Quarterly about Paul's earmarks for his district. Keep in mind the practice of earmarking funds by Congressman has created a huge barrel of constituent dollars, which is another way you look good to the people who voted you in. Here Paul does something, which seems to satisfy both sides, but Russert manages to turn it 180 degrees around.

Briefly, Paul submits the earmarks to Congress as he knows there will be submissions from every other Congressman so they can get there hands on tax dollars to look good for their constituents. The difference is that Paul than votes against getting this money, which enforces his position against larger government and taxes. The earmarks are voted through anyway and is everyone happy?

Russert labeled Paul's actions inconsistent and quickly moved on to other questions. The quoting of from at least five other articles and publications before even allowing a single retort by Paul was a rare treatment for any MTP guest. Later Paul would even bring up the issue of asking some of these questions to other candidates, while Russert acknowledged he would, don't hold your breath on that one.

Conclusion:

As of January 3rd the results of the Iowa Caucus are in and it appears Ron Paul pulled what must be a pretty stunning number of 10% out of Republican melee. Paul was on the heels of 4th place finisher Fred Thompson who scored only 13%. Paul even finished ahead of Mr. New York himself, Rudy Giuliani who came in with a paltry 4%.

Does Ron Paul have a real good chance to knock off a Romney, Huckabee or even McCain? The answer is not likely. What is more likely is that the important message he carries will be heard. Even Jim Cramer, stock guru of MSNBC's Mad Money rejoiced at having Paul on his show in December of 2007, to bring up the subject of abolishing the Federal Reserve and the IRS. The insiders know these parasites on our economic system are NOT necessary, but the power they wield keeps most of them silent.

Paul may have stimulated further conversation on just how our dollar does get devalued and how closely the Federal Reserve is tied to that. When you order the money to be printed with virtually nothing to back it up except the good faith of the American people, the term that is rarely raised publicly is Fiat Economy. Historically, such economies will engage in hyperinflation and great devaluation of their spendable currency. A Fiat Economy is not where you want to be, which is why many other countries are going back to the gold standard.

In order for America to survive the future she will need leaders who really know the value of the American Dollar and have the courage to point at what needs to be done to keep its value high, not artificially inflated.

Sure you may be skeptical, but when gold tops $1,500 an ounce and your paying $5 for a gallon of gas and $6 for a loaf of bread are you still going to believe we don't have hyper inflation and a planned devaluation of our dollar?

Planned? Yes planned, as anyone who raves about the wonders of globalism can tell you controlling the money is a key factor to instituting a financial union between the United States, Canada and Mexico. When the North American version of the Euro occurs it will be as if this country has officially surrendered one of its most important freedoms. Even more compromising of the three main government branches and the U.S. Constitution will continue to transpire. If this sounds unbelievable now than simply stand-by and do nothing, say nothing and study nothing on this subject and that should pretty much guarantee this revolution, without a single shot being fired. This is quite a trick, but one that has been in the works since around 1907. Their motto, "Make haste slowly" has been followed for the most part through many key administrations as they work to diminish what made this country great and enhance the global governance prospects. Who are they? Keep reading this writer, or submit your best guess, details will follow.

The path to the truth I sometimes puzzling and laborious; the larger the truth the more the truth has likely been hid away or the public has been misinformed about its reality.

We are entering unique and likely difficult times, enter them with optimism and work to stay aware and yet positive about any major development. Together we can find a way.

Wishing you and yours the very best for 2008