The Ben Franklin Report: Tax Revenue

California state Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, Democrat, introduced a bill in that state's legislature proposing the legalization and taxing of recreational use of marijuana. Ammiano's arguments immediately touched on all the major points that the pro-legalization crowd has been making in between bong hits for decades now. To me the most significant argument is the fiscal one.

Legalization of a nonviolent activity lowers the number of criminals, reduces police costs of pursuing recreational pot smokers, reduces numbers of criminals in prison, reduces prison costs, eliminates need for violence in pot buying transaction and so reduces violent crime, brings marijuana production into the light of day where it can be regulated which produces tax revenue and regulation, regulation of production and use and quality has health benefits, which further reduce costs to society, and creates jobs.



Sure its not a new argument and it is the one that most young potheads are likely to jump on first because it seems like it would be so appealing to the forever cash-strapped government. "Lets just let them tax pot and then they will rush to make it legal, man." The major proponents of such thinking being in a chemically induced type-B personalities, rarely get any traction in mainstream politics. In trying economic times such as these I would expect a well reasoned argument that points out, not only the increased tax revenue ($1 billion in California alone) but also the potential cost savings in other programs, would get a better reception.

However, these arguments have failed before and its not because they are poorly reasoned, despite my poking fun at potheads. There are the usual histrionics that are thrown about by the anti-drug lunatics about the impending collapse of society, and "Oh God, won't somebody please think of the children!?!!?!" Despite the truth that legalized recreational drugs do lead to negative health consequences, and beer and tobacco companies do target children with advertising, those are threats that have proven to be small and that we as a society have obviously chosen to live with. It is also popular to point out that history(the repeal of prohibition, Amsterdam) has shown us that when certain recreational drugs are legalized it eliminates the demand in the informal market for the goods, which directs the attention of professional criminals to other activities. Then the reduction of interaction between normal Joe Sixpack (Johnny Jointsmoker?) people and hardened criminals and the police reduces violent crime. All of this is still to leave out the potential beneficial impact on our foreign relations.

I suspect that the main reason this type of legislation fails time and time again is that it has to be voted on by politicians. Politicians who can count votes. It doesn't matter how many potheads and marijuana activists get together because their voice will still be marginalized in the minds of the elected officials. It's hard to be taken seriously when the thing you are advocating for is illegal and all you want it for is recreation. (Hence the medical marijuana movement) The other reason elected officials will never vote for legalization of recreational marijuana is that they don't want to have their name associated with the downfall of society if all the histrionics of the sour-faced Republican old lady's turns out to be true.

I am Libertarian, and there are two ways to look at the recreational marijuana issue from that perspective as long as you believe that marijuana smoking is no different than tobacco or alcohol use. There is the Ron Paul view that whatever you do with your body is none of my business as long as it doesn't affect me. Then there is the long term Ted Nugent view that says this does affect me because on the aggregate there will be societal health costs from the negative health impacts of drug use.

I suppose I fall into a third category that doesn't care. Sure there are health costs, but like I said above, there are social costs involved, but most social costs of marijuana are created by its illegality, the real social costs stemming from health and high driving when likened to tobacco and alcohol are clearly so minimal that our society has decided (and I agree) that the benefits of legalization outweigh the costs.

So why don't I smoke? There are various reasons but mostly its a political statement. In my experience pot smokers can tend to get over enthusiastic about their recreational drug of choice and become zealous advocates of its use, and distrust those that do not. Sure, this could easily be because it makes one paranoid, but just being in the room makes you just as arrested when the cops show up. My true friends respect me even if they don't respect my decision and offers to partake are made out of common politeness arising from commensality. (After all, what can be a more ritualistic "breaking of bread" than a shared consumption of something that not only involves shared risk but that gives a spiritual sense of significance?) Still, my reflexive aversion to perceived peer pressure, my history of refusal that has lasted so long it has become part of my identity, combined with what I fear is addictive behavior continue to keep me away even though I think legalization of recreational use of marijuana would be a good thing for the country.

I will leave you with this video a friend posted to Facebook.

The Ben Franklin Report: Leave the Spigot Open

While workers in GM's Janesville, Wisconsin SUV plant are getting a lesson in freemarket economics, Ron Paul is trying to spread the word about an economic malady of a slightly different nature: the ballooning and out of control federal debt that we've been covering here on the Fringe Element. As if the near vertical climb that is growth in the monetary base weren't already enough, the Federal Reserve is going to go ahead and provide unlimited amounts of funding in return for collateral to central banks from around the world. One could say that this is a very selfless act of a benevolent and intelligent Chairman, but more likely, this is an effort to return monetize US Government debt as Dr. Paul points out in the above article. This move by the Federal Reserve will have, perhaps, unintended consequences, as Central Banks return bonds originating in the United States, such as those issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to our shores. After all, in a liquidity crisis, why would an institution choose to hold onto assets that are, at best, potentially troublesome?

The rest of the world is also responding to the crisis in ways similar to the United States. After weekend meetings of the IMF and World Bank in Washington, D.C., financial leaders from around the world agreed to initiate a coordinated response, and the markets seem to be enjoying the show. In Japan, the Central Bank is ready to assist any effort negotiated by the IMF, but has so far not announced any support of particular amount of money to domestic banks and financial institutions. In Europe, markets surged amid a flurry of announcements from various national governments laying out plans to guarantee their financial sectors in various degrees, ranging from total guarantees of interbank lending and capital infusions in Germany to bond lending programs in Portugal. In China, the weather is a little less rough, with currency reserves recently surpassing $1.9 trillion in value, the People's Bank's chief Yi Gong, while promising cooperation with the other members of the IMF,  has expressed full confidence that China will weather the financial turmoil. Perhaps not coincidentally, the central government in the same weekend announced plans to double rural disposable income by 2020 to create a domestic consumption base as a way to offset falling exports to the U.S.

While some lament the appearance that Capitalism has become the newest whipping boy in the arena of economic philosophies, Treasurer Henry Paulson took bold steps in ushering in a whole new era of American socialism, essentially seizing portions of the nine largest lending houses in the United States.

A Little More Bacon Makes the Medicine Go Down

Unfortunately, the professional politicians of the Senate, including Sens. and presidential candidates Obama and McCain, voted in favor of a revised version of the bailout. Now, with some tax breaks and other pork barrel spending to enhance the bill's chances to pass through the House, and of course extra flavor. This delicious bacon costs an addition $100 billion, which is far more than I would ever pay for it, no matter how delicious it is. In addition, there are other sections that have been added to the bill, and you don't need to worry anymore about your children's wooden arrows being taxed at an exorbitant rate. One may argue that it passed through the Senate because only a portion of its members have to worry about re-election, which may or may not be the true reason. However, if one feels that this bill is overtly socialist, consider the opposition of Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, who describes the bailout as unfair.

Also, I would like to see the opinion polls that Americans are more confused than opposed to the bill. I'm sure Mike Shedlock would have something to say about that, in between falling asleep at his computer, leading the charge against this horrible piece of legislation.

For those who need this explained, one has the choice of either the illustrious Dr. Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty, or if you need to have it put into perspective with examples, this Opinion piece by Jonathan Weil is a must-read.

I wish that I could believe that this bailout is just an inefficient piece of legislation written in a system that didn't suffer from the systemic failings that went through Sweden's financial system in the 90's. But, even with, or should I say despite, the benefit of the experience of Sweden's former Finance Minister, the legislation is going forward in the worst way possible. When these banks are able to price these horrible pieces of financial wizardry that are currently befuddling their balance sheets at a price dictated by a former head of Goldman Sachs, the economic crisis will continue unabated, as the underlying fundmental economic problems remain. People will still be losing their jobs and inflation will be destroying the purchasing power of the dollars that are still being earned by those fortunate enough to have employment. This is a very dangerous game, with even more money being wasted on tax breaks that aren't substantiated in any significant way.

Maybe Carlin Was Right

So now there is no one left to vote for. At the beginning of this long election season I could see no difference between Obama McCain and Clinton. They are all the same centrist robot pushed forth by the two big parties. It feels like 1999 again when there was no apparent difference between Bush and Gore. Over time though, like with all politicians, the candidates have revealed which freedoms they hate and what they want to spend our money on.

Yesterday the Green Party announced their presidential candidate will be Cynthia McKinney. Yes, that Cynthia McKinney. Its confusing to me that the Green party would field a candidate that is obviously not capable of being president. This woman has no self control and is fixated on trivial issues. At best, she would be an embarrassment to the country if she were on a world stage, at worst she would spark an international incident with her lack of tact and decorum.

The only reason I mention the Greens here is because I am now at a loss for whom I shall cast my vote. Obama voted for the FISA bill. That's just about the only concrete thing I know about the guy. That and he was a crusader to ban guns until he decided to run for president. McCain is little better. From being the maverick Senator that stood up for what he believed in even if it was against his own party, he has cozyed up to right wing religious fanatics, stood up for the party that betrayed him in 2000, and gone against his own campaign finance laws and ideals. He was an idealistic war hero that stood above the corruption of politics and filth of Washington before he lost the primary to Bush. Now he is just another pandering politician trying to tell you what you want to hear. This election makes me feel like its last call and I am being hit on by a drunk sociopath.

The Libertarians have put forth Bob Barr of all people. Holy fucking mother of everliving fat! Bob fucking Barr! This man was regarded as the most right-wing conservative politician in congress. He was anti-drug, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, he tried to outlaw all non-Abrahamic religions in the military, and he voted for the PATRIOT act. Now he has criticized his vote for the patriot act, advocated the repeal of the income tax, and paid lip service to legalization of pot, which is apparently sufficient for the party heads of the Libertarian party. This is why I call myself philosophically libertarian rather than identify with the Libertarian party. They are more concerned with taxes and free trade than with actual liberty. So now there is no one left to vote for but freedom hating hypocrites.

Its like a bad movie and they are running out of extras. Seriously, Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney? This is the best we can do? There are hundreds of people in politics at the national level. Senators, Representatives, Judges, Party heads. Most of us know businessmen and fucking actors that would be better choices. I feel like I am in a poorly written political farce that has run low on budget and can't afford more actors with lines.

Turkey

Its more than just delicious with cranberries. Aparently Turkey is also a country in both Europe and the Middle East. Turkey invaded Iraq last Thursday to fight the ethnic Kurdish sepratists. The President has called on Turkey to limit the incursion while Turkish politicians use the Bush administrations selfsame rhetoric to support their own "war on terror." I find Turkey's reaction to Kosovo's declaration of independence interesting in comparison to that of Russia. Russia objected to Kosovo's independence because they are afraid international recognition of such states will only encourage other seperatist regions to break away from their mother countries. Which is supposed to be a reference to Chechnya. Turkey, on the other hand supported Kosovo's independence and recognized them as a country. I wonder what they think of Russia's stated reason of not wanting to encourage break away republics.

The Kurdish north has been the most stable part of Iraq since Bush declared "mission accomplished." Which is why neither the US or Iraq wanted to risk destabalizing the regioin by going in and trying to uproot the PKK. It was also the major reason not to pull US out of Iraq. Or at least I thought it was. The scinario painted by people like Sen. Mccain goes something like this. We leave, and with noone holding them back the Sunni and Shiite extremests begin a full scale civil war. The Kurdish north then takes all their trucks and goes home, declaring independence and the existence of a country called Kurdistan. Then the Kurds in Turkey try to take their land and join with the Kurds of the former Iraq and Turkey begins a massive military invasion of the region. This combined with the unfettered influence of Iran, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia in Iraq throws the whole region into utter chaos.

At least, thats the nightmare situation as I understand it. Now that Turkey has invaded Iraq I find it less compelling to support John McCain as a presidential candidate, since my whole reason to back him has veen prevention of Turkey from crossing that line. Admitedly, that has never been one of the planks in his platform but it was my reason. Without the threat of total middle-eastern bedlam, McCain's pandering to the religious zealots and "conservatives" in his party is thown into stark relief. I still have boatloads of respect for the man who is a war hero, and a senator who has managed to keep his integrity while being pragmatic enough to work in politics for so long. He just is no longer appealing to me as a president. Unfortunately that only leaves Clinton who voted for the war, and Obama who I have heard nothing substantial about, or long shot also-rans who I like but are being ignored by the old media.

Oh, aparently the U.S.S. Cole is still floating

The Walk of Shame

Thats right, two walk of shame columns in one weekend! By the decree of the Invisible pink unicorn. Another school board, motivated by the public opinion of ignorant savages, trys to plant the seed of doubt about evolution in the minds of the children they are supposed to be educating. Remember, the people pushing creationism on schools believe they are fighting a war. They may seem like crazy hillbillys to rational people, but they are willing to kill and die to spread their ignorance and hate.

This is more fuel for the argument that K-12 education is really just federally funded babysitting. Coupled with the blind hope that some of the little crotchfruits will be active participants and the society on the whole will reap the benefit of a few productive workers. I really wonder about what effect Ron Paul style, privitized education would have on America. Does anyone else hear Pink Floyd's "The Wall" playing?

Go Ahead, Move to Canda!: Did Someone Say "NEW ONGOING SERIES"?

In the establishment's perpetual search for power, they have used many a tact in suppressing dissent, and suring up their base. Though it is possible to imprison or murder the dissenters, that takes time, money, lives, effort, etc. There are also risks. The imprisoned or assassinated victims can become martyrs, and blowback occurs. (Though you can never forget about intentionally cause blowback to increase the disorder and chaos in an area to create grounds for heavy force.) Well, one of my favorite ways to get rid of dissent is to offer the dissenters a way out.

I was recently watching the movie "The Unbearable Likeness of Being," with the badass Daniel Day Lewis and the juicy Juliette Binoche. In it they play a brain surgeon and budding photographer living in Prague in 1968. A gold star for the first kid who said, "Isn't that during the Prague Spring?" This is where the Communist, sorry, evil Ruskies came marching in and took control with an Iron Fist. Demonstrations, riots, and general public dissent ensued. Juliette Binoche even took a couple pictures of excessive Russian military practices. Of course it didn't take long for the "secret police" to find her and her pictures, and start making her life difficult. What to do, what to do? Stay around and fight the oppression? Stand your ground and fight for you and your fellow man's rights? Naw, fuck that, they left. They packed up and left. There was then an important scene. Instead of there being a difficult process of escape it was simply a matter of heading to a Russian sanctioned border checkpoint and waving to the soldiers as they headed to Switzerland.

Now the first thought that popped into my head was, why the hell are the Russians letting all of these, though dissenting, talented, valuable human resources leave? If they are so evil, why give them a chance to live in the happy free Switzerland, where the trains only run on time because they made the watches. Well then it dawned on me, and really put domestic events into perspective for me. They let them leave because they are trouble. They were making their occupation easier by getting rid of the people who give a shit.

Let's look to America at this time. A quick Wikipedia check will show you that...(I am actually doing some minor research for a blog, woo is me) 100,000 American men went abroad to avoid service in Vietnam, with 50,000 - 90,000 going to Canada. Initially, Canada didn't want a bunch of American immigrating into their country (we should be able to empathize with concerns about southern border immigration.) However, Canada eventually welcomed them, probably after the US told them we will allow them back in at a later date. Oh, and sure enough we did.

So, America was waging not only an unjust war abroad, but at the same time, the establishment was being fought with over many issues, namely civil rights. Forcing people into service, or anything for that matter, who really don't want to do it can incite rebellion. What better way to quell any serious threat to the establishment than to "allow" 100,00 pissed off young men (all fit for service) to leave. And then someone had the great idea to invite these people back, because not only are they a valuable human resource, but they are sure to be pretty tame now that the man "showed them kindness."

Every member of the counter culture or urban radical out there has heard someone say "I'll move to Canada when shit really hits the fan." As if Canada is some sort of magical safe fallback option for when America really becomes fascist. Hell, I bet there are a ton of ex-pats who have left already, to Canada or Europe, because they think America already is an oppressive state. It is to these yellow-bellied, selfish, all talk no walk, used to be but no longer am dissenters that I dedicate this NEW ONGOING SERIES:

Mark Emery, the Prince of Pot, is founder of the BC Marijuana Party and successful marijuana seed distributor. In 2005, he was arrested by Canadian law enforcement, under pressure from the Yanks, along with two others for selling these seeds. It is almost an never enforced law in Canada (to Canada's credit) though there are some laws on the books. The U.S. wanted him extradited to our country to face our stricter anti-drug legal system. A recent plea deal in the case means that Emery, but not his two compatriots, will serve 5-10 years in prison. Though Canada did not blindly hand him over to the U.S., they did allow a foreign agency to interpret their own laws, dictate the resources and actions of their police, sway the Canadian judicial system, and spend Canadian tax payer dollars all to enforce a victimless crime for political reasons. Emery may still do some of his prison time in the U.S., but that is yet to be determined.

Canada, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. I liked you, I really did. But you're no better than u.s. You give in to the bully. You question your own values. You are willing to hurt an innocent human for what? And to you people out there wanting to move to Canada, where will you move when Canada and the U.S. have the same laws and law enforcement under the banner of the North American Union; when you could spent this whole time fighting the establishment instead of spending all that damn time packing and unpacking your fucking dishes you got from Pier One.

Programmed Disenfranchisement

As much as John Edwards may complain about being pushed out of the media spotlight, we have to wonder how important the media spotlight is. For some reason, some time along the course of history, we in America have come to equate democracy with compromise. While compromise is good and can help get legislation moving, at other times, people are willing to compromise way too much, such as the 6% of Ron Paul supporters who changed their vote to fit their ideas about what other people thought. Human beings are social creatures, but this is clearly socialization taken to the point of serving to propagate gross logical fallacies. Whether it's an appeal to base emotions, such as "Double Gitmo" remarks, or your typical political ad hominem, such as referring to a candidate as a crazy relative, or or your commonplace straw man, such as mentioning the decade-old racist remarks in a newsletter written under Ron Paul's name while he was in private practice, yet not mention the fact that he has addressed those remarks in the same way for the past ten years. I only make such a fuss about each of these, because they serve to better illustrate, as we have done over the course of this election season, the narrow depth of coverage offered by most outlets of the mainstream media. To be fair, the news corporations are only trying to give people what they want to see, right? Probably not. Exhibit A. Exhibit B. I include "election" to serve as a kind of comparison between the two groups. It would appear that most of the candidates have something to be upset about, but Ron Paul supporters have the most to be upset about.

I have a bone to pick with them, though. If one looks at the graph, "Ron Paul" is more popular than all of them, even "election." I have a hard time believing that there is this berth of support for Ron Paul, though, as it certainly isn't reflected in the polls, which leads me to several possible conclusions. The most likely, is that Ron Paul supporters can't or won't vote for whatever reason, be it for felony charges or apathy. However, another is that more people did actually vote for Ron Paul at the several primaries that have been held so far and their votes were counted improperly, which also leads me to be angry at such voters, as they don't care enough about their vote to ensure that it's counted properly.

Anyone else have that age old feeling of disenfranchisement?

I was perusing the Cnn.com, as part of my regular late night masochism session, looking for some clues as to what is going on with the electorate. How come the same pundits who are so horribly wrong about policy are surprisingly correct when it comes to predicting elections? As a vehement Ron Pauloholic I was optimistically expecting well above 10% from Ron Paul in the New Hampshire primary. (By the way, can we strip them of their state motto: Live Free or Die because no one truly free would vote for Hilary Clinton, well maybe as a joke?) The acceptable Jack Cafferty echoed that idea before the primary on CNN, though none of his co-workers agreed. As we all know, as well read (five points to anyone who coins a new term to replace "well read" in regards to getting their news from Youtube and Log Cabin videos) politicos, Ron Paul did not even hit 10% in New Hampshire, and has done similarly or worse since, in Wyoming and Michigan. On CNN.com they have some exit polls from Michigan, and one of them asked the voter, who they think is the candidate that will best bring much needed change. Then they broke down who those people voted for. For example, 28% of Republican voters thought John McCain will best bring about much needed change, and 88% of those people voted for McCain. Well, 12% of Michigan Republican primary voters thought Ron Paul would best bring about much needed change (that figure alone angers me for being low.) However, only 48% of those people voted for him. In summary, 6% of the Michigan Republican primary electorate thought that Ron Paul would be the best person to change this country for the better, but decided not to vote for him. Motherwhat? YOU PEOPLE ARE DRIVING ME INSANE!

At one time in our lives we have all either supported a "fringe" candidate, or knew someone who did. If you are one of the people who supported the "fringe" candidate, then you heard, almost every time you tried to proselytize for your boy, "I'm not gonna throw my vote away." If you are not someone who supported a "fringe" candiddate, then you are that asshole who said, "I'm not gonna throw my vote away." Yet they rarely attack that candidate on the issues, on hizzer policy and cred, street or otherwise. I figure this is either because they agree with the candidate but are afraid to vote for himmer, like our Michigan 6%, or they are uninformed of him, a number likely much higher than 6%.
I was watching a fall 2000 Charlie Rose episode on Youtube that had a number of political experts analyzing the first Gore-Bush debate from that election. A couple times they referenced a poll that asked about people's impressions of the candidates, and seemingly used it as evidence of what the candidate actually is. I thin I only explicitly noticed it because I was able to look at these talking heads with a very 20/20 perspective. However, this is an hourly occurrence on every news network, newspaper front page...and most blogs, for that matter. Just because a poll says most people THINK a candidate is something, does not make him so. And for the media to spin in that way, makes it not only self-fulfilling but that number can increase like a snowball, and then simply becomes fact. It is circular logic that doesn't even have a factual base to turn on itself.

There are hundreds of way the propaganda machine, sorry, "media", distorts and hides the truth. There are many ways in which it, eh...for lack of a better word, BRAINWASHES people into voting a certain way. As bad as it is that there are elections being rigged at the polls, after the polls, and before the polls, by not allowing people to vote, elections are also being stolen through propaganda. Remember, why steal something forcefully or stealthily when you can just trick someone into giving it to you?

He's Not Your Crazy Uncle

Former Senator Mike Gravel, though cut from the ABC News debates, is keeping himself busy campaigning in the next primary state, New Hampshire.

He's winning acclaim for his opposition to the war. In my reasoned opinion, he's the only candidate on the Democratic side of the Presidential ticket that has any credibility on the issue. My only criteria, of course, being that they have some kind of plan to pull the country out of the war, regardless of Mr. Bush's best intentions.

Another policy worth noting is that he is the only candidate addressing the failures of our representative government, and the secrecy surrounding the Bush administration. Again, he is the only candidate with any credibility on this issue, as he is responsible for making the Pentagon Papers public in the 1970s. They may call him the dark horse of the field, but I might remind that it took only one horse to take down Troy. However, instead of a horde of Greek soldiers, within lies a large group of people who do not typically vote, but are newly motivated by the war and the various other misguided polices of the Bush administration.

I, for one, hope that Mike Gravel continues to campaign (with video goodness!) as though this presidential race matters. So, after the mainstream media pushes Ron Paul and Mike Gravel out of the presidential races on either party ticket, perhaps their supporters can find common cause in an independent Paul/Gravel '08 ticket. "We're more credible than Stewart/Colbert!" So, although Dodd and Biden have dropped out (by the way, Richard Adams of the Guardian, fuck you, because you can't edit this commentary), some will continue to care that Mike Gravel is still out fighting for freedom. $400,000 will go a long way, I am sure.

Here's a list of his upcoming sightings in New Hampshire, along with those of a few other people that feel they can contribute to the national dialogue.

By the way, why did Keith Olbermann fallaciously announce Sen. Gravel's departure from the race? Did he try to FOX News the Democratic race?

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MEDIA_OWNERSHIP?SITE=RIPAW&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

There is already too much media consolidation resulting in poor news coverage. There is too much group think among media sources when important stories get ignored because CNN is covering a skiing squirrel or cat fashion show. Or for that matter a human fashion show. You're fucking CNN for fuck's sake! The group think has almost completely ignored the candidacy of viable candidates like Ron Paul.

The old media fucked up big time in the run up to the war in Iraq and during the 2000 presidential election. If they want trust and respect back they better start fucking earning it with real hard hitting investigative journalism, instead of the kind of fluff that bloggers can fill the world with. They like to assume they are more ligitimate than us but I say the burden of proof is on them now. And that burden is one of the preponderance of evidence.

For entertainment purposes I am not so sure media consolidation is that bad. I may be confusing correlation with causation but market saturation and a vast empire seems to have given those like Ted Turner and Disney the freedom to create specialised networks for a narrow audience that would sink a network like NBC who has to stick with bland "entertainment" that appeals to noone but at least doesn't offend most. The increased venues for creativity may also simply be a result of the managment style of the Turner corporation.

Proof: Ron Paul is Systematically Ignored

Take a look at this little tidbit. The mainstream news probably won't report this; in fact it is fairly relevant from the graphs that Ron Paul, while enjoying by far the highest search volume, is consistently and systematically ignored by news outlets.


Google Trends: Presidential "Front Runners" and Ron Paul

They cannot destroy all the evidence that "they" are trying to gain complete control. The only problem is that we have to work so hard to find it.

Paradox?

If a major mainstream news organization goes through a entire article on the 'electability' of the Republican candidates without even mentioning Ron Paul's name, does it mean that he is not electable? Or that the news organization in question isn't as mainstream as they would like to think?