In what must totally confuse the public, the left-leaning, liberal media are now daily hawking a news story that the IRS has been purposely targeting applications for conservative charities and educational nonprofits. What? This is news? The liberal media have been targeting conservative organizations and personalities for years, so why should they blame the government for doing the same? Ah, but you see, there is a very good reason.

The media are run by big corporations that count on interest-free money from the Federal Reserve and burdening regulations to keep out small business competitors and complete freedom to run their fiefdoms without interference. In return they pay the politicians, Republican and Democrat, big money to help them get re-elected, and they provide priceless air support, by promoting their candidacies of choice on national television and marginalizing anyone who dares to challenge the corrupt arrangement.

Take for example, the Associated Press, a “nonprofit” owned by a cooperative of newspapers and television companies, which are owned by big corporations. The AP virtually led the national media in their censorship and misreporting of the Ron Paul presidential campaign in 2012. (See “The Great Hudsonville Cover-up.”)

Now, there is a great irony here, for Ron Paul was the one candidate who was ringing the warning bells about our abandonment of the U.S. Constitution. (By the way, in addition to conservative groups, the IRS was also targeting any nonprofit that had the word “Constitution” in its name. The IRS can never be too careful in fulfilling its constitutional duty.)

What happened at the AP is only an example of what Dr. Paul feared and warned would happen. The government asked that the AP hold back a news story about a terrorist bomb plot planned on the anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden. The Associated Press complied. But when White House officials then lied to the American people, saying that there had been no threats on the anniversary, well, that was too much. It was a replay of the Benghazi attack on the anniversary of 9/11, which the government had contended was a spontaneous reaction to an American anti-Islamic movie and had nothing to do with terrorists or 9/11.

The Associated Press ran their story, and the government began their spying campaign against them.

Now it may be tempting for liberty lovers to let the AP stew in its juices, but with Rand Paul, now making a serious effort to save the U.S. Constitution and end the culture of corruption in Washington, D.C., we should stand up for our old antagonist, the Associated Press. Maybe, just maybe, they will learn that having masses of people supporting the U.S. Constitution is not such a bad thing. Maybe, just maybe, they will make room for Rand, and when there are 2,000 at his events they will not say there are 40.

It is amusing to see the AP wringing its hands over the issue. Since 9/11, the millions of intercepts of ordinary citizens have not even warranted a peep from many in the national media. The drone killing of a U.S. citizen with no connection to terrorism was passed over in a single day. But making off with AP phone records? Well, that apparently violates the “honor among thieves” arrangement of the New World Order.

There are some in the Liberty Movement who will say that this is not our fight. They will say that the oligarchy is now obviously piqued at Obama and are bloodying his nose a bit to show him who’s boss. And that may be the case. But the fact that they are using a bias against conservatives in the IRS as the weapon of choice is pure comic theater at its best and should be enjoyed to the hilt.

Just to look into the faces of those serious news anchors as they solemnly tell us that the IRS is biased against conservatives, implying that all good folks, themselves included, are scandalized by this outrageous and unfair behavior, is better than watching Cersei outmaneuver the court in the Game of Thrones. Enjoy it while you can. The House of Rand Paul is coming.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.