Speaking on behalf of 99% of the population, FightBackNews.org posted an article about why Ron Paul is no friend of the 99%. Of course, they are speaking of a movement and not the entire population, which is to say they are idealizing the movement to fit their own beliefs. Going From top to bottom, dissecting the article answers some of their concerns.
The author credited to the article is the “FightBack! editors.” When a source is not named the credibility is questioned but when an editorial is not authored by a known human, it should be ignored, right? Just saying…
The ‘editors’ claims “in the Republican debates, his campaign tends to put little emphasis on his anti-war stances.” Have ‘editors’ watched any of the debates? The first thing Ron Paul will do is bring all of the troops home. He says we should not be the policeman of the world about 10 times every debate. So the first point about Ron Paul not being an anti-war candidate is false and not talking about it is false. Even most anti-Paul people will concede this and many Republicans will say that this is why they are anti-Paul.
Next, the Fightback editors say:
While Ron Paul claims to want to protect Social Security, he is in fact backing a privatization of Social Security that would be a boon for Wall Street. His campaign plays the same tune as Wall Street when he says that Social Security is “broke and broken,” when in fact the Social Security trust fund grew by some $70 billion last year, to almost $2.7 trillion.
This is a mainstream belief that is not true, unfortunately. The trust fund is redeeming securities to cover its cash shortfall and the treasury has to borrow money from investors to get cash to pay the trust fund so the fund can pay Social Security beneficiaries. In sum, the position of the US government financially would be no better than if there were no Social Security trust fund.
So the trust fund is growing and Social Security is looking good but it’s actually just representing more debt.
The author (editors) then goes into Ron Paul’s newsletters, which have been discussed for years but here is a quality video by a local news station on the whole matter. But all-in-all, I don’t think Ron Paul is racist and the implications that he is are an attempt to reach a dumbed down politically correct society.
Now to more racially charged rhetoric, the author bring up another mainstream liberal rant about Ron Paul being against the Civil Rights Act. The unnamed author cites it was a great victory for minorities and outlawed separation in schools. The unnamed author fails to get the point and portray Pauls objections accurately. The fact is that Ron Paul supports integration in public sectors, but for private institutions the government should not have the authority to intrude. The problem was that government run institutions were practicing discrimination, which set a terrible example for the private sector. So while the government was right in correcting their woes, they took advantage of this and decided to limit our freedoms. It is amazing how Anti-Paulbots miss the point completely and instead take the blinded view that this means he is racist.
They then go onto say:
Just recently, Congress passed a bill, called the NDAA, allowing the president to arrest people and hold them as long as he likes without trial. Ron Paul did not vote against this bill, for all of his talk about civil liberties – he didn’t vote either way.
It is true that Paul did not vote, as he was campaigning. But he did soon after bring a bill to repeal it.
Here is what he did:
Paul introduced HR 3785 , titled “To Repeal Section 1021 Of The National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2011.” Not the catchiest title, but at least it gets to the point. Here is the full text of the bill:
To repeal section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REPEAL OF SECTION 1021 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012.
Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) is hereby repealed.
Section 1021 is the part of the bill about indefinite detention, as NDAA covers a wide range of issues such as funding for the troops and so on. The implication that Ron Paul has turned a blind eye to the bill is misleading at best. If you want to find someone that supported it, look no further than Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
At this point the unnamed author stops defacing Ron Pauls actually views and begins their Mr. Rogers propaganda closing.
The problem in our society is not that government is out of control. The problem is that the government, the economy and most of our world, are under the control of a handful of very wealthy people. Most people now are focused on the fact that the economic crisis is caused by the big banks and the billionaires who control both parties.
Ok, the unnamed author states that the government is controlled by a few wealthy people but says that limiting government will not solve the problem. The main point heard in defense of this logic, is that you have to simply get rid of money in politics. The problem with this is that you can’t do this. It is impossible to stop people or companies from paying off politicians, just as it is impossible to outlaw abortion, drugs and anything else and expect it to stop.
There is a fundamental flaw in the logic that government is not the problem, rather, that companies are at fault for looking out for their own best interest. It is a fact that only a select few in the 1% control the world but expanding government is not the solution. The US government is controlling the banks, housing industry, health industry and much more. The fact that the unnamed author does not mention competing currencies and The Federal Reserve, really makes brings into question question their understanding of why people are able to grab this much power and why they are able to control everything.
The article was ruined quickly by lies or a total lack of understanding. Ron Paul is not perfect and he will not solve all of our problems, not even close. But for every liberal hit piece around, one has to ask, “where are the better options?”
They close by stating Ron Paul won’t win any states, which is also not true, as will likely be proven soon in Nevada. They are run by the “Freedom Road Socialist Organization” and man-oh-man, how oxymoronic is that?