|
Tim Russert is an excellent host of NBC’s Meet the Press. He is an aggressive interviewer who usually shows a good grasp of the critical issues he discusses. Still, when he interviewed Ron Paul last week, his intent seemed to be only to belittle the man who has raised more money from grassroots supporters than any other candidate in this wide-open presidential election. Instead of clearing the air, he mucked it up in many of the areas in which Ron Paul stands out as the true representative of freedom. The congressman, though not a slick politician, still answered Russert’s every volley, but a few of Russert’s misrepresentations will linger in the minds of all but the careful listener, which seemed to be Russert’s sole aim. I would have said more…but I am not running for office.
Russert quoted Paul: “I would like to get rid of the IRS. I want to get rid of the income tax.” Then he zeroed in on the “lost revenues” that would result from that. Paul pointed out that stopping the income tax and relying only on Constitutional sources would still leave us with the same amount of revenue that came in ten years ago – that the real issue is to reduce spending – but Russert insisted that the income tax accounts for half of total federal revenues and pressed Paul as to what programs he would cut.
What neither one brought up are the government’s other sources of revenue besides taxes. The American people would be shocked to find out that twice the amount of revenue that is generated by all taxes comes to the US government by way of investment returns. While he did mention the “military industrial complex” – the phrase coined by President Eisenhower – Paul did not elaborate on the huge profit that comes to the corporate government from their investments in the war in Iraq. Paul spoke of the drain on our national tax resources from having troops stationed all over the world; one might wonder if Tim Russert, a star employee of NBC / GE – one of the huge CFR conglomerate corporations – stifled an inward smile because he is aware of the huge profits that the presence of those troops in outlying stations brings back to those who really own and control the US government. As oil companies profit from skyrocketing oil prices, the US government is at the front of the line taking profits. (In fact, an insider has opined, they are waiting for oil to hit $150 per barrel to open the northern Alaska fields that the US government is sitting on.) Likewise, as contrived health crisis after contrived health crisis (heard anything about “Bird Flu” lately?) bloats the purses of the pharmaceutical cartel, guess who is at the top of the list of profit makers? And, as the adjustable rate mortgage scam – created by retired Fed chair Alan Greenspan – results in the theft of millions of Americans’ home equities, once again, the US government is profiting wildly. (Research for yourself the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and find out about the second set of books that is kept hidden from the people – proof that taxes are about controlling us, not about paying for essential government services.)
Russert attempted to pin Paul’s ears back for the amount of “federal dollars” that make their way back to his Congressional district, in spite of his opposition to federal spending. It was a cheap shot. As the Congressman aptly pointed out, his constituents pay many dollars to the federal government that go to pay for services all over the country; though he voted against every bill, it would not be inconsistent for him to help bring his own constituents’ money back home to pay for government services that they would be, otherwise, just paying for someone else to receive.
On amending the Constitution to prohibit the children of illegal aliens automatic citizenship, Paul scored by pointing out that a) amending the Constitution is Constitutional, b) it was the 14th Amendment, not the original Constitution, that allowed this “birthright” citizenship, and c) as originally interpreted, even the 14th Amendment would not have allowed for the current abuse.
On Abe Lincoln, Russert needs to read Thomas DiLorenzo’s stellar book, The Real Lincoln. Dr. Paul did an outstanding job refuting Russert’s assertion that Lincoln’s war was necessary to free the slaves and pointing out that Lincoln’s intent was only to change the purpose of the republic.
Classic Ron Paul, however, came out when he answered Russert’s recitations of Paul’s disgust with both Bush presidents and Reagan’s failures: because he represents what the Republican Party used to stand for and what it, on paper, says that it still stands for – less government, lower taxes, non-interventionism, individual liberty, the Constitution, etc. Paul blamed the shrinkage of the GOP’s base on its takeover by radicals like Bush who have a very different purpose for the party. (His objections are among the reasons that I am no longer a member.) As a serious candidate, Ron Paul can be dismissed no longer.
--------------------------------------------
Ben Graydon received his Bachelor of Arts degree in History at Bob Jones University in 1983 and his Master of Public Administration degree at Clemson and USC in 1996. He is founder and director of Parents United in Responsibility for Education (www.pureducation.com) and has written for The Times Examiner since
|
