February 20, 2012
United States presidential contender Ron Paul has warned that his country is slipping into a twenty-first century fascist system with a broke government ruled by big business. RT asked some experts whether they agree.
Speaking to supporters in Kansas City, the Republican candidate said Americans’ individual liberties were being stripped away.
And, as Houston-based author Anis Shivani says, Paul is “the only candidate on the Republican side who is talking about the loss of civil liberties, pending illegal wars, making the connection between imperialism and the loss of rights at home.”
It now looks like Ron Paul could have won the Maine caucus, and Shivani believes he could have more support with the American public but it seems that the media won’t allow it to happen:
“I think he does have hardcore support – maybe it could be 15 to 20 per cent of people on the conservative side. His support could be wider, but the media will never treat a candidate like him with seriousness, they will just dismiss him as a fringe candidate because of, for example, his very firm stance on Iran, he is saying ‘Let’s not get into another war on Iran, we just can’t afford it, and every time we do this, it makes governance at home more difficult.’ So the media will say he is just not interested in national security and dismiss him.”
And radio host and author Stephen Lendman also agrees that current US policies are evidence that the country has indeed developed a fascist system, going on to disagree slightly: “The only thing I disagree with Ron Paul it is that is not slipping into it – it’s deep into it.”
Noting that while he is not a Ron Paul supporter, Lendman supports his opposition to imperial wars, echoing Paul in his criticism of the Federal Reserve Bank:
“He has gone after the Federal Reserve for years – it’s a repressive group, privately owned and operated, it isn’t federal and it does not have reserves, as Ron Paul explains. It’s owned by the major bankers, maybe the Wall Street ones, and they use money power to create more of it at the public’s expense.”