Working on this new server in php7...
imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
Features
latest news
best of news
syndication
commentary


KILLRADIO

VozMob

ABCF LA

A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List

LAAMN List




IMC Network:

Original Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles

View article without comments

Why the Establishment is Terrified of Ron Paul

by DAVE LINDORFF Wednesday, Dec. 28, 2011 at 11:12 PM

It’s fascinating to watch the long knives coming out for Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul, now that according to some mainstream polls he has become the front-running candidate in the Jan. 3 GOP caucus race in Iowa, and perhaps also in the first primary campaign in New Hampshire.









"Remember, we’re talking about a guy who has been in Congress on and off for 12 terms, dating back to 1976. His views have been pretty consistent, and because he has run for president several times, also pretty well known. A practicing physician who claims to have helped in the births of over 4000 babies in his career, the 76-year-old Paul is a free-market advocate, an abortion opponent, an uncompromising defender of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, an opponent of government regulation, the Federal Reserve and the IRS, and of big government in general–especially big federal government.

What’s interesting is what he’s being attacked for: being a racist, being “anti-Israel” and being an isolationist.

The racist bit is funny. After all, if we’re honest, the whole political infrastructure of the US is riven with racism. Just check out the public schools in any urban area, where you’ll find most of the students are non-white, or check out the schools in rural parts of the southeast in areas where most of the students are black — compare the condition of those schools and the class sizes to schools in the white neighborhoods. Check out the wildly different jobless figures for whites and for blacks. Check out the (very pale) complexion of the student bodies at just about any state university, check out the skin tones of the judges on the US

Supreme Court, or for that matter, the whole federal bench. Check out the racial breakdown of the nation’s jails, and especially on the country’s many death rows, where you’ll find a wildly outsized percentage of people with black or brown skin waiting to be killed by the state.

Being a racist is clearly no disqualifier for national political office. It’s just that you are not supposed to say overtly racist things, at least in public.

It’s fine to pass laws and push for enforcement actions and “tough” judges that end up putting most young African-American males in prison at some point in their lives. It’s okay to promote a “War” on drugs that ends up creating a whole new slavery in the form of black men locked up in for-profit prisons. It’s okay to shortchange minority school districts. You just aren’t supposed to say you’re doing these things on purpose.

When it comes to Ron Paul, his problem is that he has allowed his supporters and his newsletters and campaign literature in years past to actually say things in public that other candidates only say, or think, in private, or that are the actual result of legislation that they sponsor or support, though always supposedly without the intent being the racist thing that is a consequence (wink, wink).

Some of those things Paul has said or allowed in his literature, like the line in one of his newsletters that the race riots in Los Angeles only ended when it came time for people to “pick up their welfare checks,” are truly offensive, and if he wants to be a serious contender for office, Paul should publicly and forcefully disavow them and the people who have expressed them in his name or on his behalf, as he should forcefully denounce any white racists and anti-semites who offer him support (his statements to date that he “doesn’t agree” with such people, or “doesn’t like” their support are far too limp). But it’s worth noting that with all the charges floating around that he hangs out with white supremacist types, Nelson Linder, president of the Austin, Texas NAACP, says he has known Ron Paul for 20 years, and reports that he is “not a racist.” Linder notes that Paul has called Martin Luther King a “hero,” and adds that he has condemned the police repression of black communities as well as the mandatory sentencing rules (supported by Democrats and Republicans over the years) that have condemned many blacks to long prison terms for minor offenses–concrete positions that you will not hear coming from either Obama or any of Paul’s competitors for the GOP nomination.

In fact, if we’re talking racist guilt-by-association, then the media’s favorite Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, should be hearing demands that he renounce his Mormon faith, as the Mormon scriptures state that the “seed of Cain” were made black in what amounts to a racist curse by the Mormon god. So should fellow Mormon Jon Huntsman. (Even if the Mormon church “received” blacks in 1978, many of its adherents remain white supremacists, and many of its priests continue to oppose inter-racial marriage.) Rick Perry, meanwhile, should have to sever his ties with white supremacist Christian evangelist David Barton. As for Newt Gingrich condemning Paul for hanging around with racists, talk about your pot calling the kettle racist!

Then there is the foreign policy stuff.

Ron Paul is being called anti-American, both by some of his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination, and increasingly even by fearful Democrats who are starting to wonder, and apparently worry, about how Paul might fare against Barack Obama in the 2012 general election. The basis for this claim is Paul’s argument that the 9-11 attacks on the US were the predictable result of the history of American imperialist activity in the Middle East, and his claim that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were gleeful after that attacks because it allowed them to go to war against Afghanistan and Iraq.

The thing is, while you aren’t supposed to say it in polite company, Ron Paul is right about that. You don’t have to buy into conspiracy theories claiming that 9-11 was an “inside job” to see that Middle Eastern terror campaigns against the US were the predictable result — blow-back if you will — of a history of US imperialism in the Middle East and elsewhere, or of what Native American activist Ward Churchill rightly referred to as “chickens coming home to roost.” And we have it from a member of Bush’s own cabinet, former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, that planning for an invasion and occupation of Iraq was in the works before Bush was even sworn into office in January 2001, while work on the fine print of the so-called USA PATRIOT Act was underway well before the first plane hit the first tower.

Paul is being labeled an “isolationist” (a hoary term that is supposedly a pejorative, dating back to World War I days, but which these days should actually be considered a compliment). The basis for this charge is that he calls for an end to America’s endless wars and to the fraudulent and enormously dangerous and damaging “War” on Terror. He also says he wants to close down the over 800 military bases that the US operates all around the world. Again, what has his establishment critics in high dudgeon is that his perspective is winning over an increasing number of Americans (including Republicans), who are finally waking up to the reality that a country that spends more than half of every tax dollar on its military, its wars, the debt for those wars, and on its secret spying operations, and that has itself on a permanent war footing, cannot prosper or even long endure.

Also making Ron Paul a pariah for the establishment is his position on Israel. He rightly points out and condemns the terrible distortion of US foreign policy that has occurred because of the unseemly power of the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S., which has most members of Congress in the pocket of the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). As he put it in a 2007 interview : “The First Amendment grants all citizens the right to petition the U.S. government, and this applies to AIPAC as much as anyone else. However, I oppose certain lobbying groups having more of an undue influence than others, and since one of the main purposes of AIPAC is to lobby for generous taxpayer subsidies to Israel, that portion of their influence would end under my administration.”

But the truth is: What other country can you name which is almost totally dependent upon the US for its military, yet can nonetheless make threats to use its US-supplied weapons to start a potential global war (by invading Iran), with Washington left pleading with it not to take such an action? There is no other such country. Any other country dependent upon the US for its military weapons has to march to US orders or else. While we’re at it, what other lobby can you name that has had spies working for it, including spies in the Pentagon who have gone to jail for disclosing US military secrets, and which nonetheless remains a prime venue for presidential candidates to come and speak? Answer: There is no other such lobby.

Israel can even murder an American citizen, as it did in 2010 in the case of unarmed 19-year-old humanitarian volunteer Furkan Dogan on the Turkish Gaza aid ship, the Mavi Marmara, and there isn’t a peep of protest from Washington (the White House actually tried to bury a report from the Turkish national forensic medicine body declaring that their tests showed Dogan had been executed by IDF bullets fired at his head at close range). Indeed, Israel was able to announce in advance that it planned to have its IDF thugs board ships of a second aid flotilla carrying many unarmed American citizens, and instead of warning Israel not to harm any of those Americans, Washington warned the Americans that they were putting themselves at risk. Our government even gave Israel the go-ahead in advance to have its boarding parties use violence against those US citizens.

What has Paul’s critics, right and left, worried is that a growing number of Americans agree with his view of Israel, seeing support of that increasingly isolated irredentist theocracy with its ongoing illegal occupation and absorption of Palestinian territories, and its official policy of apartheid towards the Arabs within its borders as being inimitable to American interests.

There are plenty of things wrong with Ron Paul, but the charge of racism doesn’t hold up very well, and in any case, it’s a charge that can be leveled equally against most of the rest of the nation’s white political leaders, and is hardly a disqualifier, judging by the people who currently hold high office in Washington, not to mention state governments. As for his anti-Israel stance and his isolationist foreign policy, these are both positives and could end up winning him votes in an honest national presidential race–if we still have such things here in America.

Where I part company with Paul is in the area of economics. His Libertarian philosophy may be right on when it comes to support for individual rights, and to a belief in strict adherence to the Constitution. We desperately need a radical pull-back from the unconstitutional policies of the Bush and Obama administrations, which have made the president into a virtual dictator, relegated Congress to the role of a debating society, gutted at least nine of the 10 articles in the Bill of Rights, and overseen the creation of a police state where it is now possible for American citizens to be captured and hauled away from their homes in secret, to be locked up and held indefinitely without trial on some military base on the basis of unproven rumors and trumped-up charges, with no right to see family members or even a lawyer.

But Libertarianism is not so great when it calls for an end to federal regulation of corporations, however large and powerful, or when it says the federal government should do nothing when the entire planetary biosphere is threatened by rampaging climate change caused by the rapacious and unbridled pursuit of profit and growth by those same corporate interests.

It’s not so great either when it opposes, as Paul does, legislation like the Civil Rights Act on the grounds that private employers and owners of private shops and restaurants should have the right to discriminate on the basis of race if they wish, free of government intervention.

Libertarianism is at its core an ugly anti-social philosophy of selfishness carried to the extreme. It is the antithesis of all that has been good in human social evolution — the creation of philosophies of caring and of societies in which suffering and want are addressed and, where possible, ameliorated.

Interestingly though, Paul is not being pilloried by his establishment critics in the GOP or the Democratic Party, or in the media, for his Libertarian economic theories or even his far-out property-rights theories. These are, after all, also quietly shared by most people in both of the major parties, and of course are wildly popular among the ranks of the corporate elite, who know they can always get all the favors they want or need from politicians by buying them, and who are happy to spout the gospel of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman when it comes to government regulation of their businesses or taxation of their personal hoards. Unfettered capitalism is also an article of faith in the corporate media.

That said, sometimes it all comes down to a couple of big issues, and in the unlikely chance that the election next November were to end up being the choice between Barack Obama and Ron Paul (and assuming no emergence of a viable Third Party progressive candidate like Rocky Anderson and hisJustice Party), while I might have a hard time pulling the lever for Paul unless he can really make it clear he has no truck with White Supremecists and their ilk, it would be easier than pulling a lever for Obama.

Why? Because with President Obama we would get more war, increased military spending, and at the rate he’s been going stripping away our Constitutional rights, there wouldn’t be any of those after another four years. We would also be electing someone who we now know lies through his teeth, who takes money from some of the biggest corporate thieves in human history, and who has appointed some of those very criminals to most or all of the key economic policy positions in his administration.

With Ron Paul as president, at least we’d be done with all the wars, the people of the rest of the world would be finally free of US military interference, including attacks by US drones. The long-suffering Constitution and its Bill of Rights would mean something again. We might even get a Supreme Court justice or two who actually believed that Congress should declare any future wars before we could fight them, and that citizens who were arrested had an absolute right to a speedy trial by a jury of peers. And we’d be electing someone who appears, especially for a politician, to be that rare thing: an honest man who says what he means and means what he says — and who doesn’t seem to be owned by the banksters.

We’d have a hell of a fight on our hands in a Ron Paul presidency, defending Social Security and Medicare, promoting economic equality, fighting climate change and pollution, defending abortion rights and maybe fighting a resurgence of Jim Crow in some parts of the country, but at least we wouldn’t have to worry about being spied upon, beaten and arrested and then perhaps shipped off to Guantanamo for doing it."

DAVE LINDORFF is a founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, the new Project-Censored Award-winning independent online alternative newspaper. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, forthcoming from AK Press.



http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/27/why-the-establishment-is-terrified-of-ron-paul/



NAACP President Nelson Linder confirms on radio that he has known Congressman Ron Paul for 20 years since the 1980's and also states Paul is not a "racist".

What Linder is trying to explain is that people take Libertarian views "out of content" and he states he would wish more people in Congress would take this country issues serious like Ron Paul.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/11137575-naacp-leader-nelson-linder-ron-paul-is-not-a-racist



also;

"I support Ron Paul because for any faults he might have, on the central issues of our time he is both precient and absolutely correct on the necessary reforms we need to push through to turn this country around before a monetary collapse. He is also a far better choice than Romney, Gingrich or Obama. Now, of course the Republican establishment hates him with a passion. And given that he is going to win in Iowa and he is going up dramatically in all polls while Gingrich and Romney are falling, many are in full blown panic mode, doing everything possible to discredit him and destroy him politically. The one trump card they have known about for a while is the so-called racist newsletters that were written under his name in the 80s and early 90s. What the media is attempting to do now is flood the news networks with reports and suggestions that he is a racist in order to scare away potential supporters. Many people will take what they read as fact without looking into the story any or getting any explanation. As long as a certain percentage are discouraged from supporting him, they can keep him from the nomination. Whether or not the story has any merit, the way it is USED is the height of journalistic misconduct and character assassination.

To this day, almost every time I get into an argument online about Ron Paul, someone naturally resorts to calling him a racist when they are unable to discredit his views on economics or knock his consistency or integrity. Other times I hear that someone new to Ron Paul asking whether he is a racist due to things they have read (usually a smear attempt) that incorrectly attributes quotes as if they were written and spoken by Dr Paul himself."

cont'd;

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2011/12/orchestrated-attempt-smear-ron-paul-through-slander-and-mud-slinging-my-two-cents
Report this post as:

About my take on R. P.

by Socialist Thursday, Dec. 29, 2011 at 8:14 PM

we have a man who proposes repair.

By cutting the safety net of accepted social programs like social security and medicare.

He has a good idea about limited government and we should support his non interventionist ideas.

We need to eliminate the criminality in government and we should pray that he isn't wacked as he challenges the status of rapine and looting going on at this time.

Ask him if he'll strike the Patriot Act and the Dept. Of HOMELAND SECURITY.

Report this post as:

Ron Paul will repeal Patriot Act

by Less foreign intervntion, less paranoia @home Thursday, Dec. 29, 2011 at 9:16 PM

"Socialist" wrote;

"Ask him if he'll strike the Patriot Act and the Dept. Of HOMELAND SECURITY."

Don't need to ask, already know. Ron Paul has spoken out against the surviellence state of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act. This paranoid defense strategy of spying on dissidents and the general public invented by the GW Bush regime is counterproductive to our freedom under the U.S. Constitution. The Patriot Act was renewed recently under Obama's watch.

The reason for the paranoid defense of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act is the term refered to as "blowback" by the CIA; the resulting attacks from a nation or group that our foreign policy of interventionism and military occupations have angered to the point of them risking their lives and freedom in a retaliatory attack against percieved targets of U.S. imperialism.

The solution proposed by Ron Paul is that we in the U.S. alter our foreign policy to avoid interventionism/occupation and therefore reduce the risks of retaliatory attacks upon ourselves, thus defeating the terrorist cells by lack of enrollment (attrition) and simultaneously protecting the homeland by not having so many angry enemies waiting to get revenge for CIA drone attacks or carpet bombing of villages or whetever else we did overseas to cause someone to leave their family and don a suicide vest (not normal behavior except for those under extreme duress).

So overall the change in foreign policy of interventionism would result in less enemies willing to attack us at home, enabling the U.S. to reduce paranoia in Homeland Security policies and allow for less restrictions during travel and less surviellence and monitoring of dissidents and the public in general.

BTW - Last election primary Rudy "9/11 Firehat Hero" Giuliani called Ron Paul a "terrorist sympathizer" for making this statement about cause and effect of interventionism and resulting blowback, though the statement is factually correct. Fighting the "war on terror" with CIA drones is no more effective than fighting the "war on drugs" by locking up dealers and users.

BTW - Ron Paul is also in favor of abandoning the futility of the so-called "war on drugs" and considering the most effective tool (not yet tried) to bring down the illegal drug cartels (and the offshore banks they prop up in Nassau); legalization. The libertarian position on drug use is one of personal responsibility, it does not make sense to incarcerate individuals for choosing to engage in personal drug use. What an individual chooses to put in their body (outside of overt suicide attempts) is their business, not the state's.

Solve immigration problems?

Repeal NAFTA/WTO. These two free trade agreeemnts are responsible for creating poverty and landlessness in third world countries, thus using economic coercion to force people into migrating to the U.S. for a "better life". By repealing NAFTA and the WTO, Ron Paul would enable people to have a better life in their home country by restoring their autonomy and sovereignty in the face of corrupt governments. Contrary to being "anti-immigrant" the repeal of NAFTA and the WTO would enable fair trade between nations on equal footing.

Ron Paul gets to the source of most of our society's problems and doesn't do the neoliberal vs. neoconservative platforms that are both ineffective.

Don't take my word for it, here's Ron Paul on the Patriot Act's quiet repassage under Obama;

"Date: 02/03/2011

Transcript

Ron Paul: I’d like to give you an update on the PATRIOT Act. Last year, the PATRIOT Act was scheduled to be renewed. There was a disagreement between the Senate and the House and they didn’t extend it, but they agreed that this year they would do it. Right now, I think the scheme is that they’re going to pass it as quietly as possible. Yet we hear now that there are going that be some meetings this week in the Senate Judiciary Committee and that they are now planning to get this bill and law renewed.

As most of you know, this law was passed shortly after 9/11. It was the perfect example of how we, as individuals and Americans, have being willing to sacrifice our liberties for so-called security. I consider this an absolute unconstitutional piece of legislation. It shouldn’t be extended, it shouldn’t be made worse, and it actually should be repealed in its entirety, and we’d all be better off for it. But they’re not anxious to have open hearings, they’re not anxious to have a new debate. They consider that opening up a can of worms, but it’s a can of worms that deserves to be opened because it affects all of us as Americans.

And all of us who believe in liberty and believe in the rule of law have to be concerned about the PATRIOT Act. It’s a great issue as far as I’m concerned because it can bring together a good group of people, both from the conservatives as well as the liberals because we do believe, in this case, that individual liberty ought to be protected.

So keep an eye on this and I understand that the people at the Campaign for Liberty will try to keep you informed with updates on their website. Thank you."



http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-02-03/ron-paul-repeal-the-anti-american-and-unconstitutional-patriot-act/

Report this post as:

here's the rub

by I like Ron Paul Friday, Dec. 30, 2011 at 5:08 AM

I really do.

But I'm a bit at unease at his "free market" take on economics.

These are cartels who are in concert to fleece the people.

However,

I believe that the REPEAL of NAFTA, GATT and other criminal trade agreements are primary to the repair of this nation.

The 'troops' who come home ( thank the lord and we should devote much resource to heal them ) are and should be given an affirmative option for health care, retraining or transition to a productive specialty that would be funded by a Wall St. tax and tariff system of re-industrialization.

It will take un-common talent to keep a mass die off from occurring as the system crashes.

I hope that Ron Paul is not used to be the target of the chaos to come. We need answers and good faith efforts to repair.

We need further institutions like a DIRECT vote of ratification to approve laws that are passed.

We need to be the final decision.

We The People.

Report this post as:

R.P. = thinking man's david duKKKe

by Racist Ron Paul Friday, Dec. 30, 2011 at 11:49 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/29/ron-paul-twitter_n_1173600.html
Report this post as:

the yowel of fear

by all you got? Saturday, Dec. 31, 2011 at 1:26 AM

This is what I would call gossip fear.

From the 'Huff' Post. It may as well be the J Post or Frontpage or any of the other arms of israeli propaganda.

I hope they continue to wet their panties about Ron

Paul.

Report this post as:

her's some more

by Ron Paul = Racist Saturday, Dec. 31, 2011 at 2:18 AM

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/1229/Racist-newsletter-timeline-What-Ron-Paul-has-said
Report this post as:

same as before

by "Some journalists"? Saturday, Dec. 31, 2011 at 1:22 PM

entire quote from the CSM

"Some journalists who have researched the newsletters say it was a lot more than 10 sentences, and that the Texas congressman's response on the issue has changed over the years."

wow

that's what I call an iron-clad piece of unsubstantiated unreferenced gossip.

israel is frightened.

Their free ride is being threatened.

Report this post as:

U just might be a "redneck"

by Ron Paul's "redneck strategy" Thursday, Jan. 05, 2012 at 2:52 AM

... if you make excuses for Ron Paul's "redneck strategy"

http://news.yahoo.com/story-behind-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-104823294.html

Report this post as:

one thing for sure!

by Beegood Thursday, Jan. 05, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Iowa vote-fraud [ NOT VOTER fraud ] is spilling out even as we speak in accordance with the promises made to quash the Ron Paul mobilization...

Report this post as:

Non-interventionism is LEAST Racist Policy

by Non-interventionism = Path to Peace! Saturday, Jan. 07, 2012 at 11:48 PM

How ironic that the only candidate to advocate non-interventionism is also accussed of racism by the neoliberal left and the neoconservative right. Guess that when you tell the truth the decievers on both sides of the staus quo get pissed.

Non-interventionism is the only non-racist foreign policy as it allows people in other countries to choose their own governments without interference from the patriarchs of the U.S. military-industrial establishment.

Non-interventionism means no military occupations, no CIA hidden hands in choosing to install or remove dictators, no overseas military bases. Military to be maintained for defense puposes only.

Statement by Ron Paul in support of non-interventionist foreign policy;



"The foreign policy of the 20th century replaced the policy endorsed by all the early presidents. This permitted our steadily growing involvement overseas in an effort to control the world's commercial interests, with a special emphasis on oil.

Our influence in the Middle East evolved out of concern for the newly created state of Israel in 1947, and our desire to secure control over the flow of oil in that region. Israel's needs and Arab oil have influenced our foreign policy for more than a half a century.

In the 1950s, the CIA installed the Shah in Iran. It was not until the hostage crisis of the late 1970s that the unintended consequences of this became apparent. This generated Iranian hatred of America and led to the takeover by the reactionary Khoumini and the Islamic fundamentalists. It caused greater regional instability than we anticipated. Our meddling in the internal affairs of Iran was of no benefit to us and set the stage for our failed policy in dealing with Iraq.

We allied ourselves in the 1980s with Iraq in its war with Iran, and assisted Saddam Hussein in his rise to power. As recent reports reconfirm, we did nothing to stop Hussein's development of chemical and biological weapons and at least indirectly assisted in their development. Now, as a consequence of that needless intervention, we're planning a risky war to remove him from power. And as usual, the probable result of such an effort will be something our government does not anticipate – like a takeover by someone much worse. As bad as Hussein is, he's an enemy of the Al Qaeda, and someone new may well be a close ally of the Islamic radicals.

Although our puppet dictatorship in Saudi Arabia has lasted for many decades, it's becoming shakier every day. The Saudi people are not exactly friendly toward us, and our military presence on their holy soil is greatly resented. This contributes to the radical fundamentalist hatred directed toward us. Another unfavorable consequence to America, such as a regime change not to our liking, could soon occur in Saudi Arabia. It is not merely a coincidence that 15 of the 9/11 terrorists are Saudis.

The Persian Gulf War, fought without a declaration of war, is in reality still going on. It looks now like 9/11 may well have been a battle in that war, perpetrated by fanatical guerillas. It indicates how seriously flawed our foreign policy is. In the 1980s, we got involved in the Soviet/Afghan war and actually sided with the forces of Osama bin Laden, helping him gain power. This obviously was an alliance of no benefit to the United States, and it has now come back to haunt us. Our policy for years was to encourage Saudi Arabia to oppose communism by financing and promoting Islamic fundamentalism. Surely the shortcomings of that policy are now evident to everyone.

Clinton's bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan on the eve of his indictment over Monica Lewinsky shattered a Taliban plan to expel Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan. Clinton's bombing of Baghdad on the eve of his impeachment hardly won any converts to our cause or reassured Muslim people in the Middle East of a balanced American policy.

The continued bombing of Iraq over these past 12 years, along with the deadly sanctions resulting in hundreds of thousands of needless Iraqi civilian deaths, has not been beneficial to our security. And it has been used as one of the excuses for recruiting fanatics ready to sacrifice their lives in demonstrating their hatred toward us.

Essentially all Muslims see our policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as being openly favorable toward Israel and in opposition to the Palestinians. It is for this reason they hold us responsible for Palestinian deaths, since all the Israeli weapons are from the United States. Since the Palestinians don't even have an army and must live in refugee camps, one should understand why the animosity builds, even if our pro-Israeli position can be explained.

There is no end in sight. Since 9/11, our involvement in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia has grown significantly. Though we can badger those countries – whose leaders depend upon us to keep them in power – to stay loyal to the United States, the common people of the region become more alienated. Our cozy relationship with the Russians may not be as long-lasting as our current administration hopes, considering the billion trade deal recently made between Russia and Saddam Hussein. It's more than a bit ironic that we find the Russians now promoting free trade as a solution to a difficult situation while we're promoting war.

This continuous escalation of our involvement overseas has been widespread. We've been in Korea for more than 50 years. We have promised to never back away from the China-Taiwan conflict over territorial disputes. Fifty-seven years after World War II, we still find our military spread throughout Europe and Asia.

And now, the debate rages over whether our national security requires that we, for the first time, escalate this policy of intervention to include "anticipatory self-defense and preemptive war." If our interventions of the 20th century led to needless deaths, unwinnable wars, and continuous unintended consequences, imagine what this new doctrine is about to unleash on the world.

Our policy has prompted us to announce that our CIA will assassinate Saddam Hussein whenever it gets the chance and that the government of Iraq is to be replaced. Evidence now has surfaced that the United Nations inspection teams in the 1990s definitely included American CIA agents who were collecting information on how to undermine the Iraqi government and continue with the routine bombing missions. Why should there be a question of why Saddam Hussein might not readily accept UN inspectors without some type of assurances? Does anybody doubt that control of Iraqi oil supplies, second only to Saudi Arabia, is the reason U.S. policy is belligerent toward Saddam Hussein? If our goal is honestly to remove dictators around the world, then this is the beginning of an endless task.

In the transition from the original American foreign policy of peace, trade, and neutrality to that of world policeman, we have sacrificed our sovereignty to world government organizations, such as the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO. To further confuse and undermine our position, we currently have embarked on a policy of unilateralism within these world organizations. This means we accept the principle of globalized government when it pleases us, but when it doesn't, we ignore it for the sake of our own interests."

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul44.html



This makes ron Paul the MOST anti-war candidate in EITHER party as Obama has shown himself to be a neoliberal supporter of the military-industrial complex.

Report this post as:

Ron Paul is nothing new

by Richard Nixon Sunday, Jan. 08, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Ron Paul's "redneck strategy" is just a revamping of Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy".

"same plan, different clan..."

Report this post as:

yeah

by "not a crook" Nixon Monday, Jan. 09, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Ron Paul at least is not a crook, Mr. Nixon, not new; certainly rare.

Report this post as:

Ron Paul will take US back to Jim Crow 1963

by Ron Paul's Jim Crow Strategy Monday, Jan. 09, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Ron Paul condemns the 1964 Civil Rights Act; if he repeals it, Jim Crow laws will resurface with his approval

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/01/how-ron-pauls-libertarianism-supports-racism.html

Report this post as:

what a laugh

by phew... Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2012 at 1:48 AM

desperate times mean desperate measures. Like using the platform of states rights to infer racism...

We see that the same innuendos can be used again and again for the same non-issues.

What is really bothering the political 'parties' is the threat of removing the foreign aid to the rat state of israel.

That's the real issue here.

Report this post as:

racism ESTABLISHED, not inferred

by Ron Paul's neo-fascist agenda Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2012 at 11:29 PM

slavery and discrimination have been justified historically using the tired, worn out "states rights" argument.

States rights 19th century ---> slavery

Sates rights 20th century ---> segregation

Sates rights 21th century ---> Ron Paulites

the Paulites shiver in their white hooded robes at the thought of having their agenda exposed for the whole wide world to see

Report this post as:

now it's 'racism'?

by can't stop laughing Wednesday, Jan. 11, 2012 at 12:00 AM

nothing else has worked so far...

No one can attack Ron Paul on the real issues of his anti-socialism, anti-new deal and pro-free trade and pro corporation ideology.

Oh no, that would be too hard to deal with....

It's still about funding the rabid israeli state, of course.

Report this post as:

Endorsement sets off $hitstorm

by who's laughing now ? Wednesday, Jan. 11, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Music fans have taken note of Ron Paul's racism and have generated backlash against this impetuous megalomaniac

Kelly Clakson's album sales crash 40% after endorsing racist Ron Paul.

"This endorsement angered many in the Twittersphere who called Clarkson "stupid" and accused her of supporting racism and the death penalty while also not supporting equal rights for same-sex couples..."

http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2012/01/kelly-clarksons-album-sales-lag-following-ron-paul-endorsement.html

"The ensuing response from her nearly 1 million followers was largely unfavorable, with many accusing him of tolerating racism and homophobia in his newsletters from the 1970s and '80s...."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/kelly-clarkson-ron-paul-endorsement-276594

Report this post as:

yuks here, right now!

by R.P. shakes... Wednesday, Jan. 11, 2012 at 11:46 PM

oh?

Kelly Clarkson endorses Ron Paul, record sales go up 600% - KIAH

You know, there's just no such thing as bad publicity. Case in point: Kelly Clarkson. Last week the singer announced her endorsement of republican presidential candidate Ron Paul on her Twitter page. This week, sales are booming. According to Amazon.com, sales of Clarkson’s new ...

39online.com/newsfix/kiah-newsfix-republican-idol-20...

Report this post as:

already Totally debunked

by score: 0 for 2 Thursday, Jan. 12, 2012 at 11:23 PM

the " 600 % spike " that the Paulites refer to has been debunked. Kelly Clarkson got her slavery and segregation endorsing a$$ spanked, which is why she APOLOGIZED for endorsing that racist little imp on her Twitter feed.

Ron Paul has lost the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primaries.

Score : 0 for 2

Report this post as:

still there?

by 'debunked' Thursday, Jan. 12, 2012 at 11:53 PM

it's kinda funny how the Amazon.com is wrong about their sales...something they should know about.

The rest of this is unsupported. Just like the shallow accusations of racism by the israeli propaganda services.

It's still all about the foreign aid to israel.

Report this post as:

Ron Paul's cover-up isn't working

by Romney 2, racist Ron Paul 0 Friday, Jan. 13, 2012 at 1:22 AM

Kelly Clarkson's 'Ron Paul Sales Bump' Debunked: 'Stronger' Sales Actually Dropped Last Week

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/kelly-clarkson-ron-paul-sales-debunked-278810

However,the effort put out by Ron Paul's mindless minions to cover up their master's inherent racism would make Goebels proud !!!

Scoreboard : Romney 2, neo-confederates 0

Report this post as:

tell me about it...

by 'cover-up' Friday, Jan. 13, 2012 at 4:25 PM

speaking of election fraud and cover-ups.

the overwhelming military support he has received from the military, being a real Vet. and being always consistent on the principle of non-intervention, has earned the multi-racial armed forces.

Cooked stats, blatant election fraud and the now obvious commercial media bias, R.P. is winning the hearts and minds of a growing spectrum of Americans.

The zionutz are trying to find anything that sticks [ usually with the 'liberal' application of hear-say accusations ] because so much of the political corruption depends on kick backs from a generously financed israeli state. That and the occupation of this nation's government by israeli dual citizens at the control levers of operation.

AIPAC give the marching orders and the rest flows down like this piece of wank and whine,

Lots of individuals would no longer benefit from the largess of the American only citizen. The ones who have interests right here at home. Not in israel.

The soldiers, sailors and airmen of the American military have voted with their wallet and you're losing it. R.P. is the clear winner as are his ideas of rule of law.

Report this post as:

I'll tell you why

by resaon for hiding Saturday, May. 26, 2012 at 8:48 PM

when all we have is Yada, pulling quotes out of its overlarge israeli bunghole, that are attributed to Ron Paul, it is called fraud.

It's on the report list of guideline violations. Deal with it.

Report this post as:

more of the same?

by Yada's Huge Bunghole? Sunday, May. 27, 2012 at 7:07 PM

is that where you're pulling these 'quotes'?

Out of your huge israeli bunghole?

poor widdle israel afraid of losing the free ride off the American tax-payer..

Report this post as:

racist raaaaaaaawn paaaaaaaaaaaawl eliminated

by Haaaaaaaaaaw Haaaaaaaaaaw Friday, Jun. 01, 2012 at 7:11 PM

racist raaaaaaaaaaaawn paaaaaaaaaaaawl couldn't even get enogh votes to win the primary in his home state !!!

all of you racist raaaaaaaaaawn paaaaaaaaaawl-tards: go slash your wrists !!!

Report this post as:

that's that..

by whew! Friday, Jun. 01, 2012 at 9:54 PM

now maybe Yada wont be pulling 'quotes' out of its hanger sized bunghole.

Report this post as:

no more racist pawltardian buffoonery

by that's that Saturday, Jun. 02, 2012 at 7:03 PM

thus, an end to the racist rawn pawltards and their insignificant " revolution "

Report this post as:

now and then, here and there

by that's that! Sunday, Jun. 03, 2012 at 6:47 PM

What a testament to vote and process fraud. Now Obama will have 4 more years. To do lap dances for israel.

Report this post as:

4 years is enough time...

by 4 more years Sunday, Jun. 03, 2012 at 7:31 PM

... to have all of the retawrdz who denied decades of paultardian racism to slash their wrists !!!

Report this post as:

Reelect Barokeydoke.....

by Lord Locksley Monday, Jun. 04, 2012 at 9:59 PM
armigerous@earthlink.net

Reelect Barokeydoke....
brutha___rat.jpg, image/jpeg, 585x772

....because it's STILL Bush's fault!

Report this post as:

shallow analysis

by another meat puppet as POTUS Tuesday, Jun. 05, 2012 at 1:02 AM

like it really matters who the pond scum select for the people to acknowledge.

What a freaking farce. Sick of government that serves the very few. As far as I'm concerned, each and every one of them are criminals in concert.

Report this post as:

they aren't scared

by R.P, the fraud Wednesday, Jun. 13, 2012 at 11:56 PM

Yeah, after little Rand Paul gives good head to Mittons Romney in order to beg for a future political ticket.

Bah...

Report this post as:

" anonymous" hacks Karl Rove

by ron paul sucks monkey bollocks Wednesday, Nov. 28, 2012 at 12:40 AM

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/191430/did-anonymous-save-the-2012-election-from-karl-rove/
Report this post as:

© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy