Got to hand it to the corporate media for the timing of their attacks on Ron Paul. After ignoring him for all these months of the campaign, now that RP is rising in popularity against the other candidates, the allegations of racism based upon some article written by an unknown employee of his decades ago is now front page news!? Way to sabotage the political career and potential debate opponent of neoliberal Barack " Just Tow the Line" Obama who has long since caved in to the military industrial complex despite all his promises?

Would go as far to say the corporate media cannot handle the truth of our foreign policy choices of being the world's police force are detrimental to the long term well being of the U.S. people, despite serving the short term interests of the military weapons contractors. Ron Paul taking the lead in Iowa would foprce them to discuss the failings of U.S. interventionist foreign policy, so instead the corporate media stoops to the lowest common denominator by declaring Ron Paul a racist.

Other terms used against RP by the corporate media are isolationist. This is a favorite of the neoliberal cartel led by Hillary Clinton, who call Ron Paul's anti-war stance as isolationist.

Responsible foreign policy under Ron Paul would be reality, and this has the military weapons contractors upset and willing to play dirty using slander to attack Ron Paul instead of being honest and debating out in public.



"LIE:

Ron Paul is an isolationist.



TRUTH:

Ron Paul is not an isolationist, but a non-interventionist.



Calling Dr. Paul an isolationist comes from simply not understanding the significant differences between isolationism and non-interventionism, mainly, with the issue of trade.



Isolationism is the doctrine of completely isolating our country from the affairs of other nations, and focusing exclusively on the growth of our own country. Non-interventionism on the hand promotes trading with other nations, as a means to build good diplomatic relations, and for the betterment of all parties involved. Furthermore, it doesn’t rule out using military force as an option, but proponents feel that it should only be used as a last option, to come to the defense of an ally under attack, or more importantly, to defend our own country if under attack, or directly threatened by attack. Lastly, taking such military action as a last resort should only be done with the advice and support of the Congress. This policy is in sharp contrast to interventionism propagated by neoconservatives, which promotes upholding UN resolutions, overthrowing governments and replacing them ones of our own choosing, and other actions not related to our own direct security. In short, it promotes our country “policing the word”, which puts a hardship on the American people with the draining of resources and more importantly the loss of life, not to mention goes directly against the ideas of freedom of liberty. It’s hypocritical."



In this interview on CNN, Dr. Paul discusses the importance of non-interventionism.

http://slander.revolutioni.st/index.html

http://slander.revolutioni.st/isolationist.html