Now that Ron Paul has made a strong showing in Iowa, the mainstream media monopoly has geared up to smear him as a "racist" and "dangerous man," dredging up an old newsletter that was repudiated and debunked 20 years ago.
Paul, apparently, did not exercise vigilant editorial control over this newsletter, whose publisher has stated: "Ron Paul didn't know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them."
After this recycled smear, the Paul campaign released the video testimony of a black man, James Williams, who in 1972 could not get medical help for his ill pregnant wife "because of the difference, me being black and her being white." The nurse in charge at the hospital even threatened to call the police as Mr. Williams became more desperately insistent. Finally, a young Dr. Ron Paul interceded to help the poor woman (she had a stillborn child), and made sure that the couple was not charged by the hospital. Mr. Williams now supports Paul's candidacy.
I think this should settle the issue about Paul's alleged racism, but more importantly we have a case of the kettle calling the pot black: The smears were recycled and propagated by Jamie Kirchick of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, another of the many warmongering Neo-con think tanks that hyped Saddam's non-existent "weapons of mass destruction" and now cheerlead for yet another war against a more powerful nation - Iran. These policies have been responsible for the deaths of thousands of brown-skinned civilians over the last several decades. Where is the real racism in this debate? Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit, spells it out:
"Electing anyone but Ron Paul will further increase the already strong chances of widespread Islamist-conducted violence inside the United States. Any other Republican candidate or a reelected Obama will keep lying to Americans by claiming that we are being attacked because of our liberties, gender-equality laws, and elections rather than because of Washington's constant intervention in the Islamic world. This now two-decade-old lie - which is abetted by most of the media - has hidden from Americans the fact that all of the would-be Islamist attackers who have been captured in this country were motivated by the invasion of Iraq, U.S. support for Israel, or some other U.S. government action in the Muslim world."
Actually, this death-dealing intervention goes back more than two decades, to 1953, when a CIA-led coup overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mossadegh. For the next 25 years, we propped up the dictator Shah as he tortured and murdered thousands of dissidents seeking a democratic voice.
Next door, the CIA helped bring Saddam Hussein to power; administrations from both parties supported his brutal tyranny for years, even supplying him with the poison gas that he used on his own people, and encouraging him to attack Iran - a brutal war that killed and maimed thousands of Iranians and Iraqis.
The sanctions imposed on Saddam's regime after the first Gulf War resulted in the deaths of some 240,000 to 500,000 Iraqi children, according to various estimates, mainly because water purification tools were prohibited as "dual use" technology. The U.N. Commissioner in charge of the sanctions, Dennis Halliday, resigned in disgust, calling the sanctions virtual genocide.
In the second Iraq War, about 110,000 civilians have been killed, and the country is now populated with innumerable widows and orphans. The slaughter continues in Afghanistan and Pakistan, with almost weekly drone attacks resulting in grisly "collateral damage." Every now and then, our generals step down from their high horses and offer another humble apology. I recall the "mistaken" U.S. air strike in Bola Boluk, Afghanistan, in 2009; the body parts of 94 Afghani children were shoveled in graves. "So sorry," our leaders say, again. And again. And we wonder why some people "over there" hate us?
Terrorism exists, because we continue to fuel the source with gallons of blood far exceeding the toll on 9/11. It is a vicious cycle that, after 10 years of costly battle, we can now defuse or continue to catalyze until we are both morally and financially bankrupt.
Alone in this campaign for America's soul, Paul opposes another racist war: The War on Drugs, with its grossly disproportionate sentencing for different drug offenses, and the highest POW rate of any war in the world. America incarceration rates are the highest in our history, even as violent crimes have fallen steadily, at enormous social and fiscal costs. This war, too, is escalating - in Mexico, with disastrous results. Whole cities have been taken over by warring drug gangs, police are corrupted or murdered, and American ex-pats are fleeing, abandoning their homes as general crime skyrockets. The violence and corruption are blowing back across our borders.
The legalization of marijuana, but regulated like alcohol, would stop this hemorrhaging. Paul would also pardon all non-violent drug offenders, reducing this heavy burden on state and city budgets.
The racist mudslingers are triply hypocritical, as Paul alone has forged a bill to audit and establish congressional control over the Federal Reserve, after it supercharged the banking swindle that wiped out 53 percent of the median wealth of African-Americans and 66 percent for Latinos, according to the Pew Research Center.
I find some of Paul's positions troublesome, but I know they come from an idealist, fundamentalist reading of the Constitution, not some hidden malignancy of character. While every other candidate, including the incumbent, mouths the standard platitudes, flip-flops, fibs and spins, Paul is a refreshingly candid man. He recently admitted that his candidacy is a long shot, and that he is running more to change the dialogue in this campaign. In that, he has already succeeded, and I wish him more success.
His view on foreign policy is buttressed by the Founding Fathers and a long bipartisan tradition. If Mr. Paul does go to Washington, I would trust him alone to reign in the dangerous "unitary executive" putsch fomented by George Bush and continued by Obama, and re-establish congressional control over the most important decision any people face: To go to war, or live in peace. And that would mean the decision is more firmly in We the People's hands.