According to a study released Monday, Congressman Ron Paul is receiving the least amount of coverage from the mainstream media of all of the candidates for president in 2012. Texas Gov. and corporate puppet Rick Perry received the most coverage and bizarrely enough, the most positive coverage in this study from Pew Research.
As Dennis Miller used to say, I don’t want to get off on a rant here, but since when is it the responsibility of the national media to determine which candidates are viable and which aren’t? Last I checked they were intended to hold government accountable, not intact. But the study’s results came as no surprise to anyone with any interest in politics as Ron Paul clearly established himself as the only candidate with honesty, principles and integrity. Not to mention his never ending will to stand up to the corporate interests, banks and the military-industrial complex.
Give credit to Jon Stewart and the Daily Show staff for noticing the very obvious and undeserved bias toward Paul. Their criticism of the MSM’s treatment of Paul, a portion of which is included in the following video, aired two days after the Iowa Straw Poll which Paul statistically tied to win with Michele Bachmann.
This has gotten ridiculous, but I know many conservatives are concerned with Ron Paul’s foreign policy views. To clarify a few things, the MSM and other GOP candidates have labeled Paul an “isolationist”, this is a misnomer. North Korea is the present example of an isolationist nation. Ron Paul is a non-interventionist, the example there is Switzerland. Now, how hard is life in Switzerland compared to North Korea?
Now I know, neither of those is a global power, but there’s really little reason we need to be either. At any rate, Bruce Fein explains Ron Paul’s foreign policy below.
I can’t really comment as to Fein’s views other than this single video, he apparently has some skeletons in his closet, but in this particular explanation, he’s spot on.
But the typical arguments against a non-interventionist foreign policy fall generally on WWI and WWII. This is a fallacy and factually incorrect, no surprise there, the education in this country is second only to the submarine program in time spent below the horizon.
Here’s the basic rub and what’s become nearly impossible to teach: If the U.S. foreign policy had remained (as outgoing President Washington suggested) non-interventionist, WWI would have ended in a stalemate or a narrow victory for one of the two sides. It was essentially a stalemate when we entered.
Now, without US intervention in WWI, the climate created by the reparations agreements never would have created the power vacuum and sense of nationalism Hitler manipulated in his rise to power out of the Weimar Republic. President Hindenburg was quoted as saying Hitler would have made an effective postmaster.
That changes everything. However, we didn’t learn from WWI and this is something Ron Paul has spoken about at length, the failure of US foreign policy to comprehend the law of unintended consequences. Because of the Great Depression, FDR knew the war in Europe and developing in the Pacific were the quickest solutions to the massive unemployment. So he baited the Japanese into attacking with a coordinated oil embargo.
Then, despite naval intelligence indicating the Japanese fleet was steaming for Pearl Harbor, he left the majority of the Pacific fleet in harbor. We know what happened there. The next day Congress declared war on Japan, an Axis nation; Germany, in retribution, declared war on the US. FDR toasted Hitler and Germany’s Congress because they now had the green light to go to war.
It gets worse. FDR & Stalin, as FDR’s health was slipping, literally decided who would get what parts of Europe by looking at a map and drawing a line. Now I ask you, how much of a threat were the Soviets without all the assets FDR handed them as if they were his to give?
Afghanistan? Those people had driven any invaders insane without outside assistance for centuries, we support the Muhajideen in a covert war then as soon as the Soviets bounce, abandon ship like rats on the Titanic leaving a power vacuum for the Taliban.
Iraq? Well, for a decade we trained, equipped and covertly supported … guess who? Saddam Hussein as he fought against neighboring Iran. Iran of course, receiving the support of the USSR, was run by the Ayatollahs who had come to power after overthrowing the puppet Shah installed by … the CIA. That was a combination of religious/secular uprising similar to what we’ve seen in the Middle East this year, want to guess who installed those leaders?
So after a decade of fighting each other, the two eventually call a ceasefire and end active hostilities. Iraq invades Kuwait two years later, believed to be headed to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia next. Exiled from the Kingdom, Usama Bin Laden offers to bring Al Qaeda and the Taliban to defend his native land from the Iraqi invaders. (This is the closest link the two shared). At the same time the King receives an offer from ally U.S. President George H. W. Bush to use NATO for the same purpose and to free Kuwait. Guess which direction he went?
The point of this entire post, encompassing maybe 5 percent of the totality of US foreign policy with utterly no thought for the unintended consequences of their actions, is we simply have no idea what we’re doing. We intervene in Iraq during a no-fly zone enforcement when Saddam gasses Kurdish Iraqis but let nearly a million people die at the hands of their own countrymen in a Rwandan genocide.
The state governments can handle criminal laws on their own. The federal courts can handle interstate crime and fraud across state lines. There’s no need for federal criminal laws unless they apply to crimes against the federal government and in that case the accused should still be tried by a jury of their peers. This being said, you could wipe out 99.9 percent of federal legislation tomorrow and your life wouldn’t change.
And THAT is why I support Ron Paul 2012.