One of my illustrious commentators posted the following writing on my post about the Austin NAACP [click].
by William T. Patton, Jr.
Regarding the Washington Post’s hit piece editorial on Dr. Ron Paul, “Ron Paul’s Appeal” January 11, it should now be clear to any one following the 2008 presidential campaign to what extent the mainstream media will dismiss, slander, and purposefully misrepresent the views of any presidential candidate who dares to question the status quo, failed economic and foreign policies of the United States federal government.
Regardless of Paul’s libertarian views on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Civil War, and of the derogatory comments printed in his newsletter, Paul is arguably the most pro-gay rights, pro-Israel, anti-racist candidate in the Republican field. Paul voted with a minority of Republicans against the Same Sex Marriage Amendment. Paul advocates ending foreign aid packages to Israel’s Arab neighbors as well as aid to Israel, thereby, allowing the Israelis to engage their enemies in a manner of their own choosing.
It is telling that the Post aligned Paul’s foreign policy views solely with the often-maligned Pat Buchanan when the identical hypothesis Paul offers is also articulated by respected professors such as Noam Chomsky and Chalmers Johnson as well as countless ex-CIA and retired military officers. In fact, it is the 9/11 Commission Report concluded that the U.S. airbase in Saudi Arabia partially motivated the 19 terrorists who attack us on 9/11; the Bush Administration soon removed the base at the request of the Saudi Royal Family after the attacks.
Paul has said on many occasions that he views Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks as “personal heros” for using non-violent civil disobedience to change government policies. Paul, along with President Jimmy Carter, has recently questioned the power of the FBI to use warrantless wiretaps by reminding us that Dr. King was the victim of FBI interference because of his opposition to the Viet Nam War. In fact, it is Paul’s views on U.S. foreign policy would be most aligned with King’s views from the 1960s. King thought the non-violet philosophies of Jesus and Gandhi were best suited to confront racism and evils which man faces, including communism.
Mrs. Coretta Scott King was asked by Tavis Smiley in interview shown at her funeral what she would say to those who claim that her husband never had to deal with an Osama bin Laden. Mrs. King quickly replied that if the philosophies of her late husband were practiced by our government, “there would not be an Osama bin Laden.” Ron Paul is one of few political leaders in Washington capable of even understanding what Mrs. King meant by her answer.
Apparently, Mrs. King and Dr. Paul’s policy views are suspiciously beyond the comprehension of the Washington Post editorial board as well. As to Paul’s “idiosyncratic economic views,” sure, let us keep borrowing hundreds and billions of dollars per year to fight people who live in caves. Will this magnitude of spending cause inflation? No, the dollar is just becoming “more competitive” the “real” economists say.
To the Post: Keep portraying Ron Paul as a lunatic, for in the Orwellian universe in which we live he is one. For those of us who possess even a basic knowledge of history, economics and who oppose a foreign policy of perpetual war, Paul is indeed the man “later believed to be a lunatic, for what he said made no sense” from Mark Twain’s “The Way Prayer.”