Another anti-Paul smear-hoax is now on its last leg --- if it wasn't already. by Dan Alba
(libertarian)
Sunday, January 13, 2008
The latest testimonial on Ron Paul's true social and political sensibilities is perhaps the most authoritative one, and is based on irrefutable empirical evidence.
I reproduce below, in its entirety, the story as published by the original source.
NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist Linder says Paul being smeared because he is a threat to the establishment
Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Sunday, January 13, 2008
Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.
Linder joined Alex Jones for two segments on his KLBJ Sunday show this evening, during which he commented on the controversy created by media hit pieces that attempted to tarnish Paul as a racist by making him culpable for decades old newsletter articles written by other people.
"Knowing Ron Paul's intent, I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that....so I think it's very easy for folks who want to to take his position out of context and that's what I'm hearing," said Linder.
"Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he's a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform," he added.
Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded "No I don't," adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.
Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years.
"I've read Ron Paul's whole philosophy, I also understand what he's saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him," said Linder.
"If you scare the folks that have the money, they're going to attack you and they're going to take it out of context," he added.
"What he's saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that's what they fear," concluded the NAACP President.
The views expressed
in this article are those of Dan Alba only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Dan Alba is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
It is almost impossible to say anything against blacks today, but Ron Paul does hate Mexicans who sneak over the border, while using the "terrorist" excuse to build the wall on the Southern border where the Mexicans live, but not the northern border where the Algerian-Canadiens who tried to bomb LAX back in 200 came from. D'Oh!
My wife and kids are Mexican, so I wouldn't support Dr. Paul if I thought he hated them.
Paul has repeatedly said he is not in favor of a wall. He voted for a bill that included a wall, but in spite of (not because of) the wall provision. He wants to get rid of the incentives (like welfare) that contribute to illegal immigration.
Yeah, Ron Paul doesn't want a wall. But he does think that the border should be secured by a bunch of people with guns keeping the poor out. Wake up, Ron Paul does not want free trade with Mexican labor.
I listened to a recording of MLK Jr.'s speech entitled, Beyond Viet Nam, on my local PBS station the other night. Oh that Ron Paul was such an orator. Nevertheless, it sounded like an echo of tthe good doctor's talking points. If Martin Luther King, Jr. were alive today, he would be a Ron Paul supporter.
He's not a racist. He alsways talks about securing our borders (plural). How can you have "national security" with borders wide open for the good the bad and the ugly!
Thank you very much, Mr. Linder, for putting this smear behind us.
Statist, You are either trying to smear Dr. Paul, or you don't know what you are talking about. A nation that has no borders is not a nation. If we give Dr. Paul a chance to end the welfare-warfare state, then our economy will take off like a rocket, and Americans will demand more immigration in order to fill all the jobs. In the meantime, we must enforce immigration laws. God bless.
There is no viable choice other than Ron Paul in this election. This country needs Dr. Paul right now, or we are all doomed. This was just a smear by the establishment, because they are terrified of him. It is a disgrace the way he is treated by the corporate media and the other candidates, who all work for the CFR, not for us. He is the only one who will truly work for us, and he will turn the Orwellian facist police state around and give us back our God-given freedom.
That being said, I would hope that the person or people who actually wrote this garbage will step up and take the heat. It is the honorable thing to do. Â
If Ron Paul said he was a racist or ran around giving racist speeches (he doesn't), we could call him a racist. I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to prove he's not a racist, because he could be concealing it (just as I could be a secret communist or Dick Cheney could be a secret poetry lover).
Which is why the rest of the world has moved on to discuss the nonsubjective fact that Ron Paul used to publish racist newsletters and the likely fallout that will have for his campaign and more broadly for the libertarian movement in the future.
Let me be condescending for clarity: "Ron Paul is not a racist" is not a rejoinder to the claim that "Ron Paul used to publish racist newsletters." You could respond with proof that someone else published them (which is pretty unlikely, since Ron Paul admits it), or you could argue that the content of the newsletters wasn't racist (go ahead and see how far you get -- again, you'll be disagreeing with Ron Paul, who now condemns their content).
The discussion is now about what the revelation of Ron Paul's racist newsletters from past decades is likely to mean for his campaign and for the libertarian movement.
One part of the discussion is whether or not he's lying or telling the truth when he claims that he didn't write them and didn't know about them -- that the staff he hired concealed the racist content from him, and that his up to 100,000 monthly subscribers never once, over decades, called his attention to them.
Another part of the discussion is whether that claim, if true, means Ron Paul would have trouble presiding over the United States of America, which is many times larger than a newsletter.
And another part of the discussion concerns the larger libertarian movement, which will go on after 2008, and which will surely be given fresh new reasons to campaign for individual freedom and limited government by the next president. Is the movement now in the process of taking on the additional burden of convincing voters that libertarians aren't the kind of people whose response to racist newsletters is "That's not racism, that's the truth!"?
Do you see why Nelson Linder's personal opinion of his friend Ron Paul doesn't have a whole lot of impact in these discussions?
Posted By: Jordan Selvidge
Date: 2008-01-13 22:49:33
I am a Mexican-American and I consider Dr. Paul a civil rights hero. At this point there is no other candidate that I would even consider voting for. If I have to I will vote Ron Paul as a write in. Please circulate this article.
I am a Mexican-American, I worked for Ron Paul in the 1990’s, and I Know that Ron Paul is No Racist!
By Stewart Rhodes January 11, 2008
I worked for Ron Paul, in his Washington D.C. office, in 1998-99, seeing him almost every day, and saw absolutely no indication of him being racist, and in fact, I saw many reasons to know he is not racist. I am of Hispanic decent, and quite proud of it. My family on my mother’s side were migrant farm workers and my Great-Grandfather even rode with Pancho Villa.I am also part American-Indian.
My great-grandfather, Jacinto Sandoval (a rather fierce man) who rode with Pancho Villa, poses for a photo with two of my great-uncles. * (in the blog there are two identifying photos) * My great-grandmother, Ruth Gasca Parra, with her indian braids. Not only am I outspoken about my heritage, I don’t work for racists and I would never have worked on Ron Paul’s staff if I had any suspicion whatsoever that he was "racist." And I wasn't the only staff member of "mixed race." There were several others and he never gave it a second thought. One of them was a young woman who is half Panamanian, with an obvious dark complexion. If Ron Paul were some kind of racist, who thinks non-whites are inferior, why would he hire her, or me? Was it some kind of elaborate, clever cover? No. The reason he did not care about our race is because he is a libertarian who sees people as individuals, not members of groups, racial or otherwise.
There are many different segments of society who are drawn to a man like Ron Paul. People of a wide variety of backgrounds support him because people of a wide variety of backgrounds support liberty and have a fundamental distrust of excessive government power.
During my time in his office, as now in the grassroots movement, there were fundamentalist Christians (and I mean really fundamentalist), working right next to proud and opinionated atheists. There were buddhists, anarcho-capitalists, Big L Libertarians, objectivists, old school "Reagan" conservatives, and people of all manner of ethnic background, all working side-by-side. I have even seen gay people in those circles. They did not agree on many things, or even like each other, to be blunt, but whatever their personal background or orientation, they all saw value in working for a strict constitutionalist and a man of deep principle and courage. Ron Paul does not interrogate all of his new hires on their view on race, no doubt because he presumes that those who call themselves libertarians are not racists. In hindsight we can say that he should have been more careful in monitoring what his employees wrote long ago, and no doubt he has since become far more careful about watching what goes out with his name on it. But Ron Paul, being a sincere libertarian, is a very hands-off kind of guy, as Tucker Carlson noted in his recent article, and perhaps a bit too trusting by assuming that the people who work for him will be consistent, principled libertarians just as he is.
As I noted above, that is usually a fair and accurate assumption, and I never heard one racist comment from any staff. But it is certainly possible that one or two racist jerks slipped through the cracks. As I said, every movement has its idiots. As a case in point, look at Eric Dondero who used to work for Ron but after 9-11 transformed into a raving Kool-Aid drinking, Bush cheerleading, torture loving, warmongering neocon when it comes to the war on terror. Who would have known he was such a raving maniac? No doubt about it, that idiot had to have said, written, or done something that was embarrassing to Ron while working for him.
I have seen nothing, in all my interactions with Ron Paul, to ever suggest to me that he himself is racist. To the contrary, I have every reason to know he is not. And the same goes for his supposed hatred of gays. That is also total hogwash. Ron Paul does not care what someone is. He sees us all as individuals with God given rights. If you value liberty and the Constitution, then you are Ron Paul’s brother or sister in liberty, whatever your color, creed, or sexual preference.
Excellent comments, Statist! I'm sure the ex-Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf would be proud! Somebody write this guy in to get a Pulitzer award for Yellow Journalism. Better yet, get on the horn with Rupert Murdock, we need more reporters who believe their own lies. You know, since apparantly this website removed (rightly-so) your "articles", we should find one that will. Redstate? Agitprop? Der Sturmer?
From The Article/Interview: "Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he's a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform"
Now that's insightful.
And true...
In some forums, Ron Paul's constitutional vision seems to somehow be misconstrued for something resembling anarchy. That could not be any further from the truth.
The Constitution is, I believe, among the wisest documents written by mankind. The Constitution is solid bedrock on which to build a society. That society may then concentrate their days in their innate right to pursue happiness. That society may then sleep their nights in peace knowing their rule of constitutional law provides true justice.
When corporations bribe government with apples and sugarcubes and it throws off the reins held by the people and runs wild - that seems to be the closest thing to anarchy I've seen in this world.
Hummmm... 194 votes difference? with only 84% votes counted AND with NO MEDIA exposure for Dr. RON PAUL... Can you imagine if Dr. Ron Paul would have gotten 1/2 of the media exposure? Find out more about Dr. Ron Paul, who stands against the giant monsters who support NDAA, SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, more WARS, more SPECIAL INTEREST, more MONSANTO/PHARMA, BANKS and Military complex REVOLVING DOORS.Â
Â
30 YEARS he has been standing against the Federal Reserve and all the above list. He sands for Personal Liberties by taking the fed govt intrusion our of our lives. Isn't that what we were asking for? No more corruption? No more congress being bought by special interest? No more bankers/corporation's greed? No more shredding of The Constitution of the United States???
