Topic: Ron Paul
My Rebuttal to Paul Defenders on Racism Charges Ever since James Kirchick of The New Republic uncovered a decade’s worth of Ron Paul’s racist commentary, which Paul states were all written by other writers, this brought forth an interesting debate about racism and bigotry in the Libertarian movement. I must say, that I have never heard more absurd and juvenile reasons to slash the recent controversy. Here I present some of those reasons.by Christopher Espinal
(Conservative)
Monday, January 14, 2008
Ever since James Kirchick of The New Republic uncovered a decade's worth of Ron Paul's racist commentary, which Paul states were all written by other writers, this brought forth an interesting debate about racism and bigotry in the Libertarian movement. I must say, that I have never heard more absurd and juvenile reasons to slash the recent controversy. Here I present some of those reasons.
"Annoying how much time people spend with this while most other candidates' policies would directly result in deaths of 100's of thousands of Arabs and Israelis. But then I guess people are okay with that as long as black or gay people are not being slandered in a 20 year old newsletter."
I most certainly agree that political correctness can get on my nerve, but in a society like the United States where we have time to care about "stupid things" like racism in one of the most diverse nations in the world, we should address these issues. Voters obviously care about these problems so they will complain if no action is taken. It excites me to know that we can care about these issues and not have to necessarily deal with serious problems of poverty like in other parts of the world.
Overtime we as a nation developed, maybe over-developed, a sense of tolerance and appreciation for other cultures and ethnicities. If voters seek a candidate that can represent change, which seemingly most voters will take into consideration this upcoming election, they will want a candidate that represents just that. Ron Paul at one point may have represented change but unfortunately for him, after this controversy, other candidates obviously radiate more purity like Barack Obama, and maybe John McCain.
Just as a side pointer, don't mix domestic issues with foreign policy by saying we should pay more attention to those abroad then deal with problems at home. The person who made the comment only looks dismissive of the domestic problems that voters actually care about. Thinking about it, the author and people who sympathize with this statement represent such a small portion of the voting bloc that they really don't matter. It is the reason why James Kirchick decided to write "Angry White Man" in The New Republic.
Libertarians Can't Be Racist
I often hear a very weird comment that even Paul himself believes. Supposedly Libertarians "are incapable of being racist because they are by nature individualists." There are a lot of people who join the Libertarian movement because they despise those fat black and Latino families receiving transfer payments from the government. To be fair, many do join the movement because they reckon disastrous big government policies that destroy the black and Latino family structure. All in all, libertarians can be racists.
An End to the War on Drugs
I can easily argue that Ron Paul even considers ending this War on Drugs because of its consistency with libertarianism and libertarian foreign policy. We intervene in a lot of affairs in Latin America because we want to stop drug trafficking in the United States. That causes us to provide billions of dollars to militias and CIA training, especially in Colombia and Bolivia, to fight off drug production. Now say Libertarian philosophy entailed international intervention, Ron Paul wouldn't use the cheap point that of the many negative externalities of the War on Drugs, blacks suffer the most. In other words, he can easily use this as convenience to gain the black vote.
Ron Paul is Friends with Dennis Kucinich
Yes, there was a supporter on my blog that used this as a reason to defend Ron Paul. I chuckle like the rest of you. Firstly, this individual is assuming Kucinich knows about the past statements. This comment also assumes the same lame point that all liberals use: liberals can't be racist because, of all of their malicious intentions, they intend to help the black community by showering them with wealth transfer gifts. So according to this comment Ron Paul is anti-racist by association!
Austin NAACP Says Paul Is Not Racist
Firstly, the people that say this are assuming that Nelson Linder, Austin NAACP President, knew about the conflicting statements that Ron Paul made in his defense. In 1996 Ron Paul ran for Congress and his opponent used this controversy to hinder Paul's campaign. Paul responded to allegations of racism by saying his comments "were taken out of context." Now Paul says, as he has in The Situation Room, that he never wrote those bigoted statements and doesn't even know the authors. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/01/ron_pauls_racist_rheoric_uncov.html
Here are all of the pieces of information that Matt Welch pulled up about the past controversy. All of which have Paul and his spokesperson Sullivan trying to defend the racist commentary: http://reason.com/blog/show/124339.html
When someone comes up with different explanations different times, I believe they are lying. This is my evidence that Ron Paul must've known about those biggoted statements when they were published. Thus, he's racist. If Mr. Linder knew this I'm sure his views would change!
By the way quit insulting my intelligence by saying that I need an authoritative voice who is probably half-knowledged of the controversy.
Only Pay Attention to Paul's Actions Not Circumstantial Evidence
This really is my favorite ridiculous point: he stood next to a couple of black people in a picture so he must be anti-racist. I hate lamas but I petted one at the Bronx Zoo this summer which makes me pro-lama rights. I hate Krispy Kremes but I had to go in one to purchase a box of donuts which obviously shows my unfounded affection for Krispy Kremes. I hate my friend's sister but she made a funny and so I laughed which makes me love his sister. Here is a nonsensical website that furthers this ridiculous notion: http://www.dynw.com/ronpaulisracist/.
An Interesting Point about the Controversy
There was an article on Nolan Chart asking that Ron Paul reveal the names of the individuals who wrote the newsletters and someone commented:
"If he outs [authors of the newsletters] I will lose all respect for him. That McCarthyism crap won't fly! Those that wrote the articles would be demonized. I'd rather Paul walk away from the election with honor intact and to hell with the rest of us!"
I totally agree with this person except that I don't support Ron Paul. In a free society people should be able to publish or say what they want. If it is in fact true that Paul didn't write those comments in his newsletter, then shame on those who did. But their life, with all of these politically correct fascists walking around, would be much more difficult if their names are disclosed.
Another Interesting Point about the Controversy
I don't remember where but a supporter made this very intelligent rebuttal to my ideas on this controversy. In economic terms he/she stated that, even if Paul were racist, the cost of having a former racist is only a sliver compared to the benefit of having a freedom lover. I applaud this supporter, especially for his/her fusion with economics!
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 15 thumbs so far
2008 Christopher Espinal, all rights reserved.
Published: Monday, January 14, 2008
Last modified: Saturday, January 19, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Christopher Espinal only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Christopher Espinal 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.
The New Republic story listed 8 to 10 of the rasicist quotes found in the newsletters ( I didn't count and I'm just going from memory), but how many racism comments are in all the newsletters from the past decade? In your post you mention a decades worth of racist comments, but has anyone said exactly how many racists remarks are in these newsletters and how frequent they were? I think this is an important question as it relates directly to the plausibility/inplausibility of Ron Paul to say he didn't know about the comments. Also does anyone know when or how he found out about the comments? Did he or one of his staffers eventually read a newletter with some racist comments, investigate, and get the editor to remove that author/authors from the newletter? Or did he only realize when the issue was brought up during his congressional campaign? Where these racists comments found through the life of the newletter(s) or did they appear sporatically for several years before stopping( ie the person writing the comments was fired)?
How dare you attack Ron Paul by saying that he answer the question of the old newsletters? Damn it! If Ron Paul says that he isn't racist, he isn't racist. And yes anyone can be racist. Good article!
What I like about your article is you agree that we live in a free society, with a right to free speech. I don't care as much about what a person says or even writes. It's more about what they actually do. So as a politician you can go around "saying" your not a racist but if you are simultaneously supporting policies and positions that are adversely effecting already oppressed minorities then......you're a racist. And I'm not sure what to call it when you support and encourage aggressive military action against your perceived enemies, consequently killing possibly tens of thousands of innocent people. But it certainly seems worse to me than some politically incorrect speech.
"He stood next to a couple of black people in a picture so he must be anti-racist. I hate lamas but I petted one at the Bronx Zoo this summer which makes me pro-lama rights. I hate Krispy Kremes but I had to go in one to purchase a box of donuts which obviously shows my unfounded affection for Krispy Kremes. I hate my friend's sister but she made a funny and so I laughed which makes me love his sister."
This works conversely as well: "A number of racist themes appeared in one newsletter, so he must be racist."
Now if anyone can come up with a clip of Paul actually SAYING something racist, I'll be more inclined to believe the claim. His name on a newsletter doesn't prove anything nearly as much as the words coming out of his mouth.
"He stood next to a couple of black people in a picture so he must be anti-racist. I hate lamas but I petted one at the Bronx Zoo this summer which makes me pro-lama rights. I hate Krispy Kremes but I had to go in one to purchase a box of donuts which obviously shows my unfounded affection for Krispy Kremes. I hate my friend's sister but she made a funny and so I laughed which makes me love his sister."
This works conversely as well: "A number of racist themes appeared in one newsletter, so he must be racist."
Now if anyone can come up with a clip of Paul actually SAYING something racist, I'll be more inclined to believe the claim. His name on a newsletter doesn't prove anything nearly as much as the words coming out of his mouth.
Cool, I like this tactic, think I will start using it. Next time an issue comes up, I will take out the weakest arguments I can find, debate those and ignore any which might get in my way.
Too bad I have a conscious and wouldn't support something I needed to debate in such a way, but I guess there's still time for me to turn into a biased person who thinks the ends justify the means, even if it means abadoning everything I thought I stood for in the process.
Fact of the matter is this. Those who support Ron Paul know it was a hit piece, and those who don't will promote it for the sole reason of not liking Ron Paul, all the while using this as an excuse. No different than people hiring someone at work, end up not liking them, and then finding every little excuse you can find as a reason to fire them. Real world 101 - this ain't in highschool, and you aren't fooling anyone.
Where's the beef? That was a pretty pathetic rebuttal IMHO.
Actions speak louder than words.
Who is harmed most by the war on drugs? Minorites and the underclass.
Who is harmed most by the hidden tax of inflation? Minorities and the underclass.
Who are the historicly highest proportion of battlefield casualties in war? Minorities and the underclass.
Dr. Paul could wear Nazi underwear and sleep on a copy of mein kemp and still be far better altenative for minorites and members of the underslass, people like myself.
All this article by Mr Spinal shows me is his political contempt for Mr Paul and what Mr Paul stands for. This guy actually belives public are stupid and can't evaluate this political attack.
Why is it that no one points out all the anti-muslim statements that have been made by the other Republican candidates on TV in these debates. It is offensive that we speak about 20 year old letters but the little jokes here and there about Islam. It goes to show that we all really are bigoted, its just a matter of who wants to whine about it.
Really appreciate your sharing perspective and reasoning/position. All points seem worthy of consideration, and are well articulated.
I note that your intent is to address economics and politics, as seen in your column description, and I look foreward to seeing articles on economics. Perhaps a philosophy which opposes the Ludwig von Mises school of thought, or a position countering Bastiats "sophisms" would be interesting.
Beating the "racist newsletters" drum may vent some stale air, but it's old news.
Look, enough is enough. The MSM had better wake the hell up. When this revolution turns into a REAL revolution these folks such as Bill O'reilly (and his cronies) are going to be in the front of the line...for the gallows, to answer for treason. Tyranny cannot last.
Issue over, NAACP states that Ron Paul in not a racist. Sorry bud, this was indeed your best weapon again Paul, but his long history fighting for Civil Liberties completely overwhelmed this blatant slander. You figure being 70-some years old and a 10 term congressman that someone would of recorded or video tapped SOMETHING if Dr Paul was truly a racist. Did you really think this would stick?
I am disappointed with your rebutal, it sucked. I thought I might get some clarfication our an interesting point of veiw, I got neither. Some old crap, different packaging. Alot of your rebutal was just reasserting and asserting things without evidence. No one yet to my satisfaction has proven that RP is full of shit or Racist. Or bigger Racist or more full of shit then rest of the feild. Ok lets vote for guy that wants to stay in Iraq for hundred years or the guy that looks like he is selling fucking colgate. This is getting old...
Sure, any individual can be racist (even individuals who consider themselves Libertarian), but no libertarian action or policy can be. Any action or policy that is based upon Libertarian views is de facto incapable of being racist. Even though you give it short shrift, it's not so easy to dismiss this rationale because while a libertarian could be a racist, no racist would choose to be a libertarian without losing all ability to hatch bigoted schemes. No, the party for bigots are those that will support big government and globalism.
We all know Paul doesn't have a racist bone in his body (yeah, even you know that Christopher), but as the post above says, even if Paul wore Nazi underwear and slept on a copy of mein kemp, his libertarian philosophy and policies would still be the best thing imaginable for all individuals (of any race) and the best weapon against racism. Seems a poor choice of ideology for a "racist."
Posted By: Christopher Espinal
Date: 2008-01-14 19:53:45
Firstly, if you really believe that I used a cheap tactic by addressing only those reasons that are weak then forward me other reasons why Paul is not racist and I will respond.
Secondly, I don't care what the NAACP has to say because they probably don't know about Mr. Paul's conflicting statements.
Thirdly, I appreciate the comment by Reteo because he shows an intrinsic contradiction in my words. Bravo Reteo...you understand my reasoning and you used it against me like real debaters. I'm serious when I say this. We all take positions with the risk that we are wrong so I really thank you for that.
Fourthly, Duke, I'm not playing devils advocate because I do think Ron Paul has not a funny bone, but a racist bone. His statements changed since the last time he addressed this issue. The same reason why I could care less about what Nelson Linder has to say. However, I am attracted to his message of liberty regardless. No need to worry folks, Paul and you guys will have a strong hold on the Republican and Democratic parties in the future!!! Paul is the Goldwater of the century.
Here's a link to the NAACP Austin president
Talking about how Ron Paul is not a racist.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4941804210593011132&q=linder+paul&total=16&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
"Firstly, if you really believe that I used a cheap tactic by addressing only those reasons that are weak then forward me other reasons why Paul is not racist and I will respond." No, that is not how it works. Provide real evidence that he IS a racist. It isn't guilty till proven innocent. All you offer are decade old comments that were unsigned in a newsletter that doesn't match anything Dr Paul has ever stated and in no way matches his personal writing style. No one believed he wrote them at the time and no one that knows him today believes it either. "Secondly, I don't care what the NAACP has to say because they probably don't know about Mr. Paul's conflicting statements."Funny, because that is WHY they were making the statement in the first place. The fully reject those newletters and state that Ron Paul was NOT a racist. Get your facts straight before you enter into debate with people that are educated.
Posted By: Robert MacCargar
Date: 2008-01-14 20:54:00
Since you are on a roll......do a story on how the Democratic Presidential Frontrunner belongs to a Black Supremacist Church.......nobody seems bothered by that.
Posted By: Christopher Espinal
Date: 2008-01-14 21:02:30
Actually I heard that Obama belongs to a black supremacist church. If you knew the church located in Illinois, you would find that these people don't support black supremacism. In matter of fact they support Black economic revival.....much different from supremacy! I know folks who attend this church since I live in Illinois!
Posted By: Christopher Espinal
Date: 2008-01-14 21:09:02
"Firstly, if you really believe that I used a cheap tactic by addressing only those reasons that are weak then forward me other reasons why Paul is not racist and I will respond." No, that is not how it works. Provide real evidence that he IS a racist. It isn't guilty till proven innocent. All you offer are decade old comments that were unsigned in a newsletter that doesn't match anything Dr Paul has ever stated and in no way matches his personal writing style. No one believed he wrote them at the time and no one that knows him today believes it either. "Secondly, I don't care what the NAACP has to say because they probably don't know about Mr. Paul's conflicting statements."Funny, because that is WHY they were making the statement in the first place. The fully reject those newletters and state that Ron Paul was NOT a racist. Get your facts straight before you enter into debate with people that are educated."
Have I not stated somewhere that Paul gave 2 different explanations for these racist comments. Have I not stated that back in 1996 when he was running for congress his opponent brought up the same controversy and Paul responded by saying his comments where "taken out of context." Now he says something different. To me when someone changes their arguments then they are LYING. That is my evidence. I think that is pretty damn good evidence that yes he knew about those comments. Do I once again have to refer to the research that Matt Welch of Reason Magazine has done on this subject. Do people not want to respond to that specific problem yet you all come here and call me uneducated and slanderish!!! Please respond to that one statement. Ask Matt for the research. I posted the link on a comment for another column I wrote for this topic. READ IT PEOPLE!!! It seems to me that people don't watn to respond to that specific comment. I think everyone is afraid that Paul is indeed a racist!!!
Posted By: Christopher Espinal
Date: 2008-01-14 21:11:49
I guess I'm only considered intelligent if I agree with you people. Get real and serious. Look at my evidence that Paul is a racist then come back to me with a response on that point.....not a black guy telling me that he isn't racist because he lacks his own research....kinda like Nelson Linder of the NAACP!
"Secondly, I don't care what the NAACP has to say because they probably don't know about Mr. Paul's conflicting statements."
"not a black guy telling me that he isn't racist because he lacks his own research....kinda like Nelson Linder of the NAACP!"
This writer is immature, and screams controversy that he isn't fully sure about. The above statements just show that he's only writing this garbage to fight, I'd encourage everyone to ignore this article. And Christopher Espinal, Why don't you do the world a favor and grow up. While you're at it, write a letter to the NAACP and tell them what you think of their words, I'd love to see the results.
Dont get too upset Chris...
Everyone knows Ron Paul is gaining...
please do your best to come up with some better stuff...
this is just motivating people to vote for him and go out and tell more people to vote...thanks man your doing more to help than you realize.
Im voting for Ron Paul 08 and the number keeps growin
"a decade's worth of Ron Paul's racist commentary"
a) it wasn't Ron Paul's
b) it didn't fill a decade
c) it wasn't racist
But even though your article was quite inaccurate in these respects, it was nevertheless poorly written. Racism is criticizing someone BECAUSE they are black, not criticizing SOME blacks because they are criminals.
Posted By: Daniel Linnen
Date: 2008-01-14 21:36:56
Uh whatever happened to actions speak louder than words? I would look at what he is KNOWN to have DONE rather than what he MAY have SPOKEN. But if you go with a Libertarian view, you look at individuals as having rights and not groups, and yes looking at people in collective groups by the government causes racism.
Posted By: Christopher Espinal
Date: 2008-01-14 22:38:11
That's all you guys can do......is not pay attention to the one point that I made. That's because you all know that there is no way to counter it. All you can say is that I scream controversy because I said that you're putting an authoritative voice. You can silence me but remember, you never countered my main point as to the reason why I beleive Paul is racist. I'm immature? You guys can't even counter the one point that I make. Are you scared? That is immaturity on your part to shrug your shoulders when listening to the one point that no Paul supporter has countered. I think Paul is a proven liar. Prove me otherwise.....or silence me!
I smell hypocrisy. Sure Ron Paul speaks half-truths to power, but then he's silenced. Now you silence me in a website supported by mostly Ron Paul supporters. If you people were in control of the MSM you criticize, the same baloney would happen!
Ron Paul won't win. My so called controversial articles will only lead the current Paul constituency to vote because I'm saying things you don't want to hear. It won't add anyone new to this unorganized movement with no plan or goals. I think the rest of America believes he can't win. These patterns of unfounded faith simply reflect what happens generally in small grassroots movements like this one.
Posted By: Christopher Espinal
Date: 2008-01-14 22:53:50
Tim....you are ridiculous. You call me Full of SH*T yet you don't even rebut any of my claims. In matter of fact none of you or your fellow Paul supporters have stuck to my arguments and contradicted them with the exception of maybe Reteo and Anthony. You obviously can't handle real criticism so you write comments that are irritating and a waste of time. Please. Rebut my statements or quit commenting by throwing more normative remarks that are only offensive and not conducive to debating. Stick to my arguments and rebut them!!!
Posted By: Christopher Espinal
Date: 2008-01-15 00:20:09
I already listened to that interview. There is no way that one could take out of context calling black people animals and the numerous other malintentioned statements. That is the reason why I don't agree with Linder.
Posted By: Christopher Espinal
Date: 2008-01-15 00:27:17
But you know what, I really do appreciate your rebuttal of the exact point that I make. These other characters seem to actively deny in their minds and ignore my main reason. I must say that my reason still may not be comparable to an absolute truth!
Posted By: John Armstrong
Date: 2008-01-15 01:19:06
Chris,
If you really want me to do so, I will take each of your claims one by one and make them seem very, very silly. I am quite capable of doing this.
I already thought about doing it, but then I thought,"nah, we've been distracted by this for far too long already and it is serving the exact thing it was created to do--distract America from the real issues in this campaign."
Another reason I decided against doing this was that it is really nice to have another voice on nolanchart expressing different issues, which is exactly what the site was designed to do and in order for us to grow we need people like you around.
Instead of debating this racism thing (which has already been decided in the court of public opinion given the fact that three of my friends who haven't spent hundreds of hours learning about Ron Paul or this election mentioned that Ron Paul was a racist over the last few days) why don't we do something more productive.
What if I concede the fact that Ron Paul is a racist to you. No argument. You win. I am willing to start with that handicap; then you propose to me a candidate that is better and why that is the case (in fact you can make a case for all eight if you'd like) and we'll debate that instead. In the end if your case is more compelling, I will vote for your candidate but if mine is then you vote for Ron Paul.
I am very interested in this subject as I am a big Ron Paul supporter (although new to this site). Anyhow, what I have noticed is in many cases The New Republic piece did take statements out of context which totally changed their meaning. That makes me very suspicious about their intentions (which are obvious regardless). In addition, they could have very easily scanned ALL of the newsletters, in their entirety, and allowed people to read the whole body of work. Why did they only include a page or two of an eight page document? That is editing and editing is strong evidence of a smear.
Here is a prime example of why I am still very skeptical of the claim that Ron Paul is a racist and that TNR is engaging in a smear against him:
Example TNR Posted this "quote":
"Opinion polls show only 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions."
Now that sounds pretty awful right? But they cut out most of the sentence which stated:
"Opinion polls show only 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally, and they deserve credit—not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people."
Now that statement is very clearly not racist. Politically incorrect perhaps but not racist. In fact it is evidence of Ron Paul's focus on individual character over race based classifications.
Over the weekend, Bill Moyers, interviewed, Shelby Steele, (fellowship at Stanford University's Hoover Institution) on his Journal program on PBS. Steele just wrote a book about Obama called "A Bound Man" and they had a very engaging conversation about race in America that is worth watching.
Interesting quote from Steele taken from the transcript of that interview:
"You know, it's no accident that 92 percent of blacks vote Democratic in every Presidential election no matter what. The black identity is identified today with liberal politics and the Democratic Party. If you're not a Democrat, you're not all together black."
Now is that quote much different from what Ron Paul said? The sentiment clearly is not particularly if you are a major critic of modern liberal politics, namely socialism and welfarism, as Ron Paul is as Shelby Steele is.
I personally want to see all of the newsletters, in their entirety, without the editorializing of the folks at The New Republic, who themselves have a history of printing truly racist articles regarding arabs and Palestinians.
Posted By: Christopher Espinal
Date: 2008-01-15 02:16:45
You know. You are absolutely right and you should do your own research. Kirchick really did take things out of context but I am simply skeptical of the one ambiguity that I mention over and over again. Other than that, I really do appreciate what Paul is doing for the party that has lost its way. He will have a superb impact on the Republican Movement in the future! I appreciate your two cents.
Posted By: Christopher Espinal
Date: 2008-01-15 02:26:57
John Armstrong...I really don't want you to concede. If you have that much faith in the man then there is obviously a greater knowledge that you must have. I want you to make me look silly. I want you to debate my points. I don't like being wrong so I change my views if I am wrong. In matter of fact, I'm much more of a flip flopper than Mitt Romney because I learn new things everyday and I realized that I was wrong many times in the past. Essentially, my overall idea as to scholarly integrity, yes I do lack it, is that we should seek the truth. Not ends devised from the beginning of our search.
In matter of fact I conceded to the point that Ron Paul is a conservative who cares about National Defense.....Just as Ronald Reagan once said about the Congressman. The article was "Ron Paul: A Big $ Guy I Just Don't like." I thought he wanted to eliminate the entire CIA but I learned that he was actually for stregnthening our position and ties around the world by pursuing a different policy. I disagree with Paul because I know one of the arrogant authors of the Rudy Reading List. I will reread that book and post my criticisms in the future.
So go and make me look silly if you think you really can! Or are just "conceding" because you know those responses were all rather juvenile and make absolutely no sense.
Posted By: Christopher Espinal
Date: 2008-01-15 02:35:03
Well Mr. Armstrong. I sort of like your challenge. how about we make a blog together using blogger or something and you and I can debate various issues. It will sort of be like the Becker Posner blog, except that they always agree with each other!
"other candidates obviously radiate more purity like Barack Obama"
Interesting choice, considering that his church's doctrine is unapoligetically racist:
http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html
Replace the word "black" with "white" throughout, and it becomes obvious how divisive this church is. And yet... The New Republic (or any other media) spends no time attacking Obama for it.
"The person who made the comment only looks dismissive of the domestic problems that voters actually care about"
I was the author of the original comment. This has nothing to do with foreign vs. domestic issues. It has everything to do with words vs. action. McCain's and many other candidates' careless actions would result in worsening resentment toward our country, more turmoil in the Middle East, and more deaths... including the deaths of our own people. Ron Paul's actions have been consistent for 30 years, and have never been race-driven. So really, what's more important? I care what the president will -do-. Ron Paul's consistency proves what it is that he would do.
"Opinion polls show only 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally, and they deserve credit—not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people."
This brings up an excellent point about context. The pollsters still poll by race. Let's say that 15% of blacks and 5% of whites support Ron Paul in a given state. My personal opinion is that anyone not voting for Ron Paul is uninformed or foolish. So I might then conclude that 85% of blacks are uninformed or foolish (which sounds racist by itself)... but I also think that 95% of whites are uninformed or foolish. Context is everything.
Posted By: Richard Wicks
Date: 2008-01-15 04:43:44
For god's sake. Even the NAACP is defending Paul.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tvAuSXq5etA
Have fun flushing the country down the toilet by electing another meat puppet NeoCon/Liberal. It doesn't make any difference if any of the "mainstream" candidates get elected, they all have equivalent economic and foreign policies - spend us into bankruptcy.
Alas, the foolery of circumstantial evidence continues.
The ivory tower of false intellect is re-enforced out of arrogance.
Little do they realize that their child like abilities of reason will doom their children to slaves. If only they had to struggle to gain what they have, it would not be so easily relinquished.
The idea of "if you say/hear it enough, it must be true" is the folly of their logic.
Have sorrow for your children for they are the ones that will reap what you sow. The America that will be handed them will not resemble what it is today.
Fools will destroy themselves when given the chance. How unfortunate that others must suffer their ignorance.
Posted By: John Armstrong
Date: 2008-01-15 15:35:36
I have a career that takes a lot of my time, but I like the idea of a co-blog. Email me at strongarmedjohn@yahoo.com so we can coordinate it. Should be fun.
Chris, there is nothing wrong with a debate on racism and bigotry. As a Hispanic, I find it a very important issue. However, your article seems to be more of a direct assault on Ron Paul and his record, already presuming guilt unless proven innocent. You also seem to delight in attacking his supporters (including me) for daring to come up with solid examples of why Ron Paul is not a racist.
I think it's possible for someone to claim they are libertarian and be racist. But Ron Paul is not such a person. The proof is in the pudding. The man has been the most outspoken advocate for individual rights in a decade. I too was very disturbed by the garbage in the newsletters, but they have not changed my opinion of Ron Paul and his record.
How do you define racism? What comes to mind for me are "Jim Crow" laws by the powers-that-be. Has Ron Paul ever supported, stated or been quoted either privately or publicly as espousing anything even remotely like "Jim Crow".
The closest that liberals and other left-wing critics can come up with is that Ron Paul opposes "affirmative action" to try prove his racism. That's absurd. After all they already don't like Ron Paul because of some of his more conservative opinions. We can all agree to disagree on what is the best way for government to redress the grievances of hateful segregation laws from the 20th century. But such an opinion does not mean that Dr. Paul would ever harm a people group based on their skin color or ethnicity.
So here are some questions for you. Are you looking for a better answer or apology from Ron Paul? Are you already convinced that he is a racist and just looking to undermine his candidacy? Are you interested in sorting out the truth and taking all the evidence into account about his character and his political beliefs?
Posted By: Christopher Espinal
Date: 2008-01-15 16:39:08
As I have said before, I am looking for a direct rebuttal for a specific point that he wasn't racist in the past. I had to respond to the numerous horrible points that were made by his supporters as to the reason why he isn't racist. As far as dismantling his campaign, I think that is a preposterous notion. I appreciate his presence in the debate especially because I think he is almost always correct in what he says (except on foriegn policy). We need him in the debates because he says things that true conservative republicans believe. (I'm not necessarily conservative anyways. I'm moreso centrist or neoconservative.) I don't want an apology neither. I could care less who is and isn't racist. I just hate when people completely disregard information because they are so emotionally tied to a movement. He made two different statements on the same issues. Therefore, something fishy is going on! How hard is that to understand. Yet I get no response and I'm called a promoter of ideas that aim to destroy this nation. I like honest people with honest answers than covering BS up. That is my only problem with this whole matter.
Keep this rare movement of freedom going as it will change people and politics. That is the reason why several neoconservatives who hate Paul have written articles about the reason "Why Paul Already Won." I forget the author of this article on Townhall.com but its true. Have fun with the ReLOVEution!
Has anyone seen the complete scans of these newsletters anywhere on the web? TNR seems to be in no rush to put them up there and I have been searching for them online to no avail.
I would really like to read them in their entirety. If anyone does find them, please post a reference here
This country is literally going down the shitter next year when a Dem wins the Presidency and jacks taxes up and starts some ridiculous stimulus package with money that we quite simply don't have.
Raising taxes will provide a one year, maybe two year benefit for government coffers but will ultimately crush the economy and then the massive entitlement programs (universal healthcare and other New New Deal programs) that assume the short term tax revenue increases will be permanent will truly become untenable.
Our creditors will see this coming very clearly and our currency will continue to collapse as the Fed brings interest rates down to zero (again).
The irony is, this will hurt the people who have behaved responsibly, saved, lived within their means, etc the most and will bail out those who have behaved irresponsibly, leveraged themselves to the hilt, lied about their incomes to buy homes they cant afford, and used credit cards like cash. It will also bail out the government (sort of) and our international lenders.
I predict we will default on our debt, as a nation, and enter a hyperinflationary situation. There just isn't the political will, nor the economic understanding amongst leading politicians to do anything otherwise.
Not a happy outlook but I think it is pretty well steeped in historical precedence. It happened to Argentina in this decade! The concept of American exceptionalism and the naive thought that "it can't happen here" is foolish and dangerous to buy into.
People think there is an income gap now? If this were as bad as it could get we would be lucky.
Martha Stewart is a witch because 20 years ago in her magazine she wrote about brooms, cauldrons, black cats and more things common to witches. Why there was even a recipe in there that is known to be something that witches use during the witching hour. When asked, she denied being a witch or having been the author of those old articles and regretted not paying more attention to the articles put out years ago in her magazine. Though she has never been observed doing witchcraft or acting like a witch in any way during her entire public or private life, and she has never been heard or recorded saying anything that would support the notion that she is a witch, the fact that there were some written witchcraft items in her magazine 20 years ago points out that she was involved in some way with witchcraft. Why doesn't Martha come forward and explain why she is a witch or who the witch was who wrote those horrible passages? After all, in order to eradicate witchcraft we must have witches to burn.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-01-16 15:12:43
First you only mention fat blacks and latinos in your LIBERTARIAN coment. Sounds to me you are the racist usuing such verbal labels. People talk of being a LIBERTARIAN as if it were a social disease you catch off of a toilet seat. A group of people that value personal LIBERTY and FREE trade.FREAKS! Who in this day and age wants personal LIBERTY? I want to be taken care of from craddle to grave and I want all of you to pay for it. I want to continue to be labeled by my race and segregated from the rest of AMERICANS. I want to keep jailing anyone that doesnt believe or act just like I do, or like my minister tells them to. I want to spend the next 100yrs in Iraq (OBTW already spent 3 there) I want the next 5 generations of American kids to go fight and die there. I dont care about you guys silly little economy, hell I will just print more money. I want to throw non-violent, in the privacy of their own home pot smokers in jail for 10 years, take all their stuff and kick their families to the curb. I want my government to control every aspect of mine and yours life. Privacy and rights? Who needs them. If you are doing nothing wrong then what do you have to hide. I want a national ID. I want a mandatory draft associated with it and for women to be included. I want cheap Mexican labor. Who cares if the border is wide open. Just shut up and pay your taxes, and lick my boot while you are at it. Sincerely, Neo-conservatives Really dude read something other than TNR. Try www.ronpaullibrary.org and see if you still feel the same after you learn about LIBERTY
Posted By: Christopher Espinal
Date: 2008-01-16 15:34:09
You obviously didn't catch the sarcasm in some of my comments. I should have placed parenthesis around the "fat blacks and latinos" comment. Besides, I know many who are fat and happy and sing "welfare carols," as Chris Rock said in his funny skit "Racism."
We all have a bit of racism and I can't deny that I don't. It's just nonsense to believe that you are pure. We categorize and group things as a natural cognitive function! Thanks for the comment Mr. Henry.
By the way, I try not to label myself as anything but given the ideas that I most agree with, yeah....I'm sort of a neocon. I'm as proud to be an interventionist welfare-giving pork-barrel-spending neocon as I am proud to be Dominican. Cheers!
Hey Christopher I liked your artical it was a good read I got all your points but I'm still not convinced his a racist, and I will still be voting for him in my states primary and in the national elction. To my fellow RP supporters, if WE keep on attacking every artical that WE think attacks RP then we will drive more and more voters away if we want to be truely peaceful and bonevolent rEVOLution then we have to show an openess for different opinions, please do not disgrace the message with actions or words of volince or hatred. Thank you
Oh yes, you can be a Democrat and be a racist. What is much, much worse than unknowingly having racial comments being made under an old Newsletter that has your name is being direclty connected and under the tutelage of outspoken racists and white supremicists and segregationists.
THE CLINTONS BOTH HAVE BEEN UNDER THE TUTELAGE AND HAVE PAID FAWNING ATTENTIVENESS TO BOTH SENATER BYRD AND SENATOR FULLBRIGHT. BOTH OF THESE SENATORS HAVE DEEP TIES TO RACISM.
even if he did know about them (and probably did), it was after the fact that they were published and not with his hand so damage control has to follow and is not always easy. you can clearly see how Dr. Paul is trying to protect SOMEONE ....hmmmm, Lew?
although friends might not share the same views at times do
you think that a friend might have taken advantage of another's
platform at a time when his head was turned? all of this may or
may not be true but the issues and the platform on which RP stands
also i would like to add, if a black person made the comments from these newsletters, would everyone still be so upset? People grow up. groups can critisize themselvse but if your not in that
group and critize ur racist? carlos mencidas makes millions off
racist jokes on his own people as does chris rock, eddie murphy, etc,
but thats ok???? racism in today's world of TV, comedy, music, etc
Posted By: Christopher Espinal
Date: 2008-01-21 14:42:11
Agreed! on your first comment! However, the second is interesting. These comedians make fun of everyone but it is certainly true that whites can't make the same jokes! Sucks living in the US doesn't it! NOT
chris i appreciate such a fast responce but isnt this issue so far away from the more compelling issue we face right now?? While racism is important, its not the factor thats going to fix our economy or our foreign relations. people need to deal with this subject on their own level and leave govt out of it. FOCUS PEOPLE, FOCUS!!!!
Posted By: Christopher Espinal
Date: 2008-01-21 16:50:45
I think that in a high standard of living nation like the US, it is easy to get blinded by racial nonsense since we have time to think about such stupid issues. However, Americans do care and this is a factor on which they will vote. Thanks John!
Twenty years ago even Johnny Carson sounded racist by today's standards.
I haven't read the articles. I don't want to. My life is difficult enough. I'm voting for Ron Paul to stop the war. We all know its about oil profits by now, right? Stop "policing the world." We can't afford it.
Are you making any money at the Iraq War or "policing the world?" Neither am I. Military contractors (corporations) are making the profits. That's called "profiteering." Profiteering used to be an act of treason.
Look at the chart on this website and tell me if you think America is spending WAY to much on military corporate contractors. Its absurd!
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Christopher Espinal, all rights reserved.