Ron Paul is the most racist GOP presidential candidate
« on: 2011-12-23 02:17:07 »
Ron Paul seems to be getting whatever Iowa bump he is going to get between everyone else attacking Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. So given that, I think it's probably about time to start bringing up Ron Paul's negatives. At least in terms of pure racial voting lines, probably Ron Paul would be most likely to polarize minority voters. It would probably be a racially ugly election between him and Obama if he were to get the nomination, but I think Obama would more soundly defeat him than either Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich. For the record, Ron Paul has repeatedly commented that he would have voted against the 1964 Civil rights act http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/05/ron_paul_would_have_voted_against_civil_rights_act.html
Quote:
Staying true to his brand of extreme libertarianism, Paul said he objected to the Civil Rights Act because of its infringement on private property rights. He said that while he would favor repealing Jim Crow laws, the United States “would be better off” without government intruding on and policing personal lives. When Chris Matthews pressed the issue, asking if it should be legal for shop owners to not allow blacks, Paul responded, “That’s ancient history. That’s over and done with.”
Well, perhaps that's just principled libertarian ideology and not racism after all, one might feel tempted to think.
Ron Paul also thinks that the Civil War was unnecessary. From Talking Points Memo: Quote:
This has gotten a bit of attention already, but we wanted to flag it for you. It's Ron Paul in an interview with Tim Russert yesterday asserting that the American Civil War was unnecessary. His take: Other countries ended slavery without a civil war -- why not America? Paul theorizes that the north could have simply bought all the slaves and released them...
I think it takes a serious revision of history to imagine that position, but Ron Paul makes it sound very reasonable and non-racist. So his political views on slavery and race remain on the wrong political side of history going back many generations to the civil war, but this is really not about race, and rather about how the libertarianism and property rights are better solutions, one might charitably imagine. Well, it only gets uglier . . .
Paul comes out of an intellectual tradition called “paleolibertarianism,” which is a version of libertarianism heavily tinged with far-right cultural views. The gist is that Paul is tied in deep and extensive ways to neo-Confederates, and somewhat less tightly to the right-wing militia movement. His newsletter, which he wrote and edited for years, was a constant organ of vile racism and homophobia. This is not just picking out a phrase here and there. Fear and hatred of blacks and gays, along with a somewhat less pronounced paranoia about Jewish dual loyalty, are fundamental elements of his thinking. The most comparable figure to Paul is Pat Buchanan, the main differences being that Paul emphasizes economic issues more, and has more dogmatically pro-market views.
Paul has claimed that the newsletter, which compared African Americans to zoo animals, warned of a coming race war, and generally promoted racist, anti-semitic, and fringe militia views, was written by other authors and that he was unaware of its content — even passages written from his perspective. He has not offered up any of the names of the six to eight writers he said were responsible for writing the incendiary material, however, and reporters are pressing him for more details. "Why don't you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN and what I've said for 20 something years. 22 years ago?" He told CNN'S Gloria Borger on Wednesday. "I didn't write them, I disavow them. That's it." He insisted that "I never read that stuff," before taking off his mic and storming off when Borger continued to ask him about the issue, referring to one newsletter that speculated on whether Israelis carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. But his explanation is still relatively incomplete. As USA Today's Jackie Kucinich noted on Thursday, when Paul responded to a similar controversy over the newsletters in a 1996 interview with the Dallas Morning News, he said that he was indeed aware of some of the offending passages, and even offered explanations as to the thinking behind them. For example, he said a passage suggesting that "given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," was based on outside research.
Ron Paul seems to be getting whatever Iowa bump he is going to get between everyone else attacking Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. So given that, I think it's probably about time to start bringing up Ron Paul's negatives. At least in terms of pure racial voting lines, probably Ron Paul would be most likely to polarize minority voters. It would probably be a racially ugly election between him and Obama if he were to get the nomination, but I think Obama would more soundly defeat him than either Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich. For the record, Ron Paul has repeatedly commented that he would have voted against the 1964 Civil rights act http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/05/ron_paul_would_have_voted_against_civil_rights_act.html
Quote:
Staying true to his brand of extreme libertarianism, Paul said he objected to the Civil Rights Act because of its infringement on private property rights. He said that while he would favor repealing Jim Crow laws, the United States “would be better off” without government intruding on and policing personal lives. When Chris Matthews pressed the issue, asking if it should be legal for shop owners to not allow blacks, Paul responded, “That’s ancient history. That’s over and done with.”
Well, perhaps that's just principled libertarian ideology and not racism after all, one might feel tempted to think. Ron Paul also thinks that the Civil War was unnecessary. From Talking Points <snip>
[Fritz] Geeze MO; you've tak'in away my last hope for any viable US candidate for President.
Re:Ron Paul is the most racist GOP presidential candidate
« Reply #2 on: 2012-01-06 10:44:22 »
[Mo]
Quote:
Staying true to his brand of extreme libertarianism, Paul said he objected to the Civil Rights Act because of its infringement on private property rights. He said that while he would favor repealing Jim Crow laws, the United States “would be better off” without government intruding on and policing personal lives. When Chris Matthews pressed the issue, asking if it should be legal for shop owners to not allow blacks, Paul responded, “That’s ancient history. That’s over and done with.”
Well, perhaps that's just principled libertarian ideology and not racism after all, one might feel tempted to think.
[Lucifer] I agree that is principled libertarian ideology to defend the right of others to hold unpopular opinions. I don't think it should be illegal to be a Christian or Muslim, but that doesn't make me religious.
Re:Ron Paul is the most racist GOP presidential candidate
« Reply #3 on: 2012-01-06 14:49:37 »
[Blunderov] I'm in favour of Ron Paul for president. He may be an racist idiot but at least he isn't a warmongering corporate bankster whore. Any port in a storm I say.
[Blunderov] I'm in favour of Ron Paul for president. He may be an racist idiot but at least he isn't a warmongering corporate bankster whore. Any port in a storm I say.
[Fritz]And this should be Ron Paul's Speech to the nation .....
I have no intention of voting for Obama in November. Based on what I've learned about environmental sustainability and the military industrial complex, as well as a series of discussions I've had with my wife, Elli, about this over the last year, I've come to understand that:
1. We are careening towards a series of environmental catastrophes in the next 50 years which will substantially diminish our planet's ability to support human and many other forms of life. These disasters we face are likely to cut the productive power of the planet by more than a factor of ten. (Deep Green Resistance, Aric McBay & Lierre Keith, Seven Stories Press, 2011, Pp 207-211.)
2. The United States military is the largest single source of pollution on the planet. The military is exempt from environmental regulation. Tightening clean water and air regulations is fine, but it will accomplish relatively little if the military is not subject to these limits. The demands of maintaining our empire pose the greatest environmental threat to the earth. (The Green Zone: The Environmental Costs of Militarism, Barry Sanders, A.K.Press, 2009)
3. In order to prevent the looming planetary climate disaster, environmental reality must take precedence over our military and security concerns. This shift will never take place unless we pull back from our empire and dismantle the military industrial complex.
4. President Obama will do neither because he is a defender of our empire and allied with the military industrial complex.
The next few generations face grave danger from drastic climate change and resource depletion. Right now there are seven billion people living on the planet. According to the authors of Deep Green Resistance and other leading environmental scientists, this number is already well beyond the sustainable carrying capacity of the planet. I suspect many of those reading this will discount this last sentence, but I fear such rejection stems from wishful thinking rather than informed analysis.
This isn't just about politics, it is intensely personal. My granddaughter was born in 2008. If this analysis is correct, the lives of over 90% of her generation will be jeopardized if we maintain the current primacy of the military industrial complex.
Even if Obama appoints better Supreme Court Justices, halts the Tar Sands Pipeline, and extends unemployment benefits, four more years of unfettered domination by the military machine trumps it all. Nothing in President Obama's record indicates that he will deviate from the dictates of empire. How could I possibly vote for someone to run the country whose policy priorities place my granddaughter's life, as well as those of your children and grandchildren, in such danger? Given this reality, it is of little consequence to me if the Republican alternative is worse.
This does not mean that I am "dropping out." I intend to vote for a third party alternative candidate in November, and will continue to support and work for progressive causes. I wish I had more answers. I won't give up groping for them, however, since I know that four more years of Obama will just bring us closer to disaster even if the Republicans would get us there even quicker. I'm standing outside the two-party system because neither Democrats nor Republicans will challenge the military industrial complex and take on the direst threat to us all. I hope it isn't too late, and I will act as if it is not even if it might be, because despair serves no one. The last year has demonstrated the rapidity with which masses of people can transform the debate, become ungovernable, and even bring hope of a new world order. These developments are cause for optimism. My generation took on the military industrial complex during the war in Vietnam. We were the first to recognize the threat to our world's environment. We held the first "Earth Day." Now, young people all over the world are taking action. It is their turn to direct the path of this new endeavor to revolutionize our priorities. An innovative effort to change the world is underway and it is time for all of us who care about peace, social justice and our environment to get re-engaged. Whether it be organizing or third party activities, I hope we won't waste this opportunity by working, contributing or voting for Obama when there are so many better things to do with our time and money.
Robert Meeropol is the younger son of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. In 1953, when he was six years old, the United States Government executed his parents for "conspiring to steal the secret of the atomic bomb."
For thirty years he has been a progressive activist, author and public speaker. In the 1970's he and his brother, Michael, successfully sued the FBI and CIA to force the release of 300,000 previously secret documents about their parents. He earned undergraduate and graduate degrees in Anthropology from the University of Michigan, graduated law school in 1985, and was admitted to the Massachusetts Bar.
In 1990, after leaving private practice, Robert founded the Rosenberg Fund for Children (www.rfc.org) and now serves as its Executive Director. The RFC, which is in the midst celebrating its 20th anniversary, provides for the educational and emotional needs children in this country whose parents have been harassed, injured, jailed, lost jobs or died in the course of their progressive activities. The RFC also helps activist youth in the U.S. who have been targeted themselves.
In its 20-year history, the Fund has awarded almost $4 million in grants to benefit hundreds of children.
Robert's memoir, AN EXECUTION IN THE FAMILY was published by St. Martin's Press on the 50th anniversary of his parents' executions. The book details his odyssey from Rosenberg son to political activist and leader of the Rosenberg Fund for Children. www.rfc.org
Re:Ron Paul is the most racist GOP presidential candidate
« Reply #6 on: 2012-01-29 11:49:07 »
So I hear a new political slogan in the making here: "Vote for the racist. It's important!"* Yeah, I've had some liberal friends concede the racist thing and still say they would vote for Ron Paul over Obama. Well, since Meeropol's article, Obama has indeed stopped the tar sands pipeline for now, and yes, he has wound down the war in Iraq and seems to be on course for doing the same in Afghanistan. Of course he's not turning the water into wine fast enough for many on the left, and perhaps it's too late for the alarmists, so if that's the rationale then of course nothing Obama does or doesn't do will be good enough. I'd just hope that those with an ounce of pragmatism left would realize that Ron Paul winning the presidency is about as likely as Pope Benedict converting to Islam, and all of the GOP candidates are solidly in favor of accelerating our journey off the cliff.
-Mo
* In 1991 when Edwin Edwards was running for his fourth term as Governor of Louisiana, he faced David Duke, a racist Nazi sympathizer and the former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Edwards was seriously unpopular at the time with a string of ethics scandals, although he had won an acquittal at his first trial on federal charges in a 1986 criminal trial, his fraudulent activities were virtually an open secret in Louisiana. He was indicted again in 1998 and found guilty on 17 of 26 federal counts, including racketeering, extortion, money laundering, mail fraud and wire fraud. He was finally released from Federal prison in 2011. In 1991 perhaps the only person Edwards could have won against was David Duke. During the campaign, a story emerged about some independent campaign slogans created to reflect the colorful race, and one I particularly remember hearing about was "Vote for the crook. It's important!" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Edwards#A_second_comeback:_Edwards_vs._Duke.2C_1991 "Edwards received 1,057,031 votes (61.2%). Duke's 671,009 votes represented 38.8% of the total. Duke claimed victory, saying: 'I won my constituency. I won 55% of the white vote.' Exit polls confirmed that he had." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke#1991_campaign_for_Governor_of_Louisiana
Re:Ron Paul is the most racist GOP presidential candidate
« Reply #7 on: 2012-01-30 02:51:46 »
[Blunderov] I'm a bit hazy as to whether Paul is running as a GoP candidate or as an independent candidate. Either way he looks like the most reasonable candidate when compared to the other nazis.
Castro calls the GOP race a "competition of idiocy"
Published: 26 January, 2012, 00:33
At Monday’s Republican debate, both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich came to an agreement on something: they each wish Fidel Castro would just die already. Days later, the former Cuban president fired back and offered some words of his own for the GOP.
According to Castro, the race on the right is full of idiots.
The Republican frontrunners spent a few minutes on Monday debating how they would react to the hypothetical news that the 85-year-old revolutionary has passed away. Romney was first to answer, saying that his initial reaction would be to “thank heavens.” Next was Speaker Gingrich, who was a bit more harsh with his response, suggesting that the communist commando wouldn’t make the cut at the Pearly Gates and would instead be subjected to an eternity in hell. Never mind what they think, though. To Castro, their opinion is absolutely meaningless.
In an op-ed column published Wednesday, Castro writes, “The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this globalized and expansive empire is — and I mean this seriously — the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been.”
A good rule of thumb is not to question a retired Cuban leader capable of overthrowing a political system and ruling a nation for nearly 50 years. But when Castro says he’s being serious, you best believe that he means business.
Texas Congressman Ron Paul handled the query on Monday by saying, "We propped up Castro for 40-some years because we put up these sanctions and this only used us as the scapegoat, he could say anything wrong is the United States' fault,” adding, "I think it's time to quit this isolationist business of not talking to people." For Castro, that might not be the best idea, either. He adds in his write-up that he is too busy with other matters to get involved with the Republican race for the nomination, so it’s safe to assume that, if any of these “idiots” are elected, Castro will continue to cast his opinions elsewhere.
That isn’t to say that Castro will be endorsing incumbent Barack Obama later this election year either, though. After the current president addressed the United Nations in September 2011, Castro asked in a separate op-ed, “Who understands this gibberish of the President of the United States in front of the General Assembly?”
Earlier this month, Castro remarked that, faced with a choice between Obama, a top-tier Republican rival or a robot, “90 percent of voting Americans, especially Hispanics, blacks and the growing number of the impoverished middle class, would vote for the robot.”
[Blunderov] I'm a bit hazy as to whether Paul is running as a GoP candidate or as an independent candidate. Either way he looks like the most reasonable candidate when compared to the other nazis.
Currently he is running for the GoP nomination (and he won't get it). He has run before as a Libertarian, and there is speculation that after he's done losing his GoP bid that he may try that again. The Libertarian convention is after the GoP convention, so the timing could work out for him. They don't run primaries like the two major parties, and instead pick their candidate at the convention, so he wouldn't face the same hurdles to getting on the ballot.
Re:Ron Paul is the most racist GOP presidential candidate
« Reply #9 on: 2012-01-31 15:07:33 »
[Blunderov] Thanks for the clarification Mo. Here is more on Ron Paul's alleged racism via Jesus General
Ron Paul is Proudly White; He Just Doesn't Like to Talk About It
Posted by Gen. JC Christian, Patriot
Talking Points Memislamunistofascists thinks it caught Ron Paul in a lie. Citing Paul's secretary, they say he wasn't being truthful when he claimed he wasn't responsible for his own newsletters:
It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product - He would proof it,” said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.
What TPM fails to consider is that both Paul and his secretary may be telling the truth. Perhaps Paul reviewed the newsletters and told the editor to replace the words "blacks" and "Jews" with "Nigras" and "Hebes." If the editor failed to make such changes, Paul is not responsible for the final product.
Still, some proudly white Americans are concerned that Paul isn't as proudly white as he could be. Teutonic heritage enthusiast Commander Bill White is one of them:
I have kept quiet about the Ron Paul campaign for a while, because I didn't see any need to say anything that would cause any trouble. However, reading the latest release from his campaign spokesman, I am compelled to tell the truth about Ron Paul's extensive involvement in white nationalism.
Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays. This is part of a dinner that was originally organized by Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and has since been mostly taken over by the Council of Conservative Citizens.
I have attended these dinners, seen Paul and his aides there, and been invited to his offices in Washington to discuss policy.
For his spokesman to call white racialism a "small ideology" and claim white activists are "wasting their money" trying to influence Paul is ridiculous. Paul is a white nationalist of the Stormfront type who has always kept his racial views and his views about world Judaism quiet because of his political position.
I don't know that it is necessarily good for Paul to "expose" this. However, he really is someone with extensive ties to white nationalism and for him to deny that in the belief he will be more respectable by denying it is outrageous -- and I hate seeing people in the press who denounce racialism merely because they think it is not fashionable.
Bill White, Commander American National Socialist Workers Party
[Bl.] America has actually had worse presidents than Ron Paul amazing though that might seem. Bush the Lesser springs readily to mind for instance and some of the long ago presidents were complete scalliwags too. To be fair the present incumbent seems like a fairly decent stick but to me that is not the point. Obama is a son of the one party Republocrat oligarchy. Anything which isn't that is to be welcomed. Ron Paul would break that logjam. The American body politic needs an emetic. IMO.
Author
Logged
