On the day of the New Hampshire Primary last week (1/8/08) The New Republic published an article by James Kirchick, suggesting that Texas Congressman and GOP Presidential candidate Ron Paul was a “racist,” a “homophobe” and worse, due to views expressed in a newsletter published under his name in the 1980’s and early 90’s.
This allegation is patently absurd for multiple reasons, not the least of which that this is old news, and something that Paul himself has apologized for and taken “full moral responsibility” for when it first occurred. None of the quotes were written by Paul, who considers Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks models of what civil disobedience can accomplish.
This is my personal response to a Ron Paul supporter who was shaken by these allegations, reposted with permission:
Ron doesn’t have a racist bone in his body. As a long time right-wing commentator, whose been accused of being “racist” more times than I care to remember, there is no way anyone on the non-neocon Right will ever be able to run for office and not be linked to certain segments of the movement that have “racist” attitudes, real or percieved.
This same link could be made to the Left, btw, it just never is. For example, Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey’s preacher is a man named Jeremiah Wright. Wright has stood on stage with Obama during this campaign, and Obama cites him as a spiritual mentor in his book “The Audacity of Hope.”
Wright is also closely aligned with the Nation of Islam, a black supremacist group led by Louis Farrakhan. Obama’s church awarded Farrakhan a “Man of the Year” award, that Wright helped sponsor and when Farrakhan went to visit Libyan dictator Moamar Quadafi in the late 90’s (a visit that was condemned by the U.S. House of Representatives) Wright went with him.
Does anyone accuse Obama of being a “racist?” Does anyone even ask about why a member of the Nation of Islam is praised by Obama?
Obama is not a racist, in my opinion, despite having some questionable friends. Neither is Paul, who has taken, in his words “full moral responsibility” for that newsletter, because it went out under his name.
Plus, the reporter who wrote that piece is a neoconservative shill trying to make a name for himself and a Giuliani supporter. His piece was designed to get some Paul supporters to abandon him, so Giulani wouldn’t lose to Paul twice in a row. Apparently it worked, although the vote was close in NH.
Here is a great piece on the reporter James Kirchick:
BTW, there are many rumors, if not outright evidence, that Giuliani has had ties to organized crime, which is at least as scandalous as the alleged “racism” of Paul. But they protect Rudy. They protect Obama. They want to destroy Paul.
If you believe in Ron Paul’s message, you must understand this: ANYONE who comes along with the same message WILL (not “if” or “maybe”) but WILL be accused of being a “racist” or worse by the establishment, Right or Left. It happens EVERY time. It’s all they have.
In 1996, when I supported Buchanan who echoed many of the same themes Paul does, Pat was a called a “nazi,” a “racist” and an “anti-semite.” Since Pat has retired from electoral politics and is an analyst for MSNBC, these same people have no problem working alongside someone they used to call a “nazi.”
That’s because he longer poses a threat.
If he was really so bad, a “nazi” as they said, why would they rub elbows with him again in Washington, DC? Because they know it’s BS. But it did work for a time in 1996 - and Bob Dole was the eventual nominee.
I’ll leave you with this - if you abandon Paul, this guy wins:
I hope you’ll reconsider and remember the nature, both politically and personally, of those making such allegations.
Take care
Jack Hunter - SA
25 Comments
Wow, Ron Paul “speaks in code”? Ooooo….
Yea Ron Speaks in secret code. He’s telling the scumbag puppet masters that America is NOT dead.
Actual writings by Ron Paul on racism
Source http://www.ronpaul2008.com
A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.
The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.
Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations.
It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government “benevolence” crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.
Paul lent his name to a small newsletter for a short time that he did not edit, while he was out of politics and concentrating on delivering babies. I look at it as running an unmoderated blog in the days before the internet. The writing style was not Ron Paul’s. In his newsletters since being back in Congress, he is clearly in charge and they are wonderful to read. Clearly Paul is the most vehement anti-racist, anti-sexist, pro-individual, and pro-gay rights person in Congress. He ran as a Libertarian Presidential candidate for gosh sakes. The New Republic did not even contact Ron Paul to talk to him about their story and they did not seem to know that it had been discussed ad nauseum several times over the years and dismissed as not reflecting Ron Paul’s beliefs. The New Republic, if you will remember, compared Ross Perot to Hitler! Ron Paul is a good man being smeared for political reasons.
Check out this website for the CNN interview with Ron Paul about this where all is explained:
Hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/01/hotline_after_d_323.html
There is one problem with this entire defense, in 1996 Paul said he wrote all of those articles and defended them as just being taken out of context.
You can’t have it both ways.
In Austin, fellow Texan NAACP President Nelson Linder recently felt compelled to rise up and speak out in support of Dr. Ron Paul, a man he has known personally for over two decades. He witnessed the tireless civil servant in action speaking out about police repression of black communities while sadly many others outside the community laughed and/or did nothing. If you believe in Constitutional Republicanism, please consider voting for Ron, a Vietnam veteran and a humble servant of the Constitution.
JackieL.,
The same people that said he wrote it are also the same people who said he defended them in 1996. Sorry just more smears.
Besides being given public support by the President of the Texas NAACP Nelson Linder, Ron Paul is against the War on Drugs and has been from the start of his career. He has consistantly stated for years that the War on Drugs is more a race war and class war that disproportionately effects minorities especial black people. No closet racist would support removing one of our government’s most racist policies especially one most of mainstream America still favors. Many people consider speaking out against the war on drugs political suicide for a Republican. It might backfire on them remember…
“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God”. Matthew 5:9
JackieL.,
The same people that said he wrote it are also the same people who said he defended them in 1996. Sorry just more smears.
Besides being given public support by the President of the Texas NAACP Nelson Linder, Ron Paul is against the War on Drugs and has been from the start of his career. He has consistantly stated for years that the War on Drugs is more a race war and class war that disproportionately effects minorities especial black people. No closet racist would support removing one of our government’s most racist policies especially one most of mainstream America still favors. Many people consider speaking out against the war on drugs political suicide for a Republican. All these smears and attempts to marginalize Dr. Paul might backfire on them remember…
“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God”. Matthew 5:9
Hmm.. where did the New Republic say “Ron Paul is a racist”. Let’s suppose he’s not… he still has to explain why he either looked the other way while his associates published racist diatribes under his name…. or he has to explain how he could have possibly been so clueless for a decade and a half. Furthermore… why does his story keep changing?
“President of the Texas NAACP Nelson Linder” - well, most Ron Paul supporters imply that he leads the whole organization, so this is an improvement … but he’s still only Prez of the Austin chapter.
“The same people that said he wrote it are also the same people who said he defended them in 1996. Sorry just more smears.
Besides being given public support by the President of the Texas NAACP Nelson Linder, Ron Paul is against the War on Drugs and has been from the start of his career. He has consistantly stated for years that the War on Drugs is more a race war and class war that disproportionately effects minorities especial black people. No closet racist would support removing one of our government’s most racist policies especially…”
There is no reason to believe that racist can’t also oppose drug laws. The above is one of the standard Ron Paul arguments, but it has huge holes in it.
So you’re saying that for 30 years he’s been praising civil disobedience practiced by MLK, Rosa Parks, Gandhi, etc., railed against the drug war as racist, has called racism a terrible form of collectivism… all the while being a racist? He’s speaking in code perhaps? Not a single person has come forth saying he’s verbalize anything which was written in his newsletters. It’d be absolutely amazing if someone was so disciplined that they could build a career as a statesman and not once be caught saying something which he held to be true. In the hundreds and hundreds of pages known to be written by him not a word.
What holes exactly do you refer to?
I have been following Dr. Paul for several months now. I have not heard his story change once. I have heard the media change his story, but I have not heard a different story from Dr. Paul.
Pauls’ campaign people (back then) told him to “own” and defend the letters because not to do so wouldn’t fly politically. Paul admitted in an interview about 4 years later that he did not write them, hence the discrepency.
The offending letters were over a three year span (89 to 92) not the decades that the hyperbolic James Kirchick implies.
Some of what was in those letters related to the time period (LA riots) and while some may see them as racist most of them (IMO) were just observations on unfortunate truths thrown out there in a very unpolished and politcally incorrect fashion.
Ron Paul doesn’t have a racist bone in his 72 year old body. Some have said he doesn’t deserve to be president just for the fact he was negligent on the news letters. I would suggest those folks hold their favorite candidate to the same criteria and see how they pan out. Those other candidates have steamer trunks full of skeletons. Ron Paul is an open book.
’NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist’
[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. –DT]
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.
Click here to listen to the MP3 interview.
Jack, I’m glad we have you here in Charleston, you help people pay attention a litle more to their choices.
I find it disturbing that people can fall for the ancient rhetorical tactic of demanding a proof of a negative. If I came up to someone and said, “Prove that you don’t want to kill me”, that person could not ever prove it. Also, I find it utterly ridiculous that Dr. Paul has been accused of being a homophobe, when he is the only candidate I know of who has stated on numerous occasions that consenting adults have an absolute right to participate in any non-violent behavior. How plausible is it that a person with that view is a homophobe or a racist?
Furthermore, did anybody notice the blatant racism of McCain, Huckabee, anbd Thompson in the last debate when the discussed sending Muslims to the gates of hell and made sarcastic remarks about Islam? Has the media even questioned these comments? No, the media keeps rolling on. Two elections ago the media even thought it was kind of cute that McCain used the racist word “gook” to refer to Vietnamese. America has become truly Orwellian. Being against racism means you are racist. Being for peace means you are dangerous. Being for the Constitution means you are potentially subversive. Our president goes around the world screaming about the dangerous rogue state of Iran, while starting wars, subverting natural, national, and international law.
Yes Sean, about the last GOP debate, I did hear all that racist joking back and forth about the Islamic faith and their beliefs. I was listening to it and shaking my head in disbelief that they were saying it and many laughed out loud. I knew not a word would be brought up about how insulting and inflamatory their jests were, not could be construed, but were.
I have proof that Ron Paul is a racist. It’s in the link below:
http://www.dynw.com/ronpaulisracist/
You can google everthing stated below and read it for yourself.
John McCain – His racist comment- All they want to trade is burkas- referring to Arab Muslims during the last debate. How about John McCain calling Vietnamese people “gooks” in his last campaign.
Rudy Giuliani – How about John Deady speaking for the Giuliani campaign – All Muslims need to be pushed back into their caves… His new co-chair in South Carolina, Arthur Ravenel, Jr. – he called he NAACP the National Association for Retarded People.
Huckabee – Racist and crazy comments about watching for Pakistani’s crossing the Mexican border with misiles on their shoulders after Butto’s assassination. Plus Huckabee defended his remarks with a lie about the number of Pakistani’s coming across the border. It’s been fact checked with Homeland Security. Huckabee’s visit and sermon at Cornerstone run by anti-Catholic extremist, John Hagee, who said in his book –Jerusalem Countdown- the Catholic Church conspired with Hitler to exterminate the Jews.
Fred Thompson – Iranian sailors getting their virgins remark at the debate. George Allen is backing Fred Thompson. How about Thompson’s chauvinist remarks, “Fred Thompson said, repeating remarks earlier in the week, no woman is up for the job of president just yet. ‘This year, it’s a man, and next year, it’s going to be a man,’ said Thompson. ‘I can see no one else who’s qualified to be president of the United States.’” and how about him referring to his wife as his favorite possession. Geez, and his racist comments -saying immigrants are partly to blame for the sub-prime mortgage crisis - A lot of them couldn’t communicate with the people they were getting the mortgage from,”- spoken to a group in Iowa.
Romney – Who endorsed religious discrimination in government by stating he would never appoint a Muslim. Calling the Big Dig a “Tar Baby” an old racial slur – J.C. Watts complaining about Mitt’s lily white campaign…
Clinton – recent comment about Marting Luther King and civil liberties– How about her racist joke about Ghandi running a gas station in St. Louis at a fundraiser.
I defy anyone to find one instance of a racist or bigoted remark crossing Ron Paul’s lips, or to show him to be a member of a bigoted or racist organization.
I admire all that Paul seems to stand for except his slanted and biased views concerning the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and supposition that our great country was founded on religion’s God. He erroneously cites things such as, “Almighty God,” and “God,” in the founding documents when it was rather, “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and tries to imply that there were references to God during this country’s inception. There was nothing in any documents or currency about God, the one exception being during the swearing in of George Washington when he adlibbed, “so help me God.” Then in the 1800’s a penny was captioned with something about God and then in the 1950’s about everything was labeled with, “God.” That’s about the time that, “God,” was put on our currency, in the Pledge of Allegiance, as well as other public property. Ron Paul as most people with religious ideology read and interpret the American documents to include only the religious and leave out all the unreligious citizens. If you read what these documents really say, they also include the rights and protection for the unreligious. The religious shouldn’t have the right to force their beliefs onto unreligious people in public places. If they want to worship as they chose they should go to the church buildings that are partially provided by the unreligious citizens by those intrusive laws that provide the religious tax free consideration. Carl Jones Sr
Racist? What does it mean? I see this word thrown around constantly but no clear definition of what it means. It seems to have meaning that is defined by those using the word.
FOX NEWS reportedly deleted Ron Paul’s key debate response from the last debate in a LIVE REBROADCAST they recently aired. How is it a LIVE REBROADCAST if you splice out that which you don’t want the voting public to hear? Like Ron Paul or not, this should disturb you in my humble opinion.
CAMERON: Congressman Paul, yet another question about electability.
Do you have any, sir? There’s always the question as to whether or not…
(LAUGHTER)
… you are, in fact, viable. Your differences with the Republicans on the — with the rest of the Republi-cans on this stage has raised questions about whether or not you can actually win the Republican nomi-nation, sir.
PAUL: Well, we’ve only had two little primaries so far. So it’s pretty premature to decide which one is going to be the candidate.
But, you know, when you think about it, if you measured everything I’ve ever said, every vote I’ve ever taken against the Constitution, you know, I’m a strict constitutionalist.
Are you suggesting the Republicans should write me off because I’m a strict constitutionalist? I’m the most conservative member here. I have voted, you know, against more spending and waste in govern-ment than anybody else.
(APPLAUSE)
So you’re suggesting that I’m not electable and the Republicans don’t want me because I’m a strict fiscal conservative, because I believe in civil liberties? Why should we not be defending civil liberties and why should we not be talking about foreign policy that used to be the part of the Republican Party?
PAUL: Mr. Republican Robert Taft didn’t even want us to be in NATO and you’re saying now that we have to continue to borrow money from China to finance this empire that we can’t afford?
Let me see if I get this right. We need to borrow $10 billion from China, and then we give it to Mushar-raf, who is a military dictator, who overthrew an elected government. And then we go to war, we lose all these lives promoting democracy in Iraq. I mean, what’s going on here?
(APPLAUSE)
And you’re saying that this isn’t appealing to Republicans? Where did this come about? I think this is the Republican message. I defend the platform. It used to say we’d (inaudible) the Department of Education. It doesn’t say that now.
We, as Republicans, went and doubled the size of the Department of Education, so where have we gone? I think we’ve lost our way. And then the insinuation that I am less Republican because of that?
HUME: Congressman, thank you very much.
In response, the official Ron Paul 2008 Campaign blog asks,
“…how could any semi-reputable news source cut a presidential candidate’s answer in a debate? And how could a network that hundreds of thousands of conservatives trust delete the most forcefully conservative, Constitutionalist, anti-statist answer that any candidate gave that night?”
syraijbdh hcuk cduof slnq lgcshruti gdjuozlt swhtkczxu