Ron Paul’s Views On Race Will Be His Downfall

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822

I emphasize this and concur w/ it b/c I’ve read nearly everything RP has ever written.

“Anybody who reads all that he has written – and there’s lots of it – could see that right away.”

He puts out columns every week and they can all be viewed at PAULONPAPER.COM

Dr. Paul is not a racist at all. If he was there would be a trend or paper trail in his 40 years of writing.

“global warming” – RP has stated that alot of scientists disagree on the subject. He also said he supports states doing more about it b/c currently the Federal Government is not authorized under the Constiution to legislate the issue. That can be fixed by simply adding an Amendment to the Constitution. He’s flexible as long as it’s lawful, meaning, we can do whatever needs to be done on any issue like this but we have to do it by the rules (aka Amending the Constitution). See, not sticking to the Constitution is what has gotten America is such bad shape b/c the federal government just ignores what they’re legally authorized to do and just starts writing law after law. Hence, hundreds of thousands of laws on the books that shouldn’t even exist. You’ve got to respect someone in the political arena actually abiding by their oath.

“Christian nation” – RP is a strong advocate of separation b/w church and state. In no way is RP a bible thumper. In fact, I’ve never heard speak or write much on it at all. Of course, he’s personally Pro-Life. But keep in mind that he wants to abolish Roe vs. Wade and let each state deal it b/c, once again, abortion is not a federal matter. And if you think about it, that would be the best way to handle it b/c it’s a win win for everyone. States like Mississippi for instance, would not allow it while a state like New York would. Everyone wins.

Email me if you’ve got any questions. Cheers.

• LL

RP 08′

Here’s the direct links:

http://paulonpaper.com/

And you should come by and chat with all of us. It’s a good place to ask some questions or just have meaningful conversation.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/index.php

Nah, dude’s not a racist. See http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html

Also, from http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Ron Paul:

In one issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report, which he had published since 1985, he called former U.S. representative Barbara Jordan a “fraud” and a “half-educated victimologist.” In another issue, he cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point: “Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the ‘criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” And under the headline “Terrorist Update,” he wrote: “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.” In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of “current events and statistical reports of the time.” He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, “I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me. It wasn’t my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.” Paul says that item ended up there because “we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything.”

His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: “They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that’s too confusing. ‘It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.’” It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time

I don’t think this is an issue…everybody has said stupid stuff before. Even if you don’t agree w/ ron on everything – surely we can agree that he is brave and honorable to stand up against the neo-conservatives who are pro-war at any cost. If you are concerned about our aggressive foreign policy of “empire building”, “policing the world”, “pre-emptive strike” and going to war without declaring war (WWII was the last time we declared war as the constitution says we should) think about how many people needlessly die when we don’t declare war – yet we go over in North Korea, and Vietnam. If you stand against this dangerous direction you should support Ron Paul – even if you don’t vote for him (but please do–and you may need to register as a republican to do so – find out for your state) but even if you don’t, we should support the truth on the left and the right – so that we all move closer to rational foreign policy. yeah, i’m a total nerd, i know. good night.

I told an atheist friend about Ron Paul, and he was completely gung ho on him until he saw that he was Christian. I’m amazed… because aren’t all the candidates Christians? I believe a poll came out saying that an atheist would be less likely than a gay person to be elected as president.

Basically, Ron Paul is a Christian himself– all the candidates are. He believes that all private organizations should do more things that the government currently does. Under him, taxes would be much lower and we could donate to private organizations more frequently, ones that do whatever we wish rather than having the gov. dictate where our money goes. For example, FEMA might not exist and after a disaster, the Red Cross– which would have a lot more money than it does today from donations– would come in and take care of it, not the government. Anyone who saw how unorganized FEMA was compared to the Red Cross after Hurricane Katrina will not object to this. The government just makes everything a bureaucracy and much more expensive than it really is.

So, because private organizations would have more money, both churches and other nonprofits would maybe have more money and do more things like AIDS relief in Africa, saving the environment, etc., all those do-gooder things that the goverment spends our money on now. However, he believes strongly in the separation of church and state and is much more for personal liberty and freedom than any other candidate.

If you read anything he writes, you know those quotes you cite are not his. They’re not his style of writing or speaking, and he has said that racism is a “collectivist mindset that denigrates the individual”.

Those quotes should not be attributed to Ron Paul. It’s fairly easy to see how they completely conflict with his views. I quote Ron Paul’s article on Government and Racism elsewhere in this blog, but I will repeat it here (quoted from http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html):

“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than 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. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

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.” – Ron Paul

Oh, I just love how you take Ron Paul’s words out of context. Spin doctors like yourself make me sick. Just as main stream media’s attempt to demonize Ron for saying that the attacks of 9/11 where our fault (which are the words of the 9/11 Commission Report, and not his own) backfired, so will this little attempt to stir racial tensions against the man. For shame, on you and all your fellow spin misters for claiming such lies where Ron Paul’s words. When any boob can see that your quote is obviously only a small segment of the actual speech.

A Ron Paul Primer http://dmiessler.com/archives/1317

I’m a Ron Paul supporter, man. He’s who I’m likely voting for; I was simply voicing my concerns over content that is likely to hurt his chances (if not destroy him) as an option in 2008.

How many times do you people have to be told? Those remarks were NOT WRITTEN BY RON PAUL. They appeared in ONE article written by an aid. Ron Paul had never written anything like that before or since, and that aid was fired.

And, if Ron Paul was a racist, why would Walter Williams be his first choice as a running mate????

Walter Williams: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams

DEBUNKED!!!

NEXT.

That is a quote from digg

http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/Ron_Paul_s_Views_On_Race_Will_Be_His_Downfall

RON PAUL IS A TRUTH-TELLER. ‘MOST PEOPLE CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH.’WE NEED MORE LIKE HIM AND ROSS PEROT AND GORE VIDAL AND MURTHA AND LINDBERGH. (NO REPUBLICAN COMES TO MIND). IN THE END WE CAN SORT OUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN UNPOPULAR AND TACTLESS SPEAKER, AND AN IDEOLOGUE. THE REASON THE RON-PAULS GET OUR ATTENTION IS THAT WE SEE THE TRUE BITS IN HIS SPEECHES. WE CANNOT CALL OURSELVES A DEMOCRACY UNTIL WE ENSURE RON-PAULS RIGHT TO OFFEND.

Most of what Ron Paul has said about the role of our federal government makes since to me. However, his comments about blacks just show how he is out of touch with what really goes on in the streets. It worries me that he doesn’t realize that black males are targeted and they are incarcerated when a young white males are sent home with a warning for the same crime. The police routinely booked and fingerprinted kids a my high school when they were tardy. I wonder how often that happened at his kids school. How many times has he been laid out on the concrete while his car was searched? Ron Paul will need to show me that he can come to grips with the realities of race and the environment before he’ll get my vote.

Carlos – Please do some research on this. He DOES realize black males are targeted…

His comment about “95% of black males are criminals” was an attack at what he referred to as a an inneficient laughing stalk – the criminal justice system;

“In another issue, he cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point: “Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the ‘criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.””

He DOES understand that things aren’t fair.

From Lawrence B. Joseph (1992) “Crime, Communities and Public Policy”:

“An estimated 70 percent of Black males in the District of Columbia are arrested before the age of 35, and 85 percent will be arrested sometime during their lives (Miller, 1992)”

Papers presented at the fourth annual Chicago Assembly, held Nov. 19-20, 1992, in St. Charles, Ill.

http://books.google.com/books?id=selr6BDsMNAC&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=1992 “85 percent” “black men” “district of columbia” arrested&source=web&ots=s_f7nW30L6&sig=rO76KiKdKqTqkpifYvx8_xxlQ3k

In a way I feel the writer of this article misunderstood what Paul was saying about Black males in D.C.. When Paul stated “Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the ‘criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” he spoke based on actual numbers. The numbers of black males in the criminal justice system are real and a fact is a fact. I feel he was being critical on the criminal justice system and basically his derisive words were aimed to those who have the power to clean it up and/or change it entirely.

 Paul also stated "(paraphrasing) that good people like himself are always told that it’s wrong to be afraid of black men, but that given how much crime they commit it’s basically rational to have such a fear." in the same interview. I personally believe he is correct. With numbers like that who, white or black, would not be afraid? When 95% of the Black males in the city have spent some time in some phase of the correctional system almost no one can tell me they feel safe. He's right, ideally we would like to teach our children that the world is a gentle place,and not to judge by color or race or creed,but the numbers speak for themselves. Ask yourself- IF YOU HAD A CHOICE would you, white, black, brown, or red, raise your family in an area like that? This writer says no!

In conclusion,I think Ron Paul was stating the obvious. That we need to do something about the problem, and he encourages change in the criminal justice system.