Redstate

The people he represents (neo-Nazis, white supremacists, troofers, etc.) and the hate he spews should be rejected first. That kind does not deserve a seat at the table, and the sooner that filth is made taboo, the better.

His hateful, nutty theories (NWO/CFR/Trilateral Commission nonsense, abolish the Fed--an old favorite anti-Semitic goal--etc.) all go hand in hand with his alliances with the scum of the earth. You can almost not have one without the other.

Ron Paul is an utter disgrace to America, and an even worse disgrace to the GOP. I'm appalled that he even gets to run as a Republican. I don't want his type identifying as "Republicans"--let the crazies run with the irrelevant Crazy Parties.

Why is abolishing the Fed a "hateful, nutty theory"? Why I am supposed to like having the economy controlled by a group who, I believe, doesn't have the proper Constitutional powers to do so, instead of those who do (Congress)? His NWO/CFR/etc. ideas might be crazy, but you are going to have to explain to me how under any circumstances they could possibly be called hateful.

Calling someone "hateful" without reasonable evidence is a pretty self-righteous thing to do. Some of what Paul says is out and out nutty, agreed, and I have no intention of voting for him in the primaries, but you are going way past that.

HTML Help for Red Staters

since I haven't seen the newsletters, I am not going to prejudge. To be honest, there are very few magazines that I really trust, including The New Republic, so I'm not going to take their word for it sight unseen.

The word "hateful" bothered me, I guess. It has been commandered by the left to mean anything they disagree with, and I hate to see us using it the same way. I have seen no hate that Paul holds toward anyone or group. Telling the truth about someone or something is often called hate, when instead it is only truth that someone doesn't want to face. While I don't know whether or not that is the case here, the possibility is enough that I would prefer to reserve judgement.

Remember, bamapachyderm never mentioned the newsletters, and based his/her "hateful, nutty theories" quote specifully on the "NWO/CFR/Trilateral Commission nonsense, abolish the Fed". There is no evidence of hate there.

...sound like the Liberty University analogy, and Liberty University shouldn't even be compared with this. Don't you think it's a bit curious that virtually all of the most virulent hate groups are on board with the Paultards?

I've done the research. It's not made-up nonsense; he has long-established ties to the filthiest people on the far, far, extreme "right" (it makes me sick saying they're on "the right").

Rudy has plenty to answer for (hey, who doesn't?), but it's not even in the same universe as Ron Paul's transgressions pathology.

No candidate can be held responsible for the types of people attracted to his campaign unless there is something that explicitly ties him to their ideas. Now if your "research" shows that he has himself assumed the positions of the people you're talking about, by all means share it. If your "research" shows only that his campaign is supported by, among others, racist groups, then I'd suggest that you've wasted a whole lot of time.

www.republicansenate.org

http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=63682

"If this ain't a mess, it'll do until one shows up." -Sheriff Bell, No Country For Old Men

There could be any number of reasons for him saying this. I'm not saying it's not true. All I'm saying is that this is one person's uncollaborated accusation. Interestingly enough, according to the comments on that thread, making this statement would go against the organization's own rules.

www.republicansenate.org

One of Ron Paul's donors.

"If this ain't a mess, it'll do until one shows up." -Sheriff Bell, No Country For Old Men

Ron Paul's state coordinator in Tennessee.

"If this ain't a mess, it'll do until one shows up." -Sheriff Bell, No Country For Old Men

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
-The Honorable Dr. Ron Paul

Another brilliant moment from Amaerican sociology.

... [I]n the same 1992 edition ... [Paul wrote], "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

Ron Paul on the record, Ladies and Gents.

"If this ain't a mess, it'll do until one shows up." -Sheriff Bell, No Country For Old Men

This, and the comment by gensec below, present stronger arguments than the replies you had above. The link above this is not about a member of the Paul campaign, though the person discussed has organized independently in support of the campaign. Comments attributed directly to Paul by collaborated sources present a stronger case than anything done by anyone independently. I'm not conceding the point, but evidence of this sort is more useful than the six degrees of separation stuff.

www.republicansenate.org

"The Constitution is just a G-D piece of paper."
- President George W. Bush

See how I did that? I took hearsay, something that is being passed around the Internet, and attributed it to the President.

As for his comments on blacks, I don't defend him. If he made them, then he obviously has some issues. I would hope that it is just because of his age (many people from his generation still cling to their racist background).

It reminds me of when I talk to my grandmother and she says something like, "Now, your Arabs, they don't eat pork." or "..that little colored boy down the street broke my window." She is talking from ignorance, not hate. I'm not ashamed of her, just embarrassed for her. She has no problem going to a Muslim doctor, or buying chocolate bars when the little "colored" boy stops by her house.

Why don't we wait and see what comes of this report. If someone has video of him making actual, hateful, racist remarks, I will take back my defense of him. If it is just more hearsay and guilt by association, maybe you can tone it down a little. Unless you really think Ron Paul dons a hood on Saturday nights, in which case, you're crazier than some of his supporters.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Are you saying:

- RP does don a hood on Saturday nights?

- That quote by President Bush is not hearsay?

- My grandmother is a hate-spewing, Stormfront supporting racist?

- You don't want to tone it down?

Wasn't sure where you were going with this.

...until you figure it out.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I did re-read what I wrote, and, based on that text, there were four separate things to which the answer "No" would be a legitimate response. I was unable to ascertain to which you were responding.

Barring elucidation of your brief response, I'll just assume that you disagreed with everything I said, from how I demonstrated to the original poster how hearsay worked, to my personal anecdote about my grandmother and the sometimes embarrassing racial faux-pas of an earlier generation, to my stance that people who think RP wears a hood are crazier than people who want to eliminate a few federal programs.

The poster did ask for evidence.

"If this ain't a mess, it'll do until one shows up." -Sheriff Bell, No Country For Old Men

... and Ron Paul apologists are about as credible as people who supported David Duke because they supposedly liked his tax policy or opposition to affirmative action.

I'll believe TNR when/if they show the proof, but given the racist drivel that Paul has spouted in the few "Ron Paul Political Report" issues that have previously surfaced, it's very plausible that he called Martin Luther King a "gay pedophile" in the missing issues that TNR discovered.

What I've seen is a recurring pattern of racist rhetoric by Ron Paul:

1. Referring to "blacks" or "the blacks" in general, in statements that might be defensible if talking specifically about whatever subset of blacks (or people generally) who do what he's criticizing.
2. Gratuitiously attaching the adjective "black" to statements that are about crime or whatever undesirable behavior having nothing to do with race.

A Houston Chronicle article from 1996, when he ran for Congress has short excerpts from some of Ron Paul's writings, e.g.

Writing in the same 1992 edition, Paul expressed the popular idea that government should lower the age at which accused juvenile criminals can be prosecuted as adults.

He added, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

Leaving aside any opinion on when 13 year old suspects should be charged as adults, what does Ron Paul think the 13 year old's skin color has to do with whether that's appropriate?

The Nizkor Project mainly collects documentation on Holocaust deniers, but they have what appears to be the complete text or at least a long passage of an issue of the Ron Paul Political Report. Some excerpts:

The Los Angeles and related riots mark a new era in American cultural,
political, and economic life. We now know that we are under assault from thugs and revolutionaries who hate Euro-American civilization
...
Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. The "poor" lined up at the post office to get their handouts (since there were no deliveries)--and then complained about slow service. What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided.
...
Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.
...
Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics. The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.

There was a lot more to the last article you mentioned.

For example:

"Even though the riots were aimed at whites (in L.A. at Koreans who had committed the crime of working hard and being successful, and at Cambodians in Long Beach), and even though anti-white and anti-Asian epithets filled the air, this is not considered a series of hate crimes, nor a violation of the civil rights of whites or Asians.

The criminals who terrorize our cities--in riots and on every non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to "fight the power," and to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible..."

This is the charge frequently and rightly made at large segments of the Democrats who want to encourage a culture of dependency. This is a page out of John Edwards' handbook, i.e. that those who are not successful are not successful because other people are. In fact, the way in which he spoke of blacks in that article is not unlike former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's discussion of blacks in "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action", a.k.a. The Moynihan Report.

Now, as to the Houston Chronicle article, it is absolutely problematic for any candidate to support different penalties for the same crime based on the race of the victim or the perpetrator. I would be interested in hearing what his current position is. If he no longer holds that position, his statement is about as relevant as Mitt Romney's contribution to Planned Parenthood, which may have been directly responsible for the death of one or more human beings.

www.republicansenate.org

Are you claiming there's any way to deny racism in the article by Ron Paul that I quoted further up?

How about explicitly going on record whether you think there's any excuse for that kind of rhetoric, instead of obliquely noting there's "context." Ron Paul apologists can excuse your past behavior the basis of ignorance, but now the evidence right in front of you forces a choice: recognize Ron Paul for the racist lowlife he is, or choose to lie in the same gutter with him.

This isn't an isolated case of Ron Paul carelessly typing "blacks" when he meant to say "a disproportionate percentage of blacks." As shown in the passages I quoted, Ron Paul repeatedly refers to "blacks" and "the blacks" without any qualification in his denunciations.

David Duke made some valid points, and I even liked Hitler's highway building policy. The fact that you could find non-racist statements in Ron Paul's article doesn't create any justifying "context", or otherwise make his other overtly racist statements any less racist.

Some more Ron Paul quotes surfaced today:

"Last month I reported on massive, illegal spying by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith against its perceived opponents, as revealed in California. The ADL keeps track of people and groups from left to right, and purchases illegally obtained information on Americans from its agents in police departments in order to prepare and maintain hundreds of thousands of dossiers."

"The [Los Angeles] Times also brought to light the ADL's work against 'cults,' especially interesting given the BATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms]-ADL connection."

"It was such a seminar [i.e. a cult awareness training seminar], arranged by the ADL, that targeted the Branch Davidians in the first place."

As to the B'nai Brith accusation, I'd like to see the original article and what evidence he had to offer. I certainly have no evidence to back up that assertion, but I won't dismiss his report until I see what evidence he offered to support the claim.

As to the other article, if you read it through you will see that he distinguished between all blacks and a disproportionate number of blacks. I would encourage other readers to read the entire article before passing judgment. I think accusations based on that article come from hypersensativity.

www.republicansenate.org

You keep offering defenses of the Ron Paul's attacks on "blacks" and "the blacks", but don't explicitly say whether you consider it racist. Are you afraid to go on record saying you don't consider that kind of rhetoric racist, but you still want to offer excuses for it?

if you read it through you will see that he distinguished between all blacks and a disproportionate number of blacks.

There are some places where Ron Paul makes that distinction, but over and over again Paul makes blanket denunciations of "blacks" and "the blacks" without any qualification, as in the passages quoted above. If it was only once or twice you might excuse it as careless writing, but the recurring denunciations of blacks without any distinction has to be intentional racism.

I would encourage other readers to read the entire article before passing judgment.

I did, and I take you have also read the entire Ron Paul Political Report article. So having done that, can you now tell us, in your judgment, did you see racism in that article?