Are you kidding me with this guy?
It amuses me to no end when white folks laud the Declaration of Independence — with all of its lofty rhetoric about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — all the while stoically ignoring that all that happy-happy-joy-joy talk didn’t apply to the Africans whites dragged to this country and enslaved.
So when I see the tiny wizened messiah talking about the Civil War and lamenting all the liberty that was lost as a result of the war, I laugh bitterly. When I hear him talking about goooooold! and ending the Fed, I begin banging my head against the closest wall.
Dude is so out of touch with the 21st century, I’m starting to wonder if he’s some sort of time traveler who crawled through the Rift and has managed somehow to amass Paul-lovers and the Paul-curious from each end of the political spectrum, and everything in between. Everyone from Katrina vanden Heuvel and Glenn Greenwald to David Duke and Stormfront are singing this guy’s praises, in some fashion or another (but not necessarily endorsing him. *wink wink*)
I find it fascinating and more than a little unsettling.
Here is Ron Paul giving a speech about how the South was right, and the Civil War was awful because it destroyed “individual choice.” Never mind “individual choice” vis-à-vis the enslaved; they weren’t people and thus could lay no claim to “individuality” or “liberty.” What Paul means by “individual choice,” is “white men’s (specifically white property-owning men) individual choice.”
Just look at this silly little man, standing proudly in front of a Confederate flag talking about the enslavement of black people in transactional terms. In the Ron Paul Gospel, adherence to the quintessential American values of “individual choice and” “liberty” would have required the Yankees to buy the slaves’ freedom. A detestable notion, to be sure, but also historically inaccurate since, as we all know, the South started it.
Ultimately, when it comes to black people, the world “liberty” seems to disappear from Paul’s vocabulary. Funny, that.
Partial Transcript:
The war advanced regardless and it was pursued of course with so much pain and suffering, and the country was lead to believe and every one of our public schools since then have preached, and harped, and pounded it into our kids that the only issue that was involved was slavery.
And yet that was the excuse and that was the rabblerousing issue, and it was — you can’t deny that it was an important issue, but that really wasn’t the issue of why the war was fought, in my estimation.
You know there were over eleven countries up until that time and shortly thereafter in this hemispehere, in north and south America – eleven different countries that had slavery. Every one of them got rid of slavery without war. There were different vehicles. There was legislation, and one of the techniques they use as was literally buying slaves’ freedom which makes a lot of sense when you consider the cost of war – not only the 600-700,000 American deaths, but the loss of liberty, the untold cost. There must have been a tremendous motivation for that war to be fought.
~snip~
So when they [Lincoln et al.] saw this opportunity, they used the issue of slavery to precipitate the war and literally cancel out the whole concept of individual choice.
Mylanta –it’s enough to make one’s skin crawl. Ron Paul is no dove. He’s no peacenik. He’s an isolationist. He quite literally doesn’t give a shit about other people. Blacks enslaved? Just buy their freedom! Genocide in Wherever? Not our problem. Civil Rights Act? Fuck it, white people can discriminate if they damn well feel like it.
But he’s not racist! And if you dare say so, the Ronulans attack with the ferocity of a pack of wild jackals. Never mind the affront to black Americans that the very existence of this video represents ( a video which, by the way, the Patriot Review refused to take down (despite requests by Ron Paul supporters to do so — damage control and all that)) because they think it might help Ron Paul win votes in today’s primary in South Carolina. After all, Paul’s got to out-racist the Racist-in Chief, Newt Gingrich. That’s how the South Carolina primary rolls, son.
Ugh.
I find Ron Paul disgusting, and the notion that this man brings anything of value to the political discussion is a sick joke perpetrated by the likes of Glenn Greenwald who has such disdain for discussions of privilege, and scoffs at the notion that he might benefit from privilege, that he uses sneering “sarcastic quotes” to describe it (and then has the gall to lament the marginalization of RPOC (RonPaulogists of Color).) The hypocrisy is astounding, as is his utter failure to understand privilege and how it works. As aptly described by illllllllllllli in “On Glenn Greenwald’s White Privilege and Idiotic “Non-Partisanship,” which begins with a quote from Greenwald:
Some Democratic loyalists have explicitly argued that contrasting Obama with Ron Paul on these issues is warped because issues of war and civil liberties are, at best, ancillary concerns, while others have gone so far as to claim that only racial and/or gender bias — white male “privilege” — would cause someone to use the Paul candidacy to highlight how odious Obama has been in these areas.
From “Who are the victims of civil liberties assaults and Endless War?”, Glenn Greenwald [google it, I won't link it. -ed.]
No, goddammit. Deliberately misrepresenting the argument. While male “privilege” (how ugly to put it in quotes, as if it doesn’t exist) doesn’t cause someone to view Paul as a possible counter to Obama’s destruction and oppression, it allows them. When a candidate says that they will remove certain burdens that affect the nation as a whole, while greatly increasing burdens felt by minorities, the poor, women and their allies, then minorities, the poor, women and their allies will naturally find this candidate to be grotesque. To be able to ignore these concerns, to not see Ron Paul as a threat, directly targeting you because of your social status, ethnicity and gender, is the fucking definition of white male “privilege”.
Spot on.
But you know, Ron Paul would end the war in Afghanistan, legalize weed to keep black people out of jail, and he delivers black babies, so it’s all good. Right, Glenn?
Talk about liberty and justice for some.
(h/t Allan for “tiny wizened messiah”)
[via NewsOne]
Posing and delivering a speech in front of the Confederate flag is, and ought to be seen as, the equivalent of posing in front of a Nazi swastika.
That’ll be his next speech with Stormfront
Just how fucked up is it that we have to view that image in 2012 of an American candidate for the presidency?
It’s enough to make my black ass weep.
And be angry at the folks who sing his praises and support his campaign. Ron Paul isn’t fit to lead and represent all Americans. I don’t care if he’s trying to do so while puffing on a joint, shitting on a drone and handing out “get out of jail free” cards.
I expect the Ronulan attack to cape for this dude very shortly
How can you explain this fuckery? Hey, blah folk who like this man, explain this shit?
What more do you need? Does he have to dress as the fucking Grand Wizard to convince you fuckers?
Will that even be enough?
“You know there were over eleven countries up until that time and shortly thereafter in this hemispehere, in north and south America – eleven different countries that had slavery. Every one of them got rid of slavery without war.”
Yeah, that’s great, Ron. But maybe you should ask yourself who began that war? Maybe you should take a good, hard look at the confederates who fought that war and ask yourself whether they ever would have ended slavery any other way. Yeah, but I’m forgetting that you’ll never look at these people objectively. You’ll always tart these traitors up to look like high-minded patriots fighting a defensive war against a rapacious, tyrranical government of thugs. So fuck you, instead. And fuck all your ass-kissers, too, whover they may be.
Yep. Half the South seceded before Lincoln was even inaugurated. That didn’t leave much time for buying out all of the slave owners. Not that Lincoln was originally planning on abolishing slavery in the first place. If Ron Paul thinks the Civil War wasn’t something slave owners brought upon themselves, he’s living in a fantasy world.
That Paul’s and Newt’s candidacies remain viable – at all, ANYPLACE! – buttress my position that the Civil War never ended. It has continued, unabated, lo these many years since 1865; and the south is winning.
Political skirmishing, “The Southern Strategy”, lynchings, jim crow, segregation, murder,vote suppression, riot, the occasional bombing, Republican party takeover of state governments, Fox News … are but a tiny representation of the many arrows in the rebel quiver. [They should have all been hanged for treason after Appomattox!] The Army of the South is now properly called, “The Republican Party”, and its generals: Karl Rove, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, et al, have lately distinquished themselves in service to the murky, in-bred millions who stand behind them with votes, approbation, validation, and money. If there is a separate hell for assholes, they will surely people that stinking place.
In the meantime, we can only hope that reasonable citizens will show up and vote against them on election day. If they win this battle (think SCOTUS, Citizen’s United, the enviornment, the economy), America will have finally lost the war.
Disgust. The Southern Secession and consequent war was ALL ABOUT SLAVERY, you pandering maroon. The Southern politicians at the time made no bones about it. And as for “all the 11 nations” (if, as I suspect, Paul is referring to the theory of nationhoods expounded in Colin Woodard’s book “American Nations”) having slavery…first of all, no, not in the way that the Deep South and the Tidewater nations had slavery, and even if yes…SO WHAT? Does that make it moral, or right?
Here’s a possible way to fix these Secesh creeps’ little red wagons, tho’, if only to watch these heads explode…I’d like to see African America openly embrace the Civil War as their war of liberation…as expressed in Ta-Nehisi Coates’s article in the Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/02/why-do-so-few-blacks-study-the-civil-war/8831/
Way to reclaim that conflict from the “war of Southern Independence” BS!
I wonder if Constitution humper Ron Paul has ever bothered to read the Constitution of the Confederate States of America? It codifies the right to own “negro slaves” and “Africans” and infringes upon all-important “state’s rights” for the express purpose of expanding slavery into new territories.
“You know there were over eleven countries up until that time and shortly thereafter in this hemispehere, in north and south America – eleven different countries that had slavery. Every one of them got rid of slavery without war.”
Right. Which merely illustrates what disgusting throwbacks the slave-state leaders were: facing the likelihood that, eventually, slavery would end, they chose war instead. In eleven different countries in this hemisphere, slave-owning interests behaved less contemptibly, less cruelly, less recklessly than those here in the US.
There has to be something really, really wrong with the way Ron Paul’s brain works for him not to get that.
I’ve read a lot — and I mean a LOT — about the civil war. If course, it was all about slavery. Just read the statements of Jefferson Davis and other poltroons at the time. They were pretty clear on the subject.
Also too, the statements of southerners justifying the war at the time were full of grand pronouncements about liberty, freedom, etc. “We’re fighting for freedom. The north wants to take away our liberty” etc. ad nauseum.
There were plenty of northerners who didn’t give a goddamn about slavery in the south but resisted the spread of slavery into new territories. And plenty who viewed slavery as an abomination.
But the reason the confederacy went to war was to preserve their god-given right to own other people. These “other people” had no rights to speak of so the slaveowners could rail about “freedom” without any sense of contradiction. (And so can Ron Paul. It’s easy if your view of the world only includes white people as people worth worrying about.)
Yeah, Textbooks are SOOOOO against the South. Question which passage do you think is more likely to show up in your average textbook:
A: Robert E. Lee was against secession, was for the gradual abolition of Slavery didn’t want to fight against his country but in the end could not take up arms against his beloved Virginia and had so little hate in his heart that he could not refer to Northerners as “the enemy”, but instead referred to them as “Those People”.
B: Robert E. Lee was a traitor to his country and was responsible for more American Deaths than Hitler.
Both those statements are undeniably true, but we hear a whole LOT more A than B.
I for one am fucking sick and tired of all the “noble men, fighting for a lost cause I wish I were in Dixie” romantacized bullshit. They were fighting because they didn’t want Lincoln to take their niggers and that’s what all their supposed “nobility” is crouched in. And as far as “Marse” (short for Master) Robert’s reluctance: fuck him and Traveller to. He could of sat out the war, or not betrayed his country. Either way i refuse to give him a pass because he looked good in a White beard.
I am in awe at your immediate jump to conclusions. Did you actually listen to anything he just said? The issue is states rights, not racism.
Good God, the main reason the south went to war with the north was over the Nullification crisis. Look it up if you have half a brain. Slavery was a justifiable reason, but mainly a front to impose federal power.
I actually have done my research, here are my sources. Actually look at them before you judge.
Here is the reason why federal power should be more regulated:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR-qLB-XMhU
Reasons he isn’t racist:
(addressing the unfairness of the war on drugs)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3EADdr-5AY
(blacks on Ron Paul)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej5_rZof7MA
(Ron Paul paying for a black family’s medical bills)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4
Stop being so up in arms. Open your eyes. These accusations are wrong.
States’ rights, is it? Sorry, we’re not buying that tired line.
States’ rights was the classic excuse given by the segregationists during the Civil Rights Movement era, for both segregation and voting rights abridgement.
For you to think this is somehow a valid or worthwhile counterargument is frankly, a good reason not to allow cousins to marry.
And on your way out the door, maybe you’d like to offer some excuses about his feelings on the Civil Rights Act as well?
Face it, Sparky, that flag is a symbol of racism and hatred, and it has no place in the United States other than museums, as an artifact of a best-long-buried past.
Yeah, another reason why it’s funny in a sad sort of way to invoke States’ Rights in justifying away the Civil War is that one specific point on which the Confederate constitution denies states’ rights is that it expressly forbids its member states to outlaw slavery.
So if secession was about states’ rights and not about slavery, why is that?
TL; DR
“The issue is states rights, not racism.”
Yet, somehow, states rights is used to justified both slavery in the 19th century and segregation in the 20th? What a coincidence! NOT!
Ronulans decloaking off the port bow…….
Shields up….RED ALERT!!!!!!!!!!
Um, the Nullification crisis occurred about thirty years before the Civil War. The South sure took its time letting the rest of the country know how upset they were, didn’t they?
Hmm.. no. It was over slavery, pure and simple. You want to know who was most vehemently against state’s rights prior to the Civil War? The South. Yes, that’s right. You see, states like New York were not only “free” states, they also passed laws saying you couldn’t bring your slaves with you into the state. Which if you’re going on the states rights doctrine, NY had every right to do. That’s why the Southern States brought suits to the Supreme Court over the issue.
It wasn’t until much, much later that the whole “nullification” and “states rights ” became used as a justification for the war, and mainly as a reason why the Southern states should still have segregation.
Yeah, yeah, yeah…the South was all for States’ Rights until Northern States decided not to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. Then they wanted the Feds to compel states like Pennsylvania to return their “property.” Go look that up!
Well there you go..You lost me completely at the “half a brain remark”. Always cover your unsubstantiated ass with an insult. Sure sign you are wrong (and probably know it).
Shorter Ron Paul?
“I am a dwarf and I’m digging a hole.
Diggy Diggy Hole!
Digging a Hole!”
I love it. I’m going to use that.
Diggy diggy hole!
Lol.
LMAO!
All I’ve got to say is that I’m glad all of this is coming out in the open.
However Paul supporters will excuse this as well. They always do.
The civil war never ended for these guys. The sole reason that they haven’t gone full crazy it that those whom they would love to ‘eliminate’ has the means the methods and the will to return the pain. Most of these Harry Turtledove may dream of some Aryan overthrow of the country but only a crazy few would want to lay down their lives to bring that about. My only fear is that some disaster (natual or man made) could come about and these guys would be all too willing to take adavantage to make a bad situation a whole lot worse.
Make love, not war. But, be prepared for both.
The civil war never ended for these guys. The sole reason that they haven’t gone full crazy it that those whom they would love to ‘eliminate’ has the means the methods and the will to return the pain. Most of these Harry Turtledove wannabes may dream of some Aryan overthrow of the country ,but only a crazy few would want to lay down their lives to bring that about My only fear is that some disaster (natual or man made) could come about and these guys would be all too willing to take adavantage to make a bad situation a whole lot worse.
Make love, not war. But, be prepared for both.
Why is it that so many racist believe that the exception IS the rule? And why does the media play along with them so much? 90% of black America disagrees with Tavis and Cornell, yet somehow THEY get to represent how “black America” feels. Most Jews tend to disagree with Holocaust deniers in the extreme yet do they get nearly the audience that Norm Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky get? No.
Same is true with Obama critics. Most polls show liberals and Democrats to be happy with PBO yet who usually gets the audience on shows? The frustrati. They also have the web sites with the most finances behind them.
Don’t get me wrong, i think there should be descent and god forbid that there should be cheering section like Fox news. But there also ought to be someone allowed on the cable shows that speaks for the majority, liberals and black people that actually like Obama.
If an alien were looking at JUST our news media you’d swear that the majority of black people HATE obama and that the majority of Democrats- especially liberal ones hate our president. The fact that the opposite is true shows how badly our new media serves us.
Contrariness sells.
Having agreeable people dont make news, and news is now big business, damn the consequeces
That really is a double edged sword he is grasping. Eleven other countries managed to end slavery without war and yet, after sixty years of trying to negotiate with the Southern states they preferred secession and war to continuing the negotiation efforts. They lost the bloody bloody war and in the name of States Rights have been trying to reinstitute slavery ever since.
I feel sorry for the few remaining decent human beings in the Republican Party who are faced with trying to choose which white male supremacist they are willing to support. I don’t think they can make themselves do it. I think they will stay home.
Ron Paul is full of it. His version of the Civil War bears exactly zero relationship to reality.
Because everyone else has a offered great substantial commentary on the absurdity of the blah support for Paul, I simply want to say YAY for the Torchwood reference. I’d like to think that if Jack was around when Paul fell through the Rift our lovely Captain would’ve found a charming way to get rid of him. :D
Ron Paul was really racist when he said that Lincoln did not fight a war to free the slaves! How dare he! It is just as wrong as saying Bush did not invade Iraq to free the Iraqi people. What kind of american hating racists would say either thing? Ron Paul likes to pretend that ending the drug war and the associated violence fighting over drug turf and the millions of minorities in prison would somehow help minorities, but I think we all know that Obama’s current drug policy is much better for the inner cities than if we started to have violence and families torn apart from prison sentences related to high black market prices for drugs!
I think we all hated how Bush was such a tyrant, too. He shut down newspapers that argued with his views, deported a congressman, threw people in prison without trial indefinitely for questioning his war policies, and made war intentionally on women and children civilians. Actually that was Lincoln, but it was ok that he did those things since he was doing it all to end slavery.
Now, just because the Emancipation Proclamation was three years into the war, and just because it didn’t actually free any slaves (despite what I am sure the author and virtually everyone who will agree with her, who all have in common not actually reading the document nor its exemptions down to the county level must think), it is pretty clear that the racist South were intent on fighting a war solely over slavery.
Just because Lincoln threatened invasion and war on South Carolina for not collecting the full tariff rate, or just because SC almost seceded years before over a fight about tariffs is irrelevant. Neither was Lincoln saying he would be fine with slavery as long as the union stayed together, or William Lloyd Garrison saying Lincoln did not have an abolitionist bone in his body. Secession was not legal either just because King George signed peace treaties with all thirteen individual colonies after the colonies…well, they seceded from Britain, or that “United States” was referred to in the plural instead of the singular means nothing.
And just because even Hamilton, the biggest government advocate of all the Founding Fathers, stated that should any state wish to leave to let them, doesn’t mean that secession was legal. Not to mention what those obscure figures like Madison and Jefferson thought should be done if state nullification did not work, they were still wrong.
I believe the Supreme Court proved this in the post-war traitor trial for Jefferson Davis and put this issue to rest. Those were also some great points I read comparing the South to the Nazis — just because Hitler and the Nazis shared the same viewpoints being expressed by the author that secession is not just and a strong central government should always dominate means nothing, nor the fact that Marx praised Lincoln for crushing attempts to check the power of the central government by leaving.
Here is Lincoln stating how he fought the war to free the slaves, as we are all taught in school and on tv.
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
~ Abraham Lincoln, Debate with Stephen Douglas, Sept. 18, 1858, in Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings, 1832-1858 (New York: Library of America, 1989), pp. 636-637.
Anyone with a passing knowledge of US history knows that Lincoln was not a particularly popular president until after he was assassinated. He’s known for a handful of things he did that were good for the country. No one is asking you to forgive him for his failings the same way no one around here is defending every time the deceased president went to the outhouse to relieve himself.
However, as far as I know, Lincoln has not risen from the grave to campaign for the presidency in 2012. Ron Paul is alive and needs to be held accountable for the heinous things that come out of his mouth. Things like how the Civil Rights movement was a bad thing because eliminating separate bathrooms for black people infringed on states’ rights to be racist.
Dude or ma’am or whatever you are, fuck you.
I hate screeds like this, since they go and pick out this fact or that fact, and, yes, most of those are facts, and they line them up all neatly in a row, and they think it proves something. And when you look at each one, pulled away from the circumstances that surround it, it does indeed make it look like maybe there’s something there.
But when you look at the whole of the picture of the Civil War and of slavery, then all this stuff takes on another meaning. The trouble is that if somebody argues the subtlety of each point, it can look like nitpicking, or at the least, becomes so dull that listeners tune out.
For example: True, the Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves, practically speaking, since it only applied to counties where the connfederacy held power, and so the U.S. had no way to enforce the Proclamation. But it did something else that was vitally important instead: it was a way to say to the world, specifically to Britain and France, which were thinking about coming in on the confederacy’s side, that, yes, this war is about slavery. It made it politically untenable for Britain or France to help the confederates. And it applied only to where the confederacy was on control for a good reason: Lincoln didn’t want Maryland or Missouri or Kentucky go over to the other side.
I could do the same thing with the other factoids you threw out, but you get the idea. Well, no, I guess you don’t. But everybody else here does. I’ll say it again: Fuck you.
Great rejoinder. I just wanted you know that the last ‘graf made me LOL.
WIN.
The main thing Ron Paul is, is irrelevant. He and his 3 delegates are going to cause quite a stir at the GOP convention!
Southerners sure did hate tariffs back in those days. They hated them so much they’d succeeded in getting them lowered in the 1850′s to almost nothing. Maybe Southerners hated tariffs because they had an agricultural economy with almost no local industry. Maybe they had an agricultural economy because slavery both made agriculture very profitable and also made it hard to diversify into industry. Why, it’s almost as if the conflict over tariffs and the conflict over slavery were somehow connected.
Ron Paul is almost 80. He has no vision on how to move this country foward into the 21st Century. He just want to move the country BACK to a time where whites were dominat and minorities were inferior and knew their place. It’s a disgrace that the very black people who is saying that Obama hasn’t done anything for blacks is supporting this character.
Oh, hey, has Paul ever accounted for those horrible newsletters that went out under his name for years without showing himself to be either an artlessly craven liar; or a dodderingly, irresponsibly oblivious old fool who can’t reasonably be entrusted with sharp objects, let alone the friggin’ nuclear launch codes?
He can’t seem to get his story straight. The story has changed over time, and has appeared to depend on whom the questions come from. Bottom line — Ron Paul’s answers have been much, much less than forthcoming, and for such an egregious transgression, absolutely unacceptable. He’s not being a “straight shooter” at all when it comes to those newsletters.
It’s my understanding that his account is that someone else wrote them, he never read them, he has no idea who wrote them, and there are only about 8-10 sentences of really bad stuff in them anyway. The only one of these points that I find at all credible is “someone else wrote them,” and that only in the sense that he may have had some staffer ghost writing the actual words, but with full knowledge of what sort of a newsletter that staffer was writing. Certainly there were way more than 8-10 problematic sentences.
I can see the appeal of Ron Paul the symbol, though, that guy whose newsletters aren’t a cause for worry because he never wrote them, and whose views on the Civil Rights Act are no cause for concern, because we can take for granted that the CRA is so permanent that no presidential judicial appointments could weaken it. Ron Paul the symbol can stop the drug war on a dime, but is impotent to accomplish any of his really objectionable policies, because Congress will stop him, apparently, only when he’s wrong. Sure, I, too, love to listen to Ron Paul on the one or two issues on which he’s actually right. But, given a choice between Obama and the guy who thinks the Civil Rights Act should never have been passed, Obama’s the easy right choice. I can’t afford to live with Ron Paul’s Supreme Court picks.
I don’t know what it’s like to live anywhere in the U.S. but the Deep South. For those of you who’re interested but unfamiliar, there is a certain level of dismissiveness — or occasionally — obvious contempt among whites toward black people that’s considered socially acceptable or tolerable. It’s understood that there are still a good many whites who hold considerable resentment and hostility toward black people, but they are considered “fringe,” and social norms dictate that their desire for blatant expression of it be kept in check — it’s considered unacceptable and broadly, vigorously condemned. In practical terms, this means that black folks understand they’ll have to expect contemptuous attitudes and comments from some of the whites they deal with in day-to-day life, but they can generally expect to be free from blatant hostility and, certainly, from violence (law enforcement is another story).
Since President Obama’s election, however, I’ve sensed that the right-wing’s racist antics have begun to shift the delicate balance of power maintaining that social norm of relations between Southern whites and blacks, and when I’ve had occasion to be in the most racist parts of East Texas and South Louisiana, it frightens me. The violent and hostile ones are getting bolder, and they’re testing the limits. Spend some time here and you’ll see what I mean.
Tim Wise spoke to this briefly in his recent critique of progressives’ praise for Ron Paul. Treating this man with seriousness — for any of his positions and for any reason — has the effect of increasing the social notions of acceptability of more of Paul’s views than just anti-war or drug policy, whether (erstwhile) lefties like Glenn Greenwald want to acknowledge or accept it or not. So while Greenwald’s claim that the left should have frank discussions about foreign policy, government secrecy, and drug policy gets little dispute among lefties, his insistence that we center these discussions around the candidacy of Ron Paul is silly, duplicitous, and, in my opinion, dangerous. I’ve already discussed why I think it’s dangerous. It’s silly because we can obviously have these discussions without having to listen to the yammerings of Ron Paul to get food for thought. Greenwald’s insistence on focusing on Ron Paul is duplicitous because he’s smart enough to know why Ron Paul is repulsive to most of the left and that it’s difficult if not impossible for us to mentally isolate a narrow slice of the man’s views from his entire rancid value system. Obviously I can’t prove it, but there’s a chance Greenwald understands this, but the sensationalism he can generate by insisting that we seriously discuss Ron Fucking Paul — or face his maddening and unreasonable conclusion that our refusal necessarily indicates our unquestioning, mindless partisanship and “worship” of “Dear Leader” (seriously — what a transparently manipulative, irrational asshole this guy is) — yields a quite bountiful payoff for him. But why have none of the intellectuals on the left analyzed the net payoff (or benefit) the non-Greenwald Left can expect by discussing Paul’s candidacy? What we supposedly could gain from such a discussion — is it really worth the costs of the serious treatment Greenwald, Scheer, and Sirota seem to demand? Or is it just that nobody has framed this question in this way? What do you guys think?
I think you make some excellent points. And maybe it’s because he spends so much time in Brazil and hasn’t picked up on this, but hasn’t Greenwald noticed how many of Paul’s supporters REALLY want to have “a mature discussion about race” premised on the assumption that non-white people suck?
Anyway, I think it’s pretty funny how Paulbots insist on accusing supporters of the president of blindly following “dear leader” when we’ve all seen how they react to any criticism of their gray-headed messiah. Don’t even think about suggesting that Ayn Rand was a nasty, hypocritical old hack, either.
My favorite quote relative to Ayn Rand:
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
What I notice about Greenwald is that he’s safely out of the country, and when he is here, he’s in a media center. So he actually never has to get near any real-life Paul supporters, or face the actual consequences of what Paul stands for. For example, they’d like to do some serious beating on Glenn for being gay, and have courts that would say it was just fine. :roll:
hasn’t Greenwald noticed how many of Paul’s supporters REALLY want to have “a mature discussion about race” premised on the assumption that non-white people suck?
You’re assuming Greenwald disagrees with that.
Where about in South Louisiana?
I’m mostly familiar with everything along I-10 and south to the coast. Some communities are really nice; others are….menacing.
Oops! Used the wrong handle to reply to you, princss6. I’m such a dork.
I’d just like to take this opportunity to point out that Lowell’s Civil War monument features a winged Nike, her garment rippling in the breeze, holding aloft a laurel wreath, as if bestowing it on the brow of the downtown.
What I need a tee-shirt with a picture of William T. Sherman and the caption “Don’t MAKE me come down there!” Like you’d yell down the basement stairs when the kids are getting too loud.
thanks ABL. I really respect folks like you writing long explanations on why this racist is racist. but, his fanatics will just ignore all of it..
Not to mention each end of the space/time continuum.
State’s rights, my ass – let’s call the Ron Paul platform planks what they really are – racism, misogyny and homophobia. And I’ll be happy to preach that in front of rabid Ronulans, as well.
Don’t forget anti-Semitism. Ron Paul has all his bigotry bases covered.
I didnt even finish reading your article cause its obvious that you dont know your heritage .. We are not black or African .. we are MU’URS/MOORS. & know the declaration of independence or constitution did not apply to us cause we are SOVEREIGN .. it applied to the European slav/slave/peasant /indentured servant .. but if you do your research the European had to get permission from us mu’urs to write and/or change these documents .. & just to let you slavery was never abolished & is still in effect .. both “white” & “black” people are slaves dont be fooled by these Willie Lynch tactics.
And this is your hardcore Ron Paul supporter, progressives.
It occurs to me that Paul’s real beef with the Affordable Care Act could be his fear that under the act, his followers will get the medical care that they need, then ::poof:: goes his base.
Dear Abl,
Thanks, on a related note, FNC
Fox News Political Analyst Juan Williams
The 1992 presidential campaign boiled down to this memorable slogan from Bill Clinton’s camp: “It’s the economy, stupid!” The 2012 contest for the GOP presidential nomination is now being reduced to an intriguing variation: “It’s all about immigration, stupid!”
Texas Gov. Rick Perry touched the immigration hot button and lost support from Tea Party voters after saying conservatives opposed to in-state university tuition for illegal immigrants revealed a lack of compassion or “heart.”
This week, in a desperate attempt to show he is tough on illegal immigrants, Perry wrapped his arms around Joe Arpaio, the Arizona sheriff famed for his brass knuckle handling of illegal immigrants.
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney, who has been playing to the hard-right by promising make the southern U.S. border into a 21st century version of the Berlin Wall, went to Florida this week to claim the support of three prominent Cuban-Americans who disagree with his immigration policies but still support him as the best GOP nominee to take on President Obama.
And Newt Gingrich is pulling off a death-defying political strategy by holding on to first place in several polls despite calling for “a way” to make illegal immigrants into legal citizens. Gingrich’s proposal boils down to the “amnesty” so often dismissed as an invitation for more illegal immigrants to cross the U.S. border.
How did immigration come to be the defining issue in the stretch run of the campaign as the candidates pull within a month of the Iowa Caucuses?
The short answer is threefold:
First, no one has brilliant ideas to boost the economy which is slowly but surely showing signs of climbing back to a respectable rate of growth.
Second, conservative anger over the national health care law is in the dock while the issue sits before the Supreme Court.
And third, the immigration story is hot right now, a throbbing, controversial policy argument in key red states such as South Carolina, Texas and Alabama but also in Iowa, which has seen a sharp jump in its Hispanic population.
Now Gingrich has added a defiant, daring political strategy that is inflaming the immigration issue. Gingrich is calling for the GOP to get beyond the anger and embrace immigration reform.
Gingrich is adapting the same stand as America’s top businesses, the Chamber of Commerce, former President Bush, and the man who won the 2008 GOP nomination while opposing mass deportation – John McCain.
All the other GOP candidates – with the exception of Ron Paul – are mouthing the standard, hard line deport them all while building a big wall approach.
Gingrich’s challenge to the conservative grassroots of the party makes him the center of debate and raises his standing with the GOP establishment that had dismissed his candidacy.
“I’m prepared to take the heat for saying, let’s be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families.” The former House Speaker declared confidently during a recent debate.
And he then deftly put conservatives on the defensive by couching his position in terms of protecting the family, community and churches.
“If you’ve been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you’ve been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don’t think we’re going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out” he added.
The power of conservatives opposed to immigration reform has its limits and Gingrich is calling them out. It is important to remember that less than a year after the Bush plan fell apart the hardliners were unable to stop John McCain — the bill’s chief sponsor in Congress – from getting the 2008 GOP nomination.
Newt is betting that the forces opposed to comprehensive immigration reform do not have enough leverage to cost him the nomination either.
Moreover, Newt can now make the argument that if he is the Republican nominee, he will be in the best position to appeal to Hispanic voters. With the great and growing influence of Hispanic voters, this argument has real currency amongst Republican voters who want to strengthen the party for the 2012 general election campaign and beyond.
Earlier this year, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund projected that 12.2 Hispanic voters will be going to polls in 2012. That is 8.7 percent of the country’s total.
About 9.7 million Latinos voted in the 2008 election with Barack Obama winning their votes by a 2 to 1 margin.
Yet, there are some grassroots conservatives who are so angry over the issue that they seem to be oblivious to the long-term political consequences of their support for hard-line anti-immigration measures.
Keep up the posts!
If you are disgusted by Newt Gingrich’s open race-baiting, but turn a blind eye to Ron Paul’s racism and racist history, sorry, but you cannot call yourself a Progressive or a Liberal.
Even a stopped clock is right two moments a day. A rational argument can be made to reduce our military involvement overseas and end the War on Drugs- but then Paul keeps talking. Paul seems to essentially want to return America to some gauzy antebellum time, but with 21st-century technology. Personally I find what the Confederacy represents is treason and the evil of expanding slavery; the South quite openly defended slavery before and during the war. They only began pushing the “state’s rights” angle after they lost. Also, there’s more than enough material in the historical record to demonstrate that the slave-holding states weren’t merely trying to retain slavery, they wanted to expand it as far North and West as possible. To my eyes there’s little difference between what the Confederate battle banner and the Nazi German swastika represent: bigotry and evil writ large. Any politician speaking in front of either has permanently forfeited my vote.
Oh look, another retarded post about Ron Paul. Let’s forget his entire platform and the fact he’s the only one interested in clearing Washington of the corporatist influence of the Federal reserve, wanting to end the wars and occupations abroad. Let’s forget Obama doesn’t want to do either, and that he’s bought and paid for by Wall Street firms. Let’s forget that while Obama is quite content keeping non-violent drug offenders, most of which are black, in jail while Ron Paul would pardon all of them.
Let’s just focus on a piece of something he said that you’re taking to mean is racist. Who would have thought a blog named “angry black lady” would have a bias? This blog is bullshit.
Oh, look, another Paultard.
The truth hurts, doesn’t it? Paul’s a throwback to the segregationist 1950′s – at best – and someone doesn’t much like him being called on it.
Fuck you and fuck your whole misbegotten Libertarian belief system.
Better stay away from here, Inspector. We’re “bought and paid for” Obots, and like Obama, “quite content” to help him keep working on his obvious desire to strip YOU of your liberties! BOO!
Buy Ron Paul’s Survival Kit and all the other shit he wants to sell you! Now!!! Apocalyptic troubles are a-comin’ and all these here angry blacks and their friends are looking for reparations and authority to camp out at your house for as long as you have stuff in the fridge to raid!
If Ron Paul really wanted to end the wars abroad, why did he vote for the AUMF? Were his balls in his other pants that day?
blah blah blah, corporatist influence, blah blah, end wars abroad, blah blah, let black people out of jail, blah blah blah blah blah…
I don’t care how super peachy-keen all his other ideas are–and I’m not conceding they are, just that he can tart them up to look super peachy-keen-O-nifty–anybody who gives a speech before that flag is unfit for any public office in the U.S. Anybody who still thinks the Civil Rights Act was an unConstitutional affront to states’ rights is unfit for any office in the U.S.
Nope. His TARDIS broke.
And one more thing. Why won’t you guys talk about his racism? What about that? What about the newsletters? What about how he thinks the Civil Rights Act was unConstitutional and morally wrong? Can you answer us about that?
So, O.K. I understand that there are some positions he takes that you like. He wants to legalize or at least decriminalize drugs. Goody. He wants to get the U.S. out of the wars we’re winding down from. Great. He thinks too many non-violent people are in jail. So do I. But that isn’t good enough.
It isn’t good enough because his seeming concern for drug users and prisoners isn’t that he really cares about them; it’s that he doesn’t give a shit about them at all, and it would be cheaper for him on April 15 if we had fewer people in jail and fewer soldiers fighting in Asia.
Once those non-violent prisoners get out of jail, and once the soldiers get back home, then they’re on their own. They can go freeze to death on a sidewalk somewhere for all Paul cares, and if they were too fucked up by what they’d been through to get by, then fuck them.
That isn’t “liberal”. It isn’t even human.
And what’s worse, he takes issues that I think are worth working on and fucks them up for everybody. I think we need a new drug policy. I don’t know what we should be doing, but I can see that what we’ve done for 40 years hasn’t helped, and has most likely made things worse. And I think we need to get out of Afghanistan. We can’t do any more good over there, and it’s getting soldiers killed. We need to end it, sooner than later.
But when a shrivelled little homunculus like Ron Paul begins blathering about drugs and the war, before launching into some incoherent tirade about the Federal Reserve, then it takes these questions, which are reasonable ones that we should be taking seriously, and it turns them into fucked up, whacked out fringe positions. If you really cared about your issues, you’d find somebody who isn’t a paranoid racist.
That was meant in answer to Inspector Fu, though it seems to have slipped down a bit…
I’m'll just go on ahead and preface my remarks with an admission; I’m a white racist. I’ve long realized that HUMANS are racist. Both inherently and as a direct result of their experience/observations. Quite a few live in denial about it. I choose not to. Y’all are all racists up on here. Whether you hold a higher or a lower standard of behavior/accomplishments for different races, whether you’re on high-alert for spotting racism in another race or breezily glossing over instances of it among your own, you’re a racist. You just enjoy your delusions.
I’m also a proud “Ronulan.” BUT…I wouldn’t vote for Ron Paul if he actually voted in favor of violating the rights of anyone. He doesn’t, he hasn’t, he won’t. My racism doesn’t dictate that I’d like to see anyone held down or violated. However, I believe in a thing called “equality.” Y’know, the real kind. Special conditions and leveled playing fields are not equality. How is this not apparent? Do you feel gratified if you’re given a spot, thanks to Affirmative Action, that you’re less qualified for than someone else vying for it? Really and truly? Does that make you feel equal, deep in your little heart of hearts? Here’s a new and challenging concept…not…what if women and minorities built their own businesses/schools/organizations/movies/television/etc. a whole lot more often, instead of continuously whinging about the evil white men not giving them a share of the pie? I’m a woman. I don’t like a whole lot of male-centric stuff I see around me, and all the lingering ways men have defined society. But, I know that in a modern world, it damn well IS within my grasp to make my own way…if I’m as driven and determined and RISK-TAKING as all those men I whinge about. Great success stories are not about people who got a smooth path legislated for them…they’re about people who overcame, who sustained enough belief in themselves to keep on trucking through all the obstacles. And we have a hell of a lot fewer obstacles than we did in the past.
Is Ron Paul’s possible racism really the issue? Was Obama’s? Think all we white folk forgot about Obama’s membership in the church of Whitey is Evil? As long as Obama doesn’t VOTE from his racism, I don’t care. I didn’t vote for him because he doesn’t share my views…not because he’d been a member of that damn church. A person’s record is what counts, not their feelings.
To the people on here making childish, hateful references to The Paul’s appearance; do you enjoy it when Republicans call Obama shit like a “purple-lipped baboon”? I don’t…and I’m an admitted racist.
“special connditions”, huh? Like the “special conditions” you’ve been given just by having been born white? I’m a white guy, and I know–I know–I’ve been given all kinds of “special conditions” all my life just by having been born white. And your whining about “levelled playing fields” is telling, too. If you’re anything like me, you’ve been lucky precisely because the “playing field” is non level. If you’re the kind of person who would vote for Ron Paul, though, I can understand why you’d be dead set against evening up those ol’ playing fields; after all, slanted playing fields have been pretty good for us white folk for a good long while. Why mess up a good thing, eh? Asshole.
And just by the by, I have nothing against Jeremiah Wright’s sermons. The U.S. has a truly shitty record when it comes to dealing with African Americans, so I don’t begrudge him or anybody else feeling a little pissed off at the U.S. When I look at the last 3 years in this country, I’m ready to climb aboard the Hate Whitey Train myself, and I’m as pasty as they come.
Oh, and one last thing: Fuck off.
I can’t edit anything today; nor could I last night. Anybody else having the same trouble?
I was trying to edit “the “playing field” is non level” to read “the “playing field” is not level.” ‘Cause I don’t speak French, after all…
Editing does appear to be malfunctioning.
And “Mel” appears to be highly feculent.
Mel:
Yes, you are definitely racist. Obviously. With neon lights flashing around you. FEH! And you’re not worth engaging. So why don’t you run along and spend your time defending your racist RonPaul views elsewhere?
Anyone who supports this cannot claim to be a liberal, or a progressive, or a Democrat:
Who Is Ron Paul?
In His Own Words…
[VIDEO] Ron Paul promises “big cuts” in new ad:
“Paul has vowed to cut $1 trillion from the budget in the first year if he were elected president by ending the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Interior.
The Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration and Department of Defense would also see deep cuts under his budget plan.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/05/ron-paul-promises-big-cuts-in-new-ad/
[VIDEO] Ron Paul: End Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid:
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/04/ron-paul-end-medicare-social-security-and-medicaid/
[VIDEO] Ron Paul Calls For Federal Public Lands To Be ‘Sold Off To Private Owners’:
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/10/21/349536/ron-paul-public-lands/
[VIDEO] Ron Paul plans to ‘eventually’ end all federal student aid:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/10/23/ron-paul-plans-to-eventually-end-all-federal-student-aid/
[VIDEO] Ron Paul Rejects Evolution:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/08/ron_paul_rejects_evolution_too.php#more
[VIDEO] Ron Paul’s powerful pro-life ad:
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/14/video-ron-pauls-powerful-pro-life-reminder/
Ron Paul: No Church/State Separation:
http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/08/06/authoritarian-or-libertarian-ron-paul-on-churchstate-separation-secularism.htm
[VIDEO] Ron Paul in a nutshell:
“ThinkProgress compiled video of just a few of Paul’s many claims that basic laws and essential programs violate the Constitution. A short list includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Reserve, income taxes, and even the dollar bill.”
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/12/20/392728/paul-everything-is-unconstitutional/
[VIDEO] CNN: Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletter – Paul Walks on CNN Interview
“Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-TX) emergence as the front-runner in the Iowa GOP primary is bringing new scrutiny on Paul’s newsletters from the 1980s and 1990s. The newsletters, published under his name, included content claiming that African-Americans are trying to give white people HIV, suggested that Washington, DC is “anti-white and proud of it,” provided instructions on how to murder African-Americans, and warned of “malicious gay(s)” who spread HIV.”
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/12/22/394625/ron-paul-storms-interview-racist/
5 Reasons Progressives Should Treat Ron Paul with Extreme Caution — ‘Cuddly’ Libertarian Has Some Very Dark Politics
“He’s anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-senior-citizen, anti-equality and anti-education, and that’s just the start.”
http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/152192/5_reasons_progressives_should_treat_ron_paul_with_extreme_caution_–_%27cuddly%27_libertarian_has_some_very_dark_politics?page=entire
Ron Paul [Election 201] Hires Christian Right Political Activist with American Family Association for Church Outreach:
[Quote] Paul has brought several Christian conservatives onto his campaign in an ambitious effort to reach believers for his cause. Michael Heath, the campaign’s Iowa director, previously worked for a New England-based group called the Christian Civic League of Maine that fought against adding sexual orientation to the state’s Human Rights Act.
The national campaign has tasked Heath with leading church outreach in Iowa, where for months he has met with pastors and Christian congregations. “That’s the biggest part of what I’m doing as state director,” Heath told Yahoo News after a day of knocking on church doors with campaign literature. “Going to churches with a message in support of Dr. Paul’s campaign that is very much faith-based and is also rooted in his commitment to a constitutionally defined limited federal government.” [Unquote]
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/mike-heath-resurfaces-ron-paul-iowa
Paul Rosenberg: Exposing Religious Fundamentalism in the US [Ron Paul included]
http://spencerwatch.com/2011/09/07/paul-rosenberg-exposing-religious-fundamentalism-in-the-us/
Saint Paul: Inside Ron Paul’s effort to convince conservative Christians that he’s their man [Paul tells Yahoo his policy ideas are rooted in scripture – see former Paul staffer Gary North’s “10,000 page exposition on Biblical Capitalism”]
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/saint-paul-inside-ron-paul-effort-convince-christian-150637605.html
Gary North’s “Biblical Capitalism” [Christian Reconstruction]
http://www.garynorth.com/public/department57.cfm
Rachel Tabachnick on Gary North, Christian Reconstruction, and the Religious Right’s War on Progressive Economic Policy
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/2/1/132159/0192
Like Father Like Son, Rand Paul Opposes Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rand-paul-address-ralph-reeds-religious-right-conference
Ron Paul: Stealth Dominionist:
http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/2011/09/exposing-religious-fundamentalism-in-the-us.html
Random Book Blogging: Gary North, AIDS, Ron Paul, and Christian Reconstructionism
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/random-book-blogging-gary-north-aids-ron-paul-and-christian-reconstructionism
Ron Paul photo with White Supremacist ‘Stormfront’ Leader (particularly see the embedded Orcinus link):
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/21/425193/-Ron-Paul-in-photo-with-Stormfront-leader,-son
Dominionists discuss infiltrating #OCCUPYWALLSTREET:
http://www.articlesbase.com/news-and-society-articles/is-gop-stance-on-the-occupy-wall-street-movement-a-mistake-5317528.html
Ron Paul’s brand of tea party is exactly the same as the fundamental Christian right’s brand of tea party (look up “Gary North: Biblical Capitalism”). Paul simply dresses his ideology in secular terms for Republican dupes. In short, he’s a libertarian theocrat, oxymoronic as that sounds (look up “theocratic libertarianism” as well while you’re at it).
See: http://www.theocracywatch.org for background on Christian Reconstruction.
Don’t Denounce the Founders Over Slavery
Ignorance, Stupidity or Manipulation, by Walter Williams
http://lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams87.1.html
I want to understand this so much…I could never pretend to understand how this would hurt or anger you. I know this is so long, but so important because this is what my husband and I have vowed to teach our children. I fear that you are offended and angered over his views based on a summation of a very complex context. This was similar to how white religious mid-westerners took Obama’s “Guns and Religion” statements. I argued and argued for these people to understand that Obama’s words were taken totally out of context. I argued this out of my own belief and knowledge of Obama’s principles and the government’s failure to help struggling people. I don’t want to argue or insult anyone’s beliefs, intelligence, pain or rightful anger. I have no place to try to understand the struggles, challenges, and victories for human rights that the African American community has overcome. It is a fact that Ron Paul does not believe in repressing any person. He believes that EVERYONE should be viewed as and given the chance to make his way in life without the constraints of being labeled by the color of their skin or as a collective group, ie., African American’s, Latin American’s, Jews, Native American’s, etc. He believes in valuing an individual’s achievement, success and will to create a better life for his children and community. For instance, I would be very insulted by a government that treats the African American community as a collective group of men and women who don’t have enough intellectualism or motivation or ability to achieve what the stereotyped white person is able to achieve. If we put together 100 black scholars and 100 white scholars and administered an IQ test, or the LSAT, or college entrance exams, or a community project, or mission outreach; I believe that ALL of these people would be equal. Is there any doubt in this? Yes, if we take a group of people such as “white hillbilly’s from Apalachia”, or “hispanic gang members in LA”, and they don’t have the world of opportunity that millions of American’s have been able to achieve because they were born with a silver spoon in their mouth….is it better to say that this group can’t succeed, or this group needs the government in order to make their way through life? Or, do we give all children, black or white, the blessing of “You don’t need a government to set you to this side or that, to say that we need to watch out for you because we don’t think that you can succeed.”? Ron Paul ONLY views issues within the context of the constitution. He doesn’t believe that our children should be sent to a war that has no chance of improving the United States has a collective whole. He truly believes that peace, communication, will of the people and truth will solve America’s problems. Will war w/ Iran or Russia or China improve America as a whole? N0. Would we have achieved freedom and civil rights for African American’s through community outreach, the church, the thinker’s and debaters and political work? Probably so. Ron Paul BELIEVES so. He doesn’t say that he thinks that blacks should have remained slaves. He believes that we had founding fathers who inspired by God and the 10 commandments, and by calling on God and basing our decisions on the constitution. I don’t believe that the constitution was written to discriminate against the color of a persons skin…it was for liberty for all (I’m not sure if anyone questions this, I might be under a different understanding, but please let me know if so.). Paul believes that it’s the communities’ place, the churches’ place, the organizers’ place to ensure this liberty. Ron Paul has donated hundreds of thousands to millions of his districts’ tax payer money to the Souther Baptist Church in TX, to Baptist community outreach, to literacy programs….for all of God’s people. He didn’t do this for the “blacks” or “whites” as a group…he did it for the individual. Paul has voted NO on every single bill that didn’t match up to the constitution. He’s the only politician who has. So his framework as a Constitutionalist is that it must be upheld as the founding father’s intended. Nearly every founding father was killed for their beliefs. Heck, look at what the British did? Yes, we did win our freedom through the war in order to defend the constitution. But after gaining our independence from the King, the good people in this country, not the racists, slave owners and other ignorant bastards continued to fight for the constitution. So passing bills and amendments weren’t within the founders intentions. The thing that sucks is that the founders’ intentions weren’t intended to allow freedom for just some; we happen to have some fat ignorant, greedy bastards who couldn’t care about anyone but themselves, piss on the constitution and EVERYONE’S rights. Paul believes that EVERYONE should have had the right, apart from a group of labeled people’s rights. Some say that Paul’s beliefs are to “idealistic”. They may be, but he knows that it was God’s intentions. He sincerely does believe that EVERYONE should be treated equally. Should the Jew’s be treated differently because our government wants to go to war against Iran? Paul does not believe that we should pressure the U.S., or go to war for Israel because it’s not constitutional, it’s taking away their right as a sovereign people. He believes that we can best help the jews through communicating with Iran, even though they’re evil and nuts. So for Paul the constitution is the ONLY document to live by which will bring us peace and community. Sending our children to die to protect the Jewish people of Israel is a misuse of America’s standard and prosperity. The money could help people like me, struggling to manage my own mental illness (bipolar), my children’s education (he’s autistic), the communities that need billion’s much more than Israel needs our wealth. All of us American’s could have had our mortgage’s paid for, or affordable & safe/clean housing at least; just for the amount of money that has gone off to war. Reagan won the cold war without a shot fired. This is what Ron Paul basis his belief on. Listen in whole to his speeches and you will see. See we can see everything in the wrong context. Million’s of midwest Christian’s were outraged over Obama’s “guns and religion” speech. But I fought that notion with several editorials that explained that Obama truly did care about these people. These people were let down, ignored by govt., hopeless, so much so that they rightfully so cling to their guns and religion. I helped these ticked off people to see the entire context. Coming from a very depressed part of North Idaho (which has a horrible rep for racism- however I never met one person in my 8 years who was a racist, instead very libertarian, kind, love for every race, even the polygamists!), we witnessed Ruby Ridge (the crazy “Zionist” that clung to his money and distorted religion) destroy a family and breed distrust for the government. I entered arguments on the side of Obama, because I know that he wasn’t being racist or judgmental. Unfortunately he is misguided in thinking that the government can solve such problems. Paul preaches that we can’t give away our sovereignty as a nation to intervene in a war that can never be won. We can’t force people to be nice or good or fair. Through community and following Christ we can do the right thing in win our own battles. Here is the most important words that Paul uses to premise his belief, that of which rightfully so the African American community might see as racist…but trust me, I know ROn Paul and he is not racist. I’ll leave you with this….and PLEASE don’t believe the racist idiots that contributed to Paul’s old websites…much of this came from a crazy newspaper and white seperatist writers who were not invited to speak on behalf of Ron Paul. They’re idiots! I’ve read the newspaper where they breed their lies and true white trash nazi mind-set. Like I and many who take Obama’s words within the knowledge of correct and caring context, re-read the actual words of Ron Paul…and then please point out to me where I’m wrong or what I’m missing, or if you have questions about what the hell I’m saying. Paul is not racist. He loves all God’s children. If you had the chance to speak with the black church members that Paul has spent so much time with, you’d understand that he wants nothing but the best for every race and religion and belief. He just doesn’t believe we can make people do what they don’t want to do (regulate abortion, drugs or same sex marriage. It only divides, and until we have “a change in our respect for all of humanity”, nothing in our society will change…..that is the job of the people. I wanted to leave you with, and I also want to post a few other things that Paul’s African American supporters believe.