A Final Point about the accusation of “racism” towards Ron Paul and libertarians.

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

124 posts / 0 new

I want to make a few points about the accusation of racism that gets thrown at Ron Paul, and to libertarians who make the case for individual rights, property rights, the Constitution and allowing the States to have more authority over the governing of their citizens. This is not going to be primarily about the newsletters that were printed in Ron Paul’s name in the early 90s. That issue has been rehashed and thoroughly debunked. However, I will make a few comments because I know that will come up.

First, I want to refer you to: http://www.scribd.com/doc/76280303/PaulNewslettersFaq-Tunk

This is the Ron Paul “Newsletters” Question FAQ that is rather detailed and thoroughly debunks any suggestion that Ron Paul is a bigot of any kind whatsoever.

Since I doubt many of you will read it, I will select a few passages that merit a glance.

The introduction contains this paragraph: “For 3 decades, several newsletters ran under Paul’s name containing fairly conventional right-wing commentary for the time. Paul personally distanced himself from production and various ghostwriters came and went for a brief period, lasting from about 1990-94, a relatively small number of newsletters were released sporadically which contained racially hateful and homophobic remarks. This occurred during a time when Paul had relinquished responsibility for the newsletters operation, retired from Congress and an exhausting Presidential campaign, and consigned himself to working full-time as a medical doctor and public speaker, in addition to raising five children. A few objectionable issues managed to leak out under his nose, quite understandably. Paul did not then and does not now possess superhuman powers. The racist comments fly in the face of everything that Paul has ever written and said, as many people who know him personally have attested, and he was angry when he learned of them. He didn’t issue a full denial in 1996 when it was first brought up only on the (in retrospect quite bad) advice of his campaign staff. He has in the recent past addressed the issue several times publically, explicitly denying authorship, and there is every reason to believe it and move on.”

As a follow up to those who exclaim “but he didn’t deny it in 1996!”, here is a quote from Ron Paul who addressed the issue,

“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.”

“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.’”

Many of his critics have charged that by taking “moral responsibility” he was admitting that he wrote the material and he agreed with those sentiments. On the contrary, those statements from the newsletters came up suddenly in the heat of a campaign in which then-speaker Newt Gingrich and the entire Republican establishment was working to prevent him from winning. Paul never even saw these quotes before they were dug up by his opponents and rather than let this issue dominate the campaign, he was advised to take moral responsibility and move on. It was hardly possible for him to give a detailed and exhaustive explanation of how his newsletters were written and published in the middle of a heated campaign. It is instructive to note that his constituency in his district did not accept for a minute the possibility that Paul was a secret racist, and he beat the establishment handily, although they tried every smear attempt they could come up with.

Now when media figures and Paul’s opponents bring up the subject of these newsletters, they invariably lie and fabricate a fictional account of these newsletters. They might say Paul greatly profited from “decades” of hateful, bigoted, conspiracy mongering propaganda. They always refer to his newsletters as the “racist” newsletters, as if he was publishing the KKK report, or there was hardly any content that was not offensive.

There is nothing about that account that resembles reality.

“It is true that the newsletters were published monthly under different names and date back some decades – the Ron Paul Freedom Report to at least 1978, the Ron Paul Investment Letter and Survival Report to 1985, and the Ron Paul Political Report to 1987. However, as Jamie Kirchick of The New Republic himself partly acknowledged and others have affirmed, the “incendiary” items appear only from about 1989 to 1994. Chronologically, this coincides with the period from 1985 to 1996, when Ron Paul was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, and follows his bid for President of the Libertarian ticket in 1988.

Based on what Kirchick has chosen to make public, I myself count only about 7 newsletters that say anything that could be construed as racially hateful or anti-gay, published intermittently across the period from March 1990 to September 1994. Assuming they were published monthly, this constitutes about 16% of the 43 issues released during that time. Moreover, assuming three decades of publishing (making for at least 360 newsletter in total, since at times there was more than one newsletter published simultaneously), the offensive newsletters would have comprised at most about 2% of all the newsletters that were ever published. Decades of racist propaganda? Hardly.

Interestingly, it was Kirchick who claimed in his original TNR piece that Paul’s denial of authorship “might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically”. Hey Jamie, guess what? They did. By Kirchick’s own standard, Paul is exonerated.”

Not only that, but there is absolutely zero evidence that Paul oversaw the publication of anything even remotely racist or offensive. If one would actually do any substantial research, they would find that this story is absolutely inconsequential and irrelevant and furthermore dangerously distracting from the grave and significant issues that Paul is trying to bring attention to. Here is the truth of Ron Paul’s involvement with these newsletters:

“It should be noted that very few of the articles are actually attributed to anyone. None of the newsletters CNN found made authorship clear. Kirchick himself wrote that ‘with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself.’ According to The Economist, ‘It is impossible now to prove individual authorship of any particular item.” Many have also pointed out that the breezy, hip, slang-littered journalese of the newsletters doesn’t resemble Paul’s style, the more dry, inoffensive, and straightforward prose exhibited in numerous published works.

Yet there are some clues as to Ron Paul’s role. We’ve established that the articles in question were written sporadically across a 4-year period from 1990-94. Yet only a newsletter from April 1978 containing a rant about the Trilateral Commission contains Paul’s signature. And according to Kirchick, only the masthead of the March 1987 Investment Letter lists ‘the Hon. Ron Paul as ‘Editor and Publisher’. The Ron Paul Investment Letter of 1988 acknowledges Paul as editor in a footer. Yet, the next month, all direct mention of him is erased and Lew Rockwell is touted as editor. The only available Political Report that contains a similar footer is the one from March 1990, which doesn’t even mention an editor at all. As far as I can tell, the available Survival and Freedom Reports also possess no such citations. That appears to be it. None of the offending newsletters claim Ron Paul as involved in publication.

Can we be sure Paul never edited the newsletter again? No, and since Kirchick did not choose to make everything he found available, confirmation is impossible. But this does show that there is no available evidence that Paul oversaw the publication of anything ‘racist’.

Furthermore, according the FreeMarketNews.com, the headquarters of the operation ‘were 60 miles away’ from Ron Paul’s personal Texas offices’. Paul was ‘a busy man […] often not around to oversee the layout, printing or mailing. Many times he did not participate in the composition, either.’ Writes Dondero,

From what I witnessed in my 12 years working for Ron, I’d say maybe 40% came from him in the way of scribbles (and I literally do mean scribbles) on a yellow pad, that was then faxed to his office staff in South Houston for editing and publication.

I’d estimate that the rest – 50 to 60% was written by Lew. But when I say Lew I also mean his staff of Interns […].

Other sources have claimed that the “publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors would write a ‘Ron Paul’ column. According to Lew Rockwell there were, at any given time, ‘seven or eight freelancers involved’. As Paul himself said in his exchange with Wolf Blitzer, ‘People came and went. And there were people who were hired. I don’t know any of their names.’ This wouldn’t be new for the Paul campaign: ‘Much of Ron Paul’s support comes independent of him or his official organization. For example, Dr. Paul was not personally responsible for the 2008 Ron Paul Blimp, the Tea Party ’07, or the various ‘money bombs’ that catapulted him to stardom.’

When confronted with the facts, that out of hundreds of published newsletters, only seven contain offensive language and Paul was demonstrably unaware of their content at the time, does this merit the time that is being invested in this topic? If you are even remotely intellectually honest, you must concede that a few ghostwritten letters that are twenty years old should not be the metric by which we evaluate the candidacy of Ron Paul in 2012. Another important excerpt on the charge that all this proves that Paul is incompetent and therefore unsuited for the presidency,

“Anyone taking this view has given up any claim on being interested in the truth, rather than in scoring cheap political points against a candidate they don’t like and bullying his fans. Harris puts it well:

‘When these issues were published, Paul was a full-time medical doctor and a busy family man, as well as an in-demand speaker and a student of politics and current events – in short, a man with tremendous demands on his time and energy. He had recently ended an exhaustive presidential race, returned to private practice, and was not in Congress or involved in electoral politics. He had given up control of his newsletter business: he kept only a minority share in the newsletter that bore his name. He made an ill-advised decision to turn the newsletter over to others, to let others write it and edit it and publish unsigned articles in this newsletter with his name in the title. He apparently failed to closely monitor it. That turned out to be a ghastly error.’

This is the blatant fallacy that lies behind the statement, ‘If Ron Paul can’t even run an 8-page newsletter, how can we expect him to run an entire country?’ Ron Paul wasn’t ‘running’ that newsletter. In fact, he had long since relinquished responsibility for it. Over the course of several years, during which dozens of different newsletters were released, a few objectionable issues managed to slip under his nose while he was delivering babies professionally, speaking publically, and tending to five children. Are we to denounce him for not having superhuman powers?’

I want to clear up one important point here. I would suspect that exactly none of you have actually tracked down any of these newsletters and read one of them in its entirety. Well, neither have any of the mainstream media outlets that have parroted this story. All they did was plagiarize the already poorly researched smear attempt by Jamie Kirchick in the New Republic. Nobody bothered to do any research on their own. They just took five of the most offensive quotes and repeated them ad-nauseum. But what of Kirchick himself? Was he an objective journalist or did he have an agenda? In fact, most of the newsletters had no byline and therefore there was no way to say for sure who wrote them. However, the vast majority of the offensive material came from a special edition of the Survival Report that came out shortly after the Rodney King beating and the LA Riots. This was where most of the offensive quotes that the media has put forward came from.

New information has come to light that this edition actually DID feature a by-line, making it possible to identify the ghost writer. New information has come to light that Kirchick hid that by-line in order to suggest that Ron Paul wrote that material. Does that sound like an honest journalist? And this is the man that numerous outlets with an anti-Paul agenda are mindlessly following without any independent reporting. As further evidence of Kirchick’s dubious credibility, it is a fact that in reality he doesn’t believe that Ron Paul is a hatemonger. A few weeks before The New Republic piece was published, he emailed Beirn Szoka of Gays and Lesbians for Ron Paul, writing: “I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supports of political candidates riled up.”

Are you starting to understand what type of person Jamie Kirchick is? Obviously he is a man with no integrity and an agenda to sow discord and create controversy. And let me remind you that 90% of the media stories we have heard about these newsletters were lifted directly from the story he published.

With that being said, here is a story done by a real journalist that should put this story to bed for good. Ben Swann is a real reporter who has taken the time to thoroughly expose this story. He sat down and went through every single one of these newsletters. He even identified the real author of the most controversial issue, the “Special Report” of the Ron Paul Survival Report following the LA Riots.

To be brief, the author’s name is James B. Powell. Kirchick knew this when he published his article in 2007, but withheld that information. This bit of information basically exonerates Paul from any authorship of the most offensive passages.

Here are the videos where Ben Swann exposes this story and exonerates Paul. Please watch both of these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVZgGoHr8wU&feature=youtu.be

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVO9JUx76oA&feature=related

If, after reading all the passages I placed in this thread and after watching these two videos, you STILL believe that Ron Paul is a racist, it might be suggested with some confidence that you are not a rational individual and are instead a hopeless partisan looking for anything to hurt Ron Paul’s candidacy because, let’s face it, you don’t have much else to attack him on. These trumped up charges of racism have been like a godsend to Paul’s enemies because they can create a narrative that distracts from the very persuasive issues that Paul is putting forward, like the need to curtail the Federal Reserve, cut back on the American Empire and military budget, and follow the Constitution. There is not much of a case to be made against Paul’s basic platform of individual liberty and Constitutional government, so distractions are needed. The racism charge is convenient for this purpose.

I will put forward a few more quotes that are instructive to see exactly what kind of man Ron Paul really is. Those who know him would attest to the fact that there is not a racist bone in his body.

In the FAQ I posted above, the author addresses a ludicrous claim: Ron Paul is still a racist, he’s just hiding it!

“People who have known and worked with Paul personally, including the editorial staff of the New York Sun, Stewart Rhodes, a Hispanic former congressional staffer for Paul, former Paul aide Eric Dondero, and Nelson Linder, President of the Austin NAACP, have publically dismissed the notion that he is a bigot. In 1993, while the most hysterical of the newsletters were being disseminated, openly-gay libertarian Rick Sincere was running for the Virginia General Assembly and found Paul readily at his side:

‘[…] Ron Paul issued a letter on my behalf, soliciting funds from libertarians and votes from constituents. […] Dr Paul (then a former Congressman) was aware I was running as an openly-gay candidate and he raised no questions, concerns, or objections. I hardly think a homophobic bigot would have sent out a fundraising letter over his own signature, endorsing (as the Washington Times stylebook would have it) an “avowed homosexual” for public office.’

Paul has vehemently denounced racism numerous times in print. In 2007, Paul praised Muhammad Ali as “a man of great courage […] who practiced what Martin Luther King made popular” and contributed to ending the draft. He voted “yea” in 1997 to honoring the lifetime achievements of Jackie Robinson, “yea” in 2000 to demanding that the Department of Agriculture “expedite the settlement process for discrimination […] brought by African-American farmers”, “yea” in 2001 to commemorating African American pioneers in Colorado, and “yea” in 2007 in recognizing the African American spiritual as a national treasure. A Freedom Report from 1978 actually ran with the header: “The absence of force and toleration of others is the key to peace and prosperity.”

If that does not convince you, perhaps this excerpt from the conclusion of the FAQ will,

“In the end, it appears to be in Paul’s nature that he prefers to focus on principles and is loath to be caught up in personal battles. As Francis observes,

‘People of a wide variety of backgrounds support [Paul] because people of a wide variety of backgrounds support liberty and have a fundamental distrust of excessive government power.

During my time in his office, as now in the grassroots movement, there were fundamentalist Christians (and I mean really fundamental), working right next to proud and opinionated atheists. There were Buddhists, anarcho-capitalists, Big L Libertarians, objectivists, old school “Reagan” conservatives, and people of all manner of ethnic background, all working side-by-side. I have even seen gay people in those circles. They did not agree on many things, or even like each other, to be blunt, but whatever their personal background or orientation, they all saw value in working for a strict constitutionalist and a man of deep principle and courage.’”

Anyone who knows anything about the Ron Paul movement knows that he has the broadest support base, encompassing all ethnic backgrounds, all sexual orientations and all religions. In fact, it would not be an overstatement to suggest that the diversity of his supporters is greater than any prominent political figure in decades.

I will not go any further in discussing the newsletters. If the above information and the links I posted (especially the Ben Swann “Reality Report” episodes) does not put this issue to bed, nothing will. I wanted to get that out of the way so this thread will not be littered with regurgitated talking points you got from Lawrence O’Donnell or Ed Schultz or someone like that accusing Ron Paul of being a racist or ascribing dubious motives towards him or his movement.

Rather, the thrust of my argument is something rather more important than defending a single man against charges of racism. I anticipate what some of you might be thinking. You might suggest “perhaps Ron Paul is not a racist, but some of his policies are racist. He talks about States Rights, and nullification and he has objections to certain parts of the Civil Rights Act, and he opposed the Civil War and criticizes Lincoln. Not only that, he does not support Affirmative Action and certain progressive policies designed to help minorities.” That is what I want to talk about. There is a myth within some leftist circles that suggests that libertarian policies will only help the rich, white people and will hurt the poor and minorities. There is an indignation that many take and a condescending posture that somehow those who believe in the Constitution and limited government are “regressive” or “reactionaries” because we don’t accept the notion that centralized government is the great engine of progress. Both Ron Paul and myself oppose the notion that wise politicians are going to craft legislation that will bring great progress to our nation.

Much of this nonsense is the product of public school propaganda and miseducation that unfortunately has run rampant in our society. I especially resent that the term “progressive” is used to define modern day leftists. The implication, of course, is that any who oppose a “progressive” agenda are merely reactionary Neanderthals.

Semantics can be highly manipulative. But let me remove the distortion and elucidate the reality more clearly. My ideology is the most progressive that has ever been devised. Ron Paul and myself are members of the true Progressive tradition. Individuals like Woodrow Wilson and FDR and especially the modern day political establishment have repackaged extremely “regressive” and long debunked economic fallacies as something new and modern. The course that has been laid out during the last century has put us on a course to economic ruin with a tremendous reduction in human liberty.

To make this clear, it is not really correct to call me or Ron Paul “libertarians”. Although that is the modern term, it can be misleading and it is not very accurate or precise.

The ideology I and Dr. Paul espouse is correctly termed “liberalism”. That means we are liberals, in the classical sense. This is the progressive ideology that emerged from the great thinkers and philosophers of the late Enlightenment period. The ideas and precepts devised by brilliant men like John Locke greatly influenced the founding of our Republic. This ideology was the most progressive and radical in all of human history. The early progressives (in contrast to modern “regressives”) had the vision that they would put forward a system of society based on Natural Rights, inalienable and based on human liberty. During that time, and to some extent today, unfortunately, the world was ruled by totalitarian governments that were continually oppressing the people.

The idea behind Liberalism is to free the people from the chains of oppressive, coercive State force. Furthermore, in an economic sense, liberalism sought to unleash the creative potential of free people to work towards mutual ends in a free economy. In fact it was during this time that the school of thought known as “economics” came into being. To this end, Adam Smith basically invented modern economics with his brilliant works, especially “The Wealth of Nations”. It is upon this foundation that the Austrian economists were able to build and expand on the science of economics.

Liberalism, according to Wikipedia, “is the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.” It was also very much concerned with properly defining the role of government and defining liberty. Government was seen as a tool that could only be properly used to defend individual liberty and protect people from harm.

Now, many modern day leftists might concede that these Enlightenment era thinkers were indeed quite smart, but that they lived a long time ago and their ideas no longer apply. What baffles me is the fact that in dismissing these men and their ideas, what you are essentially saying is that people like John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and others who were among the most brilliant philosophers in all of history are essentially ignoramuses compared to the infinite wisdom to be attained by listening to people like Paul Krugman and Barack Obama.

The liberal tradition has indeed caused the creation of the greatest wealth and the most rapid rise in living standards in the history of the world. The rise in the standard of living that has lifted so many people out of poverty the world over can be almost exclusively attributed to the embrace of the liberal tradition. Yet almost no credit is afforded to the market economy.

Governments have a compulsive need to remind you of just how hopeless you would be without it. And I don’t mean without government entirely. Whenever government expands, creates new programs and departments, a mythology is created about how essential each new function is and how lost we would all be without it.

Since that is undeniably the case, a great fiction has been placed forward that almost completely discounts any success of any policy prior to the Progressive Era of the early 20th century. No, the ideology and economic policy that caused the creation of the freest and most prosperous society in the history of the world is not praised in the least. In fact, many modern day progressives cannot acknowledge anything positive in American political history prior to the creation of Social Security.

In my view, the last 80 years have been characterized by the breakdown of the monetary system and the debasement of our currency, the erosion of our productive capacity and outsourcing of jobs, the destruction of the middle class, and the accumulation of more than fifteen trillion dollars in debt and unfunded liabilities that amount to greater than one hundred trillion dollars, or more than twice the GDP of the entire planet.

Needless to say, human liberty has been sacrificed to a great extent as well. Now, you might make the objection that during a number of these years we didn’t have policies that you would describe as “progressive” so your ideology cannot be blamed. Perhaps by your definition, but the policies have, without fail, been the promotion of big government, runaway deficits, endless war, and the endless printing of money from the Federal Reserve.

Progressive Woodrow Wilson established the Federal Reserve in secret and instituted the IRS. Not only that, but he called for an interventionist foreign policy that would “make the world safe for democracy”. From that he got us involved in World War I, the most needless and preventable war in US history. Not only did he involve us but the justification was the sinking of the Lusitania, which was a false flag event caused by our own government.

Progressive FDR, for any good he might have done, effectively ended the Gold Standard by confiscating all the gold held by US citizens. His policies greatly lengthened the duration of the Great Depression. Not only that, but it was during this time that our government embraced the policies of Keynesian Economics. The “lessons” (mis)learned from the Great Depression have put us on an unavoidable course that has resulted in the destruction of our currency and the impoverishing of our people.

The end result might not have occurred during the presidency of your Progressive heroes, but the end game was set in stone based on the embrace of highly destructive central banking and deficit financing.

We were living off of the prosperity that the Liberal tradition had granted to us due to the Industrial Revolution and the rising living standards that it had provided. The market economy had alleviated poverty to a great extent in this country.

Yet, when anyone extols the virtues of the gold standard or any type of economic system similar to anything proceeding the 1930s, modern progressives gasp and recount horror stories of people working in mines, slaving away for hardly any money, children working and old people dying in the streets without medical care. They might ask “you mean you would rather live in 1890 than in 2012?”

This question is invariably raised and is asked with a straight face, the questioner not realizing the patent absurdity of the question. Of course no one would rather live in 1890 than in 2012. That is not the point.

Living conditions were very tough in the 19th century. But that does not imply that the economic or government policies were at fault. Nor does it suggest that any modern era “progressive” policies or efforts to redistribute wealth would have made any difference. In fact, those on the low end of the economic scale would probably have been worse off had the government consumed more of the wealth of the people, leaving the economy less productive and the society less prosperous. Raising the minimum wage would have had no difference. It would not have made people wealthier.

The question you need to ask yourself is this: Would you rather live in 1840 or 1900? How much of an increase in prosperity and living standards occurred during that time period? The truth is that it was the greatest expansion of human prosperity and productive capacity in the history of the world. That is what the industrial revolution meant to average people. And, contrary to what happens today, during that period of economic growth and expansion, the value of people’s money went up. Yes, instead of continuous inflation, the value of the dollar went up during the 19th century. So, people could save their money free from the fear that in twenty years they won’t be able to make ends meet due to rising prices and a devalued currency. Long term planning was actually possible with the knowledge that the measurement of economic activity, the value of the currency, would be relatively stable and predictable.

Yes, the conditions for most people were tough by our standards today. But they were, by far, the finest in the world at the time. The greatest fallacy you could make would be to assume that we are all better off than in 1880 because of government policies. No matter what government policies you might have implemented in 1880, it wouldn’t have provided you an iPhone or a computer or a plasma tv or a car or any other luxury that we take for granted today. The market economy, however hampered by government control and central banks that devalue our currency, is still functioning to some degree. That means that year after year we will have access to new inventions and products that improve our lives to some degree. Human progress will continue regardless of government policies.

The problem is that politicians like to take credit for why our lives are better than they once were. The truth in this is that only increased productivity can drive up real wages. The more productive an employee, the greater they are worth, and the greater their salary. Makes sense, right? Therefore investment in new equipment and tools that help make workers more productive drives up wages. That is how a market economy works. If companies have the resources to invest in capital equipment, they will. This was happening throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As such, people were being lifted out of poverty through rising real wages. The first minimum wage laws were instituted in 1938, however since real wages were trending upward anyway, politicians incorrectly credited the new law for increasing the wages of people. In fact what tended to happen for a number of years was that productive capacity increased and companies started paying more to their more productive workers, and then the minimum wage was raised. It followed rising wages, it didn’t cause them.

Unfortunately, it also did a great deal of harm. Of course not everyone was making the average wage rate. Many individuals did not possess the skills to be very productive. Therefore they could not take jobs at minimum wage. Other jobs that were worth less than minimum wage were eliminated. Therefore a worker with marginal skills could not find employment and gain the skills to make more money and become more productive. This was an anti-progressive law.

The question you should really ponder is what if we maintained, basically, the economic system we had at the turn of the century. No central bank, a gold standard, a relatively free market and a more limited government. How much more prosperous might we be? What if we never fought World War I and World War II? Think of all those resources that would not have been wasted killing people and blowing things up. They could have been invested in the economy, creating things that would make our lives better. What if we avoided the Great Depression by not creating a Federal Reserve system that manipulates interest rates and misallocates capital? What if we never embraced Keynesian economics or decided that “deficits don’t matter”?

What if Americans could actually save money with the knowledge that their money will maintain its value in the future? What if we had a system where our economy could grow and expand without our national debt expanding? What if we kept a relatively balanced budget year after year?

Could you really argue that we would not be far more prosperous and well off in 2012 if we had maintained these policies for most of the last century?

What is typically put forward as an argument by Progressives is that in the years prior to FDR, corporate abuse was very common and many workers were terribly exploited without the protections afforded later through government legislation. There is some truth to this. There were a number of instances of pollution by big business and harm caused that could and should have been prevented. The fundamental problem was a government that had failed to enforce already existing laws. The liberal tradition has always held that government has an important role to play in protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, prosecuting fraud and protecting the innocent from any and all harm. The experience of the 19th century did not rationally prompt a radically expanded government, an extensive and expansive welfare state and a central bank that prints money at the whim of the politicians. The real drawbacks and problems that existed were blown out of proportion by banking interests and power hungry politicians that had a self interest in demonizing the market economy.

There WERE reforms that were needed and many things could have been done better, but the truth of the matter was that the basic tenets of our Constitutional system, its emphasis on natural rights, human liberty and self-determination were sacrificed in favor of rather odious political ideologies that unfortunately emerged in the early 20th century. Communism and Fascism were among the most prominent beliefs that became influential in motivating change in this country away from liberalism.

What is unfortunate is the reality that modern day leftists are hopelessly unaware that their heroes, from Woodrow Wilson through FDR, were not “men of the people”, but relentlessly promoted a form of economic fascism, specifically government working in the interest of big banks and financial institutions. The liberals (of the Austrian school, mind you) were always fundamentally opposed to fascism and central banking. In fact, Adam Smith wrote extensively about how he saw a system of Laissez-faire markets as the antidote to economic inequality and the class system that he observed in his day.

But what did progressive Woodrow Wilson do first when he was elected? He passed the Federal Reserve Act, creating a central bank and authorizing a secret cabal of financial interests that have steadily gained power in the century since it was established. Thirty years later, “man of the people”, FDR took us off the gold standard and stole every amount of gold that private citizens held, forcing them to accept fraudulent Federal Reserve Notes, instead of hard money that the Constitution demands.

I cannot take the time here to go through every piece of history that is relevant to show that these men were not who the establishment insists they were, but the short of it is that they were fascists who foisted a banking cartel upon us that centralized financial power and brought about the modern era of corporatism and crony capitalism that is absolutely anathema to liberalism and the free market. Our modern understanding of history has been abysmal due to propaganda that is pushed in public schools that bears little resemblance to reality.

Therefore a little digging and critical thinking is required. It is in this context that I want to discuss the “controversial” aspects of Ron Paul’s belief system that some “journalists” and commentators have claimed is racist or motivated by racism. Many don’t go that far. But they might claim that some of his views are “odious” and disturbing because they (it is claimed) are also supported by “fringe” people. This is a broader issue than Ron Paul. Many points of the liberal philosophy are attacked because they claim they would hurt minorities or are opposed to Civil Rights or play to racial resentment. I will describe why every aspect of this line of thinking is demonstrably false.

The issues that are brought up that Ron Paul has spoken of are his support for States Rights. The implication is that if more power were granted to states or we promoted the principle of Nullification, the States would choose to oppress people. Segregation would be brought back, etc. Another point is Paul’s principled objection to affirmative action and a portion of the Civil Rights Act. Another is that Ron Paul has been critical of Abraham Lincoln and has made statements that could be perceived as being supportive of the South, taken out of context.

All these objections to Ron Paul’s platform are the product of profound ignorance of history. An honest view of history would show that it was the liberals who were the abolitionists throughout the 19th century. The most principled and profound statements against slavery and bigotry during our early history came from those that saw liberty as an inseparable whole. Those that were promoting the expansion of government power and authority most often held racist views.

Abraham Lincoln was not the great man we are taught that he is. He had absolutely NO substantial principled objection to slavery. He did not campaign to end slavery, nor did he fight the Civil War to end slavery. He was in fact one of the most tyrannical and authoritarian presidents we have ever had. His main motive in his political career was to destroy the original intent of the Constitution and establish a much more powerful central government. He cared very little about slavery.

In fact, he was rather racist and didn’t hide it. Here are a few quotes (out of many):

"I have no disposition to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together on terms of respect, social and political equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there should be a superiority somewhere, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position;"

And:

"I will say then, that I am not nor have ever 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 have I ever been in favor of making voters of the negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them to marry with white people...there must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man."

Despite the truth about his overt racism, he is exalted today as “the Great Emancipator” and it is claimed he fought the Civil War to end slavery. He is practically idolized by many. Ask any number of individuals who their favorite presidents are and probably greater than half will say Lincoln was the greatest president ever. That is how unfortunate our educational system has become. Lincoln was not even well liked in his lifetime. He was incredibly unpopular in the North.

His reputation changed after revisionist historians worked tirelessly to paint a mostly inaccurate picture of the man and his presidency. Through decades of work and miseducation, he became seen as a great man, something that never happened by those who actually were alive when he was president.

I want all of you to read the work of Lysander Spooner. He was a black man and one of the greatest voices of the abolitionist movement. He published a brilliant and influential book called “The Unconstitutionality of Slavery” in 1845. In that book, he argued based on Natural law and other legal and philosophical concepts, that the Constitution, as written, made slavery illegal. He recognized that the Founders had probably not intended to outlaw slavery, but he argued that only the meaning of the text, not the private intentions of its writers, was enforceable. This argument was incredibly persuasive and greatly influenced the views of Frederick Douglas.

Lysander Spooner is a personal hero of Ron Paul. He was a champion of liberalism and argued against slavery before many others dared.

But aren’t we taught that it was the Republicans who were the anti-slavery party? Well Spooner did not think very highly of them.

From Wikipedia:

“To Spooner, the Republicans were hypocrites for purporting to oppose slavery's expansion but refusing to take a strong, consistent moral stance against slavery itself.[20] Although Spooner had advocated the use of violence to abolish slavery, he denounced the Republicans' use of violence to prevent the Southern states from seceding during the American Civil War. He published several letters and pamphlets about the war, arguing that the Republican objective was not to eradicate slavery, but rather to preserve the Union by force. He blamed the bloodshed on Republican political leaders, such as Secretary of State William H. Seward and Senator Charles Sumner, who often spoke out against slavery but would not attack it on a constitutional basis, and who pursued military policies seen as vengeful and abusive.[21][22]

Although he denounced the institution of slavery, Spooner recognized the right of the Confederate States of America to secede as the manifestation of government by consent, a constitutional and legal principle fundamental to Spooner's philosophy; the Northern states, in contrast, were trying to deny the Southerners that right through military force.[23] He "vociferously opposed the Civil War, arguing that it violated the right of the southern states to secede from a Union that no longer represented them."[19] He believed they were attempting to restore the Southern states to the Union, against the wishes of Southerners. He argued that the right of the states to secede derives from the natural right of slaves to be free.”

Did you get that? One of the greatest and most influential abolitionists, a black man, is supporting the right of the south to secede. Yet it was he, and other principled liberals who were the true abolitionists of the day. Lincoln and the Republicans were opportunists who saw the issue of slavery as an issue to be used to achieve their real ends, which were to get rid of the original intent of the Constitution and establish a more powerful government. They had no principled objection to slavery. Unlike Spooner, they were hypocrites. Spooner was trying to expand the concept of individual liberty and Natural Rights to all races. The Republicans were merely trading one form of slavery for another. A principled opponent of slavery and oppression would opposed expanded government power just as much as he would oppose the horrendous treatment of blacks at that time.

Ron Paul supports Lysander Spooner. Even though nearly all the significant abolitionists of the day would agree with Ron Paul on nearly all his positions, today it is claimed that he is a racist for saying that the Civil War was unnecessary or criticizing Lincoln. He is called a bigot for supporting Nullification and States Rights. History is on the side of Ron Paul.

The most important point to recognize is that liberty must be consistently defended, or one does not believe in the concept at all. Modern day progressives can claim all they want that they support the liberties of minorities, but many are just hypocrites. While they might comfort themselves with their support of affirmative action and set asides and anti-discrimination legislation, the reality is that the ideology many of them embrace has unfortunately caused minorities to be held back in our society.

Even leaving alone discussing the inherent racism of group identity politics and demagoguing the subject, the goal of those truly opposed to racism and slavery is the promotion of individual rights, with no special favors granted to any special group.

Ron Paul has stated that he would have never signed the Constitution or created the Union without making it explicit that slavery was to be illegal. He would have never compromised on that issue. But given that the issue WAS compromised on, what would have been the benefit of abolishing slavery in the manner that Dr Paul and Lysander Spooner would want?

Well, given that every other nation on earth got rid of slavery without a civil war, obviously it was not necessary. There are two options that Dr Paul and Lysander Spooner supported. The first is called “compensated emancipation”. There were a large number of nations that did this. It simply means that the government would buy the slaves and set them free.

Until this occurs, or if there is no political will to do so, Spooner offers a more direct solution:

“In 1858, Spooner circulated a "Plan for the Abolition of Slavery,"[18] calling for the use of guerrilla warfare against slaveholders by black slaves and non-slaveholding free Southerners, with aid from Northern abolitionists. Spooner also "conspir[ed] with John Brown to promote a servile insurrection in the South,"[19] and participated in an aborted plot to free Brown after his capture following the failed raid on Harper's Ferry, Virginia (Harper's Ferry is now part of the state of West Virginia).”

In either of these scenarios slavery could have been abolished with less residual resentment and loss of life to the great benefit of blacks and all Americans. Civil war will tear a country apart and leave such a divide and resentment and anger that can manifest itself in many ways.

The problems of the Civil War are many. First, the mythology we are given has unfairly tarnished the concepts of States Rights and trivialized many of the very real and legitimate grievances that many Southern people felt towards a very lawless Lincoln Administration and its many unconstitutional acts and policies. Second, it let off the hook the many Northern supporters of racism and gave the false impression that slavery was only tolerated in the South. In reality the institution of slavery was a stain on our history that we should all accept some responsibility for.

And lastly, many have argued that the viciousness of the lynchings and treatment of blacks in the South in the years following the Civil War was made far worse given the aftermath of a bloody civil war that created such a great resentment. The humiliation of losing was one thing, but the fact that slavery was retroactively given as the reason for the war caused many to lash out and target blacks with their pent up anger. Instead of working towards peaceably abolishing the institution of slavery and granting blacks equal rights, we created an atmosphere which resulted in a century more of overt racism and bigotry that blacks were forced to endure.

The mythology and miseducation has to end. If one examines the facts, it would become self-evident that Ron Paul is the true anti-racist candidate, embracing a liberal tradition that all notable abolitionists belonged to. It is only the principle of individual liberty and an all-encompassing view of human freedom and Natural Rights that have been the enemy of all racism and collectivist thought.

Why has our government used race to divide and why have they distorted the truth so much with regards to this history? The simple truth is that they, the politicians and organized financial interests, have long sought any excuse to galvanize power and destroy the Jeffersonian tradition of true liberty that Ron Paul and Lysander Spooner defend. So, Lincoln has been glorified and the subject of much phony “history” because he was instrumental in centralizing more power for the Federal government. That is the reason. The issue of slavery happened to be a convenient excuse.

The reality that we must be aware of is that our government has been the institution that supported racism for such a long time. It was racist laws and racist policies that enforced slavery and segregation over many decades. Ron Paul’s opposition to racism and bigotry in all forms is based on an appreciation of individual liberty that so many lack. The truth of the matter is that if Paul’s philosophy had been adhered to in our early history, slavery would have been phased out quickly and without major incident, blacks would have had full civil rights during the 19th century.

I will wrap up this piece now. I have already written too much. I could expand on most of what I wrote but I will refrain from doing so at this time. I just wanted to clear up this issue once and for all. Ron Paul is certainly no racist. This accusation is actually the most ludicrous thing that could be asserted. Yet it is thrown about all the time. It seems to be the go to smear for any media figure that has an agenda to try and hurt Ron Paul. They might mention some obscure white supremacist who apparently supports Ron Paul or rehash the same newsletters smear. Not much thought or intellectual honesty is present in these smear pieces.

I hope you all take the time to read what I have written here. I am open to answering any questions you might have. I do think that this should be the final word on those who accuse the Liberals (myself and Ron Paul) of being racists or anti “Progress”.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 2:24 am

Comments

Methinks you protest too much.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Nobody should care whether Paul is a racist or not. There are plenty of racists in Texas and he may be just one more - or not. He's not going to be President, so it doesn't matter.

BTW, nobody reads long posts like this.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Do you think anyone other than you RP supporters is going to read all that crap?

BTW..........This isn't a Libertarian free market message board here on The Thom Hartmann Program

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 6:49 am

You say Paul didn't "oversee" the racist articles. One of his former staffers came out this last week and said that Dr. Paul directly signed off on those very articles. Face it, either Paul is a racist, or worse, saw the opportunity to advance his political and personal fortunes by playing on the base hatred of the bigots.

Next, your philosophy isn't libertarian, nor is it classical liberalism. If it were you would recognize that even black folks have a right to life that supersedes anyone else's liberty, and liberty that supersedes anyone else's property rights. Dr. Paul, and all his paste eating retard followers are advocates for placing property rights above all else. Examples

1 - Lunch counters / water fountains, so long as it is "my" property I should have the right to take away the liberty of black folks from enjoying that property.

2 - Bus seats at front of bus - that property shall be retained for white folks, because we will not allow blacks the freedom to sit where they choose.

3- States rights to allow for terrorist organizations to murder and lynch blacks, allows for blacks' essential right to life to be taken, in order to secure the freedom for states to exercise their right to self governance.

To argue that somehow slavery could have been ended through govt buying all the slaves and freeing them is ridiculous. The American system, was race based, and inheritied unlike most earlier examples, which slaves were usually the spoils of war, and the children were freed. There were simply too many, and if we possibly could have done this, then why didn't any of the first 15 presidents do it? They either personally benefitted from slavery, or it was politically not possible.

To argue that Lincoln is to blame for the US Civil War ignores history. On what date did Lincoln take the oath of office, and what dates did the Southern states secede on? And what constitutional or state right is the right to violently attack American soldiers? Where is the right to rebellion? I can find the part where the President has the authority to suspend Habeas Corpus in times of rebellion, but the right to rebellion doesn't appear on the original text. The Southern slave owners had every right to pack up and leave, the states themselves did not.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:

You say Paul didn't "oversee" the racist articles. One of his former staffers came out this last week and said that Dr. Paul directly signed off on those very articles. Face it, either Paul is a racist, or worse, saw the opportunity to advance his political and personal fortunes by playing on the base hatred of the bigots.

Where did you read that? I carefully laid out the facts in this OP very diligently. There is absolutely NOTHING that proves that Ron Paul had any knowledge of the offensive articles. For you to argue anything different is an admission that you prefer demagoguery to honest discussion.

Did you watch the youtube videos from Ben Swann that went through each and every newsletter that was published? He released the name of the writer of the most offensive material. His name was James Powell. And it is also instructive to note that in the most generous estimation, perhaps 2% of the newsletters that were published contained any language that could be deemed racist or offensive in any way. And the vast majority was in a single newsletter that has been proven to be authored by James Powell, NOT Ron Paul.

It has been established that as time went on, Ron Paul's involvement in the newsletters became less and less. He was essentially retired from politics when this stuff was published. The first newsletters that Paul was involved in were released in the late 70s. So, in over a decade of active publishing of numerous newsletters, nothing even remotely racist or offensive appeared. Yet the isolated offensive material was published only after Paul had relinquished most, if not all, control over the newsletters.

It is well known that Paul was working full time as a doctor and lived more than an hour away from were the newsletters were assembled and distributed. It was Lew Rockwell who was the publisher, but even he did not write most of it. Numerous ghostwriters were hired and fired during this time and many contributed different things to these newsletters.

Ron Paul did NOT proof read these newsletters. His participation in these later years, as limited as it was, amounted to scribbling some notes and faxing that information in for others to edit and put in the newsletters. And even this was done rather infrequently.

I have said it before and I'll say it again. You want to convince yourself that Ron Paul is a bigot and he personally agrees with all the material that was published in his newsletters, even the stuff he didn't write.

But given that the only things that could give any credibility to that argument are half a dozen articles that appeared during the early 90s, out of more than 1000 published newsletters that contained none of this offensive material. The problem is that neither you, nor anyone else has any proof whatsoever that Ron Paul wrote or was even aware of any of this material.

Now, Ron Paul has been a prolific writer in his career. He has been outspoken and completely comfortable in taking extremely unpopular positions and standing on his own and speaking his mind.

All I am asking is for you to find a single quote from Dr Paul that is racist, or even racially insensitive. In his entire career. If he is really a racist, it shouldn't be hard to find some evidence in his vast library of books he authored, speeches he has given, and things he has said publicly or privately.

If you cannot do this, then I will ask you to accept the facts and acknowledge that Ron Paul is not a racist.

Even the idea that somehow the newsletters were designed to play to "extremist" or bigoted groups for donations and such does not hold up to scrutiny. If that were the case, the offensive material would be much more prevalent. It would have appeared from the very beginning, not a few isolated cases during the time when Paul was least involved. Why did more than a decade go by with nothing even remotely offensive appearing in these newsletters?

If you have any integrity you will respond to these questions.

Quote Phaedrus76:Next, your philosophy isn't libertarian, nor is it classical liberalism. If it were you would recognize that even black folks have a right to life that supersedes anyone else's liberty, and liberty that supersedes anyone else's property rights. Dr. Paul, and all his paste eating retard followers are advocates for placing property rights above all else.

Ad hominem attacks reflect poorly on you. They don't say much for your intellect or debating skills. But I will let that go. Of course black folks have a right to life. Nobody's liberty has to supersede anyone elses. We all deserve dignity and the right to be free from aggression and harm under all circumstances.

What you fail to understand is the whole extent of the atrocious treatment of black people in this country from the very beginning was a wholesale rejection of Ron Paul's belief in classical liberalism and individual liberty.

If Ron Paul is a racist, he is a very confused racist, because the ideology he espouses is the greatest and most devestating challenge to racism and collectivism that has ever been put forward. In fact, I would say that his ideology is the ONLY completely non racist and tolerant political belief system that exists. All others perpetuate racism and increase tension and distrust between people by placing people in groups and arguing for special privaledges for some at the expense of others.

[/quote]

Quote Phaedrus76:Examples

1 - Lunch counters / water fountains, so long as it is "my" property I should have the right to take away the liberty of black folks from enjoying that property.

2 - Bus seats at front of bus - that property shall be retained for white folks, because we will not allow blacks the freedom to sit where they choose.

Segregation was an atrocious and inhumane policy that Ron Paul opposes with every ounce of his being. It is fundamentally anathema to everything that we believe in. Government policies forced segregation for many decades through inhumane laws that should have been repealed long before they were.

What you are failing to understand is that people who raise questions about property rights in relation to the Civil Rights Act do NOT believe that people should discriminate or anything of the sort. There are many reasons why it is essential to understand whether people own their property or not. Eminent domain abuses are rampant. People cannot develop their own land peacefully without permission from the government.

Could we have eliminated segregation without compromising the principle of property rights? Or, more relevently, could we reestablish the rights of private property in 2012?

Suppose we say that justly acquired land can be used how the owner sees fit so long as they don't commit aggression against another. Now, suppose that principle theoretically allows a person to refuse to allow a black person or a gay person or any other individual he doesn't like on to his property. Such activity would be deplorable to any decent person.

But, on the other side, reemphasizing the principle of property rights would stop the ability for corporations to use Eminent Domain to confiscate private property from peaceful individuals to build a factory? What if all our other rights would be better protected knowing that we are secure in our property that we justly acquired?

This interest in property has implications for all of us. Did you take my advice and read Lysander Spooner? I highly suggest you do. Like all early abolitionists who agreed with Ron Paul on nearly every important issue, they fought against slavery so vigorously because they had a complete understanding of liberty and property and contract rights. There are many kinds of slavery. We don't want to trade one form of slavery for another.

Spooner would probably defend the right of a bigot to keep a black man off his property or out of his business so long as he didn't commit aggression. But he would support vigorous civil disobedience and boycotts and demonstrations that would put that individual out of business and expose him for the odious views he held.

Your understanding of history is terribly lacking. The point of my article was to point out that if we were to follow the advice of Lysander Spooner and the early abolitionists, the progress of minorities would likely be greater today that currently. We would have a more complete understanding of liberty and would reject slavery fundamentally as we should reject any involuntary servitude, which is a discription that applies to much of government coercion we are forced to endure.

Read Lysander Spooner and get back to me.

Quote Phaedrus76:3- States rights to allow for terrorist organizations to murder and lynch blacks, allows for blacks' essential right to life to be taken, in order to secure the freedom for states to exercise their right to self governance.

This is absolutely wrong. I beg of you to get a proper education about the Constitution. States have certain rights, but our Constition and Bill of Rights applies to the states. So if the government cannot deprive you of life or liberty, neither can the States. Get it?

Quote Phaedrus76:To argue that somehow slavery could have been ended through govt buying all the slaves and freeing them is ridiculous. The American system, was race based, and inheritied unlike most earlier examples, which slaves were usually the spoils of war, and the children were freed. There were simply too many, and if we possibly could have done this, then why didn't any of the first 15 presidents do it? They either personally benefitted from slavery, or it was politically not possible.

It was certainly possible. You are correct that for quite a few decades after our Revolution, there wasn't the political will to do it. But historians have estimated that for around the cost of the Civil War, every slave could have been bought and freed. It would have taken a lot of money, but think of the loss of life (600,000 Americans!) and the destruction of property and all the residual problems that were caused by the Civil War.

Why don't you answer the question of how every other nation was able to abolish slavery without a civil war? Compensated emancipation was a rather common tool used in phasing out slavery in a great number of nations.

Quote Phaedrus76:To argue that Lincoln is to blame for the US Civil War ignores history. On what date did Lincoln take the oath of office, and what dates did the Southern states secede on? And what constitutional or state right is the right to violently attack American soldiers? Where is the right to rebellion? I can find the part where the President has the authority to suspend Habeas Corpus in times of rebellion, but the right to rebellion doesn't appear on the original text. The Southern slave owners had every right to pack up and leave, the states themselves did not.

Well, the truth is that at that time secession was a completely understood and acknowledged right that the citizens of the States had. What is less known is that many states used the principle of nullification and even the threat of secession to fight AGAINST slavery. People like Lysander Spooner and other abolitionists were making progress in gaining support for legislation to move the issue. Not only that, but civil disobedience was practiced to protect runaway slaves. Nullification by the States was used to nullify Fugitive Slave Laws. Great strides were being made.

In fact there was significant legislation introduced to make slavery unconstitutional and Lincoln opposed such legislation. Why do you suppose "the Great Emancipator" did this?

You ask what right do people have to violently attack American soldiers? Of course they don't have such a right. But what authority did Lincoln possess to launch a full scale war against half the country?! If you carefully study the true history of Lincoln you would find a man who was more like a tyrant than any other president in history. He locked up reporters in the North simply for criticizing him. And he was an avowed racist who had no desire to get rid of slavery. He NEVER saw any scenario where blacks would be equal to whites in any sense. He didn't want that.

His desire was to unilaterially change the principle of consent by the governed and prove, through vicious military force, that States were no longer part of the Union voluntarily as was the understanding of all states, both North and South, who came together to form the union.

Now, no one is arguing for bringing back Secession in 2012. But it was very clear that the principle was very much understood and accepted as a precondition of all the states that participated in ratifying the Constitution. So, clearly no president had the just authority to unilaterally "rewrite the contract" so to speak and force a new set of rules on the nation by force.

I think your understanding of history is lacking. Read more on Lincoln and learn about Lysander Spooner and the early abolitionist movement. I expect you will find that far from being a racist, Ron Paul is the most anti racist presidential candidate we have had for decades. He wants to expand the concept of liberty for all of us. Others want to impose a new form of involuntary servitude, which any principled opponent of slavery and Jim Crow would be objecting on the same merits. I follow the example of Spooner in this case.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 2:24 am
Quote Sprinklerfitter:

Do you think anyone other than you RP supporters is going to read all that crap?

BTW..........This isn't a Libertarian free market message board here on The Thom Hartmann Program

I want to bump this post because I expect at least some here would be willing to take on and challenge what I am saying. I have seen a number of people on this forum suggest that Ron Paul is a racist or that libertarianism somehow supports racism either directly or indirectly. I am challenging this assumption on every level.

I know there are many Progressives here, so why don't some of you take the challenge and engage in a debate with me? If you all shy away from real debate, what the hell is the point of this forum?

As far as what Sprinklerfitter wrote, that just demonstrates the significant lack of education when people refuse to even read what you wrote. I don't know if it is shortened attention spans or what, but it is wise that people develop the ability to comprehend and respond to a more detailed argument.

And the idea that you say that "this isn't a Libertarian free market message board" and therefore I shouldn't have the right to post anything to that effect is ludicrous. It seems to reveal a tremendous lack of confidence in ones own beliefs if you are uncomfortable being challenged intellectually.

Maybe you would prefer to always isolate yourself from outside views and merely have your own biases and beliefs constantly reinforced by others? You will never learn anything this way.

If you somehow think that "libertarian free market" views are somehow bullshit, then you should be able to form a coherent, logical argument to refute the concepts on their merits. I am offering an open invitation for you to do just that right here.

And for everyone else, all I ask is that you respond to an OP that took a little while to research and write. If you think that Ron Paul or libertarians are somehow racist, then defend that position in light of the material I posted. Also, if you consider yourself a progressive, what is your opinion of my views that the liberal tradition that I subscribe to is in fact the true progressive ideology?

I just don't buy the fact the Keynesianism, Welfarism, and an ideology that exalts the State as the answer to all problems is an engine for human progress by any rational metric. I just think that modern day progressivism is based on a collection of long debunked economic fallacies that have merely been repackaged to seem new and modern.

Does anyone here have the guts to take the challenge and respond to what I have said?

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 2:24 am
so why don't some of you take the challenge and engage in a debate with me?
I don't know or care if Ron Paul is a racist. He's not going to be President, so it really doesn't matter.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

That's quite a rant to post on a "message board". What about the fact that his former personal secretary confirmed that he proofread the papers? That's a bit inconvenient to your zealous defense isn't it?

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/27/ron-pauls-former-secretary-confirms-that-paul-proofread-his-newsletters/

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 11:43 pm

Just so YOU will know, I'm not interested in RP period. As it has been said many times around here he is not going to be president so why waste the time talking about him? He is irrelevant as you are. I came to this board to read what other left leaning progressives much smarter than I have to say. So far I haven't been disappointed. There isn't many threads around here I don't read and follow links when provided but I'm damn sure not going to read the rants of several posters around here especially about a subject I care nothing about. I also have no interest in replying to every thread around here either. You can learn a lot by reading which is what I mostly do around here. Besides I'm pretty sure I couldn't tell these other progressive posters anything they don't already know.

If you want some positive debate on your posts I'd suggest you shorten them up for starters and stick to one issue about RP instead of his whole frickin life and bla bla this or that. There has already been plenty of info and comments about RP from many of the posters around here on many different posts about RP. It seems people like you get upset when you can't find anyone to agree with your views. When you get in that situation again just stop and think about what site you're posting on and take it from there.....In closing remember this...............This isn't a Libertarian free market message board here on The Thom Hartmann Program

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 6:49 am

I cannot imagine the furor had any Progressive allowed a newsletter with his/her name on it to get out with anything about the nice things socialism brings or accusing the Right of heresy, blasphemy or being who they are. Hell, Obama got roasted for going to an integrated, reconcililng congregation church doing effective inner city work. Rev. Wright is an exponent of a very respected line of theology that includes "black liberation theology" represented in the excellent work of Dr.James Cone. The idea that Mr. Paul can have others who do his work under his name and claim that he knew nothing or had no ability to control them sucks so hard that he ought to retire, go home and try to educate his Tea Party son in basic civics.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The obvious question is why he didn't read a magazine that had his name on it?

Wouldn't you?

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Art:
so why don't some of you take the challenge and engage in a debate with me?
I don't know or care if Ron Paul is a racist. He's not going to be President, so it really doesn't matter.

This is incredibly intellectually lazy. Are you conceding the point that the "newsletters" smears are for the most part without merit? Are you denouncing any insinuation that Ron Paul or his ideology is racist or supports racism?

It seems to me that you are deflecting any responsibility you have to understand the argument or take a stand one way or another. By merely saying "he is never going to be president, so who cares" you are simply avoiding critiquing his platform in any meaningful way.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 2:24 am
Quote mdhess:

That's quite a rant to post on a "message board". What about the fact that his former personal secretary confirmed that he proofread the papers? That's a bit inconvenient to your zealous defense isn't it?

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/27/ron-pauls-former-secretary-confirms-that-paul-proofread-his-newsletters/

That is very far from a conclusive statement. He "proofread" the papers? Such a statement is certainly taken out of context. It is very unclear and highly unlikely that the person that made that statement was saying that Ron Paul approved racist articles or knew of the existence of that material. It was likely just an honest assessment of Paul's role as far as she saw. What is also quite clear is that Ron Paul had a highly active role and wrote a number of articles earlier in the history of his newsletters. The vast majority were about economic subjects and monetary policy. There was NO evidence of any offensive material when Paul was heavily involved. By the early 90s, Paul was uninvolved almost completely, as his life had been taken over by his medical practice and his dedication to giving speeches and taking care of his family. It was only during this time that the few newsletters were published with offensive material.

As was established in my OP, it was clear that the place were the newsletters were published was more than an hour away from were Paul lived and worked. It was absolutely impossible for him to have any influence on the day to day activity of the newsletters.

The real point is do you honestly believe that Ron Paul is a racist? If you think that he approved this material, or secretly agrees with it, then you should be able to produce some statement from Ron Paul himself that sounds similar. Even the most careful racist will slip up and express their true feelings at some point in their careers. That has never happened to Ron Paul.

Add to that the fact that, as I explained, Ron Paul's entire ideology is the most exhaustive intellectual challenge to racism and collectivism that has ever been offered, and everything he has ever said in public or in his extensive writtings refutes the very few quotes that have been taken from these Newsletters, the reality is that he should be exonerated from these ludicrous accusations.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 2:24 am
Quote DRC:

I cannot imagine the furor had any Progressive allowed a newsletter with his/her name on it to get out with anything about the nice things socialism brings or accusing the Right of heresy, blasphemy or being who they are. Hell, Obama got roasted for going to an integrated, reconcililng congregation church doing effective inner city work. Rev. Wright is an exponent of a very respected line of theology that includes "black liberation theology" represented in the excellent work of Dr.James Cone. The idea that Mr. Paul can have others who do his work under his name and claim that he knew nothing or had no ability to control them sucks so hard that he ought to retire, go home and try to educate his Tea Party son in basic civics.

And let me state for the record that the commotion over Obama's associations, at least regarding Rev. Wright, were unwarranted. There are reasons to oppose Obama and strongly disagree with his policies, but I don't support the insane "guilt by association" tactic whereby Paul or Obama or anyone has to automatically answer for all the statements of anyone they have ever been close to.

With that being said, as stated, there is really only ONE newsletter that contained really inappropriate material. Ron Paul was the publisher and did NOT proofread the articles. There were a couple of other newsletters that contained poor choice of words but were less provocative. But as has been stated, the entire output that could constitute racially insensitive material amounts to less than 2% of what was published.

And this, a couple ghostwritten articles that Paul clearly was unaware of at the time, THAT constitutes the entire extent of what can be criticized about Ron Paul's entire record. Apart from that, he is a model of consistancy and integrity that we might never see again. He has given so many speeches and introduced so many bills. He has written so many books and not once did he flipflop. Not once did he sell out to corporate interests or lobbyists.

In comparison to other politicians, are you really telling me that because he failed to provide perfect oversight of his small newsletters in the early 90s, THIS disqualifies him or is a deal breaker?!

Why don't you agree with me that this tactic of smearing Ron Paul with stories about these newsletters, long rehashed by the way, is over the line. I don't think people should have done this kind of thing with Obama and Rev. Wright or his associations, nor do I think they should do it with Paul.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 2:24 am
Quote Dr. Econ:

The obvious question is why he didn't read a magazine that had his name on it?

Wouldn't you?

Oh come on. He DID read the newsletters, just not all the time. He had about five different newsletters that he published and he contributed articles and there were numerous ghostwriters and other contributers. The idea that a publisher in that capacity would be willing and able to read every single word that is published, not placing ANY trust in those who work under you is absurd.

Go ask any newspaper or publication that has to issue retractions why the publisher didn't read every word before going to print.

The man was a full time OBGYN working fifty and sixty hour weeks sometimes. I am perfectly happy to discuss the ideology of Ron Paul or his platform. But I do think that we should all agree that this "newsletters" smear is ridiculous and uncalled for.

I truly believe that this could have happened to anybody. In fact, there ARE instances of exactly such inflamatory rhetoric being associated with the campaigns of the other candidates, but the media sees Ron Paul as a unique threat.

Seriously, this story has been rehashed many times since 1996. The media was well aware of the story. Ron Paul has given extensive answers in the past about this subject. The media sat on the story and waited until two weeks before Iowa when Ron Paul was leading in the polls and hammered this story, out of context, for two solid weeks in an effort to derail his candidacy.

That, and a bit of election fraud, allowed them to bump him down to third in Iowa and deny him the victory that he deserved and would have otherwise gotten.

That is a travesty in my estimation.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 2:24 am
Quote Art:

Nobody should care whether Paul is a racist or not. There are plenty of racists in Texas and he may be just one more - or not. He's not going to be President, so it doesn't matter.

BTW, nobody reads long posts like this.

Ha that's what you think. Obama needs a false-flag event to get re-elected and Americans won't buy it anymore. His Presidency has been one big failure after another. Unemployment is at 42%, millions out of work and out of their homes...

That and Americans are woken up to the Globalists Agenda.

26 Tenets of the New World Order:

1) Men are inclined to evil rather than good.

2) Preach Liberalism.

3) Use ideals of freedom to bring about class wars.

4) Any and all means necessary should be used to reach their goals as they are justified.

5) Believe their rights lie in force.

6) The power of their resources must remain invisible until the very moment that they have gained the strength so that no group or force can undermine it.

7) Advocates a mob psychology to obtain control of the masses

8 ) Promotes the use of alcohol, drugs, moral corruption, and all forms of vice to systematically corrupt the youth of the nation.

9) Seize citizens’ private property by any means necessary.

10) The use of slogans such as equity, liberty, and fraternity are used on the masses as psychological warfare.

11) War should be directed so that the nations on both sides are placed further in debt and peace conferences are designed so that neither combatant retain territory rights.

12) Members must use their wealth to have candidates chosen to public office who would be obedient to their demands, and would be used as pawns in the game by the men behind the scenes. The advisors will have been bred, reared, and trained from childhood to rule the affairs of the world.

13) Control the press, and hence most of the information the public receives.

14) Agents and provocateurs will come forward after creating traumatic situations, and appear to be the saviors of the masses, when they are actually interested in just the opposite, the reduction of the population.

15) Create industrial depression and financial panic, unemployment, hunger, shortage of food, use these events to control the masses and mobs, and use them to wipe out those who stand in the way.

16) Infiltrate Freemasonry which is to be used to conceal and further objectives.

17) Expound the value of systematic deception, use high sounding slogans and phrases, advocate lavish sounding promises to the masses even though they can’t be kept.

18) The art of street fighting is necessary to bring the population into subjection.

19) Use agents as provocateurs and advisers behind the scenes, and after wars use secret diplomacy talks to gain control.

20) Establish huge monopolies towards world government control.

21) Use high taxes and unfair competition to bring about economic ruin by controlling raw materials, organized agitation among the workers, and subsidizing competitors.

22) Build up armaments with police and soldiers who can protect and further the New World Order's interests.

23) Members and leaders of the one world government will be appointed by the director of the New World Order.

24) Infiltrate into all classes and levels of society and government for the purpose of teaching the youth in the schools theories and principles known to be false.

25) Create and use national and international laws to destroy civilization.
26) Use estrogens & femicals to drive males gay and the female population insane thereby insuring the destruction of the family, hence more governmental dependency.

elgiabo's picture
elgiabo
Joined:
Oct. 8, 2011 1:29 pm
Quote jrodefeld:
Quote Art:
so why don't some of you take the challenge and engage in a debate with me?
I don't know or care if Ron Paul is a racist. He's not going to be President, so it really doesn't matter.

This is incredibly intellectually lazy. Are you conceding the point that the "newsletters" smears are for the most part without merit? Are you denouncing any insinuation that Ron Paul or his ideology is racist or supports racism?

It seems to me that you are deflecting any responsibility you have to understand the argument or take a stand one way or another. By merely saying "he is never going to be president, so who cares" you are simply avoiding critiquing his platform in any meaningful way.

If you are waiting for one he won't engage you. All Art does is post snide comments here without any intellectual backing arguments. He probably hasn't watched one info-documnetary since he has been here. You tell him "Bilderberger" he thinks 'What-A-Burger". He's just got that nifty-fifties mind-set where all you got to do is just blurt out a "Leave-it-to-Beaver" type sound-byte and everything will just work itself out.

Not the case in reality but that was a different generation.

elgiabo's picture
elgiabo
Joined:
Oct. 8, 2011 1:29 pm
If you are waiting for one he won't engage you.

Gee Wally. I guess I'm just an incredibly lazy guy. I'm just not intellectually curious about another Texas maybe-bigot who doesn't matter. We can all see how important this is to you, so by all means. Keep on trying to whip up some interest. Somebody here will talk to you.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

As a model of 'consistency,' I give you Ron Paul on a woman's right to choose and gay rights. The absurd idea that civil rights belong to the states to decide was what segregation was all about. Paul fails to be a consistent defender of individual liberty whenever it crosses his prejudices. He is an old man who was raised in Texas, and he is not a principled libertarian when the rubber hits the road.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Dr. Econ: The obvious question is why he didn't read a magazine that had his name on it? Wouldn't you?
Quote forgot:... He had about five different newsletters that he published and he contributed articles and there were numerous ghostwriters and other contributers. The idea that a publisher in that capacity would be willing and able to read every single word that is published, not placing ANY trust in those who work under you is absurd.

Paul was not a 'publisher', publishing 'news'. He wasn't running a newspaper. He was a simple political hack, or wanna be politiician (or thinking about being a politician) peddling his propaganda. So, yes, I believe he should have read all his 'newsletters' before publication. And if you really think these newsletters were 'newsworthy', then he should have taken responsibility for the newsletters, made sure the people writing them were met an ethical standard, and not just let his name out to any Tom, Dick and Harry who wanted it.

Either Paul is a racist or he is irresponsible and careless.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I, for one, am really looking forward to Dr. Paul's official concession speach of the 2012 election cycle, so all the Ron Paul fetishists can take a break from their illusions of grandeur. However, I fully understand their excitement while his competition is so weak. Enjoy this fleeting moment of RP's last hurrah.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote jrodefeld:
Quote Phaedrus76:

You say Paul didn't "oversee" the racist articles. One of his former staffers came out this last week and said that Dr. Paul directly signed off on those very articles. Face it, either Paul is a racist, or worse, saw the opportunity to advance his political and personal fortunes by playing on the base hatred of the bigots.

Where did you read that? I carefully laid out the facts in this OP very diligently. There is absolutely NOTHING that proves that Ron Paul had any knowledge of the offensive articles. For you to argue anything different is an admission that you prefer demagoguery to honest discussion.

Did you watch the youtube videos from Ben Swann that went through each and every newsletter that was published? He released the name of the writer of the most offensive material. His name was James Powell. And it is also instructive to note that in the most generous estimation, perhaps 2% of the newsletters that were published contained any language that could be deemed racist or offensive in any way. And the vast majority was in a single newsletter that has been proven to be authored by James Powell, NOT Ron Paul.

It has been established that as time went on, Ron Paul's involvement in the newsletters became less and less. He was essentially retired from politics when this stuff was published. The first newsletters that Paul was involved in were released in the late 70s. So, in over a decade of active publishing of numerous newsletters, nothing even remotely racist or offensive appeared. Yet the isolated offensive material was published only after Paul had relinquished most, if not all, control over the newsletters.

It is well known that Paul was working full time as a doctor and lived more than an hour away from were the newsletters were assembled and distributed. It was Lew Rockwell who was the publisher, but even he did not write most of it. Numerous ghostwriters were hired and fired during this time and many contributed different things to these newsletters.

Ron Paul did NOT proof read these newsletters. His participation in these later years, as limited as it was, amounted to scribbling some notes and faxing that information in for others to edit and put in the newsletters. And even this was done rather infrequently.

I have said it before and I'll say it again. You want to convince yourself that Ron Paul is a bigot and he personally agrees with all the material that was published in his newsletters, even the stuff he didn't write.

But given that the only things that could give any credibility to that argument are half a dozen articles that appeared during the early 90s, out of more than 1000 published newsletters that contained none of this offensive material. The problem is that neither you, nor anyone else has any proof whatsoever that Ron Paul wrote or was even aware of any of this material.

Now, Ron Paul has been a prolific writer in his career. He has been outspoken and completely comfortable in taking extremely unpopular positions and standing on his own and speaking his mind.

All I am asking is for you to find a single quote from Dr Paul that is racist, or even racially insensitive. In his entire career. If he is really a racist, it shouldn't be hard to find some evidence in his vast library of books he authored, speeches he has given, and things he has said publicly or privately.

If you cannot do this, then I will ask you to accept the facts and acknowledge that Ron Paul is not a racist.

Even the idea that somehow the newsletters were designed to play to "extremist" or bigoted groups for donations and such does not hold up to scrutiny. If that were the case, the offensive material would be much more prevalent. It would have appeared from the very beginning, not a few isolated cases during the time when Paul was least involved. Why did more than a decade go by with nothing even remotely offensive appearing in these newsletters?

If you have any integrity you will respond to these questions.

1 How about the articles he authored, or the quotes fron his campaigns in the 1990's defending the racist newsletters?

Quote Phaedrus76:Next, your philosophy isn't libertarian, nor is it classical liberalism. If it were you would recognize that even black folks have a right to life that supersedes anyone else's liberty, and liberty that supersedes anyone else's property rights. Dr. Paul, and all his paste eating retard followers are advocates for placing property rights above all else.

Ad hominem attacks reflect poorly on you. They don't say much for your intellect or debating skills. But I will let that go. Of course black folks have a right to life. Nobody's liberty has to supersede anyone elses. We all deserve dignity and the right to be free from aggression and harm under all circumstances.

What you fail to understand is the whole extent of the atrocious treatment of black people in this country from the very beginning was a wholesale rejection of Ron Paul's belief in classical liberalism and individual liberty.

If Ron Paul is a racist, he is a very confused racist, because the ideology he espouses is the greatest and most devestating challenge to racism and collectivism that has ever been put forward. In fact, I would say that his ideology is the ONLY completely non racist and tolerant political belief system that exists. All others perpetuate racism and increase tension and distrust between people by placing people in groups and arguing for special privaledges for some at the expense of others.

2 Buuuullllshit.

Quote Phaedrus76:Examples

1 - Lunch counters / water fountains, so long as it is "my" property I should have the right to take away the liberty of black folks from enjoying that property.

2 - Bus seats at front of bus - that property shall be retained for white folks, because we will not allow blacks the freedom to sit where they choose.

Segregation was an atrocious and inhumane policy that Ron Paul opposes with every ounce of his being. It is fundamentally anathema to everything that we believe in. Government policies forced segregation for many decades through inhumane laws that should have been repealed long before they were.

What you are failing to understand is that people who raise questions about property rights in relation to the Civil Rights Act do NOT believe that people should discriminate or anything of the sort. There are many reasons why it is essential to understand whether people own their property or not. Eminent domain abuses are rampant. People cannot develop their own land peacefully without permission from the government.

Could we have eliminated segregation without compromising the principle of property rights? Or, more relevently, could we reestablish the rights of private property in 2012?

Suppose we say that justly acquired land can be used how the owner sees fit so long as they don't commit aggression against another. Now, suppose that principle theoretically allows a person to refuse to allow a black person or a gay person or any other individual he doesn't like on to his property. Such activity would be deplorable to any decent person.

But, on the other side, reemphasizing the principle of property rights would stop the ability for corporations to use Eminent Domain to confiscate private property from peaceful individuals to build a factory? What if all our other rights would be better protected knowing that we are secure in our property that we justly acquired?

This interest in property has implications for all of us. Did you take my advice and read Lysander Spooner? I highly suggest you do. Like all early abolitionists who agreed with Ron Paul on nearly every important issue, they fought against slavery so vigorously because they had a complete understanding of liberty and property and contract rights. There are many kinds of slavery. We don't want to trade one form of slavery for another.

Spooner would probably defend the right of a bigot to keep a black man off his property or out of his business so long as he didn't commit aggression. But he would support vigorous civil disobedience and boycotts and demonstrations that would put that individual out of business and expose him for the odious views he held.

Your understanding of history is terribly lacking. The point of my article was to point out that if we were to follow the advice of Lysander Spooner and the early abolitionists, the progress of minorities would likely be greater today that currently. We would have a more complete understanding of liberty and would reject slavery fundamentally as we should reject any involuntary servitude, which is a discription that applies to much of government coercion we are forced to endure.

Read Lysander Spooner and get back to me.

3 We had demonstrations and protests. They resulted in the Civil Rights Act and the Voters Rights Act.

Quote Phaedrus76:3- States rights to allow for terrorist organizations to murder and lynch blacks, allows for blacks' essential right to life to be taken, in order to secure the freedom for states to exercise their right to self governance.

This is absolutely wrong. I beg of you to get a proper education about the Constitution. States have certain rights, but our Constition and Bill of Rights applies to the states. So if the government cannot deprive you of life or liberty, neither can the States. Get it?

4 True, except what are we to do when the State of Mississippi, or Georgia turns a blind eye on a terrorist organization that murdered more than 5,000 people? Set 100's of homes and churches on fire? At what point does the state's rights end and the individual's right to life and liberty begin? Face facts, the banner of states' rights has been used only to deny the right to life and liberty to the poor, weak, frail, elderly and non whites.

Quote Phaedrus76:To argue that somehow slavery could have been ended through govt buying all the slaves and freeing them is ridiculous. The American system, was race based, and inheritied unlike most earlier examples, which slaves were usually the spoils of war, and the children were freed. There were simply too many, and if we possibly could have done this, then why didn't any of the first 15 presidents do it? They either personally benefitted from slavery, or it was politically not possible.

It was certainly possible. You are correct that for quite a few decades after our Revolution, there wasn't the political will to do it. But historians have estimated that for around the cost of the Civil War, every slave could have been bought and freed. It would have taken a lot of money, but think of the loss of life (600,000 Americans!) and the destruction of property and all the residual problems that were caused by the Civil War.

5 That is fascinating. It doesn't mean it happened or was politically feasible.

Why don't you answer the question of how every other nation was able to abolish slavery without a civil war? Compensated emancipation was a rather common tool used in phasing out slavery in a great number of nations.

6 then I'll try again, other nations didn't have slavery for life, and the children born into slavery. What percentage of the population of Great Britain were slaves, or France? Further, where was South Carolina or Georgia in proposing that?

Quote Phaedrus76:To argue that Lincoln is to blame for the US Civil War ignores history. On what date did Lincoln take the oath of office, and what dates did the Southern states secede on? And what constitutional or state right is the right to violently attack American soldiers? Where is the right to rebellion? I can find the part where the President has the authority to suspend Habeas Corpus in times of rebellion, but the right to rebellion doesn't appear on the original text. The Southern slave owners had every right to pack up and leave, the states themselves did not.

Well, the truth is that at that time secession was a completely understood and acknowledged right that the citizens of the States had. What is less known is that many states used the principle of nullification and even the threat of secession to fight AGAINST slavery. People like Lysander Spooner and other abolitionists were making progress in gaining support for legislation to move the issue. Not only that, but civil disobedience was practiced to protect runaway slaves. Nullification by the States was used to nullify Fugitive Slave Laws. Great strides were being made.

7 How many times was nullification or secession employed successfully? And while states may have nullified Fugitive Slave Laws, didn't the Feds overturn that?

In fact there was significant legislation introduced to make slavery unconstitutional and Lincoln opposed such legislation. Why do you suppose "the Great Emancipator" did this?

8 Did any of those bills pass, and become law? Why not? The South had already rebelled before Lincoln took the oath of office. If the South were lovers of freedom, then why didn't they forestall Lincoln's moves to curtail the expansion, and in so doing eventual demise of, slavery? Because the Southerners believed violent rebellion was a better tool than compensation for emancipation. Obviously, in 1860, the South could have gotten a bill through to do as you suggest. They did not. Ergo, your premise is false. The South wanted to not only continue owning slaves, but to put anyone who dared question the practice down violently. They lost. Lincoln's biggest mistake, and Johnson continued it, was to fail to hold military tribuanals for all the rebels and then execute them.

You ask what right do people have to violently attack American soldiers? Of course they don't have such a right. But what authority did Lincoln possess to launch a full scale war against half the country?! If you carefully study the true history of Lincoln you would find a man who was more like a tyrant than any other president in history. He locked up reporters in the North simply for criticizing him. And he was an avowed racist who had no desire to get rid of slavery. He NEVER saw any scenario where blacks would be equal to whites in any sense. He didn't want that.

9 Lincoln didn't launch a full scale war. The rebels fired on Ft. Sumter and the ship trying to supply the fort. That act of war, against the Federal troops, started the war. If anyone in the South, in a position of power, wanted a a peaceful resolution, the time to act was before the rebellion. At which point, the President had the full constitutional authority to suspend the right of habeas corpus. If reporters, pro-slavery folks in Maryland and others didn't understand what that meant, Lincoln educated them. JRO, I realize you have some idyllic sense of talking about rebellion, secession and nullification as if you may act as you please, and others are objects with no power or free will. Lincoln's detractors were of that same ilk. They went to prison, and many died there.

Whether Lincoln was a racist, by our modern 21st century sensibilities, or you believe he didn't want to free the slaves is moot. Lincoln ran on ending the expansion of slavery outside the areas in which it was legal. The South chose war over that. Lincoln, through Grant and Sherman, gave them a war.


His desire was to unilaterially change the principle of consent by the governed and prove, through vicious military force, that States were no longer part of the Union voluntarily as was the understanding of all states, both North and South, who came together to form the union.

10 Citation? Proof? You have some document that refutes every other letter, and law Lincoln wrote, or advocated?

Now, no one is arguing for bringing back Secession in 2012.

11 Gov. Rick "the crotch" Perry?

But it was very clear that the principle was very much understood and accepted as a precondition of all the states that participated in ratifying the Constitution. So, clearly no president had the just authority to unilaterally "rewrite the contract" so to speak and force a new set of rules on the nation by force.

12 You can show me in the US Constitution where it outlines the legal method for secession, and for nullification? If anyone is rewriting, or projecting their beliefs, it isn't me.

I think your understanding of history is lacking. Read more on Lincoln and learn about Lysander Spooner and the early abolitionist movement. I expect you will find that far from being a racist, Ron Paul is the most anti racist presidential candidate we have had for decades. He wants to expand the concept of liberty for all of us. Others want to impose a new form of involuntary servitude, which any principled opponent of slavery and Jim Crow would be objecting on the same merits. I follow the example of Spooner in this case.

13 Yeah, Paul is the least racist guy in the race, except that decade where Paul published racist crap, and then the decade that followed, when he defended the recist crap on camera with reporters.

[/quote]

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote jrodefeld: ...suppose [we have] a principle theoretically allows a person to refuse to allow a black person or a gay person or any other individual he doesn't like on to his property.

But, on the other side, reemphasizing the principle of property rights would stop the ability for corporations to use Eminent Domain to confiscate private property from peaceful individuals to build a factory? What if all our other rights would be better protected knowing that we are secure in our property that we justly acquired?

Your arguement is false for three reasons:

1) Even if your assumption is correct, the only real choice we had at the time was to outlaw discrimination to the public. That is, no bill came before congress saying 'Do you want a Libertarian Society or a Civil Rights Bill'. There was no trade off. The march toward evil statism still goes forward. Further, your assumption of a possible Libertarian state is speculative and certainly impractical. Such as state has never existed, and never will.

2) But even if such a Libertarian state existed, there is no real reason to think that people's preferences for discrimination would not persist over the disire to make a profit on potentially productive blacks. Blacks, being discrinated against, would by definition not be as productive. The less successful they are, the more others think it is something innate, and hence it strengthens discrimination and bigotry. That is why discrimiantion and bigotry are so persistent.

3)But even if a libertarian state existed, and even if such a free market uptopia would end most market bigotry,what is the harm of putting it into law then? Why is it you use the state to protect your property from agression from another man, but leave to chance the protection of man against natural necessity? It is harm all the same.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Do any of you RP supporters know if he went hunting with Gov. Perry out at Nigg#r Ranch? Since he's not going to be president do some research on this subject and get back to us....Since I won't waste time doing it and since you wingnuts know so much about RP you should know about what I'm asking for as well.

Thank You.......

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 6:49 am

Also, I found that in Washington DC, the slave owners were compensated when their slaves were emancipated in 1862. So the argument that Lincoln would have stopped this is false. The forces opposing this move were those who benefitted the most from slavery, the slave owners, and their Senators. The slave owners were,, as they say, "all in" on keeping the status quo. Taking away the right to own slaves was the issue for them. Not compensation. The value of a slave was in how much labor they could get over his lifetime and his childrens' lifetimes and so on, which was far greater than the cost to buy a slave.

Further, the right to secession may have been a theory, but I have never found the clause or phrase in the constitution that supports it. Individuals may choose to stand up and leave, states may not.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote DRC:

As a model of 'consistency,' I give you Ron Paul on a woman's right to choose and gay rights. The absurd idea that civil rights belong to the states to decide was what segregation was all about. Paul fails to be a consistent defender of individual liberty whenever it crosses his prejudices. He is an old man who was raised in Texas, and he is not a principled libertarian when the rubber hits the road.

You are completely wrong with your statements. First, Ron Paul was not raised in Texas. You are attempting to stereotype him by saying, "well he IS from Texas, so you know he is just one of those backwards southerners! Plus, the mere fact that he lives in Texas probably means he is a bigot." This appears to be the level of your critical thinking on this subject. The truth is that Ron Paul was born and raised in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, which according to your lazy stereotyping is actually part of the "elitist liberal East Coast". Paul did not move to Texas until after he finished medical school. He was in his early thirties. He moved there for his career, both to establish a medical practice in an area where he would have the opportunity, and later he moved to a district where he could win a seat in Congress.

That is the truth. To your other point, you seem to be suggesting that Ron Paul hides his prejudice by deferring to States Rights, hoping that the states will oppress people (gays and woman, according to you, maybe even blacks). You are really exposing your horrid education regarding the Constitution and separation of powers. As an elected representative, Ron Paul's job is to defend the Constitution. The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not grant rights. The Constitution delegates specific powers to the Federal Government. Paul's job as an elected official is to carry out those delegated powers. All other powers are granted to the States or to the people. The Bill of Rights, likewise is not an exhaustive list of our rights. It is merely an added layer of protection to spell out certain rights that are certainly not to be violated by any government, State or Federal. The people have additional rights not spelled out in the Bill of Rights. That is commonly misunderstood.

We need to understand that our rights don't come from governments, they come from our humanity. That is called Natural Rights. The ONLY purpose for our written Constitution is to explicitly lay out the delegated functions of the Federal Government. Every other power not listed in the Constitution is granted to the States or to the people by default.

And besides, somehow you have made this claim that Ron Paul is anti woman and anti gay rights. This is absolutely absurd. Let me first start with abortion. Ron Paul is an OBGYN doctor who has delivered over 4000 babies. It is his personal opinion that abortion is morally wrong because a fetus before birth, maybe weighing six pounds, is a human deserving of some level of legal protection. His view on this subject is based on science and his personal experience, not on "faith" or superstition. It is also based on legal precident, as babies pre-birth already have inheritence rights and legal protections that conflict with abortion.

So, if you come to a good faith conclusion that a baby at some period of time before birth becomes a separate human with some right to life, then there is no contradiction and taking a pro life position is not "anti-woman" or "anti freedom" or anything of the sort.

I cannot understand pro choice people who are absolutists. These kinds of people think that any restrictions on abortions, even a minute before birth, is "antiwoman" and abominable. I am still modestly pro choice in that I don't believe all abortions should be illegal even though I don't like abortion. I see the tremendous complexities of the issue and the moral implications. None of us should want abortion to be widespread. I think it should be confined to difficult cases and as a last resort.

Now, Roe V. Wade legalizes abortion in all fifty states until a minute before birth. The rationale for allowing the States to have more authority over the subject is that with issues like abortion, they are very difficult. I am not opposed to laws against very late term pregnancies at the State level. Don't you think that people have the capacity to make a decision early in pregnancy whether to go through with it? With all the technology available and the availability of contraceptives and early pregnancy detections, it is not "anti woman" to believe that late term abortions are not very civilized and are not needed or appropriate.

But, leaving all this aside, one does not even need to make a moral judgment on abortion to see that Roe V. Wade is clearly unconstitutional. There is no Constitutional authority for the Federal Government to have anything to do with abortion. Even murder is handled exclusively by the states. There are no federal laws against murder.

And Ron Paul understands the very difficult problems regarding pregnancy and rape and all kinds of difficult problems that can arise. I think he sees the issue with more nuance than you do. His position is defensible on Constitutional grounds, and on ethical and moral grounds.

As far as gay rights are concerned, I don't know where you got the idea that Ron Paul was opposed to gay rights, but you are clearly misinformed. As far as gay marriage is concerned, Ron Paul doesn't believe government should be involved in marriage at any level, state or federal. And as far as federal laws regarding gays, Ron Paul was one of the only Republicans to vote to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. So don't make any claim that he is anti gay rights. His record clearly indicates the opposite.

Ron Paul does NOT believe that rights can be infringed on by the States. Our true rights, like those guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, cannot be infringed upon by the States. Allowing the States more perogatives in many matters does NOT allow any state to violate anyones first amendment, for example. No state can bring back segregation or slavery or anything of the sort. The issues that ARE federal according to our Constitution, including the rights that the Federal Government is intrusted to enforce, cannot be infringed anywhere in the United States.

Do you understand any of this?

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 2:24 am
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote Dr. Econ: The obvious question is why he didn't read a magazine that had his name on it? Wouldn't you?
Quote forgot:... He had about five different newsletters that he published and he contributed articles and there were numerous ghostwriters and other contributers. The idea that a publisher in that capacity would be willing and able to read every single word that is published, not placing ANY trust in those who work under you is absurd.

Paul was not a 'publisher', publishing 'news'. He wasn't running a newspaper. He was a simple political hack, or wanna be politiician (or thinking about being a politician) peddling his propaganda. So, yes, I believe he should have read all his 'newsletters' before publication. And if you really think these newsletters were 'newsworthy', then he should have taken responsibility for the newsletters, made sure the people writing them were met an ethical standard, and not just let his name out to any Tom, Dick and Harry who wanted it.

Either Paul is a racist or he is irresponsible and careless.

It has been estimated that there were maybe a dozen sentances that could be construed as racist in the entire run of all of his newsletters. In thousands and thousands of pages of published material. If you think that this could not happen to anyone, where a person could have a ghostwriter publish a few lines that they disagree with and have to explain later, then you are blatently dishonest. Do you expect Ron Paul to have superhuman powers? How was he supposed to not trust anyone working under him?

I want to make declarative statement right now. Everyone on this forum should refuse to imply that Ron Paul is a racist until you can locate ANY quote or statement directly from him that supports that accusation. If not, then the most you can suggest is that he was not paying close enough oversight for a couple years in the early 90s. He has already acknowledged this.

The larger point is how long do you think anyone should have to continually answer for something like this? I mean, this was several decades ago and NO ONE is actually accusing Ron Paul of writing the offending quotes.

What if I poured through Obama's history and found some quotes that he, or some of his close friends, made in 1983 disparaging white people? Or supporting some radical cause? Most people would say that the statute of limitations has expired on that kind of thing being relevent to what he believes now or what kind of president he would be.

In the same capacity, if twenty some years ago Ron Paul, not contemplating a further political career, showed poor judgment and did not monitor some newsletters carefully for a short period of time and allowed some questionable material to be published without his knowledge, do you really think this kind of thing is essential in order to determine what kind of president he would make in 2012?

The whole subject seems designed for the feeble minds that cannot comprehend or debate his platform, from Austrian economics to his work on the Federal Reserve.

When some individuals are losing an argument, the first step they take is to distract with ad hominem attacks and call someone a racist. That appears to be what is happening here.

I can promise you that with ease I could dig up far more controversial quotes and offensive associations in Barack Obama's past, or the past of Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum.

But I would prefer to talk about Paul's platform and what needs to be done to solve our economic problems. I want to talk about the encroaching police state and authoritarian power without restraint that is so vital to our cause. I want to warn about the danger of a war in Iran and continuing militarism and the danger that poses to all of us.

I want to discuss all of this, yet many of you hear the name Ron Paul and resort without fail to calling him a bigot and digging up the long debunked "newsletters" story from two decades ago that no one actually thinks he wrote.

Let me ask you this, have you read ANY of these old newsletters in their entirety? No? Well, then you are making a lot of assumptions on their contents based on ONE story done by a very dishonest journalist names James Kirchick of The New Republic. Like I stated in my OP, which I am sure you did not actually read, he knowingly witheld the name of the author of the most offensive material so as to suggest that Paul himself was the author. You are following the lead, without thinking, of a very dishonest man.

If you want to contribute further, provide some substance to what I have said. And provide some evidence that you actually read any part of my opening argument.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 2:24 am
Quote Laborisgood:

I, for one, am really looking forward to Dr. Paul's official concession speach of the 2012 election cycle, so all the Ron Paul fetishists can take a break from their illusions of grandeur. However, I fully understand their excitement while his competition is so weak. Enjoy this fleeting moment of RP's last hurrah.

You should know that this movement is not about Ron Paul. If he wins or loses, the cause will live on. If Romney wins the presidency, we will fight against him as vigorously as we have opposed the agenda of Obama and the agenda of George W. Bush. We will elect representatives to government that share our views. That won't change.

But, you really should stop saying that "since Ron Paul isn't going to win, I don't have to think about him or the issues he is presenting" which is precisely what many of you are saying. The whole country will have to address these issues. They are here to stay. And, more importantly, Ron Paul has been proven right by current event. He is on the right side of history.

I don't think that Ron Paul is going to give a concession speech. He is going directly to a brokered convention, where he will either get the nomination, be on the ticket, or heavily influence the platform. Or, if they completely screw him out of any influence, which would be suicide for them, he will campaign against them and carry on his movement unabated.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 2:24 am
Quote Sprinklerfitter:

Do any of you RP supporters know if he went hunting with Gov. Perry out at Nigg#r Ranch? Since he's not going to be president do some research on this subject and get back to us....Since I won't waste time doing it and since you wingnuts know so much about RP you should know about what I'm asking for as well.

Thank You.......

Wow, what a rational and enlightening contribution to the current discussion...

Let's talk about substance for a minute. Ron Paul has more minority support than any other candidate except Obama. It is all well and good to talk about Lincoln and the Civil War and what could have been done differently then or during the Civil Rights movement, but none of that will help current conditions for blacks who are suffering with unemployment that is more than twice the national average. Ron Paul's economic policies will open up opportunity for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.

He opposes overturning the most racist current policies while Obama favors expanding them. Specifically, Paul endorses ending the racist war on drugs and pardoning ALL non violent drug offenders currently serving sentances. He opposes three strike laws and mandatory sentancing. He opposes the death penalty due to its racist and discriminatory application in our society. He supports ending all current wars and adopting a foreign policy that keeps us out of war. It is well understood that minorities suffer far greater in the military than other races.

And, lastly, he wants to stop the inflation that robs the poor and transfers wealth to the well connected rich. He wants to change the regulations and government policy to open up opportunities for business and entrepreneurship for black Americans. He wants to change our immigration laws to facilitate easier and fairer immigration for all.

There is a very well known black economist named Walter Williams who supports Ron Paul. In the 1980s he did a documentary called "The State Against Blacks". He very persuasively argued that government policy and regulations and bureacracies had essentially robbed blacks of any type of economic opportunity. This has left entire neighborhoods and communities hopeless and kids who have resorted to crime.

This is exactly the type of policy that Ron Paul would reverse.

Here is the documentary. Please watch it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwGWDis2dJw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r9H4X26faU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPQXAVv_OEk&feature=related

It is one thing for you to make snide comments about Ron Paul and indict him for having a principled opinion that the Civil War was unnecessary or that Civil Rights could have been accomplished in a fairer and better way without opening the door to other kinds of government authority over private property and individual liberty. These are all academic endeavors, with no real world implications.

But it is quite another thing for you to reject the one man whose platform would call for getting directly to the heart of the most racist policies in our government today and overthrowing them. His platform would do more for minorities than any other candidate in several decades. This is what needs to be discussed now.

These are conditions that blacks and hispanics are forced to endure today. If you want to cling to revisionist history about Lincoln and the Civil War, be my guest.

None of that is particularly relevent today.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 2:24 am

This if for Phaedrus76,

I highly suggest you read the work of Thomas J. DiLorenzo. He has done extensive work on Lincoln. He is an economist at Loyola University. He is also an accomplished historian.

One book he wrote is called "The Real Lincoln". I suggest you read this book. It is very fascinating.

http://www.amazon.com/Real-Lincoln-Abraham-Agenda-Unnecessary/dp/0761526463/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1328761965&sr=8-1

Short of that here are a few youtube videos you can watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbFty9nZUac

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu9SI0ZwtbM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmxdGsOvq3E

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 2:24 am

Either Ron Paul knowingly wrote the racist screeds, or he was publishing the material and taking the money to pander to that segment of the population. And he later defended the racist screeds because he felt that it was electoral gold.

Just as Reagan kicked off his 1980 presidential run in Philadelphia, MS to sound a dog whistle clarion call to "real Americans" aka bigots, Paul works that bigot crowd to win elections and generate cash. Otherwise, in the 1990's when asked about it, he would have completely disavowed the statements and attacked the people responsible. He didn't. Because back then the numbers still supported that Southern Strategy.

Now it is a crappy strategy, and since his son's future depends on whitewashing their past, he is now trying to put the past away. And, I would be happy to let him, if he can first restore life to every person lynched, murdered or otherwise mutilated by people fueled up by Neo Nazi/ CCC/ KKK/ Ron Paul newsletter rhetoric.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:.. Paul was not a 'publisher', publishing 'news'. He wasn't running a newspaper. He was a simple political hack, or wanna be politiician (or thinking about being a politician) peddling his propaganda. So, yes, I believe he should have read all his 'newsletters' before publication. And if you really think these newsletters were 'newsworthy', then he should have taken responsibility for the newsletters, made sure the people writing them were met an ethical standard, and not just let his name out to any Tom, Dick and Harry who wanted it. Either Paul is a racist or he is irresponsible and careless.
Quote Jrodefield:..It has been estimated that there were maybe a dozen sentances that could be construed as racist in the entire run of all of his newsletters. In thousands and thousands of pages of published material. If you think that this could not happen to anyone, where a person could have a ghostwriter publish a few lines that they disagree with and have to explain later, then you are blatently dishonest. Do you expect Ron Paul to have superhuman powers? How was he supposed to not trust anyone working under him?

I don't understand why he didn't read his own newsletter. It seems unfathonable. Again, he was not publishing the New York Times. He wasn't publishing a book. And the comparison to the New York Times is apt. Are there any avowdly racist articles written in the New York Times? I doubt it (Perhaps the Pat Buchana editorials - but that is not fair). And Paul didn't have to read "thousands and thousands" of pages in a single day. It's a newsletter, for Christ sake! You imply he is some sort of publishing magnate or living in Zanadu.

But the Civil Rights legislation is still dead giveaway. You can't be running for office in the 21st century and be against civil rights legislation. That is nuts.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote jrodefeld:..And, more importantly, Ron Paul has been proven right by current event. He is on the right side of history.

If you keep screaming 'Financial Panic!' enough times, you are bound to be right.

When the recovery comes, Ron Paul will once again be proven wrong - just as his philosophy was proven wrong in 1941, 1985 and 1996.

And then you guys will go back and start winning about all that horrible malinvestment, and the low unemployment is really a mask for the new evil that is to come. Be afriad, be very afraid.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote jrodefeld:...But it is quite another thing for you to reject the one man whose platform would call for getting directly to the heart of the most racist policies in our government today and overthrowing them. His platform would do more for minorities than any other candidate in several decades. This is what needs to be discussed now.

What? It's the states and counties that do zonning, the federal government is hardly a player by comparison.

And Paul is for state's right, and implicity county rights. Most of the regulations you guys complain the most about have nothing to do with the Federal Government. Half the federal government regulations are simply ways the government agencies have to operate. And many regulations try to prevent the very force and fraud on people that you guys are usually so against.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

How nice that the 'affirmative action is racist' canard is still at work.

Some folks desperately need to expose themselves to the works of Tim Wise.

Garrett78's picture
Garrett78
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 9:20 am

Ah, getting paid by the word, are we? Must be nice to have a job like that.

When it comes to public officials, the distinction between whether the person is racist or just the policies they espouse (because they think that will get them elected) doesn't really matter.

A little while back we heard people claiming they never said it was "weapons of mass destruction" even though there are copious recordings of them saying just that.

This is not the 10th Century. We don't have to take anyone's word for anything. We can do our own research.

My choice for research on a legislator is the legislation proposed and their voting record.

Get to know the candidates based on more than what they have said in the past year. In this case, look carefully through the pieces of legislation authored in 1997 (any claims that he didn't really author them or read them or understand the nature of some that, in true dog-whistle fashion, just happen to work out disproportionately badly for poor mostly minority populations - should be taken up with the keepers of the Congressional Record).

Rodger97321's picture
Rodger97321
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Ok, I admit that I have not researched RP's life history. He is still not a consistent defender of human and civil rights, the least I expect from an honest Libertarian. States Rights has a terrible racist history and defies any principled stand for human freedom and justice. You run on and on to no purpose or effect. Others have done what needs to be done to your arguments, and I will let them carve you up and not waste my time. Paul is a disappointment on too many fronts even if he is right about a couple of things, but mostly for the wrong reasons.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Garrett78:How nice that the 'affirmative action is racist' canard is still at work. Some folks desperately need to expose themselves to the works of Tim Wise.

Are you talking to me?

I never claimed that someone who disagreed with affirmative action was racist.

I am sure it is just a coincidence.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote jrodefeld:

I don't think that Ron Paul is going to give a concession speech. He is going directly to a brokered convention, where he will either get the nomination, be on the ticket, or heavily influence the platform. Or, if they completely screw him out of any influence, which would be suicide for them, he will campaign against them and carry on his movement unabated.

...... and further justify the GOP's required seat in the "time-out chair" until they can behave like adults.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

This entire thread can be summed up in one or two sentences:

His campaign = his responsibility. I don't care how directly involved he was in the crafting of the wording, in what way he signed off, etc. His campaign = his responsibility. Whether he is a bigot/racist or not, he still has to take responsibility for the messages his campaigns put out in the world. To my knowledge, Paul has not seriously recanted any of the statements or sentinments in those campaigns messages other than saying "those aren't my words."

The most we can gather from that is that he would have said the same thing in a different way.

HIS CAMPAIGN = HIS RESPONSIBILITY

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:

Either Ron Paul knowingly wrote the racist screeds, or he was publishing the material and taking the money to pander to that segment of the population. And he later defended the racist screeds because he felt that it was electoral gold.

Just as Reagan kicked off his 1980 presidential run in Philadelphia, MS to sound a dog whistle clarion call to "real Americans" aka bigots, Paul works that bigot crowd to win elections and generate cash. Otherwise, in the 1990's when asked about it, he would have completely disavowed the statements and attacked the people responsible. He didn't. Because back then the numbers still supported that Southern Strategy.

Now it is a crappy strategy, and since his son's future depends on whitewashing their past, he is now trying to put the past away. And, I would be happy to let him, if he can first restore life to every person lynched, murdered or otherwise mutilated by people fueled up by Neo Nazi/ CCC/ KKK/ Ron Paul newsletter rhetoric.

I very sincerely hope that you don't actually believe the crap that you just wrote. There is a point when having a civilized conversation becomes impossible due to complete fabrication of information and/or delusion of one participant. You are projecting a lot of ill motives on Ron Paul that there is no evidence to support.

Now let me take the final sentance you wrote: "...people fueled up by the Neo Nazi/CCC/KKK/Ron Paul newsletter rhetoric." If you cannot comprehend how irresponsible that kind of statement is then there is really no hope for you. As inappropriate as the very small number of offensive statements (written by a ghostwriter) were, NONE of them could be confused for true racist writings or white supremacist literature. The most offensive of the material referenced welfare queens and youth violence among minorities. Inappropriate yes, but a far cry from statements that disparage all black people or exalt whites as superior or anything of that sort. In fact, this kind of divisive rhetoric in fact is thrown around all the time in talk radio and other outlets. It is still wrong, but it doesn't generate the kind of attention because there is no threat to vested interests from these sources.

You state that he either knowingly wrote those articles or it was part of a strategy to appeal to racists (the "southern strategy") in a cynical attempt to make money or further his political career. Now, both accusations are demonstrably false and if you bothered to actually think or do any independent research you would know that. First, it has been proven that Ron Paul did not write this material. It was authored by a man named James B. Powell. That has been established. Seriously, that information was contained in my OP! Had you actually read it before spouting off, you would know that.

Second, if Ron Paul was actively courting racist support or had an overarching plan to use the "southern strategy" to further his career, why was there so little of this kind of material? There was about fifteen years of published material that was completely devoid of any potentially offensive material of any kind. Then a very small number of articles show up sporadically for a couple years in the early 90s and then disappear entirely. So, this gives you the impression that the whole thing was planned to appeal to racists? If that is part of Ron Paul's character and his message, why has NONE of this kind of rhetoric shown up in any of his writings or speeches for the rest of his entire political career?

You have no argument. And he never defended these articles. He took moral responsibility for not providing oversight. Deceitful people with an agenda such as yourself take that and construe the notion that he "supported" the statements because of what he said. That is absurd. Again, I thoroughly debunked this line of attack in my OP. Read it for a change. And read the Ron Paul Newsletter FAQ that I linked to.

I have said it before but because you appear to be kind of slow, I'll say it again. For you to have any credibility whatsoever, you need to produce ANY quote or evidence of Ron Paul saying anything racist. In his entire career. In any speech or book his has authored. Find a single quote that supports your argument and I will concede that Ron Paul really is a racist.

However, you will not be able to because Ron Paul's entire career and ideology is fundamentally opposed to racism. Given that information, you are the one who will have to concede the point and admit that you are wrong.

I await your concession.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 2:24 am
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote Garrett78:How nice that the 'affirmative action is racist' canard is still at work. Some folks desperately need to expose themselves to the works of Tim Wise.

Are you talking to me?

I never claimed that someone who disagreed with affirmative action was racist.

I am sure it is just a coincidence.

No, I wasn't. I was skimming one of the OP's posts and responding to the implication that affirmative action itself is racist. Sorry for not being more clear.

I second what Tim Wise has to say here: http://www.timwise.org/2010/10/affirmative-action-for-dummies-explaining...

Garrett78's picture
Garrett78
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 9:20 am
Quote jrodefeld:...Ron Paul's entire career and ideology is fundamentally opposed to racism.

Right. I hear him talk about all the time.

He walked with Martin Luther King and was a part of the civil rights marches in the 60's.

He voted for the Martin Luther King holiday.

He was for the civil rights law that made it illegal for public businesses to discriminate against blacks.

He's for building better public schools in the inner city.

He criticized the racist signs at the Tea Party protests.

He criticized Rick Perry for having that ranch. He complained so loudly when it was found that Bush moved into a housing neighborhood that was 'whites only' until 1980.

He is going to make sure that ancestors of blacks who were wrongly imprisoned will be compensated for the coercion and the theft that was perpetrated by the evil government.

Sure. Fundamentally opposed.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote jrodefeld: .. I await your concession.

OK, I spent a few minutes and found the original story, that has links.

This would make anyone sick to their stomach.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98883/ron-paul-incendiary-newsletter...

I wait your concession.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Ron Paul would probably be shocked to learn that he's been OVERprivileged for his entire life. Especially since "overprivilege" isn't part of most folks' vocabulary, even though "underprivilege" is a relatively well-accepted reality.

I don't have the patience for the back-and-forth regarding newsletter accountability, because it hardly seems like what really matters in this discussion. The "color blind" crowd simply wants to go on being blind to ongoing racial injustice (to say nothing of past injustices and their lingering effects).

Garrett78's picture
Garrett78
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 9:20 am
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote Dr. Econ:.. Paul was not a 'publisher', publishing 'news'. He wasn't running a newspaper. He was a simple political hack, or wanna be politiician (or thinking about being a politician) peddling his propaganda. So, yes, I believe he should have read all his 'newsletters' before publication. And if you really think these newsletters were 'newsworthy', then he should have taken responsibility for the newsletters, made sure the people writing them were met an ethical standard, and not just let his name out to any Tom, Dick and Harry who wanted it. Either Paul is a racist or he is irresponsible and careless.
Quote Jrodefield:..It has been estimated that there were maybe a dozen sentances that could be construed as racist in the entire run of all of his newsletters. In thousands and thousands of pages of published material. If you think that this could not happen to anyone, where a person could have a ghostwriter publish a few lines that they disagree with and have to explain later, then you are blatently dishonest. Do you expect Ron Paul to have superhuman powers? How was he supposed to not trust anyone working under him?

I don't understand why he didn't read his own newsletter. It seems unfathonable. Again, he was not publishing the New York Times. He wasn't publishing a book. And the comparison to the New York Times is apt. Are there any avowdly racist articles written in the New York Times? I doubt it (Perhaps the Pat Buchana editorials - but that is not fair). And Paul didn't have to read "thousands and thousands" of pages in a single day. It's a newsletter, for Christ sake! You imply he is some sort of publishing magnate or living in Zanadu.

But the Civil Rights legislation is still dead giveaway. You can't be running for office in the 21st century and be against civil rights legislation. That is nuts.

Again, you really don't seem to have a clue about the ideology that Ron Paul is espousing or what his position on civil rights really is. Ron Paul is NOT against civil rights legislation. He supports it. However, he does raise certain concerns about federal mandates on private property owners. There are certain unintended consequences of even the best and most well motivated legislation that should not go unexamined. But the media does not report accurately the nuance and larger point of what Ron Paul is really saying. His political enemies only say (falsely) "he is against civil rights" without any discussion about his real point.

What you really need to think about is this. Right now, property owners are allowed to discriminate against all kinds of people for all kinds of outrageous reasons. However, through legislation we have created a small number of people who are "protected" and have a superior position from other individuals in that they cannot be discriminated against. You might say to yourself, well we need separate legislation for other discriminated groups, gays, jews and people belonging to other religions, people wearing tatoos, little people, etc. And we could craft more and more legislation and heap on more and more mandates on owners of private property.

What happens in this scenario is that it continually perpetuates the idea of group rights and group identities. Not only this, but it creates a scenario where various interest groups are set up to pander to different races and religious groups and politicians granting some small token perk for their support. Certain legislation is promised in exchange for the support of various groups. Distrust and paranoia about other groups trying to hurt them is fostered by a political and media environment that seeks to use these conflicts to gain power. And the result is that we lose sight of individual rights which should bring us all together in a common purpose against the politicians and the State apparatus. What happens is that we slowly lose all private property and freedom of association. What we should strive for is that everyone is treated equally and fairly.

Now, everyone should agree that the legacy of Jim Crow and slavery in this country makes the plight of African Americans a unique case and civil rights was very necessary through legislative means. Ron Paul is not disputing this in the least. Whether you agree with Ron Paul or not, you have to admire a man who will still bring up questions about something like the Civil Rights bill even though he knows full well that the safe thing to do is simply say what everyone else is saying and move on. But he will still tell you what he thinks and he will say to you "now wait a minute. There is something you all are missing. There are certain unintended consequences to any legislation and there are cause and effect relationships that bear examination and deep consideration." Now, everyone knows that raising ANY questions about civil rights or other controversial subjects is a loser politically. But Ron Paul is more interested in being truthful and raising thought provoking questions and causing people to think again about an issue they might have put to rest. This is just an example of why Ron Paul is not like other politicians. His convictions and his beliefs in his principles and the Constitution compels him to answer honestly and truthfully.

This is just an example of why Ron Paul would NOT sell out once elected. He will not pander or compromise his beliefs. When he says he would end these wars and bring the troops home, you can guarantee he would do just that. When he promises to audit the Federal Reserve, he would do that. Don't you find that refreshing? Candid, honest and truthful.

Another thing that has to be understood when we talk about Civil Rights and Affirmative Action and many other actions by the government that seek to right the wrongs of slavery and past discrimination is that many times they contradict the goal of true equality and a color blind society. I understand very well the notion of a need by society to compensate for past mistakes especially in the case of racism against black Americans. But its been more than forty years since the Civil Rights movement and I find it a little unfair when someone my age (I'm 27) is denied a job because a black man who is vying for that position gets preferential treatment even though I might be more qualified. I had nothing to do with racism. Most people under the age of 40 have no experiential understanding of racism against blacks. I know it as something in history textbooks. There is so much less racism in younger people that many of these laws and regulations serve to create animosity among the races where none existed.

I do know full well that racism still exists in many parts of the country, but speaking in purely idealistic terms, as both myself and Ron Paul like to do, we want to attack any policies that are racist (drug war, death penalty, inequities in the criminal justice system) but also remove policies that give preferential treatment (affirmative action and certain benefits and set asides that are not earned). The goal in a libertarian society is that everyone is treated as an individual and there are no group rights. Only the content of their character matters in my eyes. Ron Paul feels the same way.

Now, Ron Paul often talks about his ideal, but he also understands the practical and the feasible. He understands that to achieve a society based on true liberty, we would have to first remove the policies that are discriminatory. We would have to solve a lot of governmental problems first. He has never suggested that something like Civil Rights should be repealed. He has talked about the philisophic concept of liberty and how some of the post civil rights era legislation is morally wrong because it violates the concept of individual rights and increases racial tension and promotes group rights.

He has never made any of this a priority for him. I mean, the guy is talking about ending this absurd foreign policy and keeping us from sparking World War 3 with an attack on Iran. He is talking about our monetary policy and saving the dollar from collapsing. He doesn't want Americans to be denied the right of habeas corpus and held indefinately. And he is desparately trying to prevent us from becoming a police state.

These are his priorities. He is not talking about race except to defend blacks from the vicious drug war and so many discriminatory policies that still exist, policies by the way that he is the ONLY candidate to take a principled stand against.

Yet, it is the politically correct liberals and his political enemies who pour through his every statement and turn the discussion towards race. Things like "you know, fifteen years you said something negative about the Civil Rights bill", or "In a book you criticized Lincoln and argued that slavery could have been ended without a Civil War", or "twenty some years ago there were a few words published that seemed to be racist, why don't you talk about that?"

I mean if you can't see the agenda at work here then you are blinded by your own ideology. As to your point that you don't understand why he didn't read his own newsletter, if you bothered to read my opening OP, you would know the answer to that. During the time following his 1988 campaign for the Libertarian Party, Ron Paul resigned from politics and worked full time as a doctor practicing medicine and delivering babies. He was a family man and gave up on actively working on these newsletters.

You have to understand, they weren't "his" newsletters. They were a collection of material that were more of a collaboration than anything else. Ron Paul was involved in the creation and rise to prominance of a number of libertarian think tanks and organizations. He was open to using his modest fame to promote like minded views. From the very beginning these newsletters were compiled by various groups and Ron Paul was only one contributer. It was circulated to a very small number of people. His name was at the top because he was allowing a number of people to use his name to promote views that he considered similar to his own.

So the idea that he would read every single word of each newsletter when he was as busy as he was in his medical practice and with a very large family is absurd. Not only that, but there were fifteen years without a single controversial statement in these newsletters. They were mostly dry economic literature about the gold standard written by Austrian economists with contributions from Paul himself. Why would he have any reason to think that the content would change or that he would need to monitor the contents?

Hindsight is 20/20. It is easy to say know that he should have monitored each word closely. He should have known that anything he attaches his name to can and will be used by his political enemies. Maybe that is correct. But given the timetable of events, I hardly see how this could have been prevented nor can I heavily fault Ron Paul for trusted in some others to not compromise his good name with such material given that they had given him no reason to not trust them in greater than a decade of collaboration.

Now, do you honestly think that a careful examination of the pasts of Barack Obama or the other Republicans could not unearth statements or associations at least as controversial and abhorrent? Obama, who is the product of the most corrupt type of politics in Chicago, or the other Republicans who are the worst kind of pandering pay to play corrupt individuals, all who have heavy ties to Wall Street banks like Goldman Sachs. There is a double standard here. All these other individuals knowingly participated in bribes, extortion, lying to get us into wars that have killed thousands, and take money from lobbyists to game the system for their benefit and keep the ponzi scheme going for the benefit of the super rich.

None of that gets adequate scrutiny from you guys. Ron Paul, who has been fighting to expose this corruption and defend the Constitution his entire career, gets trashed for placing too much trust in individuals who published a small number of words that contradict his entire career's work.

Care to put this into a little bit of perspective?

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 2:24 am
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote jrodefeld:..And, more importantly, Ron Paul has been proven right by current event. He is on the right side of history.

If you keep screaming 'Financial Panic!' enough times, you are bound to be right.

When the recovery comes, Ron Paul will once again be proven wrong - just as his philosophy was proven wrong in 1941, 1985 and 1996.

And then you guys will go back and start winning about all that horrible malinvestment, and the low unemployment is really a mask for the new evil that is to come. Be afriad, be very afraid.

Why don't you explain exactly how his philisophy was proven wrong in 1941, 1985 and 1996? Ron Paul did not simply scream financial panic over and over and finally it came and now he gets the credit. No, with great detail and precision he explained every aspect of how Fed policy was misallocating credit and blowing up a housing bubble and he explained exactly how it would burst. He warned of what would happen with Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac and the role the Community Reinvestment Act would play in creating this crisis. With great precision and accuracy he explained all this way back in 2001.

And you seriously don't want to give him ANY credit? How do you explain these statements?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meFjza6BpEA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5nGCpzel6o

Please watch both of these videos in their entirety. I am interested in your response.

Here is an excerpt from a speech given by Ron Paul on the house floor in 2002:

Congressman Ron Paul

U.S. House of Representatives
July 16, 2002

“Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act. This legislation restores a free market in housing by repealing special privileges for housing-related government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). These entities are the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie), and the National Home Loan Bank Board (HLBB). According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received $13.6 billion worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone.

One of the major government privileges granted these GSEs is a line of credit to the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out these GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps them attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a massive unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.

The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase the debt of housing-related GSEs. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors.

Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges of Fannie, Freddie, and HLBB have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.

However, despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policies of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles,the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall,homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.

Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.

No less an authority than Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that government subsidies provided to the GSEs make investors underestimate the risk of investing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors misled by foolish government interference in the market. I therefore hope my colleagues will stand up for American taxpayers and investors by cosponsoring the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act.”

So Ron Paul was literally alone in accurate predicting this crisis. Not only that, but he is the only politician to really understand the mechanisms and reasons for our economic problems.

If you want to respond (and I hope you do) please be specific in explaining with Ron Paul is wrong about his economic policies and his predictions that have come true. Also, I want to know exactly why Ron Paul's philisophy has been "proven wrong" by 1941, 1985 and 1996.

I want to examine your understanding of economics. Don't be shy. Tell us what you know about the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle. Explain why Paul's criticisms of the Fed's low interest rate policy was wrong.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 2:24 am
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote jrodefeld:...But it is quite another thing for you to reject the one man whose platform would call for getting directly to the heart of the most racist policies in our government today and overthrowing them. His platform would do more for minorities than any other candidate in several decades. This is what needs to be discussed now.

What? It's the states and counties that do zonning, the federal government is hardly a player by comparison.

And Paul is for state's right, and implicity county rights. Most of the regulations you guys complain the most about have nothing to do with the Federal Government. Half the federal government regulations are simply ways the government agencies have to operate. And many regulations try to prevent the very force and fraud on people that you guys are usually so against.

This is so unbelievably wrong it is hard to know where to begin. Do you honestly think that most of the hundreds of thousands of pages in the Federal Register are simply instructions on how to operate the Federal agencies? Ron Paul is not running for governor of a state. If he was, you can be sure he would campaign to repeal harmful zoning laws and ineffective regulations at the State level.

You know, I wasn't talking about regulations in the quote you pulled. I was talking about the Federal War on Drugs. I was talking about the Death Penalty. I was talking about the inflation by the Federal Reserve that hurts the poor and minorities the most. I was talking about ending these military wars of aggression that disproportionately hurt the minorities.

And yes, I was finally talking about some of the regulations and rules that destroy economic opportunity for poor blacks. Did you bother to watch that documentary "The State Against Blacks" by Walter Williams, a black economist that has supported Ron Paul?

Please watch it. I linked to it a few posts above. It explains in great detail the type of government regulation that has hurt blacks so greatly in this country. The policies outlined in those videos are the ones that Ron Paul would do away with.

I hope you do watch those videos. I would be very interested to hear your reaction. There are so many blatently racist government policies that Ron Paul actively campaigns against, that the tactic of smearing him for some obscure quote leveling a critique of parts of the Civil Rights Act or criticizing Lincoln suggesting he is a racist is absurd and insulting. Those are academic exercises that have nothing to do with what needs to be done today to allow minorities to have upward mobility and be free from the tyranny of drug laws and police brutality.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 2:24 am
Quote Garrett78:

How nice that the 'affirmative action is racist' canard is still at work.

Some folks desperately need to expose themselves to the works of Tim Wise.

I didn't say Affirmative Action is racist. I said that it is unwise as policy and can create racial resentment and stir up more problems that it purports to solve.

You might want to respond to my broader point here. If you want to bring Tim Wise into the conversation, why don't you explain what he said that you think I or Ron Paul should know?

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 2:24 am
Quote Rodger97321:

Ah, getting paid by the word, are we? Must be nice to have a job like that.

When it comes to public officials, the distinction between whether the person is racist or just the policies they espouse (because they think that will get them elected) doesn't really matter.

A little while back we heard people claiming they never said it was "weapons of mass destruction" even though there are copious recordings of them saying just that.

This is not the 10th Century. We don't have to take anyone's word for anything. We can do our own research.

My choice for research on a legislator is the legislation proposed and their voting record.

Get to know the candidates based on more than what they have said in the past year. In this case, look carefully through the pieces of legislation authored in 1997 (any claims that he didn't really author them or read them or understand the nature of some that, in true dog-whistle fashion, just happen to work out disproportionately badly for poor mostly minority populations - should be taken up with the keepers of the Congressional Record).

I know intimately the entire career of Ron Paul and most of the legislation he has authored. If you want to take up some case against a specific bill Ron Paul has authored, name it. Unless you do, you are simply being unproductive and clutering up this thread with wild accusations. The real question is how much do YOU know about the overall philosophy of Paul or the Austrian School of economics?

Have you read any book that Paul has authored? Or do you merely read the name of a bill that Paul (or someone else) authors and make a judgment on its validity? It seems you are just looking at some bill or statement that Paul has made that seems to criticize Affirmative Action or something like that, and then you assume he is a bigot. I hate to make assumptions but I would not be surprised if that is the level of your thinking on this subject.

I would love for you to prove me wrong. Why don't you name the bill that you think hurts minorities? And why don't you ask if the actions of that bill would hurt blacks more than the War on Drugs, which Paul opposes? Is any bill Paul has introduced more harmful than the death penalty or rampant inflation that destroys upward mobility for these folks?

It is nice to think that you are progressive because of some token piece of legislation that, for examples, provides subsidies for low cost housing for poorer people. Oh wait, that crashed and the poor people (many of them minorities) lost their houses and the banks got bailed out. Ron Paul opposed that kind of legislation because he knew it would work out for the banks but hurt the poor tremendously.

A bit of economic education would go a long way. I think that Ron Paul is focuses on the big picture, the REAL issues that are affecting minorities in this country.

jrodefeld's picture
jrodefeld
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2011 2:24 am

Is It Time To Execute Equifax?

The Equifax hacking scandal just keeps getting worse.

So should we bring back the corporate death penalty and do away with this security threat once and for all?

According to Bloomberg, the credit reporting firm:

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system