Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Why Are White Supremacists So Attracted to Ron Paul?

Posted by Pam Spaulding, Pam's House Blend at 12:00 PM on November 12, 2007.


Pam Spaulding: Could it be a political newsletter Rep. Paul put out in 1992 where he made some comments that are, well, racist?
ph2007110801080

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

This post, written by Pam Spaulding, originally appeared on Pam's House Blend

This can't be a plus for the upstart GOP candidate.

Stormfront.org, a white supremacy web site, as well as others, such as WhiteWorldNews.com, have actively supported Paul's bid for the presidency, including directing donors to his campaign. Stormfront has also endorsed Paul for president.

"Once in a great while a presidential candidate is presented to us. A candidate who not only speaks to us, but for us...I am supporting Ron Paul in his run for the presidency," the Stormfront endorsement says. The endorsement praises Paul's plans to reduce taxes, close the borders and eliminate trade deals, such as NAFTA.

"Whatever organization you belong to, remember first and foremost that you are a white nationalist," the endorsement continues. "Put your differences with one and other aside and work together. Work together to strive to get someone in the Oval Office who agrees with much of what we want for our future. Look at the man. Look at the issues. Look at our future. Vote for Ron Paul 2008."

...On the Vanguard News Network , convicted bomber and neo-Nazi Todd Vanbiber posted his support for Paul, saying, "I think I'm going to get in touch with the local Paul people and see if I can help. I am serious about this shit."; Vanbiber was convicted and spent 5 years in a Florida prison for planning to bomb over a dozen Orlando locations.

Ain't that America. Apparently the attraction to Paul of the supremacist set stems from a political newsletter from 1992 where Ron Paul made some comments that are, well, racist. It's after the jump.

I would hope the Paul campaign would explain this:

* "Opinion polls show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

* "We are constantly told it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

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

Even more embarrassing, according to Lone Star Times, Paul has the support of David Duke, and Stormfront has a YouTube audio commercial up supporting Paul.

Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters actually posted on Paul's writings several months ago -- and there's more.

But, hey, Paul's paranoia isn't limited to African-Americans. He fears the Joooooooos, too:

Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, "By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government" and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.

Digg!

Tagged as: paul, election08, racism, white supremacist, anti-semitism

Pam Spaulding blogs at Pam's House Blend.


Dems' Godly God-Fest Ends with Prayer by Former Christian Coalition Leader
A leader among the "New Evangelicals."
Post by Joshua Holland. August 29, 2008.
John McCain is Older Than Alaska
23 years older.
Post by Isaac Fitzgerald. August 29, 2008.
Palin Thinks Hillary is a Whiner
These days Palin is all about praising Hillary's efforts, but she used to sing a different tune.
Post by Melissa McEwan. August 29, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
AIPAC
Posted by: fanny666 on Nov 12, 2007 12:05 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Speaking out against AIPAC is not necessarily anti-semitic. How many times do we have to try and make that point? If there is other evidence of Paul hating Jews, present it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: AIPAC Posted by: Jindi
» RE: AIPAC Posted by: xvictor
» RE: AIPAC Posted by: lotus23
» RE: AIPAC Posted by: Tombo
» RE: AIPAC Posted by: cyrena1987
Better Duke than Bush
Posted by: Nick on Nov 12, 2007 12:43 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At least Duke got some brains

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All things being equal, 1 and 2 look like demographic coments, rather than racist ones.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Nov 12, 2007 2:01 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The data might be from dubious sources, though--I tend to attribute mis-characterizations to ignorance first, unless malice is apparent.

Meh, 3 looks to be fairly ugly. Clarification would be indeed be good (or bad, depending).

Does anyone know if the past-klansman who represents W.V. in the Senate has offered his endorsement of Paul?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is this true?
Posted by: felipe on Nov 12, 2007 2:01 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

A quick search for the answer did not yield any results.

If it is true, is it racist to point it out?

Just asking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Is this true? Posted by: disgustedandamused
» RE: Is this true? Posted by: disgustedandamused
» RE: Is this true? Posted by: disgustedandamused
» RE: Is this true? Posted by: Sheerterror77
» RE: Is this true? Posted by: cyrena1987
Why's it so hard for people to admit Ron Paul completely sucks ass?
Posted by: droscify on Nov 12, 2007 2:50 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah, he's pro pot legalization and anti war but so is any reasonable person with half a brain. its definitely not enough to support a racist anti infrastructure, anti safety net libertarian crackpot for president.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The apologists should be here soon.
Posted by: Everitt on Nov 12, 2007 3:24 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can't wait to see this spun into being blacks' fault.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
re: "Is this true?"
Posted by: porgygirl on Nov 12, 2007 4:35 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 1975-2005 45.8% of homicides were committed by whites, 52.2% by blacks. That's certainly disproportionate.

BJS

Where the danger of racism comes in: 1) What's the purpose of discussing the statistic? Is it to discuss trends and problems in various communities, or is it to demonize black men as dangerous?
2) How do class and other factors contribute to this picture? Don't leap too quickly to race as the sole explanatory factor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ron Paul, better or worse
Posted by: lotus23 on Nov 12, 2007 5:48 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like a broken clock, Ron Paul is right some of the time.

He's right on Iraq; but go take a look at his platform, the entire platform. Pretty scary, actually. His patently racist comments from the early 90s indicate a comfort level with the party he's in, and possibly the sentiments of the district he serves.

Still, I think he serves a useful purpose being in the presidential race, at least in opening up debate on foreign policy on the Right. Here he is able to do what Kucinich, Gravel, or a Green Party candidate cannot do. He provides the one opportunity to force rivals in the Republican debate -- a GOP venue -- to confront the absurdity of the Iraq war and challange the imperialist nature of our default American exceptionalism. All from the abandoned prism of paleoconservativism. If this critique is coming from elements (even outliers) in both parties, it renders this anti-imperialist argument centrist, more mainstream. If both parties were able to launch the war, elements from both parties can help end it.

I do have a degree of ambivalence. After all, Pat Buchanan is against the Iraq war, as well as NAFTA and other free trade policies, though from a nativist stance.... (not to mention the fact that he's a notorious bigot).

Then there's Ron Paul's comments on AIPAC, Zionism, et al. A critique of Zionism is not anti-Semitic -- Gandhi and Malcolm X were unpersuaded -- though unfortunately there are people who are genuinely anti-Semitic who throw around the "anti-Zionist" card. (If Osama bin Laden can exploit Palestinian suffering for political gain, why wouldn't David Duke or Pat Buchanan be able to?) This becomes a red herring for any discussion of Israel/Palestine (or of Zionism, for that matter).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Dictator? Posted by: lotus23
» RE: Dictator? Posted by: hilaryuk
Why is every Alternet story on Ron Paul a Hit Piece?
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Nov 12, 2007 9:10 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I swore away from posting here about 1.5 months ago due to the hit piece against Ron Paul that was run back then.

It was the same story about the newsletter. At the time I didn't even believe that the story was true as I had not seen any evidence to support it.

Since then I have done some digging and there are posts detailing the same quotes mentioned in the Alternet article today but they were not able to publish an actual copy of the newsletter to prove their claim.

The researcher did state that Ron Paul denounced those comments and states a ghost writer wrote those statements in the newsletter not him. While I don't think that excuses him because he is ultimately the Capt. of his newsletter and should clear every word before it gets released, he did denounce the statements.


Why is every Alternet article on Ron Paul a hit piece?

Not one positive in depth article about the man, his platform, or his voting record has ever been run on Alternet.

We wonder why candidates like Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Ron Paul have low polling numbers. When even Alternet, a supposed progressive, indepth, thinkers news site won't cover the real issues is it any wonder that no other news organization does?

Alternet, and the rest of the news media, can either focus their time on the issues: policy objectives, voting record, etc.

OR

They can engage in assassination politics.


How are we ever supposed to learn about all the candidates, what their platform is, and what their voting record is, with stories like this one?

It is quite clear that Alternet wants to do everything it can to discourage its visitors from voting for Ron Paul.

What makes Alternet any different from Fox News? Their opinions on issues are different but the methods used by both organizations are largely the same.

To me that means Alternet and Fox News are far more alike than Alternet and another liberal news site that doesn't engage in assassination politics.

I think Alternet needs to look in the mirror and reevaluate what the focus of its time and energy is going to be on, issues based reporting or assassination politics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ron Paul is a maverick - far left and right like mavericks
Posted by: Nitewriter on Nov 13, 2007 3:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The lead on this article is prejudicial and misleading. Ron Paul attracts a wide left-right political following, including some civil libertarians, anarchists, First Amendment mavens and people who drift toward anti-establishment candidates for a variety of personal reasons. I knew leftists who voted for David Duke in Louisiana to "send a message" to the political elites, and far-rightists who voted for Ralph Nader for the same reason. This could be countered with "Why do Marxists support Barak Obama?" Certainly not because he's a Marxist - he isn't - and Ron Paul is not a white supremacist, either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Michael, US ARMY RET
Posted by: Michael_D on Nov 13, 2007 4:08 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
C'mon give us a break. Ron Paul is not a racist. I'd be embarrassed to falsely project that knowing about the man and his views as I do. Clearly, people who keep this lie going do not know much about him. This bogus comment has been explained many times now. The thing is, people will run with it and not even understand that it was a ghost writer and that Ron Paul would never have said those words or allowed it to be posted. He is quite simply the best man for this job and we all know it. This country is screwed unless we change in the ways that only Ron Paul has the courage and vision to tell us. If you check out Ron Paul and have something against him in the face of what we've allowed to happen to America and abroad, you are not thinking clearly at all. He is the only one that can help us. My family and friends will be voting for him. Get informed and join the revolution people. This is for your grandkids and thousands of innocents around the world that are in turmoil because of this country and it's interests, ok? People are waking up. Please wake up with us.

We need to see much more pro Ron Paul articles at Alternet.

Ron Paul Nation TV

TeaParty07.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Michael, US ARMY RET Posted by: JOHN L.
» RE: Michael, US ARMY RET Posted by: Michael_D
So what would it take...
Posted by: Urstrly on Nov 13, 2007 4:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to convince you Ron Paul is a racist? Either you agree with his baseless prejudices or you know them for the pandering to ignorance that those statements represent. I heard him Sunday on TV (all that money he raised seems to have gotten the media's attention) and I agree with his positions on the war and diplomacy and a few other things, but I totally disagree that we need less government. We need a government that works, not a cash machine for vested interests.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So what would it take... Posted by: Michael_D
Ghost Writer
Posted by: xvictor on Nov 13, 2007 4:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was a ghost writer who penned the controversial newsletter and not Ron. Mr. Paul had denounced all those comments a very long time ago. Why is this being rehashed again??? Many reichwingers have no love for Ron Paul, but i am dismayed by the many leftist/liberals who also chastize Ron Paul's message. LISTEN: he's the best hope to set things right. While the Fed government is good for some things, it is not the answer to all of our problems and issues. We tried everything else, including the republican's failed version of big government. LEFTIES: don't dis Ron because what u do is merely feed red meat to the righties.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ron Paul
Posted by: Honky on Nov 13, 2007 5:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am very surprised and disappointed to see this very poor hit piece regarding Ron Paul on Alternet. Thought Alternet was way beyond that, guess not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Paul is correct on Israel
Posted by: zengei on Nov 13, 2007 5:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Paul is correct on Israel...Israel gets EVEYTHING it wants and lets not forget the Israel Nazis who ran over Rachel Corrie.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stop looking for dirt on Ron Paul
Posted by: vickymiss2001 on Nov 13, 2007 5:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The comments considered by the writer of the article to be racist against black people such as 5 % of them agree with his ideas. Individual liberties are not beneficial to black people and that is why they don't agree or they don't understand ...... the point for a politician is to find people who will agree with him. This is a statement about the demographics of his voters.
Other politicians cater to the needs of the masses to the short sightedness of the best ideas for the country which they don't seem to have any of their own ideas. They don't have a plan they don't clearly state the problems and they are not trusted because they don't stick to their words. It is a political game where the politicians agree to what the statics of the masses want this is not necessarily leadership this is behavior for a popularity contest.
In reality if Ron Paul had a proper media forum he could explain to the people the ideas of Individual liberties people could explore different systems besides the broken one we have. It is the media and the government who don't want the people to think there are other options or different ways then the two ways (dem or rep) which the country is ran.
If the economy falls the American people won't be able to afford this program of bullshit two party leadership. Then they will have to find ways of restructuring their government program and getting rid of the useless employees who are running this country.
If the government said that Bush tricked them into the war and it is not real the MD which cost millions of lives then they are too stupid to run the country and they should be accountable for the harm which as a group they all voted for.
Yet Ron Paul unlike them has opinions and objectives which expresses instead of avoiding serious conversation. At least his level of transparency is better then the others, and he is willing to work under limited power such as in the frame work of the constitution.
In this case certain extreme opinions on legal issues such as abortion should not be feared as it is unlikely for the courts to change drastically on these issues.
Still it is not clear how the main democratic candidates plan to work in the frame work of the constitution or if they are planning on using the same powers this administration allocated to themselves.
Questioning the Jewish lobby is something everyone should do because I am always wondering if we are equal where is the lobby for the country of my heritage and would the USA even allow that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Truth hurts some people more than others
Posted by: fdgsr on Nov 13, 2007 6:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ron Paul cannot get far with truth. Too many people come out looking like what they are. It is not PW to cite statistics that confirm what we are against. My 20 year military career taught me to lie for my own good. Ron Paul is too much like George Washington. Neither one was capable of lying. George W. said, "I cannot tell a lie." Mark Twain said, "I can, but I won't." Ron Paul can't tel a lie, so he won't be elected. Yeah! I lied to make it to retirement after truth prevented my promotions on schedule. Lies are a dime a dozen. Truth is God, so there is one Truth, priceless! Wait, does priceless mean nobody will buy it, or does it mean that nobody can afford it? I would advise Ron to find something good about America, even if it is not true. Then he might get elected.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree that hit pieces are counterproductive
Posted by: jiclemens on Nov 13, 2007 7:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alternet needs to have more serious analysis and discussion of his strategy and his major affiliations. Fringe groups will always be blowing smoke. Even Pat Robertson is a "fringe group." Or perhaps it isn't worth it. His strategy is to make broad statements that appeal to everyone from right to left, and yet when pinned on the issues nothing he says is actionable and he admits it often in interviews. "States rights" is a biggy and as we've seen it is code for anything that smells bigoted, whether about blacks, women, latinos or the issue du jour, gay marriage. I used to think anyone couldn't help but admire libertarians but if you pay attention long enough you have to wonder why they persist at claiming global warming is junk science and government "of the people" needs to be crippled to the core. Their agenda is not simple "free market economies" or "personal responsibility." It is to enable/cede absolute power to the corporation, which is not in the interest of individuals or communities and was not the objective of Jefferson, et al. If you're basically a white, southern bubba who doesn't want to send his kids to I-rack and doesn't mind mercury-tainted air and water and non-living wages because the local employer has threatened to pack up and leave than Ron's your man, as was Reagan. Otherwise, if you're a skeptic who doesn't claim as some do to know every innermost thought of the candidates there's a much wider field out there to be discussing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ho-Hum, sad and pathetic argument
Posted by: James W. Harris on Nov 13, 2007 8:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Attacking Ron Paul because some racist nutcase organization endorsed him is childish and really contemptible.

Guess what? The US government is engaged in a criminal war; is gutting our Bill of Rights liberties; is using torture; is illegally spying on us.

These are serious issues that serious political writers should address, instead of engaging in this kind of absurd McCarthyite smearing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hank
Posted by: hankgeorge on Nov 13, 2007 8:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your article makes this statement, quoting Ron Paul.

"Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, "By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government" and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism."

It is, sadly, true. Which does NOT mean he is anti-semitic, just disconcerted, as anyone should be including Jews, about the extent to which our government is slavishly obedient to certain aspects of what looks frankly like Zionist, not Israeli, conduct. The amount of influence Israeli exerts in our political system is inappropriate and does America no good.

As far as his racist remarks are concerned, and his support from the freaks, one needs to put them in context. 1992 is 15 years ago. People change. What I have heard from Ron Paul has not been racist or even close. I do not agree with all he stands for, to be sure, but what an upgrade he would be over any GOP candidate and certainly over Hillary as well. If there is a God, we will not have a flipflop between two surnames in the seat of power. That is absurd and an embarrassment to America. Dennis Kucinich is my candidate but I cannot help but imagine what wondrous things would come of a Kucinich/Paul third party ticket.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Kucinich-Paul in '08!!! Posted by: felipe
» RE: Kucinich-Paul in '08!!! Posted by: davidbdr
» RE: Kucinich-Paul in '08!!! Posted by: jiclemens
Just what we need- another conservative TEXAN in the White House.
Posted by: Ellie1 on Nov 13, 2007 2:21 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Paul is against the FDA-great, who will watch over the drug companies and food processors? Who tend to be Republican companies.

Paul is against social security-great, I guess he doesn't know his history well enough to find out about the starving thousands during the depression. And America has the lowest rate of personal savings. Will he want to take care of these starving oldsters in a few years? And what about the homeless veterans NOW? According to Paul-screw em.

Paul thinks kids should be home schooled, we don't need public schools. Yeah, I notice how high the test scores are in Texas. Keep the public dumb and uninformed-typical Republican bushit.

Texas, keep your Ron Paul. He is just what you are-self centered idiots.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

just a citizen
Posted by: throck on Nov 13, 2007 10:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ron Paul is the only candidate proposing ANY type of freedom. He is far from perfect, but every other candidate from both parties proposes more bans, more restrictions, and more oppression in general. Our bloated moronocracy needs to be reduced to a level that allows individual freedom. I will vote for Ron Paul because he is a step in the right direction. Those who desire to live as they please on an equal footing with others need less government, not more, and on this I believe Dr. Paul is on the right track. As a freedom-loving United States Citizen who believes we all have the right to pursue our peaceful dreams, I say VOTE RON PAUL.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Remember the John Birch Society?
Posted by: Urgelt on Nov 15, 2007 12:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a kid in the 1960's, I was fortunate to have the services of a doctor who reminds me very much of Ron Paul. This guy was a thorough professional who believed with all his heart in the Hippocratic oath. He stitched up my wounds, set a broken collar bone, diagnosed my appendicitis and set me up for surgery with a specialist, treated my sniffles. He even made house calls when needed. He was an admirable man and an upstanding citizen.

He was also a rabid John Bircher. In his waiting room he left pamphlets for patients to read about the Jewish Menace and the horrors of the United Nations stealing American sovereignty. Every right-wing conspiracy showed up on his coffee tables and magazine racks, and when the civil rights movement got going full steam, the pamphlets were stacked so deep they sometimes spilled onto the floor in piles.

He hated Kennedy and Johnson passionately, was convinced the Great Society was the spawn of Satan, believed Roosevelt was the anti-Christ, and didn't mind taking a few minutes out of his exam time with patients to lecture them about what was wrong with America. Speaking of income taxes, regulatory agencies curbing industrial excesses, or welfare would turn his face bright red; I suspect he had high blood pressure. He couldn't even say the word "pornography."

In other words, he was a little bit nuts, and a devoted enemy of liberal thought.

So Ron Paul doesn't surprise me. I've seen his kind before. They are sincere as hell. You have to value their blunt honesty in a political climate that is overwhelmed with fudge and corruption. Ron Paul can't be corrupted; he's a man of principles.

But Ron Paul has special interests of his own. Mixed economy? Forget it. Regulatory agencies? Not on his watch. Taxes? He'll do his best to wipe them out. Social Security? Dream on. Cooperation with the United Nations? He'll probably try to pull out of it. And if you're a Jew or a Black, folks, the best you can expect is no sympathy. At worst, crazy things could happen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: emember the John Birch Society? Posted by: Sheerterror77
challenge for author of this article
Posted by: muggs131 on Nov 16, 2007 12:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Find any American who hasn't said or done something that could be labeled racist in his or her entire life.

I suspect the attacks on Ron Paul are because of his plans to shrink the government and end as much social spending as possible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ron Paul Defenders
Posted by: groucho_lenin on Nov 17, 2007 8:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's encouraging to see so many commentators come to Ron Paul's defense against a weak attempt to brand him as a racist and anti-semite on what, I gather, is a mostly liberal forum. One of his greatest strengths is his ability to cut through the tired and irrelevant left/right paradigm and bring together all those who cherish liberty. If you're a Democrat and support what Ron Paul stands for, please cross over and vote for him in the Republican primary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]