Is Ron Paul An Anti-Black Candidate?

Let me get this out of the way right off the bat. This post and these thoughts are not for white Ron Paul supporters. I’m saying this just to be clear as to whom I speak. I don’t expect any white Ron Paul supporters to agree with any of this. And since we all know that 99.9% of Ron Paul supporters are white, I have a very narrow audience with which I hope to communicate some critical thoughts about what is being called the Ron Paul phenomenon.

I don’t know if Ron Paul is sexist.

I don’t know if Ron Paul is racist.

I don’t know if Ron Paul is an imperialist.

But if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck….

In the next few minutes I will cite Ron Paul’s congressional record as well as campaign and political history to explain each of these points. The purpose being to make plain that this candidate is to be avoided. Since there are so very many white men (and a few white women as well) that love Ron Paul and are avid supporters of his candidacy, it is important that brown, black, red and yellow people, and women generally, understand what is happening here. Understand precisely what the Ron Paul Phenomenon really is.

Is Ron Paul An Imperialist

I’ll start with this point because of all his political vices this is the negative feature about him that affects the most people, folks inside the United States and internationally. Ron Paul has voted the right way many times on a key issue, the touchstone of contemporary US imperialism, the Iraq war. His votes on Iraq have fooled a lot of people. As a starting point, I will assume that anyone reading this has analytical skills exceeding those of a 10 year old. That is, in my conservative estimation, about the age at which a child can certainly be said to understand and judge the difference between what an adult says and then actually does. If you think that Ron Paul is an anti-imperialist, you fail my test and should maybe click here. If you have doubts about Paul and his anti-imperialist credentials, then read on and not waste time with what Rep. Paul has said but look at what he has done. In this, a period of global anti-imperialist sentiment, structures have been erected that have the power to curb imperialist behavior from rogue states. One of these structures is the UN, a coalition of nations from all over the Earth. Another structure is the International Criminal Court (ICC). Ron Paul hates them both. The UN is for the most part, controlled by the United States so when Ron Paul complains that the UN is an infringement on US sovereignty, don’t take it seriously. It’s sort of like the white southerner that complained that his rights were being trampled on when those he oppressed attempted to ascertain some semblance of control over their own lives. This is, to a degree the check the UN provides. And this is what folks like Ron Paul hate. The UN allows nations historically colonized and victimized by European and US imperialism, to democratically assert themselves in opposing bullying. Keeping in mind that the US, being a superpower, almost completely controls the UN, this function of saying no to US bullying hardly works at all. But even having it exist is too much for Ron Paul. The UN could help curb US imperialism.

Because it could, Ron Paul hates the UN.

To be sure that it isn’t my (or your) imagination regarding Ron Paul’s disdain for global democracy, look at the ICC and Ron Paul. The court would do a great service towards anti-imperialism. It would allow smaller countries without the firepower to push invading countries out, a mechanism to hold them accountable for the crimes they commit in their acts of aggression. The court cannot come into a country and do anything to citizens in the country unless those citizens have reached outside their home country and attacked others. What could possibly be wrong with that kind of system? Nothing, unless you are an imperialist and are concerned about your troops being held accountable for their crimes.

Ron Paul also hates the ICC. And in 2002, just as the US govt was about to kick off its imperial war of aggression against a country with almost no army, Iraq, Ron Paul praised George W. Bush for his stance in rejecting the International Criminal Court. Can’t be a part of something like the ICC when you’re about to invade a country. So, like 10 year olds, if you not only listen to what Ron Paul says but look at what he does, things are clear.

We remember the 80s when US imperialism was running roughshod over Central America. In the 90s and up til now, over US imperial military aggression has been blistering the Middle East. Next up is Africa. Black men and women, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters (who might end up fighting our brothers and sisters in the Motherland) beware!

Is Ron Paul an imperialist? Who can claim to know another’s heart? Not I. Regardless of his personal belief, why vote for imperial policy?

Is Ron Paul Sexist?

Ron Paul is an obstetrician. So unlike other white male right wing politicians, his experience with mothers and understanding of what it means to have to carry a child isn’t abstract. This, unlike other white male right wingers, makes his acid anti-choice position all the more interesting and all the more vicious and toxic. The women’s freedom group, NARAL, the National Alliance to Repeal Abortion Laws rates lawmakers based on their votes on critical legislation seeking to restrict a woman’s right to choose whether or not she has to carry a pregnancy to term. Earning a failing mark isn’t easy. Ron Paul has proved himself up to the task somehow managing a 0% rating in 3 of the past 10 years. And a 30% rating overall. Only a Republican would think himself fit for the presidency of the country with such a gruesome record on an issue so critical to women’s lives. If one hangs ar

Women of all colors (and the men who love them enough to help them in the fight for reproductive freedom) take note. Based on his declared positions opposing a woman’s right to privacy regarding her body and access to health services, does Ron Paul deserve a woman’s vote?

Is Ron Paul a Racist?

If a person or group claims to not be racist but consistently supports policies detrimental to another group categorized racially or ethnically can the question of race continually be ignored? Both then and now Libertarians opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 claiming then and now that encroachment of the Feds in state affairs deprived the states of the liberty and freedom promised in the Constitution. This is a central component to many Libertarians political ideology. Rarely do they bother to answer the charge that questions their absence and total lack of outrage at the deprivation of liberty and freedom to blacks (in the case of the CRA) and other minorities generally. Ron Paul continues this tradition of promoting a policy, states’ rights, that has proved to be functionally racist inside the US. Shay Riley over at Black Prof sums it up nicely,

Such libertarians act as if there was no conflict before Civil Rights Act of 1964. Did the “racial strife” & “racial balkanization” (Rep. Paul’s words) caused by denial of freedom under Jim Crow mean nothing? What about blacks’ individual freedom? Those of whites who wanted to associate with blacks? Here we have Jim Crow’s massive human rights violations — the state as evil oppressor, tyranny running rampant in the South — and yet white libertarian capitulation and appeasement.

Shay Riley of Black Prof

How does Ron Paul answer this charge? He doesn’t. An indication that Ron Paul, like many other candidates in the US political system, believes that the lack of good candidates will force people who if given alternatives would not vote for someone so in opposition to core principles of freedom and fairness. Ron Paul and other Libertarians don’t acknowledge the contemporary or historic obstacles to freedom and liberty faced by blacks and other people of color in this country. Some say they celebrate those obstacles. At the very least they do not acknowledge them. The Libertarian position of states’ rights that Ron Paul supports has been the veritable banner of black oppression inside the United States. This is fact. In 2004 there was a vote in Congress for passage of a 40 year commemoration of the Civil Rights Act, the act that gave expanded, but not full, liberty to and freed millions of black people from white supremacist rule.

Libertarians say that black people don’t understand what they are doing and that they are really trying to help by creating freedom for everyone. This is insulting to those who lived through the blatant tyranny of Jim Crow, which the CRA was enacted to stop. And insulting to those who maintain the struggle against the racially biased employment and criminal justice systems of today.

Ron Paul was very clear about his feelings on the black struggle in explaining his vote against the 40 year commemorating of the Civil Rights Act,

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

Didn’t enhance freedom? Diminished individual liberty for whom? Rep. Paul argues that whites’ freedom and liberty was diminished by the CRA. He certainly could not be talking about black people’s liberty and freedom for without a doubt the CRA enhanced it far beyond the Jim Crow conditions they were enduring. Paul’s statement is a kick in the teeth to those alive who endured that period and were, to a degree, liberated from state tyranny by the federal legislation.

Does a person who argues against the Civil Rights Act on the basis that it diminished the freedom of the oppressor class, deserve a single vote from a black person? From anyone?

These are the questions I would hope Ron Paul supporters and potential supporters will consider. These questions regarding women’s reproductive freedom, imperialism or ethnic minority freedom are fair and reasonable. And I would hope they would be met with fairness and reason, considered and weighed. And that those considerations will then translate into logical, moral and just conclusion.

96 Responses to “Is Ron Paul An Anti-Black Candidate?”

  1. Ron Paul gets more African-American support than any other Republican candidate:

  2. RON PAUL: Why Blacks & People Of Color Should Vote For Him

  3. “Still, the left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, always implying of course that southern states are full of bigoted rednecks who would oppress minorities if not for the watchful eye of Washington. They ignore, however, the incredible divisiveness created by their collectivist big-government policies.

    Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.”

    – Ron Paul

  4. Your argument that Paul’s opposition to the UN makes him an imperialist is a bit tortured. You admit that the UN is largely ineffectual (in fact you regard it as almost a US puppet), which would seem to make someone’s actual positions on US intentions abroad paramount in determining whether or not they are indeed imperialists. And Paul is pretty adamant about withdrawing our troops abroad. I will certainly concede that he subscribes to American exceptionalism (to an extent), but that isn’t the same thing at all.
    I actually disagree with Paul on abortion, but sending the issue back to the states is a solution I can live with. I can’t characterize his position as ‘vicious’ given that he sincerely believes the unborn need the protection of law.
    In terms of concrete benefits to the black community, it’s worth remembering that Paul has promised to pardon all non-violent drug offenders. Given that these laws are enforced disproportionately against minorities (black people use drugs at about the same rate as whites, yet are half or more of those in jail for drugs), this isn’t small potatoes.

  5. Thank you for responding. However, the responses are repeats of the typical Libertarian rhetoric and do not address any of the contradictions exposed by the questions.

    The assertion that Ron Paul gets more Af-Amer support than any other Republican is a sad representation of the Libertarian position with Af-Amers. The fact that Republicans generally, receive almost no Af-Amer support doesn’t occur to you? Comparing Ron Paul’s appeal to a group that has virtually no appeal is a very poor argument.

    Seems more like a redirection or an excuse. It may not be possible, I concede, but instead of excuses and vague quotes from his campaign, I’d like to see a dialog addressing the contradictions in the questions I’ve asked regarding imperialism, sexism and racism as they relate to the declared positions and statements of candidate Ron Paul.

    His positions, policy advocacy and statements communicate ostensible hostility towards certain communities. He, or his supporters should explain these contradictions.

  6. uhhhh… Paul voted against the Iraq war and he wants to withdraw all US forces from foreign countries and end our dictatorship establishing interventions. If thats not anti-imperialist then really, theres nothing to say.

    And as far as black people go, the War on Drugs is the most destructive racist policy of the government, and Ron Paul is the only, I repeat the only, candidate who promises to end it

    Tortured is a mild way to put your argument.

  7. And when has the UN done anything anti-imperialist?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

    Did they stop the Soviet Union?

    Did they stop ANY genocides?

    Did they stop us from colonizing Iraq?

    Have they done ANYTHING to materially stop ANYONE from imperialism?

  8. bbartlog,
    Regarding the question of imperialism, Ron Paul is no dummy. He understands that the UN is largely a puppet of the US. If it were not, it might function as a mitigating factor to US imperialism, something Ron Paul acknowledges to be a problem.

    Instead of pulling out of int’l bodies that if dealt with honestly (I know that the chances of that are slim) might act as a counterweight against imperialism, Ron Paul might emphasize actually honoring treaties and dealing with the rest of the world fairly.

    I’m glad you agree that Ron Paul is a believer in American exceptionalism. This is made painfully clear to the families of Iraqis tortured to death that have attempted to find justice only to discover that people like Ron Paul and George Bush resist international accountability for war crimes.

    This is not anti-imperialism. This appeasement of imperialism. And this is Ron Paul’s proud position. A difficult thing to overlook for the discerning voter.

  9. jmklein,
    I understand you are passionate about this. And, I agree there are and will perhaps always be major problems with the United Nations. As long as man is flawed, its institutions will be. But please speak to the specific questions I’ve posed of Ron Paul’s appeasement of imperial policy (denying accountability for war crime victims through a democratic world court, the ICC).

    You might also speak to Paul’s fantastic statements regarding black people and how they were not helped by the CRA. Ron Paul states that the impingement on the freedom of Southern whites was more important than outlawing the oppression of blacks by those whites.

    This is an extreme position.

  10. “The fact that Republicans generally, receive almost no Af-Amer support doesn’t occur to you?”

    We have about 7 black guys in my Ron Paul meetup group which is over 100 people. No one makes an issue of it, which I suspect the black guys appreciate. Like Ron Paul, we view people as individuals, not as members of groups. We all derive our rights and our dignity from our status as individuals.

    Want to see the racial edges of American society soften to the point of melting? Elect Ron Paul, who views people’s rights as coming from their existence as individuals. Want to see the racial edges of American society continute to harden? Elect Hillary, Rudy, etc., who favor big government that classifies people as group members in every possible way, then pits those groups against each other in the eternal fight over federal largesse.

  11. John Howard Says:

    Racists are always the first to raise the subject of racism.

    Ron Paul opposes the UN because he wants smaller, more local decision-making, not larger, more global decision-making. It is why he wants to limit the federal government.

    I think this writer is a true collectivist. He starts off with racism and moves on to global governing. He needs to learn that race, society, nation are merely mental groups in the minds of collectivists. They are not real. Only individuals are real. And they all have equal rights.

  12. -FZappa-

    Great point, well put…you took the words right out of my mouth, but structured them better than I would have.

    Hell, the whole Ron Paul Revolution has made many unlikely friendships..freedom is uniting, no matter your color…the rest (Rudy McRompson or Hillary et al.) want us divided so the government can conquer our freedoms. They are doing a great job via things like the patriot act and North American Union…things that Ron Paul will work to repeal.

  13. You blog an argument that is ripped from the headlines: racism, racism, racism. The more it used to place blame without any merit the more it effects a person like a zit on my ass. Its something that no one likes but unless its right under my nose chances are it really doesn’t matter.

    Your argument bears no merit except to yourself and those that think like you. If I showed you a fruit that was an apple you would somehow be convinced it was an orange. The same goes for democrats. The addicts of our democracy. The take everything they can for free. Even if it means taking from your fellow citizens wallet. Its entitlement. They are nothing more than spoiled rich kids sucking the last little bit out of uncle sams tit and even if it means demeaning and bastardizing someone else’s character to get it.

    Luckily Jesus forgives…

  14. Ron Paul is not a racsist. He believes the Constitution protects all of us, no matter our race, from the evils of tyrannical government.

  15. Thanks for replying, all. Thanks to most of you for being civil while doing so.

    On the discussion of race, I will probably disagree with most white Libertarians but that is neither here no there for purposes of this discussion.

    Whether or not Ron Paul is a racist might be of interest to some. In this case it is largely irrelevant. But since he is running for high office what matters, again, are his policies. I fear Ron Paul supporters will continue to gravitate to this post and instead of addressing the contradictions, deliver a rant that proves Ron Paul, the individual, is not a racist, sexist or imperialist. While such proofs might be valid, they are irrelevant.

    Ron Paul is not running for ‘friend’. He’s running for President.

    And if a candidate for that office feels a woman should not have the right to choose which is what Ron Paul’s position will mean for millions of women across the country in states like Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, South Dakota, Tennessee, et al then that candidate should have to answer to that if he wants votes from people that disagree with him. I believe there are millions of women across the country that disagree with Ron Paul about a woman’s right to choose.

    If Ron Paul wants to be President and believes, as he said that the Civil Rights Act should have been opposed because it infringed on people’s rights then he should have to answer questions from the men, women and children that were getting their heads knocked by whites in this country before the Federal govt stepped in. The CRA was a good thing for those folks. So when Ron Paul says it infringed on liberty he is basically saying that the concerns of those folks who were fighting the tyranny that made the CRA necessary, those folks concerns are invisible.

    Is it unfair to demand that a presidential candidate answer these kinds of questions? Only one poster in this entire comment thread, bbartlog, has sincerely attempted to do so. Generally, the response I’m getting here from Ron Paul supporters only buttresses my initial concerns and perhaps the concerns of other women and people of color. I understand passion for a candidate one feels can make a difference. But if Paul wants the votes of certain communities, he should think about answering up for some of his positions.

    Otherwise, as Republicans typically do, he will just write off key segments of the country while duping his supporters as to why these segments won’t support his candidacy.

  16. Ron Paul is not racist.

    He wants to do away with the war on drugs and the death penalty in part because those programs impose an injustice on the black community.

    You are going to have to do a bit more home work on Dr. Paul if you want to intelligently dissect his views. Although simple and foundational, his views are not best understood via soundbites. He is also the highest polling candidate among black Republicans. Maybe they know something?

  17. Paul Eres Says:

    Yeah, 99.9%? You’re a bit out of touch with the movement, aren’t you? I’m an Iranian-American Ron Paul supporter (last I checked Iranians weren’t classified as white). I’ve seen literally hundreds of non-whites supporting him. Maybe 90%, but not 99.9%.

  18. Also Marc, Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate from either party who will end the war on drugs, which has needlessly destroyed more black lives than Strom Thurmond or Robert Byrd ever could have wet-dreamed of.

    Look into Dr. Paul more, Marc. You may like what you find out:

  19. Paul Eres Says:

    Another thing sir. Ron Paul has both a) considered Walter Williams (who is black) as a running mate and b) said racism is a horrible form of collectivism. The idea that he could be secretly racist seems a bit wacky to me.

    He certainly has some racists supporting him, perhaps a higher proportion than other candidates do, because he’s for state rights. But those supporters aren’t usually made welcome by the other supporters.

  20. Paul Eres Says:

    The war on drug things is a good point FZappa. Ron Paul will PARDON 70% of the people in jail (all those in jail for drug possession), most of whom are minorities.

  21. How is it that to refuse to support a wrong set of solutions makes one a supporter of the problems?

    Welfare is not what Blacks need, a collectivist UN and World court overriding the US constitution are not what Freedom needs, and “progressive” solutions are not what an entrepreneurial society needs.

    Yes, there are problems, but Yes Also, they may have other causes than you think, and therefore other solutions. Discernment is key to all this, and your article seems to lack that.

    For example, the problem of unwanted pregnancy is not a question of a woman’s right to control her own body. In the first place, only in forcible rape is her choice to have sex overriden, and pregnancy as a result of rape or incest has always been excepted from anti-abortion sentiment in the pro-family movement, along with threat to mother’s life and unviable fetus. That’s four compromises from the pro-family side, against, lte’s see… none on your side.

    But pregnancy is a consequence, not a choice, much the same as any other consequence of putting something into your body. You drink, you get drunk, you have no right not to be drunk and you remain responsible for the consequences. You eat rich food and get gas, you created your own problem even if you didn’t know that food could do that to you, you have no right to kill the chef. And if you had unprotected sex and have become pregnant, you’re already past choice and into consequences. That there now may be another life involved and at risk is due some serious consideration. Once into the consequences of negligent behavior, one is responsible both for the environmental consequences and to the sensibilities and rights of everyone else involved. In pregnancy, that makes the decision about three people, not just one inconvenienced woman.

    So: I submit that it is you who is racist, with all of those references to white men as though they are ipso facto evil.

    It is you who is imperialist, with your support for a world government body that routinely enforces collectivist consensus against individual rights.

    And, it is you who is sexist, both in, again, your references to males as ipso facto evil, and in your argument that women are excused from responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

    You should read Thomas Sowell’s ‘Vision of the Anointed’ – it will give you great insight into your confounded perspective. In the meantime, at least, stop pretending that yours are the only correct solutions, and stop seeing anyone who believes issues are different propositions than you do, with different solutions, as inherently evil.


  22. Randy Lohr Says:

    A political maxim that is written in one of my circa 1900 8th grade civics books says it best; “The government under which the rights of ALL persons are not equally protected is organized injustice.” If our children were only taught like they once were, we would not be asking ourselves these questions.

  23. Still, no one has touched the specific questions raised. I understand that you all are excited about Ron Paul. Your excitement, in part, is what has raised his profile. So I understand that. Unfortunately, that is just about the only thing that has been communicated in the responses. Excitement and devotion.

    Please address the issues presented. I will pose basic questions one last time in the hope that they can be discussed. If not, I tried.

    Does Ron Paul agree that someone legitimately accused of international war crimes should be allowed to avoid an international trial?

    Does Ron Paul agree that the CRA was a lifesaver for many black Americans laboring under the murderous oppression of the Jim Crow South?

    Does Ron Paul agree that a woman should have the right to decide whether or not she has to carry a pregnancy to term?

    I pose all of these questions rhetorically. I know that Ron Paul will not answer. I know, because he has said it himself, that he does not agree with any of these things.

    But what do others think about these questions?

    And to Randy. I agree with your quote but your thought after the quote is puzzling. If children were being taught now like they once were we wouldn’t be in this trouble?
    What time are you harking back to? Jim Crow era? Reconstruction? Slavery? There period in US history where our children were taught a non-sexist, non-racist order of things has yet to happen. I am hopeful that it can be built. But we shouldn’t pretend like there is a good model in the history of this country to emulate. But if you think there has been such a period, do share.

  24. Mr Jeep Deep Says:

    I am a real live Black man, and i support Dr Ron Paul 100% and was proud to be part of the Nov 5th historic event. I was born and raised in the South, living now Dallas Tx which is the Belly of the Bush Beast. Trust me when i say, I know what a Racist is, and Ron Paul is no Racist. Dr Paul is Humble man who could very easily live out his life in Lake Jackson TX enjoying his family and friends, but Dr Paul has chosen to show us all how to fight for our Liberty and Freedom, Ron Paul is not promising any perks or give-a-ways, he’s only promising FREEDOM from Tyranny and Opressive Government. Forget all the Political Arugments, just listen to the Man! The Truth has a distinctive Ring to it, i’m telling every person i know, Black , White or Green about the Ron Paul Revolution!! It’s been a looooooong time since i could feel Proudl to be and American. Thank you Dr Paul and thanks to all the wonderful Ron Paul supporters all over this Country, let’s turn up the Heat!! The Fight has just begun!!!

  25. billsrule Says:

    It doesn’t sound like you are looking for answers, conversation maybe, but not answers.

    Ron Pauls voting record is readily available, I suggest you do your own research.

  26. You are disingenuous in saying that no one touched the issues rased. Several of us have objected in various ways that you have framed the “issues” illegitimately. As such, then, no direct response is possible.

    I have pointed out that you see things the way you see things, so you ask certain questions a certain way. Others who see those things differently cannot answer in your terms. The most important immediate question about that must be, Whom is seeing it correctly? You don’t appear to want to open that door.

    You already know the sound-bite anwers to your questions, that is true. But you are ignoring all discussion as to how there have always been and remain better solutions.

    You ask the emotionally chaged and pre-conclusive question, “Does Ron Paul agree that the CRA was a lifesaver for many black Americans laboring under the murderous oppression of the Jim Crow South?”.

    I ask you, if the CRA did in fact better the situation of one race to the detriment of another, how is that just? Class rhetoric cannot be valid here, since my now-adult children were born after the CRA and yet have suffered its punishment.

    And, if the CRA set up a situation that resulted in backlash that has polarized society even more, if differently, has anyone truly benefitted as much as they might have?

    I submit that if the CRA had been truly just in its intent and application, if it had actually solved the real problem, things would be so different now that you wouldn’t even notice that you are black or that I am whatever I am (and you don’t yet know what I am).

    You ask, “Does Ron Paul agree that a woman should have the right to decide whether or not she has to carry a pregnancy to term?”

    You know and RP has said clearly that he does not believe anyone has the right to kill anyone else for their own convenience. I agree. But you are the one who ignored the discussion here, as I addressed it in detail above and you said nothing of it.

    You have bought the progressive rhetoric that the question is about choice rather than responsibility, and so you can’t even see the issue from the other perspective.

    Here’s a question for you. If a woman is free to kill the fetus because it’s inconventient for her to follow through with it, is the father equally free to disavow a child that’s inconvenient to him? Or is he another “oppressor class” to be punished for the sins of his klan?

    Notwithstanding the father, is a therefore mother free to kill her child if it is inconvenient to care for it? Yes, you draw the line at birth, and I at right about conception, but no one has proven either of us correct. Should not the moral choice be to err on the side of caution? Wouldn’t that make elective abortion the immoral choice?

    Or is your agenda really just vengeance against perceived “oppressor classes” with no actual regard for the pawns you use to get there?

    By now you are probably completely wrapped up in justifying assumptions about me. Let me dispel your uncertainty at the expense of your embarrassment.

    I grew up living next to a couple who had been born slaves. They were self-sufficient business people even in the 50s, who sent 5 kids through college to become doctors and lawyers. They were wonderful people who made no to-do about our race or theirs, nor about the whilte folks down the road. In fact, in my home town in the great white north of the US, the only time I saw racism was also the first time I saw white men beat other white men to the ground for it.

    Tom and Gladys Brooks didn’t need no CRA to stand tall and proud and respected as honorable citizens and essential elements of the local economy. They just forgot that their skin was black and remebered that everyone’s bleeds red.

    My mother didn’t need no Bureau of Indian Affairs to get by in life, either. James Watt was right about the debilitating effects of permanent welfare and babysitter government. And so is Ron Paul.

    If you want your brothers to be truly free, don’t howl at “white” people to give them more dispensation, scream at your brothers to forget that they are black and stop expecting the abuse they find even when it is not there.

    Note that 9 of 10 murdered blacks do not ie at the hands of whites. Maybe the machine has a lot to do with creating that unfortunate climate, but then if you listen to Ron Paul, you’ll hear that everyone is suffering from those machinations, not just people of color.

    The war on drugs, for example, is killing everybody and wasting tremendous resources fighting a black market it creates itself. Which other candidate will end that little bugaboo?

    Substituting one prejudice for another is no solution at all. You have revealed all your prejudices here. Now that they are out there for easy viewing, you really should take a look at them and get right with the world.

    I did just that myself. I forgot that my mother was Blackfoot, that my family were mongrels, and set out to build rather than destroy. And everything I have built, I built without destroying anything or anyone.

    Meanwhile, you whine about insults against people for whom you presume to speak but yet who never asked you to do so. Fully one-third of Blacks are conservative and are disgusted by Jesse The Mouth and your liberal compassionate debilitation of their brothers.

    “Aunt” Gladys would take a “larnin’ switch” to you in an instant.

    How about you consider your own insults? Perhaps you might begin with the one you commit against such as me personally, given that I marched for Dr. King and you didn’t, and that you presume me to be a white male and therefore the enemy when in fact, your enemy is within.

    Pluck the beam from your own eye, Bro, lest you fall on it and destroy what’s left of your brain.

    Oh, and BTW, you still don’t know whether I am a Ron Paul Supporter!


  27. billsrule Says:

    I don’t know if Ron Paul is sexist.

    I don’t know if Ron Paul is racist.

    I don’t know if Ron Paul is an imperialist.

    But if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck….


    Everyone is a bigot until proven otherwise.

    Sounds like you’ve been to the “all whites are racist” school.

  28. Randy Lohr Says:

    “The government under which the rights of ALL persons are not equally protected is organized injustice.”
    If our children were only taught like they once were, we would not be asking ourselves these questions.”

    “ALL persons…equally protected”. I felt the need to highlight the point of this quoted maxim.

    Marcg: There is good and bad with every era. Here’s another quote from the same school book…”Under a genuine republic[an] government there are no political distictions of birth”. To highlight the point “NO..distictions at birth”. Once again, a maxim teaching equality. Only quality equality education will do.

  29. The best part of this post is where you say ‘I don’t know’.

    Because you don’t.

    Honestly, suggesting Ron is any of these things is like attacking Mother Theresa…

    He has the highest support of blacks in NH and I would imagine everywhere else.

    Besides, who cares what ‘type’ support him? We are not politically correct and don’t count up differences like you liberals do. We count our similarities.

    I think YOU are a racist…frankly..and Ron is more about equality….just because you are obessessed with it.

  30. Ok I read more of this, as much as I could stomach, but really, the UN ought to be banished from our shores as well as the ICC.

    I am frankly sick of whining liberals who are always complaining about special interests, the right to kill, (the UN, abortion) and ‘women’s’ rights…

  31. John Howard Says:

    To argue that a white racist does not have the right to harm a black victim does not mean that a black person has the right to force himself on a white racist. Pretending that these two cases are the same is at the root of the racial tension that remains in this country. The CRA encourages minorities to force themselves on racists. That is as wrong as racists forcing themselves on minorities.

    Face that and the problems go away. Let racists alone. They are harmless fools and come in all colors. Do not force yourself upon them. Then you will have peace.

    But if racisim is encoded into law, as it was in the south, that is evil and should be corrected, by force if necessary. The law should be colorblind, but individuals can be bigots if they wish as long as they do not harm others. And do not argue that you harm me by refusing my company.

  32. You disguise honest discourse with emotion-laced faux intellectualism. How can you ever expect to have meaningful, rational discourse if you ask questions that are engineered to rouse an emotional response?

    I would think of all people, you especially would know we do not live in a world that is black and white.

  33. This is a joke…. and a racist one at that. Why are you trying to make black people look stupid?

  34. Marc, the point I think is that you need to examine your own collectivist beliefs.

    You do not have any rights because you are black, I do not have any rights because I am white; you have them and I have them because we are an individuals.

    As Dr. Paul has said many times, the individual is the ultimate minority.

  35. Brian T. Traylor Says:

    I apologize if you are screening and have received my comment three times.

  36. Brian T. Traylor Says:

    You’ve accused responders of failing to address your questions. After re-reading the post, I’ve identified what I think are your questions. If I am incorrect, kindly point out what questions you want answered.

    Because it could [help curb US imperialism] , Ron Paul hates the UN. Is Ron Paul an imperialist? Regardless of his personal belief, why vote for imperial policy?

    Incorrect. Ron Paul hates the UN because it is a threat to our national sovereignty, not because it could help curb US imperialism. For you to correctly note that he’s voted to keep us out of Iraq and speaks daily about the follies of an imperialist US foreign policy and then, in the same breath, opine that he’s an imperialist, is not only disingenuous but willfully deceitful.

    He is not an imperialist. He hasn’t voted for imperial policy. He voted against the Iraq War AUMF, and has introduced a number of bills aimed at removing troops from the region and from around the world. Voting to remove ourselves from NATO and the UN has nothing to do with a desire for imperialism and everything to do with our not ceding our national sovereignty to a global inter-governmental body. The same goes for the ICC.

    Is Ron Paul Sexist? Based on his declared positions opposing a woman’s right to privacy regarding her body and access to health services, does Ron Paul deserve a woman’s vote?

    Sexism and being pro-life are not synonymous. As with your analysis of his votes against further participation in the UN, you’ve missed the point here, too. Abortion is simply not a federal issue; it’s a state issue, and Dr. Paul’s votes on the matter reflect that fact. There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to get involved with reproductive decisions. Dr. Paul’s votes on abortion issues reflect the fact that we are a federation of autonomous states, a republic, and that we do not have a top-down, heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all national government. The Constitution specifically enumerates the things that we, the People, have authorized it to do. By design, it is a complete document, and anything not specifically enumerated is left to the states and to the people by the 9th and 10th Amendments. The federal government was created to do the things the state government couldn’t easily do, like provide a national defense, coin a uniform currency (in gold or silver, the failure of which is yet another dereliction of its duty), and facilitate an open market among the several states. I’m a pro-choice white male, but I understand that abortion is not a federal issue.

  37. Brian T. Traylor Says:

    Is Ron Paul a Racist? Does a person who argues against the Civil Rights Act on the basis that it diminished the freedom of the oppressor class, deserve a single vote from a black person? From anyone?

    As stated here ( ), he voted ‘nay’ because it “did not improve race relations or enhance freedom” and served instead only to “[increase] racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty”. Paul’s positions on racism are perhaps the most reasonable. It is precisely this type of classification by skin color, sexual orientation, and ethnicity that serves to increase racial strife and balkanization and push us further and further away from a color-blind society. In one of his best speeches against racism, he said here ( ): “Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called ‘diversity’ actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.”

  38. Marc,

    We need all the support we can get, so I will attempt

  39. > The UN could help curb US imperialism.

    When I read that I laughed. That is like saying the IMF or World Bank could curb US imperialism. Maybe in an alternate universe, which is where I think you are living…. look, Ron Paul will stop participation in the IMF and shut down the Federal Reserve and the IRS and even CIA… that is a reason enough to support Ron Paul, you can see that for yourself, then I question if you really believe this “stop American imperialism” agenda that you seem to be pushing. The IMF is how the CIA controls other countries. Mr Paul know this and would stop it, wake up! Learn who your real enemies are and then you would see clearly who your friends should be.

  40. I sense an overarching tone of dishonesty amongst Ron Paul support.

    Of all the Ron Paul support, I would imagine that black support runs somewhere around 2-4%. I don’t expect Ron Paul supporters to legitimately engage in any kind of discussion that addresses the concerns I’ve raised here. The most popular response has been to claim that the questions aren’t fair before proceeding to discuss something else.

    This isn’t silly politics. This is no politics. This is a cult mentality.

    That black people believe the CRA was and is a good thing is not even debatable.

    You all know that its a fact. But you seem unable or unwilling to admit that maybe Ron Paul’s and other Republican’s low levels of support have anything to do with their actual positions.

    Which really expresses a white supremacist view. Black people like the CRA. You all don’t like the CRA. Therefore black people are wrong/misguided/stupid (choose your descriptor) because they don’t agree with your CRA position. I will ask again that you all try to think about the uselessness and toxicity of such logic, if it can be called that.

    And stop lying to yourselves about your low levels of black support. You all hate the Civil Rights Act. This, and other things, is why your levels of black support are so very low. So stop acting bewildered.

    Clarence Thomas is black and is a Bushite. So, the one or two black guys voicing support for policies more than 9 out of 10 blacks rebuke, is utterly meaningless insofar as one hopes to prove there isn’t a racial character to Ron Paul’s platform.

    Since the other questions will not be answered, I’ll try a new one that you all may want to try and answer. If Ron Paul’s policies are good for black people why does he have virtually no black support. I will entertain any answers or theory except the ridiculous things like ‘he leads Republicans’, which considering black Republican support is a meaningless statistic.

  41. Mark,
    I think in my post I acknowledged that the UN curbing imperialism was theoretical and unlikely so I agree with you on that. Why does Ron Paul praise Bush for refusing to participate in the ICC?

    If Ron Paul understands that Bush has an imperial agenda, then he understands that Bush doesn’t want out of the ICC for Libertarian reasons but because being in the ICC would curb his imperial agenda.

    Is Ron Paul unable of understanding what I just easily pointed out? Ron Paul, in advocating rebuke of the ICC is furthering an imperial agenda by removing accountability.

    I agree with your UN thoughts. Please explain how anti-imperialism and the ICC are related in Paul’s mind. And please don’t resort to a recitation of Libertarian philosophy. This is a real world issue that can and should be addressed specifically.

  42. Marc,

    You didn’t answer my questions. Yet I, in fair observance of all the rules of formal debate, have more than adequately responded to several of yours, and in the manner of that doing shown that no further such responses to the remainder would be necessary, but rather redundant.

    You didn’t answer my questions. You don’t question your own. You don’t respond to the challenges you are offered. Is that because Yes, there is a cultist here, and it is you?

    If you actually did read Vision of the Anointed, would you be able to see that you are a perfect poster child for what is being discussed?


  43. Brian T. Traylor,
    Thanks for taking the time to reply. Unlike some others you did address the issue of the ICC but you did so quite insufficiently. The question of the ICC is not one of sovereignty. It exists only to deal with crimes committed beyond the sovereign. So your rationale about the UN, which I don’t completely agree with but can accept, is wholly unfit for the question of the ICC. Put plainly, Ron Paul is expressing contempt for rule of law by removing accountability for the empire we have and placating his supporters and perhaps his conscience by giving the excuse that goes something like, ‘When I’m president, we won’t be over there so the ICC won’t be needed and it won’t have any reason to infringe on our sovereignty.’

    This is unrealistic and supports empire because we are committing crimes right now. And those crimes are aided and abetted by people like Ron Paul who argue against a fair trial for crimes committed.

    Is this so difficult to see?

  44. Allen,
    Thanks for replying. You expressed that you have answered my questions more than adequately. I disagree that you’ve done that but if you feel you have I won’t push it. I’ll attempt to respond to some of the points you raised but would like to take this moment to explain why I brought up the word cult. I notice a trend amongst Libertarians that is racist and oppressive in a number of ways. You exemplify that in your last response to me. You tell me, not ask me, that you have responded adequately. If the goal is clear communication, wouldn’t that judgment be solely mine? I don’t mean that in a smart-ass kind of way but it resonates with me that the general Libertarian position (not all Libertarians, of course, but most) is that we are right. If you have a different opinion it is not that we disagree, it is that you are wrong.

    This is communicated again and again by Libertarians when it comes to the CRA and black issues generally. Libertarians (whom we both know are disproportionately white) basically expend a lot of ink and trees telling black Americans that they basically don’t know what’s best for themselves. You may disagree with this. Fine. But I hope you’ll look back on texts you have read and on your own comments and try to see how this is perceived by those outside your ranks.

    I only brought up the CRA because it is something most folks are familiar with and could perhaps spur broad discussion. But the principle applies to Affirmative Action, the reparations movement, welfare and other policies. Black pluralities support certain issues and Libertarians (again, almost all white) tell them that they don’t know what is best for their own lives.

    Another caveat here. I don’t mean to imply that every person that holds this or that political opinion about an issue that affects them is right simply because he or she is directly affected. People can and do have false consciousnesses about all kinds of things. But I would ask that you try and question more deeply the dynamic that occurs within your ranks. The dismissal of black opinions on a range of issues that directly affect black life and the advocacy of a largely white opinion to blacks about those issues.

    As I said, people sometimes do get it wrong about issues that affect their very own lives. But what the Libertarian platform does is basically state that about the issues directly affecting their own communities, black people get it wrong most of the time.

    Statistically, what you and Libertarians are essentially proposing, may be correct. But, and without getting into ideology because at this stage we are in disagreement ideologically, statistically isn’t it highly unlikely that a group largely composed of whites would have all the right answers about the issues directly affecting another group, blacks, while the group directly affected, was getting it wrong on almost everything.

    Ideology aside, don’t you smell a rat there? Whether we can come to agreement or not, I’d like to try and help you understand why so many black folks are repulsed by Libertarian thought. This strain of thinking comes up again and again and many find it highly insulting and can’t help but wonder if white supremacist thinking influences the notion that blacks can’t seem to understand our own issues. Again, not asking you to agree just trying to build bridges of understanding as to where the broad antipathy comes from.

    Now regarding your question. You asked,

    If a woman is free to kill the fetus because it’s inconventient for her to follow through with it, is the father equally free to disavow a child that’s inconvenient to him? Or is he another “oppressor class” to be punished for the sins of his klan?

    As you said, we disagree on where life begins. And, also, as you said, the question hasn’t been answered in a way that a majority from either opposing side can go with. Therefore the analogy about the father doesn’t fit, in my view. However, I do see what you’re asking and we’ve covered the point where our basic, and paradigm controlling, assumption diverges.

    You said a lot and I have read it all but I don’t think you asked any more actual questions of me. The stories you shared about your neighbors and your own family history are helpful in understanding where you’re coming from which, I presume, is why you shared them. So thanks for the context. I disagree, however with your conclusions. Isolated anecdotes are not good substitutes for statistical analysis and evidence. Your neighbors weren’t the rule but the exceptions and I don’t think its a good idea to base broad policy on isolated cases. Blacks who started their own businesses and put many kids through college aren’t the rule. It’s the exception. And because a tiny minority accomplish this or that doesn’t prove that anything is wrong with everyone else or that everyone else should be able to accomplish the same thing. I don’t know if you were implying that but many Libertarians say it outright. That, I find, is why they so often articulate exceptions to sweeping trends. To subtly imply, if not overtly state that those who haven’t done this or that just haven’t tried hard enough.

    It is a dangerous and simple-minded fallacy. Michael Jordan achieved a lot athletically. Because he is a man does that mean that all men should be able to do the same things. Bill Gates has achieved a lot financially. What does that mean about every other male or every other white male that doesn’t achieve the same level of financial leverage? Those stories are good for context on one’s thinking but they prove extremely little if anything at all.

    I have not intended to insult you with this post and apologize if I did so with previous posts. Your last comment contained several personal insults to me and I assume you feel I did the same to you. Not my intention so I’d like to say sorry for that. I do hope you’ll continue to read and comment where you fill you can contribute. I’ll be posting more thoughts on the Ron Paul candidacy as well as go more into the contradictions I see with the electoral process and progressive change generally.

    Thanks for stopping by.

  45. Stephanie Says:

    Oh come on this is easy.

    Imperialism: Objecting to your countries involvemnt in particular treaites or international organizations doesn’t equal an imperialist attitude, maybe an isolationist one, but it takes more than that to designate a person as an imperialist. It’s clear that Paul’s stance on internationalism stems from his desire to protect his nations soveriegnty, not saying that it needs saving, but that is where the motivation comes from.

    Women: Extremely biased position you’ve taken here, but not any more so than a pro-lifer would take. Speaking as a woman, a libertarian, and a pro-lifer(all of which makes me an uncommon thing to behold), I believe life begins at conception. For me any debate about choices ends there. I don’t want my government funding anything that has to do with reproduction or in the business of facilitating the termination of it’s populace. I’m against federal involvement in abortions for the same reason i’m against the death penalty.

    Blacks: I’m mulatto, so i’ve had some experience when it comes to race relations, and i believe in what another doctor said about a world where people are judged by the content of their character. Libertarians are not anti-minority, they just don’t believe the government should recognize race, at all for positive or negative, and that’s what i believe as well. Individual have rights, groups only have grievences. you protect individual rights and the groups, all of them, are taken care of.

    So, not imperialist but nativist, not anti-women but pro children, not anti-minority but pro-individuality.

  46. Are comments broken, or now turned off?

  47. Allen, unless WP is automatically doing something to the blog, comments are fully on. As WP catches all the spam I’ve never edited or deleted a single comment.

  48. Marc,

    Okay. I posted another lengthy part to the discussion, and it hasn’t showed up. When my query went through, I tried to repost, and WordPress told me it was a duplicate. So, it hung up somewhere.


  49. Stephanie,
    You wrote,

    Libertarians are not anti-minority, they just don’t believe the government should recognize race, at all for positive or negative

    I can sincerely see the attractiveness of such a ideology but in the real world it presents problems that I don’t understand how you and others don’t see. You mentioned that you were mulatto. So basically, the union that created you would be illegal if left to your ideology, states’ rights. Putting into real jeopardy if someone like you could even exist and if so, because of the illegal nature of your creation, your life would likely have been quite unpleasant if not barbarous. That’s a real life example of the serious and perhaps murderous limitations of this ideology.

    So I hope that you can admit there are seriously problematic limitations to the real-world usefulness of this ideological position when it comes to the freedom and rights of individuals, something we all agree is of great value.

    I also find it surprising that you aren’t offended by the character of RP’s stance on the CRA. He says that it, “didn’t enhance freedom” and that it “increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty”. I don’t know where you stand on those specific comments but RP is being consistent with Libertarian ideology in those statements and it exposes the flaws in the thinking besides being woefully offensive to those who suffered under Jim Crow before the CRA provided more safety, freedom of movement and individual liberty.

    So its ironic how a Libertarian can take a piece of legislation that undoubtedly provided more freedom and liberty for black individuals being denied those things by white individuals and oppose it on the grounds that it infringes on the liberty of the whites and then recoil when black individuals find the position racist.

    I find that logic troubling. And am interested in hearing your explanation for what I see as a contradiction that can only be explained by racism. That is how I see it, but you may be able to explain it differently.

  50. I came into this thread not knowing a whole lot about Ron Paul, and now, having read all the posts, I can sincerely say I want absolutely nothing to do with anyone who is supported by people like the responders in this thread. As a white, anti-racist, pro-choice woman who is a global citizen, I find most of the posts here offensive. And, considering I care more about what I see in reality than in abstract ideological philosophizing, I doubt there’s much point in conversing with most of you.

  51. Amy,

    That’s okay, you are free to choose.

    However, if you ever find yourself dragged off to the Hague to answer charges of violating some obscure country’s anti-speech laws on some trivial topic, don’t say we didn’t try to prevent it.


  52. “So basically, the union that created you would be illegal if left to your ideology, states’ rights. Putting into real jeopardy if someone like you could even exist and if so, because of the illegal nature of your creation, your life would likely have been quite unpleasant if not barbarous. That’s a real life example of the serious and perhaps murderous limitations of this ideology.”

    I don’t think i mentioned states rights at all, i mentioned individual rights. Marriage is a private contract between two consenting adults. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have legitimate authority to define or license personal relationships. Sexuality, gender, or Race should have no impact on the rights of individuals

    The Libertarian Party’s stance on LGBT rights are in the same ballpark:

    So you are wrong in that aspect.

  53. Regarding libertarian opposition to CRA.

    In both personal and business dealings, libertarians believe private individuals should be allowed to discriminate upon any basis they choose in regard to deciding with whom they will associate. However, when it comes to a public institution, which is funded by taxpayers, they do not believe such discrimination should be permitted.

    Racism, sexism, and homophobia in private dealings, including business dealings, are wrong an i believe immoral, but I don’t belive it’s in the individuals best interest to allow the government to have any say in the prejudices of private individuals in private dealings. Once social attitude changes toward a more tolerant and open society it will be the prejudiced individuals who suffer as they lose customers and friendships due to their prejudices. I believe positive steps in social attitude have more to do with the relatively more open and tolerant society we have today than any law ever passed regarding busniess discrimination. I don’t believe it’s the government’s mandate to force individuals of various sexual identity, gender, race, nationality ect to get along and accept each other. It’s government’s job to stay out of the way and allow private groups and individuals to work toward elimination of those prejudices.

    I don’t know anyone who stopped being a racist or a homophobe because they had to hire someone of another race or sexual orientation. Bigotry still exists everwhere today and the government isn’t going to be able to do much if anything about, nor should it. We need to look to ourselves and not men with guns and titles to end psocial prejudice

  54. sorry for the typos, typing while feeding my son.

  55. This might help a bit to understand the libertarian view of rights:

  56. “The UN is for the most part, controlled by the United States so when Ron Paul complains that the UN is an infringement on US sovereignty, don’t take it seriously.”

    1.) anything to back this up?

    2.) If that is true, and the “UN is for the most part, controlled by the United States”, then how is it that, “The UN could help curb US imperialism”? You are at once saying the U.N. is not a threat to the U.S. amd that it is. I seem to remember the UN being somewhat involved in the run up to the Invsion of Iraq. It appears, in hindisght at least, that the UN was unable to “curb US imperialism”, and did in fact facilitae in the US war of aggression (UN Resolution 1441).

    So Paul’s position is that the UN is a threat to U.S. sovereignty, idon’t know about that, but i can clearly see it as an instrument to push the U.S. agenda around the globe.

    Your position seems to be that, although “The UN is for the most part, controlled by the United States” it could, in theory at least, be able to do the exact opposite.

    So, do we withdraw from and abolish the imperial tool, or do we hope it does better next time? I think i’ll take Paul’s side on this one.

  57. Marc,

    Much better!

    I point out that you mistaken my assertion that I have responded to mean that I think I answered your questions. I don’t think I did. I don’t intend ever to answer “beating your wife” questions.

    You responded to my question about fathers in exactly the same way I responded to your questions: you refuted it without answering. I’ll take that as common ground if you’ll recognize tha truth of it: responding is not necessarily answering.

    It’s a matter of linguistic precision and fluency in communication.

    You did not answer or respond to my other two questions. You came close to answering the mother killing inconvenient children by confirming the difference in our views on where life begins. But you didn’t touch at all the question of whether a law morally defective if it benefits one race at the expense of another.

    You quoted a statement earlier, implying that you hold it to be true, that a nation must protect all its citizens equally. I agree. But I insist that creating protected classes is not providing equal protection. I insist that giving points for skin color and giving other preferential mechanisms to some over others are still discrimination, something that cannot happen under true equal protection.

    Reparations from anyone other than the actual perpetrators is theft against innocent third parties.

    Not only have my own children been directly harmed by legislation I actually fought for at the time, but since then they have been robbed to pay for injustices to WWII Japanese in America which were committed by people mostly dead before they were born–now they face more reparations claims from blacks. (Note that Italian and German internees in America have been denied reparations for the same abuse the Japanese got reparations. Is that equal protection, or anti-white racism?)

    I know Ron Paul. I do not work for him, nor have I donated to his campaign, but that is for ephemeral reasons having to do with my own political position, which I won’t discuss. But I will speak to what I know of the man and what he’s been saying all his life. But in my own words, so please do not attribute the following statements to Dr. Paul.

    I see Dr. Paul as emotionally distraught over the destruction of American charity by the welfare state, yet unwilling to help perpetuate that sorry situation. Without the income tax being applied against the producers to be wasted by government largess, there would be lots of private societies such are the American Colonization Society correcting injustices left and right.

    Just examine the entire financial history of Meals on Wheels to see the truth of my position: taken over by government funding and then almost killed off by budget cuts, MoW has returned to private funding and recovered nicely.

    Forcibly taking anyone’s property to satisfy the needs of another person who didn’t earn it is Marxist at its essence.

    That s not to say that all taxation is wrong or even done by force. When people create a municipal corporation, or buy into one, they are agreeing to general maintenance assessments and the political contests involved in setting spending and priorities for municipal investment, maintenance and defense (police to protect body and property).

    So I allow for municipal property taxes, but not county or state property taxes, since it is not possible to live in the US without living in a state and county, which anyone with birthright citizenship has the right to do. All other taxation must conform to the relevant constitutions and be limited in their applications to the legitimate common interests of the entire people.

    It is not a legitimate constitutional application of the taxing power of the federal government to tax the people for any purpose which only benefits special interest groups, even if it taxes them all equally. That is theft and abuse of power.

    If some blacks feel they are being unjustly harmed by the policies of certain whites or white-owned corporations, they have recourse at the state level, particularly against corporations. While individuals must remain free in their associations, even within the practices of their sole proprietorships and partnerships when they are not feeding at the government trough, corporations are creatures of the state. Existing at the will of and under benefit from the state, corporations, already defined in their creation complete with the benefits of incorporation, can be freely defined further by the state to have commensurate reciprocal duties in exchange for those privileges. That means that there can be corporate taxes, safety and performance laws, and laws requiring equal hiring, pay, promotion, treatment, and retirement benefits to all people, to everyone who might apply to and work for a corporation.

    So individuals who suffer injury at the hands of corporations already have every means of recovery at the state level.

    As for protection against individuals, assault, battery and anti-theft and anti-fraud laws exist to protect everyone from everyone.

    The federal constitution is not an instrument intended toward application to individuals except as their actions directly affect the entirety of the people as a nation, such as treason and counterfeiting. So, murder, and abortion, and discrimination, are not legitimate objects of federal legislation under normal circumstances. What abnormal circumstances must exist before they can be? Well, none, actually, because none are provided for in the constitution.

    One such circumstance has been illegitimately conceived by practice, and that is the feds handing out money to the states and cities (and corporations) with strings attached.

  58. One such circumstance has been illegitimately conceived by practice, and that is the feds handing out money to the states and cities (and corporations) with strings attached.

    [Okay, it was a length restriction!]

    When the states accepted revenue-sharing, they joined in a diametric reversal of the taxing provisions of the federal constitution, essentially joining an illegal federal welfare program, and they incurred certain duties in exchange for that sell-out. One of those is yielding to otherwise-unconstitutional legislation against them and their corporate citizens.

    And then they, and in turn the federal government, under the wacky assumption that every entity in the country was a corporate citizen, applied all of the duties of privilege to everyone, thus extending federal jurisdiction to the individual, an object to which it was never intended to apply.

    The excuse for this is participation in social security and attendance of public schools, but that is invalid since these things are compulsory. Where freedom to refuse a contract is not available, no enforceable contract can exist, by definition.

    Of course, take away the individual’s means of self-defense, or render him unwilling to exercise it, and anyone with a gun, in uniform or out can tax and steal and coerce at will.

    Suddenly you look around and understand why the imperialists have finally joined the Marxists in their zeal for gun control.

    What we need is a clean sweep. Both of government at all levels to remove the electoral prostitution, and in the people, to release their clutching at past baggage, especially perceived crimes against our forebears that none of us living now even experienced.

    I don’t have a land claim against a farmer in Montana just because my ancestors used to hunt there. Mexicans don’t have a land claim against the American Southwest because their ancestors stole the land from Indians too; even so, their continued right to be here, and citizenship if they wanted it, was guaranteed to them by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. And blacks don’t have a reparations or special-treatment claim against the American government because they were all given free passage back to a wholly-owned homeland in Liberia both before and after the civil war.

    The Mexicans who stayed here and accepted citizenship retained their lands and businesses, and made their go of it. The current movement by Marxist-inspired Mexicans to lay claim to those lands offends even those Mexican-Americans.

    The blacks who chose to stay here and accept citizenship also took a shot at making a go of it, and even though their chances were inhibited by idiots, they had about the same opportunity as several other immigrant groups who had to make their way against other idiots. Not just the Irish, as the popular example, but also such groups as the Mormons and the Wends, both of whm suffered brutality, rape and murder as they made their way West to Liberty.

    All of that is history now, and those of us who are here are all in the same corrupt mess. Any black or Mexican who does not see the trap that most whites live in is simply not paying attention. Sure, it’s easy to my that comment into support for a Marxist solution against the elite, but why do that when the evidence from all over the world is that Marxism doesn’t work?

    Why continue to religiously propose failed solutions instead of searching for and considering better ones?

    Ron Paul is advocating individual liberty. He is not advocating it for any single group at the expense of another, as you are. He is advocating what you say you want, while you in truth are not: a government that protects all its citizens equally, therefore favoring none.

    That’s a legally level playing field, and you won’t get better than that. If you want an economically level playing field, then you need to get government out of the economy and allow the free market to operate.

    Thus, the elimination of the fed, because it manipulates the currency to the advantage of big business and the detriment of the trickle-downed individual.

    Thus the elimination of the Dep’t of Education, because its real job is to produce lock-step corporate slaves and soldiers to maintain the tax base and military might of the empire.

    Thus the elimination of all subsidy programs and welfare because you cannot be free of the conditions of servitude if you continue to accept its benefits.

    Thus the elimination of the personal income tax because it is part and parcel with the fed’s inflationary policies that enslaves us all to corporate servitude.

    The list goes on, but that should be adequate.

    I wasn’t trying to insult you in return, I was trying to shock you into seeing that you are employing invalid linguistic tricks and advocating bad solutions that can only continue if not exacerbate the problem.

    I ask that you rid yourself of the “class consciousness” that is blinding you to the fact of individualism, and realize that there is no single physical, philosophical or religious trait that dictates mass attitudes to the exclusion of individual exceptions. In fact, I hold that there are no classes or masses because there are only individuals, each with a unique perspective and almost every one ready and insistent to demand recognition as such rather than as a clone in a class or mass.

    I ask you, are you truly comfortable with the idea of submerging your individual aspirations into the collective will of people you don’t even know? Would you be happy in the position of Warren Beaty’s character at the end of “Reds”?

    In short, shed the Marxist rhetoric and try to understand America for what it was supposed to be, not for what its enemies have tried to make it be.

    Yes, racial slavery was an abomination. But you can’t get even for it: everybody involved has escaped prosecution through death. And it is in fact unconstitutional in this country to pass the debts of a criminal on to his or her children (“corruption of blood”), so reparations are themselves unconstitutional.

    No unconstitutional act is made right by its having been committed. Not coerced confessions, not defective incarceration, and not reparations. There is no right to welfare, no right to privilege, no right to preference. In short, there are no legitimate entitlements.

    Certainly not at the expense of your innocent neighbors.


  59. Clarification:

    ‘Sure, it’s easy to [twist] that comment into support for a Marxist solution against the elite, but why do that when the evidence from all over the world is that Marxism doesn’t work?’


  60. Some being wise have become foolish.

    Welcome to the inellectual twit club marcg, you are completely qualified.

  61. Sorry, should have read:

    Some being wise in their own eyes have become foolish.

  62. Allen,
    You mentioned being dragged off to the Hague for a violation of some countries speech laws. I believe I understand where you are going but you may not be aware that US soldiers are being charged with murder and torture. This isn’t the same as free speech violations. You might need to read up on what is actually happening out there. And if you do know, I’d like to hear your opinion on these real cases. Like the one in Georgia where the soldier killed the Iraqi in interrogation and the murder charges were dismissed by a US military court that admitted he shot the detainee but concluded that the detainee died from something else.

    What is your opinion there? I will try to respond to the rest of your comments as well. I’m trying to go through things in order as to not miss anything.

  63. Stephanie,
    Thanks for time you put into the thoughtful replies as well as the links. I read them and they do help contextualize your comments adding to the quality of the discourse. You wrote that I was wrong about the marriage thing because what I stated does indeed diverge from the Libertarian view, according to the reference you provided. I brought up states rights not because you specifically said it but because it is Ron Paul’s position and he is my focus.

    My problem with your rationale is that it seems incompatible with observable reality. Sticking with the example I started with regarding marriage left to the states, which is what a Ron Paul world would look like because he would remove Federal intervention that has made the states do certain things that directly shape some of the ways our world looks today.

    You have dealt with me honestly thus far I would hope that you would acknowledge, so that we may leave the academy and deal in what is and has actually happened. If Ron Paul had gotten his way, say in 1964, what would the world have looked like? What would Georgia have looked like, for instance?

    That’s a broad and somewhat rhetorical question. You can answer or not answer but I ask it to encourage you to re-examine the actual and probable, not theoretical, implications of policy decisions of Ron Paul. I might not be here if he had gotten his way back then so please try to understand how, as a black male, it is difficult for me to overlook these aspects while they may be far less important for many Ron Paul supporters.

    You also mentioned that you don’t know a single person that stopped being a bigot because of the Federal laws. That is a difficult thing to judge being that it is so subjective but a strong case could be made that lots of people were given the opportunity to be born and grow in a world drastically different than would have existed if not for Federal obligations, allowing them to develop mentally in very different ways in regards to the idea of race.

    I can’t prove that people who aren’t wanting to lynch me were affected by the fact that their parents and then themselves were given the opportunity to work with and play with and perhaps befriend others that led to different ways of thought. I can’t prove it scientifically but seems likely to me. So I think many millions views on race and being a bigot were influenced greatly and positively by Federal law.

    I get the feeling that the Libertarian viewpoint held by many, yourself included is very well intended but highly unrealistic and because of that, carry a high human cost. Another concrete example. The notion I read in the reference you provided that discusses negative and positive rights is interesting. I can’t say I haven’t heard it before but what happens when say, the states won’t enforce negative rights and a majority of its inhabitants agree that it shouldn’t. This is the history of my state.

    The Federal govt stepped in and made the state enforce negative rights that prevented whites from killing black people. Libertarian thought did and would oppose this Federal intervention. How does that not make the Libertarian view, carried to its logical conclusion, a part of the oppression and not even a mere bystander? If the personal rights of private whites to discriminate result in the death of blacks have anyone’s rights been violated? Death, being the most extreme possibility of course. But this philosophy seems to have a racial concern. In practice if not in theory.

  64. Marc,

    I agree with the Judgement at Nuremburg; Lt. Calley was guilty. And so is anyone who follows in his footsteps. But half the reason they do that is because their minds were compromised by twelve years of obedience training via government schooling–which government schooling is dominated by liberal theology. (Evolution, Marxism and Atheism: Secular Humanism IS a religion, after all–its proponents argued that it was (Julian Huxley: Religion without Revelation) and the US Supreme Court affirmed.) Still, I do not excuse criminal behavior on the grounds of ignorance, even if the ignorance was manufactured.

    You often comment on libertarianism’s lack of touch with reality. In appearances, you are right. But that may be because your understanding of it is probably, as is the case with most people, based on the uncompromising “Libertopia Now!” anarchist crowd that has been in control of our sound machine since shortly after the founding of the Libertarian Party. But there are two defining minds at work in the movement, the tiny but noisy antisocial problem-with-authority anarchist club whose entire thrust is away-from, and the less strident greater majority who truly do seek alternatives as they try to move toward greater freedom exercised more responsibly.

    There are over 110 libertarian-oriented think tanks in the US, most of them working to devolp theory toward practice. They are painfully aware of the obvious disconnect between what the public hears of libertarianism from the noisy brats in our family, and what the adults are trying to tell the public about alternatives.

    We’re not there yet with our PR. But that doesn’t mean that we are all laboring under the delusions of dissociation.

    Over the next two years I expect the more rational among us to take their turn at the defining thing, and you will begin to see a new kind of libertarian candidate: informed and conversant with the issues, attuned to the situations of real people, and competent to discuss how to get from here to there.

    Government is not eloquence, it is force. That is, after all, its original mandate: suppress Jesse James so everyone else can live productively without always looking over their shoulder in defense against predators. But that was its only mandate. Everything else it does can be done by privately-managed and privately-funded entities, and usually better.

    Yes, that does not mean throwing all schoolchildren out into the street in one day, it means the private arising of responsible and trustworthy private service companies to bid on managing and eventually buying the schools, much as is now being done all ovber the world with water and sewage plants and many if not all other municipal services.

    It’s been years since OK City privatized its four sewage treatment plants, and the the only difference the customers may have noticed is that this service went down in cost.

    Yes, there’s a lot more to develop, a lot more to be disseminated, and a lot more to be done. But please don’t mistake our slowness in owning our noise machine, and making it responsive to reality and practicality, to be a disconnection from reality.

    Again, our challenges are only two: Developing a workable here-to-there path, and getting out the word about it adequately to encourage the public to abandon its support of and participation in the cult of the omnipotent state.


  65. Kevin Beal Says:

    Ron Paul is against the UN because the UN is the step right before preemptive war, like the founding fathers said no entangling alliances. Be friends through trade, being friends in a military sense is a fascist approach and created by the freemasons.

    Ron Paul regardless whether or not he is racist or sexist he wants to let the states make those kinds of decisions AND he believes that NOT ONE person should have less rights than the next. And he is head and shoulders above any other candidate as far as ALL these (racism, sexism and imperialism) are concerned. Hillary is the biggest imperialist next to Obama. Hillary was hated by housewives across the nation because she said all of them need to get jobs. Obama doesn’t even have the black vote, Ron Paul does.

  66. I have to admit that I had lost all hope in politicians, until I became aware of Ron Paul (only a few weeks ago to my shame). I’m fascinated by his message and the libertarian ideology. I think I am close to embracing it, but I’m struggling with the issue of racism and the proper role of the federal government in ensuring individual rights of minorities. I am very interested to hear more thoughts on Marc’s hypothetical question… where would we be now without the Civil Rights Act? What policies would a libertarian in the 60’s have taken to combat the injustices toward black Americans. For that matter, when and how would slavery have ended without action at the federal level?

    Certainly, blacks were denied civil liberties guaranteed under the constitution, since the founding of this country. Didn’t the federal government have a responsibility to do something, since some states were not … to uphold the constitution in this case?


  67. “And as far as black people go, the War on Drugs is the most destructive racist policy of the government, and Ron Paul is the only, I repeat the only, candidate who promises to end it”

    What about Mike Gravel?

  68. George,
    This issue of racism is one of several proverbial stakes in the heart of Libertarian ideology. There’s lots about Libertarianism that I don’t agree with but this is an immediate deal breaker.

    As Stephanie and others have illustrated in the dozens of comments now, Libertarians consistently oppose Federal intervention to combat US racism against ethnic minorities, particularly black people.

    Libertarians in word and deed, appease racists by not protesting the trampling of rights of minorities but subsequently being amongst the loudest protesters once the Feds jump in to do something about the situation. They claim they are only preventing the rights of whites from being usurped.

    They consistently are quiet about the rights of others so long trampled on by the white majority. If deeply held, and likely unconscious, racism isn’t the reason for this most glaring of Libertarian contradictions, I don’t know what is.

  69. “The war on drug things is a good point FZappa. Ron Paul will PARDON 70% of the people in jail (all those in jail for drug possession), most of whom are minorities”.

    This is very disingenuous, not to mention prejudiced and insulting. Where do I start with this? First of all, that comment presupposes that blacks use drugs at a higher rate than whites. According to the CDC, that’s not true. Blacks are just arrested at a higher rate and sentenced more harshly. THAT needs to end. Secondly, you presuppose that most blacks want to see drugs legalized, and that we want the war on drugs to end. Most of us don’t want either of those things. We want the war on drugs to be fought effectively.

  70. Good post, Acanthus. I disagree with your last point. I’ve seen polls that indicate that most black folks in the US want the drug war to end. As far as the the insulting presumptions, I don’t think he meant it that way. Although, often many whites use insulting and supremacist language (because its internalized into their thinking) I don’t think the poster implied that black folks are justly locked up. Only that blacks are disproportionately affected by the drug war. The drug war is racist and I think it is a good thing for as many people as possible to acknowledge this.

  71. gary norman Says:

    Why would blacks not want a man that would truely set them free.Right now alot of them are not free.They are traped by the strings the democratic party controle them with.Ron believes in equal rights for all.Thats all people.Not just one group according to their color.Blacks don’t be afraid of freedom.You can handle it.Just except it & enjoy it.Its god’s gift to you working through Ron Paul.Gary

  72. AfricanAmericans4Paul Says:

    “1) Does Ron Paul agree that someone legitimately accused of international war crimes should be allowed to avoid an international trial?

    2) Does Ron Paul agree that the CRA was a lifesaver for many black Americans laboring under the murderous oppression of the Jim Crow South?

    3) Does Ron Paul agree that a woman should have the right to decide whether or not she has to carry a pregnancy to term?”

    1) Forgive me for saying so, but your position on the ICC is simplistic, and it would be irresponsible to ignore that fact. ICC could just as easily be used to sentence black people to public cainings in Thailand, mutilations in Saudi Arabia, indefinate incarceration in Turkish prison, or execution in Iran for violating international drug-trafficking laws. If Ron Paul sincerely believed that the ICC was a just system (no peer juries in ICC…judge panels only), that would and could only be used to execute international tyrants (like Bush?), he might give it a 2nd look — but it’s much more than you imply, and deserves to be euthanized.

    2) I don’t think Dr. Paul would dispute the fact that CRA has “benefitted” many black people. I don’t believe that fact had anything to do with his criticism of it. Would you dispute whether white people “benefitted” from Jim Crow laws (or slavery)? Paul’s position is simply that quotas and set-asides are bound to foster resentment toward those they favor, and unlikely to address the underlying problem of racism. On that point I agree with him.

    3) Though the answer to your question is obvious, the way it is phrased is interesting. Of course, Ron Paul (as a human being) opposes the killing of innocent children, whether in the 1st, 3rd, or 13th trimester. Why should Susan Smith be a monster, while Jane Roe is a folk hero? Why was the Stacy Peterson case a double homocide?

    As an obstetrician, however, Dr. Paul might find your question interesting, in that it addresses ending the pregnancy, but doesn’t mention killing the child (which is typically the requisite element). I suspose that once medicine has advanced to the point that pregnancies can be terminated without ending a life, Dr. Paul may change his position on abortion; I know I would.

  73. AfricanAmericans4Paul Says:

    By your own definition, the UN is an instrument of US imperialism, yet you imply that Paul is an imperialist for opposing the UN? I’m dizzy from considering your argument. In fact, your argument has convinced me……..that you should vote for Dr. Paul, so that he can legalize whatever you’re smoking.

    Chill, brother. The doctor will free you now.

  74. My analysis of the ICC position is simplistic. I agree. That is purposeful for it seems many if not most have the most difficult time understanding the issue at all. Unfortunately, your reply doesn’t deviate from this trend of Ron Paul supporters. I asked about international trials for international crimes and your rebut with a poor bogeyman of public canings for black people in Thailand?

    I’m hoping you just got a little carried away there and only momentarily lost it. The ICC has jurisdiction over nationals of a state party. This means soldiers in other people’s country. This is the real issue. Not drug traffickers. You are being dishonest.

    And so is Ron Paul, who claims to oppose militarism and empire but balks in this case.

    Regarding the CRA, you say that you don’t think Ron Paul would dispute that the CRA has benefited Africans living in the US. No offense intended but I’m interested in what Ron Paul has done and said, not interpretations existing in the minds of his supporters who obviously have an interest interpreting the worst of Paul, favorably. When Ron Paul spoke on the CRA in Congress he mentioned not the benefit it has had for Africans but the imposition on the oppressors of those Africans it sought to expand liberty for. This toxic interpretation is inexcusable to all but Stormfronters and other Ron Paul supporters.

    The logic is that while it gives liberty to some, it takes it from others. Leaving aside the fact that this decision seems to be an arbitrary balancing act that doesn’t explain WHY the liberty of some is more important than the liberty of others, it is in contradiction to the ICC rationale.

    The rights of citizens in other countries to be free from aggressive acts by, for instance, a US soldier is superseded by the rights of the US and the US soldier to be free from legal retribution by the victim.

    I understand what Paul and those who disagree are saying but their rationales are inconsistent and seem to really only be rationales for nationalism and racism only slightly more sophisticated than the unabashed white supremacists over at Stormfront.

    For the reasons I have put forward (and I hope you can understand them now) Ron Paul is a fraud.

    I will end with a simple question for you to answer:

    Why is a white southerners right to be free from employment discrimination more important than a black southerners freedom from employment discrimination?

  75. AfricanAmericans4Paul Says:

    “Why is a white southerners right to be free from employment discrimination more important than a black southerners freedom from employment discrimination?”

    And I will answer with a simple question: who ever said it was?

  76. So you’re basically bowing out of the discussion with what I guess you see as some cute semantical gymnastics. Go play on your own time.

  77. AfricanAmericans4Paul Says:

    You either naively or dishonestly refer to the ICC in terms of its limited initial pretext, when it doesn’t require a vast knowledge of the history of incrimentalism to see where this is going. If you want to keep the camel out of the tent, only a fool lets it get its nose through the flap. Your cheerleading for the ICC indicates that you’re either gullible enough to buy the pretext or are unconcerned about the inevitable expansion of its “mandate.”

    To expound on our earlier CRA exchange, you seem to be confusing social justice with freedom — but perhaps you’re just more concerned with one than the other. All I demand from society is equal rights and equal protection under the law. THAT is all any of us is justly entitled to. We can’t travel through time (forward or back) attempting to exact recompense for each social injustice. What happened to our ancestors was inexcuseable, but levying petty injustices against a group of people whose only crime is looking like the group of people who committed atrocities against a group of people who looked like us is neither justice nor liberty. Give me liberty, and I’ll take care of the rest. Hillary Clinton can kiss my black @$$.

  78. The ICC has jurisdiction over four types of crime
    1. Genocide
    2. Crimes Against Humanity
    3. War Crimes
    4. Crimes of Aggression

    So that is the context of Ron Paul’s disagreement with the court. Ron Paul agrees, I guess, that the US is and has been committing crimes that fall under this jurisdiction. So when he agrees with and takes time to publicly praise Bush for not participating, the context is that membership would interfere with US imperialism happening right now.

    Your mentioning of incrementalism is interesting because for that very reason, one could oppose Ron Paul, a candidate who is loved by open white supremacists and praised as their best hope in a field occupied by, as they term it, race traitors. Electing Ron Paul, some say, opens the door and validates principles and ideas anathema to human freedom. Ideas like social problems can be solved with market solutions, greed is good, etc.

    Back to the ICC, I am always tempted to take the kid gloves off with Ron Paul supporters because the cognitive dissonance is sometimes so heavy as to be not quite believable. But again, giving the benefit of the doubt that you are indeed being honest and not just pulling my chain, I’ll assume that you mean it with this notion that the ICC could expand its mandate, as you say.

    Why couldn’t the US withdraw from the treaty if it expanded its mandate beyond the four things listed above? The US could. This is very simple. The scare tactics right wingers try to pull about the ICC aren’t fact based. The criminal jurisdiction is clear. Genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, aggression.

    These things would bring int’l accountability to dictatorial actions from people like Bush or Clinton or whoever, that decide they want to invade countries. Why can’t you get behind that? Just like you won’t join, you could always leave.

    You all are carrying water for racist empire while hiding behind this sovereign line of bullshit only believed by the racists and jingos.

    And I agree. Hillary can go to hell.

  79. AfricanAmericans4Paul Says:

    “Why can’t you get behind that? Just like you won’t join, you could always leave.”

    Because it isn’t necessary, and because it’s MUCH easier to stay out than to get out (common sense, really)

  80. AfricanAmericans4Paul Says:

    Can you define and limit “crimes against humanity” for me? If you ask me, murder is a crime against humanity. How far do we go with this? Who gets to decide? It’s a bad idea. Just let it go.

  81. AfricanAmericans4Paul Says:

    BTW, your desperate guilt-by-association attempt is lame and transparent. I don’t fault Paul for taking the money of people he’s openly condemned. In fact, I wish that individual contributions weren’t capped at $2,300.00, so that they could give all of their money to my candidate. They’ll probably only waste it on flamable crosses and gift copies of ‘Mein Kampf’, anyway. You want to play consumer advocate for racists, and explain to them how they’re wasting their money? I don’t. I’ve already given the maximum, and the money needs to come from somewhere. You don’t seem to mind taking their money to build more prisons. I do.

  82. AfricanAmericans4Paul Says:

    “And I agree. Hillary can go to hell.”

    Hey. At least we agree on something. I suppose that’s a start.

  83. Guilt by association is probably how it looks to someone locked into a partisan type thinking. It’s not that the association makes him guilty but it raises a question, hopefully, for those lacking the capacity to figure someone like Ron Paul out on their own. Ron Paul, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and all the other prior reincarnations of this ridiculous greed is good ideology have had their day, I think. I shouldn’t have come across as sarcastic earlier. Unnecessarily impolite. My apologies for that. We simply disagree. We are coming from dramatically different positions and thus the essential nature of our disagreement will continually get lost minute details (relatively) like the ICC and CRA issues. Neo-liberalism and the global advancement of market capitalist ideology seems to have peaked and be on its way down finally. A good thing for the people of the world. Although I know it won’t be, it would be nice to think this Ron Paul campaign might be remembered as a flash in the dying embers of neo-liberalism globally. Elimination of the public sphere in place of private markets, solidification of the class system, essentials only for those that can afford them.

    I reject the entire thing and since you seem to be a true believer I should have said that from the outset. And as an African living in the US, I would hope you are a true believer being that you are taking quarter with an ideology that has done so much harm to people of color the world over. And because I reject the entire ideology, H. Clinton, Obama, Guliani, Paul, I reject them all. They aren’t the same of course. But they are close enough to being the same when it comes to economics. Ron Paul, of course, professes to not be the military advocate these others are but he plans to wage war in a different way by instead of catching up with the rest of the industrialized world in regards to healthcare and public infrastructure, he wants to eliminate that which remains in the underdeveloped US. Good luck with your political development. I hope this is a phase for you.

    All property is theft. 😀

  84. AfricanAmericans4Paul Says:

    “I hope this is a phase for you.”

    My life has had many phases, but they’ve all progressed toward one end: maximum liberty.

    “All property is theft.”

    Then we’re all thieves; let’s at least have some honor amongst us. ;^)

    Political labels aside, there are only 2 fundamental ideologies: coercionism and voluntarism. There is no middle ground; you either believe you have the right of free association and self-determination or you don’t. If you have those rights, then so does everyone else. If you don’t acknowledge these rights, there is no point in discussion.

    Whatever form you desire society to have, if you can organize it on a mutually voluntary basis, without the use of theft, threat, of fraud, more power to you. You have my blessings, and we can agree to disagree. You’ll excuse me, though, if I don’t choose to be your neighbor in your property-less utopia?

  85. Utopia? You organize your ideology on the basis of avoiding any kind of coercion or theft while ignoring the inconvenience of this thing some call history. Giving the excuse that there is nothing that can be done about past injustices, you endeavor to create a perfect, coercion-free society under the veil thin (and quite disingenuous) pretense that everyone is starting from the same point. A premise, that if untrue, is as unjust, unfair and ridiculous as all the various forms of theft you decry.

    To hear a Libertarian speak of utopia derisively is ironic. It’s your entire program. Utopian or bandit? Which are you? And like you said, there really is no in between.

    Either we are all starting from the same point or we aren’t.

  86. AfricanAmericans4Paul Says:

    I’m not a Libertarian, although I’m sympathetic to their ideals. I don’t necessarily equate idealism with utopianism. What makes utopianism undesirable is the universal uniformity it requires. If your political ideals can’t withstand political dissent, if they demand absolute conformity, you should probably rethink them.

  87. This discussion really points to a bigger problem with the libertarian mindset. A lot of libertarians simply refuse to acknowledge that there are such things as racism and bigotry. Their ‘answer’ to it is to pretend that such abuses take place because of ‘other reasons’. They have yet to explain how a libertarian society would combat racism. It’s hard to promote libertarian philosophy to groups who relied upon some form of government intervention to keep them safe. No government? Okay, then how do you propose to protect those from the likes of neo-Nazis and klan groups? Promote 2nd Amendment rights. Okay, fine. But considering the mindset of many, would a mostly-white jury acquit an Afro-American who shot a white person out of self-defense? People still tend to takes sides according to race on these issues. Just recently on liberal eastern Long Island, a black homeowner shot one of a group of white youths who confronted him on his own property. The dispute began when a girlfriend of one of the youth’s claimed that the black homeowner’s son made online threats – (it was an internet chat room) – about raping her. [You can ‘Google’ the story – Newsday covered it, so this is not some rumor.] So the boyfriend and his buddies went to confront the guy’s son. The homeowner – (John White – I just remembered his name) – felt threatened, shot one of the youths and killed him. It will be interesting to see how the court case plays out.
    There are folks like Ron Paul who tend to downplay the not-so-flattering parts of our history. So why does an Afro-American woman like me still support him? Because the government has become the worst violator of individual rights in this country. One not only finds it difficult to build wealth and hang onto it. There is also the added problem of cops and other members of the legal system wanting to put you behind bars if you get the upper hand on some sleaze-bag who wants to do you harm. Furthermore, the criminal can come back and sue you for damages. Never mind the fact that he had no business in your home at 2am in the morning…. Add to that the fact that the government makes it difficult for you to educate your kids the way you would like, stands in your way in getting good and reasonably-priced medical treatment, can confiscate your property without probable cause or due process, and you have a very good explanantion of why Ron Paul has some support among minorities. Politics does make for strange bedfellows, but it remains a fact that groups who were previously distrustful of each other suddenly pull together when a new and more dangerous enemy enters the picture.

  88. Thanks for posting, Estelle. Your point of how the US libertarian philosophy only attracts some populations is really an explanation as to why and how it is another form or manifestation of a white supremacist ideal. It doesn’t directly advocate those principles, it latches on to the already established white supremacist institutionalized ideas and charges everything that might work to abate racism as an infringement on the liberty of the racists. This is just another form of white supremacy.

    Your example of the Jon White story is very compelling. Here we see that a black man defending himself on his property against whites attempting to do harm to his family while using racial epithets will not be protected under the law. Mr. White shot one of the attackers and was sentenced to 15 years in jail. Compare that Joe Horn, a white guy that shot and killed two immigrants that were committing a crime on another piece of property and who posed no threat to him. Horn, a white man, got away with murder in the same spirit that millions of white men before him have gotten away with it. The lives of those he killed were of little or no value to the society determining law.

    Ron Paul and white libertarians (redundant almost) generally have little to say about this. And what little they do have to say is to dismiss it. They are not in the least bit sympathetic to the plight of racism and its effects on Africans in the US.

    They don’t care. So what little they have to say about it amounts to an argument to convince Africans who might bring it up that they aren’t being rational or that they should buck up and get over it. This is why I call their ideology just another form of white supremacy. And like other white supremacist ideologies before it, it is not identified as such by the dominant society and is in fact presented alongside other philosophies as normal. This is because the society at large has a white supremacist tendency.

    All this said, you conclude your perspective on Ron Paul and libertarianism with the same curious flaw that many Libertarians live by, dissociating the gov’t from private enterprise.

    I call this a curious flaw because I don’t think there is a person left in the continental United States that doesn’t understand that the US gov’t and politicians generally, are owned by big business. There is hardly a single barometer that doesn’t lead to this conclusion. Even still, Libertarians continue to use this rationale of out of control gov’t as an excuse for their philosophy. It really is nonsense to carry on in such an obviously illogical manner. It’s not the gov’t that’s out of control, it is the rich who control them that are and that always have been the out of control bunch. It pains me to even have to say all of this because I’m sure its obvious to a high school civics student. The elections are the affairs of millionaires and billionaires. This isn’t a gov’t with any autonomy. The rich own and control it.

    So when Libertarians talk about dissolving gov’t structures and giving more power to the private individual, only a complete fool thinks that those private individuals who have millions and billions and who already control the gov’t don’t stand the most to gain from this.

    This illogic flows from a faulty premise that Libertarians begin with. They don’t have any kind of class analysis. A class analysis would point out that the gov’t isn’t some mythic monster that simply appeared on the scene but a tool of the rich. So when the gov’t does things limiting liberty, it shouldn’t just be attributed to the mythic monster that, if you listened to Libertarians, comes out of the fog to do harm.

    It is the rich who buy them into office that are the culprits. There is no empirical analysis that can reach a different conclusion. The money trail is clear and the story is as old as is capitalist politics. The rich control the gov’t. So all of your reasoning about the gov’t making it difficult to do the various things that it does…these are the class machinations of the rich. Just as it has always been. Libertarians make the gov’t a stocking horse for the doings of the rich. This is just shitty analysis. That or simple dishonesty.

    Your assertion that Ron Paul has some support among minorities is true but it is a thin truth that only serves to deceive. Ron Paul has so little support among ethnic minorities that one might as well say he has no support. But since literally that wouldn’t be true, you can technically say he has “some” support.

    We both know that he basically has no support. And since you know many of the valid reasons why it is ironic that you would support him.

  89. Glen Davidson Says:

    marcg Try backing up some of your vitrol with facts. If you and other blacks don’t support Ron Paul fine but you deserve what you get. How many more black males are going to die in Iraq over the next 4 years, more than whites I’ll tell you that. How many more black males are going to go to prison due to the war on drugs in the next 4 years, more than whites. How many more blacks are going to be forcibly removed from their homes and sent half way across the county because some whitey wants your land.

    Look into the origin of AIDS on Dave Emory’s website
    August 28, 2007: FTR #606 – Project Paperclip and AIDS | Listen

    Ron Paul doesn’t recieve his money from the rich but from ordinary folks.

    The 70% pardon number is correct and it is not meant as a slight it is just a fact. The fact that yes blacks use drugs at the same proportion of whites I think the number is around 16% and that 65% of the prison population in America is black should tell you something.
    A terrible fact considering most of the shouldn’t have been sent there in the first place. Wake up, the people that are in government i.e. the democrats pay lip service to the black population but look at there actions they are destroying you or at least trying and Dr. Paul brought this up on the PBS debate. He wants this to stop.
    How anyone can call the man a racist after watching him at that forum or that he doesn’t have the black persons intrests in mind. Or was he being insincere? I don’t think so because his message doesn’t change. How many candidates didn’t even show up for the forum.

    I agree the black population in America has had an awful time and have been treated terrible. The bitterness in your writing is understandable and if I was a black man I’m sure I would feel the same way.

    I’m not black and I don’t for a moment want to say I know how you feel because I don’t and could never be able to walk a mile in your shoes or live your experience. But to knock a man who while might not be perfect (who is) that is your best hope for America to achieve some sort of level playing field so you might have a chance at the American dream boggles the mind even if the guy is white. Maybe that is your problem that he is white.

    Or no Bill Clinton there is a white man who cared about blacks. Right, he is no friend of the black man. How do you think crack cocaine was introduced into America. What has crack done to the black population you think this wasn’t done on purpose. Clinton/Bush they are the same people please wake up to this fact. Clinton and daddy Bush travel the world together. You think that they are different?

    No government is going to save you, no government is going to give you justice.

    I’m a Canadian and was raised here and racism isn’t as pronounced here, just the french tee hee. I also lived in America for a few years and yes the racism in your county shocked me at times. Realizing many of the stories we have heard are indeed true. I have never condoned these actions because I believe we are all the same regardless of color.

    I will sign off with a piece of advice – A black man should always be suspicious of a white man bearing gifts. While you get the gift the reward is a boot on your neck. Stick with the straight shooters. Not all of us hate you or wish you any ill will

  90. Thanks for commenting Glen. I appreciate you taking the time to make thoughtful comments. I don’t agree with much of what you’ve written as you accuse me of not backing up anything that I’ve said and I don’t think that is true. But I do understand your excitement in a candidate that you feel is authentic and putting forward good policy. I invite you to do more research on Ron Paul.

    In particular, if you would like to understand more fully where I am coming from in regards to Ron Paul being a class A divider along racial lines, I suggest you read the archives of the Ron Paul Political Report, a newsletter he put out. Read it if you can bear it. It is quite offensive and reveals the true feelings of Ron Paul and consequently of many of his diehard supporters through the years.

    To preempt an objection you might have, the newsletters have been explained by the Ron Paul campaign as having been written by a staffer that has since been fired but if you notice the dates, this explanation is revealed to be only an excuse. The racist newsletters span years, indicating a continuity of thought, not a one time slip up.

    Ron Paul is a racist and regardless of what pretty rhetoric he sends while on the campaign trail, this historical record speaks for itself. I challenge you and others to step back, stop cheerleading and honestly examine those newsletters. If you do that, you will, like many blacks, conclude that they are quite racist and not just a strange, ongoing series of mistakes.

    Take a look at what Ron Paul’s newsletter has to say about homosexual Americans. It’s pretty sickening as well.

    If you are look other Ron Paul supporters I’ve met none of this will have any impression on you but just in case, I do hope you read it.

  91. The NAACP President in Austin has publicly stated that he knows Ron Paul, and Ron Paul is not a racist.

    “If you scare the folks that have the money, they’re going to attack
    you and they’re going to take it out of context,” he added. “What he’s
    saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that’s what
    they fear,” concluded the NAACP President.”

    You can’t say that he’s racist because of the newsletters when… he didn’t write the newsletters!

    For someone who “basically has no support,” as you say, he has raised the most of any Republican in the fourth quarter last year, has beaten Rudy Giuliani in all but one primary contest so far, finished 2nd in Nevada, and is still picking up endorsements while no one else is, for the most part.

    “So when Libertarians talk about dissolving gov’t structures and giving more power to the private individual, only a complete fool thinks that those private individuals who have millions and billions and who already control the gov’t don’t stand the most to gain from this.”

    No, actually, private groups do have a lot to lose, as the NAACP president Nelson Linder said above. Many companies today– in fact, most large companies– get massive amounts of corporate welfare from the federal government, which libertarians would stop. Barack Obama votes for these types of bills. Hillary Clinton votes for these types of bills. They both send massive amounts of money to some of the richest companies in the nation– no wonder they’re supported by those special interest groups as well.

    You should read a book on libertarianism before trying to argue against it. Getting rid of corporate welfare is one of the most basic premises.

  92. Ron Paul is not only a racist but a hardcore racist. But if Ron Paul wasn’t a racist, that would not change that his policies are racist, which, of course, is the real problem. I’ve learned over the years, that most Libertarians don’t understand real world politics very well and exist in theoretical bubbles from which they make silly critiques of others. So I won’t waste lots of keystrokes trying to convince you to join others in the real world. I’ll just say that if Ron Paul ran the world, Martin Luther King Jr, whose birthday we celebrate this time of year would have accomplished a lot less while alive.

    Ron Paul doesn’t even support the Civil Rights Act, claiming it infringed on the rights of the white southerners that were kicking the shit out of black people.

    Ron Paul has lots of support. Just not from blacks and other non-whites. And the reason is because they understand that he is a racist.

    If he weren’t, do you really think Paul would enjoy the level of support from the neo-nazi and white power groups that he currently sees?

  93. If Ron Paul is a racist, why is the (need I mention black) president of the Austin NAACP saying that he’s not?

    Libertarian policies are not racist at all– as I said before, you should read up on libertarianism before choosing to criticize it with things that simply aren’t true. A libertarian CAN’T be a racist, because libertarians see people as individuals, not members of groups. That is the ultimate in not being a racist.

    “I’ll just say that if Ron Paul ran the world, Martin Luther King Jr, whose birthday we celebrate this time of year would have accomplished a lot less while alive.”

    Are you kidding me? Ron Paul is the best candidate for the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution– he has never voted against free speech and has always called for freedom of religion, assembly, and all that guaranteed to us by the First Amendment. Meanwhile, some of the Democrats have called for a flag burning amendment and voted to keep the Patriot Act.

    “Ron Paul doesn’t even support the Civil Rights Act”

    Neither do Congressman JC Watts, economist Dr. Walter Williams, Alan Keyes… all black people! Ron Paul supports civil rights, but he believes that the states which had problems back then are being singled out now for special treatment even though they have met the requirements of the bill. For instance, if a precinct in Georgia wants to move from one church to another, they have to contact the federal government first. That’s ridiculous.

    “Ron Paul has lots of support. Just not from blacks and other non-whites.”

    That is absolutely not true. I’ve even met his South Carolina coordinator, who is black! Her name is Gloria Kwayisi and she is African-American, as is her son who loves Ron Paul. (I met them at a Ron Paul rally.) Her email address is gloria.kwayisi at ronpaul2008 dot com if you would like to ask her any questions.
    The woman in this video seems to be black to me and says that Ron Paul brings people together:

    I saw pictures of the Ron Paul rally in New York City and a great number of the people were black. He has lots of support from black people and was one of the only Republican candidates to attend the African-American voters debate in Baltimore a few months ago.

    “If he weren’t, do you really think Paul would enjoy the level of support from the neo-nazi and white power groups that he currently sees?”

    In the 2004 election, John Kerry was endorsed by the Communist Party. Is he a communist? Fidel Castro has endorsed both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Does that mean that they are communists or dictators? I have a friend who is a former felon who supports John Edwards. Is John Edwards a felon or a supporter of felons? A politician can’t help who supports them. Your logic doesn’t hold.

    I would never go on any of those types of sites, but I’m told that many of those types of groups also shun Ron Paul because they see that he has said he wants a black vice president (Dr. Walter Williams of George Mason University) and that his heroes are Jewish economists, Hayek, Rothbard and Mises.

    And finally, if Ron Paul were a “hardcore racist” as you say, why would the President of the Austin NAACP, who has known him for 20 years, be defending him? You have not addressed that at all.

  94. I’m sure you know that there can always be found, folks of any and every race that will support an ideology the vast majority of the race or group finds deplorable. You must know this and thus your attempt to clear the name of Ron Paul comes across as a somewhat pathetic grasp at the last straw in the cup. But I won’t get my hopes up because I know its not the last straw. And even if it is, you all will produce yet another cup loaded with a new batch of excuses for Ron Paul’s ideological hostility towards certain ethnic groups. So-called Super Tuesday is here and I’m sure Ron Paul will soon be withdrawing from the race but the damage is done, I guess. He has, arguably, succeeded in mainstreaming some of the worst aspects of this country’s history and character. This is unfortunate.

    I live in Atlanta and as I walk around my quickly gentrifying neighborhood I realize that a Ron Paul sign on the front lawn is a predictable method of identifying recently moved-in whites from the suburbs. So far I’m batting a thousand. Most folks aren’t involved in electoral politics to the extent of placing a sign of anyone in their front yard. Of those who are, blacks and Latinos decidedly are not turned on by Paul and the increasingly visible right wing ranks of reactionary followers.

    I don’t know how you personally feel about black or brown or Jewish people but I do know that you express either a inordinate amount of ignorance or arrogance when you (and your Libertarian brothers and sisters do the same) dismiss the reaction of people of color as not knowing their own interests when they assess Paul as a hostile candidate. While it is to be assumed that you all white Paulers know best, what is good for people of color (where have I seen this show before?).

  95. juegos casino ruleta…

    Tanto juegos casino ruleta epiphone casino casinos espana paginas internet casinos descargas linea apuesta dinero portal…

  96. sun palace casino Says:

    Finding your websight was like finding a needle in a haystack.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: