John Ehrenfeld, you are a rumor monger and a lazy sot. So, let me do your work for you. Let's try Wikipedia to get a start on how this ugly rumor about Ron Paul began:
"Morris ran numerous attacks, including publicizing issues of the Ron Paul Survival Report (published by Paul since 1985) that included derogatory comments concerning race and other politicians.[48][49] The newsletter had accused President Bill Clinton of fathering illegitimate children and using cocaine; called U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist"; and argued for lowering the legal age for prosecuting youths as adults, using race-based examples.[50]
In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, explaining to Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by a ghostwriter[51] and did not represent his views. He said the remarks referring to Rep. Jordan were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."[29][51] The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."[29] In 2007, with the controversy resurfacing,[52] the New York Times Magazine concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own";[9] Paul actually criticizes racism as "an ugly form of collectivism."[53]"
For a definitive statement on racism by Ron Paul, you can read his own words 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."
The remark is whole inconsistent with anything Ron Paul has said before or since. He accepted responsibility for the remark because it came out under his name, though he didn't make the remark, showing that he is a man of integrity. Every other presidential candidate has been caught in bald-faced lies. Which bald-faced liar do you support?
Sagan
· 2 years ago
It's simple, he's seen Ron Paul around here lately with supporting comments and he has to try to "get back at 'em", obviously he doesn't support Dr.Paul. Quit pretending to ask questions, get some balls and make the statement, asking questions to start some playground type shit is very backstabbing. That "racist" topic came up long ago by some other "propaganda pushers" and as you can see, went nowhere, not a very good try and Isee that post as a definite weakness.
John Ehrenfeld
· 2 years ago
I see; he puts out an official political newsletter which supposedly reflects his own words and views on issues and then when called on what he said goes ooops! I didn't say those things, I wasn't paying attention.
I am confused does Dr. Paul believe in personal responsibility or not? Does anyone believe someone else wrote such blatant racist garbage and that Paul didn't know about it? No one told him? He never read his own newsletter?
I will give Ron Paul supporters this. It was pretty clever to try and build a candidacy based on one issue, the Iraq war, in an attempt to sneak in the back door while hiding the insanity of Paul's other extremist positions like his overt racism.
John Ehrenfeld
· 2 years ago
What is important are the issues, I agree. I am concerned with what Ron Paul believes not what his party affiliation is. Not once did I mention that Ron Paul is a Republican; as a matter of fact he doesnn't represent straight GOP ideology. It's his views that I find dangerous and racist.
Sagan
· 2 years ago
At least you reply, unlike others pushing lies on the internet.
Your words.....
"supposedly reflects his own words and views"......
Supposedly?
"sneak in the back door while hiding the insanity of Paul's other extremist positions like his overt racism."
"overt racism"??? "extremist"??? "sneak in the back door"???
- define:overt = open and observable; not secret or hidden. -
Sneak in the back door overtly?!
Why don't you show me a video of his "overt racism"..... or anything like it, quit making things up and pushing them, you contradict your self, you think that if you keep saying something people will believe it, not Ron Paul supporters, they use logic, not just feeling, MS Politicians and their supporters don't like that, it's to hard to sell "crap" to people that think.
All people have to do when they read your stuff is say... "cui bono" (kwee bono).... who benefits. The candidate that you're for that's who, if you have problems with Ron Paul I'd like to hear them, but, not half truths and outright lies. If people study Propaganda they will be able to write just like you.
I don't mind engaging in reasonable dialogue with reasonable people and I appreciate your participation, regardless whether we agree or not.
I am not "pushing lies" I am expressing my opinion which also happens to be shared by millions of others. Let's be honest, Ron Paul is a fringe candidate who will not come close to getting the nomination and we both know that. I will address your questions though.
"Supposedly reflects his own views":
Sarcastic being that his defense was to say he didn't write them or even know about them, which I find defies credulity.
"Sneak in the back door while hiding the insanity of Paul's other extremist positions like his overt racism":
Yes, Ron Paul is trying to sneak in the back door to coin a phrase, catching a ride on the anti-war express to try to fool moderates and liberals and get their support.
His views and the net results of his views if they were policy are clearly racist and detremental to African-Americans, no matter what the justification.
There are many videos of Ron Paul on the web where he espouses his constitutionalist, anti-government positions. I don't find someone who wants to lay in bed with Scalia, Roberts and Thomas to be in the least bit appealing.
John Ehrenfeld
· 2 years ago
Ron Paul’s campaign for the Republican presidential nomination has been embraced by neo-Nazis, and white nationalists where anti-Semitism, anti-black and anti-immigrant views are hailed. He has been endorsed by such white supremacist groups as Stormfront, Vanguard News, and the Nationalist Coalition and David Duke.
Oh, that’s not his fault his campaign says, he doesn’t support those groups. Ok, it just means that these hate groups love Ron Paul’s policies. I wonder why? Could it have anything to do with the fact that Paul's "do what you want people" rhetoric enables and empowers these groups? Does any reasonable person not see the role of government in protecting minorities from oppression?
Ron Paul is a very dangerous man.
John Ehrenfeld
· 2 years ago
Ron Paul is a strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution. So are Scalia, Roberts and Thomas. Strict constructionists interpret the law as not meaning what current society thinks it ought to mean, but on what it meant when the US Constitution was adopted.
When the original U.S. Constitution was adopted, women were denied the right to vote or run for office, human slavery was an established institution and homosexuals were jailed and sometimes executed.
John Ehrenfeld
· 2 years ago
Let's be rational and more importantly honest. What I am saying is that Ron Paul's strict constructionist views are in lock-step with Scalia, Roberts and Thomas's. I think you know exactly what that means. For instance, that view was Paul's justification for not supporting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and for wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade.
The Constitution is not an intrinsic law of nature and it is a living, breathing legal document. The philosophy of freedom and Democracy espoused by the founding fathers was admirable but it was flawed as were they. I do not subscribe to living by the morays of 1776 and just because it doesn't say something explicitly in the Constitution does not make it wrong. I believe judges should interpret the law according to the general "meaning and intent" of the founding fathers.
John Ehrenfeld
· 2 years ago
Ron Paul is a racist.
There are 435 memebers of the US House of Representatives. In June of 2004, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote no.
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to House Resolution 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of House Resolution 676, 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”.
Read the quotes from Ron Pauls above, read this abhorrent repudiation of the Civil Rights Act. NOT ONE congressman voted against HR 676 except Ron Paul.
His advocacy of states' rights, which he frequently mischaracterizes as individual rights appeals to a constituency which has forgotten the horror of what states' rights meant to non-white individuals in many states. As should be clear by now, Paul also appeals to some who DO remember and support a return to segregation and the other forms of racial oppression justified in the name of states' rights. Adam Holland has this right
John Ehrenfeld
· 2 years ago
If Ron Paul is such an "advocate for racial equality", why do White Supremacists support him so strongly?
John Ehrenfeld
· 2 years ago
That is the subject. This post is questioning whether Ron Paul is a racist or not. The quotes in his newsletter above speak volumes as does his repudiation of the Civil Rights Act. One of Rep. Paul's top internet organizers in Tennessee is a neo-Nazi leader named Will Williams . . .Other National Alliance Party leaders or former leaders are actively promoting the Ron Paul campaign on neo-Nazi websites. One such is Ron Doggett, currently of a group called Viginia Euro, a local branch of a national group started by David Duke.
The evidence is overwhelming. Thanks for your participation.
John Ehrenfeld
· 2 years ago
Irrelevent in any event, but dangerous enough to expose.
Ron Paul October 2007 National Polls: ABC News – 3% Gallup – 2%
Ron Paul October 2007 Iowa Poll: American Research Group – 1%
Ron Paul October 2007 New Hampshire Poll: American Research Group – 1%
John Ehrenfeld
· 2 years ago
No, thank you for helping me to expose this very dangerous and disingenuous racist politician. Best of luck to you!
Sagan
· 2 years ago
David Giles and eisheid, I agree.
John Ehrenfeld, all I can say after eisheid explained everything so well is, o.k., where's the proof, the lewrockwell.com site will give you everything from Ron Paul, show me some proof, quit trying to sell people feelings (hate), just logical proof.
Here's one from July '07, 40 minutes long and it will give the people a view of the real Ron Paul. Copy and Paste together. http://video.google.com/videoplay ?docid=-2284724646717174405
Jeffrey Bubb
· 2 years ago
Nope, not racist.
Next!
John Ehrenfeld
· 2 years ago
Sagan the proof is conclusive and has been presented. Numerous racist quotes, legislative record, strict constructionist views and a candidacy supported by white supremacists.
The problem seems to be that when you don't care for the facts and proof presented, you dismiss it.
John Ehrenfeld
· 2 years ago
I am sure they do. I also think they like Ron Paul's racist statements like,
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be".
I am sure they also like Ron Paul's opposition to the Civil Rights Act.
Universe Man
· 2 years ago
I came to this website wanting to support the work being done here, as I'm a fan of Robert Greenwald. I was sad to see two posts on the front page attacking the only peace and freedom candidate for president. It strikes me as antithetical to your goals.
Anchorage Activist
· 2 years ago
To claim that Ron Paul is a racist because he doesn't renounce support from so-called "white supremacists" is like saying that if someone walks into a garage, they automatically become a car. This represents the Marxist principle of guilt by association.
You should be grateful that Ron Paul is successfully reaching out to "white supremacists". As LBJ once said, it is better to have them inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.
Lester Hunt
· 2 years ago
Oh please, this was dealt with by Paul over a decade ago. You people are getting desperate.
John Ehrenfeld
· 2 years ago
. . . and that makes it ok?
Joe McDonald
· 2 years ago
"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals" ---Ron Paul
Hank
· 2 years ago
The reality is that everything he said is true.
Is it racist if its true.
Or are people just not used to a politician who does not BS them?
Peter
· 1 year ago
Concerning the accuracy (and assuming his quotes were offered in their full original context)of any of R. Paul's statistically laden comments: Anyone who issues a statement commenting on any groups' percieved social or educational shortcomings should concurrently mention a sincere desire to solve the same groups' shortcomings.Otherwise they should be comfortable knowing that they may be accused of being at least "just a complainer" or at worst a racist or bigot when it comes to matters of race.
zosoo7
· 1 year ago
Surely the person who posted this knows that this newsletter written in Paul's name was not actually Paul. You can read a huge collection of Paul's writings at www.ronpaullibrary.org. Please, be responsible and search more on this, and consider motives for postings like this one. Ron Paul still has my respect and my vote, and after much thought and consideration about this matter. I find his message, voting history and writing style to conflict with the bigotry within these newsletters in question.
John Ehrenfeld
· 1 year ago
Nonsense. They were Ron Paul's newsletters and no reasonable person would believe that he didn't read them at the very least. He is a racist.
All Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
See section: 1996 campaign controversy
"Morris ran numerous attacks, including publicizing issues of the Ron Paul Survival Report (published by Paul since 1985) that included derogatory comments concerning race and other politicians.[48][49] The newsletter had accused President Bill Clinton of fathering illegitimate children and using cocaine; called U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist"; and argued for lowering the legal age for prosecuting youths as adults, using race-based examples.[50]
In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, explaining to Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by a ghostwriter[51] and did not represent his views. He said the remarks referring to Rep. Jordan were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."[29][51] The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."[29] In 2007, with the controversy resurfacing,[52] the New York Times Magazine concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own";[9] Paul actually criticizes racism as "an ugly form of collectivism."[53]"
For a definitive statement on racism by Ron Paul, you can read his own words here:
Government and Racism
by Ron Paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html
"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."
The remark is whole inconsistent with anything Ron Paul has said before or since. He accepted responsibility for the remark because it came out under his name, though he didn't make the remark, showing that he is a man of integrity. Every other presidential candidate has been caught in bald-faced lies. Which bald-faced liar do you support?
I am confused does Dr. Paul believe in personal responsibility or not? Does anyone believe someone else wrote such blatant racist garbage and that Paul didn't know about it? No one told him? He never read his own newsletter?
I will give Ron Paul supporters this. It was pretty clever to try and build a candidacy based on one issue, the Iraq war, in an attempt to sneak in the back door while hiding the insanity of Paul's other extremist positions like his overt racism.
Your words.....
"supposedly reflects his own words and views"......
Supposedly?
"sneak in the back door while hiding the insanity of Paul's other extremist positions like his overt racism."
"overt racism"??? "extremist"??? "sneak in the back door"???
- define:overt = open and observable; not secret or hidden. -
Sneak in the back door overtly?!
Why don't you show me a video of his "overt racism"..... or anything like it, quit making things up and pushing them, you contradict your self, you think that if you keep saying something people will believe it, not Ron Paul supporters, they use logic, not just feeling, MS Politicians and their supporters don't like that, it's to hard to sell "crap" to people that think.
All people have to do when they read your stuff is say... "cui bono" (kwee bono).... who benefits. The candidate that you're for that's who, if you have problems with Ron Paul I'd like to hear them, but, not half truths and outright lies. If people study Propaganda they will be able to write just like you.
Have a great day!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEy7DX7OLcE
I am not "pushing lies" I am expressing my opinion which also happens to be shared by millions of others. Let's be honest, Ron Paul is a fringe candidate who will not come close to getting the nomination and we both know that. I will address your questions though.
"Supposedly reflects his own views":
Sarcastic being that his defense was to say he didn't write them or even know about them, which I find defies credulity.
"Sneak in the back door while hiding the insanity of Paul's other extremist positions like his overt racism":
Yes, Ron Paul is trying to sneak in the back door to coin a phrase, catching a ride on the anti-war express to try to fool moderates and liberals and get their support.
His views and the net results of his views if they were policy are clearly racist and detremental to African-Americans, no matter what the justification.
There are many videos of Ron Paul on the web where he espouses his constitutionalist, anti-government positions. I don't find someone who wants to lay in bed with Scalia, Roberts and Thomas to be in the least bit appealing.
Oh, that’s not his fault his campaign says, he doesn’t support those groups. Ok, it just means that these hate groups love Ron Paul’s policies. I wonder why? Could it have anything to do with the fact that Paul's "do what you want people" rhetoric enables and empowers these groups? Does any reasonable person not see the role of government in protecting minorities from oppression?
Ron Paul is a very dangerous man.
When the original U.S. Constitution was adopted, women were denied the right to vote or run for office, human slavery was an established institution and homosexuals were jailed and sometimes executed.
The Constitution is not an intrinsic law of nature and it is a living, breathing legal document. The philosophy of freedom and Democracy espoused by the founding fathers was admirable but it was flawed as were they. I do not subscribe to living by the morays of 1776 and just because it doesn't say something explicitly in the Constitution does not make it wrong. I believe judges should interpret the law according to the general "meaning and intent" of the founding fathers.
There are 435 memebers of the US House of Representatives. In June of 2004, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote no.
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to House Resolution 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of House Resolution 676, 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”.
Read the quotes from Ron Pauls above, read this abhorrent repudiation of the Civil Rights Act. NOT ONE congressman voted against HR 676 except Ron Paul.
His advocacy of states' rights, which he frequently mischaracterizes as individual rights appeals to a constituency which has forgotten the horror of what states' rights meant to non-white individuals in many states. As should be clear by now, Paul also appeals to some who DO remember and support a return to segregation and the other forms of racial oppression justified in the name of states' rights. Adam Holland has this right
The evidence is overwhelming. Thanks for your participation.
Ron Paul October 2007 National Polls:
ABC News – 3%
Gallup – 2%
Ron Paul October 2007 Iowa Poll:
American Research Group – 1%
Ron Paul October 2007 New Hampshire Poll:
American Research Group – 1%
John Ehrenfeld, all I can say after eisheid explained everything so well is, o.k., where's the proof, the lewrockwell.com site will give you everything from Ron Paul, show me some proof, quit trying to sell people feelings (hate), just logical proof.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/#art
Here's one from July '07, 40 minutes long and it will give the people a view of the real Ron Paul. Copy and Paste together.
http://video.google.com/videoplay
?docid=-2284724646717174405
Next!
The problem seems to be that when you don't care for the facts and proof presented, you dismiss it.
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be".
I am sure they also like Ron Paul's opposition to the Civil Rights Act.
You should be grateful that Ron Paul is successfully reaching out to "white supremacists". As LBJ once said, it is better to have them inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.
Is it racist if its true.
Or are people just not used to a politician who does not BS them?
I find his message, voting history and writing style to conflict with the bigotry within these newsletters in question.