Ron Paul Tied to Racist Comments

Status
Not open for further replies.

fast200

New member
Looks like Ron Paul made some very dicey comments about Martin Luther King. The New Republic dug up the dirt.

Before you attack me, the RP campaign admitted he wrote some of the passages, then they tried to back track, and finally they apologized. Look at the whole video before making judgment.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWpADkP4QqY

The article should be posted today and I will update the thread.
 
How could these racist comments appear in Ron Paul's newsletter over the course of 20 years without him knowing about them and at least approving of them.

And there is increasing evidence that Paul was indeed the author of the racist comments.

Why has it taken Paul decades to condem these comments, and why only now when he's running for the Presidency?
 
Lets see. Has articles published by a neo-nazi publishing outfit. Check. Has decades of racist and downright wierd writings. Check. Accepts money from former KKK. Check.

Paul racist... nah:rolleyes:
 
He's a Republican. What's surprising is that he's not a closeted gay.

Seriously there hasn't been a Republican nominee since Ike who hasn't at least played to racists.
 
Jamie Kirchick also says Ron Paul speaks in code and he is a transmitter....in the video.

I first met Jamie at a holiday party held by the venerable libertarian magazine Reason just a few weeks ago. When Jamie saw my "Ron Paul 2008" button, he snickered and said, "Oh, Ron Paul... I've been reading up on him. Have you read the stuff that guy's written? Nasty stuff! Racist, anti-semitic, homophobic!"

I emailed Jamie the next day to engage him further and to ask just what he found so offensive. His response:



Hi Berin,

Thanks for writing; and I’m glad you enjoyed by [sic] piece in the Boston Globe. I’ll try and make the party tonight, though Patrick Sammon isn’t particularly happy with me after I wrote this piece [attacking Log Cabin Republicans for not endorsing Giuliani as the "the most pro-gay Republican White House contender in history"]

Anyways, I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I’d have called him a fascist. But I must say, the Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic of the bunch! [Emphasis added.]

Best,
Jamie

http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kirchick-i-dont-think-ron-paul-is.html
 
Paul was a libertarian longer than he was a Republican. He turned his coat when he found it more politically advantageous to put an "R" next his name.

He's a Republican. What's surprising is that he's not a closeted gay.

Seriously there hasn't been a Republican nominee since Ike who hasn't at least played to racists.
 
First, these racist charges are old and fraudulent, but I'm sure that they'll be brought up time and again as they have already in this forum.

Second, Ron Paul ran was elected as a Republican for several terms prior to running as the Libertarian Party candidate for the presidency. He was returned to congress in the 1990's and reelected several more times, ten terms in all.
 
Sorry, he turned his coat when he felt it more politically advantageous to put an "L" next to his name, then turned it back. So much for principles....

Second, Ron Paul ran was elected as a Republican for several terms prior to running as the Libertarian Party candidate for the presidency.
 
Digging up dirt on what someone did twenty years ago does not worry me that much. A person evolves, and I'm sure no one here would like to hear a tape of themselves speaking on any topic if it was recorded a few decades ago. I'm more concerned about the here and now.

To me, that's the scary part.

I've watched RP trundle onto a stage or a podium. Most times I was scared he wasn't going to make it, or he might fall.

The pressures of being the President of the United States are incredible. Look how it ages the people who hold that office.

I don't believe RP could finish his first term, and I fear that he might not even finish his first year. He's not the man for the job.
 
From a post I made on 12/21/2007

My goodness, I haven't been paying attention. Is it already "Ron Paul is a racist" time of the month again? I should probably mark it on the calender so I don't miss it next month.

Looks like I was only off by about a week and a half. I wonder if I should be worried that The New Republic is the publication bringing the story up this time. There is only one other publication with more integrity than The New Republic, and that is The Weekly World News. I heard that The New Republic hired Scott Thomas Beauchamp to do their fact checking on this story.
 
9mmHP: You're with Fremmer. We know that. It's OK. It appears to me that you want a Republican who will give us a continuation of the last 7 years. That's OK too.

I suppose Ronald Reagan was a turn coat as was Phil Gramm, and many, many other Republicans who switched over from the Democratic party. That includes just about anybody in the South over 60 years old. All a bunch of opportunists.

Ron Paul has not changed the message in any significant way since 1974. In fact, his ideas are about 270 years old. He has switched parties because at one point or another, he felt the ideas were more important than the Party.

I agree. Looking at politics like you look at your favorite sports teams is about as idiotic as it gets. My father-in-law would vote for Joseph Stalin if he ran as a Democrat. I want the ideas and I don't care what party they come from. If all of a sudden the Democrats were espousing true personal liberty and constitutionally restrained government, I'd be switching in a heartbeat.

Switching parties to match your beliefs is nothing new, and if you've never switched parties in your life, it may be suggestive that the party comes before the good of the nation. I am wary of folks who care more about the party in control than what they are in control of...
 
Is "affirmative action" racist?
Yes, 100% racist. Racism against whites and asians is still racism, even though by the revolting doublethink of the current mindset of the rabble, racism can only be perpetrated by whites, and racism by definition cannot be perpetrated against whites. Don't you dare say "reverse racism," there is no such thing, "reverse racism" really means "anti white racism that I'm OK with."

I'd vote for Ron Paul because he has the guts to defy the sickening stupifying treacle of "political correctness," which all the other candidates wear out the knees of their pants kowtowing to.
 
I don't believe RP could finish his first term, and I fear that he might not even finish his first year. He's not the man for the job

Why not, Dick Cheney has held up just fine for his eight years of Presidency. ;)
 
gfen said:
Why not, Dick Cheney has held up just fine for his eight years of Presidency.

You have a valid point, but it also makes my case. The job of the President isn't for guys in poor health.

Now, RP might be in okay health for a guy his age. However, Reagan had been an athlete, and had kept active throughout his life.

When I saw RP walk out onto The Tonight set, I'm wasn't even sure he knew where he was. I don't say this to be funny. Due to some of the jokes, I think they trotted him out for display.
 
How about that, one of the generators of the "Paul as racist" propaganda pieces is identified.

January 08, 2008
"Pimply- Faced Youth" Slanders Ron Paul on Tucker Carlson Show
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo at January 8, 2008 01:11 PM

An emailer informed me this morning that a young kid whom he called a "grossly uneducated, pimply-faced youth" slandered both Ron Paul and myself on the Tucker Carlson show last night. The pimply-faced youth (PFY) is one Jamie Kirchick, who writes for the left-wing, pro-war New Republic magazine. In the YouTube video of the conversation the PFY asserts over and over that Ron Paul is a "racist." When Carlson asks him if he ever heard Ron make a racist remark he says "No." But then, with a Gotcha! look on his face, the PFY announces: "BUT," he DID attend a conference on secession in 1995!! Aha! Gotcha!

This ignorant little kid posing as a "journalist" then informed everyone that the conference was sponsored by a "neo-Confederate" group and that Ron Paul speaks to "the neo-Confederate community," whatever that is, "in code language. (I knew that Ron was in touch with the Martian community, and with the residents of the planet Remulak, home of the supposedly "fictional" Coneheads of Saturday Night Live fame, but not the "Neo-Confederate Community" as well).

Well, I was at that secession conference and presented a paper there. It was sponsored by the Mises Institute, which has nothing to do with Confederates, neo or otherwise, as anyone who surveyed the Institute's programs on its web site (www.mises.org) would know. The PFY did not bother because he is only interested in slandering Ron Paul, not in being a serious journalist.

My paper was about the Northern secessionist tradition prior to the War between the States, including the Hartford, Ct. secession convention of 1814, and the secession movements of the mid-Atlantic states that existed prior to the war (see the book, The Secession Movement in the Middle States by William Wright). The famous abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison was a Northern secessionist whose credo was "No Covenant with Death," the "covenant" being the U.S. Constitition, and "death" being slavery. Other papers had to do with the Quebec secession movement, European secession movements, federalism in general, how the U.S. was created by a war of secession from the British empire, and even "How to Secede in Business" by substituting arbitration for litigation.

But don't take my word for it. The proceedings of the conference, which the PFY is obviously ignorant of, were published as a book: Secession, State and Liberty, edited by Dr. David Gordon, whose Ph.D. from UCLA is in the field of intellectual history. It includes essays by scholars and professors from Emory University, Florida State University, UNLV, University of Montreal, University of South Carolina, and even a lawyer from Buffalo, New York. It was published a few years after the Soviet empire imploded as the result of eleven separate acts of peaceful secession, which made it especially relevant to social scientists.

In fact, secession remains a lively topic of academic discourse, something that the PFY is obviously unfamiliar with. A few weeks ago a secession conference sponsored by the National Endowment for the Humanities was held in Chrleston, South Carolina, featuring some thirty historians and legal scholars. In little Jamie Kirchick's empty mind, the NEH must necessarily be a hotbed of pro-slavery sentiment. (A friend in academe tells me that the participants in this conference spanned the ideological spectrum from left/liberal to Marxist).

Only an ignorant conspiracy theorist like Jamie Kirchick would assume that anyone who studies secession in a scholarly way is necessarily some kind of KKK-sympathizing kook. He knows that Ron Paul will not sue him for defamation because he is a public figure. I, however, am not a public figure.
 
Alleycat

I don't see anything racist in the link you gave.

The statements about being pro-Africa and African don't translate into being racist.

By your reasoning churches making statements that they are pro-Israel would also be racists.

Believe it or not the Christian mission is to reach out to the poor and down trodden. The continent of Africa and the descendants of former slaves fit that bill.

Personally I was more concerned when I heard the church was Creationists. I've since learned that charge was over blown as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top