Nailing Ron Paul on racism: the media’s inevitable, futile exercise

Ron Paul’s ascent over the past few weeks has been thrilling. Everything from his willingness to tackle issues that no one else will, to the fact that he actually answers questions is deeply impressive. He has gotten further than anyone expected, and after his performance in last week’s debates even the media is going to have to start taking him seriously.

This means that we are going to hear a lot on racism.

It will be tempting to just call it a smear, but that is not what it is. My own research has made it clear that Paul and his campaign need to address this issue. They need to address it very well if Paul is going to retain skeptical voters. There are some very disturbing places on the internet. I won’t dignify them with a link. Trust me when I say, however, that to the extent that there is a white supremacist vote, Paul owns it. No big deal, right? As the Republican most likely to beat the black guy, he was probably going to have that anyway.

Unfortunately, there is a lot more. From 1987 to 2001 a series of newsletters were published in Ron Paul’s name. James Kirchick of the New Republic and the Weekly Standard tracked down some of the older newsletters. He has highlighted language from these articles that can only be described as racist. Not that kind of icky feeling you get when old white dudes talk about race, but flat-out, old-school racist filth. The links above contain the details.

For the past decade Paul has denied writing the newsletters. He has also apologized for them and accepted moral responsibility for allowing the newsletters go out under his name. This is a good start, but it is not enough. This history has the potential to hurt Ron Paul, but more importantly the cause of liberty he supports so well. Paul and his campaign have to address these issues, and address them well. Where might they start?

One place might be historical context. The majority of the statements pointed to in Kirchick’s article were from the late 80’s and early 90’s, most of 20 years ago. George Bush the 1st famously won the 1988 election with the “Willie Horton” ad. It essentially accuses the Democratic candidate of being in league with black rapists. The Republicans won by using language that was only slightly more veiled than that used in Paul’s newsletters. Paul was far out on the fringes back then, where more extreme rhetoric was seen as acceptable. This explanation adds to understanding, but does not excuse.

The only argument that might work for me is the following: The policies and platform that he is running on are better for people of color than those of any other major party candidate, including Obama. He is the only major party candidate against the drug war. The vast majority of those victimized by our drug laws are low-income minorities. He is the only major party candidate that supports a less vigorous US military. This would help the disproportionate number of low-income folks of color that fight and die for our country, and would also mean we bomb less brown people.

The high degree of media scrutiny the newsletters are about to receive is a good thing. This dirty laundry needs a good, early airing. If the Paul candidacy survives, it will be a much stronger one.

Update Jan 8th, 2012 by Stephen VanDyke: Told you it was futile, ha.

Robert Morris

Robert Morris Tweets @TheFederalGovt, posts video as the More Freedom Foundation, and has written a quick pamphlet on the drug war that can be found here.

  1. The accusation Ron Paul is racist is usually based upon one of two things: Ron Paul’s opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and racist comments which appeared in 15 issues of newsletters titled, “The Ron Paul Political Report” and “Ron Paul Survival Report” between 1989-1993. 1. Opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act – Ron Paul is on record many times explaining he does not oppose the intent of the act of eliminating discrimination against blacks. He opposes the act because it violated private property rights of business owners. Ron Paul is a strict libertarian. As a libertarian he opposes any law which infringes upon private property rights and individual liberty. Mandating hiring, employee relations and who a retail business owner must allow on his private property is in his view a violation of private property rights. I fully understand US society at the time had institutionalized racism against blacks and the Civil Rights Act was created with the good intention of eliminating that racism. I disagree with Ron Paul on this point and think the Act was needed. However, his reason is because it violates personal property rights and individual liberty, not because he advocates discrimination against blacks. They are not the same thing. Agree or disagree with him on this view, fine. But it is unfair to misrepresent the reason why he opposes it. By misrepresenting this topic it is easy for unscrupulous journalists with an agenda to make it appear Ron Paul is racist. I will post below a link to an article covering this topic. 2. Newsletters – In 15 issues of the above titled newsletter articles appeared with racist tones. The articles in question were not written by Ron Paul. The articles were written by a ghost writer. Some people say it may have been Lew Rockwell who was a co-owner of the company which published these articles. What is at question though is was he aware of the articles. I have not seen the articles but from what I have read they are mostly short articles and do not seem to be the focus of the newsletters. Here is Ron Paul’s official statement:””When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.” in this article wrote:”In those issues were published, Paul was a full-time medical doctor and a busy family man, as well as an in-demand speaker and a student of politics and current events — in short, a man with tremendous demands on his time and energy. He had recently ended an exhaustive presidential race, returned to private practice, and was not in Congress or involved in electoral politics. He had given up control of his newsletter business; he kept only a minority share in the newsletter that bore his name. He made an ill-advised decision to turn the newsletter over to others, to let others write it and edit it and publish unsigned articles in this newsletter with his name in the title. He apparently failed to closely monitor it.”Making a judgement call on this one is not so clear cut. It basically comes down to if one believes Ron Paul is telling the truth or not. Some people will say he is not, some will say he is. I would lean towards believing him. Why? Because as we saw in #1 above Ron Paul is a strictly honest man, almost to a fault. John Stewart once said it is impossible to do a comedy skit on Ron Paul because in all of his statements he cannot find one contradiction. He is fiercely honest. i would suspect he just made a poor judgement call in who he trusted. We need to understand to be a libertarian by strict definition means it is impossible to be racist. Libertarians see everybody as important individuals while racism is a collectivist idea seeing people as a group. Libertarians would say it is not the color of a persons skin which matters but the character of the individual. In this audio recording NAACP President Nelson Linder is interviewed explaining why he does not believe Ron Paul is a racist.

    1. “…to be a libertarian by strict definition means it is impossible to be racist.” is a pretty strong statement.  Some of the fever swamps I’ve been mucking through this weekend lead me to believe that it is very possible to be anti-government, pro-freedom, and disgustingly racist.  

      I believe Ron Paul’s interpretation of what happened.  The broader problem is that his supporters believed that it was somehow appropriate to cross those lines in those articles.  Not a deal breaker for me, but I think the campaign needs to come out with a renewed, more strident condemnation.   

      1. “Some of the fever swamps I’ve been mucking through this weekend lead me to believe that it is very possible to be anti-government, pro-freedom, and disgustingly racist.”

        Nope. And if you don’t point it out to them, they will continue living in ignorant bliss of their folly and it will be your fault. Guilt guilt guilt, heh.

      2. Exactly! “…to be a libertarian by strict definition means it is impossible to be racist.” is like a priest saying he can’t be a pedophile because he’s a priest. What self serving tripe that is, and what a joke, let’s just take the guy at his word…he’s a politician, name me one other politician that anyone here would just take at their word. The guy is Klan in a suit.

        1. Name me one other major candidate in this race who doesn’t take wall street and big corporation money. Name me one other major candidate in this race who hasn’t consistently flip flopped on the issues. Throw whatever dirt you want at Ron Paul. None of it will stick. He’s spotless. Besides, none of the other republican candidates can beat Obama without our votes and they won’t get them. It’s either gonna be Ron Paul or Obama. If you want Obama, that’s cool. We will have him impeached. What do you think we’ve been waiting for? We want a loser to run against.

    2. I’m of the opinion that someone wrote it purposely to discredit him.   A traitor within kind of thing.

      While many people know of Ron Paul from 2008 and today, the establishment effort against him has been concentrated for decades.    They have been trying to keep him out of congress, they run other republicans against him, they support democrats over him, restructure districts to try and take away his support, you name it.

      Newt played a large role in trying to keep him out in the 90’s.   Which is probably a big part of the reason Ron Paul seemed to give it to Newt extra hard.

      Meanwhile, no politician would ever be dumb enough to write such a thing which is direct in racism.   But someone trying to set someone up would.   A real racist would never say such a thing, they instead promote policies and things.

      I could be wrong, but it seems fishy to me, and these things were used almost immediately against Ron Paul in previous congressional elections.

  2. Ron’s whole life and his whole political record and philosophy denounces anything that that ghostwriter wrote in that newsletter.

    For Christ sake, the man as a doctor gave free care to minority mothers when they couldn’t afford to pay him.. Weirdest form of “racism” I’ve ever heard of.

  3. Attacking Ron Paul for newsletters with a racial tone to them is kind of a testament to how much of a good of a man he has been. This would not even be a headline about any other candidate, because it would pale in comparison to the other things that they have said and done. They are not showing you anything that he has done in the years of public service, but something that was said in a newsletter produced under his name. Ron Paul was found not to be the author, and the ghost writer was named in an article produced about them in the 80’s. I personally think that finding a couple of articles that are a stark contrast to his volume of work he has done after four or five newsletters written for him, or by him every week for thirty plus years would be statistically improbable that it come from him. In public office he has written bills and voted in ways that would prove him to be quite fair to all citizens of this country.  Don’t blame the people you see on the news channels; those guys are actually just teleprompter readers. They just say what their news channels corporate owners pay them to say. 

    1. Very good point. We are talking about a 76 year old guy who is in public life for almost 40 years. There must be thousands of interviews, voting’s, statements that this man made and out of all of that what is the dirtiest thing media can find about him – newsletter with some racial language written by someone else, for which Ron Paul apologized . And think how hard is media trying to find something, both “liberal” and “conservative” (as in MSNBC and Fox)! Everyone wants him down as he is questioning status quo.

      Think about the technics:
      1) In majority of the articles attributes used with Ron Paul are : “fringe”, “dark horse”, “spoiler”, “quixotic” , “quirky”, “whacky”. This way they are trying to create social discomfort for people who might be unsure if they should vote for Dr Paul. They would refuse in order not to be in “whacky” minority

      2) If they ever ask him anything that is if he thinks he is electable …
        This suggests that your vote will be “thrown away”, you will be loser as if we are talking about some sports game, not the fate of the country. It doesn’t matter which party wins, it matters what you stand for and voting even 10% for some idea suggests that some “mainstream” candidate might be willing to modify his/her platform to get those votes later. IMHO, if Ron Paul doesn’t win our country loses. The more votes he get, the more fear in the hearts of ruling elite of continuing what they are doing.

      3). … or is he going to run as a third party candidate
         This serves dual purpose. Firstly, it suggests that he will not be republican nominee. Then, it suggests that he is not loyal to his party, not a team player so “he is not one of us” is the message to republican voters.

      On media technics Dr Paul should have these strategies:

      1) I am aligned with mainstream America on issues such as …. That means I am not fringe, whacky, I AM with majority

      2) I am elected 11 times and do I need to explain how passionate are my supporters? I collect a lot of small donations, why would I not be electable?
      3) I can rule out 3rd party run if  other republican candidates pledge they will support me WHEN I win republican primaries. This will suggest that he is electable, he believes in victory and if anyone doesn’t accept it they are not team players either.

      Let’s hope that win in Iowa will make tactics 2 and 3 obsolete.

      On the article, I think Ron Paul did enough by apologizing for having this texts published under his brand.

      1. He’s not a republican, he’s just using the party to get elected. Now, they’re stuck with him. Big mistake! Neither mitt or newt can win without our votes. We won’t give them those votes. They’ve already lost. It’ll either be Paul or obama and no other. newt and mitt fans might as well unite with us and support Ron. Otherwise, it’s four more years of dictatorship. I will not settle for the lesser of two evils. newt, mitt, and obama are all turds of a different smell. I’m voting Ron Paul and Ron Paul only.

  4. I have read the testimonials from numerous people that the language and thought in some of those newsletters in no way reflects Dr. Paul’s thinking. It struck me that one sentence in the news letters didn’t square with Ron Paul as the writer given Ron Paul’s history. The writer says that anyone who has been mugged can atest to how fleet footed young black men can be. The writer obviously thinks that black men as a group are faster than him. But Ron Paul won the Pennsylvania state championship in the 220 yard dash and he had a 9.7 second 100 yard dash in high school at a time when the national record was 9.4 sec. That means that Ron Paul would be faster than almost any black man he would meet. In fact 9.7 sec. 100 yard dash still gets you pretty far in the NFL today. So whoever wrote that sentence is not Ron Paul.

  5. Thank you Gregory, very well written and clearly explained.

    As to rejecting “…to be a libertarian by strict definition means it is impossible to
    be racist.” with evidence that is possible to be anti-government, pro-freedom, and disgustingly racist…this is a non sequitor because by definition, one cannot be libertarian, in which the only viable segmentation of society is the individual, and also recognize arbitrarily created groups, aka “races”, as segments of society.

    Also, libertarians are not anti-government, they are anti-government coercion. Most Libertarians would confirm that there is a minimal amount of government necessary, and would voluntarily give money to insure this. People should be able to voluntarily donate their money to projects that they feel will benefit their lives and are too large for the individual, such as national defense or other parts of national infrastructure, or even local police/fire departments (or even social welfare if they so choose). Likewise, they should be able to cease giving money to projects they no longer support (for whatever reason). Of course, all Libertarians do not agree with each other, and this is why a good debate should always be ongoing.

    Pro-freedom? Freedom can be defined by as the lack of coercion. So, your pro-freedom and anti-government are actually redundant (with the caveat I made above about being “anti-government”).

  6. They have addressed it,.. about 20 times…  As recently as on Hannity on Fox..

  7. There is also the somewhat overlooked issue of the veracity of the accusations.  Are the newsletters really racist or were provocative quotes taken out of context and then used to make the racism case?  The target of most of the newsletters’ criticism was – as one would expect of a publication bearing Paul’s name – the state and the dysfunctional society it creates.  

    There was a rebuttal written to Kirchick’s (and Reason’s) articles by Justin Raimondo back in ’08 that I thought provided some important perspective on the whole newsletter attack phenomenon.  It is worth a read if you are interested in something more than rationalizing the pulled quotes at face value, even if that turns out to ultimately be what the campaign must do to save face.

  8. — David Gregory Accuses Gingrich Racism Calling Obama Food Stamp President

    — Newt Gingrich Ignorant Racist Say Palestinians

    — Glenn Beck: ‘Tea Party folks supporting Gingrich racists’?

    — Newt Gingrich Racist Past: ThyBlackman

    — Newt Gingrich History of Racist Remarks  **** WORSE THAN ANY OF THESE IN THE RON PAUL STUFF***

    + Gingrich: Bilingual education teaches “the language of living in a ghetto.” 
    + Gingrich: Poor blacks fail to acquire wealth partly because of their “habits.” 
    + Gingrich on women in combat: Women would have trouble staying in ditches “because they get infections;” “males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes.” 
    + Gingrich proposes denying welfare benefits to young mothers and instead using funds to establish orphanages. 
    + Gingrich: “[T]here is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us.” 
    + Gingrich: It’s time to “profile” and “actively discriminate based on suspicious terrorist information.”


  9. BTW, When those newsletters were published, Ron Paul was out giving free medical treatment to help Blacks in his hometown.

  10. There was an independent editor and Ron Paul only supplied the occassional piece.  He was practicing medicine at the time, and giving free and discounted care to poor women of all races who couldn’t afford medical care.  He wouldn’t turn people away because they couldn’t pay and he refused to accept medicare and medicaid.  He said he didn’t know about them before they went out and only found out about them much later.  I’m not sure what else he can say besides that.  There is an NAACP district chief from his district who went on radio saying Ron Paul is no racist and this was used to try to keep him from getting back into congress by power brokers who were threatened by his alliegence to the constitution over power broker deals.  His name is Linder, and the interview is on youtube.  And while you are there, look up Ron Paul on youtube.  He has speeches and interviews going back all the way to the 1970s.  He never spoke that way, red meat is not his thing even in much milder versions.   It simply wasn’t him.

  11. NAACP PRESIDENT: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist

    >Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded “No I don’t,” adding that he had heard Ron Paul
    >speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many
    >Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years.
    >”I’ve read Ron Paul’s whole philosophy, I also understand what he’s saying from a political standpoint and
    >why people are attacking him,” said Linder.
    >”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.

    /I bet Gingrich would not get that kind of endorsement…so much for the media taking this path during a general election.

    1. You mean Linder of Austin on
      whack job, charlatan, JBS sidekick, conspiracy nut job Alex Jones! He
      never said any such thing, listen for yourself:

      Matter of fact Linder didn’t say he knew him for 20 years, he said he
      met him, once, 20 years ago and he was there as a private citizen to
      talk about Libertarianism. It’s all there.

      NAACP has asked
      Jones and Prison Planet to retract that statement: “Nelson Linder
      contacted our office and wanted to stress the fact that
      he made his comments as a private citizen, not as president of the
      Austin NAACP. He said the libertarian platform deserves the same
      scrutiny as the Democratic and Republican parties receive in this
      nation. He went on to say that some on the web have construed that he is
      endorsing Ron Paul. And that is not the case. Mr. Linder went on to say
      that the interview was designed to discuss local issues concerning
      civil rights and civil liberties and his knowledge of the Libertarian
      party and Ron Paul.”

      Good job, Paultards. Good job. A black man gives you guys an inch, and you decide to exploit him for a mile.

      1. “Isolationist” is nothing more than a loaded code word that imperialists use to smear non-interventionists.

    2. His voting record matches to a tee his newsletter.

      RP says ‘Rosa Parks and MLK are my heroes’ (condescending liar that he is) but votes against awarding Rosa Parks the gold medal of freedom in 99. And then said ‘…because tax payers shouldn’t pay for it’, when the whole time it was already funded. My first thought is “fuck you Ron, the taxpayers should absolutely pay for it, point to the first tax payer that would object to that”,

      and look here:

      The roll call from 1983 on making Jan 15th MLK day, a national holiday, look who voted against it…Ron Paul. He speaks with forked tongue.

      1. Ron Paul already explained this.

        Two of Ron Paul’s heros are Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. & Rosa Parks He voted “No” for Rosa Parks to receive a Congressional Gold Medal, not because he thought that she didn’t deserve it or because he is racist but because it went against his principals to take money from the tax payers to buy the medal. Instead Ron Paul offered to chip in his own money with other congressmen to pay for her a medal. This often gets twisted by the media and apparently the neocon right as well now.Delivered many minority babies free of charge during a time when racism still strongly existed.NAACP President Nelson Linder dismissed allegations that Ron Paul is racist. [1] videoLouis Farrakhan a black minister on Ron Paul. [2] videoAlthough he votes no on practically everything, he actually had the audacity to vote yes to make the third Monday in January dedicated to a black civil rights leader, right in the middle of his racist era. God this guy is such a racist…[3] For example, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, he voted to authorize the continuing operation of NASA and to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday on the third Monday in January.[4] Ron Paul helping out some old lady [5] Ron Paul defending minorities in a debate.[6] Defending African Americans on the drug war issue.[7] Against racial profilingSure looks racist to me…. NOT.

    3. Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.” – Ron Paul newsletter, early 90’s.

      The same newsletter that bears his name and lists him as ‘the editor’, all legal claims go to Ron Paul and Assoc, and he will not release it…now he says he didn’t write it. I don’t know of one candidate that could have that guy’s record and just say “I didn’t do it!” and that’s just fine,

  12. Hasn’t Ron Paul ALREADY commented on this 1000 times?
    If this was such kryptonite against him, don’t you think the bought and paid for, criminal propagandist MSM would’ve checkmated him with it by now?
    Hey, hit Paul with your best shot.
    It’s always good for a laugh when he explains himself, because we get the collaborating media stooge looking like a fool as a bonus.
    Every time.
    Vote for Liberty in 2012.

    1. No, the “criminal propagandist MSM” has been holding this in reserve in the hopes of checkmating him when he became a real threat.  You’ll hear a lot more about it this week, and if he wins in Iowa you will hear about it constantly. 

      1. Uh-huh. Like the earmark thing?
        Well, good luck!
        (Clicked Like instead of Reply 1st time. That was me.)  

        1. Probably 10,000 people nation-wide, mostly in Washington DC, care about earmarks.  Many more are for them than against them.  Most of the country cares about accusations of racism. 

          1. Then we may rejoice that Ron Paul isn’t one and that this stupid allegation will crumble again and further expose the propagandists as desperate statists reduced to putting other yahoos’ words in his mouth under the pretense that all comments attached to a newsletter written in the good doctor’s name somehow 
            represent his positions.
            Again, give your masters good luck on that.
            They’re gonna need it not to lose another million sheeple.

            1. Umm.  Ron Paul is the most exciting politician since Reagan, or maybe even Lincoln, but that doesn’t mean we should deify him.   Frankly you sound a little Stalinist.  It’s probably my masters in international banking telling me that though. 

  13. Ron Paul is the only one I can vote for. I’ve watched the debates and studied their positions. Paul is consistent and will actually balance the budget. I really think he’ll win Iowa and then has a real shot at New Hampshire. If that happens, he will start polling higher in South Carolina and Florida.

  14. A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

    The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

    Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

    It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government “benevolence” crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

    Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as 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.

    The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards
    individual achievement and competence – not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

    In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

    -Ron Paul.

  15. Bringing up this newsletter crap in an effort to suggest RP is racist serves no purpose because we all know that he is not. It is simple logic. Regardless of what the newsletters say, we can observe from his life what his true positions are and can see his history of integrity. Therefore when he says he did not write those things, why should anyone doubt him?

    In any case, to disqualify him based on this nonsense when he is the only one that can fix America is the height of stupidity. America is in a crisis and about to collapse under deficits and debt and people are wasting time with this BS. Have some perspective for god’s sake!

    1. I don’t believe he’s a racist but there’s no proof Bachman hates Muslims but he said that on national TV… he’s become a liar and hypocrite. I find it sad and pathetic as he used to be an honorable man.

  16. this site is called Hammer of Truth. Come back when you can prove he wrote these. You know get some facts to support your title

  17. Everyone forgets to mention the amount of money he made on this newsletters…that he didn’t
    write…that have his name all over them …written in first
    person…with all legal claims going to Ron Paul & Assocs. About
    $1million/year is what he made! If someone handed me a mill a year, I
    think I’d know where it came from and what was behind it! I’m gonna love watching that racist lose and best of all he’s not running for congress again…see ya!

  18. the guy is a doctor who used to treat minority people in his district for FREE to help them, sometimes these families will bring in food or vegetables as gratitude, at the same time other doctors r charging 250k a year for their service.

    He is the ONLY candidate that tells that the court system is messed up because only the minority ends up in prisons and gets death sentence,

    and he is the ONLY candidate in 2008 2011 election cycle who tells the war on drugs, the foreign wars hurts the minority the most.

    So it would not have hurt to state these about the man also.

  19. The concept of “race” is a collectivist idea. Any true classic libertarian,
    such as Ron Paul, can not be a racist because acceptance and adherence to that
    philosophy demands you take all people one at a time as individuals –
    evaluating each separately on the content of their character and not in the
    “collective” sense of being
    categorized by the color of their skin; firmly
    believing that each person is born with the inalienable rights to: their life;
    their liberty and their pursuit of happiness as members of a human race!

    Every election the establishment tries to smear Ron Paul with these old trumped
    up charges of racism.  Now the establishment has their back on the ropes and is
    trying once again – but it won’t work – it never does!

    So, here right on cue – the smear begins once again! Stories will begin to
    surface of the past newsletters and James Kirchick palette of smear pigments from
    a 2008 “attempt to smear” article from TNR or “The New Republic” which
    desperately attempted to convince the reader that Ron Paul was both anti-
    Semitic bigot and racist. They failed as usual. The 2008 mainstream media threw it
    around for a week or so – you know how they do it – Wolf Blitzer and the whole
    package. Once they saw there was no sound basis for the allegations they
    dropped the story.

    In the 2008 election cycle, after the TNR article, radio talk show host Alex
    Jones interviewed then presiding President of the NAACP in Austin Texas, Nelson
    Linder, asking questions regarding Ron Paul and allegations of racism. Mr. Linder came
    to Ron Paul’s defense saying:

    “Knowing Ron Paul’s intent, I think he is trying to improve this country
    but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly
    criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going
    to misconstrue that….so I think it’s very easy for folks who want to take his
    position out of context and that’s what I’m hearing.

    Linder continued:

    “Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he’s a very fair guy I just
    think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform, – I’ve
    read Ron Paul’s whole philosophy, I also understand what he’s saying from a
    political standpoint and why people are attacking him, – 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,…What he’s saying is really threatening the powers that be and
    that’s what they fear,”

    When Jones asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded “No I
    don’t,” He added that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police
    repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many

    The author of the 2008 TNR attempted smear article, James
    Kirchick is an overt globalist progressive with an agenda! The New Republic
    attempts to be a mouth piece for the dying neo-progressive agenda; being driven
    primarily by their desires for a globalist world dominated by international
    banking and the military industrial complex.  This predisposition for
    elitism and predilection for global governance by an oligarchy of international
    banking power elites is the philosophy I might add, that has currently brought America
    to the brink of destruction! They play the phony “two party paradigm” relentlessly
    This is the illusion of two different political parties counter balancing one
    another – please don’t say you can’t remember recently this spring when
    republican Senator McCain and democrat Senator Kerry went arm in arm bellowing
    for illegal war with Libya? Do you not find it is strange that Obama never
    changed Bush/Cheney policies regarding: torture; bailouts; WARS; Patriot Act
    and lost of civil liberties and abuse of American citizenry. Exactly – both
    parties want huge intrusive central authority – its just one side prefers to
    balloon the size of government with aggressive warfare and less social welfare
    and vice-versa.


    If memory serves, much of the so-called ‘sources” for this bogus Kirchick
    2008 TNR smear article came primarily from the SPLC or Southern Poverty Law
    Center, founded by none other than, Morris Dees. This dubious organization has
    been exposed numerous times as nothing more than a rip-off institution
    specializing in appealing to well minded liberal leaning citizens for their money
    – requesting donations for various causes to right injustices for minorities.
    The problem is that very little of the funding generated ever goes to help the
    actual persons in need. The American Institute of Philanthropy has repeatedly
    given SPLC an ‘F’ rating for nearly a decade. Morris Dees former business partner
    Millard Fuller said this:

    “Morris Dees and I, from the first day of our partnership, shared one
    overriding purpose: to make a pile of money. We were not particular about how
    we did it; we just wanted to be independently rich. During the eight years we
    worked together we never wavered in that resolve.”

    I invite readers to peruse the 2008 SPLC, IRS form 990 “Return of Organization
    Exempt from Income Tax” at

    Note line 22 – the “Net assets of funds balances” for $199,951,946. 00. Also
    note line 15, salaries paid to SPLC members and employees totaling

    See where that heartfelt donated money for SPLC goes with pictures of the posh
    home of SPLC founder Morris Dees: http://www.montgomeryadvertise

    Don’t take my word for it – please do your own research and I’m certain that after
    a review of the damning information regarding SPLC available on the internet…
    if you ever gave any of your hard earned money to the SPLC – you will at the
    least, seriously reconsider doing so in the future! They are a crooked
    organization from top to bottom!

    Another fatal flaw when making allegations for an
    “anti-Semitic” Ron Paul is that Paul’s economic policy is shaped almost
    exclusively from the “Austrian
    School” and the persons aligned
    with the philosophies of the Ludwig von Mises, a Jewish intellectual. Von Mises
     embodied classical liberalism and is regarded
    as a founding  leader in the Austrian School of economics. The Ludwig von
    Mises Institute was founded primarily by Jewish intellectuals of like
    persuasions.  So, ask yourself – Ron Paul’s life long world view is
    classical libertarianism – he lives and breathes Austrian economics are these
    the signature patterns of a bigoted anti–Semite and racist?  


    I don’t think so!!

    Ron Paul 2012!!

  20. Ron Paul states Michelle Bachman hates Muslims without any proof and yet he’s the first to deny his newsletters. I don’t believe either is true that he’s a bigot or Bachman hates Muslims but if you use his logic of making statements without proof like he did to hurt Michelle Bachman. Then why shouldn’t others do the same upon discovery of his newsletters. That’s what’s going to happen and RP opened the door. You Ron-Paulistas don’t get it today, won’t get it tomorrow and won’t ever get it. We’re not isolationist and the last debate showed RP for who he is a foreign policy nut. I love his domestic policy but he’s an idiot with international politics. If had any semblance of a legitimate foreign policy he’d be a serious contender.

    1. I think the last set of debates provided a lot of ammunition for that charge actually.  Accusing her of hatred is probably over-stepping a bit, but she’s certainly ignorant.  Most importantly, her childish conception of the world would lead to the death of tens of thousands more Muslims, and most likely some more Americans(not that those are at all mutually exclusive categories).  Whatever uncomfortable bedfellows Paul may or may not have had 20 years ago, his policies today are dramatically better for people of color than any other candidate. 

      Dave, I used to be like you and Michelle Bachmann.  9/11 put me into a blind rage at that part of the world for most of a decade.  I only started to calm down and realize that they are people like us, with awful politicians, over the past 4 years.  Awful politicians love to get people fighting, because it allows them to abuse their people.  Bachmann, just like Ahmadinejad or Obama, is an awful politician.  We can let people like that continue to abuse us, or we can vote for real change. 

      1. Ron Paul’s comments against Bachman are a complete lie as there’s no proof. Yet this board is screaming about those who have seen the newsletters where he’s quoted making racist statements. I’ve said it before, I don’t believe them but he’s a hypocrite to get mad and state people are out to hurt him when he did exactly that against Bachman. 

        He lied because she took it to him in the debate, embarrassed him as he was clearly flustered at times and decided to attack her on Leno’s Tonight Show. I’m ashamed I used to respect this man. I know see him for what he is. A once honorable man who will now say anything to get elected. The Bachman comment is clear proof. 

        I’m disgusted because I once wanted to believe in him until I studied his foreign policy beliefs and he’s an idiot in my opinion. I don’t say that out of anger but more from my beliefs vs. his. My main issue is his lying statement about Bachman and the Ron-Paulistas taking their ball and going home if he’s not elected. Robert, I’m sick of the Ron-Paulistas acting as if everyone but they are ignorant about the Constitution. 

        1. Dave, I urge you to learn a bit more about Iran.  The President and “avowed madman” Ms. Bachmann is whining about is barely hanging onto what little power he has. He was never anything more than a figurehead for the mullahs anyway. 

          The possibility of Iran nuking Israel is non-existent.  They may in fact want every Israeli out of there, but it’s kind of hard to set up a homeland for Palestine in a radioactive swamp.  Ms. Bachmann is selling a fairy-tale for children.  I believed it for longer than I care to admit.  Open your eyes like I did. 

      2. One more thing Robert, you’re putting words and trying to defend him when it’s indefensible. She’s going by what recent history has dictated, what he said the beliefs of the Iranian regime. That showed no proof outside of Ron Paul’s ignorant stance with foreign policy. Then again I’m assuming you’re a Ron-Paulista if that’s what you believe. 

  21. It’s nice of you to write about your concern and advice for Ron Paul. Trust me, however, the campaign is A LOT more professional than people think. Much better than any candidate’s, especially Herman’s. They got this

  22. Sad thing is that this will be brought up again and again, just like Hannity (Fox puppet) already did after the Iowa debate. The closer Paul comes to taking this election the more aggressive the puppeteers will get. The people behind the scenes will control the media, and the media will control the majority vote with their control of the people.

    1. Agreed, but it has been, and will be debunked again.  It is the only thing they have to attack him with, so they are going to use it up as much as they can. 

  23. You know this is really ridiculous Ron Paul is no racist and even if he was I m black and I would still vote for him because it would remove the government nipple. Black people would be forced to cooperate with each other economically like we have successfully done in the past ie (Black Wall Street) long before all the benefit programs we took care of each other. Its time for us to be adults in this piece, we as a group made 1.1 Trillion dollars for fiscal year 2010 lets stop making up excuses and do what others have been doing, but really our future is in our hands and the sky is the limit but the time is now. Ron Paul 2012 Live Free or Die!

  24. Why would a racist want to end the single greatest oppression on American minorities: the disproportionate incarceration of blacks and latinos as a result of our “War on Drugs”? 

    Seems inconsistent, which doesn’t make sense as even Paul’s most ardent detractors will concede the point that he’s the most consistent politician alive. 

    What a mystery. 

    1. Why would a racist deliver numerous children of poor minority families for free.  The answer, he is not racist.  No one stops to think how insulting it is to call someone who has championed Liberty for 30 years, and always stuck up for us, the American Taxpayer a racist.  Ridiculous!