Ron Paul on Racism

I couldn't have said it better than the article, which was written by C.J. Maloney, "Have you heard about Ron Paul and 'That' $500 donation?" The sense of ideology always gets to me. I know I've been telling myself not to believe in the hype, and I won't. This doesn't strike me as that, and it's up to you on whether you believe or not.

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals.

~ Ron Paul

Politics do make for strange bedfellows, and every candidate for national office will inevitably attract a rather lunatic element from the fringes as an erstwhile, if temporary ally. While this may make for a few welcome extra votes or cash, it can also cause the candidate in question some embarrassing moments.

For some current examples, Barack Obama has the support of the Nation of Islam’s virulently racist Louis Farrakhan and is a member of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ, an organization that if it’s not racist sure speaks and acts like it is. Fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton is the leading recipient of donations from our country’s blood-soaked weapons makers and gets massive donations from lobbyists used as intermediaries for Pakistan’s repulsive dictator, Pervez Musharraf im Multan.

True to this trend, Ron Paul has attracted the attention of and donations from the founder of Stormfront, a white supremacist organization whose motto 'White Pride, World Wide' is not about to win its followers an invite to the Rose Garden or my next Christmas party.

While a candidate’s receiving money and public praise from a certain group does not automatically mean that they share the same underlying ideology (which in the case of the Nation of Islam, Stormfront, and the weapons makers are inhumanly repulsive), it does beg the question why would they find favor with such outcasts from civilized society.

For Americans, Neo-Nazi affiliations are about as palatable in their political candidate as child molesting – and no doubt that is a good thing. For many, including me, it is a deal breaker.

I’ve a boatload of money tied up in Ron Paul – I’m an investor if you please – and his receiving support from Stormfront caused me to re-evaluate my support for him. I needed to perform some extra due diligence to see if I backed the wrong horse, I needed to put my mind at ease, or else no sleep for me.

The website for Stormfront has a discussion board where members can exchange ideas, and I figured it would be there that I could find an answer to my why, and hopefully it would be one that would allow me to get a good night’s sleep again.

The Enemy of My Enemy Is My Friend

Anyone who doesn't vote for Paul on this site is an ass clown.

~ Post by 'All White – All Right' on Stormfront’s discussion board

Stormfront’s support of Ron Paul is so strong, in fact, that they actually have a link to his website on their website. (It was like finding a rose in an outhouse.) The white supremacists on the site have a lot to say about Ron Paul; one thread I was reading ran to over 660 pages. Their interest in him has been noted. Every news reporter who wants to take an easy smack at Ron Paul lets loose with a breezy, over the shoulder 'by the way, neo-Nazi websites are big fans of his' on their way out the door, leaving unanswered the question of why but leaving behind sinister implications for Ron Paul.

Stormfront’s website reads much like any other web gathering of like-minded people. There are announcements of new births (A New WHITE baby boy!!!!), notices of upcoming events (National Knights KKKhristmas Party!), and after-action reports for past events (Thanks to all who helped with Phoenix-NSM/Stormfront BBQ!!!) – all perfectly normal if you can ignore the racist tirades, which you can’t. Stormfront, and all who join, are obsessed with skin tone and even more so with Jewish people who, white skin or no, strike them as particularly repulsive.

The reasons given as to why white supremacists support Ron Paul are several, but the biggest seems to be the war in Iraq and our foreign policy in general, particularly if it in any way involves Israel. The war in Iraq is seen by Stormfront to be a war on behalf of Israel, who is seen as having far too much influence on America’s foreign policy.

Ron Paul has spoken about Israel’s inordinate influence on our foreign policy and the foolishness of the war in Iraq many times. He has based his stance on his reading of the Constitution and our Founders warning against foreign entanglements. What does differentiate Stormfront’s opposition to the Iraq War and our foreign aid to Israel from Ron Paul’s is that their stance is based on their hatred of Jews, not their love of the Constitution or peace.

Another poster named 'Thunderhead' (many of the names on the website’s discussion boards sound like they’ve been lifted from Dungeons and Dragons) supports Ron Paul because he opposes the Federal Reserve. I will grant, Ron Paul has stated his opposition to the Federal Reserve System for a variety of reasons, all of them good. At base, he opposes it because it is designed to inflate, to steal.

On the other hand, Thunderhead is opposed to the Federal Reserve System because it is "the key to Jew power." Ron Paul, to the best of my knowledge, has never expressed any opinion on Jews at all, and has never bought them up during a discussion on the Federal Reserve System.

While Thunderhead might support Ron Paul’s opposition to the Fed, and other members of Stormfront might support Ron Paul on a variety of issues, they do so on completely separate ideological grounds than Dr. Paul. This is an important distinction. Thunderhead might be a very strong supporter of the Fed – if only it was white bigots using it to steal from the Jews. Ron Paul would not support the Fed, even if it sent him a monthly stipend like clockwork.

The fact that Stormfront agrees with Ron Paul on certain policy stances in no way proves that Ron Paul is a racist bigot. On each point I found that Stormfront applauds his stance, it is a coincidental match-up of two opposing ideologies. For some further examples, they support his stance to dissolve the income tax, not because they agree with Ron Paul that it’s a subtle form of slavery, but because 'that means we stop subsidizing minorities.' They support his stance of opposition to 'Hate Crime' laws, not because they share his belief that it makes citizens unequal before the law, but because it was passed to favor minorities and gays.

While Ron Paul’s not being a white supremacist is a deal breaker for certain members of Stormfront (one poster, 'Brandon,' is disgusted since 'Ron Paul’s priority is not 100% the survival of the white race, so he is an enemy'), others, like a poster named 'Everlasting Reign' are convinced that despite his 'shortcomings' he is "the least toxic candidate by leaps and bounds."

Ron Paul’s 100% priority is the preservation of our Constitution, and by odd coincidence this posture has made him the 'least toxic candidate' to Stormfront – and to me. But an odd coincidence is all it is. Ron Paul’s policy proposals spring from a desire for justice and equality, not from a desire to stick it to any racial group.

And in that attitude lies the chasm between Stormfront and Ron Paul.

The Enemy of Your Enemy Is Still Your Enemy

(Ron Paul) wouldn't hesitate to call any one of us a 'hater' and 'bigot' just as any other politician would, so I'll keep my distance.

~ Post by 'Son of Liberty' on Stormfront’s discussion board

Interestingly, while you will find plenty of foaming-at-the-mouth racist tirades on Stormfront’s discussion boards, you will also find many postings by people who sound like they’d be well spoken and calm, even while they were burning a cross on your front lawn. As for their support of Ron Paul and its reasonableness, one poster in particular hit the nail right on its head.

'Concerned Human' completely recognizes the ideological chasm that separates Ron Paul from Stormfront. He posted "Ron Paul is not a White Nationalist. His Libertarian policies will also conflict with National Socialism, something that a good number of us support." (Emphasis mine.)

Concerned Human gets a gold star medal and a bumper sticker for his parent’s car that reads 'My son is an A+ student, White Pride!' because he’s absolutely correct. With every point of connection between Ron Paul and Stormfront, the connection is one of practicality, not ideology. While Stormfront agrees with enough of Ron Paul’s positions to lend him their support, they do it as a temporary, tactical move; they are climbing into bed with a strange bedfellow, one who is as different to them as night is to day.

Ron Paul hardly speaks about race at all, which makes sense for a libertarian. Stormfront talks of nothing but race; it’s their lens to the world, their endless obsession.

Is Ron Paul personally a racist? Since nobody can look into another man’s heart, only Ron Paul truly knows. I must judge him as best I can through his words and actions: we’ll look at words first, so I quote him on racism:

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.

That does not sound racist; I’ve read worse.

Yes, Ron Paul voted against honoring Rosa Parks with a Congressional Medal of Honor. Yet, he also did the same to the white skinned Mother Teresa, arguing that the $30,000 prize that comes with the medal is 'neither constitutional nor in the spirit of Mother Teresa.'

In that important arena of action, which answers the question will Dr. Paul use race as a criteria to break the Constitution, here are Dr. Paul’s words on why he disagrees with the Civil Rights Act, passed in 1964:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

I fully believe that should we put Dr. Paul into a time machine and zip him back to 1890s Texas, he would oppose the equally unconstitutional Jim Crow – for the very same reasons he opposes the Civil Rights Act. Agree or disagree with such a stance, it is consistent with a respect for a principle, not a skin tone, and Ron Paul is nothing politically if not consistent.

Yet, whether Ron Paul is or is not personally a racist is beside the point to me – as long as he remains faithful to the Constitution, as long as his actions stay within its confines, he cannot vote for or propose any preferential treatment for any reason, even race – all must be equal before the law. And Dr. Paul has shown an unwavering commitment to that principle. That is the true measure that I use for a politician.

Yes, you are free to be a racist in Ron Paul’s world. Every member of Stormfront can get excited – after a Ron Paul victory you can run out and put up a sign in front of your store that reads "No Blacks Allowed" and you would be well within your rights. After all, it is your property to do with what you please, just like the African-American gentleman who owns the store across the street from you, the one with the sign that reads 'No Whites Allowed.'

And in Ron Paul’s world he, like you, would be well within his rights to act abhorrently – Ron Paul referred to racism as a 'sin of the heart' – and you would suffer penalty of law if you tried to stop him from doing as he pleases with his property.

Of all the variations of ideology, none so far has struck me to be less likely to allow racist legislation than classic liberalism. Libertarians, for the most part, don’t even discuss race; seeing people as individuals rather than as members of a group makes it an odd subject to write about. To a logically consistent libertarian, race simply shouldn’t matter; separating people on the basis of skin tone is arbitrary and irrational. Why not hair color? Eye color? Wealth? Height?

My three-year-old son is black; my wife is black, too. I have a vested interest in making sure our laws view all men as equal, regardless of skin tone. Martin Luther King had a dream, and I share it, too.

We Irish have a saying, 'if you don’t like me than leave me alone.' I live in a mostly black neighborhood with a black wife and our son. I’m sure that some neighbors dislike me straight off because of my skin tone, but I am blessed to live among people who, if they do dislike me, show enough good manners to keep it to themselves and leave me in peace. And that is all I ask for.

If a Ron Paul president simply does his job, performs his sworn duty to the Constitution and nothing more, should he do that then I don’t have to worry about Jim Crow crawling back out from under its rock. And that is all I ask for.

To all the people at Stormfront, and to white supremacists everywhere, should you wish for a country where everyone is equal before the law, regardless of their race, then by all means Ron Paul is your logical choice. Send Dr. Paul your money, your support, and your best wishes. But should you wish to one day stroll arm and arm with Jim Crow again, there is nothing for you here.

And that is what keeps me in Ron Paul’s camp.

I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations.

~ Ron Paul, 2004

December 24, 2007

C.J. Maloney lives and works in New York City.

Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com

Source Link:
Have You Heard About Ron Paul and 'That' $500 Donation?

None of us are fooled by CNN's agenda. I am Ron Paul supporter and look at how much of the time he had to speak his perspective to the questions that weren't pinpointed on important issues such as Oil, Corporations, Federal Reserve, Constitution, and the likes:

YouTube question: Good evening, candidates. This is (inaudible) from Arlington, Texas, and this question is for Ron Paul.
I've met a lot of your supporters online, but I've noticed that a good number of them seem to buy into this conspiracy theory regarding the Council of Foreign Relations, and some plan to make a North American union by merging the United States with Canada and Mexico.These supporters of yours seem to think that you also believe in this theory. So my question to you is: Do you really believe in all this, or are people just putting words in your mouth?

Cooper: Congressman Paul, 90 seconds.

Paul: Well, it all depends on what you mean by "all of this." the CFR exists, the Trilateral Commission exists. And it's a, quote, "conspiracy of ideas." This is an ideological battle. Some people believe in globalism. Others of us believe in national sovereignty. And there is a move on toward a North American union, just like early on there was a move on for a European Union, and it eventually ended up. And there is a move on toward a North American Union, just like early on there was a move on for a European Union, and eventually ended up. So we had NAFTA and moving toward a NAFTA highway. These are real things. It's not somebody made these up. It's not a conspiracy. They don't talk about it, and they might not admit about it, but there's been money spent on it. There was legislation passed in the Texas legislature unanimously to put a halt on it. They're planning on millions of acres taken by eminent domain for an international highway from Mexico to Canada, which is going to make the immigration problem that much worse. So it's not so much a secretive conspiracy, it's a contest between ideologies, whether we believe in our institutions here, our national sovereignty, our Constitution, or are we going to further move into the direction of international government, more U.N. You know, this country goes to war under U.N. resolutions. I don't like big government in Washington, so I don't like this trend toward international government. We have a WTO that wants to control our drug industry, our nutritional products. So, I'm against all that. But it's not so much as a sinister conspiracy. It's just knowledge is out there. If we look for it, you'll realize that our national sovereignty is under threat.

Cooper: Congressman Paul, thank you.

Emily: Hi, I am Emily and I am from Los Angeles.
The Republican Party once stood for limited government, which meant reduce federal spending because it cost less and we spent less.
However, over the past decade, real discretionary federal spending has in fact increased 40 percent, more than half of which has been non-defense related.
So my question is: What are the names of the top three federal programs you would reduce in size in order to decrease...

(Applause)

Cooper: Congressman Paul, the question was three programs.
Can you name three?

Paul: Yes, and I would like to state that, to the statement earlier made that we all went to Washington to change Washington and Washington changed us, I don't think that applies to me; Washington did not change me.

(Applause)

I would like to change Washington, and we could by cutting three programs, such as the Department of Education -- Ronald Reagan used to talk about that -- Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security is the biggest bureaucracy we ever had.

(Applause)

And besides, what we can do is we can have a stronger national defense by changing our foreign policy. Our foreign policy is costing us a trillion dollars, and we can spend most of that or a lot of that money home if we would bring our troops home.

McCain: I do not, and I think we should look very carefully at it. And I think we should look very carefully at some of the provisions, which according to The Wall Street Journal would increase an individual's tax rate up into the 30s.
Obviously, we need a simpler, fairer tax code. Everybody knows that. We need to have a commission that reports out a credible proposal. And then we do what we do with the base closing commissions. Congress can't fool around, they either vote yes or no.
If Congress can't fix the tax code, give me the job and I'll fix it.
I just want to also say that Congressman Paul, I've heard him now in many debates talk about bringing our troops home, and about the war in Iraq and how it's failed.
(Applause)
And I want to tell you that that kind of isolationism, sir, is what caused World War II. We allowed...
(Applause)
We allowed ...
(Audience booing)

Cooper: Allow him his answer. Allow him his answer, please.

McCain: We allowed -- we allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement.

(Audience booing)

And I want to tell you something, sir. I just finished having Thanksgiving with the troops, and their message to you is -- the message of these brave men and women who are serving over there is, "Let us win. Let us...

(Applause)

Cooper: We will -- please. We will get to Iraq...

(Applause)

All right. Let me just remind everyone that these people did take a lot of time to ask these questions, and so we do want direct questions to -- the answers. We will get to Iraq later, but I do have to allow Congressman Paul 30 seconds to respond.

Paul: Absolutely. The real question you have to ask is why do I get the most money from active duty officers and military personnel?
(Applause)
What John is saying is just totally distorted.
(Protester shouts off-mike)

Paul: He doesn't even understand the difference between non- intervention and isolationism. I'm not an isolationism, (shakes head) em, isolationist. I want to trade with people, talk with people, travel. But I don't want to send troops overseas using force to tell them how to live. We would object to it here and they're going to object to us over there.
(Applause)

Governor Norquist: President Bush made a commitment when he ran for president in 2000 an 2004 that he would oppose and veto any tax increase that Congress sent him. My question to each of the candidates is: Would you promise to the people watching this right now, that you will oppose and veto any efforts to raise taxes as long as you're president?

Paul: I have never voted for a tax increase; never will. But the tax issue is only one-half of it.

Journey: Hi. My name is Journey. I'm from Texas. And this question is for all (inaudible) pro-life candidates. In the event that abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with, and what should her punishment be? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?

Cooper: Congressman Paul, 90 seconds.

Paul: You know, it's not a federal function to determine the penalties for a crime of abortion if it's illegal in a state. It's up to the state, it's up to the juries. And it should be up to discretion because it's not an easy issue to deal with. But the first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don't need a federal abortion police. That's the last thing that we need.
(Applause)
But for the ...

Cooper: Should a woman be charged with a crime?

Paul: Pardon me?

Cooper: Should a woman be charged with a crime?

Paul: I don't personally think so. I'm an O.B. doctor, and I practiced medicine for 30 years, and I of course never saw one time when a medically necessary abortion had to be done.
But so I think it certainly is a crime. But I also understand the difficulties. I think when you're talking about third trimester deliberate abortion and partial birth abortions, I mean, there has to be a criminal penalty for the person that's committing that crime. But I really think it's the person who commits the crime. And I think that is the abortionist.

Cooper: So you're saying a doctor should be punished.
What sort of punishment should they get?

Paul: Well, I think it's up to the states. I'm not in the state -- I'm not running for governor. And I think it's different, and I don't think it should be all 50 states the same way. So, I don't think that should be up to the president to decide that.

Buzz Brockway: Hello. My name is Buzz Brockway from Lawrenceville, Georgia. All the talk about the war in Iraq centers around how quickly we can get out. I think that's the wrong question. We need to make a permanent or long-term military commitment to the region. By staying in Iraq, we provide long-term stability to the region, we provide support for our allies, and we act as a deterrent to the trouble-makers in the region. Which presidential candidate will make a permanent of long-term military commitment to the people of Iraq?
Thank you.

Paul: The best commitment we can make to the Iraqi people is to give them their country back. That's the most important thing that we can do.

(Applause)

Already, part of their country has been taken back. In the south, they claim the surge has worked, but the surge really hasn't worked. There's less violence, but al-Sadr has essentially won in the south. The British are leaving. The brigade of Al Sadr now is in charge, so they are getting their country back. They're in charge up north -- the Shia -- the people in the north are in charge, as well, and there's no violence up there or nearly as much. So, let the people have their country back again. Just think of the cleaning up of the mess after we left Vietnam. Vietnam now is a friend of ours -- we trade with them, the president comes here. What we achieved in peace was unachievable in 20 years of the French and the Americans being in Vietnam. So it's time for us to take care of America first.

(Applause)

Cooper: Senator McCain?

McCain: Well, let me remind you, Congressman, we never lost a battle in Vietnam. It was American public opinion that forced us to lost that conflict.

(Applause)

I think it's important for all Americans to understand the fundamental difference. After we left Vietnam, they didn't want to follow us home. They wanted to build their own workers' paradise. If you read Zarqawi, if you read bin Laden, if you read Zawahiri, read what they say. They want to follow us home. They want Iraq to be a base for Al Qaida to launch attacks against the United States. Their ultimate destination is not Iraq. Their ultimate destination is New York City, Washington, D.C., Chicago and Phoenix, Arizona. This is a transcendent challenge of our time.

(Audience booing)

McCain: I believe that we can meet it and we will defeat it.

(Applause)

Cooper: Congressman Paul, I know -- we'll get everyone in on this. Congressman Paul, just wanted to allow you to respond.

Paul: Shortly after the Vietnam War ended, Colonel Tu and Colonel Summers met, and they were talking about this. And our -- and the American colonel said, "You know, we never lost one battle." And Colonel Tu, the Vietnamese says, "Yes, but that's irrelevant."
And it is irrelevant. But we have to realize why they want to come here. Wolfowitz even admitted that one of the major reasons that the Al Qaida was organized and energized was because of our military base in Saudi Arabia. He says, "Oh, now, we can take the base away." He understood why they came here. They come here because we're occupying their country, just as we would object if they occupied our country.

(Audience booing)

Mark Strauss: Mark Strauss, Davenport, Iowa.
This question is for Ron Paul. Mr. Paul, I think we both know that the Republican party is never going to give you the nomination. But I'm hoping that you're crazy like a fox like that and you're using this exposure to propel yourself into an independent run.

Cooper: We're running short on time. I want to get Ron Paul's video in. Let's watch.

(Begin videotape)

Paul: The people are sick and tired of what they're getting, and they want some real changes.

I don't want to run your life. We need less taxation, less regulations, a better economic system.

We were not meant to be an empire; we were meant to be a republic, protecting liberty here at home.

It's up to you to spread this message around this country. This is an American cause, it's a cause of freedom. There's something going on in this country, and it stinks. It really stinks.

(End videotape)

Cooper: That's part of the Paul campaign.

Dr. Hank Campbell: Good evening. My name is Dr. Hank Campbell. I'm in Lake Worth, Florida. My question is our infrastructure. It's been estimated that to fix the bridges, the tunnels, the power grids, the water delivery systems in this country will be in excess of $2 trillion -- that is "t" for "trillion" -- and it is plural. Who among the candidates here is willing to step forward and begin to articulate the very difficult sacrifices which we need to make in order to start repairing America? Thank you.

Cooper: Mayor Giuliani?

Giuliani: Well, I faced a situation like this, a microcosm of it in New York City. New York City hadn't invested in infrastructure for a very, long time. I had kind of gotten through its fiscal crisis that way. We started a long-term capital investment program on the infrastructure. My predecessor started it. I continued it. I turned it over to my successor and it really has done I think remarkable work in rebuilding the infrastructure of New York. That's what America needs. It can't be done by one president. This is something where you're going to need a succession of presidents to have a sustained program. Probably we should have budgeting that allows for -- we can't really have a capital budget under federal budgeting, but we could have a separate accounting. So that kind of budgeting is long-term, because this is going to help America over a 20- or a 30-year period. Most of the time when we're spending money, as Senator Thompson said, we're spending the next generation's money and we shouldn't be doing that. Fiscal conservatism is about preventing that. But when we're rebuilding our roads, rebuilding our bridges, building new bridges, rebuilding our infrastructure, that's actually going to benefit the next generation and the generation after. And there are ways to spread that out over a long period of time. But it needs a sustained program, and it cannot be done just by the federal government. It needs to be done as a partnership with state and local governments. And I believe I'd be in a good position to lead that.

Campbell: Congressman Paul, 30 seconds.

Paul: The infrastructure problem in this country is very, very serious. We as Americans are taxed to blow up the bridges overseas. We're taxed to go over and rebuild the bridges overseas while our bridges are falling down in this country. This country is going bankrupt, and we can't afford this. We need to take care of ourselves. We do not need to sacrifice one thing more. We just need to take care of ourselves and get the government out of our lives and off our back and out of our wallets.

(Applause)

Mark Strauss: Mark Strauss, Davenport, Iowa. This question is for Ron Paul. Mr. Paul, I think we both know that the Republican party is never going to give you the nomination. But I'm hoping that you're crazy like a fox like that and you're using this exposure to propel yourself into an independent run. My question is for Ron Paul: Mr. Paul, are you going to let America down by not running as an independent? Thank you.

Paul: Now that's what I call a tough question, because I have no intention of doing this.
I am a Republican. I have won 10 times as a Republican and we're doing quite well. We had 5,000 people show up at a rally in front of the Independence Hall with blacks and Hispanics and a cross-section of this country. You know that we raised $4.3 million in one day?

(Applause)

Without spending one cent. We didn't even pay an individual to go out and they weren't professional fund-raisers. It came in here -- it was automatic. We're struggling to figure out how to spend the money. This is country is in a revolution. They're sick and tired of what they're getting. And I happen to be lucky enough to be part of it.

Out of at least 26 questions, Ron Paul was given chance to answer a few. In my perspective as well as any contenders', CNN YouTube Republican Debate wasn't impartial. It's truly sickening to see how each candidate was treated. If the host were to have a debate, it's the host's responsibility to make sure that every candidate have the opportunity to answer EVERY question or concern. CNN has lost my respect for them.

Source Link:
CNN YouTube Republican Debate Transcript
Part One
Part Two
The Huffington Post's Article and Comments
GOP Contenders Face YouTube Debate

"We Did It!!"

This is a thank you note by an organization, November 5th:

"I just wanted to thank you all for coming through on this momentous and now historic event. We’ve accomplished much and have added greatly to the Ron Paul advertising arsenal. To top it off we’re getting an amazing amount of free press and publicity for our efforts.

Many are baffled, they don’t understand how a rag tag bunch of patriots can defy the will of the “Main Stream Monarchy” and “The Decider” (King) George W. Bush. Well, they’ve never been too good at paying attention to history have they?

Of course we’re going to go for round two.. look for an event around the 15th and 16th of December (I’ll keep you informed). In the meantime there is another push for a donation rally on November 11th. This is a seperate group who are running the website http://www.ThisNovember11th.com. Check it out!

This was an incredible group effort and I’m proud to be fighting for liberty with Americans like you.

Sincerely,

Trevor Lyman"

Should you be interested to check out their website:

(1) http://thisnovember5th.wordpress.com/2007/11/06/we-did-it/

If you're interested in daily numbers on funds that were raised:

(2) http://thisnovember5th.wordpress.com/category/daily-numbers/

A Reality Check on Iran Policy and U.S. Campaign Politics

What in the world is going on here?! Why are they reluctant to sign the bill to prevent Bush Administration from going military? Does it feels like they are getting ready for another war? Aren't they confidence with their diplomacy skills with foreigners? Are they playing it safe for their chance to win presidency? What's going on here?? I wonder, though, what is Ron Paul's position on all this?:

"On November 1, 30 Democratic senators, led by Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, delivered a strong letter to President Bush in response to his increasingly bellicose language on Iran. The letter informs the president that he does not have the authority to take military action against Iran without prior, specific authorization from the Congress. This message follows up on the bill proposed by Senator Webb and co-sponsored by Senator Hillary Clinton requiring congressional authorization for the use of military force on Iran. Senator Clinton, in fact, first proposed that the administration could not act without a wholly new authorization in a floor speech on February 14.

The November 1 letter directly addresses the Kyl-Lieberman non-binding resolution, which declares a sense of the Senate that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, an autonomous force within the Iranian military structure, is a terrorist organization. The resolution also makes explicit that it is a diplomatic sanction, not in any way to be interpreted as a basis for military action. During the debate, Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois deleted reference to "military instrumentalities" and added: "Nothing in this Act should be construed as giving the president the authority to use military force against Iran."

Durbin explained, "I am opposed to military action in Iran. To say we need to pressure the Iranians to change their course in the Middle East and I want to do it by nonmilitary means, that's what my vote was all about.''

As those who voted for its final Durbin version, including Senator Clinton, have made clear, the resolution is an attempt to inject a diplomatic element into a situation fraught with potential danger. This measure is just one of the appropriate tools at our disposal, and there should be other diplomatic initiatives, as Senator Clinton has proposed: strengthening multilateral negotiations and opening direct bilateral relations with Iran. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has not adopted the comprehensive diplomatic approach proposed by Senator Clinton.

The November 1 letter reinforces the actual language of the Durbin amended version of Kyl-Lieberman, calls for broad diplomacy of the kind advocated by Senator Clinton and puts the Bush administration on notice that it has no authorization for the use of military force against Iran. The letter states that the Kyl-Lieberman resolution "should in no way be interpreted as a predicate for the use of military force in Iran. We stand ready to work with your administration to address the challenges presented by Iran in a manner that safeguards our security interests and promotes a regional diplomatic solution, but we wish to emphasize that offensive military action should not be taken against Iran without the express consent of Congress."

Given these facts, distorted criticism of those senators who voted for the Durbin version of Kyl-Lieberman, especially Senator Clinton, and refusal to sign the November 1 letter lacks merit on the substance.

Senator Barack Obama was absent when the vote on Kyl-Lieberman was taken, though that has not prevented him from criticizing colleagues who participated in the debate and voted for it. He has also opted not to sign the letter to the president. Since then, he has repeatedly argued for direct presidential talks with the Iranian leadership with no preconditions. Rather than reinforcing diplomatic options, his actions have the effect of eschewing diplomatic efforts to bring the Revolutionary Guard to heel, while placing all his bets for peaceful coexistence with Iran in the future on his own charisma and charm.

He has also made clear that for him the paramount enemy is George W. Bush, not an organization that has a history of involvement in terrorism and has been actively targeting American troops in Iraq.

As one who practiced diplomacy on behalf of our country for decades, including as the acting ambassador in Iraq during Desert Shield, where I personally confronted Saddam Hussein and his henchmen, Senator Obama's approach seems to me to misunderstand diplomacy. Needless to say, profound distrust of Bush and the administration is more than merited. I yield to nobody in my own efforts to bring their lies to public attention. But the Durbin version of Kyl-Lieberman and the November 1 letter are clear in drawing lines in not granting the Bush administration authority it does not have.

The administration has rightly been criticized for its refusal to use the broad array of tools at our disposal other than military action in the conduct of national security. War has been its first, second and final option -- its preferred option -- with disastrous results. Successful policy-making requires the use of complex diplomacy, carrots and sticks -- incentives, such as structured talks, and disincentives, such as sanctions against rogue elements. Coping with the Bush administration should not cause us to ignore at our peril very real adversaries that would do us harm. These clearly include Iran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

Senator Obama's criticism of the vote and refusal to join with his Democratic colleagues on the letter to the president appear to be based more on the politics than the substance. The entire Senate was notified a day beforehand about the vote on the Kyl-Lieberman resolution. If he truly had a sense of urgency on the issue he should have made a point of participating in the debate and voting, when he would have had the opportunity at the time to air his substantive disagreement with his home state colleague Senator Durbin, rather than waiting to raise the issue afterwards in a purely political context and using it as a campaign tactic."

Source Link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/a-reality-check-on-iran-p_b_70973.html

A respond to "What Really Divides Us" Article

Cal,

I enjoyed the article you contributed under "What Really Divides Us" post. It made me think hard about it's final paragraph/statement of what really makes the case of liberty. To quote, "the true antidote to racism is liberty" which reinforces that, "we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism" clearly drives those nails at the stake. I can't think of a better way to put it than that article. Jumping over to your comments in reference to this article, I found myself with this dilemma: Obama and Hillary's ordeal as proving themselves individuals, while clashing across political grounds of chess playing you-ain't-enough tokenism. A month ago during DPHH socializing, I found myself returning home and stopped by the Eastern Market Metro area in a bar. I ended up getting into a discussion with a group of African-Americans/Blacks (whichever's the appropriate term nowadays) about who they were going to vote. All five of them proclaimed that they were voting for Hillary or Kucinich. I politely asked them why they weren't going to vote for Obama since it would-in my own thinking-reinforce their viewpoint that anyone can run as president despite race, creed, or personal choices. The majority of them stated that they didn't think he would do well with serving the Af-Am/Black community or that he didn't have the right background to represent. I find this statement directly parallelling Hillary's case as well. When I ask females of miscellaneous social areas why they weren't voting for Hillary it was either she's "too radical/feminist" or they simply were not ready to see a woman being able to run this country. However, to make a note of the last sentence: it came from a majority of senior citizen women...I would guess that their conscious and well-being are still based on their thoughts from youth which evidently planted their seeds firmly. Another interesting comment I heard was that this person strongly did not believe that a woman should submit and stay with their partner after an affair. This is solely the ONLY reason why this person wasn't voting for Hillary. Now here's my question and thoughts: why is any of this a matter to be reckoned with??? Why should their status as who they are nowadays (as well as their historical past) be relevant in how they will run this country??? In fact, everything that people talk about is clearly missing out on the very thing that needs to be discussed: are they able to run this country well? If so, can they clearly demonstrate themselves as competent beings that effectively follow suit just as previous great presidents (Kennedy & Clinton) as well as provide reasonable control that showcase directness of role model that puts the bad presidents out of image (Bush & Nixon)? I personally try my best to judge each candidate for 2008 election with these questions in mind. It is indeed sad that collective members associate their bias views and labels of judgement solely on whether these candidate's membership is viewed as acceptable. Kudos to you Cal for bringing up a wonderful article.

-Joshua

What Really Divides Us?

On daily basis, watching news and reading articles on internet, I'm overwhelmed with the concept of how people's conscious runs amok. Are we really voting for or against a candidate based on the person's genetic traits (skin and gender) long before we understand their political views on how our country should be??? We called ourselves evolved, I question that. What are your values as an American citizen? What do you want to see happen? What would make you feel good as a person? What will give you goosebumps? I did research on Ron Paul to see if he's racist, and people have been saying that he is or he isn't. Should we reject white supremacists for supporting Ron Paul, especially when Ron believes that all humans are created equal, and wants us all to go back to the basic: United States Constitution. Do we even understand the US Constitution? It brings me to the point to share an article that was posted in Facebook discussion board by Candice Watson:

What Really Divides Us?

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

December 24, 2002

The overwhelming media response to recent remarks by Senator Trent Lott shows that the nation remains incredibly sensitive about matters of race, despite the outward progress of the last 40 years. A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

In the aftermath of the Lott debacle, we must not allow the term "states’ rights" to be smeared and distorted into code words for segregationist policies or racism. States’ rights simply means the individual states should retain authority over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government in Article I of the Constitution. Most of the worst excesses of big government can be traced to a disregard for states’ rights, which means a disregard for the Ninth and Tenth amendments. The real reason liberals hate the concept of states’ right has nothing to do with racism, but rather reflects a hostility toward anything that would act as a limit on the power of the federal government.

Yet it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. The federal government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. Americans know that factors other than merit in the free market often play a part in the success of some, and this leads to resentment and hostility between us.

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.

Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern liberalism, however well intentioned, is a byproduct of the same collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions.

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 market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, 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. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.

Source Link:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html

Declaration of Independence: Efforts To Obtain Justice From Great Britain

It's sure important for us to re-educate ourselves about history, since I am seeing the fact that repetition of our error ways has created apathy, anger, and confusion. In this section of Declaration of Independence: Efforts to Obtain Justice From Great Britain, it feels, in current sense, like "Declaration of Independence: Effort To Obtain Justice from Bush Administration"... doesn't it?

33. In every stage of these oppressions, we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

34. Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

Source Link:

http://www.nccs.net/freedom_defined/index.htm?const.html&2

Is Ron Paul Racist?

I noticed that it's very common for the general public to avoid discussion or expressing the concern about Racism. Granted, every human being has flaws, and they usually try to sweep them under the rug, or keep them in the shadow. I'd like to ask the public: Is Ron Paul Racist?
If you believe so, please do explain productively why you would believe that he is. I've found two articles that point out the possibility that people misunderstood him, or the possibility that he is one.

Why Do Racists Back Ron Paul (1)
By David Knowles

Oct 26th 2007 9:04AM

In his bid for the presidency, Texas Congressman Ron Paul has been endorsed by such white supremacist groups as Stormfront, Vanguard News, and the Nationalist Coalition. But does being supported by a hate group mean that you, too, are guilty of the same bigotry as its members? As Thomas B. Edsall wrote at the Huffington Post:

The Paul campaign dismissed the pro-Paul activities among these groups. "We don't know who these people are," said Jesse Benton, Paul's communications director. Their support has "nothing to do with Ron Paul, and what he stands for... His message of freedom, peace and prosperity--that's why people support him."

If there is an overlapping philosophy among white supremacists and Dr. Paul, it arises out of a shared disdain for the federal government. Abolishing the IRS and the Department of Education, trashing the Patriot Act, and a strict adherence to a doctrine of States' Rights -- these libertarian ideas have traction with many Americans, including those who want to keep the races from mingling.

Then again, there may also be another source for the impression that Paul has bigoted tendencies, as he himself explained in a June interview.

Muckraker Report: In a 1992 newsletter, arguing that government should lower the age at which juvenile criminals can be protected as adults, you wrote, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." In the same newsletter, you also wrote, "What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on the grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" Obviously, there are many Americans and not just blacks and Asians, who would find these comments upsetting. What would you say to these people?

Congressman Ron Paul: In 1992, I was back in medicine full time, but lent my name to a foundation that published large volumes of material. A staffer wrote some things under my name that I did not approve. I have taken responsibility for these comments and apologized. If you look at my 30-year record and my numerous writings on the subject of race, I think anyone will clearly see that these comments do not reflect my beliefs.

And what of Dr. Paul's specific writings on race? Earlier this year, the candidate addressed the Don Imus controversy, and stuck to a strict freedom of speech argument:

Let's be perfectly clear: the federal government has no business regulating speech in any way. Furthermore, government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combating bigotry in our society. Bigotry at its essence is a sin of the heart, and we can't change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

His point is well taken, but with all due respect, it did take passing laws and regulations to rid the country of slavery and segregation, to say nothing of affording women the right to vote.

Of course, politics is largely about forging symbolic connections. Just this week, the conservative website RedState decided it wanted to end its affiliation with Paul supporters, not because of some of their views on racial equality, but because it deems them too aggressive in the comment section. So much for freedom of speech.

But back to the larger point. Since no candidate can possibly agree with each and every position a diverse group of voters may have, alliances are often formed which seem, to some, like a case of strange bedfellows. Just ask Mitt Romney (Bob Jones III). Or Hillary Clinton (Norman Hsu). In Dr. Paul's case, it just so happens that his libertarian rhetoric has brought him into the homes of many of our most staunchly racist citizens.

To His Dismay, Ron Paul Becoming Magnet for White Supremacists (2)

October 15, 2007 09:30 PM

Through no fault of his own, Rep. Ron Paul's anti-globalist, anti-government campaign for the Republican presidential nomination has become a magnet in neo-Nazi networks, pulling in activists and supporters from the fringe white nationalist community where anti-Semitism, anti-black and anti-immigrant views are commonplace.

In some cases, these internet-based activists acknowledge that even though the Paul campaign does not have a racist or anti-Semitic agenda, it can serve as a vehicle to find sympathizers and to recruit new loyalists drawn to the Republican congressman's opposition to international trade agreements, federal police authority and to the income tax.

Such web-based organizations as Stormfront (motto: "White Pride, World Wide"), Vanguard News Network ("No Jews. Just Right.") and the Nationalist Coalition ("working to create the relationships that will lay the foundation for the White community that is necessary to our survival") have become sources of support for Paul's bid for the Republican nomination, and in some cases have set up separate Ron Paul discussion groups.

The Paul campaign dismissed the pro-Paul activities among these groups. "We don't know who these people are," said Jesse Benton, Paul's communications director. Their support has "nothing to do with Ron Paul, and what he stands for....His message of freedom, peace and prosperity - that's why people support him."

Paul has not made racist or anti-Semitic appeals to the controversial organizations and their members. Instead, their support is based on Paul's libertarian opposition to government generally, including the IRS and the powers granted to the federal government under the Patriot Act - views that are shared by many on the conservative fringe of the spectrum.

In the 2000 campaign, Patrick J. ("Pat") Buchanan appealed to many similar individuals and organizations. Buchanan had a history of expressing views that were often interpreted as anti-Semitic.

Writing on the Vanguard News Network, "White Will" argued that "folks, get involved in the Ron Paul 'revolution' and work with political activists in your communities who are attracted to his anti-globalist message.... Most of you would be surprised at how many good people can be exposed to a, let's say, 'pro-majority' message among the remarkable groundswell of fed up, mostly White Ron Paul supporters -- many, early on, from the 9/11 truth movement. They are finding their backbones as they are exposed to more and more hidden truths, especially about the hidden hand of Jewry behind every foul venture."

Among those backing Paul this year is John J. Ubele, the National Coalition's Operations Manager. In an emailed reply to an inquiry, Ubele said, "I know that Ron Paul is not a white separatist or a white nationalist. However, he is the most honest and responsible of all the presidential candidates and that is why I support his candidacy."

The National Coalition is one of a number of splinter groups that formed after the death of William Luther Pierce, author of The Turner Diaries, and founder of the now fractured National Alliance. The Turner Diaries were considered crucial to the thinking of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.

On a Stormfront discussion thread on the Paul Campaign - "The Ron Paul Revolution" -- one contributor wrote in:

"Not standing up for Ron Paul against the un-American Jewish media and neo-cons who will do anything to stop his nomination is like not standing up to the efforts to force integration, to encourage mass non-White immigration, or to the attack on the USS Liberty."

"Ron Paul is NOT a White Nationalist. His Libertarian policies will also conflict with National Socialism, something that a good number of Stormfront members support. However, he is the least toxic candidate by leaps and bounds," wrote a contributor identified as "Concerned Human."

A minority of the contributors to white nationalist web sites insist on rigid adherence to their racial views. "Anything less than ALL is NOTHING. If anythings priority is not 100% the survival of the White Race, than it is a problem and not a solution. Ron Paul's priority is not 100% the survival of the white race, so he is an enemy and a burden just as much as any jew," wrote "comJo, Pan-Aryan Insurgent."

The white nationalist and anti-Semitic support flowing to the Paul campaign reflects one of the difficulties facing candidates who do not fall into the midstream: that often their views on less controversial subjects like trade and the power of the federal government to take property through eminent domain also appeal to extremist groups.

Source Links:
(1) http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/10/26/is-ron-paul-racist/
(2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/15/to-his-dismay-ron-paul-b_n_68575.html

Struggling for Relevance in Cuba: Close, Still No Cigars

Struggling for Relevance in Cuba: Close, Still No Cigars

Since Raul Castro seems to be transitioning to a more permanent position of power, the administration has begun talking about Cuba policy again. One would think we would be able to survey the results of the last 45 years and come to logical conclusions. Changing course never seems to be an option, however, no matter how futile or counterproductive our past actions have been.

The Cuban embargo began officially in 1962 as a means to put pressure on the communist dictatorship to change its ways. After 45 years, the Cuban economy has struggled, but Cuba 's dictatorship is no closer to stepping to the beat of our drum. Any ailments have consistently and successfully been blamed on US Capitalism instead of Cuban Communism. They have substituted trade with others for trade with the US , and are "awash" with development funds from abroad. Our isolationist policies with regards to Cuba , meanwhile, have hardly won the hearts and minds of Cubans or Cuban-Americans, many of whom are isolated from families because this political animosity.

In the name of helping Cubans, the US administration is calling for "multibillions" of taxpayer dollars in foreign aid and subsidies for internet access, education and business development for Cubans under the condition that the Cuban government demonstrates certain changes. In the same breath, they claim lifting the embargo would only help the dictatorship. This is exactly backwards. Free trade is the best thing for people in both Cuba and the US . Government subsidies would enrich those in power in Cuba at the expense of already overtaxed Americans!

The irony of supposed Capitalist, free-marketeers inducing Communists to freedom with government hand-outs should not be missed. We call for a free and private press in Cuba while our attempts to propagandize Cubans through the US government run Radio/TV Marti has wasted $600 million in American taxpayer dollars.

It's time to stop talking solely in terms of what's best for the Cuban people. How about the wishes of the American people, who are consistently in favor of diplomacy with Cuba ? Let's stop the hysterics about the freedom of Cubans – which is not our government's responsibility – and consider freedom of the American people, which is. Americans want the freedom to travel and trade with their Cuban neighbors, as they are free to travel and trade with Vietnam and China . Those Americans who do not wish to interact with a country whose model of governance they oppose are free to boycott. The point being – it is Americans who live in a free country, and as free people we should choose who to buy from or where to travel, not our government.

Our current administration is perceived as irrelevant, at best, in Cuba and the message is falling on deaf ears there. If the administration really wanted to extend the hand of friendship, they would allow the American people the freedom to act as their own ambassadors through trade and travel. Considering the lack of success government has had in engendering friendship with Cuba , it is time for government to get out of the way and let the people reach out.

Source Link:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=968