Dr. James Peterson: Ron Paul Is Racist, Antisemite,
Homophobic, White Supremacist
Read the wonderful spam comments by his fan. The top rated comment happens to use the N-word. HOW FITTING!
Representative Ron Paul, a Texas Republican and a candidate for the presidential nomination, doesn’t mind long odds, and doesn’t mind standing alone.
In 2004, the House voted 414-1 for a resolution celebrating the 40th anniversary of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Paul not only voted no but gave a speech arguing that the act should never have been enacted. Employers who wish to discriminate against blacks, in his view, should be free to do so. A federal government that claims the power to override their decisions, he said, could also impose racial quotas. “Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.”
Most of Paul’s fellow libertarians are excited that he is doing well in the polls in Iowa, and hope that more Americans will be exposed to their political philosophy. But as Paul’s record on civil rights suggests, more familiarity with his brand of libertarianism won’t necessarily lead to much more support — for him or for his cause.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy based on the minimization of coercion, with government limited fairly strictly to the prevention of force and fraud. Both prostitution and insider trading would be legal in a libertarian society. But libertarians sometimes have fierce internal splits, and not all of them support Paul.
Most libertarians, for example, were in favor of the recent free-trade pacts approved by Congress. Paul voted against them, as he usually votes against such deals, because he believes that the government should abolish all tariffs unilaterally rather than reduce some of them in deals negotiated with other governments. Similarly, he voted against the House Republican budget earlier this year — the one that Democrats denounced for “ending Medicare as we know it” — because it didn’t shrink the federal government enough.
Paul is also more culturally conservative than other libertarians. He opposes abortion, which he considers an infringement of the individual’s right to be free from violence. He has supported the Defense of Marriage Act, and wants to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts so that they can never force state governments to recognize same-sex marriage. On issues such as these, Paul differs with his fellow libertarian Republican Gary Johnson, the former New Mexico governor — which was one reason socially liberal libertarians were glad Johnson joined the presidential race, to present another side of their philosophy.
Many of them were also dismayed by bigoted newsletters sent out under Paul’s name during the 1990s — newsletters that Paul has disavowed, claiming that he didn’t review the offensive passages before their release and doesn’t know who wrote them.
Paul’s top issues in this campaign are foreign policy — he opposes all U.S. military action except in response to attacks - - and monetary policy.
His foreign-policy stance has led him to sympathize with the regimes the U.S. government is most concerned about: In last week’s debate he tried hard to explain what the world looked like from the perspective of Iranian policymakers, and dismissed concerns that they are close to acquiring nuclear capability as “war propaganda.” It has also led him to hostility to Israel. It has led him to oppose, in retrospect, the Civil War, which even his fans worry might not be “a winning position.”
And it has led him, all too often, to conspiracy theory. “The CIA runs everything,” he said in a 2010 speech. “We need to take out the CIA.” He repeated the sentiment on the radio show of the 9/11 “truther,” and all-around conspiracy theorist, Alex Jones. Paul isn’t too fastidious about the company he keeps; he has said that he has “a lot of friends in the John Birch Society.” Nor is he above sending a discreet signal to such theorists that he shares their suspicions, as in his recent comment about the “glee” that the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks caused in the Bush administration.
During the past month or so the conservative blogsphere and media has finally discovered the fact that GOP Presidential hopeful and Texas GOP Congressman Ron Paul has some very strange supporters. During the past months on Blogcritics, I have been exposing various and sundry rather tawdry aspects of the whole anti-immigration movement with profiles on John Tanton and Tom Tancredo.
The Blogcritics piece I recently did about the white supremacist assault on Senator Lindsey Graham is garnering some interesting comments from the far right. But no series exposing the extreme and far right forces distorting the once-honorable conservative agenda could possibly be anywhere near complete without a commentary about some of the supporters of Ron Paul.
This isn’t the first time Ron Paul has run for President. In 1988 he did so as a libertarian candidate, attracting little attention. This time, though it is different as Paul and his supporters have mastered the art of the internet candidacy and almost defined a new and improved way to raise funds. Instead of going for a few high dollar supporters, they are going for large numbers of small dollar donors, and are rewriting the way fundraising is done.
Conservative bloggers are patting themselves on their ramrod straight backs for finally facing the fact that their movement is being hijacked by white supremacist forces from the far right. Unfortunately they are miles behind the curve, and just a little too little too late as far as I am concerned. Congressman Ron Paul has some very nasty white supremacist friends. If the problem dated only to this election cycle it would be one thing, but Paul has a past history of making some rather racially insensitive remarks, on a rather consistent basis.
In 2004 Paul made a short statement from the floor of the US House of Representatives about his refusal to vote for the renewal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife….”
In 1996 in an article, in the Houston Chronicle, “…Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of “current events and statistical reports of the time.” … Paul, writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, reported about unspecified surveys of blacks. “Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,” Paul wrote. Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered “as decent people.” Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote: “Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” Paul said. Paul also wrote that although “we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”
Read more: http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/ron-paul-and-his-kkk-white/#ixzz1fPXyOU5c