Do you want Ron Paul to Run again? Be prepared to rehash some slander

It is long past time for people victimised by this cult of poltical correctness, whether anti-racist or anti-terrorist, or any other "antis", that it takes one to know one!

It is past time for the rest of us, whether libertarians, Paleo-conservatives, Ron Paul supporters, Constitutionalists, and even those white people who are interested in our freedom, our prosperity, and even our survival--and no, this does not require or imply any kind of "master race" gibberish--to give those pests a taste of their own medicine!

Racists, terrorists, and such people are generally despicable people supporting absurd ideologies. However, if there are people even more despicable than racists or terrorists, it is egalitarian or neocon blabbermouths who, having no real arguments against their opponents, stoop to slander and public defamation of their intellectual betters by making--or even contriving--allegations exploiting decent peoples' horror of racism or terrorism.

In short, those people are even more despicable and loathsome then the so-called "racists' or "terrorists' they self-righteously posture in opposition against!

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller

the word "racism", like the word "terrorism", is losing its sting through endless use--and abuse--by people who have long since lost any sense of its original meaning, and now merely use it as a vulgar, ignorant, and vacuous way of saying, in effect, "I don't agree with you".

Egalitarians, socialists, and faux-"libertarians" know that there are no real arguments against liberty, along with self responsibility, they know that people are united by common values, they know that people act fundamentally as individuals, NOT as groups (races, nationalities, or otherwise basically collective, even tribal) entities. They know this, but they cannot do anything about it, so their first, indeed only, choice is to call their critics "racists", or some similar word like "fascist" or "neonazi".

How ignorant, pathetic and asinine. It almost reminds you of how neocons smeared Ron Paul, and his supporters for being "terrorists" who support Al-Q'aida because we were critical of their wretched wars and interventions.

Those people will learn, whether Ron Paul runs in 2012 or not, that you can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you NEVER fool all of the people all of the time!!

We shall be ready.

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller

however, I think he should voluntarily decide to run again in 2012, out of a sense of moral obligation to right the wrongs of the twentieth century.

He could very well win, particularly in the event of a renewed economic downturn. It was NOT the negative publicity which prevented him from getting the GOP nomination, it was the virtual lack of any free media which hindered his name recognition and kept him from even being discovered by the vast majority of GOP voters. This would not be a problem next time around. He would have no trouble out fund raising every other candidate in the race, primarily through a multitude of small, individual donations. If he led fund raising from the get-go, the powers that be could simply not shut him out and brush him off the way they did in 2007-2008. He would be given equal time in debates. If he declared in Q1 of 2011, by the time the first debate was over he would be considered the front runner by the media. Then, watch out.

As far as the general election goes, it would not be a repeat of the Goldwater debacle in 1964, as Barry Goldwater was typecast as a war monger by the national media. That could simply not be done to Ron Paul. His anti-imperialist credentials are impeccable, and he is also far more radical and consistent on economic issues than Barry Goldwater, and this would act in his favor.

A word to the wise, though. Frequent readers of the DP may recognize my name. I am a consistent libertarian who is very uncomfortable with the anti-Hispanic immigrant tone of many in the movement. Such an anti-immigrant bias is anti-liberty, anti-capitalistic, anti-limited government, anti-private property rights, pro-big government, and pro-socialist. Rightly or wrongly, the national media may perceive that the reason you choose to be inconsistent on this issue is xenophobia and perhaps even racism. If the liberty movement is going to succeed in the long run, you will have to confront your inconsistencies on this issue (not only political and economic inconsistencies, but religious, ethical and moral ones as well -- how can a Christian deny someone born in a poorer and less free nation the right to improve their lives in a capitalist system?). I will pray that your hearts and minds will open up to the truth and overcome your prejudices in time for the movement to succeed. If it doesn't succeed, heaven help us.

Bring up Obama's ineligibility, McCain's collaborating with the North Vietnamese and nearly sinking the Forrestal, Bush / Cheney's illegal wars, Congressional treason with amnesty and the banker's bailouts. Tear their credibility a new one while highjacking their bully pulpit.

Third Time's the Charm

Every time a person like Dr. Paul runs for office and looses it only helps more people to see how hopelessly screwed up the concept of government is. I know, I was one of them.

It might not be the best morale booster, but remember--this isn't a presidential election movement. Ron Paul happens to be the vehicle--but let's not get caught up in the web of hateful politics. This is going to be a 20+ year struggle to save our country! (If we are lucky) Guess what, Ron Paul will probably not win in 2012--but it's going to be one hell of a fight And, really, look how far we've come in 2 years---most of us are new, me included. Now this isn't the message we want to use for recruiting new supporters, but I think that most of us here are grown up enough to know that---like I've read someone post before---winning the presidential election would have been the worst possible outcome for the Liberty movement. We are trying to turn the ENTIRE ship of state! Just getting a hearing on record about auditing the FED is so much bigger than the presidential election.

Don't take this wrong---we are going to shake this country up from 2010-2012 with unfiltered LIBERTY---but no smear campaign is going to get us down---because this isn't about winning...it's about...WINNING.

Musician, Blimpographer...Hear my music: www.myspace.com/americanpirates
my videos: www.youtube.com/conservativefunds

by Justin Raimondo on January 18, 2008

The hysteria that is energizing the campaign to smear Ron Paul and his supporters as “racist” is reaching a crescendo of viciousness, as the Beltway “libertarian” crowd revs up its motors for a righteous purge. Writing in the online edition of Reason magazine, David Weigel and Julian Sanchez (the latter of the Cato Institute) aver that the whole brouhaha is rooted in a “strategy” enunciated by the late Murray N. Rothbard, the economist and author, and Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr., founder and president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, designed to appeal to “right-wing populists”:

“During the period when the most incendiary items appeared—roughly 1989 to 1994—Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist “paleoconservatives,” producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters recently unearthed byThe New Republic.

“….The most detailed description of the strategy came in an essay Rothbard wrote for the January 1992 Rothbard-Rockwell Report, titled “Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement.” Lamenting that mainstream intellectuals and opinion leaders were too invested in the status quo to be brought around to a libertarian view, Rothbard pointed to David Duke and Joseph McCarthy as models for an “Outreach to the Rednecks,” which would fashion a broad libertarian/paleoconservative coalition by targeting the disaffected working and middle classes. (Duke, a former Klansman, was discussed in strikingly similar terms in a 1990 Ron Paul Political Report.) These groups could be mobilized to oppose an expansive state, Rothbard posited, by exposing an “unholy alliance of ‘corporate liberal’ Big Business and media elites, who, through big government, have privileged and caused to rise up a parasitic Underclass, who, among them all, are looting and oppressing the bulk of the middle and working classes in America.”

Reason, of course, in it’s new incarnation as the official organ of the libertarian movement’s aging hipsters and would-be “cool kids,” vehemently opposes reaching out to middle and working class Americans: that is far too “square” for the black-leather-jacket-wearing Nick Gillespie, formerly associated with something called Suck magazine, and Matt Welch, who was an unknown quantity before getting the job at Reason. Right-wing populism? As far as the Suck-y crowd is concerned, one might as well tout the appeal of “right-wing botulism.” Libertarianism, as understood by the editors of Reason, is all about legalizing methamphetamine, having endless “hook-ups,” and giving mega-corporations tax breaks (so Reason can keep scarfing up those big corporate contributors). The decidedly “square” Dr. Paul—a ten-term Republican congressman from Texas, no less, and a pro-life country doctor of decidedly conservative social views—was and is anathema to Team Suck.

What would the “Smearbund” do without David Duke? No smear campaign is complete without dragging him into it. No matter what the subject—the Iraq war, the Mearsheimer and Walt book, affirmative action—if you take the politically incorrect position, according to the neocons, then you’re marching shoulder-to shoulder with the former Klansman and professional nut-job.

And sure enough, the Kirchick piece takes the Paul newsletter to task for supposedly having “kind words” for Duke. Yet, if you go and read what the newsletter says about Duke, it is clear the author was merely saying Duke’s success is due to his opposition to affirmative action and the welfare state: indeed, Kirchick cites a passage (without citing it in full) in which Duke is taken to task for his lack of a “consistent package of freedom.” Yet the willfully ignorant Radley Balko, another Cato type, avers: “I simply can’t imagine seeing any piece of paper go out under my name that included sympathetic words for David Duke. That a newsletter with Paul’s name did just that demands an explanation from Paul.”

The explanation, which would be apparent if Balko had actually cited what is written, is that these weren’t sympathetic words for Duke, per se, or his political ambitions, but for the issues—legitimate issues—that he raised (and exploited) in his Louisiana campaign. After all, libertarians such as Paul reject affirmative action, racial set-asides, and all other forms of state-enforced special treatment for “minorities” precisely because they oppose racism, or any form of collectivism.

By the way, libertarians also oppose so-called civil rights legislation that outlaws discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or disability, because it violates the rights of property-owners. William F. Buckley Jr. famously derided libertarian (and “right-wing populist”) opposition to such legislation as valorizing Lester Maddox’s refusal to “serve a Negro a plate of pork chops.” Buckley’s quip surely underscored the venality and small-mindedness of Maddox and his ilk—and yet, lost in all this, is the reality of the libertarian position, which is that people have the right to be venal, small-minded, and, yes, viciously, stupidly, horribly wrong, provided they don’t initiate the use of force.

The utter dishonesty of the Reason crowd, when it comes to this issue, is breathtaking. Balko laments that

“Unfortunately, the quotes pulled from these newsletters will for many only confirm those worst stereotypes of what he represents. The good ideas Paul represents then get sullied by association. The Ann Althouses of the world, for example, are now only more certain that opponents of federal anti-discrimination laws should have to prove that they aren’t racist before being taken seriously.”

It’s all about impressing Ms. Althouse, the notoriously dyspeptic and cranky lawyer-blogger-know-it-all.

Gee, that’s the first time in a long time I’ve heard a single one of the Reasonites declare their opposition to anti-discrimination laws: perhaps it is the first mention of it in the online supplement to the magazine. Because, of course, such a position is starkly counterposed to today’s au courant political correctness, an atmosphere in which all criticism of, say, Barack Obama is typified as racist agitation. The fear of being branded a “racist” is so all-pervasive that it has had an appreciable effect on the polls: exit polls in New Hampshire foreshadowed an Obama-sweep that never materialized. Democratic primary voters were ashamed to say they hadn’t voted for Obama: talk about white liberal guilt!

The charges leveled at Paul by his accusers both the neocons, and the “libertarian” and leftist enablers, are therefore especially toxic this election season. Yet when one examines Paul’s alleged “hate crimes,” I can come up with only four sentences, lifted out of context, that are out of bounds:

“[O]ur country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin.”

“I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

“We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational.”

“If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

These statements are offensive, and I’d bet my bottom dollar that Ron Paul not only didn’t write them, but never read.

(One might quibble about the “fleet-footed” quip: it seems more like a compliment, albeit a left-handed one, rather than an insult—but never mind.) It isn’t Paul’s style or voice. In any case, when we examine the rest of the statements Kirchick cites, in context, it becomes immediately apparent that the “libertarian” witch-hunters out for Paul’s scalp didn’t even bother to read the newsletters in their entirety before they broke into a chorus of denunciations. A former beltway wonk has published an excellent chronology of the various postings by the Reason/Cato/neocon crowd after the Kirchick piece was published and the pdf files of the newsletters were posted by Pajamas Media, on January 8. He makes it clear that what he calls the “Orange Line Mafia” didn’t have time to go through and read the material in the newsletters before firing their fusillades:

“The Ron Paul Newsletters are voluminous and even a small fraction of them could not possibly be read in the very few hours that passed between the posting of the actual newsletters (the afternoon of the 8th) and the smear campaigners’ posts (also the afternoon of the 8th). All of these ‘hit and run’ blog posts, except Kirchick’s original, must then be based on Kirchik’s piece rather than on actual reading and analysis of the newsletters. Clearly the purpose of these posts was not to initiate a thoughtful discussion of the newsletters, it was to spin libertarian voters on the most crucial election day short of the November general elections.”

It was a rush job, and a sloppy one at that, because, on closer examination, the material that is being called “racist” turns out to be no such thing. When we go to the source of the above, and other examples cited by Kirchick, we come to a rather conventionally conservative analysis of the Rodney King riots of 1992: the rioters are condemned, the Koreans are valorized, and the culture of black entitlement and its relation to the welfare state are delineated in no uncertain terms. Nothing, in short, that would be out of place in any conservative magazine. The above-cited phrase about the enemy being defined “by the color of their skin” is here placed in its original context:

“Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficulty avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.”

In context, the author was clearly saying that people will draw unfair conclusions – that racism will increase—as a direct consequence of the Los Angeles riots. How, exactly, is that “racist”? If anything, it’s a warning that the sociological consequences of statist policies – and the failure of the elites to address them—will lead to the rise of the David Dukes of this world, if more responsible politicians don’t face them head on. In linking to the source, one wonders if Pajamas Media isn’t really trying to help the Paul campaign win over conservative Republicans – because I don’t think many would disagree with much of it. Another phrase that has been lifted out of context—“only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions—placed in context reads quite differently:

“Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit—not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people.”

continue reading here
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/why_the_beltway_libertar...

it's exhausting to go through all the racism confusion with people. It's a very strong myth that RP is a racist, and the idiots parrot each other and say it without any real knowledge of the situation. Even the Cato Institute called RP a racist during the campaign.

As far as I know, only one of these racist newsletters is available for public review, and with everything in context, it's more benign than rumors let on. Still, people say these racist tirades went on for years and years. Yet they have never seen them.

The irony is that here we are engaged in wars against brown people in the Middle East, and no one cares because they're brown, but Ron Paul is trying to help them. And how many minorities babies did he deliver for free...and how does that measure up with other candidates' philanthropy? Abortion, also, is frequently a race issue- as Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood famously said, "We don't want word to get out that our goal is to extinguish the negro population." Ron Paul is against that. And of course there's the ongoing slavery of putting minorities in prison for petty drug crimes and forcing them to work without pay. Ron Paul fights that....but does he get credit? No, because Stormfront likes him and that overrides all his personal crusades and accomplishments.

Frankly I hope RP doesn't run in 2012, because it will exhaust him, and shorten his life. If he does, of course I am right behind him again.

All of the "racist" newsletters were from 90-94.

There were only 5 selected quotes that the New Republic was complaining about with regard to racism and all involved MLK even though Paul bucked his own president in 1983 (who opposed MLK day.)

So it wouldn't matter who was running. If neoconservatives dislike the person, they will throw smears.

Are you ready to vote for people who had affairs? People who have been to jail? People who "support a woman's right to choose?" Because really folks, there is almost no one who is pro-abortion. Everyone feels the same way, but they come at the conversation differently. Women who demand the "right to choose" want the rape victim to have access to a safe, confidential abortion. There are always extreme folks in any spectrum, so yeah, you can find some ho' who wants abortions for birth control. But really, the abortion divide could end tomorrow if you "right to life" folks would open with "Rape victims deserve confidential access to safe abortions" (Which most of you support, right? Most people do, except the extreme folks at the other end of the spectrum...) or if the "pro-choice" folks would start their conversation with "Of course I support fully informed consent for all medical procedures" or something like that.
Any way, I was here when RP dropped out. Everyone was looking for Jesus Christ as an alternate candidate, no one else measured up to Dr. Paul.
Oh, and the name I am going for is "Truther." If they are not a truther, I do not support them for a political office.

I believe it would be for the same reasons he ran last time. To spread the message of liberty. The number of people who hear the message and get on board would increase geometrically from the first time and that would be his purpose. And it is SOCIAL MOOD that must change in order for freedom to be "re-instated" in the US. The public's "knee-jerk" reaction to any issue must begin to be the FREEDOM philosophy, and that takes time, especially with the media against you.

WINNING the election.... given the fact that the evil ones still have control of the media and the voting machines..... is probably not in the cards. I think for WINNING he is about 10 years too early as not enough people have begun to THINK and embrace the freedom message yet. They think they ARE free, and don't see the reality of the situation, but are still stuck in the left / right, republican/democrat paradym.

BUT.... even if the result is ONLY the bigger expansion of people understanding the principles of freedom... it would be a worthwhile effort to be enthusiastically embraced ....... the message would spread more and more, especially since he has so much face recognition now having been on so many shows talking about the economy......and, of course........ what FUN it would be.
_____________________________________
"Not armies, not nations, have advanced the race; but here and there, in the course of ages, an individual has stood up and cast his shadow over the world."

the more people see the truth.

"Kook", "crazy"... any of those things, I take it personally.
I know it's not true and you guys know it too.
But it rolls off people's tongue's and keyboards like it's fact.

Next election, they'll say "We just had our first black president, why take a step back?"

I'm just saying that, why wait until 2012 to fight the slander?
Let's make sure we handle it now.

Thanks for all the responses, by the way!