20 votes

The Right to Be Racist?

With Ron Paul well positioned to win the Iowa Caucuses, the Republican establishment is in full panic mode. They are well aware that Paul actually means what he says about cutting $1 trillion from the federal budget during his first year in office, including removing U.S. troops from the active wars in the Middle East and from their decades-long deployments in Europe and elsewhere around the world. In other words, for the beneficiaries of big government, both liberal and conservative, the party will be over. Desperate to prevent this, they are looking for something, anything, that they can attack him on.

The trouble with attacking Paul is there is not much to attack. He has no closet full of ex-wives, tawdry affairs, or dirty political deals. More importantly, he has been a consistent conservative throughout his political career. He doesn't have to explain away a Romneycare or television ads promoting the liberal environmentalist agenda. He doesn't have to explain why he has changed his position on issues conservatives deem crucial to their ideology and platform. He can't be attacked for his economic plan because it is precisely what conservatives say they believe in, but never do. While his foreign policy is out of step with the current Republican establishment, it is consistent with that of conservative icons Ronald Reagan and Robert Taft, which Paul takes every opportunity to point out. It is also resonating with the American people, including active military personnel, who donate more to Paul's campaign than to all of the other Republican candidates combined.

So, in a desperate attempt to find something to attack, Republicans are resorting to the old, liberal trick of implying that he is a racist. They can't call him a racist outright because the allegation would be ludicrous. Paul and his positions have become too well-known, including his own denunciation of racism as "an ugly form of collectivism." Instead, the establishment seeks to associate Paul with racism indirectly, citing campaign contributions from white supremacists that Paul didn't return or the famous newsletters, an issue that was put to rest a decade ago.

However, the one question of substance that the establishment can raise and which Paul should expect to be heavily emphasized should he win the nomination is his stance on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Here, Paul's strict adherence to libertarian principles would seem to mean that Paul recognizes a right to be racist, regardless of how distasteful he may find racism personally. If that's true, then it is going to hurt Paul politically, especially in the general election when the full power of the liberal media is aligned against him. Paul should expect to be questioned on this in every interview. The strategy was effective against Barry Goldwater, who also opposed the Civil Rights Act, and will be effective against Paul if he cannot answer it more effectively.

It is a testament to the character of the American people that any association with racism immediately elicits aversion and disgust. The idea that a human being might somehow be inferior because of a superficial genetic variation like skin pigmentation, which is about as significant as attached ear lobes, is the height of ignorance, leftover from a more barbaric past. The majority of Americans have decided long ago that this is something that they want no part of and ought to be banished from civil society. But what about the minority who do not agree? Does Ron Paul or the libertarian philosophy in general recognize a right to be racist?

The short answer is no. The whole line of reasoning comes out of a misunderstanding of libertarianism and, more fundamentally, rights. Libertarianism does not recognize the existence of "positive rights." To libertarians, all rights are negative. Thus there is no right to be racist, just as there is no right to be charitable, tolerant, or honest. There is only the right not to have force used against you unless you have previously initiated force against someone else. This is the essence of liberty and libertarianism. It is the only theory of rights that can be reconciled with reason.

Consider the right to life. Regardless of how they feel about the supposed right to healthcare, a living wage, or other controversial "rights," everyone recognizes the right to life. But what is this right? Is it a right to live under all circumstances? No. When someone dies of natural causes, no one alleges that their right to life has been violated. Similarly, if one dies of a fatal disease or is killed by a flood or eaten by a lion, no one would allege that their right to life was infringed, however tragic their death may have been. The right to life is specifically the right not to be killed by another human being. Even this definition of the right to life has a limit. Your right to life does not protect you from being killed by another human being if he is defending himself against you while you are trying to kill him.

This reasoning applies to all rights. The right to liberty is the right not to have another human being forcefully inhibit your actions if they do not harm another person. The right to property is the right not to have another human being take your justly acquired possessions away from you against your will.

Thus, libertarianism does not defend the right of an employer to discriminate based upon race, it defends his right not have violence initiated against him if he does. Understanding this point requires a recognition of reality - that every law is backed up by the threat of violence if it is not obeyed. While the vast majority of libertarians - in fact, the vast majority of all people - find racial discrimination distateful, libertarians recognize that it does not constitute violence against other people and therefore its practitioners have a right not to have violence used against them. Thus, there can be no just law against racism or racial discrimination. That is not an endorsement of bigotry. It is merely a consistent application of the principle of liberty.

So would a libertarian society include signs on restaurants saying "No Blacks Allowed" or vast inequities in employment opportunities for racial minorities, women, or the disabled? No. Why not? Because a libertarian society would include an unregulated free market, with no privileges or artificial advantages for connected corporations, which means unlimited competition among firms selling similar products and services. As I've said before, the racist employer loses in such a market economy. Any employer that consistently chooses to hire less talented employees based upon their race will, by definition, have a less talented workforce than its non-racist competitor. This does not rely upon altruism, boycotts, or any other sacrifice of individual self-interest. The employer that hires the most talented people, regardless of race, sex, or other non-essential characteristics does so because it is in his economic best interests to do so. A more talented workforce increases his profits and allows him to gain market share, eventually putting the racist out of business.

Similarly, the restaurant or movie theater that turns away customers based upon race (or other non-economic factors) puts itself at a fatal disadvantage against the restaurant or movie theater that sells to all consumers willing to buy its products. This doesn't even account for the societal aversion that would result from anyone putting up a sign saying "Whites Only" or "No Blacks Allowed." Even discounting the fact that most Americans would boycott such an establishment merely on principle, the racist restaurateur or movie theater owner loses, for purely economic reasons. In other words, even assuming that all economic players act only in their own self-interest and no one makes any decisions based upon moral aversion to racism, the market will still defeat racism, every time.

The only other solution is totalitarianism. If government regulation is really the answer, then the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not nearly go far enough in fighting racism. Regarding employment, the legislation is arbitrarily selective in the racism that it prohibits. As I've said before, the employment contract is merely a buyer-seller arrangement. Employers are buyers of a product (labor) from sellers of that product (employees). Why should this buyer-seller contract be treated any differently from any other buyer-seller arrangement? Why should the government not be regulating every purchase we make, ensuring that we buy approximately 12.5% of our food, gasoline, or toilet paper from black-owned firms, or approximately 50% of those products from women-owned firms? While that might seem ludicrous, it is not substantively different in principle from the idea that the government can prohibit racism when employers purchase labor. Neither is the prospect of punishing black or female consumers for not buying enough products from white-owned or male-owned firms.

If Americans take the time to think these issues through, they will continue to abhor racism but will join Paul and libertarians in their opposition to those sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that deal with private property and personal decisions. Liberty does mean that some people will do things that we don't like, but it affords us the ability not to associate with those people, to disapprove of their actions, to voice that opposition openly, and to persuade others to condemn it as we do. It gives us the ability to make our own decisions about who we associate with, who we do business with, including who we buy from and who we sell to, and forces us to live with the consequences of those decisions. By prohibiting racism under the threat of violence, the government actually gives racists cover. If given the freedom to hire, buy, and sell based upon race, as they wish to, the market will more quickly put them where they belong - out of business.

So how does Ron Paul handle this deeply divisive philosophical issue without compromising his principles, and do so during the average one-minute soundbyte during an interview? While I would not presume to be able to articulate the principles of liberty better than Ron Paul, who has been doing so for over 30 years, I humbly suggest the following:

"Personally, I agree with the vast majority of Americans that abhor racism and other forms of discrimination against people based upon superficial characteristics that have nothing to do with the content of their character. However, we have to find a way to fight this problem without trampling the rights to liberty and property that are the bedrock of a free society. So, I'll make you a deal. You give me an unregulated free market where everyone is free to dispose of their person and property as they see fit, as long as they do not invade the person or property of others. If, under those circumstances, someone actually puts up a sign that says "Whites Only" or "No Blacks Allowed," I'll be open for business the very next day, right across the street. My sign will say "Everybody Welcome." We'll see who's still in business a month after that."

Tom Mullen is the author of A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

IMO

Individuals are free to be fools while no one has the right to pre-judge ethnically, sexually etc.

Otherwise I agree with others on this thread that politically, RP would do well to resolve the newsletter issue promptly and correctly (privately identifying the author and dissociating with them until a public apology is made)

For Christ's sake..change the title PLEASE

For Christ's sake..change the title PLEASE.

Flood IOWA, Saturate Iowa, WIN Iowa with superBrochures: http://superbrochure.com/

Mullen: Racism, Revision, Last Paragraph

"I agree with the vast majority of Americans on racism, that it's an abject superficial assessment. It opposes the innate human ability to assess the content of character of the person he interacts with. There's an answer to racism, however.

"It also is innate. It is for each person to continue being what he or she is, an individual. Continuing this living while learning about its significance voluntarily doesn't trample but does uphold the rights liberty bequeathes to each of us and that are the bedrock of a free society.

"So, I'll make you a deal. You give me a free market, a market everyone is free to do what he wants with himself and his property as long as that doesn't invade someone or someone's property, and if under those circumstances someone puts up a sign that says "Whites Only" or "No Blacks Allowed," I'll be open for business the very next day right across the street. My sign will say "Everyone Welcome." We'll see who's still in business a month later. Deal?"

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

Why is this post still under Recent Blog Posts

I am tired of seeing it there, the title creeps me out.

Good book.

Assuming people still read that is.

http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Slavery-Eric-Williams/dp/08...

Sleep, those little slices of death; Oh how I loathe them.

racism forever

I'd like to see this argument and Paul's responses to the newsletter/racist business do a flip.

Let's talk about the right to be post racial.

There's a "racist forever" bumper sticker on America's tailgate. It marks us all -- black and white -- for the heap of yesterday.

There are freeways full of black folks who'd like to be able to excel in their chosen professions without having to somehow represent "being black" to anyone. There are freeways of white and black folks who'd like to be able to discuss social/political/whatever issues without parades of signs along the way constricting the discussion to dead master-slave, predator-victim blurbs. (Signs, by the way, erected by our fathers and grandfathers for THEIR battle, not OURS.)

You know the saying, "We're always fighting the last war." I think we are allowing ourselves to be co-opted by the last generation's fears and desires.

We are allowing racism to define a post-racist generation. I don't think we have to answer and define things in accordance to the last war.

I just see that Paul has this amazing potential to make a stand here and give voice to the gridlocked freeways of blacks and whites who DO NOT like this route and DO NOT see an exit. He could not just refute and disavow. He could reshape the discussion. The candidate handlers talk about "getting ahead" of a scandal. Paul has an opportunity to not just get ahead, but pull us all off this gridlock of the past and show us the exit ramp. Tear off the "racist forever" sticker and move.

Here's an exchange that really provoked my thoughts: http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/3253?in=20:57

Have you ever seen this

Have you ever seen this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3cGfrExozQ

Now I have

Thanks for the link.

Where's Sean Hannity on Santorum?

Remember when Hannity was having trouble with Ron Paul's newsletters? Well where's Sean Hannity having trouble with what Rick Santorum said about black people the other night? "I don't want to make life easier for black people." Double standard much Sean?

"Right"? to be racist?

People over use the word "right"...as if there's some law or something backing the "right" up.

Simply, there are laws and the force to enforce those laws.

There are no rights.

The right to privacy? No such thing. There are laws about privacy and people with guns that enforce those laws.

Inalienable rights? No such thing. There are laws and enforcement of said laws.

So no one has the right to be (or not be) racist.

What you are talking about is: should there be laws allowing people acting in racist ways, feeling/thinking/expressing in racist ways, etc.

Certainly, there should not be any laws about feeling/thinking/expressing in racist ways. Frankly, I want those people to express themselves so I know who they are.

WE ALL have the RIGHT to have our own opinions...

It is "semantics" in using the term "right"....our Founders believed we all should have the FREEDOM of THOUGHT & SPEECH....

If someone doesn't like another person of a different color or culture, they can. I have no problem with anyone thinking whatever they want, as long as they aren't attacking me or hurting me. And, then, we have LAWS that protect me if verbal turns into physical.

Paul's newsletter racism has NOT been put to rest

It has just begun.

Don't make the mistake of disregarding it too lightly.

It has been put to rest by most Paul supporters, but to everyone else, it matters NOW because it is being brought up NOW.

And the fact that it was over a decade ago doesn't matter much to everyone else.

You damn well better treat it as if it happened now.

Because now everyone else will ask themselves and Ron Paul, "How the heck did so many racist comments/articles get out under Paul's name? Doesn't Paul have staff to watch out for these things? Didn't Paul or his staff order the newsletter editors to not allow such things? Were any of the racist authors reprimanded? Did the authors appear in future issues after saying racist stuff?"

To them, it really seems like either:

-Paul have little control over the people writing on his behalf...indicating impotent leadership

-Paul and his staff don't really care if the newsletters have racist stuff in it

Saying crap like "It was decades ago.", "I didn't write it.", "I didn't read it.", etc. simply won't fly. He needs to take more responsibility.

This is possibly Paul's achilles heel and Paul's team had better deal with it in a better way now. The neocons smell blood and will go after Paul. (hypocritically, they protect Santorum's racist remarks this week).

I agree...

Its time for him to give a satisfying answer, rebuke, and apology to finally put this to rest. Perhaps a speech, similar to Obama on race relations and what his policies would do to improve them. Find out and expose the writer of the newsletter and distance himself away from it like Obama did Wright. It's better to do this now so that he can get his fair hearing before becoming the nominee. and he will be the nomine! Going against a half black president with this baggage and them dropping a quote a day will derail him. It also puts a strain on me trying to recruit minority voters, for the record I am black, so you are getting a perspective on the other side. Peace

~Justice~

Importantly valid points

and agreed RR: this issue can either make or break the Campaign, particularly among the political 'Left'. I hope the staff also realizes this soon to address and correct the situation

Racism is an issue now?

Racism is an issue now? LOL

Guess they never heard the old saying about sticks and stones.

yes slightly misleading title.

i think i heard ron explain his point relatively well on a very recent tv interview trying to smear him with it. it was with one of the CNN blokes i believe. his position on preserving the property rights of people cannot be separated from this issue and it was the attack on property rights that he fundamentally opposes. Of course he had to take some time to reiterate how hes not a racist and how the question implies it and completely calls out the MSM on the nonsense as dirty politics, but all in all the explanation was sound and should have cleared the air for anyone who was watching the interview

Title is misleading!

I believe it to be a very emotional state of mind. One imposed on you through voluntary or involuntary means. Ignorance via birth for example and held on to you as protective means of survival ( gangs, family and or race) for those that believe and for those that impose it... a mechanism of control.

Wrong side of the tracks come to mind? It's not you or any unborn, it's ancient...

I reserve the right to be racist..

and the rest of the world reserves the right to ignore me and let me be a lonely man full of ignorance for the rest of my life. Any problems I have with people is from me letting bad things stick with me from throughout life. I do not allow anything remotely hateful or racist to be said in my house or on my property within earshot of my children. If a person "learns" to dislike certain people, it should be from personal experiences, not through racial/prejudice indoctrination from parents and elders.

And before any stone casting starts..think of "drunks". If you have bad experiences in life involving drunks, especially at a young age, would/could you not carry that baggage with you throughout life? Not all drunk people are habitual, bad, angry, or hurtful. BUT those bad times will sure make you look at them differently.

Now...change drunks to any color, religion, creed, sexual preference...whatever you choose. Sorry..PC doesn't work for me.

Please change the provocative title

to more relevant one.
e.g.
Questions about race?
Free market will be just solution for race-questions
etc.

Flood IOWA, Saturate Iowa, WIN Iowa with superBrochures: http://superbrochure.com/

This is exactly right....

"By prohibiting racism under the threat of violence, the government actually gives racists cover. If given the freedom to hire, buy, and sell based upon race, as they wish to, the market will more quickly put them where they belong - out of business."

COMPLETELY AGREE. Let em show their asses and be dealt with accordingly.

“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.” - Mark Twain

Hypothetical situation

What if a company or business exists that says, "we don't have racist hiring policies"!

Now, isn't it the role of the government to make sure they aren't being fradulent when they make that claim?

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Not If There Are No Damages

And thus no one has been defrauded.

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Damage is an incredibly

Damage is an incredibly subjective thing.

For example, someone at a restaurant could argue, "I thought I was working for/eating at a place that didn't have a racist hiring policy. They clearly stated they didn't have a racist hiring policy. I am morally offended that due to their lie, I have worked for/eaten at a place with such policies. This could hurt me professionally/personally"

Etc. etc.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

We have the RIGHT to think however we want to THINK...

I believe Ron Paul believes in freedom of thought. It only becomes a problem when we crossover the line into violence against another human being. THAT is where he draws the line, BUT we have laws on the books for those kinds of assault & battery crimes.

No more needs to be said on this. Dr. Paul handles it well.

I agree

Unfortunately, this stays on the front page as we have Bachmann and Gary Johnson supporters and hopefully others hopefully coming our way? This is not a good post. Michael, can we do something? Or author please edit your title? I understand the post just not so good with the newsletters and such as we are trying to get beyond our "ceiling" of voters.

Agree with the need for a title change.

These "provocative" titles are NOT a good idea. This is a most sensitive area, and puts Daily Paul in a bad light to people casually surfing the site. Esp. when such comments are on the primary comments list.

Tom, would you be willing to change the title?

E.g. A libertarian view of racial equality

or something like that.

This title is very, very

This title is very, very misleading and could give the wrong impression to a casual lurker or malicious reporter. It should be changed.

Agreed

Sometimes I wonder why people put these stupid comment titles that appear bad but when you actually read it, its good information. Find a better way to headline your information. And what happened to the plus minus buttons for comments? I wanted to vote this up but cant, so I had to reply instead.

What I find

What I find is that some people fail to realize all of us are not wanted in certain areas. I could no more be admitted to Beverly Hills than my mutt dog.

In other old days, I saw a bunch of teenage very light skinned girls go to a restaurant in cut off jeans. In those days, girls went to town with dresses on, heels, and gloves. They were served but once but further service was past the 1/2 hour, then they were encouraged to leave.

We used to have a lot of family owned businesses and then it became economies of scale. We used to have some segregated neighborhoods (lol, a lot of colors in those hoods) but talked across the fence to discuss home gardens.

So is it racist to deny same color services or opportunities?

Seems to have worked for many to divide the groups. Personally, I would have voted against anything that would have long term bad effects. Open housing, yes, open opportunities, yes, put at the head of the line via quotas, no. Then last one put us just where we are--still divided.

mickey45

Why not

Why not just recognize this for what it is: Shut down words.

That's it. Once the words are spoken, any further message is ignored.

lol, the military uses it all the time. Parents use words to shut down their children's further explanations, bosses use it (often shuffle pages) to dismiss employees from further discourse.

Recognize it and diffuse it.

Arguing with the same negative words plays in their field. Choose some new words.

mickey45

The Right to be Stupid

My Dad (RIP) used to say, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to remain uninformed." Personally, I'll try to inform you, which makes me somewhat of a pariah, much like The Good Doctor.

Dad would also say, "People who think they know everything are particularly annoying to those of us who do," but Dad was somewhat of a wannabe humorist, being a traveling salesman and all.

Yes, you have an absolute, God-given Right to be as racist or stupid as you want to be, but NOBODY has a right to use the force of arms (AKA government power) to enforce that stupidity.

Freedom is my Worship Word!

Very well written article Tom.

Thoughtful and to the point.

The bottom line: Racism MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE INSTITUTIONALIZED because ALL of us pay into public entities.

But in private matters (in a free society) it must be allowed - even if it means I am excluded from a particular event or venue.

Obviously using racism to exclude is where it ends though. You can't usurp anyone's RIGHTS such as life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

Nor can you break any laws like assault or theft and call it racism outside of the public sector.

But frankly I'd rather know up front if a business (say a restaurant) doesn't want my business because I'm a white male.

Rather than them being FORCED to serve me and then spit in my food, I would rather they let me know ahead of time and I'll go elsewhere.

But then again any business that refuses business from anyone is only hurting themselves and probably will have very limited success.

And if one is personally racist, they will limit their human associations and will miss out on a lot of wonderful relationships through their lives.

So in the end, racism is just plain stupid.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

this is an arbitrary point.

this is an arbitrary point. even attempting to shed positive light on this whole issue only works for the interests of those who will demonize ron paul. this kind of "vulgar libertarianism" is what scares people away from libertarianism and will scare people away from having anything to do with ron paul as the media tries desperately to suppress his vote.

Just say "businessmen have a right to be stupid."

I think Ron could solve this issue very quickly if he would respond to any questions on his Civil Rights Act stance by saying "Businessmen have a right to be stupid and self-destructive."

I think that is a quick, quotable response that makes it clear immediately what the logic is behind his position and also, leaves no doubt how he feels about racists. If questioned any more he can add that in a free market, a racist business would turn off the customer base and not have access to the best employees and would fail quickly.

EG

Call me crazy but I think

Call me crazy but I think people would want to know who the racists are so they could choose not to give them their money. Ironically, the law prevents that and actually helps the racists! Stupid government fools.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

I want people to be more racist

We have more racial harmony nowadays at the expense of freedom and liberty. What more is this drive to promote extreme racial harmony is used as a vehicle to attack good people like Mr. Paul from coming forward to the aid of The Republic.

I choose freedom and liberty and friends of those ideals anytime. I choose less racial harmony.

Open Philosophy attracts all those who want to be left alone.

I'd like to address the online rumors started by those wonderful 'libertarian' friends of ours, the former liberal Matt Welch & Julian Sanchez at the KOCHtopus Reason/CATO Belt-arian Mordor in the DC Swamp, in coordination with the despicable excuse for a human being James Kirchick, that most likely Lew Rockwell and Murray N. Rothbard (RIP) were behind it, in a sort of a strategic libertarian 'reale-politik.'

First of all, it is exactly just that, a rumor.

Secondly, even if the rumors actually turn out to be true, it's not Dr. Paul who wrote it.

And, excuse my 90% principled-ness, I'm thinking Lew/Murray never wrote any policy that killed, murdered, tortured anyone, unlike neocon/neolib MURDERERS in $5000 suits on TV.

And, even IF it were a well-intentioned 'reale politik' strategy to attract the "extreme fringe" in hopes that those who have traditionally had zero political representation could have an outlet that while their ideology do not fully mesh w/libertarianism, areas in core tenets of principles of freedom in which coalitions can be built, perhaps Lew & Murray saw it as a plus to introduce sound money, non-interventionist foreign policy, live & let live, and non-aggression axiom to those that never heard it, could only benefit.

Want a modern example of that AnCap 'reale-politik?' Just watch Judge Andrew Napolitano's Freedom Watch.

If The Judge even changes 10% of moronic murderous neocons' minds toward liberty, it would have been worth it. Keeping them brainwashed only solidifies the number of lunatics who want to drive us into wars.

Make no mistake, Ruper Murdoch is a purveyor of MURDER, torture & mayhem. Period.

Frankly, by MSM's non-existent 'standard' of painting all the alleged "racists, bigots, 9/11 truthers, fringe" blah, blah, blah they all accuse them to be, ask yourselves this, in the aggregate, what's worse: military industrial complex's mouthpieces, fmr.POTUS advisers who designed policies that bombed, murdered & tortured people who get a pass because they talk slick & wear expensive threads?

Or, some retard web-proprietor at NeoNazi StormFront whose rallies consist of moronically getting drunk at BBQ watching B/W Hitler footage?

Seriously.

Even Jesus talked to murderers & prostitutes. After all, if one were truly be a man of peace and want to reserve force as a last resort, aren't one's supposed 'enemies' the opponents that need to 'change' to be 'good,' not your own already 'good' flock?

If so, it only makes sense to engage the 'undesirables,' no?

By the way, don't liberals consider it a good idea to reach out to racists? Hell, not that SPLC should ever be referenced as an example of anything good, but to illustrate, even their resident NeoNazi 'expert' was in fact a full-blown Swastika-tattooed to the hilt real-life former Nazi who has since had it removed. His guilt was such that he even married a black girl, out of true love or to make a political point. You can google him. He was even featured on Oprah.

So if that the SPLC's 'reach-out' to that former NeoNazi was a success, why would reaching out to other "extremists" not be seen the same, but must be maligned as 'pandering to bigoted undesirable elements in society?'

For those who constantly talk of peace, but don't realize that, that may also include diplomatically talking to your enemies, one day? If conflict, or divergent opinions need two to tango, and if one were truly seeking change, why WOULDN'T they reach out to their enemies in hopes of introducing new ides so that they would at least have the realization that another philosophic ideologies exist, outside of their prejudice. After all no one is born a racist, no?

For crying out loud, we talked to Mao & Khrushchev! Isn't exercising diplomacy what Dr. Paul always talk about? In that sense, even IF what they accuse Lew/Murray of doing in 'reaching out to extreme elements' turns out to be true, I only see it as an act of diplomatic reach-out & an educational opportunity. What the hell is so wrong about that?

The Koch Bros. funded Reason/CATO-set has always had a long-term feud with the Rothbard-Rockwell-Misesians. If not familiar please google "David Gordon+Kochtopus" and find out why it is that the co-founder of the Libertarian Party Murray N. Rothbard left the very party he helped found along with any ties to Koch Bros' Reason/CATO Fdn., in disgust.

Or, as Murray simply put it bluntly: "billionaires don't like to be told, No."

What I would agree with is, if anyone has ever been around seminar, MLM, & marketing circles for a few yrs, you are quite right that chances are, the newsletters were farmed out.

Frankly the letters' pitch, cadence, & sense of urgency sound like almost every cold-sales pitch letter from MLM, stocks, commodities, and real estate products I've ever received.

What all this truly signifies is that these MSM propagandist who are nothing but professional scribes for the commissars, are either absolutely imbecilic that they cannot spot a common run of the mill newsletter when they see one, or too lazy to compare the Doc's own writing style.

Hell, as if we don't know that chances are even the current campaign email newsletters asking for donation are more than likely, not be personally written by the Doc.

They use autopen signature of the owner of the company's name all the time. It was probably a print or copy signature that they're hyping, anyway.

Regardless, it makes MSM either complicit in a coordinated smear campaign agenda (as if that's not obvious), or really really ignorant of world outside of their own, also not a surprise.

But seriously, how does a 'journalist' not know how to tell apart writing styles?

Of course, if they were actually interested, even if it were to truly smear the doc's reputation, shouldn't they have at least looked up his writing style in books & house speeches vs. the newsletters, to compare or verify?

Rhetorical question, I know.

As far as RP addressing this issue & closing the door on it once & for all, it'll have to happen no later than after SC. We are after all fighting to dethrone the nation's first black president. It'd be a childish folly to assume this wouldn't be an issue that they'll bring up again.

But one thing's clear: RP's opponents have always underestimated his political instincts much to their peril.

So, generally I do trust The Doc's decisions.

Regardless, what I never wanted to see was the political mark of being a politician whom the media caught on camera, taking his mic off, to be manipulated with whatever headline/caption to character assassinate. Truly hoped it's never happened to him.

Frankly, it's not even a "stormed-off" as CNN/Cholera Booger intimates. She intentionally held a meandering interview asking him usual vapid nonsense: competition, Iowa meaningless if you win, 3rd party, blah blah, then near tail-end expecting drama asked the question.

Hell, he could've had a cordial interview with her & if CNN cameraman took a shot of him taking the mic off, they could still have used that shot with whatever caption/headline they wanted. As we all been able to confirm now that CNN conveniently decided to release the full version, online ONLY, while they let it fester for 2 days within the nerdy wonkdom that is the blogosphere.

Nature of the beast, I suppose.

What I do sense however, is that some liberals who always secretly cheered on RP's constitutional civil rights stance, are almost waiting for a proper explanation so that it almost gives them 'a permission' to support him.

Because you know liberals, nothing's more toxic to them than non-PC or "racist"-label. Possibly even worse to them than being accused of being a pedophile. It's the whole collective guilt notion.

And, apparently to liberals, being labeled a "racist" is even worse than being a murderer, if you agree with my logic that likes of CNN featuring (printing, if they were a newsletter publisher) former Clinton/GWB regime lackeys who literally wrote UnConstitutional legalese to commit warcrimes, as being a trillion times worse than accusing the Doc of being racist over something that they even admit that he did not write.

Also, probably why the Doc as an individualist, while as a man who walks the talk of individual accountability, even though he didn't write it, his name is on it, so inevitably feels responsible & during his previous runs already explained to his constituency. But now, as truly a national, hell international figure, and as the only candidate with cross-political appeal, I understand to those new to the 'Ron Paul-brand' if you will, they feel they're deserved an explanation. Though, because of this issue's touchy history, I can see why, also at the same time, the Doc does not, and definitely should not have to apologize to every new supporter, for a liberal's collectivist sense of 'collectivist guilt.'

What's the alternative? For Dr. Paul to introduce to every single minority that he may come across as 'hello, my name is Ron Paul. I'm the Champion of the People and the Constitution. I've delivered over 4000 babies. I've never voted against my Constitutional Oath. I've taken more 434-1 votes in Congress' entire history. People universally know me for my principled integrity & consistency. Oh, and by the way I've had a couple, about 0.01% of newsletters that went out over the span of 20yrs that contained objectionable passages NOT written by me, but ghostwritten by a bunch of people who betrayed my trust. Will you vote for me for POTUS?'

lol!

But, in all seriousness, however, I do feel it is incumbent upon the official RP2012 campaign to address this issue respectfully, once & for all, soon.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Retard?

I respect freedom of speech, but that word is terrible IMO.

" But I must say tonite that I know that justice is indivisible- injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
MLK

noted.

you take offense to calling Don Black of the Neo Nazi group StormFront a "retard."

I guess I'll just oblige.

On second thought, nah.

lol. just being facetious.

but I reserve no kind words for neocons, whom I consider to be worse than neoNazis, as some in the latter are genuine separatists who just want to be left alone, which I can respect, regardless of what they believe.

but actual former neocon policy authors who designed murder/torture in name of the State? frankly, even Nuremberg 2.0 would be too lenient for those scum maggots.

I know in this PC-culture the term can have loaded, multiple connotations, etc; gives one the warm and fuzzies when directed at degenerate ne'er do wells like neocons or neonazis, when labeled as such actually give bad name to those unfortunate souls who had no choice in the matter like those born afflicted with mental impairment which my heart goes out to.

no worries, it's directed at the former, and I have a special recipe pop corn ready in case of Dr. Paul's presidency and mass Nuremberg 2.0 indictments come down the pike against the murderous neocons.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

You Don't Want to go there.............


This type of narrative will never help Ron Paul win anything.

The Ron Paul Campaign needs to have a much more clear public statement released that idenitifies the writer(s) of the offensive statements in his Newsletters, and expresses public outrage about them, otherwise this issue will not just go away....and the racist charge will persist and hang Ron Paul.

You can't win a major election without a very strong distancing away from this incident.

PLEASE read, comment, and be prepared for the next attack.

http://news.yahoo.com/former-opponents-discuss-ron-paul-raci...

i think that this article will do more good than harm to our campaign, but i'm certain the neocon republicans will do their best to say that this proves RON PAUL is anti-israel, which is a very big deal to them.

i want you all to know this new information is out there and be prepared to respond to it if necessary.

you may want to offer suggestions on how we can best respond to the coming "RON PAUL is anti-israel" attacks.

will this article help us, or hurt us ? let me know what you think?

nr

there's more. please read this too

http://news.yahoo.com/ex-aide-ron-paul-foreign-policy-sheer-...

they are working over-time, writing their hit pieces. i've never seen anything like this. we have a lot of work to do.

we need everyone's best effort to have any chance of winning.

nr

Funny how

Funny how the only people screaming "racism" are always white folks.

But it's

almost always at other White folks. ;)

Frankly, it's mostly Black people who play the "racism" card, and most Whites are too politically correct to call it out when it happens.

A signature used to be here!

'Always' huh?

I doubt it!

Another important point. The

Another important point. The particular act that forced private property owners not to discriminate, protects the profits of racists! It forced racism underground and is why it is still with us today. As a minority, one would want to have the right to NOT spend their money at a racist business, thereby giving profit to a racist, but due to the governments interference, the minority could no longer tell the difference between the racist business owners and the non-racist business owner. If the act in question was never passed, almost all racist businesses would have eventually bankrupted themselves, not only that, but minorities could have started businesses that competed with the racists, and would have put them out of business and would now be the business people of town. Instead this act protected the racists by not allowing the minorities the right to avoid doing business with them.

Ron Needs to Emphasize Federalism / 9th & 10th Amendments

The states have every right to enact "civil rights acts" of their own.

But it's not really the federal government's prerogative, except where the federal government itself is concerned (DC, US territories, federal departments/agencies).

And let's not forget that Congress has hypocritically exempted itself from many of the burdens it lays upon the backs of private citizens.

Very well written piece.

Very well written piece.

It's unfortunate that so many people cannot grasp the distinction between recognizing an individual's right to engage in reprehensible but non-violent practices, and actually endorsing those practices: this applies to racism, and to drugs, and to prostitution, and to every other type of non-violent personal behavior that the State has tried to regulate.

Paul always states the position clearly, and slowly but surely people are waking up.

As for the "right to be racist," I think a good retort would be to draw an analogy to free speech; everyone (or just about everyone) agrees that even the most vile bigots ought to be allowed to speak freely, and that saying so does not constitute an endorsement of their bigoted views. Cite some SCOTUS rulings to strengthen the argument.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

ytc's picture

As usual Tom explains "The principle of liberty" beautifully.

But, then, bigotry still exists in all aspects of our lives. And we have to find ways to shield and protect the weakest on the receiving end of such unjust bigotry: Bradley Manning, for example.

great points

I LOVE the fact that so many of us are pushing back against this with well articulated responses. Well done Tom.