2 votes

Sirota smears Paul in latest column

Author and columnist David Sirota smeared Ron Paul in his latest column which appeared in my local main sleaze media rag yesterday. This is another attempt to dredge up the old racist newsletter charges that have been repeatedly de-bunked as not being written nor endorsed by Dr. Ron Paul:

Our Selective Definition of Bigotry
David Sirota

If they have any value at all anymore, presidential election campaigns at least remain larger-than-life mirrors reflecting back painful truths about our society. As evidence, ponder the two-sided debate over Republican candidate Ron Paul and bigotry.

One camp cites Paul's hate-filled newsletters and his libertarian opposition to civil rights regulations as evidence that he aligns with racists. As the esteemed scholar Tim Wise puts it, this part of Paul's record proves that he represents "the reactionary, white supremacist, Social Darwinists of this culture, who believe ... the police who dragged sit-in protesters off soda fountain stools for trespassing on a white man's property were justified in doing so, and that the freedom of department store owners to refuse to let black people try on clothes in their dressing rooms was more sacrosanct than the right of black people to be treated like human beings."

. . . continue reading @ http://www.creators.com/liberal/david-sirota/our-selective-d...

Notice how Sirota seems to present some balance in the article, but to less intelligent readers the words "bigotry", "hate", "racist" and Ron Paul are lumped together in several paragraphs ... and for the dumbed-down socialist Democrats in Summit County Colorado that's all they need to see...

This is the last straw for me regarding the corporate whore media ...

I called the Summit Daily News and registered a complaint about this article with the editor Alex Miller: (970) 668 - 4618 / amiller@summitdaily.com

I notified him of my boycott and advertiser boycott - he said "have fun with that" in a smug tone. Oh yeah - I'll have fun with that alright just you wait Alex Miller you scumbag media whore P.O.S.


I've decided to not only permanently boycott my local paper for this and several other smears against Ron Paul but to notify their advertisers that I will boycott them as well for supporting the Summit Daily News. In addition I'll be setting up a new protest OCCUPY the MEDIA or MEDIA liars BOYCOTT ...

Sirota's columns appear nationwide in many newspapers and I suggest you check for this article in your local whore media toilet-paper-of-record and let them know what you think about this smear against the good Doctor Paul.

Notice that Sirota works for Clear Channel ( the Mitt Romney / Bain Capital media giant ) KKZN AM760...

Comment viewing options

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

Here was my reply...

Dear David Sirota,
You said; "...if we're going to have a long overdue discussion about bigotry, then let's have an honest conversation ..." I agree with that. But here is where you miss the boat.

You set up your article as if both sides are right without having that honest 'overdue discussion about bigotry" to determine if EITHER side is right. You posit that the Ron Paul Newsletters where "hate-filled" and continue on without dissection to see if that side is correct at all. I for one read those newsletters for 20 years and I can tell you, they were investment newsletters, not "hate-filled racist" newsletters. Yet that is how they are referred to collectively today. Score one for the liberal PC police out to smear the ideas championed by Ron Paul. But Again, there was no racism in the Ron Paul Newsletters, period.

What they were was decidedly not Politically Correct and this is because they fought political correctness in the late 80s and early 90's until eventually Political Correctness swept America. Today PC is widely accepted norm. You need to recall, prior to PC's vague and wide and broad definitions of such terms as Racist, Racism, Sexist, Sexism, Anti-Semitic, etc, there were precise definitions of such terms, NONE of which was dependent upon the subjective notion of how someone FELT.

For example, Racism was defined as: The disparagement of a person or groups ethnic characteristics (real or imagined) as a call for, or justification for, gaining LEGAL discrimination."

Hence, someone who disparages a a person's ethnic group and then calls for legal discrimination is a racist. The KKK who say blacks and jews are such and such AND THEREFORE call for legal discrimination are "racists". But if Charles Barkley goes on the Daily Show with John Stewart and they both discuss ice hockey and Barkley replies as he really did reply: "Brothas don't skate John. We just don't skate", nothing about that ethnic generalization is racist. It was received as funny. Not because, as the PC police would have you believe because the statement was said by a minority, but because by definition it is NOT racist at all, its just an ethnic generalization, that may or may not be true. Comedians do this all the time. Yet today, in PC America, had Ron Paul said, "Brothas don't skate John. They just don't skate", because it comes from an older white man he automatically gets presumption of bigotry. Even more so if the white older man is a Republican, the pre - judging, is it must be bigotry, such is the super sensitivity under the PC world we live in today. Thus the Barkley statement, IF RON PAUL made it, which he did not lets be clear, would immediately be called "racist!".

In the same way, in the Ron Paul newsletter and in an essay of which Doctor Paul did not write, TNR magazine pulled this statement out for ridicule: "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5%
of blacks have sensible political opinions". Is that racist? Do you have enough information to judge? Commentators and writers everywhere apparently do not think they need to see or read more. They are automatically "disgusted" and "appalled" by such "racist remarks".

But there was no period at the end of this sentence! Thanks to TNR, you don't know this. The sentence went on to define what was meant by "sensible". The whole quote placed in total context was this:

"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. They are, however, outnumbered."

Now why did the liberal mag TNR do this? Why did the liberal mag TNR doing pulling these 12 sentences out of context and holding them up -- giving them their own website no less. Moreover, if it was not the words of Ron Paul, why then the smear? The answer is for political gain. Most of all, as you may guess, the liberal rag TNR does not like the ideas of limited government, free enterprise, end of welfare and affirmative action -- all perfectly conservative positions. So its race baiting. Its all an attempt at smearing.

Here is another quote from the TNR held up as "evidence" of "racial hate":

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how incredible fleet of foot (fast) he can be".

First the astute non PC reader, with the definition of racism above, can immediately see there is nothing, zero racism in this statement. Zero, zilch, nadda. Indeed, it does not even state anything derogatory about the black race nor is there a call for legal discrimination. Like Charles Barkley's observation about Blacks and ice skating, its a generality and its a generality that may or may not be true. But that is it.

If the Rev Al Sharpton had said, "If you have ever ran away from a white middle aged cop, you know that after 50 yards you are home free." there would be laughter but not be a peep out of the PC police at TNR screaming "racist hate!". Yet the two statements are identical age specific ethnic generalizations that again, may or may not be true. Again, neither makes a call for legal discrimination.

There is not enough space here to go over each of the 12 sentences that the liberal rag TNR pulled out of 20 years of newsletters, but I would be happy to in an essay that does as you say, "an honest discussion" of bigotry. What has not happened is an honest discussion about the Ron Paul newsletters. Perhaps this is because Ron Paul himself has disavowed those "offensive words" and apologized that they went out under his name. But just because a politician during a Presidential campaign trying to get votes in PC America apologizes, that does not mean we should be axiomatic in our assumption that those Ron Paul newsletters were "racist" or "anti-gay" or "anti-Semitic".

Again, I would be happy to do an essay with you and have that long overdue "honest discussion" on what is and is not racist bigotry. Lord knows this country has such short memories, its funny, but I think they have actually forgotten what real racism looks like.

Catch me on facebook, Treg Loyden

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

would you be interested

... in posting that as a letter to the editor of the Summit Daily News? Helluva good response and thank you Treg for your insights!

You can send it here:


( doesn't matter if you live here ) ( free mountain tour of Breckenridge + snowboard lesson if you send them your response ... courtesy ecliptic )

reedr3v's picture



wonderful reply, Treg!

You knocked that one over the fence. The only thing I could even try to add to that is the observation that the "fleet of foot" comment not only wasn't technically racism, it was actually a bit of a compliment, in a decidedly un-PC way. Think about it: the criminal activity is voluntary and anyone can choose to commit crime; the only thing pertaining to blacks in particular was the comment about their speed. Calling one race of people unusually "fleet of foot" hardly amounts to denigration. The denigration by implication there is not that blacks are too fast, it's actually that non-blacks are too slow. (Anybody remember "White Men Can't Jump"? Anybody remember any protests of it? Me neither.)

That said, it was still one of the dumber comments I've ever read. Whoever wrote that just was not thinking that day, and the editor either didn't notice it or also wasn't thinking.

What is begun in anger, ends in shame.

I wonder how Sirota would deal with someone who "occupied"

his front yard or living room against his wishes.


Perhaps a rebuttal with some facts instead of inflammatory, overblown, over emotional rhetoric?

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul


I do have some anger management issues when it comes to the whore media and their smears, lies, omissions, slander, and general sleaziness...

I would love to get some solid information with which to help counter these racism charges that keep bubbling up over and over and over ... Where can I find the best most solid factual response from Dr. Paul? Please advise...


is just a straight-up communist.
Which means he's as ugly and slimy and evil and scheming and disingenuous as it comes.
Nobody can trust anything that comes out of his mouth.
Not even him.

He's letting the corporate

He's letting the corporate media know that he can be sold, its like a audition. David Sirota is selling out. I'll put him on the spot the next time I see him.

I hope it works out for you.

I hope it works out for you. I wonder if you can sue the jerk on Ron Paul's behalf for slander?