What's our response to the racism smear attempts?

Ron Paul 2008, Join or Die!

DONT TREAD ON ME

AN APPEAL TO HEAVEN - WASHINGTON'S CRUISERS

Answer it by bringing up that Ron Paul is the only man that wants to end the war on drugs.
The war on drugs has afro americans serving 45% of the jail time for ilegal drug activivties while afro americans are only responsible for 14% of the ilegal drug use.

The war on drugs is big business. A lot of profits will be lost if the war on drugs is stopped. The war on drugs did not work. Drug usage has continued. The War on drugs is not working. It is creating criminals.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that will stop the war on drugs.

If Afro Americans know this many of them will vote for Ron Paul. The racism smears are a way to keep the War on Drugs going.

Good advice for responding to the smear is to listen to Ron Paul. In addition to being principaled he is a very smart speaker. Here is my take:

BTW, I tend to side with the notion that the newsletter was not racist and just un-PC or careless to the reaction of modern PC sensibility. To paraphrase one writer "Yes, the LA riots did have a lot of black thugs." Explaining this will not work and I could be wrong anyway. I have not seen all the newsletters and 99% of the accusers have not seen them all either. Going this route is at best a grim mess of endless "how about when it said X?" Valuable time will be wasted that is needed for the following points.

First. Contain and define: The failure was in the newsletters, nothing else.
Second. Perspective: Paul has decades of public writing and speaking not just not being racist, but as an abolitionist.
Third. Old news: The NYT, Texas Monthly and others have run this before and let it go.
Forth. The most important. As Ron Paul said "(They) want to know if (we) are racists." Paul has spent a lifetime fighting racism. The whole point of individualism is to look at people like individuals, not as groups. That is who we are. His collectivest opponents often do look at people in a group idenity. The race aspects of the drug war and Social Security are big, big issues. Bone up if you don't understand me. Paul mentioned Presidential Pardon for non-violent drug 'offenders,' that should open some eyes. This is going on the offensive, which is an absolute, positively, sure thing must do. It IS OUTRAGEOUS that racist accusations are coming from some of the places it is coming from. You SHOULD be outraged. Let the squeemish use italics, caps are called for here!

Fifth: The accuser. I understand TNR has done smears before, if so then that would be good to mention. The allegation came a day before the election! That may not convince some who believe that all is fair in love and war, but I don't even think TNR felt this was good material since they refused to put the newsletters up until the day of the election. TNR is big time war supporter and they wear tin hats claiming to hear us speak in code. Is TNR partly owned by Murdoch?

Reason magazine has also been big jerks on this and since a lot of good people follow them you should be prepared for them too. Over the years Reason has published lots of great pro-freedom material, but from a practical perspective. For example, I think Reason would say "free speech is needed because societies work better when ideas are exchanged and prohibiting speech however well intended can shut out good ideas." That's fine, a little bloodless for us Patrick Henry types, but it is good. But if you were to say "I have the right to free speech, whether a God given right or a natural right," I think they might consider you, how did former Reason editor Virginia Postrel put it, "Not Cosmopoliten." Reason has also
dumped on several libertarian party candidates in the past, always after a good bit of campaigning. Telling the Reason reader that Reason gets a lot of support from establishment sources won't work, but that and the desire of the writers to eventually get higher paying jobs with larger media is, I think, the 'reason.' Reason gave Charles Murray all sorts of leeway when discussing race and perhaps he deserved it, but none for Paul. There are some emotional and cultural issues too, perhaps even cowardice, but we have spend enough time on Reason.

If someone is ignorant enough to suggest antisemitism, then I would point out that Paul (apparently) named his son Rand Paul after Ayn Rand, a
Jew who wrote
material against racism. Absolutely no more evidence is needed or should be presented on that front. For the record, if I'm not mistaken some other important figures for Paul, like Mises were jewish.

I thanks for everyone for their hard work!

I say we do exactly what Ron Paul is doing about it.

State the truth and then start talking about something else.

KISS = keep it simple stupid!

I'm voting for Ron Paul come hell or high water.

1) The charge of racism is the FIRST refuge of a scoundrel. That's the first thing you need to tell people. Stop letting our opponents define the terms of the argument. Tell your hearers to stop being such a bunch of politically correct wusses and to look at what was written in an objective, dispassionate, and rational manner. Unfortunately, that is one of the hardest things for people in modern America to do. The topic of race is so taboo in America today that if you mention it at all, the demands of political correctness ensure that it is almost impossible to talk about it objectively, dispassionately, and rationally. But at least you should make your listeners aware of the psychological baggage that almost all Americans are dragging around on this subject today.

2) With a very few exceptions (which I'll get to below), there is almost nothing to really object seriously to in terms of the factual content in those newsletters. The most objectional thing about them is their tenor, which at times has a tendency to rant. However, even that is understandable, since much of what was written in response to particular horrifying incidents, such as the L.A. "Rodney King" Riots.

3) Thomas Sowell has written material with similar content -- http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1576 -- as has Walter Williams -- http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59371 Why is it that blacks can criticize blacks but whites can't? Is there some unwritten rule that we can only criticize people of our own race?

4) Probably the most objectionable things were the following:

A. Alleged reference to blacks as "animals" -- as the L.A. riots newsletter makes a point of praising some blacks, this was definitely not intended to refer to all blacks indiscriminately as animals. Can it be denied that there are plenty of people in America today, both black and white, whose behavior is "beastly"?

B. Reference to the future possibility of "race war" -- I fail to see how this qualifies as racism. One could make the case that there is already a simmering race war going on in America. Just go into any number of American prisons and see how white, hispanic, and black gangs war on each other. This also carries over onto the streets. This something that anyone can note with a sense of grief and horror. Doing so does not make one a racist. Failure to recognize this problem and confront it face on is a sure way to ensure that it never goes away.

C. The "let it begin here" comment -- this is an inexcusable lapse for any Christian. It is also so obviously uncharacteristic of Dr. Paul that it is one thing that convinced me he didn't write that stuff. There is a legitimate use of violence in self-defense against tyranny, and there is also a time to simply let the tyrants come and lead you away like a lamb to the slaughter. The wise Christian is the one who knows the difference. The early Christians in ancient Rome toppled that horrid pagan civilization, but they did it through the shedding of their own blood, not through the shedding of others' blood. If you go through history you will find a clear pattern: Christians win when we are faithful unto death, and we always lose whenever we attempt to use violence illegitimately. Nota bene: this particular gaffe is NOT a sign of racism.

D. Recommendation for having a non-traceable throw-away gun for use in *legitimate* self-defense. Shocking, but shocking because it reflects just what a travesty our judicial system has become. It's a very politically incorrect thing to say, but the underlying reality is that there is far too little justice in our judicial system, regardless of one's skin color. It serves as a reminder that we really need to address the root causes of these problems instead of the usual approaches of 1) ignoring them, 2) making excuses, and 3) applying superficial solutions that don't work. It just so happens that Ron Paul is the only one offering real solutions to the deep underlying problems, and if we care about these problems we should vote for him whether he's a racist or not. (And I'm convinced that he is not.) Of all people currently seeking the presidency Ron Paul is clearly the best ally that blacks could have.

5) In the past, Lew Rockwell has booted at least one contributor from lewrockwell.com for making racist statements. This was long before there was a Ron Paul presidential campaign on the horizon. Lew Rockwell has also adopted a daughter originally from China. Not the sort of a thing that someone with racist tendencies is going to do.

My verdict: not guilty.

Racism is a form of collectivism which divides people into groups-the exact opposite of libertarianism which espouses individual liberty. The smear was preposterous-even the New York Times retracted. Politics is a dirty disgusting evil outgrowth of Govt. Nice to see someone riding in on a White Horse!!. Our Man Ron!!

Government is supposed to protect our freedom, our property, our privacy, not invade it. Ron Paul 2007

This is not exactly on point, but I did not want to clutter things with a new topic. I think this video is relatively new. I don't think it was linked to any of the big RP sites so I thought I would toss it out here:

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

raised on MLK day, By Jan 22 at midnight. Thousands of people, donating $125.00 each, the largest political fundraiser in history, in the name of freedom, prosperity, and peace for ALL people. Tell them THAT! See these videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBC8nc-1r0k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDRA3XFfDr4

We WILL BE FREE AT LAST!

Promoted in meetups across the country and by
http://ronpaulroadshow.org

Donate at:
https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/

should be the biggest fund raising day for http://freeatlast2008.com/ that Ron Paul had yet. MLK was an inspiration to many people for individual rights, and in his honor we should donate as much as we can for the only person still spreading his message.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EjVQ7X2l4jc
A feel good video that will make us all believe, Free At Last !

Great article exonerating Ron.

"I'm Mexican-American,I worked for Ron Paul in the 90’s, and I Know that Ron Paul is No Racist!"
http://digg.com/politics/I_m_Mexican_American_I_worked_for_R...

My response is that Ron Paul has already addressed the issue. He did not write those words.

While we are on the subject of racism and promoting hatred, I think this is a good time to point out that the typical politician and his lackies in the media are the greatest purveyors of hatred. It is our politicians, not a statesman like Ron Paul, who constantly put people into groups. They promise to advance the cause of a particular group at the expense of the rest. They create programs like "Affirmative Action", which is based on the idea of the rights of the group, not the individual. They promote "Multiculturalism and Diversity" to accentuate the differences between us, rather than what we all have in common. I was always taught that in unity there is strength. Agains, it's Divide and Conquer.

I find it interesting that at the federal level, we have a Civil Rights Commisson. In my opinion, a name change is in order. The Commission should be called the Commission of Racial Affairs, or the Commission of Group Rights. It has little to do with civil rights. The fact is, our politicians are working very hard to abolish our civil rights. The Second Amendment has been under attack for almost fifty years. The First Amendment has been turned upside down by the Supreme Court. According to the Court, the First Amendment restricts the rights of the people. In fact, the entire Bill of Rights places all restrictions on the state, and none on the people.

The Fourth and Fifth Amendments have been gutted by our politicians in order to "protect us from terrorism", the terrorism that our politicians have brought on us. It is our politicians who are promoting hatred and violating our civil rights. Ron Pau is bringing all people together, and trying to restore our civil rights. Ron Paul voted against the Patriot Act, and all the rest of the police state measures.

Maybe we should create a commercial like this:

A grassroots commercial sponsored by Hispanics, Blacks, Jews, Gays, and any other minority group showing support for Dr. Ron Paul especially supporters in his own district. Or maybe even people that he cared for when he was a practicing MD.