NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Sunday, January 13, 2008

Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.

Linder joined Alex Jones for two segments on his KLBJ Sunday show this evening, during which he commented on the controversy created by media hit pieces that attempted to tarnish Paul as a racist by making him culpable for decades old newsletter articles written by other people.

"Knowing Ron Paul's intent, I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue I think it's very easy for folks who want to to take his position out of context and that's what I'm hearing," said Linder.

Continue here, with mp3 interview

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I'm sad, because Wesley

I'm sad, because Wesley Snipes' tax case, which is of great interest but only indirect relevance to the Paul campaign, has more responses than this, which directly and convincingly refutes the worst smear against Paul to date. :-(

Liberty for Dummies

"outing" anyone smells like

"outing" anyone smells like a Stalinist tactic to me. There is no such thing as "thought crime", no matter how atrocious the "thought" is. Ron Paul is doing the right thing. And how did anyone connect this to Rockwell? Not his writing style.

In a nutshell, this is a

In a nutshell, this is a case of neolibertarians against paleolibertarians. There's an interesting discussion here -- a rather frightening example of the fracture within the movement.

I'm not sure which is more damaging: the potentially hurtful comments that may arise from a total disregard of political correctness, or strict and unquestioning adherence to that stifling method of thought control. But I know which one better represents what Jefferson meant when he said: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

Liberty for Dummies


This is HUGE! Yeah, baby! Thanks to Mr. Linder for his moral fortitude.

Please Digg this!

Signature: Individual Liberty for Newbies (Pass it on!)


I dugg this. It could use more. This is very good for RP, the folks he supposedly talked about, tell the truth. Truth prevails!


Ron Paul said...

...he Honestly doesn't know who wrote or edited those newsletters, And I believe him.

I can see how Kirchick has taken what was

printed out of context. If Kirchick wanted to come off as creditable he should have printed all the articles he was referring to. And not just cherry pick the parts that would support what he was trying to do.

Kirchick not only wanted to paint Ron Paul as a bigot, but a kook as well. This writer goes into much more than what was printed in the newsletter. He does this, in order, to boast his claims that Ron Paul and all those he associates with are racists.

Stating that Ron Paul believed that the upcoming financial crisis facing our country could lead to riots in the streets.

Well, duh. Just what does Kirchick think the majority of people, both black and white, will do when they have nothing. When their children are starving.

This article has completely distorted what Ron Paul is all about. With it’s innuendos and half truths.

But then, isn't that what character assassins are paid to do. I hope Kirchick was paid well for his soul, since we can see by this article he no longer has one.

Kirchick = Yale Bonesman

Need we say more?

Jane Aitken, 35-Year Veteran Teacher
Ron Paul 2008 Consultant
GOP Woman of the Year 2009
Founder NH Tea Party Coalition (NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY FAKE 2009 GROUP)
Founder USPEINetwork @ Yahoo (Nat'l Edu Activism Group)
Board Coalition of NH Taxpayers

Seriously consider the ramifications

Those who think this whole racism thing would just go away if Dr. Paul exposes the author of those articles, think again. We are, after all, talking about the mainstream media. If you give them nothing, they can only do so much to spin it. It's a fallacy of argument from silence and that's it.

But you give them a name, especially if one whose relationship with Dr. Paul is significant, you give them something to work with. For example, if Lew Rockwell is the one who wrote the article, or knowingly allowed it, the media will spin it where Dr. Paul will be guilty by association since his ties with Lew are very close. They're already trying to do that with that Stormfront guy, but if it was Lew, the ramifications would be much worse for Dr. Paul. Not only for Dr. Paul, but also for libertarians in general. The media would have a field day.

Let's not have doubts about Dr. Paul's decision to keep quiet about the real guilty party. He has his reasons for doing so, whether we agree with it or not, but we have to give him the benefit of the doubt that he is doing this with a lot of wisdom. What some supporters may gain with a "peace of mind" knowing, or what outsiders may gain in clarity, the mainstream media may gain a lot more fodder for ammunition against Dr. Paul and libertarianism.

So, seriously, consider the ramifications and be careful for what you are asking. In this chess game, you can go "huh?" all you want when your favorite makes the strangest moves, but you certainly don't want him to shout out his strategy for his enemies to hear.

I agree. However, if Rockwell is the one, then Ron Paul

should ask him and anyone else on his staff who were involved with the running of that newsletter to resign.

Look how fast other candidates get rid of those who would bring down their campaign, They are gone in a New York minute.

I am extremely upset that Ron Paul didn't do better in NH and I believe this is one of the main reasons.

If he had put this to rest years ago and distance himself from those who who responsible, this never would have become an issue in this election... I think that's what I'm most upset about.

Ron Paul is a smart person, this has been used against him in the past, did he not think that it wouldn't come up again?

And if Rockwell was involved and Dr. Paul brought him on board his campaign... that would not only be the height of stupidity, but arrogance as well.

So you may be right, Ron Paul may very well have put himself between a rock and a hard place.

Nah, not really.

I'm pretty sure Dr. Paul knows who the perpetrator/perpertrators is/are, and if they are who I've heard and think he/she/they is/are(and I'm not saying without any hard proof, so don't bother asking), then his silence is out of loyalty.

But there is a tactical reason why as well. Right now the gist of the situation is that a muckracker is reporting a bunch of decade-old quotes that have no confirmed direct link to Dr. Paul, quotes that are old news to his district constituents and long debunked, and the reuslt is a bunch of fading guilt-by-association and nothing more. After tomorrow's Michigan primary the Short Attention Span Theater will have forgotten about it and instead focus on Dr. Paul's "allotted" 8% in that primary. But if Dr. Paul outs the person/people now, then the non-story, already dying, becomes resusicated and it will bring more negative publicity. In other words, the strategy is to let sleeping dogs lie, and then the muckrackers who still complain about it wind up just looking like foolish blowhards, and that's what they deserve for their yellow journalism.

And remember something else, if the perpetrator/perpetrators is/are still on the campaign, then it is possible that he/she/they has/have changed tunes over the years. There's no political rule that says that views have to be etched in stone back in the 90s. Heck, even Dr. Paul changed his view on capital punishment back at the PBS debate...
"Welcome to 2008: The Year of Ron Paul!"

And that would accomplish....?

You say you agree, yet my point is not to out the person because of the possible ramifications. What makes you believe that asking anyone to resign is not outing those involved? Again, you, I and everyone else do not understand the extent of the damage that could be done if this person is outed. If MSM would even get whiff that there is a major restructuring in Dr. Paul's staff, you can surely bet that would be spun so wildly that would make the campaign unsalvagable.

Be a chess player in this. Think several moves ahead, not just what would be good for the here and now. Again, trust in Dr. Paul's wisdom.

He doesn't have to out the

He doesn't have to out the person or persons, he just has to do what he should have done years ago... distance himself from those who were responsible. No fanfare... just have them resign.

And as far as restructuring goes, many already believe that would be a good thing. Especially, after NH.

Speaking of chess and next moves, do you really think the elites and the Old Media are that stupid as to not know who was running that newsletter and wrote those articles?

And if Ron Paul has any of them working in his campaign today, don't you think they are waiting for the most opportune time to spring that little surprise?

They could have sprung this newletter thing a lot earlier. Russert could have brought it up in his interview with Dr. Paul. But no, they waited... waited until the day of the NH primary.

So I wouldn't underestimate what they already know and when they will be bringing it up.

What does the MSM know?

Interesting scenario you bring up, but an odd one. If they already know the details of who, why keep it hush for later? Is it to bring up our hopes so that they can have the satisfaction of dashing them to bits? Sadistic, yes, and I wouldn't past the MSM, but if the goal is to stop the Dr. Paul and the movement, it'd be better to bring this information out and nip it all in the bud, rather than letting it build en masse.

But then again, it's not for me to estimate the moves, but for the campaign to do so. They are the ones who are in control of the information, so the decision is left in their hands. At best, we are armchair staffers judging only what information we do have. If we had the information, then we could judge better.

So, does one trust in Dr. Paul and his wisdom on how to act on the information he has, or do we go on calling out for Dr. Paul to do something that would satisfy us, but may bring about a worse situation?

I vote trust

Timing is everything in politics. I'll be surprised if Dr Paul doesn't have some more cards to play when dealing with the smear.

I see no reason why the smear campaign can't be used to advantage. Think about it, the man with the best policies for blacks is supposed to be the racist! The man who is going to pardon thousands of non-violent blacks who are in jail for possession of drugs!

There needs to be a national debate on race imo.

I agree and one of the things he could do is get

a renoun forensic expert to compare Dr. Paul's actually writings against those that were written in the newlsetter.

If forensic experts are good enough for the courts and law enforcement to include or exclude a persons style of writing in a court case. It should be good enough for Ron Paul to prove his innocence in the court of public opinion. It has been proven that people have a distinct way of wording things and it shows up in their writings.

The only draw back would be that you could end up with dueling experts, just like in a court of law. However, if Ron Paul's expert were the top in the field of analyzing writing style, then I would think his would be more believable when coupled with the support of people who know Dr. Paul is no bigot and/or kook.


What if no one involved is on staff? But even if there are some and they resign with no fanfare, how would those who want to know names involved ever be satisfied? You are still at square 1 and nothing is resolved for those who want those involved outed if nothing is ever announced. Heck, if there is no fanfare, how do we know that Dr. Paul hasn't already had them resigned?

As far as I know, Lew is a supporter and I think (someone else could probably confirm this) a consultant, but not on staff. If Lew was let go as a consultant, don't you think the MSM wouldn't look into something like that?

Lew, who features Dr. Paul on his website, president of the Mises Institute, prominent figure in libertarian circles, and a long-time influential supporter of Dr. Paul in previous campaigns, is suddenly let go as a consultant? This would be an incredible red flag for the MSM. And even if they couldn't make connections they'd like to make, they'd certainly spin it to make it look like Dr. Paul's campaign is in such dire straits as to dismiss someone of Lew's stature.

And what if it isn't Lew? What if it is a close relative? Even if he has been disassociated with, in this hypothetical, this close relative, the media would still have a field day. They'd spin the blood ties into a bloodbath.

I just wish people would be more realistic, than naive.

If any of your scenarios are true or even close to being true, Ron Paul does have to out anyone.

The elites and the Old Media will do it for him, when they think the time is right.

This is why he needs to beat them to it, if he has any of these people in his campaign. The reasons he could use for restructuring could be his poor showing in NH.

This is the biggest challenge to the campaign so far!

This is an issue that needs to be clarified and addressed or it will kill the campaign. If people are still convinced that he is responsible for the language of those newsletters, all is lost. If this is the best he and his advisers can do regarding these newsletters, they are truly out of touch. This associaiton with racist language and ideologies is a poison pill and most people will distance themselves from him. It has made things more difficult tenfold in passing his message on, if not impossible. This leader of the NAACP need to come out on tour and reassure people that Ron Paul is not a bigot and is interested in the plight of the black community and its specific challenges.

Now this is the best idea I've

heard yet. However, based on the campaign staff's track record... don't hold your breath.

Aren't they the authority on

Aren't they the authority on who is racist and is not? From the mainstream media's point of view, how much more credible does one get than the NAACP?

It would be great if this one leader had issued a press release,

in order to go mainstrem. Instead of only being reported by Alex Jones's Prison Planet.

If doesn't even come up on a google news search, so what good is it, if it's not picked by the Old Media?

the people most interested in who wrote newsletters..

seem to be "supporters".
It's irrelevant! And the comparison to Nixon is just plain idiotic. There was a crime involved there.

"Make fun, buddy" ~ Ron Paul to Mitt Romney (on behalf of the American people who are tired of being stolen from and lied to) at fauxnewz debate-Jan 10, 2008
(google Murray Sabrin)

You are naive, if you don't believe that many black people

view what was said in those newsletters are a crime... a hate crime.

Wake up and smell the coffee, this is not going away, no matter how much Ron Paul and we supporters what it to.

I wouldn't say his supporters are the most interested, just watch CNN, MSNBC, Faux, they are very interested and keep bringing it up. Right now, Ron Paul has dropped off their radar. However, the minute he surfaces again, don't doubt for a minute that this won't be front and center on all the reports involving Dr. Paul.

This will not die until those who are responsible are exposed. And I, like many others believe he knows who they are and is covering up for them, for whatever reason.

In case you don't remember it was the cover-up that brought down Nixon.

view what was said in those

"view what was said in those newsletters are a crime... a hate crime."

Thanks Orwell.

Maybe this is why our country is where it is today...

too many people who are unwilling to face or believe what's right in front of them?

If Ron Paul is covering up for Rockwell...

in my opinion he needs to stop it. The American people do not want another Nixon like president. Someone who may not have been in on the crime, but covered up for those who were.

If Rockwell was the one and is not willing to come forward, than Dr. Paul needs to expose him, himself.

This cover-up is not a noble thing that Dr. Paul is doing.

Donations are way down, Ron Paul's name his disappeared from the Old Media, he needs to clear this up once and for all, in order to move on or his campaign is...

You don't know half of it

You need to research the subject a little bit more before you reach to conclusions. The conclusion you're currently bringing forward is not only incorrect, it is foolish in its consequences.

The AP should be reporting this.

So far on a Google search it's just showing on blogs, nothing under news.

wait a minute...lew rockwell

wait a minute...lew rockwell is responsible for the newsletters? This is the first I've heard of this.

If this is true Ron Paul needs to

dump Rockwell ASAP, before he brings down the whole campaign, he also needs to dump anyone else on his staff who were remotely involved with the running of that newsletter..

Not the first time for me

I've been snooping around and it seems like either Rockwell or someone working under him put those articles out there.



Open Letter from Former RP Chief of Staff

This Open Letter is on a website that is owned by Sean Gerety, who says he is a co-author of a book with John Robbins.

Open Letter To Lew Rockwell - From John Robbins
Posted January 12, 2008 by Sean Gerety

Dear Lew,

You have now had three opportunities –1996, 2001, and 2008 — to prove that you are a friend of Ron Paul and freedom, and you have failed to do so each time.

This week, for the third time, the puerile, racist, and completely un-Pauline comments that all informed people say you have caused to appear in Ron’s newsletters over the course of several years have become an issue in his campaign. This time the stakes are even higher than before. He is seeking nationwide office, the Republican nomination for President, and his campaign is attracting millions of supporters, not tens of thousands.

Three times you have failed to come forward and admit responsibility for and complicity in the scandals. You have allowed Ron to twist slowly in the wind. Because of your silence, Ron has been forced to issue repeated statements of denial, to answer repeated questions in multiple interviews, and to be embarrassed on national television. Your callous disregard for both Ron and his millions of supporters is unconscionable.

If you were Dr. Paul’s friend, or a friend of freedom, as you pretend to be, by now you would have stepped forward, assumed responsibility for those asinine and harmful comments, resigned from any connection to Ron or his campaign, and relieved Ron of the burden of having to repeatedly deny the charges of racism. But you have not done so, and so the scandal continues to detract from Ron’s message.

You know as well as I do that Ron does not have a racist bone in his body, yet those racist remarks went out under his name, not yours. Pretty clever. But now it’s time to man up, Lew. Admit your role, and exonerate Ron. You should have done it years ago.

John Robbins, Ph.D.
Chief of Staff
Dr. Ron Paul, 1981-1985


RON PAUL 2008 Jazzloversinc

RON PAUL 2008 Jazzloversinc

Glad this was posted here!

It also needs to get out to all news outlets ASAP!. Dr. Paul should cite it everytime the question comes up.


Ron Paul is concealing the identity of the bigot who used his newsletter to tell some 'N' jokes.

I have convinced some close friends to support Ron Paul. They were upset when they saw the CNN interview. I can only imagine the effect on those who gained a spark of interest in his candidacy and don't have anyone around to reassure them that RP really is a good man.

Famous Quote from Justice William O. Douglas

"The Constitution is not neutral.
It was designed to take the government
off the backs of people."

Famous Quote from Justice William O. Douglas

"The Constitution is not neutral.
It was designed to take the government
off the backs of people."