Home / Culture and Society / A Quick Investigation into Ron Paul’s Racist Writings: Did He Actually Write Them?

A Quick Investigation into Ron Paul’s Racist Writings: Did He Actually Write Them?

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+2Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Ron Paul can do no wrong. At least, that’s what I’m seeing in the replies to other Blogcritics articles. There are some who are absolutely sure that Ron Paul had nothing whatsoever to do with those racist newsletters (photocopies here; they’re very interesting reading). So let’s first examine the known facts, the possibilities, and then let’s examine the proof. For all those who are absolutely sure that Ron Paul is completely innocent, at least do yourselves the favor of reading this whole article before replying. The known facts:

1 – Ron Paul’s newsletters came out under at least three different names, but have been published mostly on a monthly basis since 1978.

2 – The racist newsletter articles in question were written over a five-year period, from 1989 to 1994.

The possibilities:

1 – Ron Paul wrote the articles in Ron Paul’s newsletter.

2 – A ghostwriter for Ron Paul wrote the articles in Ron Paul’s newsletter (and Ron Paul either knew or did not know about what the ghostwriter wrote).

3 – Ron Paul was in no way associated with Ron Paul’s newsletter and couldn’t have written the articles.

In a 2008 interview with CNN, Mr. Paul flatly denied writing those articles in his newsletter, he denied knowing who wrote them, and CNN was told by a Paul spokesman that the Paul campaign would not try to find out who wrote them.

In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly, Ron Paul stated that his campaign staff told him that “it would have been too confusing” to come right out and say that he didn’t write any of those articles.

The proof:

So far it all looks rather harmless, if confusingly so, right? But the Libertarian site reason.com points out what was published in 1996:

The Dallas Morning News:

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation…In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men. “If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said. He also said the comment about black men in the nation’s capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.

The Houston Chronicle:

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of “current events and statistical reports of the time.”…Paul also wrote that although “we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.” A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.

The Austin American-Statesman:

“Dr. Paul is being quoted out of context,” [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said. “It’s like picking up War and Peace and reading the fourth paragraph on Page 481 and thinking you can understand what’s going on.”… Also in 1992, Paul wrote, “Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions.” Sullivan said Paul does not consider people who disagree with him to be sensible. And most blacks, Sullivan said, do not share Paul’s views. The issue is political philosophy, not race, Sullivan said. “Polls show that only about 5 percent of people with dark-colored skin support the free market, a laissez faire economy, an end to welfare and to affirmative action,” Sullivan said. 

The Washington Post:

Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles “Lefty” Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context. “Instead of talking about the issues, our opponent has chosen to lie and try to deceive the people of the 14th District,” said Paul spokesman Michael Sullivan, who added that the excerpts were written during the Los Angeles riots when “Jesse Jackson was making the same comments.”

Roll Call:

In a statement, Paul said he had “labored to conduct a campaign based upon the issues that are vital to our nation” and charged Morris with “repeated attempts…to reduce the campaign to name calling and race-baiting.” He called Morris’s request that he release all back issues of the newsletter “not only impractical, but…equivalent to asking him to provide documents for every lawsuit he has been involved in during his lengthy legal career.” Of his statements about Jordan, Paul said that “such opinions represented our clear philosophical difference. The causes she so strongly advocated were for more government, more and more regulations, and more and more taxes. My cause has been almost exactly the opposite, and I believe her positions to have been fundamentally wrong: I’ve fought for less and less intrusive government, fewer regulations, and lower taxes.”

When Ron Paul was asked by several newspapers about the racist newsletter articles in 1996, he did not deny writing them, and it’s quite apparent that his staff thought he wrote them, too.

So it boils down to this: either Ron Paul had no idea what was being written in his newsletter over a five-year period, and when he was asked about it by the newspapers, he chose not to deny that he wrote them and deliberately allowed his staff to believe that he wrote them, or Ron Paul wrote those articles in his newsletter and then later realized that by exposing his own racism, he might well cost himself any real chance at the White House.

Lastly, I’d like to refer Ron Paul supporters to a real liberatarian, Dave Nalle, head of the Republican Liberty Caucus, who had this to say about Ron Paul:

[Ron Paul is] an inflexible ideologue who subscribes to a variety of extremist views which would make a terrible basis for national policy. His interpretation of the Constitution is highly selective. He seems not to recognize terms like “public welfare” and “common good” and rejects the long history of constitutional scholarship and jurisprudence on which most law is based. His understanding of the economy is based on fringe economic theories which most serious economists do not consider credible. As for foreign policy, it’s an area in which Paul has no experience at all and his foreign policy would basically amount to isolationism which would have disastrous economic and political repercussions.

[Ron Paul supporters] completely overlook Paul’s support for the reactionary conspiracy nuts at the John Birch Society and the reprehensible 9/11 Truth movement or the fact that he raises money on white supremacist websites and has the endorsement of racist leaders like former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke, White Aryan leader Tom Metzger and Stormfront Fuhrer Don Black.

I should note here that I owe Dave Nalle an apology: I accused him repeatedly of being a Ron Paul supporter, and I was obviously wrong. That said, Mr. Nalle and I agree on very little, but we’re apparently in complete agreement that a Ron Paul presidency would be a very, very bad thing for America, and that if Ron Paul’s not a racist, he’s certainly doing his level best to make us think that he is!

Powered by

About Glenn Contrarian

White. Male. Raised in the deepest of the Deep South. Retired Navy. Strong Christian. Proud Liberal. Thus, Contrarian!
  • Reisa Gerber

    Hello…I read some nonsense on an informative site that a man I do not and do not care to know, has quoted that “…I hate the rich… tra la la.. I was also labelled a racsist… and that means I have to sit down at the darn computer at a quarter to nine and correct thet nothing I did that makes this a falsehood… but I can see the source and I do understand this nonsense… so I have to reply.

    First of all, I wrote a song which was supposed to be a satire… called “aint that afroamerica” meant to be a sweetheart love letter to my sister, Bless her, who minored in afroamerican studies in princeton way back in 1980… I don’t see the need to further inquiry into her life…

    Secondly, who is ron paul, for goodness sakes? And believe me… that is that… do I have to throw the final punch? I clearly support
    president obama and while I certainly support him/check it out… I love money!!!

  • Dr. D: “[Paul] would certainly be a different sort of president, but he would be working with the same old Washington.”

    A different sort of electorate is emerging, and if it decides to put a different sort of president in office, it will in all likelihood be electing a different sort of Congress as well.

    The Democrats will be defending 23 senatorial seats in ’12; the Republicans, ten.

  • From my outsider perspective, Ron Paul is the only candidate that even begins to make sense, although he is only the best of a bad bunch and there is not a single candidate to actually get enthusiastic about.

    Everybody has prejudices; I myself, in addition to not liking faithists, French or the French, don’t much care for redheads or the Welsh.

    It is how one acts that matters though and acting out of prejudice is bad. I don’t allow my prejudices to get the better of me – and, yes, I even have church-going red-headed Welsh friends and relatives!

  • Glenn:

    Again, the beliefs about race that Ron Paul held, or may have actively or passively condoned, several decades ago are not necessarily those he holds now. People’s opinions change: your account of your own upbringing demonstrates that.

    As silly and naive as it may seem to you and me, all Paul is saying here is that a business should be free to decide who it does business with, just as you and I are free to decide who we invite into our homes. That’s just standard libertarian idealism. Reading any more than that into it is innuendo.

    As far as Paul himself is concerned, I’m pleased that he’s become (for the moment, anyway) one of the GOP front runners. It shows that at least some Republicans value principles over posturing. And I do agree with a lot of his positions, especially on social issues.

    That said, a Ron Paul White House would be a disaster. He lacks pragmatism. He would certainly be a different sort of president, but he would be working with the same old Washington. There’s no way Congress would countenance most of what he wants to do (or undo), and no way he would sign most of the bills Congress passes.

    If you think DC is gridlocked now, just wait…

  • Honestly, Glenn, your reading comprehension is terrible.

    “Show me anywhere that I’ve ever accused Paul of being a homophobe. You can’t.”

    Show me anywhere that I’ve ever accused you of accusing Paul of being a homophobe. You can’t.

    What I responded to was you claim that you were going to ignore the charge of Paul’s alleged homophobia, but pointing out you are ignoring is the opposite of ignoring it. You are recognized it and drew attention to it. Do you not know what the word “ignore” means?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    El B –

    Show me anywhere that I’ve ever accused Paul of being a homophobe.

    You can’t.

    Racist, yes, but until I see more evidence, you’ll never see me call him a homophobe.

  • “Since that’s only ONE person making the accusation, I will ignore it.”

    And yet you didn’t ignore as even you can plainly see. How utterly disingenuous.

    I heard Glenn was an enemy of democracy, but since there’s only ONE person making the accusation, I will ignore it. (See how it works?)

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc –

    It means no such thing. All my post means is that something nice that Paul did for somebody black does NOT mean he wasn’t racist. After all, Abraham Lincoln was by today’s standards quite racist, and he did something really nice for the blacks.

    What gets me is that

    1) he claims he never wrote them, but he refuses to say who did, and

    2) his political staff at the time that the newspaper first exposed his writing (according to proof that I gave somewhere in this thread if not in the article itself) certainly thought Paul agreed with the racist remarks, and

    3) when this matter was first brought up in the 1990’s, Paul did not deny them at all.

    When all this is considered, it doesn’t take much to draw a line directly from what was written in HIS newsletter to his belief that businesses have a right to discriminate due to race…

    …and if you’ve been paying attention to the news, one of his former aides (named ‘Dondero’, I think) related a story of Paul’s homophobia. But you know what? Since that’s only ONE person making the accusation, I will ignore it. But what I can’t ignore is the evidence of his racism that I’ve pointed out to you in this comment, for it directly involves not only his newsletter but also his staff.

  • Glenn, by your logic, that would also make Ron Paul a xenophobe, a religious bigot and a homophobe.

    It is, you may be surprised to learn, possible to believe that someone should be allowed to act like a complete tit without condoning their completetittedness.

    As I understand it, the thinking is that such behaviour will eventually lose the bigoted entrepreneur so much business that he’ll stop doing it. It’s essentially the same as saying, sure, Mr Corner Store Druggist, go ahead and be an arsehole and charge $30 a pop for toothbrushes if you want, but don’t be surprised if everyone stops shopping with you and buys them at CVS instead where they’re $3.99.

    No, Adrian’s anecdote doesn’t prove that Paul isn’t a racist (after all, some of his best friends might be black too), but neither do his opinions on civil rights legislation as it relates to commerce prove the opposite.

    It’s about as feeble as taking a few racist articles that may or may not have appeared in 30-40 year old newsletters that may or may not have been approved by the man himself as proof of Paul’s opinions on race now.

    Sorry, not buying it.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Adrian –

    That does not mean that Paul isn’t racist. I was raised racist in the MS Delta, and my whole family was racist, but we still gladly shared food from our garden with the blacks and talked to them and laughed with them…

    …and then when they walked away, we’d start the n-word jokes.

    No, Paul is racist. That is the reason why he believes that all businesses have a right to discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. All the libertarian label does is ‘legitimize’ his racism.

  • adrian

    Just when you thought Ron Paul was racist…

    In this ad by RevolutionPac, James Williams of Matagorda County, Texas recounts a touching true story. Living in a still prejudice Texas In 1972, his wife had a complication with her pregnancy. No doctors would care for her or deliver their bi-racial child. In fact one of the hospital nurses called the police on James.

    Dr. Ron Paul was notified and took her in, delivering their stillborn baby. Because of the compassion of Dr. Ron Paul, the Williams’ never received a hospital bill for the delivery.

    Ron Paul views every human being as an unique individual, afforded the rights endowed by our creator and codified in the Bill of Rights.

  • Gedas

    Story of Ron Paul’s racism is designed for the weak-minded people to lead them astray…

  • Hovy

    reprehensible 9/11 Truth movement? This “liberatarian” Dave Nalle could find himself in a asswhooping using those choice words to the families of the victims who take that very seriously.

  • Igor

    It has nothing to do with copyright laws.

    There are many people struggling against copyright abuse (notably, many software developers) and still protecting their work.

  • Ron Paul hates Copyright laws so he never did so to his newsletter. This is the end result.

  • Rusty

    Paul-ites can’t take it when their hero is shown up to be the racist coward that he is – if ANYONE else ducked press questions with “I’m too busy to find out” they wouldn’t take it, but now they fall all over themselves to explain away.

  • Igor

    I cannot understand why Ron Paul failed to denounce and stop the racist stuff that was said in his name.

    In the Bush administration a guy named Cooney (political crony of the Bush administration and spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute) CHANGED some papers from scientists, pre-publication, and thus changed what it appeared that the scientists had said! Cooney forgeriesThat’s forgery.

    The scientists blew the whistle on the crook. Why can’t Paul blow the whistle on people who lied in his name?

  • AussieSpectator

    What garbage… Ron Paul 2012! He deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.

  • ED

    It looks to me like this nalle guy is the real boob. He needs to go back to the libeeral side that I`m sure he really believes is, and let RON PAUL do what I believe he was destined to do, whick is lead our country out of the mess the dems, and socialist liberals have gotten us into

  • AnonRRealist

    Sadly, race realism is considered “racist,” regardless of truth. It’s the reason why we talk about “bad neighborhoods” and “bad public schools” as euphemisms. Detroit is said to be a destroyed and dangerous city because of “liberal policy” when it is inhabited by 81% “bad” type of people. While Sweden is much more liberal and heaven in comparison.

    Ron Paul will never be elected nationally because he has Eyes That Can See (or did, when the newsletters were written).

  • Daniel Knight: “True C.???” You decide.
    If C stands for caricature, I’ll vote yes.

  • “… Christians aren’t supposed to make out any document superior to the Bible being that it’s God’s word.”

    Sez who?

    I’m guessing Daniel missed Sunday school the day they did the bit about rendering unto Caesar.

  • Ted Lindbeck

    I lived and worked in Black Seattle for 13 years, and know the deep moral/spiritual/cultural divide that separates me from the large majority of black people. It is not a racial thing, it’s a theological/philosophical/moral separation, and the black community cohesiveness DEMANDS that you buy these bad outlooks or be shunned….most cave in.

  • Igor

    Is this guy an intentional caricature?

    226 – Daniel Knight

    “First of all, as a true Christian,…”

    Oh, really? Sez who? Or is this your self-appraisal? In which case you really look like a true braggart more than a ‘true Christian’.

    “… I’m allowed to judge Ron,…”

    Yeah, sure. Just as ANYONE is allowed to judge Ron, especially if he’s running for public office. In fact it’s the duty of every citizen to judge Ron.

    “… because he also claims to be one.”

    So what? If he’s running for PUBLIC office then everyone is entitled to judge Ron.

    “… The Bible says Christians are to do so (to other true Christians) without condemning.”

    Do you guys (who brag to being true Christians) keep a membership roll, or something?

    “… I don’t know if Paul is a true C, but that he endorses the Constitution over the Bible makes him suspect.”

    I’m sure that’s a big relief to Loyal Americans who are glad to hear that the supreme law of the land still applies.

    “… Christians aren’t supposed to make out any document superior to the Bible being that it’s God’s word.”

    Sez who?

  • Norma

    I don’t believe Dr Paul has a hateful thought for anyone let alone for anyone kind of people.
    Ron Paul loves America and wants to see us all free again. You Mr Contrarin I find you very contrary to to the principle of Restoring America and restoring fairness to our country. I find your motives for writing this suspect. As for Conservative Byte making it the story of the day. They have just lost any credibility they may have had with me.

  • bobp

    My biggest disagreement with ROn Paul is his support for releasing drug criminals.

  • Sterno

    Notice how these newsletters are *never* shown so that we might gain some much needed context?

    After all, I’ve seen Paul branded a racist for opposing the Civil Rights Act. You have to actually *study* his position to realize that it is not a racist stance.

    I’ve received Paul’s newsletter since the late 80’s, and while admittedly I did not comb over every sentence for a racist gotcha, nothing ever jumped out as overtly racist, either.

  • First of all, as a true Christian, I’m allowed to judge Ron, because he also claims to be one. The Bible says Christians are to do so (to other true Christians) without condemning. I don’t know if Paul is a true C, but that he endorses the Constitution over the Bible makes him suspect. Christians aren’t supposed to make out any document superior to the Bible being that it’s God’s word. Now that that is out of the way, I can’t finding anything racist about what Paul says, and donations come from corrupt people often anyways, that one came from a known racist group makes no difference, so long as it isn’t a bribe. However, I just read up on the Jim crow laws, and his supposedly saying he wouldn’t have voted against them would be immoral, not because I don’t believe that A CULTURE can be bad, or even that depending on your DNA you can be more prone to behave one way over another, but because there’s no evidence that blacks in America are inherently worse than whites. It can easily be argued that, if they do commit a higher percentage of crimes, it’s because of the disadvantage they had from the start, and the racist campaign Margaret Sanger carried out against them. In the Bible, Japeth is said to be the fairer race, a kind of hint that they are the most beautiful. I have no problem with that and I’m barely white. Everyone knows that the more beautiful person (unless their bad personality is too offensive to deal with) gets better treatment in general, or rather, are favored, although there are some exceptions, for example a beautiful blonde might be stereotyped as being dumber than some young Asian with black hair and plain eyeglasses on. Do you get where I’m going? So looks is another factor that disadvantages blacks. The same is true for masses of Chinese. A huge amount of them live in poverty. Ron, IF he believes in the Jim Crow laws, hasn’t taken in to consideration these things. Also, I noticed he wouldn’t say whether or not he believed in evolution. IF he believes in the JC laws, it would indicate to me that he leans towards evolution, believing that blacks are inferior in evolutionary development. For those who don’t know by the way, Asians are apart of the line of Japeth, they aren’t Semites or Hamites. As for culture, yeah, obviously blacks are inferior. I even heard it from a black woman herself in that she said she didn’t understand why rich black women, famous ones, were always hooking up with evil black men. That they do that will have a bad influence on other black women. In the Bible, Cretans were said to be “all liars”, it was acknowledged as true. Whether or not that’s still the case I don’t know. Oh and, I’ve had plenty of experiences with blacks, even someone who seemed to be the best of them was unfriendly, and friendly ones are rare. However, in these last days, most people seem to me to be corrupt and weak staffs. Whites may be friendlier, but I find they sour my experience with them with their ignorance. Ignorance makes all the races equal, blacks may a be a little more brutish, but what difference does it make in the end: most of the world will end up in Hell, and only a few will be saved, and God saves the poor and needy, and sinners.” Consider also that homosexuals are among the worst groups in the Bible, perhaps those having sex with animals being even lower (and perhaps, though it doesn’t say, those who have sex with inanimate objects being lower still). But does that mean that Christians should not help or shy away from them and instead spend more time preaching to non-homosexuals because, “they are less bad in general”? No way: Christ suffered and died for sinners, even for murderers, child abusers, prostitutes and rapists. Nothing in the Bible says, “Do not preach to the wicked”. The only thing it says concerning that is to not contemptuously give valuable things to “pigs” and “dogs”, meaning, those with poor self control, and those who react violently. I’m not going to direct my preaching only at two strains of humans and cower away from blacks because they might be more likely to chase me for saying, “Jesus be praised. Even if Paul has a tinge of racism, the Mormons are WAY more racist in general. And that I know from experience since I listened to younger members in secret, talking about their hatred for blacks, and one even told me she was racist. So can Romney be trusted? As for Newt Grinch, the Bible disqualifies him three times because he couldn’t manage his family. In the Bible, no one is allowed to be a pastor or bishop who can’t manage their family well. And Newt has divorced three times. How many times has Ron Paul divorced? And remember what the Bible says about divorce? It says God hates it. Further, Mormons follow and worship a demonic dead narcissist who could hardly control himself and ended up dead in a gun battle, firing back at his enemies (so much for forgive your enemies and love them). So between a cultist and a man who can’t even manage his own family, I’d most likely choose Paul. Plus, Paul intends to stop us from wasting anymore money playing games in the Middle East. We DO need to protect our coasts from those intending to sneak attack us with an EMP weapon. We’re over extended. If someone tries to nuke us, no doubt our military will nuke them back. Also, I seriously doubt Ron is going to recall our military submarines. I don’t think he’s so dumb as to not keep watch over what Russia, China or Cuba is doing near their borders. But if not, it still isn’t a big deal to me, because China and Russia can already easily get to our coasts, and some think China already demonstrated that with that apparent missile that went onto California.

  • Mike

    Ron Paul has come out and stated that he has a moral responsibility for what was written in those articles in his name. I do not believe Ron Paul is racist. Based on what I have seen from the media between the ’08 election and now I would venture to guess that even if those statements were written by him (which I seriously doubt) they were taken out of context, not presented in their entirety or just flat out spun.

    He consistently speaks out against racism and supports positions that I believe would help end race classifications in this country and recognize individual liberty. Ron Paul has publicly stated that MLK and Rosa Parks are two of his heroes….The actions I have witnessed do not support this man being a racist.

  • Charles Evans

    The man record speaks for him. What else can one say? He has a right to his opinions, as repugnant as they may be. Futhermore, isn’t this expected of a bigot?

  • Lloyd

    This is the same unadulterated B.S. that comes up from the neoconservative right as well as the left every time Dr. Paul seeks political office. It’s completely unfounded, and here’s the proof.

  • tan

    So hate filled. Anyone have actual video proof that Ron Paul said these things or do we have to basically stick to summaries of non-cited articles? None of this sounds like Ron Paul to me and when I *read* that he didn’t deny saying these stupid things, I have to think, “Don’t believe everything you read”. It’s so sad the pro-establishment meme is so broadly believed. If THIS is your only exposure to Ron Paul… PLEASE listen to him first hand. Please choose your presidential candidate carefully; the Federal Reserve seems to have its hooks in several of them.

  • Jack Myswag

    Ron Paul admits to saying those things, which everybody thinks is racist. He just denies that they ARE racist things.

    Just like every other child molester does it. The recent Penn State case comes to mind “No, I didn’t think that seeing him naked with a little kid in showers, and hearing flapping sounds, meant that he was butt f@—ing the 10 year old, your honor …”

  • daPetty

    Proof Ron Paul is NO racist as he defends Martin Luther King, Jr. against the unconstitutional FBI investigations.

  • MN

    Request individuals to *think*, please.
    Let’s assume Ron Paul becomes the President; honestly speaking what are the chances that there will be any racially-prejudiced legislation or executive-orders? Heck, the guy wants to decrease government – he wants to CURB the power of the federal government. How could a weaker federal government issue diktats – let alone racially-prejudiced ones? It’s just pure common-sense.
    As the saying goes, “common sense is not so common”, after all.
    NOTE: I’m a native of India – not white, black. My skin color is dark-brown. Lest, someone might think it’s a white person supporting the KKK.

  • Quinn

    I’m sure the writers choice for president would be one of the paid for politicians in the George Soros, Koch brothers camp, lol. Great job they’ve done with the economy and making America safe since they’ve been pulling the strings, silly. (Guess who doesn’t support Ron Paul George Soros and the Koch Brothers, you know the globalists hell bent on turning America into a fascist police state?)How stupid do you think we are? Ron Paul 2012, the only real choice for real Americans.

  • Jessica

    I’m a Ron Paul supporter. Since the KKK supports him too, does that make me a racist by association? Is it impossible to think that people that don’t agree on social issues can agree on fiscal and foreign policy?

  • Brian

    It’s a desperate smear attempt on the part of the establishment. If RP is a racist present a video proving it. Don’t regurgitate 20 year old newspaper writings that have already been debunked countless times. So he has racists supporting him? He also has progressives, anarchists, and even Democrats supporting him. Just because people with a certain viewpoint endorse him does not mean he endorses their viewpoint. An ounce of common sense would tell you that.

  • Yes, priorities are the key, Glenn.

    You can intensify your focus on holding Obama’s feet to the fire (or the feet of the NEXT overtly or covertly neocon president) about the War on Drugs and about the lack of control over or even (ostensibly) knowledge of the illegal activities of all those federal agencies you are so fond of


    you can continue hyper-focusing on twenty-year old newsletters. I can assure you Glenn: Ron Paul is not out there campaigning and trying to raise popular awareness about issues no other candidate is talking about because he’s itching to get into office and see “no blacks allowed” posters plastered all over the South.

    I’m finally warming up to the idea of your interviewing folks from twenty “bona fide AA organizations.” Ask them which choice causes them more consternation: the escalation of the War on Drugs that incarcerates so many of them, or the prospect of being denied entrance to establishments owned by bigots? I’d be interested in hearing what you come up with.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Irene –

    1 – There’s every likelihood they didn’t know about it. There’s no way that the higher-ups will know everything that goes on in the several departments beneath – just like I sincerely doubt that Reagan knew that the aircraft carrier I was on hosted an air show for a Guatemalan (or was it Honduran) general who went home and took over his country the very next day.

    That said, none of this excuses Obama – he’s the guy in charge, and as I’ve said many, many times, the guy in charge gets all the credit, and all the blame.

    2 – In my opinion, the War on Drugs, as terrible as it is in every respect, cannot be seen as so important that we would elect someone who would not only end the War on Drugs but also allow businesses to have the right to discriminate for pretty much any reason they chose.

    Priorities, Irene. This would be like South Africa choosing an apartheid supporter so many years after rejecting apartheid, just because that apartheid supporter promises a more likely solution to South Africa’s drug problem.

    I will not take three steps back for one step forward.

  • Ah, Cannonshop just referenced “Operation Fast and Furious” on another thread. While we were on the subject of letters…Well, we’re off the subject of letters here, momentarily, aren’t we?… but since LETTERS have been of so much interest to Glenn for so long a time, I thought I’d re-introduce the topic.

    “Since the [Inspector General] is supposed to be conducting an independent inquiry, it seems odd the [Justice] Department would make a document request on behalf of that office,” said [the LETTER of Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Rep. Darrell Issa (CA-R) to Attorney General Eric Holder on 8/17/11]. Grassley has, in the past, questioned the ability of the Justice Department’s Inspector General to be fully independent in investigating the Justice Department. Attorney General Eric Holder requested the IG investigation after CBS News first broke news on the gunwalker case last February. President Obama has said that neither he nor Holder knew about or approved of the controversial gunwalking operation that spanned 14 months.”

    Seriously, Glenn. Though you and I have, and will likely in the future CONTINUE to butt heads about Ron Paul, he DOES stand alone among candidates in opposing the War on Drugs, which I very much appreciate your standing in opposition to as well. Maybe you and Cannonshop can have a conversation about that whole mess, Operation Fast and Furious, over here, comment #13

  • No problem, Glenn. We just don’t see eye to eye on this. As I said, I understand your point of view, and unless you be willing to understand mine, there really is no common ground here. I know you mean well.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger –

    You need friends. You don’t need buddies. Buddies are the ones who tell you what you want to hear. Friends are the ones who tell you what you need to hear. If you don’t like that particular metric, bear in mind that what I just said is why I consider Clavos a friend, even if he doesn’t think he is one.

  • I’ve got nothing to add to what I already said, Glenn. And thanks for the sermon. At least it’s Sunday.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Um, no, Roger – you’re missing the point altogether. It’s as if you see the problems we have now, decide that the Civil Rights Act has failed, and then take a giant step back towards those days.

    Your failure, Roger, is that you do NOT know – and you’re not even trying to discern – how very far we’ve come since then. The Civil Rights Act largely is what enabled us to come this far…and if we hadn’t had the CRA, we would still have been stuck in the days of American apartheid.

    You’ve lost your appreciation for history – for if you truly understood history, you’d easily see how very far we’ve come in race relations. Yeah, it’s been filled with fits and starts. Yeah, it’s been a bumpy road. But we HAVE made a great deal of progress. You’d know that already if you understood history half as well as you think you do.

    And when it comes to your last crack about the “anointed one” – I’m not at all offended that you think so little of Obama (this IS politics, after all). It’s just depressingly interesting to me that someone that I had once held to have above-average wisdom and intelligence has now seemingly become a birther, of all things!

    You need to step way back and take a long, long look at yourself, that you can better see how far you’ve fallen. It has nothing to do with money or standard of living, but of what you’ve allowed to happen to yourself…

    …and you’ve already seen in unquestionable terms that I’m not the only one who sees this change in you.

  • You’re missing the entire logic of the argument. No, the races haven’t come together, legislation or no legislation. If the races had come together, there’d be no need for legislation. The blacks, women, gays, people of color are still being oppressed and discriminated against in spite of the letter of the law. Your approach is only masking the real problem, in spite of your best intentions.

    And this isn’t a conservative position but a revolutionary one.

    As to my refusal to worship at the altar of the anointed one, it’s my business, and I can’t help if it offends you.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger –

    The races haven’t come together to fight the very ills Glenn is concerned about, with federal legislation or without.

    You’re becoming a true conservative, you know. Why? Not only are you now referring to President Obama as a ‘pretender’ (so I guess you’re a birther now), but also because your statement above (and the diatribe that followed) makes it clear that because we haven’t reached the goal YET, because everything isn’t all better YET, well, that must mean it’s all been a failure of grand proportions so let’s just go back to the way things were.

    That’s the same kind of throw-out-the-baby-with-the-bath-water attitude I see in conservatives who want to get rid of the DOE, the EPA, Medicare, and the rest – it doesn’t work absolutely perfectly, so get rid of it!

    It’s a process, Roger – a journey towards a place you and I will never see. But we HAVE made progress.

    And here’s something for you to think about – something that should set your currently-conservative brain on fire: most of the time, if something that is obviously evil is not declared wrong and illegal by the government (of whatever country), but is instead tolerated (or enshrined as a right) by that country, then that something evil which should have been rejected, shunned by the populace instead becomes the norm. This is especially true when it comes to populations that are not homogeneous.

    Care to comment on that? Or is it beneath you to discuss an issue with someone who you believe is the greatest threat to democracy, who supports a “pretender to the throne”?

    P.S. When you make statements like “greatest threat” and “pretender”, I will go out of my way to rub your nose in it, as it were.

  • The flip side of that, and on a positive note, may well be that it’s a good thing that federal coercion is limited in reach.

    In #187 I suggested that this kind of problem might present itself in a different light in a communal type of setting, but neither of the combatants took five to even consider.

    Glenn worries that “if integration were not enforced the races would drift apart once more rather than coming together to face the common threats of crime, poverty, and prejudice.”

    I suppose it’s a legitimate concern on face value at least. I’d argue, however, it’s a misguided one. Why?

    The races haven’t come together to fight the very ills Glenn is concerned about, with federal legislation or without. So Glenn’s methodology appears to consist of trying to attain a positive goal by prohibiting outward behavior by people who are against it. It is, in effect, akin to masking the real problem and real opposition to unified human action by pretending it’s not there. From the standpoint of blacks, minorities, other peoples of color, gays, lesbians, etc — all segments of society which are discriminated against and oppressed, I’d rather know who my enemies are, I’d rather know that I have enemies, instead of live in a make-believe la-la land where I and everybody else can keep on pretending we are a united people in purpose and objective.

    No liberation struggle of any people has been won by somebody else taking a stand and making a fight on their behalf, and if Glenn thinks that the white America is about to set a precedent, he’s suffering from an extreme case of illusion. The people themselves have to their their fight to the oppressors, there just is no other way.

  • troll

    while the signs are down there is still significant (economic – institutional – personally bigoted) racism and segregation throughout this country indicating a limited effective reach of federal coercion

    maybe we really can’t legislate morality as the saying goes

  • What do I think? I think you missed the entire point of #201.

    And your answer to Gavin in #203 convinces me that you missed the point of #188, too. My conclusion: my contributions to this thread, if they were going to influence the thinking of anyone at all, have probably influenced anyone they were going to influence by now. Have a good week, Glenn.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Gavin –

    As with all the others, I invite you to present ANY evidence that what the several newspapers published in 1996 concerning Ron Paul and his magazine were in any way wrong or inaccurate. That’s all you gotta do…and if I’m as wrong or as stupid as you are sure that I am, this should be very easy for you to do, wouldn’t it?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    To me, such an organization would be one that could be verified as being one that is made up wholly – or almost wholly – of African Americans. That would be the only requirement. It wouldn’t matter what they believed or worshiped or ate or whatever, as long as they were African American. This is the only way I think we could get a fairly decent representation of the whole.

    What do you think?

  • And who gets to decide what a “bona fide African American organization” is? You? I’m guessing the Atlanta Ron Paul meetup group wouldn’t meet your requirements; otherwise, that single meeting and your 20-to-one bet would have you scampering off to find video of about 400 black individuals disagreeing with Ron Paul about business owners and discrimination. The word of Nelson Linder, former president of the NAACP of Austin ought to count for something, though. So I could let you off easy, Glenn: twenty verifiably (this means videos, right?) black people denouncing Ron Paul’s vision of civil rights to the single voice of Nelson Linder. I might tighten the requirements even further and suggest that the quotes need to come from PRESIDENTS of local chapters of bona fide AA organizations, but I’m just too sweet to do that.

    OH! But hold ON! I see Shelby Steele (author of the Loneliness of the Black Conservative) rolling his eyes at your suggestion. Glenn, you don’t decide what’s right based on how many people say it’s right. I’ve posted six videos of black people who have decided to support Ron Paul. Go out and find videos of 120 blacks denouncing Paul if it makes you happy. It still won’t make you right.

  • Gavin

    This may be the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. It’s gotcha journalism by someone that nobody cares about or reads.

    First off, so what if racists support Ron Paul, did you write an article about the Black Panthers supporting Obama? Does this mean Obama hates white people?

    Also, I refuse to label a man racist for quotations taken from larger samples about current events from 20 years ago.

    And last, because I can’t believe I wasted THIS much time typing. This seems to be the ONLY lie/flip-flop I hear about regarding RP . If this is the only one, with over a decade in congress, and multiple presidential bids, he is undercutting every other politician in the lie department by 99.999%.

    Excellent try at journalism, perhaps next time you’ll get the recognition you crave.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    The “reformed criminal,” is the (rare) exception that proves the rule, Glenn.

    If that’s so, then explain why the recidivism rates in Sweden, Canada, and Japan are each a little over half our own.

    To me, this says that the problems aren’t the felons – as you seem to imply – but the system that helps produce career felons.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Irene –

    I understand what you’re trying to say – I really do – but what you’re not getting is that we’re NOT at the position where we can do what you think. So what if there’s a few blacks who agree with Ron Paul? The VAST majority would not – and if you think otherwise, you need to talk to a few black people.

    If you really want, we can go ahead and contact a few African-American organizations (whose existence is easily verifiable) and we can ask them what they think about Ron Paul’s position that businesses should have the ‘right’ to discriminate. And you know what? For every single bona fide AA organization that you find that would agree with Ron Paul, I really don’t think it’s a stretch to say I could find twenty who would not.

    One-to-twenty. Sound like a deal? I won’t have immediate responses (I do have a life away from the computer) but I’m quite confident that I can deliver at least that much!

    And when I hear somebody say “I can’t be racist because I have X number of black friends or I’ve done X number of things for them”, I give such statements absolutely no truck at all. I’ve seen too many racists be REAL good friends to the blacks…and then ten minutes later when the blacks are out of earshot, out comes the n-words.

    So…no, Irene. We’re NOT at that happy place you seem to think we are. It takes far more than the passing of one generation, as the race-hatred killing committed by these young white men makes clear. Maybe after three or four generations, but after the passing of only one generation? No.

    BTW, I agree with you wholeheartedly about the war on drugs.

  • No one should have to work at a place with conditions like Tyson. If the smaller farms could afford to stay in business, then there would be more employment alternatives to giant agribusinesses. Too much OSHA will do that to an economy.

    You worry that if integration were not enforced the races would drift apart once more rather than coming together to face the common threats of crime, poverty, and prejudice. That’s what the blacks and whites and “libs” and “cons” who are working together to support Ron Paul are doing, though.

    The blacks whose opinions you are dismissing KNOW FIRST-HAND that the Civil Rights Act hasn’t worked to change the attitudes of racists such as the management at the mega-corporation Tyson, the MD’s in your hometown, 46% of Mississippi Republicans* (and 18% of Mississippi Democrats). Instead of hitching their wagons to the special-rights-for-blacks star, they are working to make life better for EVERYONE: restoring sane economic practices so that the jobs will come back; ending foreign wars that are waged to enrich and empower the elite, rather than to liberate the oppressed; eliminating the drug laws that cause so many nonviolent people to be incarcerated: 25% of the world’s incarcerated population lives in US prisons, whereas only 4% of the world’s entire population lives here.

    *The generations for which racism was the norm are dying out, and the Mississippi poll is skewed because 66% of those surveyed were aged 46 and older. As recently as 1994, less than half of all Americans thought mixed marriage should be legal. Only 12 years later, in 2007, that number had increased to 75%. So don’t be so doomish and gloomish, Glenn, about the vision of Martin Luther King’s dream of racial harmony in the US being realized, laws or no laws.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Irene –

    No, my experience is less than thirty years old. The signs were still posted above the entrance doors to the only doctor’s office in town when I went back there on leave from the Navy in 1984…twenty years after passage of the Civil Rights Act. And while we’re at it, here’s the results of the lawsuit against Tyson Foods for having segregated bathrooms. Is Tyson foods going broke anytime soon? No.

    AND IF RACIAL ATTITUDES HAVE CHANGED SO GREATLY, Irene, then why is it that in 2011 – THIS year – that 46% of Mississippi Republicans still think that interracial marriage should be illegal? They don’t just oppose it – they think it should be ILLEGAL.

    Yes, Irene, attitudes have changed for the better – but they have NOT changed to the pollyannish degree that you seem to think they have…and the very worst thing we could do is to go back to those days when racism was the norm rather than the exception. We would even worsen the problem of economic “ghettoization”, schools would become more segregated once more, and the races would drift apart once more rather than coming together to face the common threats of crime, poverty, and prejudice.

    Your dogma, Irene, is for experience a very poor substitute indeed.

  • A knee jerk reaction, Costello, just a knee jerk reaction.

    Let’s hope one of these days we’ll cure him of it.

  • Costello

    Maybe I am misreading this, but Glenn thinks he’s smarter than a group of blacks who support Paul yet he runs around calling other people racist?

  • Clavos

    The “reformed criminal,” is the (rare) exception that proves the rule, Glenn.

  • The thing I’m defending here is not the glories of “whites only” signs. It’s freedom from the meddling of federal government in local affairs. The same people who are prophesying the resurrection of 1950’s segregation are also preaching that integration at any cost is better than de facto segregation.

    Many black parents have stopped buying it. They’ve seen that de jure integration of schools is, in general, not helping their children academically, and is also hurting them psychologically and socially.

  • #190, para. 4: drink a glass of cold water, breathe, and stop being hysterical. You said those things. I didn’t.

    Your first-hand experience is five decades old, when business-owners HAD NO CHOICE BUT to require black and white only signs. Fast-forward, and here’s Glenn also wanting to restrict freedom, so that business-owners HAVE NO CHOICE BUT to take those signs down. The ACLU isn’t racist, but it defends the first amendment right of the KKK to have parades through towns where blacks might be offended.

    Attitudes have changed so much, and you are forgetting that they’ve changed when you assume that the South would be transmogrified back into some 1950’s segregated hell.

    If the freedom to post No Blacks signs were given today, there would still be plenty of places, like this Ron Paul Meet-up in Atlanta, where blacks and whites freely assemble. How ridiculous to think that ANY whites who have respectful attitudes toward blacks today would revert to racism if “No Blacks” signs went up. As to the dyed-in-the-wool bigoted business-owner, he gets to put out what amounts to an “I am a Bigot” shingle. That’s far more likely to be the downfall of that business than the downfall of the South.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And Irene –

    Does one have to be, say, Jewish in order to understand how bad Nazi Germany was? Does one have to be Japanese in order to understand how bad their imprisonment in America in WWII was? Does someone have to be Chinese in order to understand how bad the Rape of Nanking was during WWII? Does someone have to be Tutsi in order to understand how bad the Rwanda genocide was?

    Perhaps as a matter of degree, in order to understand how bad it was, yes. But it does NOT require being a part of any of these ethnic groups in order to understand that what they faced was unquestionably wrong…and forcing “white” and “colored” entrances on blacks is wrong in every way.

    AND IRENE – that place that had the “white” and “colored” entrances in Shaw, Mississippi? That was at the ONLY doctor’s office in town. Anyone who didn’t have a car had NO choice but to go to that doctor’s office. The blacks often had NO choice but to use THAT doctor.

    But I get it – since I’m speaking up against Ron Paul using his own words, his own positions, and my own firsthand experience, I’m obviously the stupid bigot because I’m daring to say something that doesn’t agree with your personal dogma.

  • @185 – is that what I said?

  • Even though the Reason article from which you quote extensively was written by Matt Welch, who was described by another libertarian as a “Neocon Mouthpiece”, you won’t have to look any further than the dates of the quotations to see that the answer to the question you posed in your title is: No.
    Matt Welch presents them as a confusing mish-mash. When you put them in chronological order, they make sense, and vindicate Ron Paul.

    #184: So you’re saying that all those Ron Paul supporting blacks in the videos I posted, and in fact ALL blacks who support Ron Paul, are supporting him without adequate knowledge of his positions. In other words, you’re questioning their judgment. Gotta watch those broad-brush statements… Indeed.

  • To abstract the subject matter somewhat, Irene, I must confess that I’m somewhat conflicted about the issue of whether the Federal government has a right to impose uniform standard regarding, say, race discrimination in public places, such as restaurants, for example, which places of business are subject to local (and or federal?) licensing, as opposed to the rights of the business owners themselves.

    But this is just one (however acute an) example of many similar such (seemingly) irresolvable conflicts which arise in the context of Federal (government) vs. State disputes. (To my thinking, it’s but another example of the many contradictions which arise from the inherently contradictory concept of statehood,)

    In this connection, it might be instructive to ask: to what extent would we be riddled with selfsame problems if we operated, say, within the confines of any given community? Would those problems be just as seeming irresolvable and just as acute?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Soooo…there’s nothing worse than a reformed criminal? That means that our entire justice system is a waste of time.

    Gotta watch those broad-brush statements….

  • Glenn Contrarian

    So in Roger-world, evidence ain’t evidence until Roger has decided whether it’s evidence or not.

    Why didn’t I see that before? It’s all so simple now!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Irene –

    I don’t question the judgment of the blacks who support Ron Paul – I question their knowledge of his positions. Again, how many of the blacks know that Ron Paul would support the right of a business to have “white” and “colored” entrances?

    And you know what? You might find a few – just as there were indeed a few Jews who supported Hitler.

  • @179

    Not at all — a courtroom is but one of many context in which the concept of “evidence” plays a vital role. There is “evidence” within a given scientific community, “evidence” in the context of ordinary parlance, etc. etc. Even courtrooms may differ from locality to locality, culture to culture, present and past. What was admissible as evidence during the Salem witch trials or the Inquisition (Joan D’Arc, for example) is not admissible in some courtrooms today.

    You just assumed I was operating within the confines specified by your own example. Well, I wasn’t.

  • Clavos

    It’s only the SMOKERS who think there’s nothing worse than a non-smoker!

    Actually, there’s nothing worse than a reformed anything — except of course, for reformers.

  • Glenn says: That’s [freedom for the owner to decide who he will allow on his property] what Ron Paul would allow, and I SINCERELY suspect that not a single one of the blacks who support him (1) realize that he WOULD allow such to happen, AND (2) have ever seen a business with “white” and “colored” entrances.

    Your sincere suspicions, Glenn, do NOT count as evidence that not a single black person who supports Ron Paul is is aware that bigots would not allow them on their property. Listen to some of the videos out there, Glenn. THEY DON’T CARE. They don’t want to be on the property of bigots.

    You question the judgment of not only all black people expressing their support of Ron Paul in the videos in #153, #155, #161, #162, #164 and #168, but the judgement of ANY black person who supports him. How incredibly patronizing!

    Note the age of some of the black people at the Ron Paul meetup group IN ATLANTA, GEORGIA. (#153) They are old enough to be your contemporaries certainly, Glenn, and this is key: unlike you, they’ve stayed in the South. They have learned to make peace with, and become co-laborers with, those from whom they were formerly separated by racial prejudice.

    You moved out of the South and never looked back, Glenn, except to cast disparaging glances. You’ve married a Filipina. So what? That does NOT put you more in touch with the concerns of black Americans than black Americans themselves.

    Yes, I’ve read your article, and no, it didn’t convince me that Ron Paul was a racist, any more than ANY of what you say about anyone else being a racist convinces me. The newspaper prints “in an article he wrote” instead of “in an article in an investment newsletter he had authorized others to write.” Rather than taking the word of some unknown journalist/editor, I’m going to take the word of Ron Paul himself, who has a reputation even among political enemies of being honest, and of Nelson Linder, former president of the Austin division of the NAACP, who has known Ron Paul for over twenty years and vehemently denies that he is a racist, and in fact admires his work in defense of blacks in the criminal justice system.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    pablo –

    In the eyes of NON-smokers, reformed smokers are pretty cool. I’ve never seen any non-smoker like myself have any problem whatsoever with a reformed smoker. It’s only the SMOKERS who think there’s nothing worse than a non-smoker!

    So…what then, would that say about those who think there’s nothing worse than a reformed racist? Thanks for providing me with a good retort to one of Roger’s ‘logical’ crutches!

    When it comes to ignorance, pablo, I am very ignorant about many things – I’ve got zero problem admitting that! Thing is, I’ve found over the years that the more someone truly knows, the more someone realizes just how ignorant he or she really is. Of course, this does not stop me from being ready, willing, and able to stand up for those things that I do know. I take little offense at being told how ignorant I am, especially when it comes from someone like you who presents himself as being knowledgeable enough to judge, who has obviously seen, been, and done SO many more things than I have.

    BTW, pablo – that last sentence, and ONLY that last sentence, is sarcasm.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    and Roger –

    The notion of “evidence” is relative in the sense that it depends on what the accepted standard is, the purpose of the inquiry, and who is doing the admitting.

    Moving the goalposts, are we? The only manner in which character witnesses can be used as actual evidence is to show that there are people with familial, moral, societal, or professional standing who hold a particular opinion. Their opinion itself is not evidence – only the fact that they hold said opinion can be used as actual evidence.

    That is, unless one moves the goalposts and changes the definition of evidence. Now put the goalposts back where they belong, Roger, and stop trying to wriggle out of the FACT that several reputable newspapers provided EVIDENCE that not one of you has been able to refute.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger #175 –

    If there were not a fulfilled prophecy that I could verify for myself, I’d agree with you. But there is, and I don’t.

  • pablo

    127 Dread

    Your remark about the 9th amendment has no bearing here. Aside from race and gender because of current US law, which in my opinion is unconstitutional, if you were considering renting a house to someone you can discriminate til the cows come home. If you don’t like their hair style, their smell, the way they don’t smile, if they are too fat, or too thin, too short or too tall, and you damned well know it Dread, and there is not a thing someone can do about it claiming that their unenumerated 9th amendment rights were violated, lol.

    People can and do discriminate all of the time both personally and in business, that is a fact. There are literally thousands of reasons that can come into play here. I am not saying that I endorse racism, I dont, but I do endorse freedom, and part of freedom is the right to discern, whether out of wisdom or ignorance, and indeed bigotry.

    Another thing Dread when you say that the US constitution is not the end all and be all of US law you are clearly mistaken. It is true that judges use wide latitude in determining and opining, however you cannot show me one case where any judge has ever said that a law can stand that is repugnant to the constitution. Sure there is such things as rational basis, and strict scrutiny, substantive and procedural law, however if any act of congress, or an executive order, is found to be in violation of the constitution it is null and void on its face, and only remains until overturned based on the color of law.

    Glenn 172

    Just as there is nothing so distasteful as a reformed smoker, I suggest the same in a reformed racist. I do not nor have I ever had a racist bone in my body. I was raised differently than you pal, by real liberal parents. I was taught from day one that the color of a persons skin means nothing other than they have a different color skin.

    You freely admit your errant ways, and that is good on you, however I think you forget that your still not enlightened, and you have a long long long ways to go. If you could see yourself the way that I do, WOW. Do you know the root of ignorance Glenn? It is ignore, and I see you do that on a continual basis in your self righteous so called liberalism, up to and including the current commander in thief, who is nothing more than a wall street whore, and shows that every day of the week.

  • As an addendum, and before Christopher Rose jumps in to correct me, let me qualify:

    The notion of “evidence” is relative in the sense that it depends on what the accepted standard is, the purpose of the inquiry, and who is doing the admitting.

  • The extent to which testimony is or is not evidence is a very complex question indeed. Even so, in one whole sweep, you’ve just demolished the credibility of the Gospels.

  • @172

    Only unwittingly, Glenn, only unwittingly, like an immovable object that stands in the way of an irresistible force.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    They are not in any way evidence of any type, no more than character witnesses are in any trial. And testimony by a character witness, while it can be used to determine the general likelihood that the accused might or might have committed the crime, is NOT evidence.

    EVIDENCE, Clavos, would be something that would concretely disprove the reporting by several respectable newspapers in 1996 wherein Ron Paul never denied writing the articles, and wherein his spokesman CLEARLY thought that Ron Paul had written the articles. Has ANYone provided such refuting evidence?

    No. No one has.

    Not that y’all will pay any attention to that little fact.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Irene and Roger –

    Have either one of you lived in a town where there was a crucial business that had “white” and “colored” signs above its two entrances?

    That’s what Ron Paul would allow, and I SINCERELY suspect that not a single one of the blacks who support him (1) realize that he WOULD allow such to happen, AND (2) have ever seen a business with “white” and “colored” entrances.

    And Roger, on your ‘reformed racist’ crack – I fail to see how being a ‘reformed racist’ somehow disqualifies me from pointing out how WRONG and UNAMERICAN it is to support businesses having the RIGHT to discriminate on basis of race, color, religion, ethnicity, or whatever. I wonder if you’d be so vehemently scornful of an ex-military who hated the military, or an ex-meat-packer who decided to protest the inhuman slaughter process that cattle are put through.

    But since it’s me, and because I’m attacking someone you’re at least in some measure supporting, well, THAT means that I’m automatically disqualified in your eyes. I guess in your eyes the only people who are allowed to point out what’s wrong with Ron Paul are those who would NEVER say that he does anything wrong to begin with!

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll go back to justifying your claim that I’m the greatest threat to democracy.

  • Clavos

    Not “testimonials,” Roger.

    Supporting evidence.

  • I’m not black. They are. They speak for themselves.

  • All due respect, Irene, this one looks strained. But why do you need testimonials?
    Stand by your own convictions and speak your own words.

  • Black woman from a family of veterans explains her support for Ron Paul. Glenn disagrees with ’em ALL.

  • gotcha …

  • Ron Paul support from young black males part I.

    and Ron Paul support from young black males part II.

  • Links 1, 2, and 3 show the progression of Jimmy Styles, Ron Paul detractor to Ron Paul campaigner.

  • You;re crazy, Irene, excuse the expression.

    What;s the point of the first link in #163?

  • …Jimmy Styles in August 2008 applauds and encourages Ron Paul supporters even though they’re not going to win 2008…tells them to take a deep breath, put their energy into getting Barack Obama to pay attention to Ron Paul’s view of the issues.

  • Thank God for small favors, I used to say. But really, Glenn is a reformed racist, Handy, by his own admission and no disrespect intended. He sees racism even when he looks at lilies of the field.

    The nature of the beast.

  • Thanks for saying “just about entirely superfluous,” handyguy, instead of “entirely entirely superfluous,” which would really be putting the super-flu into superfluity.

  • #153-157: Where is the sugar, actually? Obnoxious and mean-spirited and just about entirely superfluous.

  • There’s nothing worse than a reformed alcoholic, Irene.

    Glenn seems to suffer from a similar syndrome.

  • I’ll bet on THIS thread they’ll be less than welcome. Roger. Just a spoon full of sugar makes the medicine go down, though.

  • Neither do I, Irene, and I’m not black, only a Mediterranean.

    BTW, check out “The Portrait,” part one of a three-part series. “Animal Farm Revisited” will be forthcoming shortly.

    I don’t have to tell you that your observations are always more than welcome.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And YOU are forgetting the context of the times – Washington and the Founding Fathers were quite liberal for their time – and Jefferson was a raving bleeding-heart tree-hugger by comparison, slaves notwithstanding.

    AND while some convert to Judaism, those who are BORN Jewish do not do so by choice.

    Use your head, willya? You’re trying SO hard to come up with something, anything to keep from having to admit your error (those poor big-nosed people, remember?).

    And good night – it’s time to go to bed.

  • You need to work a little harder on your analogies, Glenn, because they don’t support you as well as you think.

    “Perhaps they forget a particular phrase: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal'”

    A document written and signed by a number of slave owners. And why not “people” as opposed to “men”?

    “when has someone been born [Jewish] by their own choice?”

    People convert Judaism so it is a choice for some.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Hm? No more “Big-nosed-people suffer discrimination”?

    Face it, pablo – you finally figured out that your points weren’t what you thought they were…and maybe, just maybe someday you’ll figure out where you got so far off track.

  • pablo

    A big yawn for you Glenn. Nothing new there.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And pablo –

    Just as I’ve lived in a place where the kind of discrimination existed that Ron Paul would allow, so has Ron Paul. He’s old enough to remember VERY well what life was like before the Civil Rights Act…and he knows that what he’s advocating would be a big step back to those days.

    He knows it – oh, he excuses it by saying “state’s rights!” and “libertarianism”, but he knows that what he’s advocating would allow a heaping helping of private-sector Jim Crow. He knows it – and he WANTS it. Otherwise, he wouldn’t advocate it.

    The man is a racist.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    pablo –

    There you go again with your frankly silly ‘big nose’ example.

    Tell me, what would happen if you were to tell someone “you can’t come into my business because you have a big nose”? You know very well what would happen. You’re just trying to make up crap that has nothing to do with the topic, because at NO time in history have people been enslaved because they have big noses. At NO time in history have people been sent to the Zyklon B gas chambers because they have big noses.

    And sure, people ARE discriminated against due to their political views…but political views are by CHOICE, aren’t they? So tell me, pablo – when has someone been born black by their own choice? Or white? Or Jewish?

    And then you go off rambling about climate change…which makes it plain that all that a few thousand PhD’s have to do to be wrong in your view is to say something you don’t like.

    Again, I’ve LIVED in a place where the kind of discrimination existed that Ron Paul would allow. You haven’t. I KNOW FIRSTHAND where it would lead. You don’t. When you know what you’re talking about, pablo, come back and let me know.

  • pablo

    Glenn 125

    As usual my point is lost on you. I do not condone racism, and find it personally repugnant it all of its forms. That does not mean however that government has a right to prohibit it, particularly when in point of fact discrimination is practiced widespread by millions of people on a daily basis.

    It is useless to ever try and engage you on an issue of the day Glenn, as your far too caught up in your own self-righteousness.

    Let me see however if I can try one more time.

    1. Do people have a right to discriminate against someone because they have a big nose.

    Answer: Yes

    2. Do people have a right to discriminate against someone based on their political views?
    Answer: Yes

    Indeed I could go in ad naseum about the myriad ways that people discriminate against each other and all of them perfectly lawful.

    Mind you I said a a right not a license which is a grant given by government. A right precedes that.

    You think due to your ignorance that I am somehow condoning racism, but that is not my point. My point is very simple but lost on you as usual. People have a right to discriminate against those that they find repugnant for any reason, and in point of fact they do all the time. The fact that this discrimination can and often is based on irrationality and ignorance notwithstanding.

    This is precisely the point that both Dr. Paul and his son Rand have made on numerous occasions.
    You have never been able to see the forest for the trees Glenn, and that has been apparent to me for some time. You also act very self righteous about your positions. Man made global warming comes to mind. This science is far from settled, however your not man enough to admit it, and if it were up to the likes of you I have no doubt that you would advocate making it a crime to question it.
    So these are just a few of the reasons that I find you so distasteful in your political discourse. And the fact that you cannot take Dr. Paul on the issues of the day with the exception of race baiting him, or bringing up flood insurance proves my point conclusively.

  • Well, you may have point. Got to rethink the origins. I’m right though about the New Left even though of course there was some overlap in terms of values. Perhaps Mondale came close to representing the New Left ideology, almost socialism, but it was short-lived. Small segment of the Democratic Party was radicalized because of Vietnam (McGovern, Eugene McCarthy) but not the bulk. Very few Democrats matched the radicalism of Tom Hayden, etc. of that day. RFK would have been the ideal liberal (not radical) candidate. Even at the height of the anti-war protests, the country wouldn’t accept anything more radical than a liberal (Hubert Humphrey). So the basic distinction still stands.

    And no, I’m not painting Dems as the only hawks, but you can’t deny the legacy. It would help if you tried to be less on the defensive. I’m not attacking you, only weighing the ideas.

  • Roger, not sure if you have checked Wikipedia during your recent look at liberalism:

    In the United States, modern liberalism traces its history to the popular presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who initiated the New Deal in response to the Great Depression and won an unprecedented four elections.

    The New Deal coalition established by Franklin Roosevelt left a decisive legacy and impacted many future American presidents, including John F. Kennedy, a self-described liberal who defined a liberal as “someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions…someone who cares about the welfare of the people”.

    That’s a little oversimplified too, but it’s not bad.

  • Adlai Stevenson, JFK, LBJ and Hubert Humphrey were called liberals by their supporters and their opponents. The legacy of the New Deal was part of it; civil rights was another.

    From our perspective foreign policy was bipartisan then, but there were some on the right who thought JFK was soft on communism.

    The Democratic party eventually split over the Vietnam war, but your categories of liberal and New Left that don’t overlap at all are artificial constructs. RFK and Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern were as liberal as they come.

    Your attempt to define everything through labels [and your attempt to retroactively paint all liberals in history as establishment villains starting wars and hogging the credit for advances in social justice] is just a bit much.

    Didn’t you used to be a liberal? [Some would say you still are, really.] Why do you feel compelled to bash the term?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    It’s amazing how many people have shown up on this thread with the idea that it’s somehow unconstitutional and wrong to disallow businesses from discriminating. Perhaps they forget a particular phrase: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”…

    …and it’s taken us some time to get most of America to take that particular phrase to heart. But if we begin allowing prejudice once more, then the stain of racism and prejudice will once more spread across our national fabric, and we will have to learn the same tragic lessons all over again.

    Again, Ron Paul is a racist – and until the day he’s man enough to own up to what he’s done in the past, I will give him not one iota of credit for any effort towards ridding himself of the moral and emotional poison of racism.

  • I’d think the modern term has more to do with cultural values than anything else – at least that’s how it got off the ground. Then it took off.

    Which is to say, I don’t think there was much of a difference between the Republican and the Democratic Party as regards the value of the family, etc. until the sixties. Playboy wasn’t more popular with the Democrats than with the Republicans (except behind closed doors). But the counter-culture revolution produced a split.

    I’m just trying to think my way through this, this is not a definitive statement, but it seems to makes sense.

  • And whom did the conservatives oppose in the fifties? Not liberals, I would think, but the communists. The modern version of “liberal” seems to appear in the seventies.

    Of course, there was a progressive movement (La Follete) way back – not a liberal movement. Even the abolitionists didn’t consider themselves “liberal.” Those weren’t the terms of use. Perhaps the (women) suffrage movement fits the bill better than anything else.

  • No, I’m not trying to squeeze anything into anything. You were the one who suggested liberals taking credit. The present day nomenclature does not reflect the realities of that day, not exactly.

    I believe it were the Southern Democrats that eventually made the difference as a result of LBJ’s cajoling and arm twisting. Further, I wouldn’t call the New Left/Radical Left liberal. They were way off the charts, anti-establishment to the core and counter-culture.

  • zingzing

    hrm. “but the political vote was split not by the DEM/GOP divide, but the north/south divide.”

    that would be more true. many of the dems that voted against the civil rights act were not liberals whatsoever and subsequently switched sides of the aisle (possibly in order to retain their seat in the new political reality created by the act).

  • zingzing

    the epa was a collection of previously existing environmental organizations. it didn’t just spring forth whole from the mind of nixon, but it brought those environmental organizations under an umbrella headed by a presidential appointee. nixon’s appointee butted heads with the admin frequently, and was later named head of the fbi, a position he quit when nixon tried to force him to fire the watergate prosecutor.

    “It’s also a question mark to what extent LBJ was a liberal.”

    that’s certainly true. he never quite struck me as really being on anyone’s side but his own. prolly killed jfk…

    “The liberal establishment escalated and supported the Vietnam War. If was the Radical Left that raised stink enough to eventually bring it to its conclusion.”

    well… that’s simplifying things. the “liberal establishment,” would have to be the parts of the liberal population that both controlled and supported the war. but that would not include the entire liberal population. the “radical left” would have to include the “tune in, drop out” protesters that were never quite “radical” in any sense of the word. the radicals certainly yelled a lot of stuff to a lot of people, but even all of those who repeated the refrain back towards the megaphones weren’t radicals. the largest portion of those making noise were young people, and all it took was a draft notice or a dead brother to turn anyone of any political stripe into a protester. who’s taking credit?

    “Likewise with the Civil Rights movement. The masses did the heavy lifting, the liberals eventually decided to be on the right side of history and took the credit.”

    black people did the heavy lifting in that one. white liberals helped in some not insignificant ways. but the political vote was split not by the liberal/conservative divide, but the north/south divide. that said, it is telling that it was liberal politics that suffered for it in the south. and it is telling that african-americans overwhelmingly vote for the democratic party (the “liberal establishment,” if you will).

  • LBJ was a liberal on social issues and a foreign policy cold warrior like most late-50s early-60s politicians of both parties.

    Nixon, by 21st century standards, was practically a socialist: wage and price controls, the EPA, even universal health care proposals. [He was actually a Big Statist, in both domestic and foreign policy.] And both Nixon and LBJ were working with Democratic Congresses, both houses.

    Liberals are not all one thing. Many liberals opposed the war before 1968, and were utterly appalled by Daley. Many liberals had vocally supported civil rights for a decade or more before the 1964 bill.

    Your attempts to squeeze all the variables into your theory of stereotypes is amusing but not very useful or convincing.

  • Wasn’t exactly contradicting you, Dreadful. On the other hand, you were walking a rather thin line, methinks.

  • If I remember, EPA was originated during the Nixon era, surely not a liberal by any means. It’s also a question mark to what extent LBJ was a liberal. The liberal establishment escalated and supported the Vietnam War. If was the Radical Left that raised stink enough to eventually bring it to its conclusion. Remember McNamara, the hawk, and his eventual conversion? Likewise with the Civil Rights movement. The masses did the heavy lifting, the liberals eventually decided to be on the right side of history and took the credit.

    The Chicago Convention during Richard Daley reign is proof enough how liberal was the liberal establishment.

    That’s how I see it.

  • Politicians have the power to pass laws; protesters don’t. That takes no credit away from protesters for bringing issues to national attention. And no credit away from liberals for often being on the right side of history, although it may sometimes take a while.

  • Purple Pundit

    Oh, were you protesting in the ’50s and early ’60s? If so, I’ll retract my statement. If not, you shouldn’t take credit, as Roger rightly points out.

    Congress makes many laws. Does that make them all constitutional? If so, odd that they bothered to keep the Supreme Court around. I noticed you ignored my pointing out your poor comprehension of the ninth. Looks like it’s not restricted to that amendment.

  • Not my point (as usual), Roger.

  • I was right after all, Dreadful, when I stated in “The Portrait” that the “libs” would probably take credit.

  • Apparently you libs are too lazy to do your patriotic duty and protest when you see injustice. You want the government to handle it. Why would you shirk your civic responsibility?

    Ah, yes, quite right. The 1950s and early 60s was a very quiet period in US history, with no-one protesting about anything. There’s even a museum in Memphis, TN commemorating how quiet it was. Just about the only thing of note that happened in that time was that Congress, out of the blue and apparently because it was bored, suddenly decided to pass a law outlawing discrimination on the grounds of race.

  • Purple Pundit

    Not always. Some times I wear shorts, on some occasions nothing at all, once even a kilt.

    But then your analogy doesn’t apply because the question revolves around where the the government gets the authority to regulate morality. The Ninth doesn’t allow the government to make a law stopping people from wearing pants, so you may want to have somebody introduce you to the amendment and explain it to you.

    Apparently you libs are too lazy to do your patriotic duty and protest when you see injustice. You want the government to handle it. Why would you shirk your civic responsibility?

  • It doesn’t, Purple, but neither does it say you have the right to wear pants. Yet I’ll bet you do.

    Let me introduce you to the Ninth Amendment, which says that just because a particular right isn’t explicitly enumerated in the Constitution doesn’t mean you don’t have it.

    Now what’s at issue here is when your right to do A infringes on my right to do B. Whose right prevails in that instance? In most cases, it’s the person whose rights are being infringed.

    The Constitution isn’t the be-all and end-all of United States law, which is a mistake that a lot of you Paul fans make. It’s one reason why legislatures and courts exist: to make and interpret laws that clarify other laws, including the Constitution.

  • Purple Pundit

    Speaking of not having a clue. Glenn, where in the Constitution does it say a private business isn’t allowed to discriminate. Not whether it’s a despicable thing, or an ignorant thing, or a foolish thing. But where does it say they don’t have the right? Haven’t see anywhere in the article or the comments where you have done so

  • Glenn Contrarian

    pablo –

    When you’ve lived someplace that allows businesses to post signs above entrance doors that say “white” and “colored” (as was the case at the ONLY doctor’s office in town twenty years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act), come back and let me know. Until then, you haven’t a clue what real discrimination is like. All you have is rhetoric, and ZERO experience in the matter.

  • pablo

    The fact of the matter Glenn is that with the exception of race, and gender, businesses are allowed to discriminate based on personal prejudices at will. If I as a landowner do not like fat people, or short people, or smelly old ladies, or guys with big noses, and on and on and on, I can discriminate all I want. The fact that I think a person has a right to discriminate based on prejudice, particularly of the ones cited above does not make me a bigot nor a racist.

    Now it is quite another thing for a government to be able to discriminate based on prejudice. The fact is that people including businesses discriminate on a rational and irrational basis all of the time, and that too is a part of liberty, which unfortunately due to your bigoted opinion are incapable of grasping.

  • John Lake

    I wasn’t aware Ron Paul was a racist. I wouldn’t have voted for him anyway.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Chris –

    I can understand your point very well – after all, I’ve often written of the changes I made myself.

    The difference is that Ron Paul is claiming that businesses have a right to discriminate against people based on race, religion, et cetera (which is by far his most disastrous position). That, in addition to the racist articles and his refusal to accept support from white supremacist groups all sum up to someone who is not what he seems.

    Again, I heartily agree with you that someone can change…but I also know that having been a white Southern racist once upon a time, it’s easy for me to know it when I see it.

    Think about it, Chris – if Ron Paul is so…steadfast in his political beliefs and principles that he will not bend or compromise, what exactly makes you think that he ever really bent or compromised in his beliefs on racial equality, especially given the factors I listed above?

    Remember, Chris, that I’m well aware of my faults and limitations – but you should be aware that when it comes to white Southern racism, I do know whereof I speak. I know what he is, and – unlike myself and other former racists – he has NEVER, EVER owned up to what he did. He has never changed, and he never will.

  • I think you’re flogging a dead horse here, Glenn.

    Even if it were true that Ron Paul personally was a racist 15 years ago, which I don’t think you’ve established at all, I thought you of all people would appreciate that people can and do change.

    As far as I can tell, he is a political figure that at least has some idea about what is important in contemporary politics, which makes him far more interesting and relevant than most politicians.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Nichole –

    All I’ve asked of ANY Paulbot is to refute the evidence I’ve presented with evidence showing otherwise.

    I’ve yet to see a single one of you even attempt to do so…and that speaks volumes.

  • Nichole

    Ah, the establishment race pimps come out of the woodwork. Worried and panicked over Paul’s triumphant performance in Iowa and angry that the mass public is well aware that Ron Paul represents the best interests of the world, the predatory ruling class and its servant sycophant class (the shameless, soulless bought-and-paid-for media mouthpiece pundits) have resorted to race pimping, commonly a last resort of the intellectually benighted. Even more amusing, this political tactic has been overdone to the point of cliche and when used it now provokes amusement by much of the public. And even the more impressionable that have been conditioned to fall into apologetic submission by such accusations are left to resolve that the same accusing political agents are the racists that advocate bombing brown people and occupying their territories. In trying to create the illusion of racism in their political enemies (leadership that wants to stop killing brown people), the racists (who think it’s okay to torch brown people) in the media (who represent the establishment) who psychologically manipulate the people look more hypocritical than ever. They are impossible not to hate.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    pablo –

    First, Ron Paul DOES have several positions that I absolutely support! But he has several other positions that would be disastrous for the nation.

    1 – if you can use evidence to refute the evidence I presented in the article, then do so. Otherwise, the 1996 newspaper articles show that either Ron Paul wrote the articles…or he CHOSE to not deny that he wrote them and CHOSE to allow his staff to believe that he wrote them.

    If you can show ANYthing – other than spurious claims that “it’s all old and it’s all been refuted” as nearly every single one of the Paulbots have done – if you can show ANYthing using evidence that I’m wrong, then please do so!

    2 – Ron Paul wants to allow businesses to discriminate on basis of race, religion, ethnicity, whatever. I’ve already seen FIRSTHAND where that would lead, and it’s not something I want to see again – and I also know FIRSTHAND that the idea that any businesses who discriminate would somehow lose or go out of business…is a fantasy. There are some that are functioning today!

    3 – I’ve already published a different article on Ron Paul’s determination to end funding for the National Flood Insurance Program, and how it would bring much of America’s real estate market to a screeching halt. As a former Realtor, I do have somewhat of a clue on this subject.

    So much for your “not man enough” crack.

    pablo, a long time ago I decided to go where the facts lead – and I’ve found out along the way that there’s a lot of people who really don’t care what the facts are, as with evolution, global warming, vaccines…and Ron Paul. As I said above, he’s got some good positions – but he’s got other VERY bad positions that far outweigh his good positions.

    And the really sad thing is – as Doc Dreadful pointed out – whenever anyone brings up his bad positions, hordes of Paulbots come out of the woodwork to attack whoever it was that had the bad manners to say aught ill of *gasp* Ron Paul (pbuh)!

  • pablo


    I have publicly admitted on numerous occasions being either ill-informed or just plain wrong of my assessment of an issue.

    The fact that you choose to play the race card on Dr. Paul speaks for itself. It is a canard, plain and simple, and means to me that you are not man enough or smart enough to take Ron Paul on in substance as opposed to smear. Which by the way is why I enjoyed your article so much, as it shows you for what you are. Thanks again for a great article! Now how about another on the warmer monger issue!

  • zingzing

    … from pink christmas lights.

  • …and how she was forced to retire after contracting hemorroids.

  • zingzing

    beyond the title, it’s a brilliant summation of the arc of calista flockhart’s career.

  • The writer couldn’t get a good deal on pink christmas lights and was pissed

  • Joe Dunkle

    And the point of this article is?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Thanks – it was a momentary case of cranial flatulence. Of course you might not think it’s momentary….

  • Clavos

    Indira Gandhi was a woman, Glenn.

    Mohandas Gandhi (no relation) was a man.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    pablo –

    Your problem is that you try to pigeonhole my personality, and that’s not easily done. Did you think I included ‘contrarian’ in my name just for the heck of it?

    Yeah, I am a liberal, because I support a strong safety net, I oppose the war on drugs, the death penalty, religion in government, et cetera.

    But I am a contrarian, because despite the incredible damage Reagan did to our economy, I also bear in mind what he did right – which was win the Cold War, the one war in human history that had the potential to end life on earth. The guy in charge gets all blame and all credit – the Cold War was won on his watch, and he rightly gets the credit. Whatever you protested against in the Frisco streets – and what we liberals protest against now – are as nothing compared to what could have happened if the Cold War had turned hot.

    Or are you one of those who thought the Cold War was some kind of joke?

    Here’s a lesson for you, pablo – everyone does good things and bad things. Hitler, as evil as he certainly was, did some good things. Indira Gandhi, as good as he was, did some bad things. Osama bin Laden was bad and good. George Washington was good and bad. And you will never, EVER have a good understanding of this world until you’re able to step up and say, “I am a [political/religious affiliation], but THIS is where my fellow adherents to said affiliation are wrong.”

    I am a CONTRARIAN. I’m not afraid to say when liberals are wrong – we’re usually right, but sometimes we’re wrong. Likewise, I’m not afraid to say when conservatives are right – even though that’s not happening so often these days.

    Okay, pablo?

    One more thing – are you always right? If you are, then you’re as perfect as Jesus, huh? But if you’re mature enough to realize you’re NOT always right, then you’re sometimes wrong. How many times have you come out and admitted that you’re wrong about something on this website? None that I can remember.

    So either you’re perfect – or you’re afraid to admit when you’re wrong. When you’re willing to force yourself to admit when you’re wrong, come back and let me know.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc –

    I see what you mean. So if we want to bring more web traffic to BC, write something unsavory about Paul or about China – both subjects bring the nuts popping out of the woodwork! But at least the nuts from China are (probably) paid to say what they say….

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Jeremy –

    As to your question about which state I like the least, that’s not as easily answered as you may think. Are you referring to in terms of weather or living standards or cost of living, or what?

    If we’re going to stay in the context of this discussion, though, I’d say Mississippi, and for two reasons. One, MS is IMO the most racist state in the union, and two, because familiarity breeds contempt. BUT if we were referring to the lifestyle OTHER than that which is affected by racism – weather, pace of life, flora/fauna, general friendliness of the people, MS would be my second-favorite state behind Hawaii.

    So I’ve answered your question – what’s your point?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Jeremy –

    I do have a life away from the computer, you know.

  • blessme

    Oh my goodness the racist card! And so early, that reeks of desperation! I’m a black woman in full support of Ron Paul

  • Jeremy

    What happened to Glenn? Cat got your tongue?

  • pablo

    The truth of the matter is Contrarian is simply using this is a canard. Instead of challenging Dr. Paul on the issues of the day, the best that Contrarian can do is bring up the race card or talk about flood plains!

    I never cease to be amazed by Glenn’s positions on the issues of the day. Also for him to call Dave Nalle a libertarian is about as funny as Glenn calling himself a liberal!

    Liberal my ass Glenn, your a Reagan lover and have always been one. You could give a whit about the rule of law as defined by the US Constitution as well.

    Your characterization of Nalle’s opinion of Dr. Paul was skewed at best. I am no fan of Nalle, however in the most recent article that he did right about him he said this:

    “These candidates are less well known, but like Paul their dedication to fiscal conservatism and limited government puts them in clear contrast to the supposed frontrunners in the race like former Governors Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee. The frontrunners have establishment connections and name recognition which give them clout, but also have baggage and histories of past actions which may put them at a fatal disadvantage in a general election, even against an increasingly unpopular Barack Obama.

    In this field, Paul’s entry as a strong voice for a different kind of Republican Party, with his advocacy of an end to foreign wars, substantial spending cuts and Constitutionally limited government, will make a significant difference. His candidacy will help set the tone for the campaign, pitting old guard insiders and the party elite against grassroots reformers and libertarians. It will help to focus the debate on fiscal responsibility and individual liberty, making it more difficult for candidates to campaign on divisive social issues or by pandering to special interest groups.

    Whether Ron Paul wins the nomination or not, his involvement in the process will help produce a better outcome for the Republican Party.”

    If you strip out the word libertarian to its core, it is about LIBERTY, something that Glenn in my opinion has always been against. He believes in majority rule, not a republic that upholds the rights of the individual particularly against the state.

    When Glenn was going to an all white school, and loving being a bigot, and I assume a repulican, I was out in the streets of San Francisco with my real liberal friends protesting the war in Vietnam.
    Like I said Glenn is about as liberal as Nalle is libertarian, hence they are two peas of the same pod.
    thanks for showing your stuff once again Glenn, I always get a kick out of it pal.

  • zing – You’re absolutely right, and I did it knowingly. I am guilty of trolling – it was all sincere, mind you, but trolling nonetheless.

    I did the same thing myself four years ago, Glenn, just to see who would crawl out of the woodwork. Sure enough… 🙂

  • Jeremy


    One quick question: Out of all the states, which one do you least like?

    Stay with me I have a point.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    zing – You’re absolutely right, and I did it knowingly. I am guilty of trolling – it was all sincere, mind you, but trolling nonetheless.

    Yes, it’s a big economy-sized can of worms, but I’m just hooked on remembering “Worm the Judge” in Pink Floyd’s “The Wall”. There’s a wonderful joke somewhere here, but it keeps getting away from me.

  • Dave has actually voted for Ron Paul in at least one primary. His objection is to the messianic cult of Paulistas/Paulbots/Paultards that show up en masse to comment hysterically whenever there is a Ron Paul article.

    At least that’s what Dave said 3 years ago. He has since become a raving Tea Party propagandist, so he might deny everything.

  • If Dave Nalle does not support Ron Paul, then he is certainly NOT a libertarian.

    Hmm… Nick has a serious messiah complex, methinks.

    Substitute the words “Christ” and “Christian” for “Ron Paul” and “libertarian” in the above, and that should be obvious.

  • Nick

    If Dave Nalle does not support Ron Paul, then he is certainly NOT a libertarian. Ron Paul has served in a leadership capacity with the Republican Liberty Caucus, and is currently on its list of “Elected Officials” who are endorsed by the RLC. Bottom line: you’re full of shit.

  • MDLiberty

    Just like a Liberal Glenn. In one breath you are saying you know nothing about me and the next you are spouting off about how you are more “experienced” than I. Please tell me more of “what my problems are” – I love when liberals claim they know what is better for everyone else.

    We understand Glenn that you and only you are capable of making the correct decisions in life, and it’s just the rest of us who are unable to make that decision for themselves, and need your guiding wisdom to make our life as great as yours.

  • chris

    actually, I think calling it an “Article” is probably overgenerous. Let me try this again.

    Bullshit collection of journo quotes is bullshit. In 5+ years, I’ve never seen a single black man complain about Paul being a “racist.” Without exception, every single person who has made that complaint has been a (wait for it…) white middle class liberal. Who died and made you guys arbiter of who is racist and who isn’t? You don’t have to like/agree with the guy, but you could try actually debating his platform sometime, instead of just plugging your ears and going LALALALALA RACIST.

    Also, have you actually READ the newsletters? Considering the “furor” around them, I expected them to be a lot worse than they actually are. There’s some stuff in there that’s a little insensitive, but if you really read it and came away with “this guy hates blacks and will oppress them” you’re probably trying too hard.

  • chris

    bullshit article is bullshit. have fun in fantasyland.

  • zingzing

    you knowingly opened up this can of worms, glenn. i applaud your bad choices. ron paul is a god to these people. you’ll never win, you’ll only be buried under shit.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    MDLiberty –

    I never claim to be wise. Ever. But I do have something you lack – experience. I have seen what happens when the people accept policies like those you support, not only in the America of my youth but in other nations that I experienced during my two decades in the military.

    Your problem, MDLiberty, is that you are so hidebound to dogma, to libertarian idealism, that you are presently unable to accept that it might lead to places you never intended. Hopefully you’re young enough that such strict adherence to idealism can still change.

    Furthermore, you are naive when it comes to the exercise of power. Why? Because you’re under the impression that libertarianism thought will somehow win out – and it won’t. If you checked almost any post-election poll, you’d find that when there wasn’t a strong libertarian candidate available, 80% of libertarians voted Republican…thereby giving credence to the observation that libertarians are nothing more than Republicans who want to get stoned and get laid. This means that libertarians won’t ‘win’, and that they’ll turn to supporting Republicans as has been their historical wont.

    Lastly, you’re forgetting the role of MONEY in our political system, particularly since the passage of Citizens United. Now that the floodgates of corporate money have been opened (see Romney’s support of “corporate personhood”), when our politicians of every party get elected, they immediately see that without the money from corporations, they will never stand a chance to get reelected…and so they follow the money.

    Ron Paul’s stances on this particular problem will not matter, because even if he were elected, he would not be able to get anything done unless the corporations – through their lackeys in Congress – would allow it. This will never change until we have a majority of liberal judges on the Supreme Court who would have the courage to expose the lunacy of the idea of ‘corporate personhood’.

    No, MDLiberty – I have no idea of who or what you are, but I do know you have a great deal to learn. Whether your mind is open and agile enough to change when you see evidence that things weren’t as you were taught (as I did on my dual journey away from Republican party and from racism), only time will tell.

  • MDLiberty

    Glenn, did you hear about the vast Libertarian conspiracy???

    We plan on taking over the government – and then leaving you alone.

  • MDLiberty

    I am no birther, trufer, or conspiritorial nut. I suppose if it makes you feel superior to beleive that I am..so be it.

    Are you able to argue with those idiots and win? Does that make you feel smart?

  • MDLiberty

    You have comprehension problems…it wasn’t the government that made those republicans say what they did it was their own racism and ignorance that made them say it. However their racism and ignorance only becomes an issue when governemnt is given the power to push it onto everyone.

    In this example you have two choices: 1) government regulates who can and who can’t get married. OR 2)Individuals and their church decide who can marry.

    If the government is in charge of who can and who cannot marry then there is always the possibility of racism and ignorance of a few dictating to the many.

    if the people and churches are in charge of who can and cannot marry then everyone get’s what they want and there is never a threat of someone else telling you who you can or cannot marry.

    Keep up the condescending and immature responses Glenn, it doesn’t help you at all.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Ah – I see – it was government that forced those Republicans to say they thought interracial marriage should be illegal! It was government thugs who stood there with guns pointed at the heads of the Republicans to force them to respond as they did!

    Real good, “MDLiberty”. You be real careful, now – the guv’mint’s black helicopters might be just over that ridge in the distance just a-waitin’ to come git you, confiscate yer guns, point the gay-ray at yer kids, and force you to give up yer freedom of speech and worship at the feet of the Kenyan who’s tryin’ to foreclose on the White House!

    Just be REAL careful, now, ’cause those guv’mint spies are EVERYwhere!

  • Dan

    What a horrible article, I think Pat summed it up best:

    “Racism is bombing, falsely imprisoning and torturing brown people.
    Racism is drug laws that lock up non-violent offenders.

    Ron Paul opposes these manifestations of racism in THE REAL WORLD. Who cares about some some newsletter?”

  • MDLiberty

    You do know that the first marriage laws were to do just that – prohibit inter racial marriage. Prime example of how government through legilation promotes racism whereas if it was left to the individuals getting married it would never be an issue.

  • MDLiberty

    “a 46% plurality of registered Republican voters [in Mississippi] said they thought interracial marriage was not just wrong, but that it should be illegal.”

    Perfect reason why Government should not be in the business of defining marriage (a religious dogmatic ritual).

  • MDLiberty

    “I’ve seen firsthand what happens in such situations. You haven’t, and you have no idea where it would lead.

    I do. I’ve lived it.”

    Got it, You are wise and I am just a slacked jawed yokel.

    Nice talking to you today Glenn.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    MDLiberty –

    You really don’t have much experience with racism, do you? The Jim Crow laws were a government-mandated EASING of what was already the norm in the South.

    If you really don’t think racism is that bad, then check out this Pew poll in April 2011 that found:

    a 46% plurality of registered Republican voters [in Mississippi] said they thought interracial marriage was not just wrong, but that it should be illegal.

    That’s April 2011 – not April 1964. That’s THIS YEAR.

    And remember, Mississippi is governed by who? Republicans.

  • MDLiberty

    “I’ve seen firsthand what happens in such situations”

    What situations??? You mean you have seen firsthand what happens when the state governments dictate and promote racism through legislation? Yeha, no joke…it is horrible, But that has nothing to do with what Ron Paul or any other libertarian is advocating, and all I have seen is your inability to address that.

  • Bern
  • MDLiberty

    Discrimination was only the norm because the state governments through Jim Crow laws legislated it as the norm.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    MDLiberty –

    As I pointed out to Jeremy, I’ve seen firsthand what happens in such situations. You haven’t, and you have no idea where it would lead.

    I do. I’ve lived it.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Jeremy –

    What’s without proof? You can look up that school’s 2010 graduating class photo – all white. You can look up Sunflower County’s population stats – 71% black.

    You’ve obviously never lived in a place where discrimination was the NORM. I have. All you have is Paul’s rhetoric. I have the EXPERIENCE. I KNOW where Paul’s policies would lead, because I’ve seen it before. I’ve LIVED it.

    And I don’t want to go back to it just so you can have what you think is freedom.

  • MDLiberty

    “Think about this – if businesses had been allowed to discriminate, what would have happened to those of Arabic descent – or even looked Arabic – in the months following 9/11?”

    SOme buisnesses would have discriminated against them, other businesses wouldn’t. Over time the businesses that were discriminating against them would have profited less than those which didn’t – eventually leading to their demise, unless of course a government passed a law requiring ALL businesses to discriminate.

    Good people like yourself would have protested against the businesses that were discriminating, others would refuse to buy their products. Staged rallies outside their business, they would be ridiculled in the press and eventually they woukld go out of business – unless they were of course too big too fail.

    I just don’t think the vast majority of people in our country are hybernating racists who are only subduing their feelings because our all omnicient parental government is holding their true desires back.

  • Jeremy


    Well, that’s all subjective and without proof but that aside. I never understood why it has to be all or nothing.

    Why can’t the people who have your beliefs, just live in relative freedom? Why can’t libertarians just have a place of their own. Then we can compare and see what is better?

    Freedom is costly and if a school wants to accept only whites that should be their business. Here’s a tip…don’t go to that school.

    At what point in this country did we get to the point where everyone immediately looks to the government for direction on everything? For chrissakes they are telling me what kind of light bulbs I can buy these days. I’m sick of it.

    We can continue the discussion futher but I don’t really see a point anymore. The race will go and people like you who are small minded and have a biased world view (growing up racist and having such an intimate familiarity with it is a bias) will bring up this crap and we will see what happens and how it all plays out.

    Just like in 2008 though…be careful what you wish for. I warned people about Obama then and I was right on, he’s a do nothing, war mongering, spend spend spend democrat. Worse, he’s a certified RepubliCrat They are two sides of the same coin and they prop one another up, which is precisely why we need people like Ron Paul to challenge the status quo.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Jeremy and MDLiberty –

    Look me up in the BC writers index and you’ll find quite a few experiences with racism that I’ve had. Very, very few whites have as much experience with racism as I’ve had from both sides of the argument. For instance, one family acquaintance of mine was literally the most powerful racist in America for a generation. He was twice president pro tem. This was Senator James O. Eastland, and my grandmother used to sell moonshine – yes, moonshine – for him. He offered to get me into the Naval Academy, and he could have done it with just a phone call. I turned him down.

    Both of you seem to think that private businesses wouldn’t survive if they discriminated today – and both of you are WRONG. There’s an all-white private school I attended – Indianola Academy – back in 1976. It was all-white then, and it’s all-white today. And this is in a county that’s 71% black. Indianola Academy is part of an all-white “academy system” of a dozen or so schools that Senator Eastland started in response to the Civil Rights Act and mandatory integration. That “academy system” is still quite active today.

    In 1984, twenty years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the doctor’s office in Shaw, Mississippi was just the same as it was when I left four years earlier – including the “white” and “colored” signs above the two entrance doors.

    Anyone who thinks that businesses wouldn’t survive if they discriminate is naive in the extreme. Think about this – if businesses had been allowed to discriminate, what would have happened to those of Arabic descent – or even looked Arabic – in the months following 9/11?

    Racism is quite real, guys – and the ONLY thing between the America of today and the Germany of the 1930’s (which DID allow businesses to discriminate) is our determination that all men are created equal, and the legal wherewithal to enforce that determination.

  • Jeremy

    Well in that case Glenn I guess you can call me racist bigot anti whatever too. Becuase I support the liberterian ideology that business should be allowed to discriminate.

    Let me sidetrack a minute…government says it is OK for businesses to put poison in food, water and chemical drugs that have been PROVEN repeatedly to be harmful to human health…

    yet they cannot discrimnate who they want to work in their PRIVATE business. Where I live we are an “at will state” which means the employer can fire me for being fat, or disliking my political views, but not for being black. BTW, WHITE people are NOT protected by the anti discrimination laws which is actually reverse discrimination on the government’s part.

    Furthermore, the government is THE ONE that is constantly dividing us all by race. If people (governments too) stopped bringing it up all the damn time in forms and legislation it would be a non issue.

    One more, the policies that Paul advocates would actually HELP PEOPLE OF ALL RACES TO THRIVE. Freedom is a good thing. Do you really think that people would go to Applebees if the owner/manager refused to let black people in?? Really in 2012?? Even if they did (which is a slim chance) other people would stop going there and as explained by Rand Paul, the market would fix the issue.

    Sure you might have pockets of super racist places crop up, but you just don’t go to those places. What’s the big deal.

    All I’ve ever wanted my entire adult life (from the government) is for the Left to leave me alone, and the right to leave me alone. So far as I can see the Left (Democrats) want to be my mommy and coddle me to death, and the Right (Republicans) want to by my daddy and beat me into submission. And BOTH parties want to tax and spend the country into oblivion.

    So, I endorse Paul despite the allegations and I think the rest of the country will see in time. At any rate, it doesn’t matter what you think of his past or the man himself. His ideas are getting out there. We audited the FED for the first time (ever) this year due to his efforts alone. Just today Rick Perry said that the actions of the FED (printing increasingly worthless) money is nearly treasonous. (paranthetical expression mine).

    So, as the ideas go viral it won’t matter who does it, as long as someone does. If not, brush up on your Chinese b/c in 10-20 years we’ll all be trying to immigrate there whether illegally or not, since America is LITERALLY bankrupt.

    Bigger issues than some alleged newsletter, and dubious claims about association with fringe groups. The mainstream voters are moving towards the Paul ideology anyway.

  • MDLiberty

    Not ranting man, just having a discussion.

  • MDLiberty

    Glenn, It would be arrogant and ignorant of me to say that if allowed there wouldn’t be businesses that would discriminate based upon race. However, it is my absolute belief that those businesses which chose to do so would never survive.

    It was only due to government laws in the south that allowed them to survive in the first place. In 1950 If you wanted to open up a Restaurant in Alabama that was desegregated, could you legally do so? or was it prohibited by law?

    Racism cannot survive in a true free market, because weak ideas do not survive in a true free market.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    MDLiberty – Read my comment #70 – it applies to your rant in #69.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Jeremy –

    I understand what you said – I really do. “I disagree strongly with what you said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. And that’s why the ACLU would defend the white supremacists.

    But there’s a big difference between grudging tolerance of white supremacists and accepting their support. And when this is added to the matter of Ron Paul’s racist articles and his determination that businesses have a ‘right’ to discriminate racially…

    …I’m sorry, but all that combined stinks like last week’s fish.

  • MDLiberty

    Are you a strong supporter of the First Amendment Glenn?

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    Just because someone defends your right to say something, does not mean at all that they are tollerating or advocating the same positions. John Adams defended the British Soldiers, I suppose your argument at the time would have been that Adams was really just a redcoat. Weak argument then, weak argument now.

  • Jeremy


    The problem with public discourse online is that it is all anonymous really. You have no clue who I am, as is the case with yourself.

    Anonymity online is good because I can speak my piece and you yours, without fear of physical reprisal but the problem is that it’s hard to make someone believe something different.

    Which BTW is not MY intent here.

  • Jeremy


    What about the rest of my comment.

    I acknowledge there is some evidence of an “acquaintanceship” by Ron Paul with people that are unsavory to say the least.

    However, you failed to address my point above that:

    They support him because his views further their freedom. I remember in the 90s when the KKK came to my town and people were so angry.

    However, as long as they are peaceful they have their rights to speak their mind.

    This is the case in America. Why don’t you understand that? You get to say what you want, and so do I. If we disagree we can have a debate or a discussion. Now, if it breaks out into a street fight, then we have trouble. Live and let live ya know?

    Does this mean I support the white supremacists? Hell no. But I support their right to speak their piece.

    Voltaire said it best: “I disagree with what you say but I will defend to death your right to say it”

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And Jeremy –

    I’m one of the most liberal among those who post regularly on BC. Glenn Beck would probably upchuck at some of what I post. I use a pseudonym because my name is unique on the internet and some who didn’t like me tried to cause some real problems for me.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Jeremy –

    Here’s some interesting references. I recommend that you pay attention to the evidence they present.

    Crooks and Liars, which tends towards the liberal, and American Thinker, which is a strongly conservative site. They both present much more evidence than I did, and more effectively, when it comes to Ron Paul’s connections to – or at least tolerance of – white supremacist groups.

    And as I’ve said elsewhere, said support/tolerance of white supremacist groups puts Ron Paul’s belief that businesses have a ‘right’ to discriminate in a whole new light.

  • Jeremy

    I found this comment at the liberty papers where they were talking about his alleged alignment with neo nazis.

    Makes perfect sense to me.

    “Why would fascists support a libertarian?

    Maybe because all the abusive federal powers currently being deployed against Arab Americans were invented and first tried out on white nationalist groups.

    It’s all there: the spying, the infiltration, the agents provocateur, the abuse of firearms law, the “inventive” use of the courts to try to find backdoor ways to criminalize speech or create tort liability for speech, the profiling based on appearance, etc. Now, you may think that white supremacists DESERVE the Feds cracking down on them in these ways, but surely it seems logical to assume that the white supremacists themselves don’t like it very much, and might support a candidate who doesn’t think the government should have the power to do that kind of stuff?

    I bet white supremacists love their ACLU lawyers, too, and pass around the business cards of the better ones. Maybe talk about them in their chat rooms. Does this mean that the ACLU is “associated” with fascism? Come on, don’t make me laugh.”

    The above is spot on and really makes the point of why they support him. As to why he keeps the money? I’m not really sure. That’s his deal but I just want someone who actually does what they say.

    The way I understand your rants is that you believe he has been a secret racist/anti-semite/neo nazi etc. for the past 30 some years as a congressman and never publicly revealed it, never slipped (other than the alleged newsletters), and has never promoted any agenda that would further the above bigots groups or causes?

    Isn’t it more likely that he accepts the money because 1. it will do more good for him to have it than them
    2. he can use it to win the presidency and create REAL change that stabilizes the world?

    What say you Glenn?

    BTW, are you sure you aren’t Glenn Beck???

  • MDLiberty

    Which do you think should be treated as the bigger Faux Pas in Politics?

    1) Bombing countries and killing innocent people absent any congressional declaration of war.

    2) Indebting future Generations through reckless monetary inflation.

    3) Claim authority to assinate whomever you want anytime you want anywhere you want.

    4) Claim authority to spy on your own citizens without a warrant.

    5) Be responsible for some bigoted news letters 20 years ago.

    Obviously Glenn feels the most aggregious act is of course the newsletters. Quite the priorites there Glenn (golf clap)

  • Daniel T.

    Just to drive the point home:

    You think it’s really worth to sacrifice thousands of lives overseas together with the American economy AND Americans’ constitutional rights because the guy MAY or MAY NOT have been a closeted racist 20 years ago? Really? Or do you tackle politics like a football team? You defend your colors to the end?

  • Daniel T.

    Glenn, the evidence you presented is true, no one is denying that, but, as I pointed out before








    Unless you read minds, okay? So, how about trying to convince people that Ron Paul is no good by, you know, tackling some of his points of view? Or would that be too high brow and not Jerry Springerish enough?

  • MDLiberty

    “All you care about is that he’s Ron Paul, and that he’s not Obama.”

    Actually, Ron Paul and most of his supporters (not all) will tell you that Ron himself is not really that important. It is the idea of Liberty that is important. I don’t care if it is a old white straight guy from Texas who is talking about Liberty or if it was a young gay black woman from DC.

    Did you vote for Obama in the last election Glenn? And if so did you do so based on his positions or because he wasn’t Bush?

  • Jeremy


    I just asked you to show me the evidence. I tried for an hour and half but couldn’t.

    As I stated, I did find many allegations but no proof from a credible source (read: official).

    Anyway, the burden of proof is on the accuser. Remember…innocent until proven guilty.

    So prove away.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And the insults go on from people who deny what Ron Paul wrote, or who said “so what” about what Paul wrote, or that it happened too long ago to matter, or made up other excuses…


    In other words, none of you really care whether he was telling the truth about the racist articles. You. Really. Don’t. Care. All you care about is that he’s Ron Paul, and that he’s not Obama.

    Not a single one of you has approached this matter from the standpoint of “evidence for” versus “evidence against”…and that doesn’t say much for any of you.

  • Glenn, your quote from Dave Nalle’s June 2008 article prompted me to read it and its 242 comments.

    What a different universe:
    Nalle calling out others’ fanaticism instead of incorporating their rhetoric into a new fanaticism of his own.
    Clavos making sensible, wry comments instead of being a right-wing grump.
    Cindy as an actual bona fide liberal.
    Irene [pre-Athena] before she became a comedian.

    Those were the days!

  • Jeremy

    OK Glenn,

    I searched for a good hour or so and I can’t find the proof of the campaign contributions by the “neo nazis”

    I will look at it if you can send me to a site with proof. Something like opensecrets.org or something more official.

    I did find many seemingly baseless arguments regarding this on American Thinker and other blogs but still nothing that wasnt an opinion piece.

    Any links? Please don’t link me to the neo nazi’s pages etc.

  • Dillon Mawler

    Glenn, thanks for continuing to point out the actual facts. Of course, these newsletters (and the lack of any immediate, public disavowal) disqualify Paul from holding the highest office in the land.

    Imagine, Ron Paul supporters, if there existed five years of racist Bill Clinton Newsletters or racist John Kerry Newsletters, or racist Bernie Sanders Newsletters? Would these explanations satisfy you?

    The lack of logic and brainpower exhibited here in support of Paul is depressing, and I hesitate to point out any one idiocy among so many, but
    saying he raises money from white supremacists is EXTREMELY dishonest because he never ASKED for that money, they gave it to him freely is simply amazing “logic.”

    Um, he SOLD subscriptions to the newsletter.

  • #53: oh, that’s just where the conversation needs to go. Jeez.

  • Get Real

    Obama is the racist.

  • Daniel T.

    Ok, Glenn, THE ONLY way we can prove without a shadow of a doubt that Ron Paul is not racist to you is if we drilled a hole through his brain and dug in there to see if we can find the racist neurons.

    The only way to prove he didn’t write the letters beyond a shadow of a doubt is if Lew Rockwell or whomever else who wrote them admitted to doing so. Since that’s NOT happened and it’s NOT Ron Paul’s fault, then you can just keep thinking he’s a racist, even though there’s thousands of interviews of him saying the contrary and throughout all his speeches and writing outside the newsletters he hasn’t let out A SINGLE HINT of racism and indeed condemning racism in a very logical way that ties PERFECTLY with everything else he believes.

    When someone clings to slander there’s no way to defend the slandered short of providing goddamn DNA evidence, though, so I guess I’m the time I could be using to do all my ethnic business along with all my ethnic friends who desperately need some white guy to protect them from the MAN.

    And by the way, saying he raises money from white supremacists is EXTREMELY dishonest because he never ASKED for that money, they gave it to him freely, and even though they may mistakenly believe he sides with them, he can use the money to do GOOD, instead of pretending money retains the aura of its last owner and touching racist dollars makes you racist too.

  • Dustin

    What a boring read. You’re rehashing smears that haven’t gotten any traction in a decade, except among frothingly rabid Ron Paul-haters.

    I got a huge laugh at the end when you refer us to a “real” libertarian no one has ever heard of who belongs to something that starts with the word “Republican” and parrots mainstream criticisms of Ron Paul’s libertarian views.

    Yea, sounds like a real libertarian to me. Give me a break.

    Lets just say for a moment that Ron Paul said those things, meant them now and still believes them to this day.


    His stance on liberty for all far overshadows this negligible bigotry. It isn’t as if President Ron Paul would abolish the IRS….for everyone except blacks…and end the Federal Reserve…except for black people…and put an end to the war on drugs…except not on the blacks.

    What do you expect to achieve by outing an old man from Texas as being mildly bigoted nearly 20 years ago?

    Robert Byrd was a violent racist not long before he became a Democrat politician. He eventually renounced his bigotry…but this dude was in THE FUCKING KLAN!

    So seriously, get over it.

    You’re wasting your energy.

    No fan of Ron Paul will be persuaded to oppose him because of this.

    You’re preaching to a small, pathetic choir.

  • Daniel T.

    By the way, saying he is racist because there’s a chance he “might be a racist”, depending on how you look at it, is the same as taking the missing children files from everywhere he’s ever been and saying “He might be a serial-killer” because he was at the same time and general region where the kids went missing. I can’t prove that’s true either, my friend, but I can’t prove that Obama isn’t a pedophile either, so there you go.

    You can pick between a racist and a pedophile, how about that?

  • MDLiberty

    Did Ron Paul write those newsletters? Who knows? and who cares?

    Name one candidate, hell, name one person on this planet who doesn’t have some sort of baggage or “odd” views or hasn’t said something “controversial”.

    I mean for Christs sake, we are dropping bombs in who knows how many countries, we are spying on our own citizens, we are bogging down future generations with massive unsustainable debt…AND we are rehashing some old ass news letter that no one read then and no one cares about now.

  • Daniel T.

    Lew Rockwell wrote those letters. Ron Paul took the rep for some reason, but it’s an “open secret” amongst libertarian circles. And even though those letters are shameful, Lew does not strike me as racist either. As I understand, it was all a desperate and misguided attempt to appeal to the “rednecks” since they had so little support at the time. Nonetheless, Lew is still a brilliant economist and I don’t think they are racist at all (I’m a mix of about five different races, so I have some authority on the subject).

    As for fringe economic theories, how come they are so fringey if they’re always RIGHT??? I’ve never seen anyone point that out. They always say “No serious economist supports those views” but never add “Even though they seem to work out all the time…”.

  • MDLiberty

    Yeah, “General” Welfare is far different from “Individual or public” Welfare.

    “Welfare in today’s context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.”

  • Glenn Contrarian

    “bytejockey” –

    Look up “general welfare” in the Constitution instead, and tell us what you found. Hint – it’s there…twice.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And Jeremy –

    I’m quite liberal – but when it comes to speaking about libertarians and Republican politics, I’ve learned to listen to Dave Nalle, president of the very-libertarian Republican Liberty Caucus – look it up sometime. Here’s what he had to say:

    [Ron Paul supporters] completely overlook Paul’s support for the reactionary conspiracy nuts at the John Birch Society and the reprehensible 9/11 Truth movement or the fact that he raises money on white supremacist websites and has the endorsement of racist leaders like former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke, White Aryan leader Tom Metzger and Stormfront Fuhrer Don Black.

    I suggest you do some research and find out if Ron Paul really has accepted funding from them, and then come back here and tell us what you found.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Jeremy –

    What poll did they supposedly quote? There was no poll – but I recognize what it was.

    There’s a lot of Paulbots appearing here after I posted this article – but the BC regulars are staying away in droves because they know my history with racism. I was raised racist in the very deepest of the Deep South (the MS Delta), and it took about half of my twenty years in the Navy to find out that people really are the same all over the world. I finally saw how wrong that racism was and I’ve fought it ever since.

    And because I was once racist, I know it when I see it – Ron Paul and his spokesman weren’t quoting any poll (unless it was one they took among his friends). They were making up crap that sounded good, because in the eyes of racists, all that’s required for an accusation to become gospel is for that accusation to sound good and/or funny in the eyes of racists. I’ve seen it and done it too many times – and that’s exactly what Paul and his spokesman were doing.

    That is, unless you yourself really, truly believe that “only five percent of people with dark-colored skin support the free market”.

  • bisky

    Even if he were racist which he isn’t, his policies would bring prosperity to all races. He thinks government should not pick winners and losers and everyone should have equal protection of their liberties. His definition of marriage is between a man and a women, but he endorses the right of gays to marry, because two free people can do anything they want. He would support every right for blacks to live and earn and congregate and protest and organize and run for office and be opposed to every example of abuse of authority by the police and by government.

  • bytejockey

    The term Dave Nalle used was “public welfare”, which does not appear in the Constitution. Try again.

  • bisky

    Even if he were racist which he isn’t, his policies would bring prosperity to all races. He thinks government should not pick winners and losers and everyone should have equal protection of their liberties. So if he personally hated green midgets it would be irrelevant to the type of government he endorses

  • Jeremy

    Glenn you said:

    36 – Glenn Contrarian
    Aug 16, 2011 at 7:59 am
    So let me get this straight – the “proof” that all of you are using against the Dallas Morning Herald and the Houston Chronicle articles in which Ron Paul did NOT deny the articles at all! In fact, if any of you will READ the article, you’ll find that the Austin American-Statesman had this:

    Also in 1992, Paul wrote, “Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions.” [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said Paul does not consider people who disagree with him to be sensible. And most blacks, Sullivan said, do not share Paul’s views. The issue is political philosophy, not race, Sullivan said. “Polls show that only about 5 percent of people with dark-colored skin support the free market, a laissez faire economy, an end to welfare and to affirmative action,”

    Okay? The paper quoted Paul – and Paul’s SPOKESMAN back up what Paul wrote!

    This is EVIDENCE, people – refute the evidence with something more concrete than “well, Paul says he didn’t do it and I believe him”.

    OK, so my refute to that is the following. What is racist about quoting polls that say that black people disagree with his views? If I’m a public figure and I talk about how polls show that white people disagree with my opinions and views, how is that wrong?

    Explain that part and we’ll go from there…ball’s in your court…

  • Clark

    I am mexican-american and I fully endorse Ron Paul for president. Ron Paul wants to end the failed “war on drugs”. It is a proven fact that the laws which prohibit drugs do extensive harm to african americans and mexican americans because of the color of skin they are judged harder in courts and incarcerated on a way higher and lopsided ratio to caucasions.Im not buying the bullcrap that this blogger and other hitpiece writers continue to throw at Ron Paul. Ron Paul has proven to be an honest man and I trust him because of his 30 year record of being honest with his principles and voting.

  • Jay

    I’m a black man and I reject this article. This is flat out demagoguery, the notion that Dr. Paul is racist is absurd. Ron Paul supports ending torture that is conducted almost always on brown people; Ron Paul wants to end the war on drugs, which targets minorities; Ron Paul has the consistency and honesty that this country needs so dearly. I’m voting for Dr. Paul.

  • My personal experience with newspapers is that they *NEVER* get the facts right. On several occasions I was an eye witness to events that were later reported in the papers. Every single article contained factual errors. Except for one in which they printed my press release word for word. A newspaper article should never be trusted as a definitive source for anything.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    So let me get this straight – the “proof” that all of you are using against the Dallas Morning Herald and the Houston Chronicle articles in which Ron Paul did NOT deny the articles at all! In fact, if any of you will READ the article, you’ll find that the Austin American-Statesman had this:

    Also in 1992, Paul wrote, “Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions.” [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said Paul does not consider people who disagree with him to be sensible. And most blacks, Sullivan said, do not share Paul’s views. The issue is political philosophy, not race, Sullivan said. “Polls show that only about 5 percent of people with dark-colored skin support the free market, a laissez faire economy, an end to welfare and to affirmative action,”

    Okay? The paper quoted Paul – and Paul’s SPOKESMAN back up what Paul wrote!

    This is EVIDENCE, people – refute the evidence with something more concrete than “well, Paul says he didn’t do it and I believe him”.

  • Son

    As far as I can tell, the comments that were discussed in the interviews you posted were not the overtly racist comments in the newsletters that seemed over-the-top. And I’m sorry but I find nothing wrong with making note that black people are fast and commit more wrongdoings proportionately than the rest of America. It’s a fact you will learn in any Sociology class. But that doesnt mean black people are evil. It means the system, which he is trying to change, has an underlying bias that causes negative effects on the black community.

    And on a side note, who cares what that other guy thinks? What matters is what we, as individuals, think and believe. hey the media told us that iraq was a war we had to support, and that obama was the answer we needed… yeah i think the media, along with the gov, has lost their credibility and have no business telling us who they think is electable. and since all these newsletters are more than 20 years old, i’d like to hear him say something openly racist myself before i start judging him on it.

  • Maxwell Genaw

    Ron Paul is NOT a racist, give me a break!

  • Marcus Aerelius

    “Woohoo! Lots of insults, but not a single refutation of the evidence presented!”

    Well, refutations require reading what the other side has to say, which does not appear to be part of your opinion-making process, Mr. Contrarian. Or perhaps you have read them and simply pretend that you didn’t see anything worthwhile. Either way, your juvenile response shows just how much you live up to your contrarian moniker.

    There’s really been no shortage of refutation over the last 15 years of the charge that Ron Paul wrote those letters. It’s not hard to find, and Ron Paul himself has never felt the need to hide from the issue. He addressed it in his previous congressional campaigns, as well as his 2008 presidential campaign. Aside from the complete and utter incongruence between those letters and everything else Ron Paul has ever done in his political career, there have been other examples of evidence to refute the charge.

    Here’s one. Have you ever actually read anything written by Ron Paul? He’s written a lot of books and articles over the years. Well, if you have (which is extremely doubtful), then you would know that the style and wording of the letters in question do not match Ron Paul’s published works. They’re noticeably different, in fact. That is, the differences are noticeable to people who actually read them. What a novel idea!

    There’s more out there than that, but really, what’s the use in talking about it with folks like you at this point? An accusation cannot be refuted if someone is too lazy, insincere, or both to look at all the evidence available and determine what is the most rational, consistent theory to explain it.

  • Fred

    bytejockey: Read the preamble of the U.S. constitution. “…promote the general welfare…” is right between “provide for the common defense” and “secure the blessings of liberty”

  • brian

    what’s hilarious about this article is that it references dave nalle as a “true libertarian”. Neo-cons and liberals are starting to look too much a like.

  • Snow

    You ask for statements “refuting” your evidence in a manner assuming the inclusion of said evidence in your article draws only a single empirically proven conclusion, that being the one you state.

    Equally valid opposing evidence has been presented in these comments, should one believe your article simply by virtue of it being such, or by virtue of you having wrote it? You are not as mighty or as informed as you seem to think that you are.

  • MG

    Glenn, get off your high horse. numerous people have already pointed out many refutes to you “article”.

    Firstly as others have said many of the CORE principles of his platform could be considered highly tolerant or “anti-racist”, namely his noninterventionist policies which show a greater appreciation and trust for other peoples and cultures than (arguably) any previous president. further, his trumpeting the legalization of all recreational drugs is undoubtedly more beneficial to blacks and other minorities who have been disproportionately incarcerated for non-violent crimes.

    he has been public in both of these stances since before his supposedly racist newsletters came out.

    certainly it’s easy to pick on something like this, and it is of course an unfortunate circumstance he has found himself in. but I think if one is a rational person who looks at the man’s entire body of work instead of a few sentences which have not been proven to be his writing, AND which he has himself refuted and which others of his verifiable writings have contradicted, I think it’s reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt.

  • Jeremy

    Last time this topic came up in a major political blog, I researched the source of the “news release” and it turned out to be a PR firm in the DC area. Once I outed the owner of the firm for distributing false information, he owned up to it to clear his name — he blamed it on a DC thinktank that hired his firm to smear Paul.

  • beian

    Oh God, this nonsense again??? When they fail to debate the substance of what Paul ACTUALLY believes and sys, they pull out the tired old race card and refuted 20 year old news letters that he CLEARLY did not write. It doesn’t even sound like him.

    ITs pretty sad..

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Any racist can claim, “I’m not racist! See the great things I did and I’ve even got black friends!” I’ve seen it many, many times. Besides, there’s something really, really wrong with taking a politician’s word, especially when there’s evidence showing something’s not exactly in accordance with the politician’s claims.

    Just refute the evidence presented – that’s all I ask.

  • Calvin

    Paul’s 30-year voting record stands contrary to the newsletters that were not written by him.

    Ron Paul 2012.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Woo hoo! Lots of insults, but not a single refutation of the evidence presented!

    This reminds me a whole lot of the China-can-do-no-wrong trolls whenever something bad is posted about China.

  • Ed Helmstetter

    there is no shortage of videos of ron paul speaking, youtube has thousands going back to the 80`s-if ron paul was a racist you would think that maybe one of those thousands of videos would prove it out-ago ahead and find one-i`ll wait……

  • bytejockey

    Please have Dave Nalle tell us where the term “public welfare” appears in the Constitution. When he can do that, maybe we’ll listen to his criticism of Dr. Paul’s interpretation of the Constitution.

  • jsknow

    Notice how consistent Ron Paul has been over the years and watch how he bashes the FBI for their unconstitutional treatment of Martin Luther King, which certainly contradicts the unsubstantiated claims of him being a racist.

    If RP was a racist he’d be speaking well of the groups he likes and bad about the ones he doesn’t instead of saying exactly what he says every time… “we get our rights as individuals not as groups”. In other words… the law applies equally to all.

    Racism goes against everything Ron Paul stands for!

  • Stebro

    Anybody here actually read the newsletters in question?

    Being labeled a racist is pretty easy these days. Just to speak the truth will do the job. For instance, anyone notice that the participants in these flash mobs are all black? I’m making no judgements, just watching the tapes. Is this a blanket condemnation of all black people? No, but some of you will call me a racist just for pointing out that fact. I’ve seen the mobs personally. Those are kids all right, but all black kids. I haven’t seen a single report from the media noticing that point. Why is that? They don’t want to be called racist.

    Maybe Ron Paul was reporting on what he was seeing and being labelled racist for so doing. Now, out of context and by current standards it sounds racist.

  • RJS

    Yet another article by someone who doesn’t listen to the good doctor. “It’s not me, It’s the message”…Ron Paul.

  • Sam

    You cite Davie Naile as a “real libertarian”, that would be down right hilarious if it wasn’t so terribly tragic…that’s like calling Milton Friedman a “real free market economist” when dismissing Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises. I’ll give you the benefit and assume you are unaware of your rather glaring ignorance…but you should really educate yourself. Racism is just particular form of collectivism, which Dr. Paul as an individualist rejects with the very core of his being…if you don’t believe me I suggest you talk to him, it will change your world.

  • reube99

    Nice try, but those old smear tactics aren’t gonna work this time — Americans of all stripes are joining with Ron Paul.

  • Aliksander

    Or option #3: Ron Paul, and his family and associates, left a largely unread newsletter in the hands of someone he thought he could trust. That he made a mistake by thinking someone who shared some of his views would be responsible enough not to write such garbage in his name. That when he (and by proxy the person he trusted) was accused of racism Ron Paul immediately thought that it must be something blown out of proportion and got defensive (granted imprudently) rather than investigating first.

    You know I could even BELIEVE, based on the available evidence that he COULD have written those articles, but for one problem. I have yet to see anyone, ANYONE, point to ONE THING that came out of Ron Paul’s mouth or in his legislating that points to racism BESIDES those handful of articles that he has repeatedly denounced. Find me ONE MORE PIECE OF EVIDENCE HE IS RACIST, and I will be inclined to believe it. Until then stop digging up this very dead story.

  • Jared Morris

    I think you are racist against Ron Paul! I would like the five minutes of my life I spent reading this back please. That Dave Nalle calls Paul an isolationist just goes to show how far he is from even understanding Paul’s positions. There is a pretty massive difference from an isolationist and a noninterventionist. Why don’t you make good use of your time and write an article on that.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    So in the opinion of those who believe that all this about Ron Paul’s racist articles is a big lie, here’s your choice – either Ron Paul:

    1 – didn’t write the articles but knowingly allowed his staff to think he did, or

    2 – DID write the articles and is just trying to wriggle out of taking responsibility for them.

    Which is it?

  • sheeple

    You guys are all crazy, how can he be racist and support releasing most of the prisoners who are in there for drug related crimes, and we all know that majority of the people in prisons in America are black…

    By legalizing drugs he would eliminate most crimes and problems in the inner city….examples are endless…

  • J

    More dirt tricks. Couldnt just ignore could you media… look at the backlash that caused you morons. Ron Paul’s message can’t be stopped.

  • SC

    SmoknTuesdays, so what you’re essentially saying is that Ron Paul is incompetent and bad judge of character. I mean, if he’s not racist and abhors racism, why did all this crap appear, repeatedly, in his newsletter over several years? Was he so clueless that he didn’t even know what was being presented in his own newsletter, with his name in the banner, and presented as being his own writings? This is a newsletter largely staffed by his own family and close associates, by the way. No one that read his newsletter told him “Hey, Ron, what the hell’s this in your newsletter?” and suggested he clean house with his staff? This is a man you think can actually run a country? He can’t apparently even pick decent reliable ghostwriters and editors, but somehow he’s supposed to be competent to select a VP candidate and cabinet members and judges if he’s elected President? Add onto this the fact that he’d be in his mid-70’s when taking office if actually elected, which means a high chance of his dying or being incapacitated in office by health issues, or worse, NOT being incapacitated but being affected by them (dementia affects 6 percent over the age of 65, 20 percent of those over 85, so Paul falls somewhere in that range…do you really want a President that, if he doesn’t just flat out die or stroke out of office, can’t remember what the big red button on his desk does?

  • mark m

    Lew Rockwell wrote them. He would gladly fall on that sword.

  • Mike

    Im sorry I wasted my time reading that article.

  • smokntuesdays

    A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

    The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

    Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

    It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government “benevolence” crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

    Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism.

    The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence – not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

    In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

    -Ron Paul

  • Whether or not he wrote them, I am not aware that he’s refuted them. Therefore he owns them.

  • Chris

    ah, it looks like someone dusted off the newsletter chestnut. Snore.

  • Daniel

    Lol Ron paul endorses “fringe economic theories”?? It was his understanding of austrian free market economics that allowed him to predict the housing crisis way back in 2002. See this speech on the house floor AND his foreign policy is not isolationism it is non interventionism he wants to trade with countries, he points out our history and how our intervening overseas has actually caused all the problems we are facing today. Also Ron Paul has never said he believes 911 was a conspiracy theory, if he thought that why would he vote to go after OBL??? As far as the letters those quotes are interesting, with Ron Pauls view on freedom of choice and personal liberty I highly doubt he is a racist, he was willing to accept responsibility for the letters even though he did not write them and that should be applauded.

  • ProudBlackMan

    So, the smearbund got the memo. This lame attempt to generate controversy is such a tempest in a teapot.

  • patrick

    Racism is bombing, falsely imprisoning and torturing brown people.
    Racism is drug laws that lock up non-violent offenders.
    Ron Paul opposes these manifestations of racism in THE REAL WORLD. Who cares about some some newsletter?

  • Nisha

    I am posting my friend’s endorsement of Dr.P so you can see we ‘ain’t’ buying it.

  • Nisha

    You know we did this in 2007, I am black and I am NOT buying it. I know Dr.Paul already in 2007 said he didn’t endorse these writings and didn’t know about them. Dr.P is honest about everything so I trust him, I know Rosa Parks is one of his heroes because of her civil disobedience. I am more concerned about you being from the south and liberal, are you sure you aren’t racist?