Winter Driving Best Books of the Month Valentine's Day Shop Learn more nav_sap_SWP_6M_fly_beacon St Lucia Bose SoundLink AE All-New Amazon Fire TV Subscribe & Save Valentine's Day Cards Find the Best Purina Pro Plan for Your Pet Amazon Gift Card Offer chiraq chiraq chiraq  Amazon Echo All-New Fire Kindle Paperwhite Prime Exclusive Savings in Video Games Shop Now Sale
Customer Discussions > The Revolution: A Manifesto forum

Is Ron Paul racist?

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-14 of 14 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Apr 28, 2009 6:36:26 PM PDT

I just read this and am wondering what some you guys might think of this? Is this crap that should just be ignored just because of all the positive things that Ron Paul says or should this be taken seriously and judge Ron Paul according?

Posted on Apr 29, 2009 10:51:52 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 30, 2009 2:01:50 AM PDT
vshagoyan says:
Ron Paul is NOT a racist. the man's actions speak much louder than these words, which were not even written by him. Yes it was in HIS newsletter, but left anonymous, however, Ron Paul was busy with work for the 7 months during which these questionable articles were released. Should he have been looking over his own newsletter? Yes I believe he should have. But do I believe he authored these articles? No way in hell! This man's actions speak much louder than these words. If Ron was a racist, he wouldnt be the Republican most supported by minorities. He wouldnt be the only Republican OR democrat that wishes to do away with the war on drugs, which disproportionately hurts minorities. He wouldnt want to do away with the federal reserve, which through inflation, steals the little wealth of the lower and middle class and gives it to the wealthy.If he were a racist, Rosa Parks would not be one of his biggest heros. Finally if he was a racist, he wouldn't have been supported by the President of the Texas NAACP. Ron Paul doesnt believe in races or any other class of people, he believes in AMERICANS PERIOD. I hope I have made Ron Paul clear.

In reply to an earlier post on May 5, 2009 9:46:07 AM PDT
A tree says:
vshagoyan --

I am not sure how any of this is true. First, you say Ron Paul was busy for seven months. At that time, he was not in Congress; he was a doctor. Even if Ron Paul was working 60 hours a week, that would still give him 15 hours per day to work on a newsletter. It would take him roughly ten minutes once a month to read an 8-page newsletter. Yet somehow, he can't manage to find the time for it? Ron Paul's official website proudly boasts that, "Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress." Since 1997, Ron Paul has written 350 pieces of legislation, and that he has voted over 7000 times. Yet we're supposed to believe that as a civilian, Ron Paul can't find the time to write one 8-page article? That as a civilian, Ron Paul can't even find the time to even read his own 8-page newsletter? This literally does not add up. 350 pieces of legislation over 10 years translates into three pieces per month. Does Ron Paul hire a ghostwriter to write his legislation as well? Will he start using that excuse when his legislation proves unpopular? Where exactly will it end? Again, at some point, we need to assume a basic level of competence.

Second, you say his actions speak louder than his words. Ron Paul was against the Civil Rights Act, against the Voting Rights Act, and he has voted in favor of voter suppression. How does that prove that he isn't racist?

Third, you say that he is the Republican most supported by minorities. However, this does not address his many racists comments such as black people being "unbelievably fleet-footed", and that is one of the more tame comments. And very few minorities even support Republicans anyway.

Fourth, you say that he is not racist because he is against the war on drugs. Ron Paul doesn't oppose the war on drugs because it's racist, he opposes it because he opposes everything. The war on drugs could be the most racially equitable program in the history of Earth, and Ron Paul would still oppose it, because it isn't mentioned in the constitution. Some people will try to argue, "But if Ron Paul was a racist, he would support the war on drugs!" This is a faulty syllogism. If the underlying premise were true, then we would have to conclude that Stormfront isn't racist either. Is anyone going to argue that Stormfront isn't racist? But if you want further proof, then check out Ron Paul's solicitation letter. Page one. Hey look, Ron Paul opposed the war on drugs even then. So his current opposition proves nothing, since it doesn't contradict the newsletter in the least.

Sixth, you say that he is not racist because he is against the federal reserve. Again, see above. Same logic.

Seventh, you say that Rosa Parks is one of his biggest heroes. In April of 1999, Congress held a vote on whether or not to award a Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks. Congress was unanimously in favor of the award, with only one exception: Ron Paul. In order to justify his lone nay vote, Ron Paul delivered a speech, where he made the following arguments:

1. That the medal was tax-payer funded, and that we should look for alternative sources for funding. Wrong. The bill in question was only a few pages long, and would have taken less time to read then it would have taken for him to deliver his speech against it. If he didn't read it, then that's another example of Ron Paul incompetence. If he did read it, then he would have caught that the money to pay for the medal would have come from the sale of replicas, and not from tax dollars.

2. That the medal was was unconstitutional. Wrong. I dare anyone who says this to cite the specific passage within the constitution that prohibits the awarding of medals. They won't be able to do this, because there isn't one. At best, they can argue that the awarding of medals isn't "explicitly" endorsed in the constitution, which therefore makes it unconstitutional. Now, you could try arguing that it falls under sections like the necessary-and-propers clause, but that will only give them room to squirm. Instead, I would point out that Congressional Gold Medals have been around longer than the constitution itself, and have been given out ever since. Here's a brief history of some of the earliest awards:

* 1776 George Washington.
* 1777 Major General Horatio Gates
* 1779 Major Henry Lee
* 1781 Major General Nathaniel Greene
* 1787 John Paul Jones
* 1800 Captain Thomas Truxtun

If the founding fathers disapproved of Congressional Gold Medals on principle and found them unconstitutional, then why isn't there any record of this? Why do the founding fathers need Ron Paul to speak on their behalf? Is it the same reason that Rosa Parks needs Ron Paul to speak on her behalf?

3. That the medal goes against the spirit of Rosa Parks. Wrong. Here's what Rosa Parks, the real Rosa Parks, had to say on the subject:

"This medal is encouragement for all of us to continue until all have rights," said Parks, 86, during her brief remarks.

I think that it's incredibly arrogant for Ron Paul to assume that he has a greater authority to speak on behalf of Rosa Parks than Rosa Parks herself, something that he has also done with Martin Luther King.

Eighth, you say that he was supported by the Texas head of the NAACP there. Wrong. He distanced himself from Ron Paul, as a matter of fact. Nelson Linder contacted our office and wanted to stress the fact that he made his comments as a private citizen, not as president of the Austin NAACP. He said the libertarian platform deserves the same scrutiny as the Democratic and Republican parties receive in this nation. He went on to say that some on the web have construed that he is endorsing Ron Paul. And that is not the case. Mr. Linder went on to say that the interview was designed to discuss local issues concerning civil rights and civil liberties and his knowledge of the Libertarian party and Ron Paul.

Ninth, you said that Ron Paul does not believe in race. When Ron Paul criticizes racism, he defines "racism" as "promoting diversity." This is not the same form of racism that Ron Paul himself is being accused of. Therefore, his statement only supports the accusation. Remember, when Ron Paul was asked for comment in the 1996 Houston Chronicle piece, he claimed that he opposed racism, and then went on to defend the newsletter article anyway. Apparently, when Ron Paul claims to oppose "racism," his narrow definition of "racism" doesn't include the newsletter in question. Making the statement irrelevant. As David Neiwert explains, "This is, in fact, just a repackaging of a libertarian argument that multiculturalism is the 'new racism' -- part of a larger right-wing attack on multiculturalism. This is, of course, sheer Newspeak: depicting a social milieu that simultaneously respects everyone's heritage -- that is to say, the antithesis of racism -- as racist is simply up-is-down, Bizarro Universe thinking." Ron Paul is basing his argument on an impossible premise, which shows that he is either lying, or he is completely in denial. In fact, not only is Ron Paul in denial, but he blatantly contradicts himself a little while after he claimed to not even see race by making several references to "the blacks," using the exact same language that Blitzer cited from his newsletter. Ron Paul can't even go two minutes without completely contradicting himself.

I hope I have made it clear why none of what you said will ever be true.

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2009 9:59:02 PM PDT
vshagoyan says:
First, Ron Paul has had this newsletter for many years, yet the questionable writing was done during only the 7 months he was not following it. If it were characteristic of him, dont you think it would have showed up at some time other than the 7 months in question?

You're just one of the statists trying to smear his good name. Whatever. Keep it up.

and lastly, by him saying "the blacks" you came to the conclusion that he is a racist. Good job.

And I cant believe you are trying to make a big deal out of the word "fleet-footed" that is soo racist isnt it? haha

Second, on the civil rights issue, The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

And Ron Paul is against the war on drugs because he is against everything that is AGAINST FREEDOM, not against everything. Once again, your argument is no argument at all.

Next, Inflation hurts the inner cities more than anyone else in society. This is fact. So obviously he is standing up for the inner cities with these actions.

Next On the Rosa Parks issue, he told congress to fork up 100 dollars to pay for the medal themselves because he didnt want tax payer funds paying for it. He would rather spend his own money on the project. That is honorable in my book. It doesnt matter if it is constitutional or not, it is an unnecessary tax payer expenditure.

Posted on May 9, 2009 9:57:57 AM PDT
Yes, the Rosa Parks issue I read that he took $100 out of his pocket and asked the other Congressmen to join him in donating their own money to honor Rosa Parks but they refused. Ron Paul thinks it is theft to spend tax payer money on things not authorized by the Constitution.

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2009 8:28:31 PM PDT
GhostWriter says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jun 2, 2009 9:44:40 AM PDT
T. Algood says:
Nobody believes that Ron Paul is correct 100% of the time. But the fact is, he is the most honest politician alive - and rarely gets the media coverage when he responds to cheap allegations.

For anyone who wants to know the truth, do your own research. Listening to the propaganda of supporters, or opponents will get you nowhere. I have watched a video refuting claims that he's a racist, I for one believe him.

I wonder why no one discusses the former Senate Leader of the Democratic Party, Robert Byrd. A former KKK member, who repeatedly voted in line with his racist beliefs for over 40 years. No of course not, he's a democrat! Only republicans are racist, right media?

Wake up people, you need to start thinking for yourselves. Research, and decide for yourselves. Or you can continue to believe the half truths, and propaganda spread by a biased media. You can search and find a video of Ron Paul discussing these documents that have been blown out of proportion.

Posted on Jun 30, 2009 5:30:42 AM PDT

Posted on Mar 1, 2011 4:48:45 PM PST
Zorro-3 says:
If Ron Paul were a racist, why wouldn't he come out and say so?

It isn't as though he says what he thinks people want to hear. He calls them as he sees them. He doesn't make speeches or cast votes with his finger to the wind. He says what he honestly feels, regardless of how unpopular his position is. If he were racist, he'd be openly fighting for racist causes.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 9, 2011 2:14:33 PM PST
blah says:
"in fact not only is Ron Paul in denial, but he blatantly contradicts himself",
well thats your opinion and you could type for days and it still would not change the fact he is not a racist! PEACE

Posted on Apr 27, 2011 6:13:57 AM PDT
Im4freedom says:
If Ron Paul was racist he would not associate and support Allen West now would he?

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2011 12:27:05 PM PDT
Cal Engime says:
Paul stated in 2008 on the subject of the newsletters that he didn't read them at that time or even know who was ghostwriting them. While he accepted "moral responsibility" for their content, he denied ever personally making a racist statement and defied anybody to prove that he had. He pointed out that this came up in his 1996 Congressional campaign, and the people in his district accepted his explanation because they know that's not a part of his character. He also told Wolf Blitzer that out that of all the candidates, he was the most anti-racist because he believes that all individuals should be equal before the law, and because he would end the war on drugs.

Posted on Aug 16, 2011 4:06:25 PM PDT
Jose I. Mora says:
Ron Paul has clearly disowned these writings, and has even challenged anyone to prove he wrote them. He has clearly said that he is not a racist and, in fact, is the foremost champion on individual rights of any politician today bar none. You cannot be a racist and champion individual rights. Only collectivists can be racist, since they see people as members of a group rather than individuals.

Also, the name of a bill doesn't make it so. Most government bills are just the opposite of their name, including the insultingly-titled so-called "Patriot Act" which makes a mockery of both our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence.

Posted on Dec 21, 2011 6:54:41 AM PST
Free Man says:
There is a thin line between the adjectives "racial" and "racist." It is unfortunately true that government policies have been more detrimental to people of one race than to another. Is it racist to report on racial issues? How does one fix the situation without being called a racist?
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Participants:  13
Total posts:  14
Initial post:  Apr 28, 2009
Latest post:  Dec 21, 2011

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
The Revolution: A Manifesto
The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul (Hardcover - April 2008)
4.2 out of 5 stars (1,664)