The camera doesn’t lie. The documented photograph you see in the video here shows Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul similing as he meets with Don Black, a leader of a white supremacist organization. Guess where they met: At a meeting of a group calling itself Values Voters. Some values those voters have got, huh?
Another radical racist leader, this one a neoNazi, has claimed that the Ron Paul for President campaign, including Ron Paul himself, regularly meets with neo-Nazis and white supremacists in order to coordinate on his presidential campaign.
Republican voters participating in the 2008 presidential primaries should think twice before voting for Ron Paul… unless they want an Aryan Nation, that is.
3 responses so far ↓
1 J. Todd Ring // Jan 12, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Ron Paul: Accusations of racism are unfounded smear
I do not believe, nor see any valid reason to believe, that Ron Paul is rascist - though a minority of his supporters very well may be, as is the case for the other candidates as well. His views show a social and political awareness that in some regards supersedes that of many self-professed progressives. I’ll let him speak for himself.
“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…Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.”
“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.”
“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.”
“We’ve all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different.
“George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena. Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.
“The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights.”
Clearly, Ron Paul understands some of the central the dilemas of democracy and majoritarianism, which some progressives need to understand better, or so it would seem. Majority rule can be used to abuse or sacrifice minorities, as the founding fathers recognized, and endeavoured to prevent. Ron Paul also realizes this, and hence emphasizes the primacy of the rights and freedom of the individual, as a bulwark against such abuse by any given majority or group.
“A truly democratic election in Iraq [for example], without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shiite theocracy. Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free?”
I must say that aside from questions about why I would support Ron Paul, my views would probably be labeled progressive within mainstream US politics. They are actually more left libertarian, a la Chomsky, than the watered down progressivism of Obama supporters or other corporatists who pose as progressive liberals.
It is because Ron Paul is firm on what I consider to be the two most crucial issues of the moment that I support him, despite the fact that I do not agree with him on everything. He is decisively and unwaveringly, in action as well as words, a) a staunch supporter of civil liberties and constitutional rule of law, and b) unequivocal on ending imperial warfare - immediately.
Obama supporters, look at his voting record with regard to civil liberties and constitutional democracy: he voted for the rabidly anti-democratic Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act. Yea progressives! Look at his voting record with regard to wars of aggression - which, as defined by international law, are not only unconstitutional, but war crimes, punishable by very long prison sentences: he voted repeatedly to fund the war in Iraq. You don’t talk peace and fund war, as only Paul and Kucinich seem to realize. Now he advocates attacking Pakistan and spreading the Orwellian termed Global War On Terror (GWOT) further across the Middle East, and has said with regards to launching an attack against Iran, including the potential use of first strike nuclear weapons, “everything is on the table.” Ya, some progressive. Get real folks. Take a closer look at Ron Paul, and Obama as well.
Please see:
http://jtoddring.blogspot.com/2007/05/outbreak-of-democracy-in-america.html
http://jtoddring.blogspot.com/2007/05/right-kind-of-confusion-conservatives.html
http://jtoddring.blogspot.com/2007/04/my-buddy-obama.html
2 Jim // Jan 14, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Funny, J. Todd, but I see here that Barack Obama voted AGAINST the Military Commissions Act.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00259
That was just the first of your “facts” I bothered to check.
3 Tim // Feb 12, 2008 at 9:16 am
Why should I believe a cartoon from someone who doesn`t dare show his face?From all the candidates,Ron Paul is the best choice for me.Nobody else has said anything I agree with.PERIOD.Besides,the puppetmasters will hack a few thousand extra votes for who they want and he is not who they want.The Media only covers what “they” want you to see.That is why they never mention him even tho most of America wants a President with his values.Maybe if we had a little white power,we wouldn`t be the minority without minority “rights” like all the other minorities that get so much money and help from the Govt. now that we have become a minority ourselves!
Leave a Comment