It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

There is more evidence for a racist Ron Paul than can be ignored

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   




Our motto on ATS is Deny Ignorance, correct?

This means that we must remain open-minded, so that we don't end up supporting something that isn't right after it's already too late.

I have been an strong advocate for Ron Paul, spreading his messages throughout my community. I understand his consistency and his ideologies for the most part, and fundamentally agree with his logic. There are some things I don't agree with, but I believe they can be back seated for the more important message he stands for. But the "smear campaign" may have more merit than we give credit.

These pictures were posted on my Facebook wall by a friend of mine.

With this person, I have even defended Paul concerning the newsletters to some extent. They are deplorable, which is why he has not been consistent on this issue. He wants it to just "go away", naturally. But the fact is, he was listed as the editor in these newsletters.

And it is equally true that he was able to "speak" these issues away. But some of the rhetoric used in these racist statements sounds very familiar when compared to the rhetoric he uses to explain the depressing state of America these days...

There are black people who stand behind Dr. Paul, but this means no more than the fact that some black people support Al Sharpton. Cite the NAACP president's quote to me and I see no more than a business man making a good business decision.

I know that people say, "Oh, it's just a smear campaign."

Consider that everyone on that level of politics is under scrutiny. Just like how Herman Cain's problems came to light, so will any other candidate. Ron Paul is not exempt. He just hasn't had the media exposure like other candidates yet; making him seem like a golden child to those who rely on his words. But politicians have been known to be good with words...

This one issue is enough to make me question Ron Paul's legitimacy and I wanna know ATS... how should I reply? This Truth I cannot ignore.



edit on 30-12-2011 by prepared4truth because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Enough of Ron Paul already. I'd vote for the guy, but considering, he dropped out of the last race, and didn't win the other one, what makes you think he's got a snow balls chance in winning this election? Stop over-reacting. Didn't happen then, and won't happen now.

Steven Colbert is going to win or Jerry Springer.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
I think what makes me believe he'll get a shot this time is the fact that his online campaign is ferocious. Going viral has worked for him and most people use the Internet religiously.

Plus, he gets more and more recognition every time he crushes those polls.


+10 more 
posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Rosa Parks was a civilian.

TUSKEGEE AIRMEN (you know, the black ones?), the Cold War vets, the 100th Infantry - these Paul DID vote to approve medals for - are all military. Guess what's a proper function of Congress?

Yes - military spending.

Do you know who all else Paul voted NOT to approve medals for? The Dalai Lama, Ronald and Nancy Reagan, Mother Theresa, Tony Blair, John Cardinal O'Connor. Do you see what these all have in common? They aren't military (oh yeah - some of them are white, too. I guess Paul's one of those self-hating white...racists...who also praised Koreans and ethiopian blacks in his newsletters...?).

Oh, a side note about the Parks, Dalai Lama, and all the other medals he voted against - he has a standing offer with congress for everyone to pay $100 out of their own pockets - offering his own up first - to pay for the medals privately.

Sorry - this one's a non-starter. In light of the facts and honesty, I think you should really edit the thread to include these points.
edit on 12/30/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
I think the difference with Cain and Paul, is that people came out of the wood work to back up the allegations against Cain. It's a big difference when you look at it. I don't know what ever happened to the mistresses, but Cain stood down, which says a lot. The allegations against Paul revolve around what he stands for, but I've seen enough to suggest the opposite of the claims of racism, bigotry, or homophobia. I don't see how any allegation could overturn his record. That would be one slimy campaign if it could.
edit on 30-12-2011 by satron because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
I wish I could read your thirty year old writings.

Context is everything. People change.

He's a Doctor...Not a Monster.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 
"Damn it, Jim - I'm a doctor, not a monster!"

Sorry, you set that one up too well.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by prepared4truth
 




Ron Paul says he was opposed to Rosa Parks medal to protect the tax-payer. So how does Ron Paul explain HR 3417 which he introduced? The legislation was to give every Cold War veteran a medal costing $240,000,000


Even the black veterans?!

edit on 30-12-2011 by followtheevidence because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by prepared4truth
 





Our motto on ATS is Deny Ignorance, correct?


I thought so. Where are your sources that claims he wants to give away an expensive medal? I see it shown as one that can be purchased from private vendors by retirees and veterans. I also see he supported the enactment of the medal.


The Cold War Victory Medal is both an official medal of the National Guard and an unofficial military medal of the United States. It is awarded by the State of Louisiana and in ribbon form only by the State of Alaska. In the medal's unofficial capacity it can be purchased, but not worn in uniform, by any member of the United States military, or civilian employees of the federal government, who served in their positions honorably during the years of the Cold War, specifically September 2, 1945 to December 26, 1991.


As for the Rosa Parks episode...well, I will let Ron Paul explain it for the people that REFUSE to look things up.




posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
I have to be blunt and say that I do not know much about Ron Paul, there are a ton of threads about him on ATS of which I have read very few; however, the thing that I have noticed is that to many people, he appears to be a politician who's opinions match those of the people when it comes to the issues the world faces at the moment.

As far as him being racist is concerned, I don't know enough to actualy have an opinion, but regarding your particular post of him being the only one to vote against this person recieving said award; if the person was caucasian, would he still have been labeled racist? I realise I am touching on a sensitive subjet here, but it strikes me as the same situation as those people who speak out against, say Isreal and get labeled an anti-semite? The point being, is it not possible that he voted against because to his persoanl view, she wasn't deserving, not because of her colour?

The problem any politician faces is that there are always going to be people who support them and people that don't. Those that don't will likely try and influence those that do by any means necessary, like by making something 'it isn't'. Just a thought.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   


Rosa Parks was a civilian. TUSKEGEE AIRMEN (you know, the black ones?), the Cold War vets, the 100th Infantry - these Paul DID vote to approve medals for - are all military. Guess what's a proper function of Congress? Yes - military spending. Do you know who all else Paul voted NOT to approve medals for? The Dalai Lama, Ronald and Nancy Reagan, Mother Theresa, Tony Blair, John Cardinal O'Connor. Do you see what these all have in common? They aren't military (oh yeah - some of them are white, too. I guess Paul's one of those self-hating whites?). Oh, a side note about the Parks, Dalai Lama, and all the other medals he voted against - he has a standing offer with congress for everyone to pay $100 out of their own pockets - offering his own up first - to pay for the medals privately. Sorry - this one's a non-starter. In light of the facts and honesty, I think you should really edit the thread to include these points.


I like your post Praetorius. You really educated me on some crucial matters. However, the base of the suspicions, the newsletters, still stand.

And I agree whyamIhere, people can and do change. But these writings went on for DECADES. Doesn't show much change... I'm not that old myself, but from being around many older people in my life, I can say that most people do not change, and old people are the best examples. I mean, Ron Paul is staking his shot for presidency on his consistency.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by prepared4truth
 


First of all, this is not news. ATS, and the internet itself, has known about RP not voting for this. It has been discussed before, perhaps to death, do a search. Bottom line is this, does voting against this medal for Rosa Parks automatically make you a racist? What was RP's decision to vote no? Was it because of her race or because of the Constitution? That's the first question you should have asked yourself before posting this. You should really look into RPs voting record to see what else he voted against. Lets continue to deny ignorance, shall we.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Nevermind
edit on 30-12-2011 by followtheevidence because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   


To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for the award of a medal to persons who served in the Armed Forces during the Cold War.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. COLD WAR MEDAL.

(a) COLD WAR MEDAL- Chapter 57 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1134. Cold War medal: award

`(a) AWARD- There is hereby authorized an award of an appropriate decoration, as provided for under subsection (b), to each person who served honorably in the armed forces during the Cold War in order to recognize the contributions of those person to United States victory in the Cold War.
`(b) DESIGN- The Secretary of Defense, in designing the decoration for the purposes of this section, shall consult with appropriate organizations and entities, including veterans' organizations. The decoration shall be of appropriate design, with ribbons and appurtenances.
`(c) CHARGE- The Secretary of Defense shall furnish the decoration under this section subject to the payment of an amount sufficient to cover the cost of production of the decoration and of the administration of this section.
`(d) PERIOD OF COLD WAR- In this section, the term `Cold War' means the period beginning on September 2, 1945, and ending on December 26, 1991.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`1134. Cold War medal: award.'.


thomas.loc.gov

edited because Praetorius answered quite well above. just including the text of the proposed bill for context.
edit on 12-30-2011 by rogerstigers because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   


Can you please link Praetorius' response to your friend's misleading Facebook post? That will be all. Thank you.


Already been done. It was definitely insightful and has given me a more stable position from which to view the pictures. I linked the entire response and it has cleared some things up for both of us.

It still has not addressed the bottom of the issue...



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by prepared4truth


Can you please link Praetorius' response to your friend's misleading Facebook post? That will be all. Thank you.


Already been done. It was definitely insightful and has given me a more stable position from which to view the pictures. I linked the entire response and it has cleared some things up for both of us.

It still has not addressed the bottom of the issue...


I thought I was being a bit forward so I edited my post. But, thank you for doing so. Sorry if I came across as rude.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   
All of the righteous in thought can say anything. I as in a soft voice , what kind of people do you want any presentation from? All but one, wants the corporate banker's corporate line.
So vote where you want as your vote literally means your life, your family's and your sons and daughters incorporated as patriots fighting wars for the mil\ind complex which has NOTHING TO DO WITH FREEDOM.
Have a nice life and bash all you want as YOUR DAY will also come, in the tears of your own family.
Peace in the hope of your sanity!



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by prepared4truth
 
*chuckle*

Thanks for the measured response, first off.

Now let me see if I can go dig up one of my many posts on the newsletters from earlier today (and the ones in question actually only came out for about 6 years, when Paul was out of congress and back working full-time as a doctor again...):


reply to post by impressme
 
Before jumping on the newspaper bandwagon, actually learning about them might be in order:
THE "NEWSLETTERS":

The WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY & HOW of Ron Paul's newsletters


Ron Paul: The "Newsletters" Question FAQ:

The point is to defend Ron Paul from the charge that he was in some way responsible for the content of the “racist” newsletters that have been tossed around the blogosphere now and again (and which are always resurrected just in time for his political campaigns.) I hope to finally lay all this nonsense to rest.


The Ron Paul Newsletters: A Ghost Writer's Perspective and Open Letter to James Kirchick:

Not knowing your background as a writer, I'm not sure if you're familiar with ghost writing, how prevalent it is, or how to works. So following is my professional take on the Ron Paul Newsletters issue, as a professional ghost writer and marketing expert with over 20 years of experience.


Why the Beltway Libertarians Are Trying to Smear Ron Paul:

The hysteria that is energizing the campaign to smear Ron Paul and his supporters as “racist” is reaching a crescendo of viciousness, as the Beltway “libertarian” crowd revs up its motors for a righteous purge. Writing in the online edition of Reason magazine, David Weigel and Julian Sanchez (the latter of the Cato Institute) aver that the whole brouhaha is rooted in a “strategy” enunciated by the late Murray N. Rothbard, the economist and author, and Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr., founder and president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, designed to appeal to “right-wing populists”...


Long story short, the (few) questionable newsletters did not originate with Paul, he's accepted moral responsibility for not catching them to prevent the publication of such material, and he's addressed this on quite a few occasions previously. They are a very small percentage of info published in his name (about 2%), are generally taken out of context, and are less interesting when not cherry-picked.


And my follow-up when asked for proof he didn't write them... new post as running out of space.
edit on 12/30/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
And my follow-up when asked for proof he didn't write them...
reply to post by Praetorius
 

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Cynicaleye
 
Well, as far as PROOF goes, that really falls down to more-or-less analyzing the writing styles as well as comparing the messages (reiterating once again how much less inflammatory they are when taken in context, regardless) in the small percentage of newsletters being discussed to his 30+ year public record speaking out against all forms of collectivism, policies that primarily impact minorities/alt. lifestyles, and constantly speaking about the need for government to get out of anything related to racial preference or impeding the free choice of people to live their lives as they see fit, regardless of race/sexual preference, as long as they leave everyone else free to do the same.

That said, the first two links I provided give very thorough reviews and references. To address the main question:

"From what I witnessed in my 12 years working for Ron, I'd say maybe 40% came from him in the way of scribbles (and I literally do mean scribbles) on a yellow pad, that was then faxed to his office staff in South Houston for editing and publication."

(Eric Dondero, Response to "Ron Paul to Address Race Issues on CNN," Third Party Watch, Jan. 10th, 2008
thirdpartywatch.com...)


"50 to 60% was written by Lew. But when I say Lew I also mean his staff of Interns, which during that period included most prominently Jeff Tucker and Mark Thornton of Auburn Univ. in Alabama."

(same source)


"This was a big operation," says one source. "And Ron Paul was a busy man..... Ron Paul often was not around to oversee the lay out, printing or mailing. Many times he did not participate in the composition, either."...

..."This source and others add that [the] publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors would write a "Ron Paul" column."

("Ron Paul Race Smear Erased?" FreeMarketNews.com, Jan 11, 2008
www.freemarketnews.com...)


"The race-baiting newsletter passages do not sound like anything else Paul has said or written in his public life. People who were familiar with the newsletters' production confirm that they were largely ghostwritten and that Paul often did not review them prior to publication."

(Jacob Sullum, "Ron Paul’s Apology," The Athens Messenger, Jan. 19, 2008
www.athensmessenger.com...)

That's enough to start, you can go review the rest yourself if you're actually interested in the facts of the matter. Additionally, Eric Dondero (in a VERY back-handed defense of Paul) on the racism/homophobia issue very thorough denied any indications of either during his approx. 15-year tenure as a close employee of Paul, saying he "thought the world" of some gay people, and could only present two examples of possible homophobia (with who knows how many possible explanations?):
1) one time while having dinner at a gay man's house (one whom he "thought the world of" according to Eric), he ordered Dondero to take him to a gas station restroom instead of using the one in the house. Possible Paul just didn't want to stink up his friend's bathroom?
2) another time, Eric reports hearing from someone else, Paul slapped another of his gay friend's hands away instead of shaking it. Did he overhear him bad-talking Paul? Did something else happen? Is it even true, or was it misunderstood?

The whole thing is sad, stupid (both on Paul's part for ever letting it happen), and honestly pretty silly when weighed in light of all facts. If you'd like to find out for yourself how utterly benign the vast majority of the writings were, you can read for yourself here at The New Republic, and you'll also come across sections like this that in-context actually sound like a section Paul wrote directly:

"What a relief it is to walk, shop, or eat in the small Ethiopian community in Washington: successful, confident black people whose self-image is not defined in anti-whiteness, and who are therefore invisible in the liberal media."


EDIT:
And I suppose I'll add this on since it's somewhat applicable. Even though all the evidence strongly suggests nothing more than a regrettable oversight on Paul's part and stupid political baiting by some people working on the newsletters with no real indication of bigotry, (gay) Dan Savage makes a good point how he doesn't care even if Paul IS bigoted (full article here at Slate)
edit on 12/30/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Seems to me the only racists are the ones that would think that Ron Paul voted this way because the woman was black. --taking her race in to consideration. Ron Paul did the opposite. He treated her like a human being, an American citizen just like everyone else. No preferential treatment is the opposite of racism. We don't condemn people for being black and we don't award them for being black either - not that that is what the legislation was for - but in the way its being used as a smear here -- you would think so.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join