Ron Paul backed by racist groups

reply to post by aaron2209


I cant seem to get these links below to work. Do not worry, they are linked in the page that I linked third.

thomas.loc.gov...:HR03863:@@@D&summ2=m&

Prohibits the Secretary of the Treasury from implementing a proposed revenue procedure entitled, "Proposed Revenue Procedure on Private Tax-Exempt Schools," or any other guidelines for determining whether private schools have forfeited their tax-exempt status through the adoption of racially discriminatory policies.

thomas.loc.gov...:HR05842:@@@D&summ2=m&

Iranian Student Expulsion Act - Prohibits the making available of funds, authorized under any program to aid higher education, to any institution that enrolls or has enrolled on the date of enactment of this Act any person who is not a citizen of the United States and whose country of origin or residence immediately prior to entry into the United States is Iran.

Here is a good link for some Ron Paul legislation. Most of it I do not support.

This possesses links to the above legislation(since mine aren't working)

dneiwert.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Classic Ron Paul circle jerk thread.

Racist support him because he is into things like segregation. Seems no one on this site has ever checked out the legislation that he has sponsored. Some fans you are...

Yeah? What about your current pick for leader?

At Big Government, Andrew Breitbart reports that, as a presidential candidate in March 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama appeared and marched with members of the New Black Panther Party. Included in Obama’s Panther entourage was Malik Zulu Shabazz, the racist group’s “national chief.” Shabazz was one of the Panthers charged in the voter intimidation case that the Obama/Holder Justice Department dismissed in 2009 — even though the government had already won the case (the Panthers defaulted) and the evidence supporting the civil charges was overwhelming.
This is a shocking story, and a breathtaking indictment of the mainstream media which went out of its way to avoid vetting Obama as a candidate — and to make sure anyone who tried to do due diligence got no sunshine. A candidate who chose to appeared in the company of, say, the KKK, would have provoked relentlessly hostile media coverage and, in short order, have been marginalized as disqualified to hold responsible elective office.

Source
All parties have followers, be it racist or otherwise. Participation on the other hand is a whole other can of worms.

reply to post by SpaDe_


Changing topics to Obama? Classic Paulians!

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by SpaDe_

 

Changing topics to Obama? Classic Paulians!

Denying that all parties have unfavorable and sometimes racist followers... PURE IGNORANCE! Ron Paul has not been publicly seen or documented with any racist groups. Can you say that about Obama? No sir you cannot. Pot meet Kettle.

reply to post by SpaDe_

Denying that all parties have unfavorable and sometimes racist followers... PURE IGNORANCE! Ron Paul has not been publicly seen or documented with any racist groups. Can you say that about Obama? No sir you cannot. Pot meet Kettle.

First off, Obama is irrelevant. I'm going to go ahead and pretend you understand that and I will ignore anything you have to say on him.

NOW second, my post was about his policies, not his friends.

reply to post by TsukiLunar


Did you read the legislation before deciding you didn't like it? Here is one example where if you read it the blurb on the blog sounds worse than it really is.

From the blog

H.R.4982: A bill to provide for civil rights in public schools.

The bill summary.

SUMMARY AS OF: 2/29/1984--Introduced. Public School Civil Rights Act of 1984 - Eliminates inferior Federal court jurisdiction to issue any order requiring the assignment or transportation of students to public schools on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Permits individuals and school boards to seek relief from court orders made prior to this Act unless the court makes certain findings, including: (1) that the acts giving rise to the order intentionally and specifically caused the segregation; (2) that no other remedy would work; and (3) that the benefits of the order outweigh its economic, social, and educational costs. Lists remedies which remain available for unconstitutional segregation.

In other words the federal government can not force towns to redraw school districts based on race. The only exceptions would have been if towns were trying to force segregation, or no other methods would end segregation.

It wasn't about civil rights in school. It was about cities and counties being forced to draw their school districts on arbitrary lines to avoid being sued. This is the type of thing that lead to forced busing of students and kids getting on the bus at 5am to make it to school by 8am. The Federal courts were forcing unfunded mandates on schools in an attempt to meet arbitrary and vague quotas. It was costing school systems untold thousands every year. That was money being taken away from actual education.

Ron Paul was voting against judicial activism on the federal level, and voting to improve education by putting money back in to the schools. He most definitely wasn't voting against "civil rights in public schools." However, this is the same old song and dance we see when it comes to Ron Paul. He didn't vote to support my special interest and to give me special consideration so he is an anti-woman, racist, homophobic, Nazi.

Here is another example of a jab that wasn't thought out.

This "champion of peace" wanted to prohibit the dismantling of ICBM silos in the U.S.:

So, somehow believing in maintaining defensive strength means you aren't for peace? That makes absolutely no sense. It is a logical fallacy to believe a peaceful person can not also believe in the need for defense.

He has promoted the Bricker Amendment to the Constitution, and otherwise sought limit the protections of international law. He would also prohibit U.S. courts from citing foreign laws or policies (other than English ones) in their decisions:

What exactly is the Bricker amendment to the constitution? Well according to the blog:

A resolution proposing the Bricker amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to force and effect of treaties and executive agreements.

Okay that doesn't tell me anything. What does the Library of Congress say the Bricker Amendment is?

Constitutional Amendment - Provides that a treaty which denies or abridges any right enumerated in the Constitution shall not be of any force or effect. States that no treaty shall authorize or permit any foreign power or any international organization to supervise, control, or adjudicate any matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States. Provides that a treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through the enactment of appropriate legislation by the Congress.

So, no treaty or foreign court can abridge our constitutional rights and be considered legally binding in America. Well holy hell who would want to actually support our national sovereignty and the constitution? Anybody that believes in the constitution and the freedoms protected by it must be evil and crazy.

Those are just the ones I picked at random. Please show me the one from your link that you had a problem with. Put the blog summary and the LBoC summary up. I will be more than happy to discuss it. I'm always open to new points of view.

reply to post by aaron2209


The top donor of both President Obama and Mitt Romney is Goldman Sachs. Also, don't forget every single one of the other major banks are in the top 20.

www.opensecrets.org...

reply to post by TsukiLunar


I was unable to find the text or an in depth summary of the "Proposed Revenue Procedure on Private Tax-Exempt Schools." If you can find the text of the legislation or anything deeper on the subject please post it. That is one I am interested in seeing.

ETA:

I found a discussion of it in Fordham Law Review. I will read it and comment on it when I have a better understanding.

ETA (again):

These so called "segregation academies" first came under the scrutiny of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in 1967, at which time it was announced that racially discriminatory private schools, receiving direct state aid, were not entitled to tax exempt status under the Internal Revenue Code (the Code). 16 In 1971, in response to a court challenge, the IRS ruled that this policy applied to private schools whether or not state supported; 17 to qualify for favorable tax status, private schools were required to adopt a racially nondiscriminatory admissions policy. 18 In 1975, the IRS made clear that this requirement applied to church-related and church-operated schools as well as to private nonsectarian schools. 1

Spokesmen for religious schools raised questions concerning governmental neutrality toward religion, encouragement of state-preferred religious beliefs, possible excessive governmental entanglement with religion and potential infringement of the free exercise of religion. 26 The issues raised by most, if not all of the opposition, did not concern the right of racially discriminatory schools to retain tax exemptions, but concerned the method by which the IRS sought to implement its policy and the fear of the future consequences of that implementation. 27

In 1979 congress voted to stop any funding of the new procedures because of fears that it might be unconstitutional. Ron Paul proposed to make the block on funding permanent because of fears it might be unconstitutional.

The procedure is directed to two classifications of schools, those adjudicated to be discriminatory and those found to be reviewable.

A school didn't actually have to be found discriminatory. Nope, if the admission policies were found to be "reviewable" they would lose tax exempt status. In other words the simple accusation that they were racist could mean losing thousands of dollars a year that was intended for education. There were a lot of other pieces of the new "procedure" that actually seemed to target non-preferred religions.

There were also parts that targeted "charities" that promoted ideas that were contradictory to public policy. Basically, if a religious school wanted to teach that polygamy was "god's way" it would be advocating against public policy. How long before that could be used to strip a school or other charity of tax exempt status?

The opposition to the IRS procedure actually had very little to do with racial ideology. It was about protecting the freedom of religion and ensuring that the government couldn't discriminate against a "charity" just because it's beliefs went against popular political thought.

reply to post by MikeNice81

Did you read the legislation before deciding you didn't like it? Here is one example where if you read it the blurb on the blog sounds worse than it really is.

I didnt link that one for a reason.

So, somehow believing in maintaining defensive strength means you aren't for peace? That makes absolutely no sense. It is a logical fallacy to believe a peaceful person can not also believe in the need for defense.

The only reason I can think of Silo's as being a defensive weapon is for... shooting down missiles with other missiles.

Silo's(well, the missiles that come out) are a straight attack weapon.

Anybody that believes in the constitution and the freedoms protected by it must be evil and crazy.

Thats the problem. He doesn't believe in constitution. He worships it. It is his only argument for anything. I find this incredibly weak.

put the blog summary and the LBoC summary up. I will be more than happy to discuss it. I'm always open to new points of view.

Fine, lets start light. I found this one a bit odd. Since the links to this page dont work, you are going to have to look for it in the page itself.

EDUCATION POLICY

To prohibit the Federal Government from planning, developing, implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of certification and from withholding funds from States or local educational agencies that fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification.

Well you know what they say about birds of a feather.

Originally posted by pierregustavetoutant
That is where they are going to try an destroy Paul's credibility.
Frankly I don't care if racists support him. If those votes help him get elected, so be it. Lots of racists supported Obama, too.

Thats true, if i remember correctly i was lurking the StormFront Forum just wanted to see what there reaction was and to my.And to My surprise The Racist Site actually Voted for Obama!!

There was a thread, there and which most of users there preferred Obama over John McCain

You guys are going way to fast for me,
I have not even figured out if the president is a black child with a white mother
or a white child with a black father yet.

reply to post by TsukiLunar

The only reason I can think of Silo's as being a defensive weapon is for... shooting down missiles with other missiles. Silo's(well, the missiles that come out) are a straight attack weapon.

The point of using them as defense is to destroy enough of their military and infrastructure to ensure they can not mount a quick follow up. You defend yourself by gaining time to regroup. It also deters others from using such extreme force when they know it can be returned upon them. It is both a proactive and active defense.

Thats the problem. He doesn't believe in constitution. He worships it. It is his only argument for anything. I find this incredibly weak.

He wants to ensure that the government does not over step it's bounds and infringe on the rights of the people and the states. Why is that weak? He believes that the government should be held in check and kept from growing in to a tyrannical empire that imprisons it's own citizens and murders foreign citizens.

He has a very Henry David Thoreau like outlook on things. He believes that all people should be free to reach the full potential of who they are as long as they don't do it at the cost of others. He also believes that informed adults can make their own decisions about moral and ethical questions and should be allowed to do so without government intervention.

If you really look at the man and his record you would see that is what he believes. It isn't about worshiping the constitution it is about holding government to it's intended role and keeping the oath he made when taking office.

I found this one a bit odd. Since the links to this page dont work, you are going to have to look for it in the page itself.

From the bill

Many States are implementing a rigorous framework for preparing, certifying, and recognizing the professional growth of educators.

If the states are already doing it why waste federal funds on a redundant program? Why let the federal government refuse funding to a district that may have a higher standard because it isn't exactly what the feds want?

Having the Federal Government require States, local governments, or local educational agencies to engage in any type of teacher testing or certification requires Federal oversight of what knowledge is necessary to be a teacher.

Again why should the feds duplicate the efforts of the states?

By determining such things they would also be deciding the curriculum of colleges that teach and train teachers. They would not only be deciding what is required to be a teacher, but also what will be taught in schools from elementary to college.

duplicate post

Most every time i read one of these things the accusations quickly seem to prove spurious, out of context, and obtuse......
As if being posed by some die hard fanatic grasping for straws which support his twist on reality.
Ron Paul is the biggest breath of freash air that I personally have seen come along.
His insistance on basing goverment policy on sound constitutional basis is extremely laudable.....
That he must keep pointing this out to those who would marginalise freedom for convenience.....well
it never ends does it....

If this wasn't directed at me, please ignore

Originally posted by stirling
As if being posed by some die hard fanatic grasping for straws which support his twist on reality.

Far from it. I'm Australian so have no say in what goes on in American politics. Just sorting through the bull dust that surrounds it.

Ron Paul is the biggest breath of freash air

Agree completely.

Most politicians regardless of party line or level of government have their own groups that back them shady or non shady I have noticed most politicians dont shy away from any support as long as it brings money and votes for their cause.