1. Uh, I don't know what this one means. How do inefficiencies mean black people are criminals? Maybe he wasn't phrasing it right or something.
2. Well, if that *is* what the polls say, ie, blacks in general don't support free market and end of welfare, than it's a completely factual statement. Although I would like to see some concrete info. Stating facts isn't racist. Making stuff up is....
3. Actually "separation of church and state" is non-existent in the constitution. The government is only restricted in regulating religion... although, personally, I think government shouldn't be involved in religion, but shouldn't prohibit it in government owned places...
4. That's true actually. He said the "founding fathers". Do some research. Government can't and shouldn't teach morality and civility....
Paul isn't perfect by any means, but he is still the #1 candidate in my mind. He is the only politician that will tell the truth. That's saying alot, no matter how many crazy views he has.
Tom
· 2 years ago
If you do your research on the aforementioned quotes, you'll see that they were, in fact, not written by Dr. Paul. There was a newsletter that went out with his name on it, but where many of the articles were written by staffers. He actually regrets what had been said, and during the campaign in question in the 90's, it was agreed that he did not make those comments, and they are completely at odds with the accusation that he is a racist.
Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the ‘criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. — Ron Paul
I think the comment there is less about race than it is about the failure of the D.C. Police and their politics there. Having passed through, I can assure you it is not a bad observation, but is not truly race related.
Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action. — Ron Paul
In this case, he is talking about how affirmative action has created a culture of dependency and that is why they have those opinions. It is a common tactic. You create a program, an entitlement, and then people become used to that stipend and depend upon it, so you use that as the lever to get them to vote. It's no accident that, on average, 90% of blacks vote Democratic specifically because they see it as a way to maintain certain programs, many of which I would argue replace a historical injustice with a novel form of discrimination.
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. — Ron Paul
When talking about the Establishment Clause, most Constitutional writing suggests that the founders did not have a problem being a Christian nation. What it did prevent was having a state church, such as the Church of England as an official religion. However, there has always been tolerance for all religions, as guaranteed by the Constitution, and Dr. Paul is a strong advocate for that. What he is saying here, I think, is that our Christian traditions are important.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. — Ron Paul
It does no good to have a perfectly designed government for a people who have no sense of morality. If you have no conception of right and wrong, of what is proper and not, then you would have no reason to obey the laws or have no investment in your culture, and your nation. For better or worse, religion is how many people develop a sense of morality and while there are good arguments to be made that it does an incomplete job, the fact is you cannot have the state create morality. It has to be cultivated along with a belief system that has a respect and foundation for rights.
I think everyone has legitimate differences of opinion, but I like his piece on morality. Basically, it makes sense that a government would only be as good as the people involved in it, and as the intentions they show.
Sonny
· 2 years ago
Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the ‘criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. — Ron Paul
- Debunked. Didn't write it and already explained his position on it. If he was a racist you'd see it in more than a newsletter that he didn't write over a decade ago.
Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action. — Ron Paul
- Debunked. Already been addressed also.
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. — Ron Paul
- Well, that's a fact. They were. So what? There's nothing that can change what happened in 1776.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. — Ron Paul
- You're misunderstanding his point on this. He's talking about how churches, community groups, etc. used to help people in need and help people get off their feet as a community service. Nowadays the federal government does those things by stealing the money via unconstitutional taxes. His point is that it's not the federal government's duty to provide for everyone. It's each state, city, town, church, or whatever to help others.
Matt
· 2 years ago
Since you failed to provide any sources (ahem :P), here are the quotes on Wikipedia with some background and some context:
Everyone currently running for president has publicly said some stupid things so I wouldn't base your decision on a few quotes.
Holly
· 2 years ago
These quotes are easily dismissed. They are clearly not the work of Ron Paul. If you listen to his views on racism as such, then these quotes are completely out of place. For example, compare it with the following (quoted from http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html): "Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than 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. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.
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." - Ron Paul
justthebeginning
· 2 years ago
Expect pieces like this continue and increase from ignorance, lack of research, shoot from the hip commentary, and agenda to take Ron Paul down. It might even be better if it blew up to national news such that it gets debated and Ron Paul can shoot it down publically, since as he's shown, Ron doesn't back down in the face of adversary attacks. It'd be better than this under the radar sniping in which this FUD(fear uncertainty doubt) goes unchallenged.
David
· 2 years ago
As mentioned earlier, Ron Paul did not make those racist remarks. I suppose he has a certain amount of culpability for having hired a person who could say such things. This is a mistake which has been rectified long ago.
As an atheist, I see nothing wrong with his comments about religion and the public sphere. They are simply true. I am a bit ashamed to see other atheists who have this agenda to deny Christians or other religious people the right to express their beliefs in public. Personally I am far more offended by the flag-humping you see everywhere in this society than I am by the odd prayer at a football game.
As for the global warming scam, you are simply wrong. There are many scientists who disagree with it, including most climatologists. This also includes many scientists who are supposedly part of the consensus. Consider the following two sentences removed fraudulently from the 1995 IPCC after it was signed by all the scientists involved:
1) none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases. 2) no study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to ... man-made causes.
The 2007 version has not yet been agreed on yet, undoubtedly because of disagreement amongst the participants. However, a supposed abstract was released earlier this year, which is more alarmist than ever. Remember what IPCC means.
Science these days is rotten to the core because it is funded politically. Environmental science is simply the worst example of it but the rot affects all science from medical research even to hard physics. Unfortunately, if you follow the PC line don't get funding. That is true of all science, but especially in areas are inundated by groups with a political agenda. Aside from the environment, AIDS is probably the best example.
LR
· 2 years ago
I really think that was somewhat of a hatchet job. They tried calling him a crank, Rosie O'Donnell, rigid, doctrinaire.. didn't work, so racism is always a good bet - the lemmings will rush away.
He's pretty much what I would call a thoughtful Constitutionalist libertarian. If he made some thoughtless and insensitive remarks about race, it's not the end of the world. The speech police are the ones who are more dangerous right now.
When he takes to discriminating against people or advocating a return to Jim Crow, attack him.
Until then, let's take him for what his actions and words indicate - a decent, thoughtful exception to most politicians.
Daniel Miessler
· 2 years ago
It has come to my attention, from an ample number of unrelated sources, that the race quotes attributed to Ron Paul did not come from him directly, but from a staffer who was fired for them. This heartens me greatly.
Cutkomp
· 2 years ago
People should slow down and really think about the quotes, perhaps do some research. To start with, the quotes aren't even directly from him, but from a co-written newsletter. But let's say for a second that they were his words...
The criminal justice system is inefficient and discriminates against minorities without a doubt. Look at the prison numbers. Most of them are drug related crimes. It's called profiling and often times folks don't even realize it happens until it happens to them. This quote simply addresses the problem in the bluntest of fashions. It's not racist to acknowledge when the government causes problems. Think about it, Rudy jumped on Ron for speaking the truth about blowback from errant foreign policy. Now the same elements are jumping on Ron for speaking the truth about blowback from a discriminatory criminal justice system. Yes, 'The Man' is racist, not Ron Paul.
Most minorities that are in prison are in there because of what? The War on Drugs.
Who wants to end the War on Drugs and has repeatedly cited the vast amount of problems it has caused society? Ron Paul.
That doesn't sound like something a racist man would want to do.
Just because somedoby says 'black man' and 'criminal' in the same sentence does not mean that they are racist. I urge ya to push aside those 'politically correct' emotions and explore the issue from a logical, more rational point of view.
If I were to say that 'of the Mexicans I know and have seen, that 95% of them work like slaves', does that mean I think Mexicans are slaves? No, but if you take the quote out of context it could be construed as such even though I am in fact complementing the work ethic of Mexicans.
G. Christenson
· 2 years ago
Hi, just want to mention that these guys above are lying to you. If Ron Paul didn't write those racist words, which he did, why did they mention his longtime personal friend Burt Blumert? And why would they make first person predictions in his name (ghostwriters don't do that.)
And most importantly, why would he purposefully suppress and stonewall releasing ALL his old newsletters if that's just a one-off?
Answer: he wouldn't.
Because he's obviously a racist.
J. Allen
· 2 years ago
And why, G. Christenson, should I believe you when I use my own mind to come to conclusions that I've studied quite closely? I would surmise that most people who support Ron Paul don't swallow everything and nod their head like other politicians would like them to, they think critically instead. And Ron Paul's words and actions do not add up to the sum of your post. I will continue to support him, and you may continue to say whatever you wish. That is the beauty of liberty.
-J.
Ben
· 2 years ago
As with all elections you'll have to go with the lesser of the evils. And in most aspects Paul verges on good.
Fe
· 2 years ago
Ron Paul is against the war, and wants our troops out of there ASAP. Yeay! He is the only candidate calling for that. Yeay! AND...he annually introduces a bill calling for the eliminatin of the IRS. He wants to eliminate the Dept of Homeland Security (yeay!) but also wants to eliminate the Dept of Education (say, what?). He supports gay rights (yeay!) and is antichoice on woman's right to choose (say, what?). The only thing that makes him so attractive to those of us SO FED UP with Republicans marching heavy in Iraq and Dems wiffle-waffling without doing anything about it is his stance on the war, which he has consistently voted against (yeay!). Otherwise, I really can't see that he is the candidate to vote for. I say no.
Tom G
· 2 years ago
The founding fathers did write extensively about the separation of church an state. Jefferson especially wrote regarding the 1st amendment: "Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."
The founding fathers were well aware of the religious wars that had cost the lives of millions in Europe. Separation of religion from politics has served our country well. Look at the results of religious based politics in the rest of the world- Sunni vs. Shiite, Catholic vs. Protestant, Hindu vs Muslim, etc. etc. We have can continue a moral society without making America a Catholic, Protestant etc. state.
TJ Colatrella
· 2 years ago
Until we can address the realities of black Americans we cannot move forward as a nation if you quote any statics you are or must be racist..!
Like the number one killer of blacks between the ages of 25 and 44 is AIDS..!
70% of all blacks are born out of wed-lock..
Where did I get these racist stats, Tony Browns Journal which I often watch on Saturdays..!
Also Hip-Hop Kills..!
Until we can all be judged as individuals and Americans and not get our rights as members of some select special group we will never move forward..
There can be only one standard American..!
The more you differentiate the more you discriminate..!
We must start demanding the black community take responsibility for it's action and inaction..if you are against this you are actually the racist..
Simple as that..
S
· 2 years ago
Wow, TJ, I didn't believe your post at first, until I saw all those exclamation points. I guess you must be right... you state your beliefs with so much justification..!
Statistics may sometimes be misleading, but random speculation is worse. How can you say these statistics, which come from one source, are racist, and not provide any proof beyond calling them racist? Men die before women, on average. Does saying that make me sexist? White people have less melanin in their skin than black men, on average, does that make me racist? Gay men like to have sex with other men more than straight men, does that make me a homophobe?
How can you say we need to be judged as individuals, and then demand "the black community" take responsibility for their actions? One of Ron Paul's major themes is that people need to be treated as individuals... grouping a whole community together on the basis of a quality as superficial as race and asking it to assume responsibility for the actions of its members is wrong. The grouping of people based on race is racist and perpetuates racism. Should Oprah be accountable for OJ? Should I, a white male, be accountable for Charles Manson? People should be held accountable only to themselves; to do otherwise unjustly deprives individuals of their rights.
I support Ron Paul because he most closely resembles my beliefs, mainly limited government. I am pro-choice, and he is pro-life, for example, but I have no doubt he would never enforce a national pro-life agenda. It is not in his character as a libertarian. And besides, abortion is a purely political issue, used ever since Roe v. Wade as a litmus test for any Republican pro-choice or Democrat pro-life candidate to be smeared in the primaries.
I may disagree with what he says, but I'll defend to the death his right to say it, and I've no doubt he'd return the favor.
Daniel Miessler
· 2 years ago
Excellent points, S.
S
· 2 years ago
PS - Thomas Jefferson rules, Tom G, great point
Patrick
· 2 years ago
That's interesting, those quotes have made me like Ron Paul a bit, and I was started to get comfortable disliking him. Interesting how you wanted to make him look bad but actually seem to have made him look good in my eyes.
Daniel Miessler
· 2 years ago
What's even more interesting is that people continue to misconstrue my post; I am in fact a HUGE Ron Paul supporter. I donate to his campaign, I have a bumper sticker on my car, and I talk about him to anyone who will listen.
The reason these quotes "scared" me when I heard them is because anything that hurts his chances of getting elected scares me.
brainiac
· 2 years ago
Ron Paul has a very narrow view of the Bill of Rights, and doesnt think the 14th makes them apply to the states anyhow. If it was up to him states could ban guns, birth control, teach creationsim is science class, censor, etc.... Thats what he calls "states rights" or "federalism". He's a part of the constitution in exile movement. Its taking the country back in time over a hundred years before the civil war. Thats whats scary about Ron Paul, not these foolish quotes.
BTW he's also very anti-abortion and would ban it in all circumstances if he could. Im not sure if thats because he's very relgious or because of his extreme ideology. I think its probably both.
Daniel Miessler
· 2 years ago
You raise a good point about the Federalism issue; that worries me as well. I think he's worth supporting, however, based on the strength of his overall stance. To me it's about integrity and intelligence, and he has both in abundance.
J. Allen
· 2 years ago
It's not what he says that bothers me, he can say whatever he wants. It's what he does that has my undivided attention. I've seen politicians say things for years, and don't think twice about it because I know they're pulling my leg or just trying to get my vote. What concerns me is what they do once they get in office. As a recent example, remember "I'm a uniter, not a divider"? Yeah, that worked out well. Ron Paul's voting record matches up with his stance and his statements. The point is this: Whether you agree with him on certain issues or not, you can bet that he's not going to limit your freedom, he's going to give what you deserve back to you, and start cutting the fat in huge clumps. That is exactly what we need right now, otherwise this country's going to die from political gluttony.
-J.
mind
· 2 years ago
100% of TJ Colatrella's can't form coherent thoughts.
S
· 2 years ago
brainiac, those are a good points too. But I feel that with all the opposition Ron Paul will likely face in Congress, and given the huge political and legal inertia in this country, he wouldn't be able to go that far. And though he might theoretically support a state's right to censor, at least he is against the federal right to do the same. I think it would be very difficult for a state to censor its people, given the Internet and national media outlets, but it is still a valid concern.
Most importantly, though, Ron Paul brings the gluttony of government perpetrated on both sides of the aisle to the national stage. He gets the message out, and makes people discuss it. Let's face it, he has a small chance of winning, but seeing a man on national television in a presidential debate say that our government is actually hurting our people is extremely valuable. In a parliamentary system, it might even make an impact in this election, but I hope he merely inspires individuals and future candidates to look at the problem of shrinking government. Based on the amount of discussion he generates, especially on the Internet, I can't help but think his message is reaching people.
It is 1983, and we need to wake up and realize we are in trouble tomorrow if we don't see what is happening today.
Joebob
· 2 years ago
Nice of you to make the "edit" disclaimer harder to read compared to the rest of the article, not to mention at the bottom of the text... after you've had to read the quotes falsely attributed to Ron Paul.
Daniel Miessler
· 2 years ago
Hmm, good point. Let me do something about that...
Dick Nasty
· 2 years ago
I think that whomever did say those first two quotes are exactly correct. I have to travel to DC every day and let me tell you, all the crime and violence in that city, well, it sure as hell isn't caused by Caucasian, Spanish or Indian people. I think the guy has traditional values and he sees that America has been going down the tubes for a long time. There really isn't anything THAT scary about what he's said. There isn't anything wrong with wanting to get some people back into society with values. Now, if he starts preaching religious fundamentalism, then we may have a problem. but one or two quote about it...nah...
Sean
· 2 years ago
Well that would be interesting if he actually said most of those things. Your racist comments are well known quotes that were not written by paul at all, but one of his assistants that did his newsletter. Unfortunate quotes indeed, but not his words.
But I guess your not enough of a journalist to research your stories before writing them.
Dennis
· 2 years ago
Ron Paul is the most principalled person in Washington and will be able to weather any and all storms coming his way. His record is consistent as he never wavers from the United States Constitution. He's did the unimagineable by being elected to Congress on 3 separate occasions. That doesn't happen to people who lie to their constituents. Wake up America and elect him already!
Richard
· 2 years ago
The amazing thing is that these five quotes (two of which were not written by him) are being considered what's going to hurt him in the campaign. I've seen these quotes elsewhere on other blogs, and they are being tossed around as though they'll be the downfall of Ron Paul. But since only three were written by him, all they state is that he is pro-religion. As an atheist, I am OK with that. If you wish to shout your religious beliefs, be my guest. Just don't FORCE me to obey it, follow it, or believe it. And I won't FORCE you to obey, follow, or believe in my beliefs. That is what separation of church and state is truly about. You are free to have your religion and to have it guide you; the government just can't force you to practice or not practice a religion.
ABC
· 2 years ago
He's written on racism before himself, and believes that the government does more to perpetuate it through dividing people into groups with 'group rights' and 'group politics' etc than virtually any other institution. As far as church and state; he's right about the Founders. It's the establishment clause, not the separation clause.
daniel
· 2 years ago
The fact that staffers wrote the quotes in question is irrelevant. He put his name to them ands has to this day NEVER disavowed the principles, which many of the budding racists on this comment page have defended. Paul is clearly CLUELESS about the experience of discrimination common to millions of Americans who aren't of pure European ancestry; only a clueless person would say the advocates of diversity are racist and mention nothing about police brutality, bank redlining, housing discrimination, the war on drugs AS RACIST, etc.
As far as church and state - the founding fathers envisioned a Christian nation? Show me a single quote that supports that. Show me Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, or Franklin saying that. To the contrary, they were anti-clerical deists.
Paul looks good only in comparison to the nihilistic, cynical Republicans we are used to. But he's no friend to the common American, no progressive, and not a saviour. He's just an old school conservative who elevates selfishness to a high virtue. I'm not impressed.
Amanda
· 2 years ago
I really think you should be careful about the things you "quote" people as saying.I hope you will not take this as a personal attack, as really I am just exacerbated by the fact that your blog could have an impact on how others form their opinions. Please take a look at this quote from Ron Paul:
"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual 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. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups."
As I'm sure you can concede, no intelligent being would ever make racist comments, and then speak out against racism as an "ugly form of collectivism."
Please quote responsibly.
Daniel Miessler
· 2 years ago
@Amanda
Surely you understand that someone who has said something stupid could then say something that wasn't. Just because someone gives an opposite view at some later point doesn't mean they never gave the previous view.
This isn't proof that he did say these things, but what you offered is not proof that he didn't.
Mike Flugennock
· 2 years ago
Actually, if the race quotes seem "iffy", this sure as hell isn't:
Yeah, that's right, Stormfront... that Stormfront.
perk23
· 2 years ago
Here's what Jefferson wrote to a Baptist congregation regarding religion in 1802:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
Notice the last words of the letter, "building a wall of separation between church and state". That was written by a Founder of our country when he was president--just what Ron Paul wants to get closer to.
Ricardo Nieva
· 2 years ago
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.
i agree with Sonny moreover As long as there is tolerance i dont care if he is Christian or whatever. why should the state biased against christianity. I think that is his point. if local states want it its up to them.
Maybe it would be good if RP would talk more about this.
Matt J
· 1 year ago
I work in fuel engineering, and I can assure you that there is no "science" to the Al Gore version of global warming. Most of my co-workers think the concensus on man-caused global warming is proof of how stupid "the people" are.
Actual temperature readings show a cyclical pattern to global temperature. It has been on an upswing in the last 10 years, but the cycle seems to take 14 to years to fluctuate. There are a handful of researchers who have been tracking a correlation between sunspot activity and global temperatures and they report that solar activity has recently gone into hibernation. I'll spare you the actual science, but they are waiting to see if a mini ice age is about to occur. But most actual climate scientists believe the earth's temperature is cyclical, and none of them were invited to contribute to the United Nations' reports on climate change. The "scientists" cited in the report are mostly bureaucrats, chief among them, NASA's Hansen who arguably touched off the Al Gore obsession when Gore chaired the Senate Committee on Science and Space.
Tatiana
· 1 year ago
"I work in fuel engineering, and I can assure you that there is no “science” to the Al Gore version of global warming. Most of my co-workers think the concensus on man-caused global warming is proof of how stupid “the people” are."
You're an engineer, but you are claiming to know more about the climate than climatologists? LOL
Marcus Layton Hird
· 1 year ago
The thing is that he is right....duhhhhh stuiped!!!!!!
noah
· 3 months ago
Global Warming - Read a book called "Heaven and Earth". It came out very recently. It is the most exhaustive and rigorous scientific study ever done on "global warming".
... a damning critique of the 'evidence' underpinning man-made global warming.'—Wall Street Journal
'...a wonderfully comprehensive and fearless book...If there are any willing to hear some truly inconvenient truths on the stampeding advocacy of global warming, Mr. Plimer's book is a collection of some of the sternest.' —The Globe and Mail
'...a brilliantly argued book... /Heaven and Earth/ is an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence.'—Sydney Morning Herald
'Only a geological perspective can provide a proper view of climate change. Professor Plimer's book does a masterful job of demonstrating that Nature rules the climate, not human activity.'—S. Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
'...the best book on science and scientists I have ever read.' —Andrew Alexander, The Daily Mail (UK)
'This is a very powerful, clear, understandable and extremely useful book . . . [Plimer] convincingly criticizes the UN, the IPCC, U.K. and U.S. politicians, as well as Hollywood show business celebrities. He strictly distinguishes science from environmental activism, politics, and opportunism.'—Vaclav Klaus, President, The European Union
Christine Estep
· 4 weeks ago
Mr. Miessler, It's plain to see that you do not favor our the U.S. Constitution, and have never supported Dr. Ron Paul. Ron Paul loves America...so where does that leave you?
All Comments
1. Uh, I don't know what this one means. How do inefficiencies mean black people are criminals? Maybe he wasn't phrasing it right or something.
2. Well, if that *is* what the polls say, ie, blacks in general don't support free market and end of welfare, than it's a completely factual statement. Although I would like to see some concrete info. Stating facts isn't racist. Making stuff up is....
3. Actually "separation of church and state" is non-existent in the constitution. The government is only restricted in regulating religion... although, personally, I think government shouldn't be involved in religion, but shouldn't prohibit it in government owned places...
4. That's true actually. He said the "founding fathers". Do some research. Government can't and shouldn't teach morality and civility....
Paul isn't perfect by any means, but he is still the #1 candidate in my mind. He is the only politician that will tell the truth. That's saying alot, no matter how many crazy views he has.
Here's a story on that, for your reference: http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid...
I think the comment there is less about race than it is about the failure of the D.C. Police and their politics there. Having passed through, I can assure you it is not a bad observation, but is not truly race related.
Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action. — Ron Paul
In this case, he is talking about how affirmative action has created a culture of dependency and that is why they have those opinions. It is a common tactic. You create a program, an entitlement, and then people become used to that stipend and depend upon it, so you use that as the lever to get them to vote. It's no accident that, on average, 90% of blacks vote Democratic specifically because they see it as a way to maintain certain programs, many of which I would argue replace a historical injustice with a novel form of discrimination.
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. — Ron Paul
When talking about the Establishment Clause, most Constitutional writing suggests that the founders did not have a problem being a Christian nation. What it did prevent was having a state church, such as the Church of England as an official religion. However, there has always been tolerance for all religions, as guaranteed by the Constitution, and Dr. Paul is a strong advocate for that. What he is saying here, I think, is that our Christian traditions are important.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. — Ron Paul
It does no good to have a perfectly designed government for a people who have no sense of morality. If you have no conception of right and wrong, of what is proper and not, then you would have no reason to obey the laws or have no investment in your culture, and your nation. For better or worse, religion is how many people develop a sense of morality and while there are good arguments to be made that it does an incomplete job, the fact is you cannot have the state create morality. It has to be cultivated along with a belief system that has a respect and foundation for rights.
I think everyone has legitimate differences of opinion, but I like his piece on morality. Basically, it makes sense that a government would only be as good as the people involved in it, and as the intentions they show.
- Debunked. Didn't write it and already explained his position on it. If he was a racist you'd see it in more than a newsletter that he didn't write over a decade ago.
Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action. — Ron Paul
- Debunked. Already been addressed also.
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. — Ron Paul
- Well, that's a fact. They were. So what? There's nothing that can change what happened in 1776.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. — Ron Paul
- You're misunderstanding his point on this. He's talking about how churches, community groups, etc. used to help people in need and help people get off their feet as a community service. Nowadays the federal government does those things by stealing the money via unconstitutional taxes. His point is that it's not the federal government's duty to provide for everyone. It's each state, city, town, church, or whatever to help others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul#Alleged_r...
Everyone currently running for president has publicly said some stupid things so I wouldn't base your decision on a few quotes.
"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than 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. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.
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." - Ron Paul
As an atheist, I see nothing wrong with his comments about religion and the public sphere. They are simply true. I am a bit ashamed to see other atheists who have this agenda to deny Christians or other religious people the right to express their beliefs in public. Personally I am far more offended by the flag-humping you see everywhere in this society than I am by the odd prayer at a football game.
As for the global warming scam, you are simply wrong. There are many scientists who disagree with it, including most climatologists. This also includes many scientists who are supposedly part of the consensus. Consider the following two sentences removed fraudulently from the 1995 IPCC after it was signed by all the scientists involved:
1) none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.
2) no study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to ... man-made causes.
The 2007 version has not yet been agreed on yet, undoubtedly because of disagreement amongst the participants. However, a supposed abstract was released earlier this year, which is more alarmist than ever. Remember what IPCC means.
Science these days is rotten to the core because it is funded politically. Environmental science is simply the worst example of it but the rot affects all science from medical research even to hard physics. Unfortunately, if you follow the PC line don't get funding. That is true of all science, but especially in areas are inundated by groups with a political agenda. Aside from the environment, AIDS is probably the best example.
They tried calling him a crank, Rosie O'Donnell, rigid, doctrinaire..
didn't work, so racism is always a good bet - the lemmings will rush away.
He's pretty much what I would call a thoughtful Constitutionalist libertarian.
If he made some thoughtless and insensitive remarks about race, it's not the end of the world. The speech police are the ones who are more dangerous right now.
When he takes to discriminating against people or advocating a return to Jim Crow, attack him.
Until then, let's take him for what his actions and words indicate - a decent, thoughtful exception to most politicians.
The criminal justice system is inefficient and discriminates against minorities without a doubt. Look at the prison numbers. Most of them are drug related crimes. It's called profiling and often times folks don't even realize it happens until it happens to them. This quote simply addresses the problem in the bluntest of fashions. It's not racist to acknowledge when the government causes problems. Think about it, Rudy jumped on Ron for speaking the truth about blowback from errant foreign policy. Now the same elements are jumping on Ron for speaking the truth about blowback from a discriminatory criminal justice system. Yes, 'The Man' is racist, not Ron Paul.
Most minorities that are in prison are in there because of what? The War on Drugs.
Who wants to end the War on Drugs and has repeatedly cited the vast amount of problems it has caused society? Ron Paul.
That doesn't sound like something a racist man would want to do.
Just because somedoby says 'black man' and 'criminal' in the same sentence does not mean that they are racist. I urge ya to push aside those 'politically correct' emotions and explore the issue from a logical, more rational point of view.
If I were to say that 'of the Mexicans I know and have seen, that 95% of them work like slaves', does that mean I think Mexicans are slaves? No, but if you take the quote out of context it could be construed as such even though I am in fact complementing the work ethic of Mexicans.
And most importantly, why would he purposefully suppress and stonewall releasing ALL his old newsletters if that's just a one-off?
Answer: he wouldn't.
Because he's obviously a racist.
-J.
"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."
The founding fathers were well aware of the religious wars that had cost the lives of millions in Europe. Separation of religion from politics has served our country well. Look at the results of religious based politics in the rest of the world- Sunni vs. Shiite, Catholic vs. Protestant, Hindu vs Muslim, etc. etc. We have can continue a moral society without making America a Catholic, Protestant etc. state.
Like the number one killer of blacks between the ages of 25 and 44 is AIDS..!
70% of all blacks are born out of wed-lock..
Where did I get these racist stats, Tony Browns Journal which I often watch on Saturdays..!
Also Hip-Hop Kills..!
Until we can all be judged as individuals and Americans and not get our rights as members of some select special group we will never move forward..
There can be only one standard American..!
The more you differentiate the more you discriminate..!
We must start demanding the black community take responsibility for it's action and inaction..if you are against this you are actually the racist..
Simple as that..
Statistics may sometimes be misleading, but random speculation is worse. How can you say these statistics, which come from one source, are racist, and not provide any proof beyond calling them racist? Men die before women, on average. Does saying that make me sexist? White people have less melanin in their skin than black men, on average, does that make me racist? Gay men like to have sex with other men more than straight men, does that make me a homophobe?
How can you say we need to be judged as individuals, and then demand "the black community" take responsibility for their actions? One of Ron Paul's major themes is that people need to be treated as individuals... grouping a whole community together on the basis of a quality as superficial as race and asking it to assume responsibility for the actions of its members is wrong. The grouping of people based on race is racist and perpetuates racism. Should Oprah be accountable for OJ? Should I, a white male, be accountable for Charles Manson? People should be held accountable only to themselves; to do otherwise unjustly deprives individuals of their rights.
I support Ron Paul because he most closely resembles my beliefs, mainly limited government. I am pro-choice, and he is pro-life, for example, but I have no doubt he would never enforce a national pro-life agenda. It is not in his character as a libertarian. And besides, abortion is a purely political issue, used ever since Roe v. Wade as a litmus test for any Republican pro-choice or Democrat pro-life candidate to be smeared in the primaries.
I may disagree with what he says, but I'll defend to the death his right to say it, and I've no doubt he'd return the favor.
The reason these quotes "scared" me when I heard them is because anything that hurts his chances of getting elected scares me.
BTW he's also very anti-abortion and would ban it in all circumstances if he could. Im not sure if thats because he's very relgious or because of his extreme ideology. I think its probably both.
-J.
brainiac, those are a good points too. But I feel that with all the opposition Ron Paul will likely face in Congress, and given the huge political and legal inertia in this country, he wouldn't be able to go that far. And though he might theoretically support a state's right to censor, at least he is against the federal right to do the same. I think it would be very difficult for a state to censor its people, given the Internet and national media outlets, but it is still a valid concern.
Most importantly, though, Ron Paul brings the gluttony of government perpetrated on both sides of the aisle to the national stage. He gets the message out, and makes people discuss it. Let's face it, he has a small chance of winning, but seeing a man on national television in a presidential debate say that our government is actually hurting our people is extremely valuable. In a parliamentary system, it might even make an impact in this election, but I hope he merely inspires individuals and future candidates to look at the problem of shrinking government. Based on the amount of discussion he generates, especially on the Internet, I can't help but think his message is reaching people.
It is 1983, and we need to wake up and realize we are in trouble tomorrow if we don't see what is happening today.
But I guess your not enough of a journalist to research your stories before writing them.
As far as church and state - the founding fathers envisioned a Christian nation? Show me a single quote that supports that. Show me Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, or Franklin saying that. To the contrary, they were anti-clerical deists.
Paul looks good only in comparison to the nihilistic, cynical Republicans we are used to. But he's no friend to the common American, no progressive, and not a saviour. He's just an old school conservative who elevates selfishness to a high virtue. I'm not impressed.
"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual 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. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups."
As I'm sure you can concede, no intelligent being would ever make racist comments, and then speak out against racism as an "ugly form of collectivism."
Please quote responsibly.
Surely you understand that someone who has said something stupid could then say something that wasn't. Just because someone gives an opposite view at some later point doesn't mean they never gave the previous view.
This isn't proof that he did say these things, but what you offered is not proof that he didn't.
Actually, if the race quotes seem "iffy", this sure as hell isn't:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/ron-paul-revolution-388512.html
Yeah, that's right, Stormfront... that Stormfront.
Here's what Jefferson wrote to a Baptist congregation regarding religion in 1802:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
Notice the last words of the letter, "building a wall of separation between church and state". That was written by a Founder of our country when he was president--just what Ron Paul wants to get closer to.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.
i agree with Sonny moreover As long as there is tolerance i dont care if he is Christian or whatever. why should the state biased against christianity. I think that is his point. if local states want it its up to them.
Maybe it would be good if RP would talk more about this.
I work in fuel engineering, and I can assure you that there is no "science" to the Al Gore version of global warming. Most of my co-workers think the concensus on man-caused global warming is proof of how stupid "the people" are.
Actual temperature readings show a cyclical pattern to global temperature. It has been on an upswing in the last 10 years, but the cycle seems to take 14 to years to fluctuate. There are a handful of researchers who have been tracking a correlation between sunspot activity and global temperatures and they report that solar activity has recently gone into hibernation. I'll spare you the actual science, but they are waiting to see if a mini ice age is about to occur. But most actual climate scientists believe the earth's temperature is cyclical, and none of them were invited to contribute to the United Nations' reports on climate change. The "scientists" cited in the report are mostly bureaucrats, chief among them, NASA's Hansen who arguably touched off the Al Gore obsession when Gore chaired the Senate Committee on Science and Space.
"I work in fuel engineering, and I can assure you that there is no “science” to the Al Gore version of global warming. Most of my co-workers think the concensus on man-caused global warming is proof of how stupid “the people” are."
You're an engineer, but you are claiming to know more about the climate than climatologists? LOL
The thing is that he is right....duhhhhh
stuiped!!!!!!
Read a book called "Heaven and Earth". It came out very recently. It is the most exhaustive and rigorous scientific study ever done on "global warming".
... a damning critique of the 'evidence' underpinning man-made global warming.'—Wall Street Journal
'...a wonderfully comprehensive and fearless book...If there are any willing to hear some truly inconvenient truths on the stampeding advocacy of global warming, Mr. Plimer's book is a collection of some of the sternest.' —The Globe and Mail
'...a brilliantly argued book... /Heaven and Earth/ is an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence.'—Sydney Morning Herald
'Only a geological perspective can provide a proper view of climate change. Professor Plimer's book does a masterful job of demonstrating that Nature rules the climate, not human activity.'—S. Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
'...the best book on science and scientists I have ever read.' —Andrew Alexander, The Daily Mail (UK)
'This is a very powerful, clear, understandable and extremely useful book . . . [Plimer] convincingly criticizes the UN, the IPCC, U.K. and U.S. politicians, as well as Hollywood show business celebrities. He strictly distinguishes science from environmental activism, politics, and opportunism.'—Vaclav Klaus, President, The European Union
It's plain to see that you do not favor our the U.S. Constitution, and have never supported Dr. Ron Paul. Ron Paul loves America...so where does that leave you?