What You Might Not Know About Ron Paul, and Why You Should Know It

This article is hardly more than fearmongering. Make people afraid with innuendo, implied statements, generalized criticism. I read the links (or most of them) and they are basically the same.

Well, don't worry. While you are busy attacking one of the only people on the national stage who is actually talking about some of the real issues of our day, the establishment has done a good job of insuring that his candidacy is derailed and cannot have an impact on the direction of the country.

And of course, the alternative you are proposing is??? Thought so. Nada

Ron Paul believes in non-violent solutions. He has repeatedly stated that there is no moral justification for a nation to attack another nation at all, let alone with nuclear weapons. With the US threatening a first strike nuclear attack on Iran, one could argue that there is no single more important stance to take.

The tactic of progressives switching to vote Republican in the primaries in order to oppose the other Republican candidates is a sound one. McCain, Guiliani, and the other 'top' Republicans have all stated that they would be willing to use nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear nation. Then go ahead and vote against Paul in the actual election if you want to! But no, the progressive left is pathetic. So incapable of seeing anything tactically. If nothing else, support for Paul in the primaries will allow him to stay on the national stage saying some important things.

The left has become blind and impotent, and that is why the only anti-war candidate who is making any noise at all is coming from the Republican Party. Sure he is flawed, but the left has not even managed that much! The failure is extraordinary.

Paul isn't perfect, but the criticisms that have been leveled at him are largely unfounded. This hit piece isn't much better than the last one. It is clear that Paul's strengths are being attacked. We've seen this tactic before -No? Here's some qoutes from the article:

"Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society."
-this is clearly problematic & a place where I would disagree with Paul, but I wonder if it is taken out of context. If not, I would like to hear more of what exactly he means. But the article doesn't provide that, it only calls it into question.


"Paul's votes, in essence, amount to isolationist policies in a world connected"

-This is nonsense & clearly intended to offer propaganda and create doubt. If you look at Dr. Paul's statements & hear him speak, any doubt here is absolutely made clear.

"Most don't realize that Ron Paul defends Bush:"

Then Paul's quote:
I'm talking the people who have hijacked our foreign policy, the people who took George Bush's foreign policy of a humble foreign policy and turned it into one of nation-building which he complained about. . . . The president himself has changed the policy. . . I liked the program he ran on. That's what I defend. And--but all of a sudden--and it didn't change after 9/11, it changed the first meeting of the Cabinet according to Paul O'Neal. He says immediately it was on the table. `When, when were we going to attack Iraq?'

Meet the Press' transcript:
Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), John Harwood and Chuck Todd
Tim Russert, Dec. 23, 2007, msnbc.com

-That isn't defending Bush, that is defending the position Bush CLAIMED he would take before he took office. The difference is transperent enough, as is the weak attempt to take down the candidate.

Then the criticism turn to:

"The Internet Candidate"

With more BS about how all of the Ron Paul folks that use the internet are spammers and "dishonest hackers" before calling it a fake grassroots campaign. What next? Is all the money that theys fakes raised actually monopoly money? The article is clearly an attack attempt that could find verry little to attack. Nice try guys, but the illusions are getting way too thin for a public that is getting way too smart about your tactics.

Next shot:

(Ron Paul) is vehemently anti-abortion.

As with many of the above attacks, a quote is offered from someone who misrepresents Paul's actual position. He thinks abortion should not be decided on the federal level. I was concerned with anti-abortion until I realized that moving the decision back towards a local level serves the debate in that it becomes a local issue, where it has a human face. Regardless of my choice views, I can see the value in moving this issue away from the federal level in order to empower more local decisions. I can live with that. Next issue?

Oh, yea, the financial hit, that makes sense doesn't it. Another one of Pauls strengths. The author again takes snipits from interviews and takes the conversation out of context and omits important issues sos that it looks like Paul wants to do away with welfare right away and that people that are reliant on the system need a way to get out of it. Giving them their income taxes would certainly help -yea? He wants to reduce the spending on MILITARY and the military industrial complex. No need to police the world on our tax dollars. If we cut that, we would have a massive surplus. I've never heard him say that we shouldn't have roads. That's another example of instilling doubt in an area of strength, his fiscal perspective. Again, this is easy, because it is right out of Rove's playbook. How dumb do they think we are?

I'd finish taking apart this article, but it is clear enough isn't it?

By the way, I'm somebody holding a sleeping baby, not some Paul 'employee' or 'astroturfer'. The future is in my arms and growing fast I'm just trying to do the right thing so that things will be 'reasonable' in this counrty by the time this child is my age. It isn't expected that we agree about everything, but I hope we can agree that working together for the future of our children is a good starting place. Getting a perfect candidate isn't going to happen, but we've got a good one here. Getting a perfect criticism of a good candidate isn't going to happen either, but this one really sucks.

To charges that he is racist, Ron Paul said that he has great respect for the civil rights movement, for Rosa Parks, Dr. King, and also for Gandhi. He said non violent civil disobedience is a Libertarian action of courageous individuals opposing unjust laws. He said he agrees with the words of Dr. King who said a person should be judged, not by the color of their skin, but by their character.

He went on to say that he was the anti-racist candidate because he is the one challenging 2 areas in the society that unjustly target minorities. One, the ongoing war and war machine, which disproportionately sends minorities off to die in foreign wars, and the so called drug war, which disproportionately targets minorities. Ron Paul said that if he were elected President, he would pardon all non violent drug offenders which would be a big positive to the african american community. He said, show me another candidate who will stand up here and take such a position.

to the white guy who thinks the left is almost puritanical in its hatred of the right, you got some seriously muddled thinking going on.

it is that distorted victim argument again. the right uses a cultural hatred of most of us as a tool to get elected (nothing can get a republican elected faster) time and time again. Paul comes from white christian republican tradition, repleat with all the horrors expected: voted against the civil rights act, voted against affirmative action, sponsered legislation to ban recognition of same sex marriage from state to state, and is against abortion.

how close minded of me to have a problem with this. if i were a more mature person (you know like the white guy who can make DIFFICULT decisions in a crisis, or the BRAVE choice of sacrificing others not himself, THE REAL SOCIAL ORDER underneath it all), i would over look all these un-important "internal" issues, and jump right into line.

and you believe campaign rhetoric! ron paul is not a racist because rosa parks, and MLK are hero's of his? vote for obama, or clinton! because they promise change, if you want to argue about these empty statements having face value. plus even the KKK claim they are not racist anymore. Not a lot of thought goes into saying "MLK is a hero of mine.." It is the safe and the predictable thing for a bigot to say. Predictable thing to say number one. Knee jerk reaction number one: someone calls you racist (you know because of your actions and voting record) and you say "no..no... I love MLK...

do you not have the cultural competence to see how transparent that is to someone who cares about race politics? it IS a sterotype! people make jokes about white people saying that!

some of us have worked our whole lives to throw off the oppression of our people. Do not give yourself self congratulatory, credit for supporting PAul. No doubt many of your europian for-fathers made similair choices, falling behind men of the church during wars or occupations. this "option" is predictable.

when you here a strong no coming from an oppressed group of people, it is the militant voice not the intolerent voice. you have your power politics all messed up. maybe you should ask yourself why you would want to undermine your sisters and brothers in this struggle. maybe you should consider that your actions and choices and "opinions" on this, are freakishly predictable for the egocentric white male.

Then forget the Rosa Parks and MLK part. I agree that such statements can be cheap and easily said.

He went on to say that he was the anti-racist candidate because he is the one challenging 2 areas in the society that unjustly target minorities. One, the ongoing war and war machine, which disproportionately sends minorities off to die in foreign wars, and the so called drug war, which disproportionately targets minorities. Ron Paul said that if he were elected President, he would pardon all non violent drug offenders which would be a big positive to the african american community. He said, show me another candidate who will stand up here and take such a position.

I agree that Dr. Paul has white male paternal attitudes that reflect the inherent racism of the society and his own lack of examination of those patterns. However, these positions above, are anti-racist actions. Do indy readers think it would be a good thing to let all non-violent drug offenders out of prison. A large percentage of these prisoners are guilty of nothing more than getting caught with some illegal drug while being black. That seems like a solid anti-racist action.

It is rather remarkable to have a candidate who is being interviewed constantly on national media making such suggestions. Dr. Paul is bringing ideas into the national discussion that corporate media rarely ever let get aired.

Dr. Paul has no chance of being elected anyway. The establishment would assassinate him before they would let him win. Regardless of what you think of him, he has gotten many individuals who are worried about world war, feel the Iraq war is wrong, are afraid of their loss of civil liberties and the rise of fascism up off their seats and doing something.

I will again ask the question. Why has the left been unable to push any anti-war candidate forward? Numerous progressive people are supporting Dr. Paul, not because of the baggage, but because he is the only one who is even a blip on the radar who is talking about stopping the war immediately, not launching further wars, reclaiming civil rights, habeus corpus, the rise of fascism, and the economic crisis. All critical issues of our times that are all but invisible.

Look at Iowa. Ron Paul got 10%. No anti-war Democrat even managed 1% in Iowa. Why is the anti-war left so completely impotent that it has not made the slightest ripple? That silence is quite extraordinary, especially given the continued war rhetoric against Iran and the very real threat of world nuclear war. Maybe there is currently more independence of thought and action coming from people who would be classified from the right than from the left.

Maybe there is currently more independence of thought and action coming from people who would be classified from the right than from the left.

oh, was that a dig?

you know women are not adequately represented in government because we are not creative right? people of color too what.... it just makes no sense that "the left" is hitting a wall, why can't our ideas break through?

because you know with survival of the fittest, if we do not have a cantidate we must be "impotent."

why can't we push forward a cantidate? hmm, did you forget this is a bought and sold game? forget about the corporate media? voter fraud?

and campaign rehtoric, and promises are not action, DUH!. voting against the civil rights act, was! voting against affirmative action was!

his immigrant stance is very racist. thanks again for not caring about that.

white guy sees his reflection in the christian male republican. how heartening.
you can feel comfortable dabaling in a little right wing intrigue. they will treat you just fine.

If ya ain't noticed, RP ain't da average white republican. he do stand up for people who been shit on by the man.

Ain't ya learnt yet that showin whity with a dirt mouth don't work? Be mad, okay. just cuz whity don't do what you want ain't make em racist.

Lil Sister, you gotta run a check on who ya hate. Else ya probably be a psy op.

thanks for the shuffle and jive. we do not usually see something that ugly on indymedia.

and please do not remove it indy editors.

this is the choir of ron paul supporters after all, and they should hear how they sound when they sing together. white guys who are fine with this subject degenerating, and for some real back sliding to happen (but not for you).

have you all considered that if abortion becomes illegal, that that might effect you?

and for the more radically identified of you: you know that oppression is systematic right? it constantly has to regroup. this type of regrouping is the next wave. this debate will go beyond paul, becuase you are correct that he will not win. a false dichotomy will be posed over and over, as to whose rights should be taken based upon our "crisis" of civil liberties and economy. will you start to listen for it? AND OPT OUT OF IT? it will have many metaphors and come from many directions. this one is the most painful for me so far. i know it will get worse.

take a hard line on it, not a compromising one. i do not want to hear another radically identified male tell me that "he can sacrifice that.." when it comes to Paul's politics around immigration for instance. like it is yours to sacrifice. you must have a body memory of owning everything to talk like that. well stop talking like that.

NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist
Linder says Paul being smeared because he is a threat to the establishment
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Sunday, January 13, 2008



Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.

Linder joined Alex Jones for two segments on his KLBJ Sunday show this evening, during which he commented on the controversy created by media hit pieces that attempted to tarnish Paul as a racist by making him culpable for decades old newsletter articles written by other people.

"Knowing Ron Paul's intent, I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that....so I think it's very easy for folks who want to to take his position out of context and that's what I'm hearing," said Linder.

(Article continues below)


"Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he's a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform," he added.

Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded "No I don't," adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.

Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years.

"I've read Ron Paul's whole philosophy, I also understand what he's saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him," said Linder.

"If you scare the folks that have the money, they're going to attack you and they're going to take it out of context," he added.

"What he's saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that's what they fear," concluded the NAACP President.

Click here to listen to the MP3 interview.

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

 http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm

>>Offering a characterization of some information as 'evidence' and other information as 'retoric' doesn't change the content or quality

'Evidence' for racism exists in the form of 20 years worth of newsletters that went out under Ron Paul's name with comments that average people would describe as "racist." The evidence is out there and the discussion in the paper above has a number of links to sources which likely are showing those pdfs now. That, my friend, is evidence. The opinions about that evidence may vary, but those are opinions based on a broad body of evidence now exposed from all sides of the spectrum, not simple rhetoric.

Rhetoric is trying to refute that by saying "Paul isn't a racist," because one black man from his own state says so.

have you all considered that if abortion becomes illegal, that that might effect you?


Yes. I do not want abortion to become illegal. When asked about it Ron Paul said his personal beliefs were 'pro-life' but that he does not believe the federal government should have a say in the matter. He said it was not the governments business and he opposes federal legislation banning abortion. He said it should be up to the states to decide, and that it was his personal preference that the states not decide against it either because government should not be so intimately involved in peoples lives. That is a libertarian position. The libertarian position has some appealing aspects, and some troubling aspects.

take a hard line on it, not a compromising one. i do not want to hear another radically identified male tell me that "he can sacrifice that.." when it comes to Paul's politics around immigration for instance. like it is yours to sacrifice. you must have a body memory of owning everything to talk like that. well stop talking like that.


Paul opposed NAFTA. NAFTA was so destructive to the Mexican economy. Clinton pushed through NAFTA, He also pushed more cops and stricter drug laws which saw so many minority youth jailed. Hillary and Bill Clinton are highly racist. If you think Hillary Clinton would be any better for minorities in this country than Ron Paul, then you are really fooling yourself.

Ron Paul said he opposes the Federal raids to round up people here in the country illegally. He said he would repeal NAFTA which would help the Mexican economy so so many people would not want to come here as they do now. He said he felt it should be harder to come here illegally, but that he thinks it should be easier to legally immigrate and that he would streamline that process. He said that if the country had a sound economic policy and stopped creating so much debt that the economy would be strong enough to have more people immigrate legally. He said he felt that together, these changes would take what is now an issue, and make it a non-issue.

If you compare the position of Ron Paul to the position of Hillary Clinton on the issue of immigration, I think I would pick what Ron Paul said as more beneficial. The repeal of NAFTA is huge and they are rather similar otherwise. So rather than accusing everyone who is interested in the Ron Paul campaign of being a white guy willing to sacrifice others, maybe you can recognize that some people have thought about it and think his position on immigration might be better for immigrants and all of us than the clowns the establishment is going to pick. Ideal? Of course not. Plenty of room there to criticize Ron Paul. I just don't see the whole boogieman thing where he is like some evil demon going to eat all our children.

First its:

Yes, unfortunately, the Paul supporters show their depth when they grab at anything, even utter rhetoric, as "evidence" for their positions, and then make claims like, "I did back up my points!" while providing no links, no facts, no quotes, etc., only their own rhetoric!

Then, after Austin NAACP president is quoted, its:

"Rhetoric is trying to refute that by saying "Paul isn't a racist," because one black man from his own state says so."

If Rhetoric is the art of persuasion, reader, you should take a class in it so you understand what it looks like and exactly how it works. That way you will be able to identify errors such as: red herrings, non-sequitar, straw man (a common one you use) and ad hominem (hugely used here as well).

About Paul:

Like Linder says: "If you scare the folks that have the money, they're going to attack you and they're going to take it out of context,"

If you looked past his gender and sex, you might see that Paul offers a platform that is attractive to under represented people of all types. Have you considered what kind of impact of getting rid of the Fed? Who would benifit from that? Understanding the role of the Fed is key in understanding Paul's popularity. If you are really interested in understanding the tools of oppression and ending it, you would look into the power of the Fed & its ability to print our currency:

 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279

Paul wants to end the fed and the war! pronto! I don't hear any other candidates offering to make nearly as much progress in regard to abolition of opression.

NAFTA-TLCAN, which, after all, is an integral part of the same scheme of "structural adjustments" to globalize Mexico's agricultural sector and force dependence on export cropping, has only accelerated the stampede from the countryside and into the migration stream. By the trade treaty's 10th anniversary in 2004, NAFTA-TLCAN had driven 1.2 million farmers off the land, according to a Carnegie Endowment evaluation of the pact's impacts issued that year. Since each farm family averages out to six people, the total number of expulsees from the campo hovers around 6 million.

It was the Clinton's who pushed through NAFTA and in effect, helped create these 6 million Mexican refugees. Ron Paul is one of the few people running for president who has connected these two and said that NAFTA should be repealed and that it would be helpful for the Mexican economy.

Meanwhile Hillary Clinton knows full well the effect of NAFTA but puts out some smarmy liberal bullshit about defending immigrants while keeping the borders strong. She is fine destroying all those peoples lives but wants to appear compassionate while doing so. Plays good to the self image of the left as the compassionate caring ones.

Most of the people coming across the border are not immigrants, they are refugees driven here because we destroyed their agrarian economy and put them out of business for our corporate profits. Ron Paul's position on dealing with the problem actually speaks to the source of it and is a good sight more sensible than the establishment candidates. So why is it that it is Ron Paul being attacked on immigration and not the people who are being put into office this time around? I do not see a single article on this page about Hillary Clinton's racist policies on immigration, even though many progressive people will vote for her because she sounds more 'compassionate' on the issue.