Here is an official statement…by Ron Paul… its not some \”here say\” smear campaign. \”Racism and Government\” http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst041607.htm

If you really want some reasons not to vote for him…heres a link that will give you all you need to know…

http://www.7arp.info/

An example of not thinking is: “I read that page about his war stance. OK, wonderful, he\?s anti war. Where was he eight years ago? Anyway,”. It is not wise to say “oh I can’t figure this out so I’ll Move On and Anyway..”. No. You could have figured out that yes, he really did take a stand against war eight years ago by doing a simple google-search.

I’m not sure Ron Paul has much hope, though. Not because of anything that has anything to do with him but cause I’ll believe there will be a 2008 election when I see one.

Paul made that statement because he believes blacks are subhumans, naturally given to violence, and as he says later, fleet of foot. Paul says these things because he is an un-Reconstructed Southern racist.

How do you know Ron Paul believes blacks are subhumans? Your reasoning is seriously flawed. I noticed you’ve been told this on other websites as well. Stop trying to make Ron Paul look like a racist, you’re only making yourself look stupid.

Do you have any proof that 95 percent of black men in D.C. are criminals? No, because is no such proof. It is not true. The fact that you believe such nonsense is useful though. It reveals how easily you can be manipulated. Paul made that statement because he believes blacks are subhumans, naturally given to violence, and as he says later, fleet of foot. Paul says these things because he is an un-Reconstructed Southern racist.

Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages
of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence,
reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center
also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before
they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their
lives. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal
justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males
in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

He was mentioning data from the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. I don’t think you can call him a racist when he was just talking about data to support his argument. Data is data. You can’t blame Ron Paul for saying what he said when it’s based on reality.

“racism |ˈr�?ˌsizəm| noun the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. ? prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief : a program to combat racism.”

A person cannot claim that 95 percent of African-American men are criminals without being a racist. The claim, which is false, declares black men an inferior race prone to violence. Paul’s behavior fits squarely within the definition of racism. Paul’s opposition to non-Europeans like you immigrating to the United States is also rooted in racism.

If you knew anything about American history you would know that massive racism and discrimination are older than the country itself. Ron Paul grew up in a Southern state among the worst for racial violence. From the 1800s through the 1960s the Ku Klux Klan and the Texas Rangers killed at least 7,000 people, most of them Mexican-American, Indian and black. Segregation was legal and racial violence common until Paul was well into his ’30s. He is incapable of seeing anything wrong with that and would like to return to a time when millions of Americans were treated as if they had no rights.

You claim Robert Scoble doesn’t know much about Ron Paul. Neither do you.

Here’s a challenge. You said: “It?s simply incredible how much I agree with almost every one of Ron Paul?s opinions.” Read these words that Ron Paul wrote in his newsletter in 1992 and see if you can avoid seeing his obvious racism again:

http://tinyurl.com/28549w

“The Trouble With Forced Integration

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Last week, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The heroic Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No. Here is his statement. ~ Ed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

These are Paul’s own words. He has expressed is racist views about people of color, gays and non-white immigrants as a leader of the John Birch Society for decades. Anyone who did a smidgen of research would see Paul for the demagogue he is.

I kept picturing the “black baggers” and the bald guy who ran the detention camps in the movie V for Vendetta… and Haliburton is building the camps.

I stumbled across Ron Paul a week ago and have watched more video and learned more about the root causes of problems than I have in my previous 48 years combined. Your article just added more.

I am firmly onboard with Dr. Paul and actually have found a sliver of hope from an End-of-the-world attitude that usually grips my every day life.

With all the death and destruction around the globe instigated by our own country, I had pretty much given up. I actually split from my wife over Iraq. I have rejected many of the Jesus-want-you-to-be-rich people, and have no confidence in any of our government agencies to do the right thing.

Thanks again.

Ron Paul 2008

I saw him speak in 2002, my first introduction to the Congressman who actually talks sense (imagine my shock and awe). And guess what he was talking about? How the drums of war against Iraq were inexorable, because of Congressional abdication to the Cheney Regime.

You cannot fault the guy on this whatsoever. He is above reproach.

Now, if you’d like to go back to investigating the issues, I applaud you.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

As for how he’s going to take care of the war, he talked about that in public many times. Just do a search on Google or YouTube.

But really, all you have to look at is him openly discussing issues like the Fed. Nobody else has the courage or even wants to do it. Take care of the Fed, and other issues like the wars will vanish.

I fear you’re right about HRC though.

How to Whip This Ron Paul Character and All His Stupid Followers.

Ron Paul can be defeated by ignorance. Ignore him if you can.
By lies. Misrepresent his positions whenever possible.
By word gaming. As Lenin advised, “First, confuse the vocabulary.”
By contempt. Dismiss him as amusing and pathetic.
By smearing his supporters. Find the worst and spotlight them. Call them a cult or sect.
By consensus. Dismiss him with peer-pressure ridicule.
By false accusations. Spread them quickly and far.
By never discussing his policies. Change the subject to his person.
By the polls. Ask the right people the right questions and get the answer you want.
By reporting his most unpopular votes. But don’t report his reasoning.
By rudeness. Wreck any debate where his ideas are winning.
With all these tools, he can be easily defeated. Use them generously.
But Ron Paul cannot be defeated by refuting him in an honest and courteous technical debate. Avoid that.

- Moderno Machiavelli