Saturday, January 28, 2012

Ron Paul and Black America

I am pissed, really pissed. There is another outrageous hit piece on Ron Paul. This one comes from the Washington Post and continues the attack on Dr. Paul for comments that appeared in newsletters published under his name some 20 plus years ago. The implication being that Ron Paul is a racist. Here's what needs to be understood fully, everyone, that is, everyone, agrees that Dr. Paul did not write one word in those articles.

Here's what you need to know about this attack. It has been aggressively pushed by the Koch brothers-funded Reason magazine, a supposedly libertarian organization.  Got that? An attack on Ron Paul by libertarians. The mainstream media has simply broadcast further what was handed to them on a silver platter.

Also curious is the fact that the original reporting on the newsletters was from James Kirchick, who writes that he found many of the newsletters at the University of Kansas. Hmm, University of Kansas? Just a few miles from Wichita, headquarters of Koch Industries.

Interesting that a Yale boy, who travels in elitist circles, ends up in a library just miles from the billionaires' bunker to find the Ron Paul newsletters.

Check this guy out, does he look like the type that generally hangs in Witchita. From wikipedia:
James Kirchick (pronounced /ˈkɜrtʃɨk/; born 1983) is a reporter, foreign correspondent and columnist. Kirchick attended Yale University and wrote for its student newspaper, the Yale Daily News.[1] He is a fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington;[2] prior to this he was writer-at-large for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.[3] 
For over three years, Kirchick worked at The New Republic, covering domestic politics, intelligence, and American foreign policy.[4][5]While he remains a contributing editor for TNR, Kirchick’s reportage has appeared in The Weekly Standard,[4] The American Interest, The Virginia Quarterly Review, The Columbia Journalism Review, Prospect, Commentary and World Affairs Journal. He writes frequently for newspapers including The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal,[6] The Los Angeles Times,[7] and Ha’aretz.
Kirchick has worked as a reporter for The New York Sun, the New York Daily News, and The Hill, and has been a columnist for the New York Daily News and the Washington Examiner.

Kirchick is a regular book critic and reviews frequently for Azure,[8] Commentary, the Claremont Review of Books, Policy Review, and World Affairs, among others. A leading voice on gay politics, he is a contributing writer to the Advocate, the United States' largest gay publication,[9] and a recipient of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association Excellence in Student Journalism Award and the Journalist of the Year Award.[10][11]
But, just to nail in the fact that this is coming from Koch circles, co-founder and president of of Koch-funded Cato Institute, Ed Crane, now volunteers to WaPo that Ron Paul told him his best subscriber response had come when he used the mailing list of Spotlight, which Crane characterized as racist and anti-Semitic. Puhleez.

I am somewhat familiar with mail list rentals of that period and Spotlight was a hot list to rent for almost any investment type newsletter, including those that took no social or political positions at all. In fact, I doubt most newsletter writers who rented the list through rental agents even knew what Spotlight was, other than that it was a "hot" list. I knew it was a hot list, but I had no idea, back then, what it was. Ed Crane is the one who just recently, in his comments, made it clear to me. Crane was clearly reading the letter to know, not me. But, I am wondering if the Cato Institute or Reason magazine would be willing to release the names of all the lists they have rented so that we could put the same magnifying test on them. As a matter of fact, let's see what mailing lists WaPo uses.

But aside from this attack on Congressman Paul from so-called libertarians, lets look at what a Ron Paul presidency would mean for Black America.

First and foremost, Ron Paul would end the insane war on drugs. Dr. Paul has pointed out that more blacks are in jail on drug charges than any other group. He would release them.

Second, he would close down the Department of Education which has resulted in some of the worst education for black youth possible. Education needs to be in the private sector.

It is the growth of government involvement in individuals lives that has created the miserable state that many blacks find themselves in. I have known enough sistas to see what it is like for most brothers in the hood. If they aren't way on the right side of the bell curve in terms of being persistent and self-starters, there isn't much for them to do, especially with minimum wage laws preventing them from entry level positions. It shouldn't be surprising that many of them become gangstas.

So while WaPo, Reason and Ed Crane yank out a few quotes not written by Ron Paul and obsess over them every chance they get, the bastards don't for a minute write about what Black America would be like under a Ron Paul presidency.

It would mean for blacks a new freedom for those who have been suffocated and (literally) caged by big government.

Any black person, who has a brother, sister, father, mother or cousin, caged in Federal prison because of drug charges , Ron Paul is your only hope to get your loved one home now. You should vote for Ron Paul.

Any black person, trying to make ends meet, who has small children, Ron Paul is your only hope, among the candidates, that  private sector education might develop that would provide hope for  a cheap and good quality education. You should vote for Ron Paul.

Any gangsta, who would like to get a decent job, Ron Paul is your only hope that minimum wage laws might be eliminated so that some businessman will give you a break and hire you at a low wage in an entry level position. Rather than your slinging dope and risking getting shot or jail time. You should vote for Ron Paul.

There would be big changes for blacks under Ron Paul and the changes would mean more freedom, more opportunity and less of big brother keeping the thumb on the black community.

What must be asked is "Why aren't Reason magazine, Cato, Ed Crane and WaPo highlighting the changes that would come about for Black America during a  Ron Paul presidency?"

It's a damn injustice to all blacks when Reason, Cato, Ed Crane and WaPo fail to present the truth about a Ron Paul presidency and what it would mean for the black community. Ron Paul is the best thing that could happen to Black America, and these evil bastards know it.


Gary Chartier writes:
Per your piece of this morning: it also strikes me that, since the military recruits disproportionate numbers of poor Americans, and since black Americans are particularly likely to be in that group, a Paul presidency, which would lead to a dramatic reduction in the involvement of US military personnel in violent conflict, would thus also lead to a reduction in war-related deaths for black Americans.


  1. Interesting...

    Paul's former secretary comes out with a quote that looks really bad--suggests that Ron Paul is a liar--and your response is a multi-paragraph attack on other libertarians.

    Dondero suggests the same. Paul, who claims he never knew about the racist statements in the newsletters, was editing them in the ninties, according to Dondero.

    I still take Paul's word for it that he didn't edit, proof, or otherwise review the specific quotes that were in the New Republic.

    And then, there is the "source" who suggests that Paul decided to push racist rhetoric to make money. (The truth might be closer to moving away from "buy gold to protect against the Fed's inflation," to that and other more timely political issues--guns, crime, affirmative action.)

    Crane's quote was originally from 2008. Did the WP even call him for a reprise, or is this just rewritten from back then.

    During this campaign (2012) and more and more over the last month, Reason and even Cato has been more supportive of Paul.

    I think the primary reason is Paul's success.

    I think there is also Johnson and even Huntsman dropping out. The other three are horrible. (At least Huntsman wanted out of Afghanistan.)

    And finally, Paul held out the olive branch. According to Paul, maybe we should all be working together.

    But it is clear that you didn't get that memo.

    Paul moves up North to try to win delegates in the Caucuses. We get a story about the racist newsletters that quotes Dondero and two others from Paul's camp--one named and one unnamed.

    And your focus is an attack on Reason and the Koch's.

    What is wrong with you?

    1. What is wrong with me is that I am damn sick and tired of these smears from the Koch crowd, most recently in WSJ from Ed Crane.

      See Joe Salerno:

      Get your head out of the sand.

      I also note your continued debate on the newsletters and no mention of what Ron Paul would do for the black community.

      No wonder you run for office.

    2. Keep it up.

      If you work hard enough, maybe you can turn me against Paul.

    3. Keep in mind that Dondero was fired for performance issues, and ran against paul for congress, but failed miserabley. He's not exactly a reliable source, and since he worked for paul around the time of these news letters, he was in part involved in them to begin with. It is even speculated that he could have plotted the sabatoge for his own gain, in planning his campaign against him

      As far as James Kirchick, he brought out the news letters, and conveniently left out of all his articles that there was a by line. James B. Powell was the author, but Kurchick, knowing this, still tried to claim that paul wrote them. He also claimed that Paul signed them, while every expert confirms that they were signed with an auto pen.

      Lastly, Ben Swann did a piece on reality check that debunks tjhe myths surrounding the letters. Look up ron paul reality check Ben swann on YouTube.

    4. "Mayor Bill WoolseyJan 28, 2012 10:44 AM
      Keep it up.

      If you work hard enough, maybe you can turn me against Paul."

      Don't tell me you're foolish enough to let someone else turn against Dr. Paul? If you like Ron Paul's policies then vote for him regardless of what others say. If his view of government is not to your liking then you can vote otherwise.

    5. The "Reality Check" by Ben Swann demonstrated very well how Kirchick, the same radical gay rights advocate who wants "gay brigades" to prove that gays can be tough, knew full well that Powell wrote those. Kirchick did his best to make it seem that Paul was the author.

      Meanwhile, the establishment right, GOP, and neo-con followers on talk radio and Fox News all LOVE William F Buckley. But WFB said things that were far, far worse under his own name and the name of National Review that put the handful of lines from the newsletters to absolute shame. Yet the same people like Kirchick, Newt, Krauthammer, Rush, etc who pretend to be outraged by the statements openly praise the guy who cheered on Apartheid and said blacks were inferior...

  2. And I used to think REASON was cool. 2007 cured that!

    As far as gangstas going straight, the book 'freakonomics' for all it's faults, has that amazing bit about dope gangs in Chicago and why the members still live with their Moms. (hint: cause they can't afford to move out).

    So, a low wage entry level job where people weren't shooting at them, might look pretty good to them and offer a way out and up. (or is that up and out?)

    Anyhow, I HATE these smears. The really nasty part is they seem to work. We need to find a way to neutralize them, but I haven't a clue what that might be. Ideas? anyone? Bueller?

  3. In addition, why isn't the MSM reporting on what Dr. Paul is on record for publishing - like some of his bestsellers on amazon. I'm reading some of his books now.

    Dr. Paul presents policies that would not only help African Americans - but all Americans. Actually Dr. Paul's policies can be used to uplift people all around the world.

    In closing, I was always taught that "he who is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone..."

  4. Great column, sir! Right on, Brother Bob!

    After Super Tuesday, Ron Paul needs to go speak before the Nation of Islam, who seem to be about self-improvement and self-reliance. He will find many kindred spirits there, and they may help get the real, true word out about Dr. Paul.

    1. A colleague of mine just mentioned to me that her brother (who is in the Nation of Islam) speaks very highly of Ron Paul.

      Also, Farrahkhan is on record (see google and youtube) in support of Dr. Paul's message of liberty and self-reliance.

  5. Me thinks their concern has nothing to do with Black America, but with protecting The Fed.

    They're definitely smart enough to know that Ron Paul is not a racist, but not smart enough to avoid the addiction to power. If history has demonstrated one thing, it's that power never lasts.

    Ron Paul, on the other hand, hitched his star onto ideas that have no time limit.

    Fortunately, the racism smear attempt does not hold water with voters, and even more fortunately, there is no *real* dirt on Ron Paul to dig up.

  6. After all, Ron Paul couldn't logically be a racist when racism is of collectivism. Ron Paul is an individualist and believes in the equal rights of each individual to one's own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

  7. This affair reminds me of the old Howard Cosell Brouhaha ("that little monkey")back in the '70's. After the mandatory SHOCK!! SHOCK!!!, Howard just kept his chin up, explained what he meant by that and the whole thing blew over, and he was back in the booth with O.J (yikes).
    BTW, to have called Cosell a racist was every bit as outrageous as calling Ron Paul a racist. Here was the ONLY MSM person who stood up (loud and clear) to defend Ali when they stripped him of his crown. Then as now, some people have no shame.

  8. Actually according to somebody by the name of Heavy Fed it was not Kirchick that found the newsletters in question. He says that the racist Bill White gave them to him. You also need to recognize that, according to Heavy Fed, that Bill White is also an FBI Informant.

    Check out the article below and share it. This is from 2008.

    Heavy Fed article about the Conspiracy Against Ron Paul

  9. It's an amazing thing that someone could be involved in national politics for the better part of 40 years, as Dr. Paul has, and the best they can come up with is a 20-year-old newsletter that he didn't write.

    Think about it: No flip-flops, no hypocrisy, no marital infidelity. He votes against all the wars, deficit spending, currency debasement, tax increases, and violations of our civil liberties.

    Frankly, if Americans are too stupid to vote for someone other than Paul, we deserve to suffer the consequences, and they are going to make the 2008 recession look like a walk in the park.

  10. Hey, Robert, at least this post begins to voice a message which the Paul camp has badly been in need of since Iowa - why a Paul presidency would be good. End the Fed is a fine message for the initiated, as is "cut taxes," "cut spending," and "cut government." But the vast incurious electorate does not fill in the missing words - "so your money can be your own, and sound," "to keep what you earn," "to end indentured servitude to government," "to enjoy the blessings of liberty means being proud of yourself, of your ability to provide for your self, your kids, your family;" nor does that same shallow, WIIFM electorate come anywhere close to imagining the resulting respective benefits, "employment opportunity," "control your own life," "make your own choices with dignity," "become what you want without fear of criminalization - including your own boss." I saw the word analysis piece the other day. "Freedom" is great, but the word is an abstraction.

    Let's start with that well-covered premise that voting is only worth the effort if you sincerely believe that the world would be significantly different under your guy. Paul is the only candidate to pass that test, and by a mile. OK, then. I'd like to hear a candidate say the one thing that no one - including no libertarian - has ideated in any election since 1920 - instead of creating more jobs, let's create more bosses. Replace "jobs" with "slaves" in most campaign speeches, and the semantic shift would hold more, not less, fidelity. Why this presumption that "jobs" has some totemic power to heal an already bechained nation? Doesn't that presumption contain an implicit feudal sniff about it? -

    Why is it better to work for 3M (or Merck, or Cat, or Deere, or Ford, or JPM) than to sell to them? Is it because of that creeping, pervasive, invisible and yet all-powerful sense of US cowardice and impotence that simultaneously impels us toward a police state and which lays down before sex assaults in exchange for air travel, and which concludes that "benefits" and "health care" and "job security" are preferable to freedom and self-reliance and self-respect?

    Screw jobs. I want more bosses. More businesses, more entrepreneurs, more independent operators, more Sole Proprietors, more O&Os, more "S" corps (until the IRS is abolished), more singletons, more holes in the wall one-offs. I want more shingles being hung, more individual venturing, more VCs, more angels, more "you have to try this little indie over on [n] street." More "Screw [big box inc]. Susie's is the place to go." More identity. More personality. More liberty.

    Not more corporate debt and wage cubicle slaves. I don't want those gangstas bolting F-150 parts together, I want them selling their patented fuel cells to Mullaly. Selling four-eared corn seeds to Con Agra. Running a better dry cleaner.

    Who is the candidate explicitly speaking aloud that message? Nothing against the Paul camp - I'd love to have the chance to vote for him - but your guy doesn't have an aggressive bone in his body. This is no country for old men. Even Reagan could hurl a personal insult for the purpose of drawing campaign blood from time to time. This is practical electioneering. Paul always sounds dazzled by others' ignorance; responding instead of defining. Would an occasional fist to the podium and a ringing rhetorical rise of volume be too terribly much to ask?

    1. Whoa! Great Rant!!!!

      Clap Clap Clap!!!!

  11. In my observation, the only people who claim to believe that Ron Paul is "racist" are those who are already predisposed to hate him and what he stands for. I don't see too many neutral observers falling for this. I doubt this is hurting his chances much so far, though we'll see how that changes if the propaganda machine cranks it up a few notches. Remember what Hitler wrote about the "Big Lie"...a lot of people will believe almost anything if it's drummed into their heads enough.

  12. So why doesn't the Nation of Islam or the NAACP invite Ron Paul to speak to their membership? Or is it more profitable to be an outsider playing the victim card to solicit sympathy and donations and excuses for not succeeding in life?

    1. Here is an interview with Nelson Linder (director of Austin, TX NAACP) where Ron Paul is discussed.

      Here is a recent interview with Ben Jealous (President of the NAACP) where Paul is discussed.

  13. My thoughts on the post...

    1) Notice that Kirchick was a writer for Radio Free Europe. RFE is taxpayer-subsidized political propaganda aka state media.

    2) The reason it is so infuriating is because you know the purpose is political. Even if we assume that Ron Paul used to believe the absurd, racist nonsense that appeared in those newsletters, he still would look like a saint compared to the far-right candidates (Obama, Newt, Santorum, Romney) who share a political platform of murder and theft and argue amongst themselves about who can murder and steal most efficiently.

    3) As someone who has been familiar with Paul since 1996, I would have to see video or hear audio to convince me he believes this shit.

    4) Paul's comment on the whole "Paleo Strategy" (pdf, pg 50) seems to fit his personality very well (someone who is not going to compromise his own principles but very hesitant to criticize anything that doesn't violate the NAP -- which also happens to be a reason why so many people are drawn to him; it's like he doesn't even have a drop of authoritarianism in him). If you don't want to open the pdf, here is the reply:


    I hesitate to comment on Rockwell's article because I see the debate as being more divisive than productive. I prefer to use my energy attacking those who support statism, whether they do so intentionally or out of ignorance.

    Having said this, I will make one comment: it's obvious to me that the Libertarian Party would be a lot bigger than it is now if its image were perceived as more libertarian and less libertine.

  14. If only these presstitutes had time to report on the dark-skinned children, women and men who are regularly incinerated and maimed by President Peace Prize's predator drone fleet. If only they spent half as much time investigating the recipients of recent Fed bailouts as they spend trying to dig up dirt on Ron Paul's 20-year-old newsletters. If only they could have mustered the courage to plaster the airwaves and news pages with the truth about the NDAA, assassination lists and secret prisons, and what these developments mean for the future of America.

    People have been conditioned, by government schooling and media propaganda, into thinking that a racial joke or insensitive comment is worse than a war founded on lies that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people. It is truly perverse.

    All of this talk about newsletters is a distraction. Ron Paul is running on a platform of fidelity to the Constitution. He has a pristine record of congressional votes, as well as speeches and writings spanning over 30 years, to lend credibility to this platform. It would not matter even if he did harbor racist opinions (which he obviously does not). It would not matter if he was cranky, or unlikable, or hated puppies.

    What matters is that he adheres to the Constitution. So long as that is the case -- and it has been for Ron Paul -- his personal habits and opinions have no bearing on his job as president and no effect on our lives.

    Meanwhile, the politically-correct candidates are ready to start another war overseas, while erecting a menacing police state here at home.

  15. Wenzel, when you talk about "sistas" and "brothas" in the "hood" it makes you seem like an out of touch white economist.

    When you claim, presumably with a straight face, that inner city drug dealers would stop "slinging dope" if only they could find a job that pays less than the federally mandated minimum wage it makes it hard to take anything else you say on the matter seriously.

    1. Duh, I am a white economist. What do you want me to sound like Iceberg Slim, Fillmore Slim, Goldie? I can do that. I do have a couple of mack pelt awards.

      And, if you don't thing a street level drug dealer would give it up for a straight decent job, you have no clue.

  16. However, you could point out that if we ended our ridiculous failed "War on drugs" we would eliminate the black market (forgive the pun) that provides such a lucrative and dangerous way to earn a living in "the hood", along with the generational welfare state we have created, we would actually leave them no choice but to enter the work force.

  17. Do you not see what is happening? The strategy is to divide and conquer, one that has worked for them countless times. If you fall for it, it will work once again. They must get us arguing over minutiae in order to keep us from seeing the truth and what is really important.

    They simply can not, let me say it again, "CAN NOT", let Dr Paul win. The mere fact that all of the cockroaches are skittering about making ridiculous accusations says beyond doubt that he scares the hell out of them. Why would they bother if he stood no chance of winning?

    They are worried - and with good reason. No one who hears Dr. Paul's message of individual freedom, personal responsibility, fiscal restraint, adherence to the Constitution, love of America, and deconstruction of the oppressive monstrosity that government has become, remains unmoved. You can't spin the truth. It just IS... If he is successful, the whole fiat based, corporate controlled, war mongering, greed fed, Ponzi scheming, lawless disaster will come unglued. Look around, it already is underway.

    Do not be surprised when the accusations become even more outrageous and mean. Dr Paul is truly a remarkable man. A lighthouse in the gathering storm. The first leader in my lifetime of true honor and integrity - and I have lived a long time.

    They will use every tool at their disposal. They will malign him at every opportunity. If they can not find something he has done wrong, they will make it up. They will bribe, cheat, steal, and lie to discredit him. Understand, they are fighting for control and their existence. They are at war... If we succumb to their antics, we will all lose. They are counting on this.

    We are not Republicans, or Democrats, or Tea Partiers, or Independents, or whites, or blacks or hispanics, or Christians, or Muslims, or Jews. We are, dare I say it, AMERICANS!

    I, am Spartacus

  18. From 2008 - I steer everybody to this when the "racist" charges come out ...

  19. Maybe it isn't a smear. Maybe if you look at all the facts....
    His secretary says he edited it, Dondero says he wrote it, Paul tried to blow it off with 5 different lies, he made a ton of money off the newsletters (92% of his income), his wife and daughter were board members,...geez Ron Paul wrote the newsletters. Everyone knows that.