RUSH LIMBAUGH: That’s an interesting take that the President inspires it, inspires racism. It may well be the case. So Obama’s presence inspires this guy to go all divisive, all racist and start jamming on the Republicans for wanting blacks in the back of the bus and women back in the kitchen when he can’t name a single person who does. But the President of the United States, you may be right, may have inspired that in this preacher.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTHEWS: Well actually, Rushbo, racism is the belief that one race – whites – should rule all others. Get your definitions straight.
OK Matthews, here you go. From Dictionary.com
1.a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving theidea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
From Websters
a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
Roland Martin on Thursday blamed racism for his inability to get his own show at CNN.
“You have largely white male executives who are not necessarily enamored with the idea of having strong, confident minorities, who say, ‘You know, I can do this,’” he told HuffPostLive.
“I am simply saying ‘give folks a shot,” he added. “We deliver, but we never get the big piece, the larger salary, to be able to get from here to there.”
Guess what Roland, life sucks sometimes. Do you have any idea how many people do not get positive things, like promotions, or their own shows even though they richly deserve them? Wanna bet that those folks come in all colors? What is sad here is that you believe, or have been brainwashed by the Left to believe that every negative you experience is due to RAAAAACISM.
By the way Roland your act is better suited for MSNBS anyway. You might be able to co-host with Toure, who cannot order a cheeseburger without seeing something racist in the experience. Then, maybe you will get your own gig, I will even name the show for you Roland. I think this would fit right into the MSNBS agenda. How about Race Baiting with Roland Martin ?
Here comes the most inane charge of RAAAAACISM yet. Those who prefer white meat in turkey, or chicken are RAAAAACISTS!
At this point it can’t be easy for liberals to push their absurd ideology ever deeper into self-parody. Yet they manage:
Just before Thanksgiving last week, the liberal site Slate dredged up a 2010 piece claiming that the reason Americans love the white meat on a turkey is because we are all racists.
Ron Rosenbaum pondered the timeless philosophical question of why some people prefer white meat.
“It was enough to make me wonder whether there could be a racial, if not racist, subtext here,” he wrote.
Before long Rosenbaum had worked himself into a full lather, spewing spittle as he raved:
“Despite its superior taste, dark meat has dark undertones for some. Dark meat evokes the color of earth, soil. Dark meat seems to summon up ancient fears of contamination and miscegenation as opposed to the supposed superior purity of white meat. I guess it shouldn’t be a surprise that white meat remains the choice of a holiday that celebrates Puritans.”
Stupidity should hurt. This is Racial Obsession Syndrome taken to new lows.
Mitt Romney “slyly” proved he’s a racist last night while describing his tax plan. Did you notice? No? Anyone? Harper’s Magazine’s Kevin Baker embarrassed himself in accusing Romney of trying to lock down his allegedly-racist base during last night’s debate.
“[Obama]didn’t show a spark of anger, even when Romney slyly found a way to call him a boy, comparing Obama’s statements to the sorts of childish lies his ‘five boys’ used to tell,” Baker laments today. “How the right’s hard-core racists must have howled at that! Mitt, at long last, has secured his base.”
Who else would it be but MSNBs’s own Toure who is a snide, intellectually vacuous little man who has carved out a niche amongst the Liberal by whining and screaming RAAAAACISM every time a Republican speaks. As I have said before, Toure probably cannot order a cheeseburger without finding something racial about it. Here is a clip of Toure’s latest outbreak of Racial Obsession Syndrome. Watch and listen to Toure diving head first into a realm of stupidity that few have ever dared. Frankly this is so absurd I am not sure if I should get angry, Uh-Oh, I said angry, I must be a RAAAAACIST, or laugh at the asininity of Toure and the other two walking brain donors in the clip bending over backwards to defend Toure’s “racial code words” rhetoric.
I have often referred to Liberalism as an ideology of convenience, and this clip is a great illustration of that. Toure’s assertion is that Republicans are racist, and that all criticism of Obama is racist as well. When he cannot find anything that is actually racial that Romney says, he pulls out his little decoder ring, all Liberals have them. This magic ring allows Liberals to hear things that no one else, you know, like normal people, can hear. Especially racial code words, which, apparently now includes the word “angry”. Of course, only Liberals can hear these code words because, well, Liberals actually proving their charges of racism would be really tough, and they do not like to be inconvenienced. So, they just make up a new lie about Republican’s “long history” of racial code words to cover their initial lie that all opposition to Obama is racist! How convenient. How pathetic!
Offendeditis:A Liberal Malady, diagnosed by Doug Hagin, that causes sufferers to constantly be offended, often over nothing. Most commonly associated with Liberals. Most of those afflicted seem happy only when they are offended.
Racial Obsession Syndrome (R.O.S.): A Liberal Malady, first discovered and diagnosed by Doug Hagin, that causes those afflicted, usually Liberals, to see racism everywhere, even if none exists. Also causes delusions of victimhood, and a demented belief that America is incurably racist.
Ah yes, Gabby Douglas wins a gold medal in the all-around gymnastics competition, way to go Gabby, and right after her medal ceremony, a commercial is run that features a monkey doing gymnastics. Will the Left laugh and say that is a cute commercial? Or will they scream RAAAAACISM? What do you think?
There’s lots of things one can complain about regarding the XXX Summer Games (snort). Most have seen the spectacular fail from NBC, no point in rehashing it. But, seriously?
After Gabby Douglas won the gold and Bob Costas spoke about how amazing this was for the first African-American to win the women’s all-around gymnastics title, NBC aired a commercial of a Monkey doing gymnastics which has caused quite a stir. Racist, or just bad timing? Tons of people on Twitter seemed to think it was more on the racist side.
You can view some of the tweets at the link. It is very sad that so many people are locked into being offended. We have become such an overly sensitive society haven’t we? Ed Driscoll makes a fine point about those screaming RAAAAACISM, it is their problem.
Sigh. It was a commercial. As Ed Driscoll explains
While NBC will likely be forced to grovel an apology, even a fake “we’re sorry if you were offended” effort, they also have a chance to push back against this if they want, and remind viewers that:
1. Commercials and the main TV programming they sponsor are two separate entities; if you’re seeing a connection between the two, that’s your problem. And:
2. If you’re associating African-Americans with monkeys — or you think that we do — that’s really your problem.
And really, it does not matter when you tune in, day, night, whenever. It is easy to find shameless race baiting, gutter-level appeals to identity politics, and a cast of hosts, mostly White by the way, talking to Blacks like they are stupid! Take Toure for instance. This guy takes the race baiting cake, in fact he baked the race baiting cake. OK, to be more precise, he is a pretty much race baiting bakery. This tool sees, OK imagines, racism everywhere. He likely cannot go the grocery store and not find racism. His definition of racism is pretty easy to see. If a Conservative says it, or writes it, it is racist, even if Toure has to get out his little Republican Racism Decoder Ring to find the racism in what Conservatives say or write.
You see, Toure has nothing but lies, hatred, wacky conspiracy theories about 9-11 AND why Mitt Romney REALLY spoke at the NAACP convention, I bet you did not know that racism killed Disco did you, well Toure thinks it was,of course Toure likely has mental instability to work with. And to him, Black Americans must be offended, and must feel victimized constantly. Again, because to Toure racism is everywhere, just ask him, he will show you his decoder ring. Of course, Toure is not that different from the rest of the hosts at MSNBS, which should change its motto from “Lean Forward” to something like “Be a Victim”. Because that is exactly what they want you to be if you are Black. They want to do their best to make sure that Blacks stay on the plantation of Leftist Ideology, where Democrats can keep lying to them, and keep them enslaved to failed Leftist programs and ideals.
Your worst enemy if you are Black? Leftism, and the race baiters and bottom feeders that lie for a living. These thugs see you as idiots who can be used to help achieve their ends. Conservatives on the other hand, see you as, well, people. I am sure Toure’s magic racism decoder ring will say that is racist too.
No, not that ugly little men who are not funny can make it as comedians. No, not that no matter how many times Maher calls Mormonism a “cult” it is his audience that exemplifies brainwashed dolts.
In this clip, Maher says what so many Leftists love to say. America is so racist they say, it is part of our DNA, it is inherent in America, and so on. Yet if this nation were truly racist, we would never have elected a Black president. In fact, many people, of all races, voted for Obama strictly because he is Black.
The fact is that America IS the most tolerant and diverse nation on earth. Yet, to Leftists like Maher America is a bad, evil, and yes, racist country. And to these intellectual midgets, it always will be because, for the most part, people like Maher are far less “inclusive” than they claim. The Left tends to isolate themselves in their own world of pessimism, victim hood, class warfare, and bigotry.
The Left, loathes those that are not like them. Sure they claim tolerance and diversity as their own, but try finding an ounce of ideological diversity among the Left. The Left does not believe in diversity, not in the least. The Left believes in complete and utter ideological and political conformity to Leftist doctrine. And ask any “minority” that dares stray from that conformity how they are treated by the tolerant likes of Bill Maher.
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney rolled out a new accessory at a speech in Ohio today, delivering his remarks in front of a black banner that said “Obama Isn’t Working,” which is also the name of a website his campaign set up several months ago (in case you didn’t get the message from the banner, it was also on the front of Romney’s podium).
The slogan is a multiple entendre, but one of those entendres, intentionally or not, is evocative of a nasty racial stereotype about black men.
When I first saw the banner this afternoon, the multiple meanings were clear: President Obama‘s policies aren’t working, the Obama presidency isn’t working, President Obama…isn’t working, as in, doing any work. That’s not a nice thing to say about any president, but like it or not, it becomes a more loaded accusation when leveled at our first black president.
Just to be sure it wasn’t just me, though, I asked several friends about the banner, and four out of four pointed out, unprompted, the stereotype of the “lazy,” “shiftless” black man. One of the people I called was cable news fixture Goldie Taylor, who, upon hearing my description of the banner, said “Are you kidding me? You have got to be kidding me.”
Oh dear, Christopher is simply aghast that the banner is, well BLACK, which to most folks is just a color, but to the eyes of Tommy Christopher? Well, he, like many Liberals have the ability to see racism where others, do not. In fact, they see, and hear racism all the time, even when none is actually present. They are especially adept at sniffing out racist “code words”, which, of course you and I would never take note of because, well, they are not actually racist. But, to a Liberal, anything that threatens their power is either racist, sexist, or “unfair”.
The second thing I note about Christopher, and other Liberals like him, is that they think finding ways to use the word “entendre” makes them seem more “relevant”, when, in act, it only shows what a tool they are!
The Black dirtbag loser bitch headline I got from Donald Douglas, because, well, it fits this waste of human skin. And this reporter who interviews her acts so sympathetic to her! Give me a break! This foul woman can take her phony apology and stick it frankly! She is sorry, sorry the phone call was taped and made public! All she does is play the victim here, she is “angry” , and blah, blah, blah! No, she is simply a racist piece of filth who has been exposed. And, would you believe it? She has had trouble with the RAAAAACIST police too!
Michelle Williams, who was once known as Michelle Conyers, has had several run-ins with the law. She’s been arrested on charges ranging from aggravated assault with a handgun to fraudulent use of personal information, fraudulent use of a credit card, petty theft, two counts of grand theft, two counts of forgery and exploitation of an elderly person.
She entered guilty pleas to several of the charges and was sentenced to restitution and probation, which she completed successfully. Williams hasn’t been involved with the court system since 2005.
Oh, of COURSE! Of course! That is why so many White people voted FOR Obama. Leftists like Toure amaze me. facts do not matter to them, they simply continue to preach their fabrications. Go ahead and invent a “spate” of race related killings there Toure Weasel Zippers has the latest load of BS from the newest race pimp on the block
Make sure to note the look on the face of Toure in the pic below. The look of rage, over the lack of “justice” I am sure. Funny how race pimps always look enraged, or maybe they just look constipated, perhaps Toure might try some Ex-Lax?
. . . Historically, after a surge in black power there is a retort, a reassertion of white power. After emancipation and Reconstruction came Jim Crow. After the Civil Rights Movement came the rise of mass incarceration, which Professor Michelle Alexander calls “the New Jim Crow” because legalized discrimination against ex-convicts means that they lose all the rights won in the Civil Rights Movement.
Now in the wake of the rise of Obama, we see the power structure responding by continuing to implement voter ID laws tailored to functionally disenfranchise poor blacks. We see an increase in violent crimes that target blacks but not specific blacks, any black person will do. So we get people driving cars into blacks in Mississippi and now this in Tulsa. These violent manifestations of hate are not isolated incidents.
The anxiety about Obama’s success has led to many reactions, most of them not physical but still emotionally violent. I sense a widespread anger with the continued discussion of race, as if Obama’s election should have ended the conversation forever, so why are you still talking about it? I see anger toward those who bring it up in media, as if talking about racism is the problem as opposed to racism being the problem. I hear people attempt to silence those of us who discuss these issues by flinging meaningless neologisms like “race pimp,” “race baiter,” and “raceaholic,” phrases that are meant to intimidate and shame and kill necessary conversation. But a horrifying series of hate crime killings requires us to talk, as does the linguistic violence.
Oh good freaking grief! You could fertilize every yard in my neighborhood with that babbling load of BS
Lets start with this incredible lie about voter ID laws being nothing more than a thinly veiled effort to disenfranchise Black voters. The Left has been pounding that lie hourly for months now, and it is still false. I live in a small town here in Texas, and every election, I go vote, and so do many, many Black people who live here. Guess what we ALL show ID. SOMEHOW, by some miracle, perhaps by an act of God, these Black people manage not only to have IDS, but they manage to show them, and then, they VOTE! I suspect that the vast majority of Blacks all across America also have an ID. How could they not? Face it you cannot do very much without a valid ID. But, the Left continues to make this absurd charge that Republicans are just trying to disenfranchise black voters! They are playing on emotions and fear.
Next is Toure’s assertion that we are seeing “an increase in violent crimes that target blacks but not specific blacks, any black person will do. ” Well, I am all over the net every day, visiting blogs, news sites, and guess what? This is the first I have heard of this increase in violent attacks on Blacks. Do you care to know the truth? Toure is making it up. He is simply saying the most inflammatory things he can say. The truth? Toure cares not one damn about the truth. Facts? HA! It is all about emotionalism, create that fear, that rage. Divide, divide, and divide some more right Toure? So, what the hell, just make stuff up!
Then there is my personal favorite tactic. Toure’s playing of the “emotional violence” Card! Here is the relevant paragraph. i must admit that I actually laughed when I read this. Because I tend to laugh at truly pathetic things. And Toure’s rhetoric is so intellectually bankrupt that is redefines pathetic.
The anxiety about Obama’s success has led to many reactions, most of them not physical but still emotionally violent. I sense a widespread anger with the continued discussion of race, as if Obama’s election should have ended the conversation forever, so why are you still talking about it? I see anger toward those who bring it up in media, as if talking about racism is the problem as opposed to racism being the problem. I hear people attempt to silence those of us who discuss these issues by flinging meaningless neologisms like “race pimp,” “race baiter,” and “raceaholic,” phrases that are meant to intimidate and shame and kill necessary conversation. But a horrifying series of hate crime killings requires us to talk, as does the linguistic violence.
Oh, he “senses” widespread anger does he? Well, I will say that he likely senses whatever will get him some publicity. Of course I should mention that it Toure and his ilk that is spreading a lot of anger with their irresponsible lies. And, Toure, I do not call you a race pimp to silence you, I call you that because that is exactly what you are! Frankly, Toure, you are no better than a White Supremacist who tells his lies to evoke certain reactions from White Trash. You are both devoid of any sense of integrity.
One more thing Toure you say that a “horrifying series of hate crime killings” males your silence impossible. Actually, I would surmise that it is your grossly over-inflated ego, and your narcissism that prevents your silence, but that is beside the point. Care to provide any actual evidence of these killings? Care to put your hyperbole to the test?
BC also notes something about the reporter, something that will REALLY P.O. the Race Pimps
She looks pretty dang dark skinned to me. I wonder what angle the left will use to spin her into a racist?
“A neighbor of George Zimmerman – the night watchman who shot Trayvon Martin – says the voice on the 911 tape screaming for help is Zimmerman’s. The neighbor’s statement corroborates the account of an eyewitness who said Zimmerman was lying on the ground screaming for help. The neighbor also says Zimmerman’s nose was swollen on both sides.”
OUCH! That is the last thing the exploiters want to hear hear is the video
As I have said over and again, I do not know what went down that night, and neither do those painting Zimmerman as a racist murderer. Frankly everyone ought to be against a RUSH to JUDGEMENT. Odd, the Left is always whining about rushing to judgements, UNLESS, of course, they can exploit such a rush to judgement for political gain. Sometimes I wonder how these bastards look at themselves in the mirror.
Alternate title, Does the Left Want a Race War? I hate to ask this question, I really do. But,I think it might need asking. The Left has used racially charged language for a long time. And they have used it for political gain. They divide people into groups, preach to those groups that they are victims, and that ONLY Liberals can help them to “over come”. It has always been a despicable tactic, but, it seems that it has now sunk to new levels of despicability. The Left fears losing their power in November, so the racialist rhetoric has been ramped up. That type of divisive tactic is really their only hope I suppose.They cannot run on their accomplishments,they cannot point out positive steps they have taken. All they can do is to attempt to divide Americans more and more.
But, what price are they willing to make us pay to hold their power? Are they willing to start a race war? I seriously doubt that. But,they are definitely willing to enflame racial tensions to the very edge aren’t they? Listening to and reading the rhetoric the Left spews constantly, I do not see how you could reach any other conclusion. The Trayvon Martin case is a perfect example. No one knows, except for George Zimmerman exactly what happened the night Martin was shot and killed. But that has certainly not stopped the Left, or even slowed them down has it? They smell political blood, they are desperate,and apparently they do not give a damn if they incite increasing racial tensions. And, sadly,they seem willing to see some real blood spilled if that allows them to hold on to their power.
No, I am not saying that the sick tactics of racial/gender/class/religious division the Left uses is a deliberate attempt to fuel riots, or violent attacks, although it does seem that it is those on the Left that engage in violent or intimidating behavior. What I am saying is that you cannot continuously engender hatred in some groups for those of other groups without eventually, well,you get the idea.
Question: is the TSA “racist” for requiring a picture ID?
I’m curious, because somehow we’re supposed to believe it’s somehow “racist” to require you to prove yourself yourself before you cast a vote (as a way to combat voter fraud — which of course isn’t a big problem, and even if it is, well, RACISTS!), and yet it’s not considered “racist” to require people to show a picture ID to board a plane.
More double standards from the left I plan to use this question the first chance I get.
Maybe this is yet another Liberal malady? Double Standard Dysfunction?
EXCERPT – Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) says “If you have the inconsistency then you’re not defending liberty.” Paul has always been inconsistent. This inconsistency was noted by conservative commentator Mark Levin who says “Paul is poison. Hate America first crowd.”
A major reason is because the Texan advocates policies which are the exact opposite of his rhetoric. If you visit his website it indicates he supports many things he actually opposes.
With Ron Paul you always have to read the fine print. His speeches before conservative audiences are often impressive, but the reality is completely different. Some examples are:
* Paul is a registered Republican but expresses considerable disdain for the GOP. He says there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. In 1987 the Congressman said “I want to completely disassociate myself from Ronald Reagan,” and described his administration as a “dramatic failure.”
He accused George H.W. Bush of war crimes, and wanted to impeach George W. Bush because of the non-existent North American Union. He says Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) is part of the “international conspiracy” and endorsed his primary opponent.
Paul refused to endorse Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in 2008, and was the only Republican to express approval when Democrats captured control of the House and Senate in 2006. If Paul is not nominated, he refuses to pledge support the 2012 GOP presidential candidate.
* The Congressman says he supports a strong national defense and emphasizes his military service. He was an Air Force gynecologist who never left the United States. Today he wants to cut $1 trillion out of the Pentagon budget. He would abandon NATO and abolish the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act.
He would give up America’s veto power in the UN Security Council as well as all military assistance to Israel. He would also ignore the major lesson from WW I and WW II, collective security. He would abandon our allies who paid 100% of the costs of Operation Desert Storm and have suffered 35% of all combat casualties in Afghanistan.
* The Texan says he is an advocate of free trade, but opposes practically every free trade agreement. As the Club for Growth notes, Paul “lives in a dream world if he thinks free trade will be realized absent agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA. Paul himself argues that ‘tariffs are simply taxes on consumers,’ but by opposing these trade agreements, he is actively opposing a decrease in those taxes. While Paul’s rhetoric is soundly pro-free trade, his voting record mirrors those of Congress’s worst protectionists.”
* He claims to be a right to life champion, but his plan allows abortion on the state level. He is against taxpayer funded abortions but not self paid abortions in the states’ rights category.
* He claims to be against illegal immigration. He did vote for the 2006 Secure Fence Act and claims to support the Border Fence, but he also voted against it on numerous occasions and has repeatedly said it is not needed. He says sensors at the border are enough. He also says the military is not needed on the border, and the Border Patrol is sufficient.
The Border Patrol is not mentioned in the Constitution and he use to claim they were unconstitutional. On one hand Paul is arguing for complete sovereignty and isolationism, but on the other hand he is opposing the border fence.
* He also claims to be against amnesty but his book, Liberty Defined, advocates it. He claims to be against birthright citizenship but his book supports it. He also opposes the E-Verify system to check employment.
* He says we should not tell other countries what to do, but is always the first to criticize Israel.
* He describes himself as a fiscal conservative but he has voted for numerous pork barrel projects and was against the Constitutional Amendment for a line item veto. He says it is unconstitutional because it gives too much power to the president. Paul is one of only four Republicans who supports earmarks, and opposes the GOP Ryan plan to cut the deficit by $6.2 trillion over a decade.
* Ron Paul says he is for health care reform, but he opposes the GOP plan. Republicans believe excessive litigation increases health care costs and they advocate tort reform. Ron Paul is against it because it “damages the Constitution by denying states the right to decide their own local medical standards and legal rules.”
According to the Philadelphia Inquirer: “Ten years ago, 19 hospitals in Philadelphia were in the business of delivering babies. Next month, only eight will remain.” This is because of “high expenses for malpractice insurance.” The result is that hospitals lose about “$2000 per delivery” and are being forced to close their OB units.
* He says the growth of entitlements are a major problem and admits they are insolvent, but opposed George Bush’s social security reforms. Paul wants to end social security, medicare and medicaid, but would not accept the Bush plan as a interim step to reduce costs.
* He has criticized welfare for decades but was one of of just four GOP Congressmen who voted against extending welfare reform in 2002. Most Americans are not fond of welfare but the “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996″ was a GOP proposal signed by a reluctant Bill Clinton.
When Clinton added his signature the sign on his desk said “Welfare to Work,” and the promise came true. The act resulted in a large reduction in the number of people collecting welfare and that is why Republicans have supported its continuation.
* Paul says he is against gun control but advocates policies which would allow states to disarm their residents.
* He says he is against gay marriage, but voted against the amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. The amendment would have outlawed gay marriage but not civil unions. At the 2007 Values Voter Debate Paul said, “True Christians believe marriage is a church function, not a state function. I don’t think you need a license to get married.” By that definition any liberal church would be free to perform gay marriages that would be recognized by the state.
* As a medical doctor he took the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm and to “prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.” Nevertheless, Paul is at the forefront of the anti-vaccine movement which has had a serious impact.
Now the U.S. is struggling with a large number of cases of measles and other disease which were once thought to have been eradicated. According to the Centers for Disease Control, America is experiencing the largest outbreak in 15 years.
* His admirers claim he is the only truthful lawmaker on Capitol Hill, but he tells outrageous lies. Paul falsely claims 1) Israel created Hamas, 2) Palestinians are starving and confined to a “concentration camp,” 3) the United States financed Osama bin Laden during the first Afghan War, 4) the CIA is behind the sale of illegal drugs, and 5) there is an “international conspiracy” focused on the non-existent North American Union.
* Rep. Paul has won the presidential straw vote at the last two Conservative Political Action Conferences, but his 2011 rating from the liberal ACLU is 80%. They oppose all aspects of the War on Terror. Paul voted against the constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. He is against the death penalty, allowing silent school prayer, and school vouchers.
* Paul claims to be a champion of individual liberty but is the only lawmaker to oppose the 1964 Civil Right Act, and voted against the legislation on its 40th anniversary. This is the law which allows blacks to eat at the lunch counter and says they cannot be turned away from hotels.
Ron Paul is not a conservative or a “Constitutionalist.” He is a libertarian who…
Recently, Mitt Romney has been under scrutiny for a video unearthed from 2002 in which he states his views are ‘progressive’. Newt Gingrich was chastised for previous comments. If we want to be fair across the board, Rep. Ron Paul should have to answer for this video which shows him explaining why he can’t talk about the ‘truth’ behind 9/11.
In the video, which appears to be shot in October of 2011, Paul is interviewed by conspiracy theorist group We Are Change’‘. The lady asks Paul why he hasn’t come forward with the ‘truth’ over 9/11, in which he responds that he “can’t handle the controversy.”
He goes on to say, “I have the IMF the Federal Reserve to deal with, the IRS to deal with because, no, I just have more-too many things on my plate- because I just have too much to do.”
While this video doesn’t show Paul specifically stating that he is as a full-blown ‘Truther’, it does show him answering why he isn’t talking about the ‘truth’ behind it.
Most people already know that Ron Paul refused to endorse John McCain in the 2008 general election. While I don’t necessarily agree with that decision, especially from a contender for the GOP nominee, I can certainly understand it. Lord knows I hated every nice thing I had to say about John McCain and wasn’t entirely pleased about pulling the lever for him (which is a dramatic understatement). Most people assume that Paul endorsed Libertarian candidate Bob Barr in 2008, which is partially true. However, that is not the entire story. Paul also endorsed three other candidates.
The first of those was Chuck Baldwin. I don’t really know a lot about Baldwin except that he has been on record early and often in support of the proposition that the South should have won the Civil War. This sort of thing would ordinarily disqualify most normal people from endorsing Chuck Baldwin, but Ron Paul is not most normal people. And given what most Ron Paul supporters seem willing to forgive, a little Confederate sympathy (or even a lot of Confederate sympathy) seems like small potatoes.
The second was Cynthia McKinney. Yes, you read that correctly, Ron Paul endorsed Cynthia McKinney in 2008. For those who do not know, Cynthia McKinney is a certifiably insane anti-American anti-Semitic lunatic. She first came to widespread public attention when she was arrested for punching out a member of the capitol police who tried to stop her when she wasn’t wearing her pin. Cynthia McKinney is so crazy that she got defeated in a primary by a guy who thought Guam might tip over and capsize. McKinney was once arrested by the Israelis while trying to give aid to Hamas and penned a bizarre anti-American and anti-Israeli screed. See more of her anti-Americanism here.
Now, I know that the above is not necessarily persuasive to the average Ron Paul fan – after all, if they were bothered by siding with terrorists, they’d have probably jumped off the Paul bandwagon already. What is perhaps more important is that Cynthia McKinney is also next door to being a communist in terms of her domestic policy. McKinney is an open and avowed enemy of free market capitalism, preferring instead Ghadaffi-style socialism. Seriously, she literally and openly favors dictatorial socialism. McKinney ran on the Green Party ticket, whose platform explicitly includes guaranteed open-ended welfare (at a living wage) for everyone regardless of their ability or willingness to work, among other quasi-communist and far-left economic policies.
The fourth and final candidate Ron Paul endorsed for President was Ralph Nader. Yes, the same Ralph Nader who was so far to the left on economic matters that he could see no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush. The same Ralph Nader who also longs for the day when the last vestiges of capitalism have died in America. Nader, you remember was the guy who made running as the Green Party candidate famous.
Why, you might ask, would Ron Paul, champion of economic freedom and limited government, endorse two avowed socialists for President? Well, you see, they signed a document:
Paul will offer this open endorsement to the four candidates because each has signed onto a policy statement that calls for “balancing budgets, bring troops home, personal liberties and investigating the Federal Reserve,” the Paul aide said.
You see, despite a lengthy and public history of supporting massive government expansion and infringement upon personal liberties, and despite running on a party platform that explicitly calls for the massive expansion of Government welfare, these people would clearly have been better at shrinking the government than the Republicans on the basis of signing this absurd pledge. To be fair, Paul was probably just following the Golden Rule here – after all, Paul had just spent the last two years being a truther in front of truthers and denying trutherism in front of the media, so he doubtless was extending the sort of blind eye towards Nader and McKinney’s insanity that he wished everyone else would turn towards his.
For whatever his failings as a Presidential candidate and conservative (and they were legion), no reasonable person would say that John McCain was worse than any of these clowns. It was one thing for Paul to not endorse McCain – but we have to ask what sort of person affirmatively supports anti-American avowed socialists and confederate sympathizers over a Republican? The answer: Someone who, like Howard Dean, hates Republicans and everything they stand for.
According to the latest polls, the diminutive Texas libertarian is poised to win the Iowa caucuses.
Obviously, this would be rough news for Newt Gingrich — who’s in third place and falling — and very good news for Mitt Romney, who has used Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and now Paul as blockers to fend off challenges from the various “not-Mitt” candidates of the moment. (Perry must feel particularly disoriented because he’s been both blocker and blockee.)
And give this to Paul: He most certainly is not Mitt.
Many of Paul’s defenders insist he is a champion — a lone voice, even — of the “true” Constitution and the “real” principles of the conservative movement. Moreover, they are determined to tell you that, often in e-mails written in ALL CAPS.
For the record, I like many of Paul’s positions on the role of the federal government. I find it charming that he’s making a big issue about the freedom to drink raw milk. I don’t believe his positions on states’ rights are racist. I think he goes way too far on the Federal Reserve. He sometimes sounds like he thinks Fed chairman Ben Bernanke is sapping our precious bodily fluids. But he’s also been prescient about the Fed’s unchecked power.
Or maybe it wasn’t prescience. Maybe it was paranoia. After all, if you worry about enough things, some of them are going to turn out to be accurate. When a hypochondriac is finally diagnosed with a disease after years of pointless worrying, it kind of takes the bite out of his I-told-you-so’s.
This is the point in the standard anti–Ron Paul column where I am supposed to denounce his many bad associations, his racist newsletters — which he didn’t write, he just let them go out with his name on them for years — his barmy national-security ideas, and his potted history of American foreign policy. And, should Paul go on to be a serious contender for the Republican nomination, I reserve my right to revisit all of that because — contrary to the claims of many of his supporters — Paul’s background hasn’t been scrutinized nearly enough.
But rather than get into all that, let’s take the idea of a President Paul as seriously as his supporters say we should — though the idea he could beat Obama in the general election strikes me as crazier than Joe Biden on angel dust.
Paul routinely says that he’s the only candidate who promises real change. For instance, he proposes…
EXCERPT – Thanks to glowing commentary from Ron Paul suppporters I have been called a coward, a traitor, a neocon, a nazi, that I’m sick and a ‘demeanor’ of the modern day Thomas Jefferson all because I said what a lot of Republicans are thinking but won’t say: Ron Paul is a Libertarian and not a Republican. (For the record, with due respect to the Congressman, Ron Paul couldn’t hold Thomas Jefferson’s quill pen.)
Congressman Paul turned his back on the GOP in 1987 and resigned. Instead of trying to fix the problems that he cites in his resignation, he bolts and runs. He then ran for President as a Libertarian in 1988.
Dr. Paul ran for Congress again in 1996, but instead of running as a Libertarian, chose to run as a Republican. (More about this race in a little bit….)
In 2008 Paul ran again for President as a member of the Republican party. He refused to endorse the eventual nominee John McCain, instead stating that he would’offer (his) open endorsement to the four candidates (of the Libertarian, Green, Constitution Parties and an independent) because each has signed onto a policy statement that calls for “balancing budgets, bring troops home, personal liberties and investigating the Federal Reserve.’ Those candidates were Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader, the last two being somewhere to the left of Karl Marx. Paul held a conference at a National Press Club Conference on September 10, 2008 with all four of the candidates. He then told members of the conference that “we must maximize the total votes of those rejecting the two major candidates.” He would later state that he would not endorse…
EXCERPT – Let me start this article by saying this: I confess from the start that this is a very, very passionate issue for me. I am not a fan of Ron Paul, and I respond with passion and sometimes vitriol at times when I am confronted with Paulites (my term for those who are devout Ron Paul supporters). I freely admit that I have an axe to grind here, but I deny that my agenda is a result of irrational or unhealthy dislike. In fact, I am going to argue that it is all that I like about Ron Paul that has made me so passionately opposed to him.
I am writing this article for one of two categories of Ron Paul supporters: The well-meaning folks who appreciate Ron Paul’s rhetoric regarding freedom and limited government. The other category of Ron Paul supporters, those who are consciously self-aware in their belief that America is a bad guy military bully, and needs to sit idly by in an isolationist sense as a matter of foreign policy, are not the target of this article. I disagree with them with every ounce of of breath in my body, but I have no hope that I might be able to persuade them. The latter group is aware of the things I am going to say in this article, and they do not care. I am hopeful that the former group will feel that the facts I present in this piece are new information, and warrant a change in their perspective.
I am an advocate of the freedom movement in this country. I believe, with Ron Paul, that the United States federal government has morphed into an eggregious behemoth, violating their own Constitutional jurisdiction on a daily basis. I believe that the federal government was created by the people, for the people, and that if we do not reign in their size and jurisdiction, it will one day represent the end of the Republic (fortunately, I have every confidence that we will be successful in that endeavor, incrementally). I have spent the last fifteen years studying economics and finance, and believe that Ron Paul has some wise things to say on the subject of a strong U.S. dollar. I am not a pure Austrian economist, as Paul is, but I was heavily influenced by many of their leaders when I first became obsessed with the subject, and believe there is a lot to be learned from Von Mises and some of the early Austrian economists.
But my love of freedom economics and my desire for a limited, Constitutionally constrained federal government has not caused me to jump on the Ron Paul bandwagon. In fact, and this is the most important line I will write in this article, it is my deep appreciation for where Ron Paul is right that has caused me to so emphatically reject him where he is wrong. Put differently, Ron Paul is his own worst enemy, and because I care so much for the freedom movement, I believe Ron Paul and his more extremist followers are doing irreparable harm to that very cause in our country. How could I possibly jump on that bandwagon?
I want to start my indictment of Ron Paul where I will surely end it: With the linking of Ron Paul to the American fanatical lunatic, Lew Rockwell. It is dangerous ground when one seeks to take down a person by simply associating him with someone else. As we all know, it is actually a logical fallacy of the first order. But Ron Paul is not merely “associated” with Lew Rockwell; he is Lew Rockwell. And he makes no attempt to deny this or cover it up.
I encourage those of you who are wondering what I am talking about to go spend some time at http://www.LewRockwell.com. It is one of the most insidious properties in the entire web universe. I believe that those of you who are in that camp of Ron Paul followers I am trying to reach may conclude that Ron Paul does not deserve to be linked to Lew, but I do not believe you will attempt to defend this man and his extremist and vile views. My challenge is this: Go spend ten minutes on Lew’s website every day for one month, and then decide if you have the stomach to support Ron Paul. In that month you are likely to hear that Winston Churchill was a worse war criminal than Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler. You will hear celebration that Tony Snow died of cancer (because he did, after all, support the Iraq war). You will find out that Lew believes the Constitution is a statist document. You will read that the men and women serving our military are despicable little immoral creatures, trained to kill innocent parties. I do not need to rhetorically beat up on Lew; he will be his own best accuser. The man is insane, and the only possible justification for someone supporting Ron Paul after becoming familiar with Lew Rockwell is that one just does not believe that the two are one and the same. But this is an irrefutable fact. Allow me to continue.
I became familiar with Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul in the mid-1990’s after being introduced to Murray Rothbard, the now deceased Austrian economist. Rothbard and my dad died around the same time, and I became fascinated with the intersection of Austrian economics and the freedom movement. I attended every Von Mises Institute conference I could find, and read every book their movement ever published. Ron Paul spoke at every one of these events, and…
Along with Rep. Ron Paul‘s (R-TX) ascent to the top of the polls in Iowa comes the obligatory media glare. Although not as flashy as the newsletter controversy, here’s a fascinating curio from Dr. Paul’s political closet: in a Christmastime appearance on Meet The Press in 2007, Paul said that Abraham Lincoln should never have started the Civil War, instead ending slavery by having the federal government purchase all of the slaves and set them free. Like many libertarian ideas, it’s appealing unless you think about it for five seconds.
Set aside the question of, if Ron Paul disagreed with starting the Civil War, why he didn’t just tell Lincoln himself. This is serious business.
The late, great Tim Russert asked Paul about remarks he made to The Washington Post. “I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. ‘According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery.’”
“Absolutely,” Paul replied. “Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn’t have gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was that iron fist…”
“We’d still have slavery,” Russert interjected.
“Oh, come on,” Paul replied, dismissively. “Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I’m advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where the hatred lingered for 100 years? Every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn’t sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.”
Sure, it’s reasonable if you’re one of the people doing the buying, selling, and “phasing out.” Take a look around. We can’t even pass a payroll tax cut extension that benefits 160 million people. How long does Ron Paul think it would have taken to muster the political will to fund a slaveowner bailout that only benefited people who couldn’t even vote? The British bailout plan that Paul refers to freed 40,000 slaves, at a cost of £20 million, 40% of the government’s total annual expenditure. There were almost four million slaves in the US when the Civil War began.
As for that newsletter controversy, Ron Paul has consistently expressed regret over what he says was a mistake, and in the years I’ve been covering him, nothing I’ve seen or heard from him would lead me to believe that the ideas in those newsletters reflect his beliefs. Having said that, part of making up for a regrettable mistake is facing the music for as long as it plays. If people still have questions about it, Paul owes them answers, just as surely as he is owed the chance to give those answers.
Click on the image below to watch the clip from the Dec. 23, 2007 edition of Meet The Press:
More proof that Ron Paul is lying about his newsletters. In 1995 he talked about them on camera as if he did read/write them. Wow, how times have changed (h/t: HotAir)
.
I noticed yesterday that the USA Today had picked up on more evidence that Ron Paul is lying about his newsletters:
In 1996, Paul told The Dallas Morning News that his comment about black men in Washington came while writing about a 1992 study by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank in Virginia.
Paul cited the study and wrote: “Given the inefficiencies of what DC 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.”
“These aren’t my figures,” Paul told the Morning News. “That is the assumption you can gather from the report.”
Nor did Paul dispute in 1996 his 1992 newsletter statement that said,”If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.”
Now, Paul says he had nothing to do with the contents of the newsletters published in his name.
“Why don’t you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN and what I’ve said for 20-something years, 22 years ago?” Paul said on CNN Wednesday. “I didn’t write them. I disavow them. That’s it.” Paul then removed his microphone and abruptly ended the interview.
A Brooklyn homeowner hung a scarecrow by a rope from a tree in his yard. A local councilman decided it was “racist,” mainly because it reminded him of “lynching.” Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t — several neighbors said the homeowner really gets into Halloween and meant no harm.
“It’s unacceptable,” said Charles Barron (D-Brooklyn). “You ain’t speaking for this whole community because some people on this block came by and said it was offensive. They came and said it was offensive. It’s not a cool decoration.”
Police settled the dispute by removing the scarecrow figure from the tree.
Got that? It’s “offensive” so NYPD confiscated it. From private property. Without Due Process.
That my friends is the very definition of fascism.
Chris is right. Sure some folks might say, “come on, they are just decorations, no one’s rights are being violated” but think of the principles at stake here. Those principles are highlighted in red above.
Another important point is that Charles Barron is a vile racist himself, just Goggle him, see what you find. It is always the Leftists like Barron who are trampling basic liberties for their own gain.
Witnesses tell Newsradio 620 WTMJ and TODAY’S TMJ4 of a mob of young people attacking innocent fair-goers at the end of the opening night of State Fair, with some callers claiming a racially-charged scene.
Milwaukee Police confirmed there were assaults outside the fair.
Witnesses’ accounts claim everything from dozens to hundreds of young black people beating white people as they left State Fair Thursday night.
Authorities have not given official estimates of the number of people involved in the attacks.
“It looked like they were just going after white guys, white people,” said Norb Roffers of Wind Lake in an interview with Newsradio 620 WTMJ. He left the State Fair Entrance near the corner of South 84th Street and West Schlinger Avenue in West Allis.
“They were attacking everybody for no reason whatsoever.”
“It was 100% racial,” claimed Eric, an Iraq war veteran from St. Francis who says young people beat on his car.
I do not, and never will be a proponent of so-called “hate crime” legislation. But if we are to have such laws, THIS CASE qualifies
COLUMBIA, SC (WISTV) – Prosecutors say the brutal beating of a teenager last week in Columbia’s Five Points doesn’t appear to have been racially motivated, but the U.S. attorney is still reviewing the case.
Fifth Circuit Solicitor Dan Johnson, who will prosecute the eight people charged with attacking 18-year-old Carter Strange on June 20 before leaving him for dead, said no evidence suggests the beating was racially motivated other than the race of the people involved. Strange is white; the eight suspects are black.
However, Johnson said his office asked U.S. Attorney Bill Nettles to review the evidence to make sure hate crime charges are not warranted.
A hate crime is legally defined as an attack motivated entirely or primarily by prejudice.
The seven juveniles charged with attacking Strange faced a judge on Monday, who granted a request that the defendants stay in jail until trial. The unnamed suspects’ next court date hasn’t been scheduled yet, according to Johnson.
The eighth suspect, 19-year-old Thyeem Henrey, appeared in court on Friday afternoon. The judge set bond at $750,000, which must be paid in full to allow Henrey’s release.
Police say Strange was jogging home just after midnight when the suspects approached him in a parking lot near Blossom Street and beat him up.
A passerby found him a block away two hours later, and called 911.
Strange said he had to have emergency brain surgery and facial reconstruction surgery after the attack, but is making a remarkable recovery. “My physical condition is amazing,” said Strange. “I mean, the condition I’m in right now is a miracle.”
If indeed these eight thugs did this, then what their motivation was does not really matter, the brutal beating they committed is all that matters. I am not sure what type of sentence they could receive. But, frankly, this ought to be attempted murder shouldn’t it? Here is my question, would a life-sentence be out of line for these monsters?
darcprynce
Dave C
Gatordoug
