In the Categories Which Matter Most, Ron Paul Will Treat Minorities Better than Obama

Beyond the Newsletters … How Do People of Color View Ron Paul?

The mainstream media says Ron Paul is a racist.

Granted, some of the newsletters written by others and published  by Paul appear to be racist. And there are other actions that could be viewed as racist as well.

But Paul voted to recognize Martin Luther King day as a public holiday, the only time in history that the Congressman has ever voted for something that is not explicitly authorized in the Constitution. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years.

Is that the behavior of a racist?

And – at the same time the “racist” newsletters were released – Paul was publicly giving speeches decrying the racist drug war. Ron Paul stated that drugs should be legal and that drugs were illegal for two reasons. One of the reasons was a racist campaign to create the means to target minorities for arrest and imprisonment by making their drug of choice illegal:

 
And watch this:

Indeed, the latest CNN/ORC poll finds that Paul scores highest amongst minorities when matched up against Barack Obama in a hypothetical election head to head. Paul scores 25% of the vote amongst non-whites, whereas Romney polls at 20% and Gingrich gets 15%.

The president of the Austin, Texas branch of the NAACP – asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, replied:

“No I don’t.”

He added that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.

Many African-Americans support Paul:


As do other minorities.

Daily Caller notes:

Two former opponents of Rep. Ron Paul, one of whom once worked for the Texas congressman, have come forward to discuss racist comments in newsletters published by the Republican presidential candidate.

Even though the newsletters were never a secret, a former Democratic consultant told The Atlantic’s Molly Ball that plans to turn them into an issue during Paul’s 1996 campaign for Congress never picked up steam ….

Eric Dondero, a Paul-staffer turned 2008 primary opponent … recently published an account including his thoughts on Ron Paul and the racist newsletters. He wrote that while many of the Paul’s views are old-fashioned or eccentric, Paul is neither a racist nor an anti-Semite.

“I worked for the man for 12 years, pretty consistently,” Dondero writes. “I never heard a racist word expressed towards Blacks or Jews come out of his mouth. Not once. And understand, I was his close personal assistant.”

***

Dondero says Paul has no problem with American Jews, and even worked to befriend the very small Jewish community in his own district.

Despite the uproar over the newsletters, Paul continues to poll well in early primary states, and is currently leading the rest of the Republican field in Iowa according to the RealClearPolitics polling average.

How Would Paul’s Actions Actually Affect People of Color?

President Obama is continuing the wars against brown-skinned people throughout the North Africa and the Middle East planned 20 years ago by the Neoconservatives. Martin Luther King would have been outragedas is Ron Paul.

Police brutality and incarceration disproportionately affect minorities.   Yet Obama is cracking down on our civil rights even more than Bush. And see this and this.

Unemployment is hitting African-Americans much harder than any other group. Indeed, blacks are experiencing Depression levels of unemployment.  And yet Obama thinks that high unemployment is a good thing.

I voted for Obama in 2008, and was very happy that an African-American had won.  I am voting for Ron Paul in 2012.

I believe that Paul will – on the whole – treat people of color in the U.S. and abroad better than Obama.

The bottom line is that – while Obama might be African-American and Ron Paul is white – I think Paul’s actions will help minorities much more than Obama’s.  Many people of color agree with me.

This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Jay Rowland

    Why is Paul soft on 9/11 truth. For a while he was our only hope. Now it is just lost.
    Does no one care about justice for the event that has changed our nation.
    Patriot act, endless wars for what a big lie. We need leadership in this nation.

    • http://unspy.info unSpy

      Jay, you asked why Ron Paul soft on 9/11 truth. He has stated he thinks the 9/11 commission report was a cover-up. Moreover, he agrees that should be a new investigation. Is this what you call “being soft on 9/11 truth” ??? Just because it is the single most important issue to you doesn’t mean it should be for Ron Paul. If he were elected, he would likely blow the cover off a lot of things (including, Oklahoma City, MK-ultra, CIA torture, war crimes, etc) and he could do this by giving amnesty to everyone in exchange for their testimony. In this way the American people would come to terms with it’s own secret history. People would be SHOCKED beyond belief (not just about 9/11 but many other things as well) but the healing could begin…. it would be the end of the world (for the secret government: CIA, IRS, FED, and list go on) but most of all this would mark the rebirth of liberty–the reclaiming of American values.

      What makes a leader is the willingness of people to follow. You said we need leadership in this nation, well Ron Paul is leading the way… the only question is will people follow??? If enough people want truth to be revealed and for healing to begin –it will happen.

    • Don’t Tread on Me

      Plain and simple. For one thing, there is no fully conclusive, empiricle evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. There are theories and plenty of questions left unanswered but there is ultimately nothing solid. Secondly, and most important, no candidate in his right mind would stand up and question whether or not the US government was behind the worst attack on this country in its entire history. He gets clout just for stating what the intelligence community and the 9/11 commission concluded, that being 9/11 was a result of “blowback” from our foreign policy. I applaud your commitment to seek truth for questions unanswered, but do Ron Paul’s campaign a favor and lay off tying the 9/11 conspiracies to his goals. He has publicly spoken out against your movement and for good reason. There is a bigger history behind that event, no matter what the cause. Ron Paul is fighting to alter the course of history so things like that never happen again.

  • Compound F

    david “dayen,” bro.
    that’s the droid yer lookin for. He’s a killer writer, for sure. Almost as good as you.

  • teri schooley

    I really don’t understand the support for Ron Paul. Sure, sure, he wants to end the wars. But everything else is DEREGULATION, getting rid of the Dept of Ed (the Dept of Education!), various other departments, and LOWERING taxes on the rich and on corporations. I notice, also, that his big “end the Fed” is really just “audit the Fed” and that “return to the gold standard” is actually “allow people to use gold if they want”. What a joke. And as we see from the Oblahblah example, one guy isn’t going to change the system – and I doubt Paul wants to change it all that much. And what do you do about the other 535 cretins and tens of thousands of lobbyists in Washington? I neither know nor care if the guy is a racist; his positions on regulation, taxation, and privatization are going to drive us even further in the wrong direction.

    Here are Ron Paul’s economic “plans”; and this explains why he is still registered as a Republican. The rest of this is from the article linked below, which is based on Ron Paul’s own written plan :
    *********
    [He] wants to abolish five Cabinet departments, drastically lower corporate taxes, and allow younger workers to opt out of the Social Security system.

    Here are the key components of Paul’s economic plan, “Restore America,” released in October:

    Spending: Paul proposes cutting $1 trillion from the federal budget during his first year in office, and balancing the budget by his third year. He would do this in part by eliminating five cabinet departments: Energy; Housing and Urban Development; Commerce; Interior; and Education. (Paul has not offered specifics on what would happen to some of the functions currently performed by the departments he wants to abolish–maintaining our nuclear weapons, administering our intellectual property system, and conducting the Census, for instance.)

    He would also scrap the Transportation Security Administration, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, eliminate corporate subsidies, end foreign aid, and return most other federal spending to 2006 levels.

    Paul says he would cut the federal workforce by 10 percent…

    Paul, who opposes almost all American military intervention overseas, also says he would save money by ending foreign wars.

    Taxes: Paul has said in the past that he’d like to abolish personal income tax rates, but his plan doesn’t suggest that. It does propose lowering the corporate tax rate to 15 percent, from 35 percent. And it would extend the Bush tax cuts and eliminate the estate tax. Paul’s campaign has said elsewhere that he supports eliminating the capital gains tax, which, as we’ve written, would be a boon for, among others, private-equity managers on Wall Street.

    Regulation: Like most of his rivals, Paul would repeal President Obama’s health care law. He would also get rid of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law intended to increase regulation of Wall Street. And he’d scrap Sarbanes-Oxley, the corporate governance law passed in the wake of the Enron scandal.

    Monetary Policy: Paul has written a book called “End the Fed,” but his plan calls only for auditing the central bank–something he’s been trying to do as a legislator. He also would push “competing currency legislation”–meaning he wants individuals to be able to use alternative currencies to the dollar, including gold and silver. The idea is to reduce the federal government’s control over the monetary supply.

    Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid: Paul says he wouldn’t scrap Social Security and Medicare. His plan “honors our promise to our seniors and veterans,” meaning that those currently in the programs could stay in them. But he would like to allow younger workers to opt out of the Social Security system and the payroll taxes it imposes–although the details of how he would accomplish this are unclear.

    “Dr. Paul is committed to fully funding Social Security and Medicare while we work a transition to allow young workers the freedom to save for their own retirement,” Jesse Benton, the national chairman of Paul’s presidential campaign, told Yahoo News.

    Benton implied that the Social Security and Medicare payments for current retirees–paid for by payroll taxes on younger workers under the current system–would be provided by radically reducing the American military footprint around the globe, along with other cuts. “It will require cuts elsewhere, but we can save hundreds of billions of dollars a year by bringing troops home, ending foreign welfare and overseas nation building and providing a stronger national defense here at home,” Benton said. “If we cut and work hard, we can take care of our seniors who rely on their Medicare and Social Security.”

    In its basic outline, Paul’s plan shares several common features with those of his Republican rivals. All support extending the Bush tax cuts, and most want to lower the corporate tax rate. Newt Gingrich, Jon Hunstman, and Rick Perry would scrap the capital gains tax. And a desire to cut government spending is almost a requirement for entry into the Republican field.

    If Paul’s profile in the race continues to rise, he’ll likely be required to fill in some of the plan’s details, which remain vague. Extending the Bush tax cuts and cutting the corporate tax rate by more than half would make it difficult to balance the budget in three years, even by eliminating five Cabinet departments and cutting waste. The only feasible way to do so would be large cuts to the three big drivers of government spending: Social Security, Medicare, and the military.

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/paulonomics-ron-paul-plans-taxes-spending-social-security-142130626.html
    **********

    • Don’t Tread on Me

      I guess my biggest question is, what do you see as being a better alternative? Paul openly states that no matter what agenda he tries to push through, he will only be met halfway at best when encountering congress. But its either a great push in the right direction or a weak push in only certain areas (economy, social programs, ect) and no push in others(foreign policy, military, ect.).

      I see you have noticed his budget and are a little skeptical about its vagueness, but you also need to understand that plans like that are developed with contributions from many people in his cabinet, which he does not have. It is a framework that is meant to be filled in (sort of like the constitution). The trillion dollar cut does not lack feasibility, in fact even many people in the establishment have come to see its promise and agree with it. But you need to know that it is something that will take more resources and input than what he can do on his own. There is a lot of politicking that will need to happen, so from a campaigning perspective, it would be foolish to delve into specifics right now.

      I’m also a little concerned that you haven’t quite grasped his entire platform. “The only feasible way to do so would be large cuts to the three big drivers of government spending: Social Security, Medicare, and the military.” In a way, that’s precisely what he would be gunning for. SS is a system that can be funded for another 50 years based on its current structure and funds. His goal would be to encourage people to start planning for other options, therefore reducing the need to fund that system so greatly, gradually reducing the cost. Medicare would be shifted primarily to the states, so the burden on the federal government would be reduced (although state taxes might increase). And the military would be drastically cut down to a more practical size to adequately provide a strong national defense, yet still remain the largest military budget in the world (I believe it was stated as 5x larger than China’s).

      If its an issue of ideology, by all means, vote for a chicken hawk or Obama. But if its a concern about conservativism, what better alternative is there as far as electability goes?

  • Strategically Speaking

    I don’t think Ron Paul is soft on 9/11 Truth in the least bit. He’s spoken about it on many occassions since it first happened. And every time he’s done so, he’s been derided by the media. I think the reason why he hasn’t mentioned it as of late is just merely for campaign purposes. The media already wants his head for so many other issues that he is not trying to create something additional for them to get on him about. But I assure you the media will bring it up soon enough.

  • felicia

    I thought Ron Paul believed that civil rights can be best handled by the states. That is terrifying. I remember in the ’60s feeling that without the feds, we would have no rights at all. Some of his non-interventionist policies sound terrific, but what are our plans for the troops if we bring them home from 50 countries. Employed in Frankfort might be better than unemployed in the US and unable to get medical care and jobs. I really don’t like his view that juries should decide not only the facts but the rule of law. But for judicial jury instructions, some of these juries could really set some scary precedent. His ideas about deregulation of industry is just unfettered capitalism – with fed no minimum wage – we would have child serfs with no OSHA. At least Obama is a constitutional scholar. Paul’s medical education has him opposing abortion (?) and claiming that poor people will get medical care from religious hospitals. I do not want anybody that will look for federal judges to limit: civil rights; federal protections in industry; clean air; pharmaceuticals; federal land leases; public education; prayer in schools, etc.

  • Greg

    What about Ron Paul’s proposed cuts to welfare and nutrition programs? Surely that will leave many poor minorities to die.

  • Jay Rowland

    He is not getting elected. The media won’t let it happen they will run some bum quote like they did with Howard Dean. They will make him a buffoon just at the right time; just watch and all the sheep out there will go vote for who the media deems the front runner Paulenty or Mitt. then Obama will win 51 to 49. SOS for 4 more years.
    Paul should at some point use his platform for something. And just cutting expenses won’t do it for me.

  • Diane H

    Ron Paul voted AGAINST the MLK Day.

    House Vote #289 (Aug 2, 1983)

    TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS H.R. 3706, A BILL AMENDING TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE TO MAKE? THE BIRTHDAY OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., A LEGAL PUBLIC HOLIDAY. (MOTION PASSED;2/3 REQUIRED)

    Nay TX-22 Paul, Ronald [R]

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1983-289&sort=name

    House Vote #624 (Dec 5, 1979)

    TO AMEND H.R. 5461, MARTIN LUTHER KING HOLIDAY, BY DESIGNATING THE THIRD MONDAY IN JANUARY RATHER THAN JANUARY 15 AS THE LEGAL HOLIDAY.

    It was just to change the date of the potential holiday. The bill to make it a holiday was introduced in congress for many years and always died in committee until 1983.

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-624&sort=name

 

 

Twitter