RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Gibson begins: "Hacktivist collective Anonymous struck a gold mine with Operation Blitzkrieg - an effort to hack into and shut down White Nationalist (WN) websites and forums. Anonymous leaked thousands of emails and private messages from the white supremacist network American Third Position, which is defined as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center."

Portrait, Rep. Ron Paul, 06/15/09. (photo: Melissa Golden/TIME)
Portrait, Rep. Ron Paul, 06/15/09. (photo: Melissa Golden/TIME)

White Supremacists Love Ron Paul

By Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News

05 February 12

Reader Supported News | Perspective


tick a fork in Ron Paul, he's done.

Hacktivist collective Anonymous struck a gold mine with Operation Blitzkrieg - an effort to hack into and shut down White Nationalist (WN) websites and forums. Anonymous leaked thousands of emails and private messages from the white supremacist network American Third Position, which is defined as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Anonymous also leaked the address, phone number, social security number and resume of White News Now owner and administrator Jamie Kelso on this website. But in leaking the emails and messages, Anonymous also discovered that a vast number of A3P members claim to be high-ranking members of the Ron Paul campaign. Ron Paul's campaign has some serious explaining to do if this is true. Read what the SPLC has to say about A3P:

The American Third Position is a political party initially established by racist Southern California skinheads that aims to deport immigrants and return the United States to white rule. The group is now led by a coterie of prominent white nationalists, including corporate lawyer William D. Johnson, virulent anti-Semite Kevin MacDonald and white nationalist radio host James Edwards. David Duke's former right-hand man, Jamie Kelso, helps with organizing. The party has big plans to run candidates nationwide.

The SPLC also has quotes from Kelso and Johnson, in detailed profiles from their website.

"No person shall be a citizen of the United States unless he is a non-Hispanic white of the European race.... Only citizens shall have the right and privilege to reside permanently in the United States." - Bill D. Johnson, 1985

"... in a mixed-race environment, altruism towards other sub-species, like Jews, Mestizos, Blacks, and Asians, is always damaging to our own kind's survival ... The non-Whites, who don't share these White traits, must be doubled-over with laughter at times as they watch, in astonishment, as we help them in every way we can to give away our lands, our women, our savings, our safety, our happiness, and our lives for their benefit." - Jamie Kelso, 2006

In leaked private messages, Kelso claims that he and Johnson are top organizers for Ron Paul's campaign.

"I'll give you some more real-life examples of WN folks like us who are very successfully navigating back and forth between great White Nationalism and full mainstream activism. I'll introduce you to folks like William Daniel Johnson, the chairman of the A3P, who is simultaneously Ron Paul's #1 man in Southern California. When Ron has VIP get-togethers at $2,000 a plate they are in Bill's dining room on his 80-acre estate."

Kelso also boasted repeatedly about meeting with both Ron and Rand Paul during the 2011 CPAC for three consecutive days.

"Then I'm heading to DC to meet up with Ron Paul and Rand Paul, personally, at CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference Feb. 10-12.

"Bill and I will be meeting with Ron and Rand Paul. I'm in a teleconference call with Bill (and Ron Paul) tonight. Much more later. Things are starting to happen.

"We'll be meeting with Ron Paul and Rand Paul. Bill and I got to talk with Ron tonight by phone."

In private messages, Ron Paul organizers in A3P forums essentially admitted to each other that Ron Paul's base was overwhelmingly white, and ripe for inclusion in their own network. They even spoke of being the bridge being the White Nationalist movement and Ron Paul supporters.

"All of us who have helped organize events among these Ron Paul millions are keenly aware that 98% of these folks are White (look at any photo of a Ron Paul rally ... look at my photos of the crowds of 15,000 each on the west lawn of the Capitol on July 12, 2008 and at the Minneapolis counter-convention on September 2, 2008), and that almost all of these White folks want the non-White invasion of our White lands stopped yesterday."

"Anyone who can't see that Ron Paul is the best viable candidate from a pro-White perspective is not bright enough to be of any value to the pro-White movement."

"The most important of those innovations is BRIDGING from our tiny EXPLICITLY pro-White movement to the huge IMPLICITLY pro-White revolution that has been gathering ever since Ron Paul started it rolling in mid-2007."

Even when confronted with any of the ugly, bigoted remarks in his newsletters, or the more recent evidence that Ron Paul actually signed off on each newsletter before they went public, or when shown the picture of Ron Paul posing with campaign donor Don Black of Stormfront, Ron Paul's campaign has soldiered on. But his campaign owes the people and the media a direct response to A3P's claims that Ron and Rand Paul met in private at CPAC with a former Klan leader's right-hand man.

Ron Paul supporters are always quick to dismiss accusations of racism when they point to his opposition to the drug war. Indeed, his pro-decriminalization platform along with his anti-war credentials and his advocacy for tighter regulation of the Federal Reserve have won supporters from the right and the left. But now, no mainstream American should be able to throw their support behind Ron Paul with a clear conscience until he openly disavows his associations with the white supremacist movement and returns all the money donated to his campaign from its leaders and members.

But as far as slugs like Kelso are concerned, feel free to do what I did - give him a call and tell him you're in a mixed-race relationship. Thanks to Anonymous, his phone number is easy to find.

Carl Gibson, 24, of Lexington, Kentucky, is a spokesman and organizer for US Uncut, a nonviolent, creative direct-action movement to stop budget cuts by getting corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. He graduated from Morehead State University in 2009 with a B.A. in Journalism before starting the first US Uncut group in Jackson, Mississippi, in February of 2011. Since then, over 20,000 US Uncut activists have carried out more than 300 actions in over 100 cities nationwide. You may contact Carl at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+44 # madams12 2012-02-05 12:02
Not sure what to think about Ron Paul..except these rumors have followed him for decades ..HOWEVER, that said, there is not a doubt in my mind that NONE of the other GOP candidates are 'clean'...i.e., not panderers, bigots and slimy 'slugs'. Out of the lot of them all, there is not one who has been willing to make courageous statements about things that impact all Americans (like war, foreign policy, alliance w/Israel despite & its apartheid ethnic cleansing of the indigenous) .....for that reason, the broad brush being used to label Paul has lost meaning.
Hispanics, African American, immigrants and our latest 'punching bag scapegoat group' Muslims get little to no non-bigoted treatment from any current US politicians in the public eye. We are as racist a country as ever....along with too many quick on the trigger urban cowboys everywhere.
+17 # kyzipster 2012-02-06 07:07
Rumors? His newsletters could be defined as solid evidence.
-29 # Richard Raznikov 2012-02-05 12:10
I'm not convinced. I've seen a number of videos of Paul on various subjects and think he's right about some critical matters which the rest of the bozos, including Obama, get wrong.

The racist charges, if true, would be quite troublesome, however I'm not so sure they're reliable. To what extent does Paul share the views of people he 'meets with' or has met? The fact that nutballs write to one another that they've met with someone prominent does not mean anything by itself other than an attempt at establishing 'legitimacy by association.' By the same token, a candidate meeting with or even receiving money from a racist of other lunatic may or may not be meaningful. Remember Obama's 'connections' with a few people on the 'far left'? I saw those things and was hopeful that he was himself ideologically on the left. But of course it turns out he's in bed with the bankers and other corporate thugs.

People who actually know Paul are unanimous in saying they've never heard or seen any racist terms or behavior from him. And of all the candidates, only Paul, with his drug proposals, offers anything substantive which would actually help blacks.

I like what Gibson and US Uncut does otherwise, but I wonder whether this is a thin charge. Politicians meet or are seen with people of all stripes; I'm not buying that it means what you think it means.
+18 # John Locke 2012-02-05 14:14
Richard Raznikov: The racist charges are true. I have been posting them everytime there was an article about him and people here were calling him their new hero...If you research there is alot of information about him and racism. This whether you care to admit it, is the same movement that Hitler and the Thule Society (Satanist) (and later Skull and Bones alumni advocate) of which Hitler was a mamber and later its leader, advocated. "the Aryan race", the white SUPREMACIST movement. There have been several offshoots already in the US. The real issue is that there are so many people of wealth that are involved...

Eugenics was a more popular term used in the well as most all other countries.

Eugenics was widely popular in the early decades of the 20th century. The First International Congress of Eugenics in 1912 was supported by many prominent persons, including: its president Leonard Darwin, the son of Charles Darwin; honorary vice-president Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty and future Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; Auguste Forel, famous Swiss pathologist; Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone; among other prominent people. The National Socialists' (NSDAP) approach to genetics and eugenics became focused on Eugen Fischer's concept of phenogenetics and the Nazi twin study methods of Fischer and Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer. I guess it is an ideology that simply won't die.
+2 # Richard Raznikov 2012-02-05 15:47
John, just saying the 'racist charges are true' doesn't mean much, and I don't know how you can chain Paul to eugenics, of all things. I just listened to an interesting radio interview where Robert Scheer, whose left credentials I don't think I have to describe talks to a fellow named Matt Stoller, who worked with Congressman Alan Grayson. Both of these guys are quite 'liberal'. Stoller talks about Paul working with Grayson on a number of issues and specifically addresses the 'racist' charges against him, pointing out that alone among the candidates, Paul has attacked the racist aspects of both the drug war and the death penalty. Paul also pointed out in the GOP debate in South Carolina that Dr. King would agree with him on the war(s). His economic policies and anti-big government positions attract some right-wing crazies, but I do not believe that Paul is a racist, and I think that attempts to label him as such derive from nervous Democrats worried that their President, by his numerous horrible policies, has lost much of his support. I backed Obama, worked in his campaign, and contributed to him in 2008. I will not vote for him again. It's Paul's views on progressive issues that are panicking people because nobody else has had the guts to tell the truth about them.
+15 # John Locke 2012-02-05 18:14
Richard Raznikov, Maybe look at this article by the Christian Science Monitor...Decem ber 29, 2011

Some samples: A December 1989 newsletter quoted by James Kirchick in the New Republic predicted "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.' "

Feel free to check for yourself...ther e are indeed other sources but all seem to deal with his newsletters...
+12 # John Locke 2012-02-05 19:21
I am not saying Ron Paul is involved in Eugenics, However I am saying that racism and eugenics go hand in hand.
+11 # Todd Williams 2012-02-06 08:39
Also, let's not forget the progeny, Rand. He's the namesake of Aynn Rand, a later day eugenisist. I wouldn't trust eith Paul as far as i could throw them. Wolves in sheep clothing.
+4 # 2012-02-07 11:03
Todd Williams: Paul can no longer be disguised as a wolf in sheep's clothing. The evidence CARL GIBSON has presented in this EXCELLECT editoral has stripped him of his cover. Neo-conservativ es and "Liberals" alike are now aware of his racist, misogynist, homophobic, anti-semitic protocol and will have to decide if his war on drugs and isolationism is a fair trade-off when they vote.
"People who are racists do not suddenly change!" (quoting John Locke)
+8 # John Locke 2012-02-05 19:02
Richard Raznikov: as the saying goes, I can lead you to water, but I can't make you drink it... suffice it to say Racism and Eugenics go hand in hand...People who are racists do not suddenly change!

The principal manifestations of eugenics are racism and abortion. Eugenics is the driving force behind euthanasia, in vitro fertilization, and embryo and fetal research. It is the driving force in global population policy, and affects American foreign policy.

It is the force driving much of our welfare policy and welfare reform, and health care. It is found in all the social sciences; anthropology, sociology, and psychology.

On June 9th 1969, Dr.D.M. MacArthur, Deputy Director of Research & Technology for the Pentagon, requested a sum of $10 million from the Congressional House Subcommittee on Appropriations to develop a new contagious micro-organism capable of destroying the human immune system - This resulted in a 'virus' discovered some ten years later in America which became known as 'acquired immune deficiency syndrome' (AIDS). It should be stressed that this virus first appeared in America. however the populatrion most affected were in Africa...

John D. Rockefeller III established the Population Council in 1952: Racism and eugenics are very entrenched in our political systemm. Believe it or not!
-4 # tomo 2012-02-06 14:34
Richard--I see the red marks you get, but I am not ready to add to them. I am keenly aware MLK, Jr., gave an amazing sermon back in 1967 against the Viet Nam War in particular, and against war in general, that ended with: "Ain't gonna study war no more." Recently when I heard it said against Ron Paul that he had criticized having a Martin Luther King day, I thought to myself "Well, at least Ron Paul agrees with King on the ISSUE--and surely that's what really matters." The anti-militancy that has been a consistent theme of Paul's campaign is INconsistent with genuine racism. If one is pursuing a racist agenda, one has to gird one's loins for a whole lot of ethnic-cleansin g and genocide, and this means big armies, violence, and war. So, like you Richard, I'm holding back. I'm not demanding a "smoking gun," but until I hear the sound sharpening knives in the rhetoric of Paul, I'm holding back. I'll be listening for those sounds; but until I hear them, I'm holding back--maintaini ng a disposition to vote for Ron Paul as an alternative to not voting at all. (Yeah, ye markers-in-red, I'm not going to vote for the guy that persecuted and is now prosecuting Bradley Manning.)
+3 # Richard Raznikov 2012-02-06 19:17
Thank you, Tomo. I am actually puzzled by the disapprovals I'm getting here. And John Locke's discussion of Paul and eugenics is rather strange given that he concedes that advocates of eugenics are also proponents of abortion, which is contrary to Paul's personal view.
I'm aware of the newsletters from 20 years ago but I'm also aware that the racist remarks in eight of them (in thousands of pages) were written by other people, that Paul was simply negligent in not editing these publications, and that most significantly the people who know him and have worked with him for years –– including credible people on the left –– say that they do not believe that he's a racist and have never heard a racist remark from him.
I also believe that Dr. King, were he alive today, would be much closer to Paul's position on many issues, including war and civil liberties, than to any other candidate.
From my perspective, his economic ideas may be nuts –– I don't know –– but his foreign policy and his defense of the constitution make him the only candidate I can stand. And, as you may know, he has been quite outspoken in his defense of Bradley Manning –– and that takes integrity and courage.
+1 # John Locke 2012-02-06 22:23
Richard Raznikov: I can only go by what he has written in or approved in his news letters...I have not heard him disavowal anything in those letters... And what I said about Eugenics and Ron Paul (please reread my comment) "I am not saying Ron Paul is involved in Eugenics, However I am saying that racism and eugenics go hand in hand."
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-02-06 22:57
And Paul wrote a "thank you" on Congressional stationary to one of the leading modern proponents of eugenics. So, if he isn't involved directly, he has been a fan of those who are.
-4 # Martintfre 2012-02-07 12:52
//I can only go by what he has written in or approved in his news letters.//

He neither wrote or approved.

Fact is you are only willing to see what you want to.
30+ years of him personally publicly speaking and nothing to support what you choose to see but lots to disprove so you choose to refuse to see only a negative that he neither spoke or wrote or agreed(s) with.
+5 # Billy Bob 2012-02-07 13:13
As I asked below:

Who was behind the "RON PAUL POLITICAL REPORT" and the "RON PAUL SURVIVAL REPORT"? If paul had nothing to do with these publications why didn't he mention it, or even sue them for slander when they were published in the early '90s?

How did "the other people" who wrote a thank you letter to a racist magazine in paul's name get hold of HIS stationary?

Rather than try to follow the maze of circular multiple negatives in your last sentence, I'll just guess what you're trying to say. My response is that YOU'RE the one who seems unwilling to look at anything that doesn't fit your agenda.

At least I responded to your "huston endorsement" and your "voter intimidation" comment (even though it was off topic). Could you at least TRY to respond to something in the article, or my SPECIFICS, or John Locke's (who was kind enough to even provide a few links)?

So, which is it? Is paul:

A) a racist?
B) a manipulative political opportunist?
C) an incompetent boob who has no idea what his own employees are up to?
D) all of the above?

If it's not "A", the only options left are "B" or "C".
+4 # John Locke 2012-02-06 19:48
tomo: Your position makes perfect sense. But, I would add here, that there is more than one way to ethnic cleanse without a war. Think AIDS.

Since the beginning of the epidemic, nearly 30 million people have died from AIDS-related causes. and 34 million have the early stages of the disease! (64 Million)

Keep in mind that the Pentagon, requested $10 million in 1969 to create this disease....AIDS . Why?

Sub-Saharan Africa 22.9 million people currently living with AIDS, 68 percent of all people living with HIV reside in sub-Saharan Africa, and carries the greatest burden of the epidemic. Since the beginning of the epidemic 14.8 million children have lost one or both parents to HIV/AIDS.

In Somalia and Senegal the HIV prevalence is under 1% of the adult population, whereas in Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe around 15% of adults are infected with HIV. Southern Africa is the worst impacted by AIDS; in South Africa the HIV prevalence is 17.8% and in three other southern African countries, the national adult HIV prevalence rate exceeds 20%, Botswana (24.8%), Lesotho (23.6%) and Swaziland (25.9%)

In many countries of sub-Saharan Africa, Average life expectancy is now 54.4 years and in some of the most heavily affected countries in the region life expectancy is below 49 years. Is something going on?
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-02-06 22:45
"just saying the 'racist charges are true' doesn't mean much"

1. Paul on the fact that much of his support comes from white supremacists: “If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what I do or say — it has nothing to do with endorsing what they say,” (NOTICE HE NEVER DISAVOWS THEM)

2. Who was behind the "RON PAUL POLITICAL REPORT" and the "RON PAUL SURVIVAL REPORT"? If paul had nothing to do with these publications why didn't he mention it, or even sue them for slander when they were published in the early '90s?

3. Though Paul has denied his involvement with these statements and theories, a thank-you letter to Mr. Amos W. Bruce for an article in The American Mercury—an anti-Semitic magazine owned by well-known Holocaust denier Willis Carto—was written by the representative himself, on congressional stationery. TNR points out that the issue of the magazine Paul praises in the letter includes articles such as “You Can’t Escape the Kosher Food Tax,” “Are You Ready for the White Man’s Doomsday,” and “Racism—Black African Style.”

4. I personally watched paul speak out about the fact that he would NOT support the Voting Rights Act of 1964. That may be heresay and conjecture as well. I don't know. Afterall, who am I to believe: Ron Paul's handlers now that he's running for president, or MY OWN MEMORY?

+4 # John Locke 2012-02-07 09:18
Billy Bob: Yes great post as usual...a side note; I knew Willis Carto in the 1970's...had several conversations with him...he wanted ME to sue the Anti Defamation league, and I looked at him and asked..."Why would I want to sue them?" Yes he is anti-semetic, and a the time a group of people he was involved with were wearing storm trooper type uniforms...the kaiki type, they were involved in a tax protest movement in Los Angeles, California ...I attended a few meetings with my then brother in law...and spoke up about where the group was incorrect and had a gun pulled on me for doing so.
0 # Billy Bob 2012-02-07 10:17
I wonder if YOUR personal memories are nothing more than "heresay and conjecture" as well. Ron Paul and the robots who invoke his name incessantly on the internet have an agenda - and it ain't peace.
0 # John Locke 2012-02-07 12:42
Billy Bob: I don't understand your comment?
"I wonder if YOUR personal memories are nothing more than "heresay and conjecture"...?
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-02-07 13:03
I forgot to hit the "sarcasm" button. I'm making fun of the fact that some much of the evidence we list is considered "nothing but heresay and conjecture" by the paul-bots, that I wonder if our OWN MEMORIES would be considered that as well.
+4 # John Locke 2012-02-07 14:30
Billy Bob: sarcasm it is, my treat for the wiskey sours...
0 # Billy Bob 2012-02-07 15:20
SEE! The comma changed the meaning entirely! I guess I really am a detail person and so are you, pretend drinkin' buddy!
+1 # John Locke 2012-02-07 18:43
Billy Bob: Whose pretending, after reading some of these posts I need a whiskey sour!
+2 # 2012-02-07 11:05
Great post, Billy Bob, as usual!
-4 # Martintfre 2012-02-07 12:56
as usual BB your wrong.

If you care then listen.
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-02-07 13:19
As usual I listened to your link. Did you respond to my facts yet.

Once again, if paul had nothing to do with these things, who wrote thank you letters to anti-semitic magazine using his stationary? How is it possible that ron paul "didn't know" about the RON PAUL SURVIVAL REPORT or THE RON PAUL POLITICAL REPORT? In fact, he OPENLY ADMITS he contributed to those newsletters. He just claims he didn't write the racist comments.

How can he be so incompetent?
+2 # 2012-02-07 10:50
It doesn't take guts to be a bigot!
+4 # 2012-02-05 16:40
John Locke: You are bringing logic,
factual information
and a humanitarian
view point to this post
in your reply to CARL GIBSON's excellent article
which belies bigotry & any "thinly disguised" excuses for it. Thank you!
+14 # Cassandra2012 2012-02-05 18:28
So you're ok with his anti-woman (hypocritical) NON-'libertaria n' position on gov't. interference in women's rights to their own bodies?
+1 # 2012-02-06 20:33
You rock, Girl Friend!
+25 # 2012-02-05 12:22
Sush! Let him take all these wingnuts with him down the Ron Paul rabbit-hole next November. Otherwise, they'd be Romney voters. Have you ever noticed there's not much of the color spectrum at Romney's rallies. It's in every Progressive's interest to keep Ron Paul in the campaign. Every vote for Paul is one less vote for Romney.

The Republican's have gerrymandering and bogus voter ID campaigns in their corner to limit opposition votes. We have Ron Paul. Run Ron, run!
+4 # Richard Raznikov 2012-02-05 12:48
[quote name=""]Every vote for Paul is one less vote for Romney.

Well, no. Although I haven't decided yet, this lifelong Democrat (and left-winger) might vote for Paul but I would never vote for Romney or any of the other Republican candidates. The rest of them are merely crazier, more right-wing, versions of Obama.

My interest in Paul is based on his very strong and outspoken defense of civil liberties, the Bill of Rights, and whistleblowers. He's for revoking the Patriot Act and the NDAA. He's against attacking Iran, favors withdrawal from Afghanistan, and offers support to Bradley Manning –– calling him a hero –– and Julian Assange. No other American politician has the guts to do that.

His economic policies sound crazy to me, but at least he's not in bed with Wall Street –– and the others, including Obama, clearly are.
+10 # BenECoyote 2012-02-05 15:35
Richard, you should give Rocky Anderson a look. He is running for president on the Justice Party ticket. Rocky was also a Democrat with progressive values. As mayor of Salt Lake City, he was able to exceed the kyoto protocols by nearly 50%, despite having a republican governor and president to contend with. He has long been a critic of the corrupting influence corporate money has on the government. I would suggest that any liberal or progressive that is sick of the rightward ho! attitude of the democratic party take a look at Rocky, and join the effort to bring Justice to the system, and restore the government to the people. With both major parties running candidates that are already in the pockets of corporate grift, Rocky Anderson can only serve to UNspoil the upcoming election.
+2 # cadan 2012-02-05 16:52
Ben --- how do you vote for Rocky (if you live in California)?

I think there was some glitch in getting the Justice Party on the ballot.

I would certainly consider voting for him, because he sounds really good, but i don't want to do a write-in vote. (I would be more confident that my vote will actually show up in the tally if i don't have any write-ins.)
-2 # Richard Raznikov 2012-02-06 19:24
Ben, I like Rocky but those guys did not qualify for the ballot in California, and that makes him fairly unlikely. They needed to get started sooner. Plus, the media has frozen him out.

I agree that both major parties are likely to nominate candidates who are militarists, war-makers, and Wall Street hookers, and we're left scrambling for someone, anyone with some integrity.

Personally, I don't know what to do. There's Jill Stein, from the Greens, who no one knows and no one will ever know, from a party which has nowhere to go. There's a possible Paul independent candidacy, which at least would get some media and maybe stir things up. There's Rocky Anderson if and where he gets on some ballots.

Maybe there's someone who has yet to emerge. All I know is that I've had enough betrayal from Obama and that whoever the G.O.P. nominates won't be any better and probably even worse.
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-02-06 22:19
If Paul wants to get on the ballot as an independant, he has to face the same deadlines Rocky Anderson faces or faced. If Anderson can't be on a ballot as the Justice Party candidate, then it's also too late for paul to run as an "independant".

He's a repuglican. If he wanted to run as an "independant", he shouldn't be running as a repuglican right now.
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-02-06 19:40
Richard, Although I disagree with your conclusions, I have no real argument with you. The reason is that I believe you're arguing in good faith.

I hope the Democratic Party is scared into action soon.
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-02-06 22:02
You know Richard, in light of your suddenly aggressive stance toward my opinions. I take back my earlier statement about you.
+32 # wwway 2012-02-05 12:50
Paul and most Republicans are strict constitutional constructionist . This means that they interpret the Constitution to mean that it's for wealthy white males only. This means that even most white nationalists today wouldn't qualify as citizens because they would be yoman.
Paul and strict constructionist on the Supreme Court do not believe that women and people of color are guaranteed equal protection or any other right or liberty guaranteed in the Constitution's Bill of Rights.
-6 # Richard Raznikov 2012-02-06 19:28
How in the world this comment generates such a heavy plus rating is beyond me. Ron Paul does not interpret the constitution to mean that it's for wealthy white males only. Are you daft?

Just making accusations is not the same thing as asserting facts. Facts are those things which can be backed up. There may be sound reasons for opposing Paul, but try to stay at least reasonably close to the real world, okay?
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-02-06 23:03
Please note the facts I listed about paul's own racist remarks and intentional affiliations (as well as John Locke's). True, they are not the ONLY sound reasons to oppose paul's candidacy, but they ARE VALID, and they DO COME FROM THE REAL WORLD - or at least the REAL world of paul's SUR-real racist fantasies.
-35 # 2wmcg2 2012-02-05 13:07
This is not a high-quality article but a hateful, guilt-by-associ ation rant. Good for you, "Anonymous" - Are you too ashamed of yourself to reveal your name? - you've hacked into someone's website!!! This is a good example of why this segment of the political spectrum is losing ground. Look, our country is in trouble economically and in other ways. Ron Paul is one of the few candidates offering real solutions. In my opinion, the mud you're trying to throw at him is coming back to you. Show your face, Anonymous.
+12 # kelly 2012-02-05 16:07
It's a good example of why which segment of the political spectrum is losing ground? White supremecists?
+3 # James Klimaski 2012-02-05 13:15
I've looked at photos of the crowds gathered for each of the Republican candidates. They are all as lilly white as you can get (except when they were pandering to the Cuban Americans down in south Florida. What I find troubling about the Paul campaign is the reticence of the main stream media to report on what he is saying. During the debates, he is rarely asked any questions, despite his relatively strong showing in the polls. The other candidates are allowed to dismiss him. But many of the positions he has espoused have been fairly progressive. We can't get Obama to suggest opening full diplomatic relations with Cuba. Paul said that to the crowd in south Florida.
+20 # Billy Bob 2012-02-05 13:47
This is just Nixon's "Southern Strategy" in its last throes.

These people are a dying breed and they need a champion like paul and his son rant to slip their ideas through the cracks.

Afterall, ron paul can't be held personlly responsible for the words, actions and affiliations of his own supporters can he? In fact, he can't even be held responsible for courting those supporters and closely alying himself with them either, right? It's hard to get repugnants to turn down money, even if the check is addressed from hell itself.

I think the RSN commentator catch phrase, "ron paul speaks truth to power", needs to be changed a bit...

How about, "ron paul is the mouthpiece for white power".

"Truth" vs. the HONEST truth...
-3 # Richard Raznikov 2012-02-06 19:36
Billy Bob, please distinguish between the racist garbage from the likes of Gingrich and Romney, whose 'code words' on welfare (Gingrich calling Obama the 'Food Stamp President' and Romney talking about the poor as though it's their own fault, not to mention Santorum's overtly sick remarks about black people) and Ron Paul, whose actual, on-the-record remarks are quite different. Those of you attacking him as 'racist', have you actually seen the YouTube videos of his South Carolina debate comments? Have you seen what people who have worked with him on progressive issues, such as the aide to Congressman Grayson, have said about him?
The fact that jerks like Gingrich pretend that racism is the same as conservatism doesn't make it so.
The fact remains, Paul's actual policies are far more attentive to the real concerns of blacks and other minorities than any other candidate, including that fake in the White House.
+7 # Billy Bob 2012-02-06 22:50
John Locke did a pretty good job of doing just that several comments above. He even included some links for you to check out, but as he said, he could lead you to water but he couldn't force you to drink. You never bothered to respond to him about the links.

Concerning who's more racist between paul and santorum or gingrich: WHO CARES? Personally, I'd like to vote against ANYBODY who panders to the white supremacist vote - EVEN IF HE'S AGAINST THE WARS.
+3 # 2012-02-07 11:21
High Five, Billy Bob! I love your Posts!
You're a good man.
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-02-07 08:41
Maybe paul really isn't a racist.


Since he didn't sue for defammation of character 20 years ago, let's just assume he's a POLITICAL OPPORTUNIST. At the time, it wouldn't have done his election bid any good to disavow racist remarks made (supposedly) "in his name without his consent". No. He lived in an extremely racist district, so it suited his purposes to keep his mouth shut (for a change).

Now, it no longer serves his purposes to do that, so out of nowhere he's against these comments made IN HIS NAME, including comments made WITH HIS SIGNITURE ON CONGRESSIONAL STATIONARY.


He's genuinely NOT a racist, but is EXTREMELY UNFIT to lead, since he has no control OR EVEN AWARENESS of the words, actions and political affiliations of HIS OWN EMPLOYEES.

So, which is he?:

B. a political OPPORTUNIST
C. an INCOMPETENT leader who doesn't know what his own staff is doing

There's no "D". "None of the above" just isn't a possibility here. SOMEONE is responsible for those MANY OVERTLY RACIST comments - and GROSS IGNORANCE & INCOMPETENCE is not a valid excuse for someone trying to prove he belongs in the White House.
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-02-07 10:14
Maybe there IS a "D": Incompetent racist opportunist (ALL of the above). That would get MY vote.

"E" would be reserved for the non-existent "none of the above".
-12 # BobbyLip 2012-02-05 13:50
Whatever we think of virulent racists, they have the same right to privacy and security as we would wish for any and all private persons. As much as I do sympathize with Anonymous's desire to out these scumbags (and the idiot Paul), they have no more right to their methods than does the FBI. Suppose Anonymous decides to out you?
+10 # Karlus58 2012-02-05 15:40
If you need outing, then let it be! If not, you have no worries....
+21 # wleming 2012-02-05 15:12
we are asked, by paul, to believe that he edited and published newsletters full of racial hatred, but "didn't know" the content of the newsletters. this is disingenuous to the point of surrealism. sorry ron, great foreign policy ideas, but the domestic stuff is dangerous and absolutely insane.
-14 # MidwestTom 2012-02-05 15:28
Paul is the only candidate, including Obama, against the war, a war in which a disproportionat e number of black soldiers will be killed. I hardy find that racist.
+12 # Billy Bob 2012-02-05 17:46
The article discusses that. It also discusses aspects of his campaign that are racist. There are nazis who've never run a gas chamber either.
+18 # Billy Bob 2012-02-05 17:59
You mean he's the only far right CONSERVATIVE candidate who wants to end the multiple wars for profit.


I just thought that if I printed it in caps you'd have to come up with another excuse to pretend he doesn't exist.
-4 # Richard Raznikov 2012-02-06 19:45
Hey, I like Rocky. But Rocky isn't even on the ballot in California, and the Justice Party has about as much viability as the Greens. Nothing against him at all. Good man on the issues and better on the economy than Paul by a mile, but he's not real at this point.
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-02-06 21:52
What makes you think Paul is real or stands any more of a chance? A vote for Paul, like a vote for Rocky Anderson is a protest vote. Don't expect him to be President. He has as much chance as I do.
-4 # Richard Raznikov 2012-02-06 19:43
Thanks, Tom. Why do I get the feeling that the self-righteous people condemning Paul for newsletters he published (he did not edit them, Wleming) twenty years ago while ignoring who is suffering disproportionat ely from drug wars, the death penalty, and shooting wars overseas, are white folks who are nice and safe? Nobody who knows him –– which ordinarily ought to be worth considering –– has ever heard him make a racist remark. Meanwhile, Gingrich and Romney make them every day.
Perhaps these attacks on Paul are really due to some Obama partisans worried because the President's policies with which Paul disagrees –– wars everywhere, kissing Wall Street's ass, imprisoning Manning, vitiating the 4th amendment, spying on everyone, remote-controll ed assassination –– are now so obviously indefensible.
+9 # BenECoyote 2012-02-05 15:53
There is an alternative out there, for us progressives that are sick of the way Obama has sold out his base in order to appease his corporate backers, but who are wary of Ron Paul and his baggage. Racism is but one of many dealbreakers on his platform. From his desire to castrate the federal govt's ability to regulate safety and pollution, to his desire to eviscerate social security, to his atavistic positions on women's reproductive rights, the good Dr. is a poor choice for progressives. Rocky Anderson, on the other hand, believes that we need to strengthen the safety net, not cut holes into it. Economic Justice, health care justice, equal marriage justice, environmental justice, for everybody, not just those that can afford to buy it.
Check him out, and if his message resonates, get involved and join up. It is a big job ahead of us, but together we can do anything. We are the grass roots, it's time the government we grew served we the people. Together we can occupy the ballot and get Rocky Anderson elected.
-2 # Richard Raznikov 2012-02-06 19:49
Ben, I agree, sort of, about Paul, however his position on some of these issues is being a bit distorted. He would not touch Social Security –– see what he's actually said about it –– and his position on abortion and other hot button issues is also quite consistent, which is that these are not federal issues and should not be the subject of federal mandates. In fact, if all of Paul's positions were actually adopted, which is of course a total fantasy, the federal government would not have any problem paying for Social Security or medicare because it would no longer be funding the billion-dollar wars and bailouts. Those are pretty significant items.
+13 # hd70642 2012-02-05 16:37
Ron Paul and Ross Perot are the spike Jones and Weird Al Yankovic of American Politics. Except for a non interventionist foreign policy and stating the war on drugs has failed ,and is unjust ,most of his ideas are just plain nuts, such as no safe guards for potable water ,food safety, safety standards for the workplace ,and financial protection of workers minimun wage overtime pay , and protection of the environment ,and consumers, and removing the safety net that not only prevents folks from dying but prevent further economic decline, Being short sided, narrow minded passionately unimaginative ,and striving to be ill informed can not be defined as a stark realist . So it is any surprise he is not only racist but a classist as well !!
+15 # Pondering and Pandering 2012-02-05 16:45
It's long past time for progressives to even be thinking about Ron Paul as anyone's presidential candidate. There are the years and years of newsletters with overt racist statements. There is his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the fact that indeed white supremicist groups love the guy. We must ask why?

Google the Ludwig Von Mises Institute and and the Southern League or League of the South. You'll get the picture.

The big pull for Paul has been his anti-war stance. But the guy is not anti-war on moral or peace grounds but on budgetary and isolationist grounds.

Progressives in the Democratic Party, progressives outside the party, and the Occupy Movement need to support Obama for President enthusiasticall y in 2012. A Republican in the White House is unthnkable.

But electing true progressives to Congress and using that as leverage beyond is easily accomplished. With that leverage, the White House will have to respond in an Obama second term.
+6 # Billy Bob 2012-02-05 19:17
The real trick is to turn all of those yellow dog districts into true Democratic districts. The repugnant party can't obstruct progress without help from conservative Democrats. Those conservative Democrats need to be replaced with actual Democrats.
-3 # Richard Raznikov 2012-02-05 19:20
The pandering is being suggested here to an administration which has betrayed every single progressive precept it claimed to support. If it were only Paul's anti-war views, he would still be worth considering –– it's false to say that these are based on 'budgetary and economic grounds'; try watching a few of his statements instead of passing on arguments you've heard somewhere –– but it's impressive that he's persistently opposed the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretaps, NDAA detentions, and other police state policies of this fake 'progressive' in the White House. The racist charges are likewise bogus. Opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, if you bother to investigate Paul's quite reasoned position, may be arguable but it is not racist. He's the ONLY candidate who points out that the drug laws are applied with racial bias, and that the death penalty should be abolished because it's racially biased. He supports Bradley Manning and calls him an American hero, which he is, while Obama has him kept in conditions international observers regard as torturous. "Enthusiastical ly support Obama"? Never. Let Monsanto and his banker friends support him. He's no friend to the people who elected him.
+21 # abq 2012-02-05 17:35
Let's not forget he is anti-choice and marriage equality. How can he claim to be a libertarian? Selective rights.
+11 # Billy Bob 2012-02-05 18:17
"Selective rights" is a very clever phrase. It applies perfectly.
+11 # Felix Julian 2012-02-05 19:01
All one has to do with regard to the strange Dr. Paul is have a good look at his stranger progeny- the Other Dr. Paul, his son Rand. The apple not falling far from the tree resonates. It just does.
-16 # futhark 2012-02-05 19:52
Reader Supported News and other "progressives" are working overtime to smear Ron Paul the way the Republicans tried to tar Obama with his connections to Rev. Jeremiah Wright in 2008. The plain fact is that Ron Paul's platform of anti-militarism and pro-liberty is exactly what the American people need to hear at this time. I'm sick of hearing Obama boasting about assassinating bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki and not being called to account for these illegal and unethical actions.
+5 # Billy Bob 2012-02-05 22:42
So, what do you think of Rocky Anderson?
+4 # Todd Williams 2012-02-06 08:51
Progressives don't have to do anything to "smear" Paul. He's quite capable of smearing himself with his anti-women, anti-capitalism tirades. This guy and his son are thinly disguised far right wingers. He cloaks himself in the pre Civil War version of the US Constitution. That's the way I see it.
-9 # Hot Doggie 2012-02-05 20:54
This is definitely both a Democrat and Republican attack against Ron Paul and his anti-establishm ent position. You may try to place fancy derogative names to Paul's position but you cannot take away from his For-the-People platform. People are not supporting Paul because he's going to reduce taxes; their migrating towards him because he is giving people the power to help themselves. paul has two agendas going on at the same time. And TPTB are afraid of both. Paul is not only running to be President, but he is confirming to the people that their thoughts of something being gut-wrenching wrong in this country is true and he's showing examples of what it exactly is (i.e., the FRS).

So try as you may, you're going to have to live with the fact that Ron Paul is bringing truth to politics.
+5 # Billy Bob 2012-02-05 22:34
What do you think of Rocky Anderson?
+4 # Todd Williams 2012-02-06 08:53
All I have to do as look at the Rethug debates and who's standing on the stage to see what's wrong with America today. All of them are what's wrong. NVER VOTE RETHUG, EVER!!!
+9 # ganymede 2012-02-05 20:57
The question of whether Ron Paul is a racist or not is almost besides the point. Of course, a lot of progressives like Paul more than most of the other rightwingers because he's against war and he'd let marijuana be legalized. Asides from that he's another narrow rightwinger with this totally unworkable libertarian philosophy of minimal government. He's also on the crest of the anti-government sentiment and propaganda started by St. Reagan and ending in the debacle of the Bush II administration. Big governmemt is the only way a society can be organized and run efficiently. It's why most countries have bigger,better and less corrupt governments than we do. The Germans and Scandanavians have cradle to grave healthcare/welf are, etc, they even mandate that union members serve on Boards of large companies.How shocking. Ron Paul wants to take us back to some Wild West/John Wayne fantasy world that never really existed. No wonder he attracts angry white dead-enders who would make great fascists.
-11 # 2012-02-05 21:15
Ron Paul has been accused of racism, antisemitism, homophobia, chauvinism, and more but never by the blacks, Jews, gays or women who know him or work with him or are patients of his.

The ongoing "guilt by association" misses the fact that Paul's policies against the death penalty or against the drug war or against governmental discrimination in regard to marriage or many other of his policies would have differentially beneficial effects on the very groups Paul is accused of hating.

Paul's actual policy positions are not those of a racist -- they are, in fact, the antithesis of what a racist would recommend. And the Nevada caucus for observant Jews (in which Paul easily outpolled all the other candidates combined) is finally putting the antisemitic charge to rest.

We shouldn't judge Obama by the company he has kept (Jeremiah Wright, prominent Communist Party leaders, self-professed bomb-throwing terrorists Dorn and Ayers, etc.) and we shouldn't judge Paul because some of his supporters have held odious views.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
+9 # kelly 2012-02-05 22:30
We don't. We are taking him solely on his word... i.e. MLK Day=Hate Whitey Day, Barbara Jordan=whiner.
He can dig his own grave, he doesn't need others to do it for him.
+8 # Billy Bob 2012-02-05 22:41
Should it be illegal to hire known terrorists, or illegal immigrants, or wanted criminals? If so, isn't that also "guilt by association"? paul chose who to associate himself with. paul chose to "edit" a racist rag "without reading it". There's no reason he can't disavow himself of these people he seems to surround himself with.

If I were a racist, I'd be all for getting the guvunmint off the backs of "working Americans" (code for white people) so they didn't have to pay federal income taxes and support those lazy good-fer-nothin 's (code for inner city n*****s). If I were a racist, I'd be all for gettin' the federal guvunmint off my backs and standing aside while state governments proceed to take away civil rights for minorities.

Tell me how paul's positions are the "antithesis" of that?
+5 # kelly 2012-02-05 23:03
By the way billy, still having a little trouble on google, rocky hasn't got enough fans yet. people are still coming up with bulwinkle cartoons first, but he is there folks, I promise.
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-02-06 08:25
Part of the problem is the "progressive" paul supporters who refuse to acknowledge ROCKY ANDERSON even exists because, truth be told, THEY'VE BEEN LYING ABOUT BEING 'PROGRESSIVE' ALL ALONG.

Now we know that when paul's supporters say it's because he "wants to end the wars", it's a BIG FAT LIE. It's about taxes and getting rid of the social safety net - AND IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN.
0 # John Locke 2012-02-07 16:47
kelly: I think bulwinkle could be a better choice!
-7 # Martintfre 2012-02-06 09:40
The NAACP chapter in Huston likes Ron Paul
youtube search "NAACP Nelson Linder speaks on Ron Paul and racism "
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-02-06 14:19
1. Part of the problem with this comment is that it's the tired old:

"I'm not a racist because I have a black friend" defense.

WHO CARES. It isn't up to the NAACP to decide for me what I think of ron paul's OWN decisions, his OWN words and actions, and his own openly racist affiliations.

2. It's spelled "Houston", and you got the city wrong anyway. It was Austin. You got "Huston" from a blog that was mistaken.

3. Houston has its own LOCAL president of the NAACP. So do some other cities. What does the president of the NAACP in Chicago, or Detroit, or Philadelphia, or New York, or Baltimore, or San Francisco/Oakla nd have to say about ron paul? Does that matter to you? Nope. You got your "endorsement" from ron paul's token, so his own actual words, affiliations and actions don't matter to you.

+2 # Billy Bob 2012-02-06 14:20

4. What do YOU know personally about Nelson Linder? Is it possible that one black guy in Austin (who disagrees with the majority) could be WRONG? I know one thing for sure, the militant paul presence on the internet acts as though the NAACP ITSELF "loves paul". Come to think of it, YOU SAID THAT. That's a baldfaced lie. Unless you think everyone in the NAACP agrees about everything, that would be a pretty crazy comment.

The Christian Coalition has endorsed Barack Obama!!!

How do I know that? Well a guy I know is a fundamentalist and HE LOVES Obama.

Remember, only 90% of blacks are liberal.

That doesn't account for the other 10%.
-4 # Richard Raznikov 2012-02-06 20:14
This is really raw, you know. Aren't you one of the guys who tries to discredit Paul because some loonies support him or sued to support him, and now you think it doesn't matter if a branch of the NAACP backs him because who cares what a few people think? Make up your mind, you don't get it both ways.

Also, got to say, I'm a liar because my support for Paul stems from economic issues and not because of his anti-war position? I'm not really a 'progressive'?

Listen, bud. I don't have to prove my credentials to you but I'm going to note a few things so that perhaps others who are following this thread and whose minds are not completely warped can make up their own minds.

I worked for Bobby Kennedy. I spent time with him. I was in 1968 the youngest delegate at the Chicago convention. I have been involved in politics for many years. I worked also for George McGovern and George Moscone, I have been actively involved in the anti-nuclear movement and chaired the nuclear free zone in my county. I was also involved in setting up the first women's center at the community college in the mid '70s, and was the only straight on the board of the first gay center. If I'm a racist, homophobic, or misogynistic, I've been fooling people for fifty years.

If you want to dismiss Ron Paul because you don't like or agree with his policies, that's fine, but don't smear him with the brush you use on others.
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-02-06 21:57
A branch of the NAACP doesn't endorse him. A guy at the local NAACP does. There's a difference. And it's a big one.

If you want to vote for Paul because of his foreign policy while not considering Rocky Anderson (where you'd get the WHOLE package) then you DEFINITELY ARE a liar. Paul is a right-wing conservative on domestic policy and claims to be left-wing regarding foreign policy. Anderson is left-wing on both fronts. If you're voting for Paul instead of Anderson, you aren't a liberal, but a pretender.

As someone else said, I don't need to smear him. His own words, actions and affiliations are doing a good job of that for me.
0 # tomo 2012-02-08 00:07
I'm still with you, Richard, even as I see those red-marks continuing to cluster round your name. To me the paramount issue is that we stop going into other countries, smashing the infra-structure and imprisoning and killing people more or less at random. What I am beginning to think is that the Democratic Party--the party I have voted with all my life--has degenerated to the point where it is saying those things are all right--so long as it's a Democrat in the White House who does them.
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-02-08 08:31
I agree.
-2 # Richard Raznikov 2012-02-06 20:05
"Seems" is present tense. Is that what you mean? If so, who are they? The fact is that what you and others on this board who attack Paul keep ignoring is this salient fact: NOBODY who has dealt with him in politics over the past twenty years, including Kucinich, Grayson, and many other quite progressive people, has ever heard him utter a racist or homophobic or sexist remark. NOBODY. How come? I'd bet most of us would be hard-pressed to meet that kind of a test. The fact is, he has not used the terms you apply to him –– 'lazy, good-fer-nothin 's' and so on. Those are your terms, not his. He doesn't think that way.
I have no problem with people failing to support him for real reasons, e.g. his deregulation of industries, the whole gold standard thing. Personally, I disagree with him on these things, although I think they're more nuanced than he's given credit for. But his appeal to someone like me, a long-time radical, is for his strong anti-war positions (which are moral positions, not economic ones... see his speeches on the issues), his opposition to the dangerous Patriot Act and NDAA, his belief in decriminalizing drugs, his support for Bradley Manning, his opposition to police state policies and government spying. Those are important as hell and he's the only candidate taking those positions. As I said, I like Rocky, but he barely exists on the horizon.
+2 # John Locke 2012-02-07 16:04
Richard Raznikov: Maybe he is hiding it now, RACISTS DON'T CHANGE... they become less vocal, and more deceptive, for political purposes, and they stop hanging out with their supremist allies...But Paul has not and accepts money from them... If I were running for office I would be concerned who supported me, and who contributed to my campaign. I don't see anything that even appears to show he has "ethics" let alone is not a recist...(I am discounting his pro life anti choice position from the argument) as Billy Bob says we have presented "alot" of evidence, whether you choose to accept it is your choice, but why the anger I am seeing... what is there that makes you show this anger...have we caught you in some deliberate intent to deceive here?

Something has brought that on. How dare you call someone posting true facts here a liar? I am disappointed in you, I thought from other posts of yours I have read that you had some class...You have a right to your opinion, but state facts when arguing facts.... Your "opinion" is not enough to overcome facts...and don't try to intimidate Billy won't work...
+5 # Bruce Gruber 2012-02-06 08:51
The softness of your misdirections continues to amuse. "Guilt by association" rationalizes a 'leader's' failure to provide leadership for his/it's followers.
Jimmy Venable provided effective legal representation in a few noteworthy cases for "nigras" while supplying wood for crosses and bonfires, fried chicken and greens for supper gatherings of racist gatherings and, at the very least, complicit actualization of lynching. Do we (or you) have a responsibility for seeking balance or imbalance in the juxtaposition of of such dichotomies?
+7 # sknyjohn 2012-02-05 22:12
Truth & evidence mean nothing to ron paul cult lemmings, which is why they refer to evidence that incriminates ron paul as "rumors" or try to change the subject of ron paul's proven racism by pointing out that "they're all racist," as if racism were ok, & as if ron paul's symbiotic relationship with openly blatant white supremacists is not a problem.
+5 # Todd Williams 2012-02-06 09:02
Check out any charts of federal tax distribution among the states. Paul wants more state control of the goernment versus federal control. If you look at the charts, you'll see most of the poor states receive a much higher percentage of Fed tax revenue that the wealtheir states. Staes like Mississippi and Alabama are getting over $2 back for every $1 in tax collections. And guess what, most of these states are controlled by Rethugs. So go ahead, go back to your freaking states rights crap. Let progressive, democratic states keep their money and stop subsidizing redneck territory. Boy oh boy, how the white, racist trash will bitch when they don't get thier foodstamps!
-2 # Richard Raznikov 2012-02-06 20:17
Let's see, by your logic that must mean that Paul's proposals would mean less money for all of those people you think are his supporters.... hmmm... you sure are a genius. Better warn the candidate.
+3 # John Locke 2012-02-07 16:15
Richard Raznikov: I think you missed Todd Williams point. Democratic states have been more stable financially (more wealth) and we are supporting the republican states (more poverty) who can't get their economies together. Think two of the states, California and New York and they are generally in the democratic column... Generally Republicans vote against their own best interest, and because of that Republicans play to the southern states.
-1 # 2012-02-07 21:48
Richard, your attempt to intimidate Todd Williams by your insulting remarks is uncalled for. Todd made a good point annd other good points on this Post.
-5 # Hot Doggie 2012-02-05 23:53
Ron Paul is showing the people what's wrong with this country. That doesn't fit into your absurb name calling that he's against some group of people. He's putting that informatin out to all people. Sorry, Your arguments fail. Ron Paul is the only R or D or I or L or G or S that is for the people. This is proven by his second agenda effort to inform all people of the problems within politics, et al.

So you'll just have to get used to hearing some truth from a statesman. Ron Paul is gaining support. Get used to it.
0 # 2012-02-07 19:11
Hot Doggie states: "Ron Paul is showing the people what's wrong with this country." May I remind you that that is exactly what Hitler said about the Jews, prior to WW11, and the confederates said the same thing in regard to owning slaves prior to the Civil War.
-8 # Martintfre 2012-02-06 09:02
apparently the NAACP loves Ron Paul
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-02-06 14:27
Apparently you think one guy in Austin represents the ENTIRE NAACP.
-11 # Martintfre 2012-02-06 09:45
youtube search
"NAACP Nelson Linder speaks on Ron Paul and racism "

and get an informed black perspective on Ron Paul.
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-02-06 14:25
Maybe paul's not a true racist "in his heart". Maybe he has the best of intentions "deep down where no one can see".

Maybe he's just misinformed.

If you want a black perspective, next time don't Google "ron paul's not a racist" to find what you're looking for. Next time, ask some black people what they think of the idea of cutting the social safety net. Ask them what they think of someone who disagrees with the Voting Rights Act of 1964 (that ended Jim Crow). Ask them what they think of the fact that paul, himself, has close affiliations with self-avowed white supremacists.

You might get "informed" as well.
-9 # Martintfre 2012-02-06 09:57
So this article is based upon a story that emails stolen then reported on - wow that sounds reliable - with emphasis on LIE.

Racism is necessarily collectivist - they are all like ____. The individual virtues or failings are ignored and instead some collectivist label is pasted on instead - say Black or White Or Jew or Muslim or Atheist or ...

Ron Paul stands for individualism - as one of Dr Paul's hero's mentioned people should be judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin.
-11 # Martintfre 2012-02-06 09:59
By the way - is reader supported news ever going to cover King Shabazz and his voter intimidation (Philly 2008 general election)or how Eric holder got him off the hook?

If a klansman was doing what Shabazz was doing I'd want to see the maggot in jail - why does Shabazz get a free pass?
+3 # sknyjohn 2012-02-06 22:23
ron paul cult lemmings are desperate because they know that their white supremacist cult leader will NOT be elected president, but, don't worry, the koch bros. have jobs for them in the tea party & they can also always join the larouche cult & hold signs depicting Obama as hitler, either choice helping garner even more support for Obama's corporate war crime agenda.
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-02-06 22:54
You hit the nail on the head.
+4 # madams12 2012-02-06 22:30

'Stuff happens".....
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-02-06 22:53
Yet another example of ron paul pretending he's not responsible for his own actions and those of his own employees.
0 # 2012-02-07 11:41
To Carl Gibsom: Please publish my posts. I understand what you're saying and my comments are in sync with your excellent editorial.
-3 # Martintfre 2012-02-07 12:57
Other then Ron Paul - what presidential candidate wants to end the racist war on drugs?
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-02-07 13:24

Seriously marty, If you're too busy to read other people's comments you're too busy to make remarks about them.

Anderson's name has only popped up in this conversation about 15 times, so far. You're making yourself look unwilling to pay attention and doing your own argument no good. WAKE UP!
+1 # 2012-02-07 19:20
Is Paul's stance on "end{ing} the racist war on drugs more important than voting in a man for POTUS who has been outed as a bigot and a racist, Martinfre?
+2 # John Locke 2012-02-07 16:35
Martintfre: Is this your first election? Since when does any candidatte say something honest...we were all recently snookered by Obama and his promises... I don't believe any of them...The war on drugs has been very profitable in some circles and has not accomplished a thing...the CIA has been responsible for bringing much of it into the US...and supplying the cartels with weapons. The medellan cartel were friends and allies with the CIA during Iran/Contra... when I believe the CIA was getting a cut of the action.. like they were with Noreiga... Paul would only end the program if he were allowed to like any other candidate... FYI we have prisons full of men and women because they were selling drugs...yet NO CIA officer has been busted for the same thing...and that included HW BUSH...Isn't it really past time to just legalize drugs like marijuana...and take the profit out of their illegality... just like prohibition... if you want to make something profitable...ju st make it illegal...
0 # Linda 2012-02-09 08:21
All this fighting about Ron Paul being or not being a racist really is futile sense he will not get the Republican nomination .
No Progressive should want to see any Republican be it Ron Paul or Mitt Romney etc elected President because they all have horrible agenda's that would hurt the most vulnerable in our society as well as the middle class!
Lets not forget two things, whoever gets elected will be filling two seats on the Supreme Court after two of them retire and we certainly can't afford another Republican who would make decisions like the Citizens United decision this , remember these are lifetime positions . Second the President does not make the laws Congress and the Senate do and it is there where we should concentrate on finding true Democrat's to give our votes to so that if Obama is re-elected he will have the majority in both the House and the Senate . With a majority in the House and Senate Obama would have no choice but to lean further left because he alone does not make the laws he can not pass a bill without the votes in the Senate and Congress ! Get rid of the Bluedogs and replace them with either left leaning Independents like Bernie Sanders or true liberals!
+1 # Linda 2012-02-09 08:48
As far as voting for someone in the Green Party or Rocky Anderson it will only take votes away from Obama and Obama is still far better than any of the Republican's IMHO!
Third party candidates have not been viable because they are not visible enough . They need to start by campaigning in thier states for local office and move their way up the ladder so that they are known to the general population and we have a record to look at to judge whether we want to vote for them or not .
Throwing their hat in the ring for President late in the election season isn't going to give them the name recognition they need to be a viable candidate .
Rocky Anderson is an example of waiting too late . I never even heard of him until a friend in Canada mentioned his name . All I know about him is he is a Morman and claims to have a liberal leaning agenda but I have no record to look at to see if that really is true . His site gives a UK address to send donations to his campaign ,which kind of throws up a red flag for me. Why the UK address ? I know the Justice Party started in the UK but Anderson is suppose to be an American so why not an address in this country for the Justice Party ? Its all a bit too cloudy for me !

BTW whoever said Ron Paul didn't want to end Social Security and Medicare needs to watch all the video's not just the pro-Paul ones ! He did say it on video when asked by a reporter !
0 # foxtrot 2012-02-25 00:26
Now before everyone starts bleating "racist!" you should be aware that it is as frivolous as crying "communist!" It is an appeal to people's ignorance and cowardice since you seem to be relying on people to flee from Dr. Paul lest they too be deemed as racists.

If you want to find any of Ron Paul's policies that support your claim that he's a racist I wish you all the best of luck but don't use a very small fringe of his supporters to draw the inference that he's fronting a racist organization- you won't get away it.

Now how many of Ron Paul's policies promote racism? Name one. I rest my case.
0 # Hyb23 2012-02-29 18:21
I have just been reading this article and before I write the rest of my post I just have to establish something: I'm British and I'm a Ron Paul supporter, *shock horror!* This is mainly because of his foreign policy and wish to end the federal reserve system and global fiat monetary system. These would help us greatly over this side of the pond too, imo.

Anyway, a few things to see/read in your own media if you still think that:

1. Ron Paul has not disavowed these newsletters.
2. Ron Paul wrote the racist comments in these newsletters. - Ben Swann Reality Check: Author of "Racist" Newsletter Revealed - Ben Swann Reality Check: The Truth About Ron Paul's "Racist" Newsletters - The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul Ad - Ron Paul Reacts to "Compassion" Ad on CSPAN

Or just read his book Liberty Defined (2009) where he has an ENTIRE chapter on racism and how he finds it an abhorrent form of collectivism and argues that everyone should have equal rights regardless of race, religion or any other false division that humans make.
0 # Hyb23 2012-02-29 18:21
Limits on post length - second part.

There is also tons of other evidence to prove this is just a load of crap. If you're too lazy or ignorant to do a tiny bit of research (it isn't hard nowadays - it's called the Internet. You're using it right now) then continue to believe Ron Paul is a racist/white supremacist/con spiracy nut/any other label smear campaign against him - these campaigns happen against most politicians. Just do some damn research.

And I'm sorry. This leak by anonymous seems pretty thin. I've downloaded some of the files and can find very little that would show me support that he is secretly a white nationalist.

I'm not saying he's perfect or that I agree with every single one of his opinions. His views on abortion, gay marriage, etc I don't really agree with, but overall I'd like to see the constitution re-eestablished in the US, along with Liberty across the west/globe. I would also like to see the repeal of terrible acts of government such as the Patriot Act, NDAA, etc, that completely defile your bill of rights - very similar to how I would like to see much of our legislation that curtails civil liberties here in the UK repealed. You guys really do not know how lucky you are to have a written constitution. Keep it alive! Even if Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination - the generation he has inspired must fight for liberty and force some of these important issues - foreign and monetary policy to be debated and reformed.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.