![[FSF Associate Member]](http://www.notsosoft.net/images/getButton){kind=small}
White Supremacists Dislike Ron Paul Criticism…
Recently, I’ve had an unfortunate amount of traffic from white supremacists who dislike my criticism of a Republican Senator from Texas. One in particular has a blog, filled with hate and violence–be careful reading some of his links, some of them are pretty disturbing.
This supporter of the not-so-honorable Ron Paul has actually tried to argue that racism isn’t such a bad thing (link here). He’s started to post links to my blog and calls me ignorant when he is an admitted racist and has openly lied about Ron Paul’s record (link here, prooven wrong by this link) and he has also lied about his support of violent racists (WARNING, OBJECTIONABLE: ivorypower.com/blog, the links on the right are very telling, and here’s the violent stuff ivorypower.com/blog/?cat=11here).
I would just like to say that I think this person has links to sites that call for the reinstatement of concentration camps, like in Nazi Germany, and this person has links to web sites that allow people to call in and upload audio and video clips of themselves committing acts of violence against minorities.
My criticism of Ron Paul has also led to hate mail and threatening telephone calls from barely-literate morons who tell me that my criticism may have “lethal consequences.” My fellow Americans and citizens of the world, this is how Ron Paul’s supporters choose to disagree with critics… unfortunately for them, I don’t scare too easily.
Many of Ron Paul’s supporters are showing themselves for who they really are, a racist pack of dogs who threaten people who disagree with them. This coercion falls on deaf ears, and I wonder if Ron Paul is even aware of what his supporters are doing in his name… though I doubt he’d object to it even if he did.
Please note that I am not saying that all Ron Paul supporters are racist. I’m just saying that there are a number of them who are.
Popularity: 20%
This entry was posted
on Sunday, August 5th, 2007 at 15:50 and is filed under Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Stumble it!
I find it hilarious that they argue for freedom at all costs. It is this freedom that lets them pursue a hate filled agenda. Yet those who argue that Ron Paul ISN’T a racist say that he argues against collectivism (treating people as a group impedes on individual freedom), but never does RP argue directly against racism.
Yet RP, or his supporters, have no problem invoking collectivism when they group illegal immigrants as law breaking, welfare seeking Mexicans.
Nor do they see the irony when they try to shout down a person expressing his ideas, which are contrary to theirs, on the world wide web. Even more ironic is when call Manchicken a freedom hating fascism, when his blog is primarly a free software blog!
And how many support restrictive monopolies, proprietary software and broken copyright law?
Of course, the idea that anyone would try to take down their GOD, Ron Paul would trigger a backlash. But to believe that ANY human being is perfect- that is nothing but pollyanna pipedream idealism. In other words, they are naive and deceiving themselves. Shame on RP supporters for actually believing the words of a POLITICIAN.
Shame on them for pretending that politicians don’t give back to their constituents and supporters, racist or not. Most of all, shame on anyone who tries to undercut freedom of one, for the greater good.
re topic and Eddie M.
To fit the politically correct, Ron Paul has to make a speech against racism? Next I suppose he will have to make a public speech, to make everyone happy, that he does not hate homosexuals. Well…because there is a Paul supporter or two other there that does hate them.
As far as illegal immigration, Ron Paul supporters are mostly against all welfare. (Illegal/legal) Immigrant or not. “Grouping” people together is not necessarily for political collectivism. I can speak of males and females as groups. You can speak of a group of people that steal or trespass. This does not violate libertarianism.
Eddie, I am not sure what you are getting at with broken copyright laws. Apparently you do not know, figures, that many Ron Paul supporters are against intellectual property. All you have to do is do a search on LewRockwell.com or Mises.org. So I do not know what you are raving about.
The rest of your comment, sorry, I cannot follow. Do I believe that Ron Paul is perfect? No. But, yes, I do believe he is a politician with class. He believes what he says unlike most other politicians.
“Not so honorable?” Do you honestly know what your even talking about? First off Ron Paul is a congressman not a senator.
And second, if you do not like Ron Paul then you do not like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, or any of the other founding fathers of this country! Ron Paul is the closest thing we have to a modern day Thomas Jefferson. He’s the most constitutional member of congress so I’m not sure why he is “not so honorable.” Even if you disagree with him on issues you should at least respect the fact that he’s the only congressman on capitol hill that is not bought and paid for by the lobbyists.
@gene:
I am for intellectual property. how can anyone talk about freedom and not give me my property rights? I was talking to the giant mess that is the software patent system and the effect of the internet on traditional copyright law, in particular.
IP law is a very complicated issue, but I don’t believe in abolishing IP. I support copyrights, because it gives us creators the right to use our creations in a free market. However, I don’t support the creation of a permission culture or blanket/universal licenses. Those types of actions impeded on individual freedoms and rights, such as the right to retain any intellectual property that is mine.
@gne: I hit ’submit’ before I finished.
I am against welfare in general as well. However, I do support social programs to a point. Without some expectation of the government to provide social services to it’s people, the government/leaders have no reason to believe that power lies in the people, at least in rhetoric and public ideas. I prefer this to people thinking the government is a bully which no one should trust. While the latter idea is more realistic, I think the shift in relationship between the two ideas is the most important of all.
I thought the last post by manchicken was the final one about Ron Paul. I am a total lefty for Ron Paul. If you can’t see ending war and the war on drugs as good for minorities then you are close-minded and stuck in partisan blinders. However much you may personally dislike Ron Paul, he will do more to end genocide and racism than any other candidate. Nuff said.
joshuabruce: Ron Paul will do more to apply a racist agenca to a public policy since anybody since the reconstruction era.
Rich: Ron Paul received hundreds of thousands of dollars from gun lobbyists and conservative lobbyists in his 2006 Senate campaign (I posted the link in the post if you want to check it). You should really check your facts before spreading misinformation.
gene: Ron Paul, having received so much support from hate groups such as the KKK and the neo-nazi group formerly known as the “World Church of the Creator,” should do as much as he can to distance himself from this support. Anybody money collected from people donating to his campaign from any of these groups should either be denied or immediately donated to charitable organizations (preferably ones promoting diversity or education).
If Ron Paul doesn’t speak out against this support, and if Ron Paul actually accepts and spends any of those contributions, then he is voicing his support for any of those organizations. But seeing as how more than $45,000 was raised in 2006 by undisclosed sources (unethical at best), I doubt he’d admit to receiving the money from David Duke or any klansmen. Ron Paul supports these people’s causes, and he does his best to marginalize sincere efforts to combat racism in this country.
Here’s the link to the funding info, by the way: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allcontrib.asp?cid=N00005906
Freedom ain’t free. It’s a free country, so we have to deal with Chicken man’s hate filled, racist obsessions.
As for the link to RP donations, it sure beats the millions Hillary, Obama, Giuliani, Edwards and Romeny get from Wall Street, Healthcare conglomerates, law firms, etc. Those talking heads are bought and paid for.
You see, Ron Paul is free - he is not bought and paid for. I happen to belong to Gun Oners of America (GOA) who donated to RP. I am a white man with a black girlfriend.
Chick man’s problem is that he has a collectivist, group think mentality - which only breeds hatred and problems like racism. And, when it comes to American CITIZENS, RP most certainly does not go in that direction. He is for indiidual rights no matter race, religion or color. However, if you are a criminal - yes, you can be classified into a group because you lose your individual rights and freedoms by committing a crime. Illegal immigrants are criminals, so yes, they can be put in a group and be made to obey the law. Ron Paul is all for LEGAL immigration for those legally waiting in line.
Chicken man is an idiot. You back your claims with nothing - which shows you are either insane or you truly are an idiot.
Peace,
J.C.
J.C., you are utterly clueless. My claims are all supported by evidence which you ignorantly write-off because you’ve already closed your mind to anything else.
You keep justifying Ron Paul’s bad behavior by pointing at proported bad behavior by other candidates. Bad behavior in no way justifies other bad behavior. Try answering direct questions instead of pointing the finger at others.
You can accuse me of having some “collectivist mentality” (which is a retarded term, created by a racist who tries to use bullshit logic to get out of answering real questions), but when all comes down to it, Ron Paul is still a racist, supported by racists, who will implement racist public policy if elected. His voting record already shows he’s done the same thing in the House.
Boo hoo…no one cares. Your posts on Ron Paul are a pathetic ploy to boost traffic on your blog. Get a life you nervous nancy. (PS - Ron Paul was in the HOUSE not the Senate)
is it me, or does every racist person have a black girlfriend?
if you go to the stormfront site there hundreds of pages of supporters, but hey the Bushbot Neocons aint no angels either .
I think we have accept that there whacko’s everywhere. Ron Paul has nominated a black Professor as his likely running mate, that professor has some pretty non mainstream ideas about the racial issues in this country
Paul believes in persoal liberty as long as you dont hurt another person or property , he believes that many of the laws like prohibition have enslaved black americans my criminalising poor people, he doesnt believe in collectivism of any kind, lets face many of the polciies in America arent working , mthe country is going to the dogs, the war on drugs hasnt produced results, niether has the war on terror, come to think of it none of the wars have been successful.
So relax a bit Mr Chicken here is a man thats introducing new ideas and geeze we need a few and he appears to be the only honest politician in America.
So stop trying to tear him down with slander and attack his ideas, youve got to admit he sure knows how to run a campaign.
Manchicken is at it again I see. Couldnt help himself.
Btw dude, the reason why Ron Paul is bulletproof is his consistant unwavering support for the constitution. Whwn hes in the white house, you know he wont abuse power.
So therefore, Say in wacky chicken land where up is down and black is white and Ron Paul is a racist, it doesnt matter much because to repeal all the old laws hes got to go through congress. To pretty mych do anything but bring the troops home, hes got to go through congress. So really, why are you worried? Hes right about the war and he’ll never abuse power like bush.
He’ll also encourage existing members of congress to take their oath of office seriously or they wont get anything done. Sounds like a win-win for all of us.
TwinkeD: I’m worried because there are candidates that I think would actually help people, and raise the bar on environmental protection. If helping people and reversing serious threats to our planet aren’t at the top of an agenda–directly under stopping retarded wars–then the candidate is not worthy of support.
Ron Paul’s idea of helping people is hands-off capitalism, which has failed many times before. Ron Paul’s idea of protecting the environment is disbanding the EPA and letting the planet rot with emissions and record temperatures as global warming becomes the norm and public health suffers.
In addition to his racism, these are other reasons to avoid Ron Paul this election season.
Chicken youre forgetting that theres such a thing as state and local government and barring that, PEOPLE.
Get it out of your head that if the federal government doesnt do things and write legislation than it wont get done.
There was an olf story of an old soviet guy who worked on a government dairy farm, when communism collapsed he was at a loss as to what do do. He just could not see how milk would get from the cow to the grocery store without the government, how would it be organized? How would people know when and where to pick up the milk? He was baffled by all of this.
As you know, our dairy distribution works just fine, the milk gets to the store without the government. We dont need them to do these things.
If paul manages to disband the IRS and everyone gets a 30% increase or more, trust me, things will GET DONE. The states would then be free to increase their income taxes and afford more social programs, The more local the government is, the better.
As a matter of fact, I believe that if Paul was elected. Wed get Universal Health Care FASTER than if Hillary or Obama was elected? Why? The states would do it, theyd be free to do so and theyd have more money to do so. Wed also have many different competing state health systems that would make it easier to work out the kinks and promote healthy competition, encoraging innovation and lowering costs.
Under Paul, you will get more democratic involvement by people at the local level, and more and better services for cheaper than the democrats could provide at a national level.
TwinkeD: Whether or not I trust you or not–which I have no reason to do either–I do not trust someone who wants to attack immigration problems with racial ideals driving the policy. All of these things you’re talking about sound nice, but these are the way that things used to be, and they crashed and burned.
The gold standard failed, isolationism failed, private healthcare failed, and trusting companies to be responsible environmental stewards failed. I see Ron Paul’s ideas as more of the same “let’s let companies run the show” ideas. I respect your opinion on these, and I agree that the way you’re looking at it it does look great… but history must be taken into account, and you don’t seem to be doing that.
Also, Pittsburg had pollution problems earlier this century, it was cleaned up by people, before the EPA existed. Paul explains all this at ronpaullibrary.com
And I am for removing the IRS just as much as anybody else. I think removing the IRS without changing the tax structure would be foolish though. Mike Huckabee has a much better idea on this issue than Ron Paul does. Have you taken a look at that yet?
Chicken, there are no racial ideals, why cant you see that?
Some people wait years in this country to become citizens legally, they have to wait in line. They have to participate in the economy and pay taxes fairly so they arent an undue burden on other american citizens.
Why is it fair for someone to come into the country illegally and butt in line ahead of law abiding immigrants who have been waiting for years? Why is it ok to force your fellow americans to pay the welfare of these people. Why cant they get their own country in order?
For the last time he is not against immigration and he is about as far from racist as you can get. He rejects the whole notion of it. He is the only one who rejects it COMPLETELY. He writes on the subject at ronpaullibrary.com
TwinkeD: I disagree with you and Ron Paul on this issue. If the companies and the populace were willing to take care of serious environmental problems before they became disasters then we wouldn’t have global temperatures on the rise, and we wouldn’t have so much deforestation and so many endangered species. That is a flawwed argument that you’d have to be retarded to accept.
Why do you think it is foolish?
All wed have to do is take federal spending back to 1997 levels and we wouldnt have to replace the income tax with anything. Have you seen this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8
TwinkeD: Plainly put, that is bullshit. Ron Paul’s immigration policy, particularly some of the things he says about immigrants, are racist. He wants to put up a border fence, he wants to repeal the 14th amendment, he wants to start deporting people who have been here contributing to our society for years. The man is a racist prick, and there’s no real convincing me otherwise.
TwinkeD: Removing the IRS without changing the tax structure is foolish because you have so many wealthy companies and individuals who have attorneys working the system to cheat the tax system for their own benefit. We would need to do something to close these loopholes.
We werent aware of the science then. If I had time tonight chicken I would tell you all about what my family does and how we are designing landscape techniques and working with our local city government to drastically reduce the cities energy needs.
Its people that will get it done once they see the need. Its happening all over.
TwinkeD: The people aren’t doing enough to prevent more environmental damage. We need more to be done at the level of the people, but the government needs to enforce these policies on the corporations that will do what they have to do in order to save a buck. It is impossible for normal folks to keep up with who’s doing what on environmental issues, and the government is in a much better position to clean things up at that level.
It’s not whether we are white supremacists, but NOBODY appreciates destructive criticism that are based on flawed logic and false premises.
It’s been fun discussing these issues with you. Unfortunately, Ron Paul’s position on the issues, in my opinion, is dangerous to both the country and the world. The level of support that he is receiving from racist groups without distancing himself is too disturbing to ignore. We need to avoid supporting candidates with this type of support, and these public tendencies. The man has made more racist statements in public than any other candidate running in 2008.
Regardless of how much he tries to denounce folks working for diversity as racist, it is all just a bullshit smokescreen.
Ron Paul is a Congressman, not a Senator, goes to show how much you know about him. And it doesn’t matter if you’re scared or not, you’re annoyed to say the least.
“There is no such thing as a hate crime.” Is racist speech? Can you give me an example of “love crime”? If not, what’s the difference between crime motivated by hate and crime motivated by nothing? Why is a crime motivated by something stupid supposed to be punished more than crime committed simply because of stupidity?
All other quotes are pulled from the same cliche source , Victoria Advocate, you’ve not bothered reading responses about it.
You can “think” all you want about what I believe, but I don’t. Sad for you you believe in things that make you happy, fine with me I guess. Ignorance is bliss.
Josh, yes, it actually is if you’re a white supremacist… I don’t know what gave you the idea that being a white supremacist was either an okay thing or a good thing, but it’s not. Racism is not okay, and racism is not good. And the links you have on your site are disgusting. You asked me a while ago what violence had been done by racists, but that coonhunter link you have on your site is pretty F’ed up. It doesn’t take much time on that site to find accounts of violent acts against minorities.
Josh: Stating that there is no such thing as a hate crime is retarded. Of course there is such a thing as a hate crime. Your logic is bullshit, and you should probably stick to using it in your klan circle. It won’t go far here.
AGAIN, If you think racism is worse than the crimes committed on us already (War, NSA wiretapping, Patriot Act, Real ID, open borders, taxation, drug prohibition), make your choice. I can only say it’s sad for people to think this way. Ron Paul will end all the crimes we’ve had and open up the gates to freedom for all, including you and me. But you seem to see racism as the problem, too bad.
Night folks.
What is hate crime? Crime motivated by hate? What else is crime motivated by? Greed? Desperation? Ignorance? Love? What difference does it make? Are you saying crime committed against people for reasons other than ‘hate’ is more acceptable?
Manchicken, you obviously DON’T know what you’re talking about. If you take the Coonhunter link seriously, you’d have to take rappers who talk about shooting police and pimping hoes as serious advocation of crime as well. And I doubt you’ve actually followed the link, or you’d have seen it’s nothing recent, nothing new, and nothing criminal, certainly nothing criminal committed by hate groups.
What do you mean by “it’s not OK” to be a white supremacist? You should be treated less like a person? You should have less rights legally? You should have less friends or we should keep our mouths shut?
hey, im not white and ill criticize you if you criticize Dr. Paul. Ron Paul Iowa Debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCFwDoy-Y2Y
Ron Paul is not a racist. You work for someone and you are covertly planting lies about Ron Paul. I am not aware of any Ron Paul material that indicates he is a racist. Ilegal immigration is not the same as immigration. One of Ron Pauls books speaks of RIGHTS. Read that, to know the true Ron Paul. A person claiming RIGHTS in any group is adding to RACIAL problems. No group has rights because of their race. “WHITE” “BLACK” “CHINESE” are words that do not belong any any discussion of rights. I am not sure who you are. You are not who you claim you are to write this bunk about Ron Paul. If any “WHITE” group is supporting Ron Paul, they have not read his book FREEDOM UNDER SIEGE. I invite any person to read this book of Ron Pauls, available on line for free. I beleive he wrote it in 1988. In that book he expains his views which are the same as his current speaches.
Josh, thanks for making my point with your recent blog post. This is proof that white supremacists dislike my criticism of Ron Paul.
Josh, by the way, great way to support freely spoken ideas by closing off comments on all of your blog posts
Even though you Ron Paul supporters have spewed some of the most hateful garbage there is to spew, I have yet to delete or edit a single comment except at the request of the commentor.
Ron Paul writes:
“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.”
Yes, we’ve already seen this statement where Ron Paul ridiculously and ignorantly tries to explain racism while at the same time attempting to marginalize civil rights groups that fight against his racist agenda all in the same breath.
Did Ron Paul ever say “I am not a racist” or “I do not agree with the racists who support me?” I haven’t seen that. All I see is you sheeple posting that same retarded blurb of misinformation over and over. Could we please see some real information rather than this consistent mindless propaganda?
TwinkeD:
You obviously don’t understand the root cause of illegal immigration if you have to ask ‘Why can’t they get their country together’? Ron Paul has said nothing about the subject either. His plan is to hide America from the reality of the conditions we created in Latin America by stopping them from coming here. Thanks, but no thanks.
Manchicken:
There are those on the internet who are completely out of their minds, as to think that removing the 14th amendment really means supporting the constitution.
I shut down comments because I have too much spam (though mostly taken care of by Spam Karma)
I still posted my e-mail for those who wish to send comments. I don’t have too much time to moderate and respond to comments.
I didn’t prove your point as if you made an extraordinary discovery, it’s a FACT that white supremacists and ANYBODY would naturally dislike baseless & deconstructive smears against their candidate. How would you like it if I said Obama is a warmonger and Hillary is a hypocrite? Or Dodd voted for Real ID so he’s a Fascist? Or Richardson hates our troops because he wants to bring them home with none left behind?
“Civil rights groups”? Like what? ACLU? ADL? SPLC? NCLR? PFAW? NOW?
I’ve had my blog up for a while. Akismet spam control and sane comment-moderation policies (such as mine here, where comments containing two or more hyperlinks require manual approval) isn’t really that hard.
You disable comments because you’re afraid someone might disagree with you… yet you’re not too afraid to go disagree with anybody else on their own blog.
And you did prove my point. White supremacists are using scare tactics to try and shut me up, or they try to use fuzzy logic to say there’s no problem with racism. Of course Ron Paul wants to discredit civil rights groups. He’ll have a hard time implementing his racist agenda if those groups are still in place.
Josh: Civil rights groups like Rainbow PUSH, NAACP, ACLU, SCLC, AJC, YMCA, ADL, just to name a few. You know, the ones that get upset when your buddies try to march and hurt people.
I am not afraid people might disagree with me , I KNOW most be DO disagree with me. Just because I don’t like to deal with it doesn’t mean I don’t think they exist and if that means ‘fear’, so be it.
No, he doesn’t want to discredit any group, but those groups want to discredit HIM! They think racism is a greater problem than the war, privacy invasion and excessive taxation, certainly with people of conscious, civil rights or just plain smart, will not let racist policies pass, BUT, we’ve done nothing to stop this endless war against freedom either, so what makes you think we’ll do any better? There’s nothing to discredit about groups, but there’s a lot to discredit if they make false and useless accusations of racism!
By the way, I encourage you to watch this Fox News interview after the Iowa debate, where he explains just because he associates with people (like Alex Jones) who support him does NOT mean he agrees with them on everything. This would be saying that if you go on mainstream media, you share their bias too!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N6NstE0_8Q
Of course they want to discredit him! They don’t want a racist prick as the head of the executive branch! There are plenty of other candidates that are not racist that will still stop the invasion, stop the invasion of privacy, etc.
The racist policies are VERY dangerous to our country. And aligning yourself with the klan is a very bad outward public sign. The klan stands for all that causes crime and violence in this country–selfish ignorance–and anybody who would align themselves with the klan should be marginalized.
We shouldn’t let the racism be ignored. It is a serious problem–just as serious as any of the other issues you mentioned–and it should be paid attention to. If a non-white member of another racist organization–such as the New Black Panther Party–were to run with the EXACT same platform you would be against them for being racist against white people. You’re only okay with this racism because you happen to agree with it.
Plenty? Who? Hillary? Richardson? Dodd? Edwards? Obama?
No I am not ok with racism because I agree with it. I’m just as ok with Aztlanist, MEChA, and New Black Panthers as far as being for the expression of their opinion. But I do not agree with them any more or less. And frankly if members of racist groups that are anti-white will do the same to end the war, end the crimes against Americans as Ron Paul, I WILL SUPPORT THEM. I know my principles and have stuck to it!
Manchicken, maybe you’ve had your head in your ass this whole time, but were unaware that I’m not white, if that matters.
http://ivorypower.com/blog/?page_id=19
But I have marched with communists when they march against the war, I have marched with conservatives when they want to seal the border. I appreciate similarities when the issues matter. Just because you support anti-racism does not mean you’ll support other agendas the ARA groups will promote either, right?
And disabling comments with more than one link is not good enough, often times one link will do all the damage to annoy.
Did I say you were white? I don’t recall saying you were. Pat Buchanan is your role model? That explains a lot.
Josh: Your position is inconsistent. You claim to support freedom, yet you’re supporting a candidate that will most certainly limit freedom.
Ron Paul will destroy America. End of story.
Yes Pat Buchanan is my role model.
You are arguing that somebody who’s voted for freedom in EVERY POSSIBLE CASE will certainly limit freedom. So your case would either be all other candidates are worse and support nobody, or you’re going to trust somebody with an even worse voting record to not limit freedom, go figure, good luck. Let me know when you find your candidate (in the two parties, I have no problem if you want a 3rd party candidate).
Ron Paul voted no on HR9, to protect voter’s rights. Ron Paul is anti-freedom.
Is that the only case you can find? If so, it may be keeping the federal government out of States’ business, but I’ll check into that myself. But seriously, if that’s the only case you can find, good job!
I just called Tancredo’s office to ask about HR9, and they told me basically what I thought they would, it was more or less about keeping the federal government out of States’ business.
Let’s not forget that he wants to restrict freedom by ending birthright citizenship. That’s restricting the freedom of babies who didn’t get to make the choices their parents made.
Ron Paul also voted against net neutrality, which protects freedom of speech online for everybody.
Ron Paul is also for limiting the ability of the courts to check the legislative branch.
Ron Paul is a threat to freedom.
Josh: Voters rights are an essential liberty that the federal government should protect. It should not be up to the states to decide what is and is not allowed in a federal election process. Tancredo is also a nut, as he wants to bomb Mecca and Medina. Try reading the legislation yourself.
Yes, and being pro-life would also be against freedom because that’s allowing babies to be born when they didn’t chose to either, isn’t it? It’s absurd to say were are punishing the baby when it’s in fact responsibility of the parents.
His vote against net neutrality was already explained, that he wishes to keep the government HANDS OFF (and he may have allowed bad things, but is not adding more government).
I’m not sure what courts limitation you’re talking about, but please point to me.
Ok, if you believe voting rights is an essential liberty the federal government should protect, you should be for the federal government enforcing our borders too.
I never said Tancredo is not a nut, but I called him because I know he’s less busy than Paul.
This is the 14th Amendment
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The original purpose was to recognize that slaves who have been under our jurisdiction should be subject to equal rights. Illegal immigrants ARE NOT the same as slaves, they came against our will against our laws. “Anchor babies” are the result of people giving birth to buy themselves citizenship despite the fact they’ve broken the very first essential law. Remember, even this section says “without due process of law” so nothing can be done without the legal process.
Josh: Wow, so now you’re in the heads of the guys who wrote that? Remember, that law also applies to political refugees, legal residents in the process of obtaining citizenship, as well as people who are not documented when they come here. This is essential to keeping our country the place where people know they can come for freedom. But instead, you’d much rather have this be the place where your rights are protected above anybody elses’.
Your use of the term “anchor babies” is racist, and not appreciated. It is also morally incorrect to punish children for the actions of their parents in that, and it is wrong to mistreat the constitution to try and solve an issue that only isolationists, protectionists, and racists have.
Backing off of Net Neutrality would cause numerous violations of protected first amendment speech. And the court limitations I’m speaking of are particularly related to a piece of legislation, I think it’s HR300.
Anchor babies is a term used even by Aztlan.net http://www.aztlan.net/anchor_baby_power.htm
Anchor babies is not racist, it’s legalist, anybody who came here illegal and has a baby to help themselves to citizenship is just that. Doesn’t matter if you’re European or Canadian or African, it’s not our fault most immigrants are Mexican. And I know MANY people who are given a hard time to citizenship who come from Europe, so call me racist.
I’m not in their heads, but I can tell you undocumented people are not within our jurisdiction, not then and not now. I don’t want my rights protect above anybody else, I want my rights protect as everybody else who respects my rights and respect my country’s laws. (Which means I want the President assassinated because he does not respect my rights)
Aztlan is a racist organization, and in no way does their racist horsecrap smell any less than that of the Klan or Ron Paul.
And you do want your rights protected above another. You think that somehow you have more of a right to be here than some baby who is a citizen of the United States. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be supporting measures to prevent these babies from becoming citizens in the first place, having done nothing wrong themselves.
Just because it is not their fault does not mean it is somebody else’s fault as they have to pay. Why should we grant them something other people worked for?
Aztlan may be a racist organization, but you can’t deny they agree with you on many things.
And who says being an American citizen is good? What did they do wrong themselves to get it? Can it be a punishment and disgrace for some? If being American is so good, you can’t ignore that parents give birth to their child solely for that exploitive purpose, so the child is either exploited by the parent or denied by the state, how is one more punishing to the child than the other?
Wait a minute… so you’re saying that when babies are born to American parents, they’re working for something differently than the babies of undocumented babies? That doesn’t really make sense.
You’re arguing very passionately, but your points are morally incorrect.
No, I’m saying children born of African parents in Africa are of a different fate than those who are born of Europeans in Europe, and much different than parents who chose to abort them, or abandon them altogether. The child NEVER had any choice anyway, but by rewarding them citizenship to them and their parents knowing they exploited our sympathy and law is encouraging parents to break laws and norms.
If you gave $10,000 to every parent who gave bith, parents would do it, but what good is it to the child in the long run if the parents were only motivated by a short term one time incentive? Parents already made their choice themselves as to what their child is for to them, so it’s NOT our fault we do what we do to the child based on what their parents did to them already.
Exactly. So why punish the infant who had no say in any of it?
“In fact it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. Government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government “benevolence” crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility between us.
The political left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, even as they advocate incredibly divisive collectivist policies.”
Ron Paul on the Civil Rights act of 1964
“Many so-called “civil rights” bills contain a mixture of provisions, some of which may support liberty, some of which restrict it. For example, here’s how Paul explains opposition to the “Civl Rights Act of 1964? in his essay The Trouble with Forced Integration:
“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.”
TwinkeD: So you are then saying that Ron Paul says that companies should be able to discriminate against employment candidates based on ethnicity. That’s pretty disgusting in my book. You’re not going to get very far with that one.
I also don’t think it did violate the constitution. Remember the whole “life, liberty, and persuit of happiness” thing? Anti-discrimination laws are intended to protect the life, liberty, and persuit of happiness for Americans who are commonly discriminated against.
Sure, there are some things like Affirmative Action which are most definitely going too far in the opposite direction, and should be removed, but that’s not the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That’s Affirmative Action, and that is not in any way a federal law.
So I suppose Ron Paul is already–before even entering the white house–trying to modify existing law to meet his racist agenda. Thanks for bringing that to my attention, I was not aware of that atrocity.
We are not punishing the infant any more than the parent already has! BUT we are insuring that our laws are not mocked, and that parents have the responsibility to take care of their children where ever they are, and letting them live in a place they are not welcome is the parent’s fault, not ours.
By the way, the top of my blog now says I advocate lynching a criminal of my own race, so you can say I’m racist if you still want to.
Josh: I support due process, and not lynching.
Our current laws on immigration are a mockery, so I don’t see how people breaking them could be any more of a mockery.
My position on immigration is simple. God made man, God made Earth. God didn’t tell man where he had to live, and God didn’t establish political borders. People have the right to live wherever the hell they want as long as they follow reasonable immigration laws and all applicable local laws. Most undocumented immigrants follow our laws. The fact that they don’t follow the immigration law is the fault of the law, not the fault of the immigrant.
TwinkeD: I deleted your duplicate comment. Please don’t do that again.
If you accept that standard, you cannot judge what we’ve done to Iraq, what we’ve done to native Americans 400 years ago, and any wars that have involved initiative invasion. Because according to you, we don’t need to respect living space of artificial and arbitrary bordered nations.
Actually there are laws in States as well as local that are broken by immigrants who have crossed in illegally. Such as zoning laws that prohibit people without a license to live in. States have rights to decide who to protect and serve, this is not the same as saying who can’t live there. Also, there are wage laws broken when illegals chose to work under the table jobs for cash without taxes. All of these are examples of laws broken, violated, ignored and mocked upon entering our country illegally. If they only came and breathed air, made no noise, we’d never know and never care, but they do too much more, that’s why we do.
If you think laws are a mockery, we can enforce them. Enforcing them can be expensive, harmful, or even stupid, but you can’t say it’s mockery.
The fact that they don’t follow the immigration law is the fault of the law, not the fault of the immigrant.
So the fact I don’t follow the law prohibiting lynching, is the fault of the law. Right?
Josh: You obviously don’t understand the difference between a just law and an unjust law created by racist pricks to control people who they either hate or fear. Our immigration laws are an abomination shat upon the face of our supposed ideals of freedom. You’re just trying to justify state-sponsored racism as you are–according to your own site–an isolationist, a protectionist, and a racist.
And who decides what is just? God? We the People? Congress? Immigrants?
We respect people’s living space just as we respect people’s private property, so why shouldn’t we as Americans have the right to demand those outside of our community respect our living space?
TwinkeD: If you do not stop posting duplicate comments, I will add you to the spam filter and you will not be able to comment any more at all.
Josh: I’m all for you saying who can and cannot be on your private property, but I am not for you telling others whether or not they may acquire home from someone willing to sell or lease it based on where they came from and whether or not they went through the very expensive and racially-charged process of naturalization.
“whether or not they went through the very expensive and racially-charged process of naturalization.”
Every country has it’s price, how is our country’s process any more racist than South Africa or Japan or Israel?
Let’s go back to a question, do you believe illegal immigrants should be paid the legal minimum wage? Or do you think it’s ok they’re willing to work for less than average for cash tax free? Those are quite another set of State and local laws that illegals break after they come in.
There is no such thing as an “illegal immigrant,” so your question is loaded, but all people should be paid a legal minimum wage. All who work in the United States–documented or undocumented–should be covered by all applicable labor laws, and all who live and work in the United States–documented or undocumented–should be subject to tax laws.
And your idea that all undocumented workers don’t pay taxes is horsecrap, too. I know several undocumented workers that still pay taxes.
There’s no such thing as an illegal sex offender, there’s no such thing as an illegal trespasser, there’s no such thing as illegal possession, there’s no such thing as illegal driver, illegal guardian, right??
I made a post SPECIFICALLY dealing with this rhetoric http://ivorypower.com/blog/?p=1716
Ok, I agree, everybody should be paid the same, and IF we do that , there’d be NO incentive to hire somebody with no ID, no English skills or low education. Why hire somebody from a foreign country when you have to pay the same?
They don’t have to pay federal income taxes, though Ron Paul will abolish it altogether anyway. Anybody who hasn’t filled out a W-2,W-9 or 1099 with their SSN is not liable for taxes. (And I wish I wasn’t)
Your arguments are likening moving your family from one country to another country to committing rape or posessing drugs. That is a bullshit argument and I’m not willing to entertain it here. You are no better than any other person, plain and simple, quit pretending like you are. The guy who hops the fence and you are on the same level as far as this blog is concerned.
Ron Paul would also damage education by taking away federal subsidy for Education, so at that point low education would be across the board, so companies would move overseas for workers who are actually educated above the level of you and your ignorant klan buddies.
Possessing drugs harms nobody, people who rape never cared about the victim. As for moving to another country, it’s the same as entering a theatre unwelcome, what difference does it make whether you did it to better your life? WHO CARES, of course you did it to better your life, who does things to worsen themselves?
Taking away federal funds will not damage education, most education funds are wasted by administrators, not teachers or students. But that’s not going to change the fact you won’t need to hire somebody who’s less educated if you have to pay the same. And for what you said, more companies and jobs moving away means the LAST THING WE NEED is more poor people. So yes, go ahead and raise your minimum wage and open our doors to everybody, jobs aren’t left much here anyway!
I never said I’m better than anybody, why do people love to assume this when we argue? Just because I am not entitled to your company’s employer benefits or your mother’s homemade cake does not mean you believe you’re better than me. Just because we want to speak a common language by the majority does not mean we’re saying our language is superior.
So again, you’re saying we should raise and equalize all wages and enforce the legality of them, if that, this wouldn’t help nor encourage illegal and undocumented workers, it’ll put them out of the work they came here for! Why should anybody undocumented, less educated, and less in English communications, if they’re required to pay the same amount, documented and taxed?
Do you see my point? The only incentive today for people to employ undocumented people is because the wage laws you love are NOT enforced, if they were, we’d leave so many cheap labor outside of our country!
Josh: Until you’ve been a school official or a teacher for 30+ years like my grandmother, 7+ years like my mother-in-law, or even 1 year like my sister, you can’t really say you know a damned thing about education spending.
We’re not talking about company benefits, we’re not talking about cakes–though anybody is welcome to my mother’s cakes–we’re talking about a home. And people are entitled to make there home wherever the land owner is willing to let them lease or let them buy. Just because you think they’re less than you doesn’t mean that you or anybody else, including your god Ron Paul, has the right to tell them they’re not welcome.
And don’t give me your lies saying you’re not a racist either. You’ve got a blog where you use racial slurs, hate-speech, and not only link to racist sites but you say rather happy things about them. You also say in your profile page that you are going to “reform” Judaism, and you’ve lumped yourself in with racists several times commenting on my blog.
You are a liar.
I’m not a teacher, but you’re telling me teachers and students waste the money more than administrators? if so, all the better!
Not everybody is welcome to your mother’s cake, there comes a point where you need to say NO, THAT’S ENOUGH. I never said I think they’re less than me, I never said they’re not welcome because I say so , I did say they’re not welcome if their job market doesn’t like them. (it’s the lower class who have lost their jobs to them that are directly effected, it’s the poor communities who have to live with them that dislike them)
It’s not about me not welcoming them, if I had it my way you can predict how things are, but it’s not my opinion, it’s a fact there’s many people who don’t welcome them for different reasons. Why is it so hard for you to see that just as there’s private property, collective property, a nation can act in the same exclusive and defensive sense (especially when it comes to services) ? I never said they’re not welcome to buy houses or land either, I’d love to see what they can afford!
I guess you’ve heard NOTHING about the term “reform Judaism” it’s a sect name.
Bullshit. If they were actually taking something from our society without contributing then your argument then would hold water. But they do provide benefit to our society, you’re just to bigoted to see it.
I’m arguing that we need to extend labor laws to protect these people and you’re saying “these people shouldn’t be here in the first place.” You’re forgetting that they’re people and you’re treating them like animals. By telling these people that they can’t come here we are actively participating in their oppression. But I suppose that since you support the clan and refer to them with racist terms such as “spics” and “wetbacks” you don’t mind seeing them oppressed.
Protecting jobs and protecting money is no reason to restrict people. Anti-Mexican Immigrant people are all either cowards–fearing what they might lose if Mexicans come in, or fearing what they might do to change our culture–self-righteously indignant jerks–claiming that the law somehow supercedes this person’s need to feed their family–or racists. I have never seen someone who actually had a compassionate position arguing against Mexican immigrants.
You don’t bother reading the context of where I use the terms, I’ve never called anybody a racial slur because of their race, always because of their behavior. And if I do, always in a sarcastic and self ridiculing matter.
What benefit have they provided us? Cheaper labor? Demanding us to learn their language? More traffic on the streets? More friends in school? I say the same to you, if they provided any benefit to us instead of taking away, your argument would hold water. So the only question is, what am I ignoring, what are you ignoring. We agree on how to judge, just not what we see.
I didn’t say they shouldn’t be here in the first place either. At least not to the point we can shoot them dead, BUT I do believe they come second to those who’ve been here longer.
OF COURSE law supercedes a person’s right to feed his family if the means to do so is inappropriate, you can’t justify stealing and robbing in the name of feeding your family, can you?
I do have very compassionate positions, but I do put Americans in front of immigrants. I do put citizens in front of foriegners, no saying who’s better, but we can have our priorities.
I guess you’ve taken back the mother’s cake argument, because if you dare tell me you’d never say no, let me know your mom’s address. I’ll MAKE SURE I post up “free cake all welcome @ Manchicken’s mother’s place daily” all over your neighborhood and vicinity, I’ll make sure I write it in Chinese, Portugese, French and Spanish so people of all races and cultures who shouldn’t be treated like animals can knock on your door. Who cares whether or not your mother bakes cake faster than they can eat it up? Who cares if people visit your mother for intentions other than cake? Who are we to tell them they can’t pay you a visit if they prefer pie and pizza over cake? Why should your family and neighborhood even have to see people they never knew, never benefit from come into your mother’s street because somebody told them they have free cake?
We owe NO obligation to treat them as our citizens. This doesn’t mean we must treat them as animals or oppress them, but no country is obligated to treat foreigners with the same rights as their own people, that’s called priority, law, and principle, not oppression. But use the word you want, just as you call me racist, won’t change facts.
I’ve realized, you’ve always managed to throw a new accusation or change the subject whenever you can’t respond. Care to count how many times in this thread alone?
All you’ve done is continue to call me racist and try to ignore everything I bring forth. Not that I don’t respect your opinion, but I ask you not dismiss everything I say as bias and consider for a minute what I back my arguments by.
Shall I say unless you’ve lived near illegal immigrants for over a decade you can’t say what you know about them more than I do? I won’t even if it’s true.
It is not okay to use racial slurs in any context other than possibly in a direct quote.
I have lived near undocumented people for quite some time. They’re people. Real people. And you and your candidate are trying to hurt them.
As far as the benefits, if you buy any goods in the United States, there is a fair chance that an undocumented worker participated in either the manufacture, transport, or sale of those goods. Your ignorance is astounding.
I never said I needed them to participate in making products I buy, no thanks. Just because they’ve done it doesn’t mean I need them and they’ve done it better than others. So don’t try to threaten me with the “see how you’ll live without them” crap. If you remember last year’s “May Day” strike that illegals activated to stay home and away from work, you’d see most people were QUITE HAPPY they had little to no traffic and businesses that mattered ran fine. Again, you’ve refused to answer many of my questions and change focus when you become speechless (in your own blog, sad)
You keep trying to accuse me of saying illegal immigrants are not people, but animals, or less than me, or I’m better. I’ve NEVER said that. I never wanted to harm them, but I never said I don’t have priorities just as your mother has priorities to who she wants to bake cake for. Of course they’re real people, why do you feel the need to point out all this obvious stuff to me? Are criminals real people? Is George Bush a real person? I’m not comparing them to them, but I’m pointing out your blanket obvious statement is tautology that communicates NOTHING.
So your saying your dealings with one Ron Paul supporter has led you to generalize a lot of them? Irony?
You said:
“Many of Ron Paul’s supporters are showing themselves for who they really are, a racist pack of dogs who threaten people who disagree with them.”
Then
“Please note that I am not saying that all Ron Paul supporters are racist. I’m just saying that there are a number of them who are.”
Usually people who generalize need to add something like this. Judging a candidate on one supporter is idiotic, I’m sure there are some racists who support Hilary or Edwards.
This is just a post about you feeling threated by someone, more or less an “ego boost”. Your practically in the same boat, with petty generalizations and lack of content.
Several racist folks support Ron Paul, and if you had actually read the post, you would have noticed that.
racism has been perpetuated by the socialist trend in the US. rights are individual and have nothing to do with any false grouping ie black, white, blue…
the few white supremacists left should be objects of pity more than concern. But, the most racist people are the blacks. there are whole radio shows dedicated to the ‘black community’. what if i had a show dedicated to the ‘white community’?
I would actually strongly disagree strongly there. I think the main reason why we don’t have a “white community” is because there’s no such thing as a “white race.” We’re Irish, Italian, British, Prussian, Russian, Turkish, Greek, French, Spanish, Portugese, Romanian, Polish, Danish, Swiss, Swedish, and a plethora of other nationalities. All are slightly different from one another, and the “socialist trend”–as you so eloquently put it–has done nothing but help all of those groups to reach a rather decent degree of equality… but it has taken more than 200 years for that to happen.
These other groups haven’t been at the equality gig but for a hundred years, so I think they’re at a serious disadvantage on the time-table.
As for days dedicated to the “white community,” we have several days honoring people with lighter skin. There are Irish parades, Polish parades, Presidents day (all presidents have been white so far mind you), and let’s not forget that many of the common idols that our culture uses to celebrate are also perported white (e.g. Santa Claus, St. Patrick, Jesus Christ–even though he would be middle-eastern Jewish in reality–and of course God himself, who lacking skin would have no tone of skin at all).
THANK YOU for making this website!! i seriously am soooo sick of the ron paul revolution!!! i want to hear about the other candidates, not just why ron paul is sooo terrific!!! cause i honestly think he doesn’t have what it takes to be president, he has some pretty weird ideas about the presidency!!