Re: returning money to nazis or the KKK…

Why would anybody ‘return’ money to those racist organizations ? [Paul won’t]

Is it better for Ron Paul to have some money to advocate against the War on Drugs, the Patriot Act, perpetual overseas military commitments, and Obama’s new powers to use the military to arrest and hold American Citizens, indefinitely – without trial…

– or –

… is it better for the KKK and American Nazi Party to have some more money in their pockets to do whatever mischief they might plan to do with it ?

1. The newsletter said, “Black people make poor voting decisions.” In general, colored people vote Democrat and in the eyes of any conservative, that is a bad voting decision. Does anyone call the DNC racist for claiming that they have the Black Vote as one of their primary demographics?

2. The newsletter said, “Black people commit a disproportionate percentage of violent crimes.” This is a statistical fact. Why is everyone so afraid to address this issue and it’s causes/effects. This is the most important factor affecting racism. To solve a problem, you must first acknowledge it. The cause is obvious, a combination of poverty and our so called educational system perpetually teaching young colored people that they cannot succeed because America is racist.

Ron Paul says the government is racist, that the government classifies us into groups and voting blocks which highlights our differences rather than celebrating our commonalities. A cohesive society is a society which has a common culture. As a nation, we cannot survive if we do not bond together as Americans, not hyphenated Americans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/therootdc/post/ron-paul-beyond-the-racist-newsletters/2011/12/28/gIQAFtdVOP_blog.html

Excerpt:

“Paul has a common sense approach to deficit reduction and wants to bring home the troops and end all foreign wars. The latter goal appeals to Americans in both main parities who are put off by the costly and casualty-ridden wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Paul could also win supporters drawn to his call to end government intrusion, at public expense, into people’s private lives.

Paul’s more practical political positions could help voters move beyond the newsletters. His support for ending the militarized war on drugs—which has contributed to the mass incarceration of the poor and people of color in the last two decades—is quite progressive and far from racist.”

I was 9 years old in 1957, but I remember growing up in rural Virginia. I was not following the news much at that age. I was living in fear of an unchanging state government and local attitudes, which would probably have changed even slower under a federal government that Paul envisions as constitutional. Senator Byrd (ex-KKK) from neighboring West Virginia never ran for president. Had he done so, he would have had a lot of explaining to do thanks to the federal government as it has evolved from through its history. I support the evolution. Dr. Paul is a true patriot, but his support of a different vision of the constitution needs to be debated anew, in the light of the positive and negative changes that have come with its evolution. I have a problem with social darwinism, but I have friends white and black who embrace it.

States’ right versus a strong federal naional government is as legitimate an issue to debate in 2012 as it was in 1787. As a history buff and as a political junkie, I pay attention to symbolism and to substance. I am a resident of Virginia. I have lived in New York, Connecticut, Michigan, Arizona, and New Jersey. I have also traveled and lived abroad. The evolution of the U.S. into a global power sustains and restrains our freedom to engage in this exchange. As nations of men and women, of peoples, leaders everywhere have made defining decisions. These decisions were not made in a vacuum. They have had far reaching effects, but we are here in this present global moment as a result of them, all of them. Perhaps, we are here in spite of them. Call them mistakes, call them self-serving, call them an expression of exceptionalism or whatever. I see America and the world’s best days in this present moment. I read about the incarceration rate of African Americans and Latinos. I also read about solutions. Those solutions are less likely to come about without national leadership.

The press and the media have been criticized in the past for not exposing racism; I will not now criticize them for raising legitimate questions about statements written under Dr. Paul’s name in the 1990s. It understandable that when you have an affinity to a candidate that you might not want the press pursue a particularly troublesome line of question. But it is indefensible to criticize the press for doing just that in this case. After going after Cain for allegations of sexual harassment and adultery, what we think of a national press that did not expose potential racism in another candidate today for the presidency in the same election cycle.

Are you suggesting that because past presidents have been racist and the national media may not have delved into it to your satisfaction that Paul should get a pass on his alleged past? Should he not have to address the issue forthrightly?

As a libertarian, Paul has highlighted problems that we agree are racist, wrong, and unfair. The problems still persist. So addressing concerns verbally does not end them. The majority in this country has not yet been persuaded that many of its bad laws are bad. We have to engage in this process of discourse, elections, and legislation to bring about changes. Patience is needed. Because someone fearfully screams that time is running out does not mean it is. My senator, Jim Webb (who is not seeking reelection) has an omnibus crime bill that addresses a slew differential sentencing issue and other inequities that Dr. Paul supports. Despite the bill’s bipartisan support and sponsorship, the GOP leadership blocked its consideration, demanding 60 votes so far. Senator Webb hopes to attach it as an amendment on a must pass bill when the time comes. It had over 56 supporters, endorsement by many states attorney generals.

As Dr. Paul knows, under our consitution, the president can only do so much! There are political and constitutional constraints on what even the legislature can accomplish. That is the way our system is until they (and we) change it. Yet in the presidential election the people have an opportunity to “nudge” the process forward. As people, we sometimes, it seems, get it right; other times not.

I invest my energy into being an optimist. I can live with having the federal government emasculated. I recognize though that that will not be the cure all. At this moment in our national history, we need to listen to each other, learn from each other, feel and share each other’s legitimate concerns. Out of many, we need to become one. Practically, the national government needs to be restrained severely in its spending. Over time the national debt need needs to be reduced. This will require those who benefitted the most during the unpaid wars being required to pay more in taxes. This means the national government must adopt policies that would preserve and grow the middle class and assure their security at the expense of the oil industries, big banks, billionaire chief executives, and wall street traders whose interests and profits have been saved and sustained by government at the cost of the blood, bravery, and broken bodies of our troops. I like what Paul says, but what would actually change under his administration. Some think that he is a threat to the status quo. He is in an odd way, but what is the status quo? It is gridlock now. What will break that status quo? More gridlock? I think our politics is at a tipping point with this election. We cannot afford anymore unintended consequences.