---

Additional Titles

 

By Coach Mitchell Goldstein
January 11, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

Political correctness at its worst

The liberal/fascist press are all agog - 22 years ago, some questionable phrases appeared in four of Ron Paul’s newsletters. I have read the “hate” speech and the racist, anti-Semitic rants of Ron Paul. They amount to nothing! At root, this is a political witch hunt, a liberal lynching, in the best style of Goebbels, Hitler’s master marketing manipulator. See for yourself: [Link] and [Link]

This really comes down to the question of what constitutes racism. Is a statement racist if it is primarily factual but also has a negative overtone? My experience shows that anything liberals/progressives/fascists don’t like will automatically be labeled as racist, fascist, anti-environmental, anti-union, anti-democratic or fattening.

We all lose when perception is seen as reality, when style supersedes substance, when “winning is the only thing.” Yet, sadly, this is Americas political reality is 2011, and 2012 will be even worse.

The examples used in Ron Paul’s newsletters were not racist. It is not racist to state facts or comment on societal impressions related to a particular race or ethnicity.

Truth as Hate Speech

Q. Is it Truth or Hate Speech: African American woman are prone to having illegitimate children.

A. 75% of babies born to African-American woman are illegitimate.

Q. In today’s America, how do you state this fact without being accused of being racist?

Q. As 33% of Caucasian births are illegitimate, is it racist to think or to ask: Have African-American attitudes towards the acceptance of illegitimate babies been adopted into the greater American culture?

Q. Is it racist to ask if the African-American imprint on American culture is primarily: illegitimate babies, gangster rap and young men avoiding their responsibilities to become educated, care for their illegitimate children, and avoid drugs and criminal activity?

Q. If 50% of African-American males are able to avoid arrest, is it racist to ask why the other 50% cannot also act properly?

Q. Is it Truth or Hate Speech: Jews are the biggest thieves on Wall Street.

A. Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky. These are men who defrauded the most or have been fined the most – all were born of Jewish parentage.

Being an American Jew, I will admit that the tone of the statement can be considered troublesome, but so is the fact that many thousands were harmed terribly by Madoff, Milken and Boesky. These criminals deserve all the punishment they receive and more. All their jail time multiplied by 100 will not come close to the angst, disappointment and trauma that these men caused to others. Their ill effect will be felt for generations.

Q. Is it less Anti-Semitic to say, “In Europe, one of the only professions Jews were allowed to pursue was moneylending; therefore, Jews became skilled in finance. A human trait is to manipulate when able and history has shown that a few persons of Jewish descent have been prosecuted successfully for financial crimes.”

The real issue is not the statement; rather, it is the context of the statement and the reaction to the statement.

If one were to say, “Those Jews, they’re the biggest thieves on Wall Street; you can’t trust any of them.” Then that is Anti-Semitic.

Compare the statement above with a recent interview given by “anti-Semitic” Ron Paul [Link]

“Any kind of racism or anti-Semitism is incompatible with my philosophy,” Paul said in an interview with Haaretz, conducted by email. “Ludwig von Mises, the great economist whose writing helped inspire my political career, was a Jew who was forced to leave his native Austria to escape the Nazis. Mises wrote about the folly of seeing people as part of groups rather than as individuals,”

“I supported Israel’s right to attack the Iraqi nuclear reactor in the 1980s, and I opposed President Obama’s attempt to dictate Israel’s borders this year.”

“I do not believe we should be Israel’s master but, rather, her friend. We should not be dictating her policies and announcing her negotiating positions before talks with her neighbors have even begun.”

“I believe I’m the only candidate who would allow Israel to take immediate action to defend herself without having to get our approval. Israel should be free to take whatever steps she deems necessary to protect her national security and sovereignty.”

Advertisement

“I am personally against all foreign aid. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her avowed enemies. How does that help Israel? And in return, we act like her master and demand veto power over her foreign policy.”

Q. Is it Truth or Hate Speech: Conservatives are Fascists!

A. This is both false and speech that is full of hate. However, because it is stated so often in the left wing press without any push back, it is accepted by the left as being gospel.

Q. Is it Truth or Hate Speech: Liberals are Fascists!

A. This is nominally true and therefore not hate speech. The problem is that liberals do not know that they are fascists because they do not know history nor the proper definition of words. The actual definition of Fascism: A type of Socialism; an economic system that controls the means of production; Webster’s Dictionary1962 edition - before it became politically correct. The politically correct current left wing propaganda definition of Fascism is: “any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc”
These definitions are far apart from each other. This is a great example of how the Left adulterates language to its own purpose.

To control the workplace via regulation is nominal fascism. You own the factory, but the government controls by telling you how much to pay the workers, the safety equipment required, rules the product must conform to, etc. This is all done under the banner of safety, i.e. “It is for your own good.” The real question is: who is in control of your property, you or the government?
Tort law will repair any negligence in safety.

BTW, it is factually impossible for economic conservatives to be fascists.

We have grown up hearing and believing one of the biggest left wing lies; that the political paradigm is left wing = liberal and right wing = fascist. This is totally incorrect.

Total Government:
Socialist/Communist/Fascist
Liberal/Progressives

Constitutional Republic:
America = just enough government
Conservatives

No Government:
Anarchy

On the left put 100% government, or some form of collectivism like socialism or dictatorship or plutocracy. The opposite of 100% government is 0% government, or anarchy. In the middle is our constitutional republic, rule by moral/freedom oriented law.

Anarchy can never be a form of government because out of the chaos, some men will organize their tribes and rule as mini dictators, e.g. kings, chiefs. Current events verify and history is replete with those seeking power. Individual freedom simply does not exist in the manner that allows men to thrive. Americans are on the verge of allowing the virtual annihilation of our G-d given rights to life, liberty and property, and the left cheers this on.

Socialism has many variants, only two of which are Communists and Fascists. Fabian Socialism is the type that exists in England and in America. Fabian Socialism envisions a slow adjustment of the people and the economy to the constrictions of freedom and the institutionalization of government, with “them” as the rule makers and overseers. Leninists/Stalinists/Hitlerites/Maoists-Castroites/Sandanista’s/Sadam/Chavez etc. all sought a quick reversion to dictatorial Socialism, typically through revolution.

Socialism is simply the best marketing vehicle available for those with selfish intentions who want to gain and hold sway over the masses. The strategy is to gain control over people by calling for people to be constrained because of safety concerns, e.g. mining, environment, finance, consumer protection, etc. It sounds so nice. How could anyone possibly be against safety? The answer: the devil is in the details.

How does this relate to Ron Paul?

First, Ron Paul has disavowed these few newsletters, only four letters in several thousand having any questionable passages. The political talking heads have cherry picked a few isolated incidents and paint a false narrative while ignoring 30 years of the candidate’s actions. These jaded “journalists” have to look back over 22 years in order to find dirt on Ron Paul because he has zero skeletons in his closet.

One does not become known as a racist overnight. If one is a racist, then there is a long documented history, e.g. David Duke. To say, “Ron Paul is a racist,” rates the Orwellian Double-Speak Award for Speech of the Lowest Order.

It is ironic that the only person in the race who wants to stop the US government from killing more “brown people” is being labeled a racist! This, despite the many instances of free health care Ron Paul has given to “brown people.” The only member of the Texas congressional delegation to vote for the Martin Luther King national holiday was Ron Paul. Senator McCain did not vote for the holiday and was not labeled a racist. Ron Paul wants to release all non-violent drug offenders; African-American’s make up the largest segment of offenders.

See video evidence of Ron Paul’s purported racism:

The double-standard

The left wing/liberal/progressive/fascist press has done all it can to collapse support for Ron Paul. They are unabashed about their partiality, making unfair and prejudicial comments like, “Paul can’t win,” “Paul is crazy,” “Paul’s support is thin,” “His 21% in Iowa is as high as he gets,” “He certainly sounds like a racist.” etc.

However, upon the least blip of support or on any good news, the left wing/liberal/progressive/fascist press goes agog over Obama. We get more accurate news reading Pravda.

Advertisement

Reverend Wright’s anti-American, anti-White, anti-Semitic rhetoric seems to not be taken seriously. Obama’s allegiance to Wright and the brainwashing Obama received over the many years he attended Wright’s church seem to not be an important issue. Compare Wright’s rhetoric to Ron Paul’s. Wright’s sermons are vitriolic, to the point of actual incitement to violence or at least inciting attitudes in a dangerous direction; Paul’s mild comments in a letter are aimed at fundraising.

Ronald Reagan’s candidacy back in 1980 was endorsed by several KKK groups. Does that mean Reagan was a racist? Some would claim that those endorsements must mean that Ronald Reagan believed in the same things as the KKK. Lunacy.

Ron Paul’s message has been consistent for decades. He’s never been a flip-flopper, unlike Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Gingrich, Romney, and the rest of the GOP field

In the newsletter, Ron Paul echoed Jesse Jackson’s statement that he felt fear hearing men walking behind him, fearing they were black, and when he looked back over his shoulder, he felt relief seeing that it was white men walking behind him. This is understandable because in 2004 African Americans constituted roughly 13.4% of the general population, yet 49% of all murder victims in 2005 were African American. According to “The Color of Crime,” “blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.”

Showing a correlation to race within crime rate statistics is not racism, and making unflattering statements about African-Americans is not racism, in and of itself, except to semi-literates. Racism is pernicious and malicious. And, as many of US know, both of these traits are specialties of the Left.

Are we all racists for having genuine human feelings of fear based upon the knowledge that, statistically, African-American males have a higher likelihood of committing a crime? This is the kind of backwards logic that permeates the Left.

Why all the hate speech aimed at Ron Paul?

Left wing/liberal/progressive/fascists feel genuine terror that Ron Paul, if elected, would actually follow through with his campaign promises and reduce government overreach.

The left wing fears that someone who stands for something with a clear message has a chance to break down the status quo in American politics. They fear less government, lower taxes and a country where people are not forced to implement their left wing agenda.

Ron Paul is not some messianic fix-all; but he is a step in the right direction. Ron Paul has voted with an originalist constitutional mindset consistently for the last 30 years. That is not hearsay but 100% fact. He is the only congressman who regularly receives a 100% rating on the Freedom Index. Ron Paul is the boogeyman that haunts big federal government. His sin is that he believes in US as individuals; his congressional colleagues all believe in some level of big federal government.

Paul has an honest, constitutional, pro-American mentality. This is exactly what we need right now. Only an originalist constitutional approach will save our country. However, if Ron Paul is elected, prepare for big fights, as neither Congress nor the bureaucracy is going to allow the implementation of the elimination of subsidies, sweetheart contacts, insider deals, special protections and massive war preparations; the greed is too deeply embedded. They will defend at all costs over 100 years of planning and scheming to insinuate their subservient mindset.

The biggest problems in America today ALL stem from our bloated, overbearing form of Statism. That’s the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty. America needs the constitutional restitution that Ron Paul represents and this is exactly what the big corporations that own the major media outlets do NOT want.

Rep. Paul’s message has achieved enough currency that it can no longer be ignored, despite the alarming lack of media coverage. I now expect the Establishment to switch to attack mode.

However, Ron Paul doesn’t have much in his background to attack. His writings and rhetoric have remained consistent. We know that there are no major scandals to uncover or they would have already announced them. He remains faithful to one wife. Ron Paul never dodged the draft and he is the only veteran in the race.

There is only one place to attack and it is tenuous at best. Some of his distant staff wrote some unpopular lines in a few newsletters 22 years ago. The lines fail to match anything in Dr. Paul’s long voting record or anything he’s actually said. Paul clearly states what he believes personally and that his personal views should not matter. Liberty for all means exactly that. Ron Paul’s positions on individual liberty are antithetical to the collectivist notion of racism.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Interestingly, the question of whether Ron Paul is racist has never come up in a political career spanning 30+ years. Were Paul a racist, I would expect many people to come forward with accounts of anti-Semitism and hatred of minorities. However, all we ever hear about are the accounts of minorities getting free healthcare. The lack of proper journalism in the media today is appalling.

These attacks on the only candidate who upholds the Constitution are happening because the military industrial complex and big business do NOT want an end to the status quo of bug business in bed with big totalitarian government.

Don’t be fooled by the mainstream media’s disinformation campaign to marginalize Ron Paul’s anti-war, pro-constitutionalist message.

See what real people are saying about Ron Paul

1- See what grass-roots African-Americans think about the “vicious racist” Ron Paul [Link] [Link]
2- See what active duty service men and women think about the “isolationist appeaser” Ron Paul [Link]
3- See what veterans think about the “uncaring and uncompassionate” Ron Paul [Link]
4- See what women think about the “hateful misogynist” Ron Paul [Link]