ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

The Non-issue with Ron Paul Supporters

Updated on January 4, 2012

Read Label Carefully Before Consuming

Perhaps Ron Paul's appeal is all fool's gold.
Perhaps Ron Paul's appeal is all fool's gold. | Source

Ron Paul, Racist?

While Ron Paul supporters celebrate this long awaited candidate that will call out Congress and all the skeletons in its closet, they embarrassingly have decided to ignore all the skeletons in HIS closet. And what’s the best way to turn a pressing issue into a frivolous one? Remove any and all importance on the topic.

Not surprisingly, this is what Ron Paul supporters have chosen to do. When asked about the racist newsletters that Ron Paul published—a newsletter with his name on it, endorsed by him, and which was printed under his knowledge and supervision for two decades—the response is always the same, He’s not a racist. Hmmm…well, okay, but only because you say so.

Ron Paul Does Not Support Civil Rights

In the clip above, Ron Paul claims that while he is for personal freedoms and property rights, he is sure that no one would be stupid enough to hang up racist signs on their store fronts, or discriminate. Okay, but I think the picture with him and neo-nazi and white supremacist supporter Don Black are proof that he knows there are people stupid enough to do just that—and he supports their right to do so!

KKK Photo Op!
KKK Photo Op! | Source

Against Women's Rights, Too?

While racism is bad, since the Ron Paul sheeple are choosing to undermine its importance in any candidate’s background by simply ignoring this glaring fact, I’ll move on. Let’s talk Roe v Wade, another non-issue with Ron Paul supporters.

So, let me get this right—his stance on Roe v Wade, and the fact that he wants to overturn it, isn’t a reflection on his view of women’s rights, but a reflection of how he is true to the Constitution—right? He’s not really against abortion—he just wants to let the states get to decide, am I right? Then let me ask you this, Ron Paul fans, why has he chosen this Supreme Court ruling, among hundreds of others, to make his point? It doesn’t sound like he is advocating less government or strict constitutionalist views. It sounds like he is belittling women’s rights. But, again, the typical response to this accusation from the Ron Paul bots is, You shouldn’t believe what the media says. Well, this isn’t what the media has said, this is what he has said, but okay.

Freedoms, or Abuses?

This candidate and his supporters seem to have an answer for everything—and they appeal to people who are against the government. I’ll admit I’ve even found myself agreeing with certain things he advocates. The problem is this—he is removing the responsibility for his actions and the actions of others and saying that personal freedom should rein supreme. I don’t think that has ever worked, for obvious reasons. I guess Ron Paul and his supporters are just so blinded by their power lust to see it.

I find it increasingly frustrating to have to explain this to die hard Ron Paul fanatics, and let’s be honest, they are all die hard fanatics. Fanatics—not responsible, well informed, rational voters—more of a fan club that is rooting for the underdog. But my point is simple. If you are choosing to back up a candidate because of something he says, does or promises to do, shouldn’t all the things he says, does or promise to do be taken into consideration? Is it really smart to back someone up because of what could be considered the “good” aspects of what he represents, but ignore all of the bad aspects?

Believe me, I understand the frustration of having only a handful of greedy, bloodsucking politicians to choose from year after year in every election. I know what it feels like to want change, and want it so bad that you are desperate enough to try anything. But, tossing out everything we have worked so hard for in the past, just so we have to “earn” it again under new rules doesn’t make any sense. And giving everyone the freedom to discriminate makes even less sense.

Bottom Line

The bottom line is this—personal freedoms are great, that’s what makes this country a great place to live in—sometimes. But with all freedoms there has to be boundaries. You have the right to free speech, but you can’t yell fire in a crowded movie theatre—unless there is an actual fire, that is. It's there for a reason—because there ARE people stupid enough to do just that, and when they do, they will be punished. Yes, you can have the right to own any kind of store you want but you do not have the right to discriminate--and yes, there are people stupid enough to do just that.

Ron Paul is advocating a utopia of sorts, and anyone whose read George Orwell’s 1984 knows the dangers of that scenario. It doesn’t work. It won’t work. Freedoms can be taken too far. While he advocates freedoms, he also has his opinions on certain things, like a women’s right to choose. If he is elected president my right to choose will be overshadowed by his will. That is not my idea of personal freedom.

Does Ron Paul Have Your Support?

Will Ron Paul be getting your vote this election?

See results

Please Vote Up!

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Pcunix profile image

      Tony Lawrence 5 years ago from SE MA

      Most of his supporters are young. Their prefrontal cortex is still developing and they are not seeing this rationally. I worry about their votes, because most will deeply regret them later in life.

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      I completely agree! I argue with these kids all the time on Facebook and it's pointless. They think they know something that we don't. It's hero worship, plain and simple.

    • profile image

      Taylor Griffin 5 years ago

      Ron Paul is the only candidate who believes in Civil Liberties. Ron Paul believes that our court system unfairly punishes blacks and other miniorities, all in the name of fighting the drug war. Ron Paul sees that the boogieman of "terrorism" has been used for a decade now to strip every individual of their right to privacy and to be secure in their property. The NDAA repeals the Posse Comitatus Act and the due process of law.

      And Ron Paul is a nonstarter because some neo-nazi came to his rally and took a picture with him? Get real guys.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 5 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      He's a total hypocrit. How come a piece of property has more rights than a woman?

      Boy, I had never heard that...he wants to repeal Roe v Wade.

      Women are not safe with the GOP....not safe at all. It's not freedom, it's control. Only men have freedom: got it.

    • profile image

      Youareoutsiders 5 years ago

      Its ridiculous. Simply put.

      The fear of change, a widely observed and known about phenomenon that plagues the elder generations as its done since the dawn of media.

      This article serves nothing more than to strengthen this theory.

      I bid you an easy transition that you inevitably face.

      Dr. Ron Paul is a blessing to your country as Nelson Mandela was to mine.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 5 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      What change? It's back to the Gilded Age. Only rich prosper, or have any rights. It's history repeating itself. No evolving, just going backwards. back....back....back.

      All the hard-fought battles erased with one fell swoop, on the false mantle of freedom.

      Free to be forced to give birth.

      Free to lose the collective power of unions.

      Free to starve because you weren't born to wealth.

      Free to accept second-class status, if you are not properly monied up.

      Money as God. Oh, when does the "sell all that you have , and give to the poor" come in?

      Ohhhh, THAT part of the mandate you ignore!

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Saying you are for civil liberties, but against women's rights all in the same breath is a huge contradiction. Ron Paul is only for civil liberties that coincide with his world view. That is not freedom. And the property rights that he is speaking of in the video is another huge contradiction with his so called "civil rights" advocacy. You have to be insane to think that giving owners the right to refuse service to someone is a civil right. That is outrageous.

    • profile image

      Youareoutsiders 5 years ago

      @lovemychris for a level 5 commenter (I am assuming it is a sign of prestige) you have made statements which are vague and untrue.

      My answer to both is...

      Above all else, if the American economy falls, civil liberties don't mean much when the Government itself is incapable of protecting them.

      Secondly Dr. Ron Paul believes in the people and the protection of their choices. I think by this bases he would not conduct himself as president in a way that which the majority would not want.

      Which, by deduction leads me to believe; you simply do not trust the man... some say fear and trust are cousins.

    • profile image

      lanikfs 5 years ago

      It is always more comfortable to perceive oneself as the wizened, informed academic and anyone who disagrees as obviously irrational and wet-behind-the-ears. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Paul-supporters are composed of a more eclectic group than that of any other GOP candidate (possibly even Obama). Additionally, while he certainly has some fans that are fanatical (every candidate does), he has plenty more supporters who have reached their positions through sober, sound reasoning. It may make it plain and simple for you to marginalize all of these individuals and their views, but it is not realistic.

      Has Paul or his supporters made these particular issues frivolous? On the contrary, I believe he and they have emphasized the importance of his positions as a reflection of the core of the libertarian philosophy. However, let us be clear on the thrust of this essay. It is about Paul’s character and personal beliefs. Let us not drift into any fear-mongering on what sweeping changes he would institute concerning these specific issues. The President could not unilaterally change the relevant laws or judicial precedents – not legally anyway. In fact, as you know, that is the main theme of Paul’s candidacy - restoring the executive branch to its constitutional position in the balance of powers.

      So, to address your points about Paul himself: in picking apart his position on these issues and exploring his character, one must be as thorough and forthright as possible. I contend that you have not done so. You accuse him of being selective in what Supreme Court ruling to stump on, yet being conveniently selective is precisely what you do yourself in each of your points.

      Regarding your racist charges, he has stated exactly why he would not have supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and impugning racism is antithetical to his rationale. As for the newsletters, he did not author them and has repeatedly disavowed them. What would it take for the dogs to let this bone go? Is he supposed to dig up financial records from over 20 years ago, calculate his pro-rata income from these few racist sentences and then donate that $0.23 to the NAACP? Somehow, I still do not think it would be put to rest. You do make a valid point that there are people stupid enough to be openly racist and the fact is they are doing that today anyway. However, a random photo-opp with such a person does not overturn a lifetime of demonstrable respect and integrity and it is malicious to imply he holds the same beliefs as said person. Incidentally, the president of the NAACP has personally defended him against these charges. If you do not agree with his vision for legislation and policy, attack his reasoning rather than falsely malign his character.

      As to abortion, you asked “He’s not really against abortion—he just wants to let the states get to decide, am I right?” No, you are not right! He is openly opposed to abortion and has never tried to hide this fact. That is why he talks about Roe v. Wade as opposed to other judicial precedents. What if the verdict had gone the other way? Where would your “right” be then? And therein lies the crux of his argument against legislating from the bench. Whichever way the gavel falls, one group or another become subject to law they viscerally disagree with and have no recourse against. However, by Congress limiting jurisdiction to this topic and overturning Roe v. Wade, yes – the matter would be returned to the states to decide. But as a Congressman, Paul would not stop there. He has always openly supported a Constitutional amendment to define life at conception. So, as far as his character and integrity are concerned on this issue, he is consistent. You may oppose him on such an amendment, but plenty of others would also. Therefore, it might pass but probably not. It hasn’t happened yet. If it did pass, it would reflect the overwhelming majority opinion of the people – rather than that of a panel of judges who might be dead and gone. Understandably, you would not be happy under those circumstances. However, in the status quo, it is the pro-choice faction imposing its will on the masses – a circumstance they cannot escape no matter where they go. Without Roe v. Wade and without a “life-at-conception” amendment, at least individuals would have the liberty to choose a state that legislates according to their own conscience. So, the actual realization of Paul’s vision would be a greater flexibility for the exercise of liberty for both sides of this diametric opposition rather than one imposing its will on the other.

      I would like to emphasize again that a distinction has to be made between examining Paul’s character and his proposed Congressional actions. You cannot make smear attempts at the former and half-informed analyses of the latter and expect discerning readers to believe you on either count. It is a fact that Paul’s record of integrity and consistency is acknowledged and well-recognized. Personally, while I believe no individual is perfect, I see Paul’s track record as far better than that of any other Presidential candidate for 2012.

      Some final thoughts:

      You said, "The problem is this—he is [sic] saying that personal freedom should rein supreme." I adjure you to find such a quote. Paul, adhering to the libertarian philosophy, is a proponent of personal freedom *and* the rule of law. He does not espouse the exercise of one’s liberty to the detriment of another.

      Regarding your allusion to 1984, I am flabbergasted! Either your recollection of the story is so flawed or you are being downright duplicitous in invoking the dread of the story, hoping that your readers will not call you out. For the record, “IngSoc” was not personal freedoms run amok but rather *government-enforced* social integration and thought control.

    • amason1100 profile image

      amason1100 5 years ago

      Lanikfs I couldn't have said it better myself. Furthermore, Ron Paul is against imperialism and the drug war which minorities and the poor suffer the consequences of way more than the rich and whites.On these to facts alone your arguement falls flat on its face. Oh and he is for the states deciding whether or not abortion is legal which is the constitutional position. So where this he is against "women's rights" doesn't make any sense either. Also, you have rights because you are an individual not because you belong to a certain group whether that be gender,religion,race, etc.

    • Deni Edwards profile image

      Deni Edwards 5 years ago from california

      I see you have been hit by a supporter (cult member) in the comments section...Oh, how loyal they are--it is somewhat frightening. I've been hit several times myself.

      Also, I tried to vote for "Hell NO", but I could not find this option.

      Ron Paul is not really anti-abortion...He is being just a tad shady about this...he's really anti-abortion in the 8th and 9th month only, but is keeping it on the down-low this time around since he's running on a republican ticket. I never thought Paul to waiver, but he has compromised himself in order to obtain votes.

      Oh, yeah, he's a nut-ball, too.

      Voted up!

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Yes, Deni, the fan club is always there to defend him. That's okay. I know nothing anyone will show them will change their minds. I also know he doesn't stand a chance in the elections.

    • LHwritings profile image

      Lyndon Henry 5 years ago from Central Texas

      Just a quick comment to say that your observations about Ron Paul are like another breath of fresh air in this E-zine. Paul (who actually comes from my stomping grounds here in Central Texas) was long considered the far, far looney wing of the GOP, until the GOP, pushed by the Tea Party, moved so far to the right that it's about to fall back into the 13th century, and in contrast some of Paul's positions (mainly on America's military adventurism) start to seem sane by contrast. Nevertheless, Paul in his own way is as sinister and dangerous as the rest of the Rogue's Gallery now contending for the U.S. presidency. Perhaps more on this later. Thanks again for a perceptive article. - LH

    • Pcunix profile image

      Tony Lawrence 5 years ago from SE MA

      Yeah, isn't it funny how our definition of loony has had to shift so much? Not funny ha-ha, though.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Yes Dear 5 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Yes, and the definition of "freedom". Just what does it mean anyway??

      If the State is in my uterus....how free am I?

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      I completely agree lovemychris. I don't see how any woman could support a candidate who, for one thinks he has a right to decide what's best for women, and two, is a man! He will NEVER have to get pregnant and deal with it so yeah, it's real easy to say, "Overturn Roe v Wade." No man should be that arrogant to think they can make that kind of decision for women. And when it comes down to it, it's MY body, so only I get to decide. By the way, a zygote does not a life make.

    • profile image

      guest 5 years ago

      I have personally called the Ron Paul campeign office, and just as I suspected......

      He is the ONLY candidate that has not accepted lobbiest money (back door corperate bribes) for his office.

      Why should we vote for any one in government who dis honestly accepts bribes?

      Don't you see what they are doing to our constitutoin and the right that were put into place in the begining to protect the people from an over powering and controll freak government? If we don't elect Ron Paul, you can kiss your, and your childrens liberties away.

      Most people are like cattle, and trust theres nothing going on, and to look at conspiracies as a joke, but slowly, acts and passed bills will condem all Americans to constant survailance through your vehicles, cell phones, and even in your home.

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Well, I have to disagree with. I will not be scared into voting for someone who is a) a Young Earth Creationist, b)is against separation of church and state, c)is anti women's rights, d)profited for two decades from racist literature that, whether or not he wrote, he certainly endorsed and sponsored, and e)naively thinks that everyone will just do the right thing without any rules in place to make sure that they do. Of course I don't want to be constantly supervised like a child, but I don't think the Civil Rights Act was in any way, shape or form a bad thing, and he certainly does. I cannot agree with that.

    • profile image

      mfg.eng 5 years ago

      He has my vote

    • profile image

      Tyler 5 years ago

      Apparently you've never ready Orwell's 1984 because you would realize it's a DYSTOPIAN novel, not a UTOPIAN novel. Orwell is writing precisely about too much government.

    • profile image

      Dano 5 years ago

      Hey emmasleeps, how long has this been online? 18 shares to Facebook? Twice as many yes votes as no votes? As far as racist ties...Wright & Bell were pretty non racist, right? Feel free to remove any and all importance on that topic.

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Sounds like a lot of Ronpaulbots are pissed because their old man hasn't got a chance in hell to win...

    • Gemini Fox profile image

      Gemini Fox 5 years ago

      That's not even mentioning that he wants to remove regulations on corporations . . . ummm, helloooo . . . that's how we got into this economic mess! He gets into office and does what he wants and these people won't have any freedoms to exercise! Just went to an article about this and the comments in the forum (Paul supporters) were so ignorant it was appalling!

      I just hope that you're right and by some strange twist of weirdness that he doesn't win. Chances are no, thankfully!

      Btw, he has a horrible record on animal rights.

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      I know, and I'm really not too worried about him or Romney, especially after the news of his treatment of dogs. As for Paul, his worshipers are living in their own little fantasy world.

    • profile image

      martin woyzeck/ 2 years ago

      To all the paulbots on this thread, we're laughing at you. You're full of crap.

      Two important points to dispel your parroted rant.

      For one, you can list different issues that might sound good, and even are sometimes.

      The point is Ron Paul, like all libertarians lie through their teeth.

      So ,his rant about civil libertires is b.s., he is the polar opposite.

      His rant of getting out of war is because he's a selfish isolationist, not because he truly against war.

      The racism issue arguing with you paulbots has become embarrassing to listen to your blind devotion.

      Forget about his racist newsletter, forget about (as a paulbot mentioned on this thread) a picture taken with white aryan Don Black.

      The point is he's a card carrying, full fledged nazi, white supremacist.

      That is fact. It has been proven.

      He is part of ,and has worked with dozens of white aryan groups.

      Don Black works for him. He pays Black to do all the aryan websites.

      How did Black learn computers? Ron Paul orchestrated a coup to turn Dominican Republic into a libertarians utopia. He paid goober white aryans, Black was one of them. They were all arrested, except Paul.

      Ron Paul was the campaign manager for David Duke's (Grand Dragon of the KKK) run for governor of Louisiana. Can't tell me he was unaware of Duke's membership to the KKK.

      All ,and the only, speaking engagement Paul does, and has for the last 30 yrs, has been at conventions, meetings, etc for anti-semitic, anti-Black, gay,etc. groups.

      And if that's not proof enough, look it up, he has membership in the top aryan org's i.e. Stormfront, christian nation, KKK, christian militia, A3P,etc.

      So ,the problem, as this article addresses, is your denial with all proof of Paul being beyond a racist, but a nazi white supremacist

    Click to Rate This Article