Thursday, January 10, 2008

Ron Paul Officially Bastardizes Martin Luther King Day


In today's interview with Wolf Blitzer, Ron Paul claims that he's the "anti-racist," and denies the allegations against him involving the recent newsletter. As proof of this fact, he lists the upcoming freeatlast2008, where he plans to hold his next "money bomb" on Martin Luther King Day. This is an event that's so tasteless that even a large group of Paultards from the ronpaulforums thought that it was a bad idea, although mostly because they didn't want to sully Dr. Paul's reputation by associating him with a filthy communist. I haven't written much about this in the past, because a) it didn't seem to be getting much publicity, and b) the Paultards could deny it by insisting that it wasn't part of the official campaign. Guess what? Not anymore. Check 1:50 into the video.

Hey Ron Paul, here's a newsflash:
If you want to convince people that you aren't a racist, then using your own name to raise money for minority causes might help. On the other hand, exploiting Martin Luther King Day for your personal benefit, and without the permission of his family, makes it even worse. It's like the people who try to show off their patriotism by selling cheap plastic flags that were made in China at $5 a pop. Does Ron Paul think that minorities are stupid, and won't even notice? He must There is no other explanation for this.

The Paultards have tried to justify the use of MLK using their own twisted logic of how they both upheld freedom. Right. I'm sure that if MLK was alive today, he would start holding fundraisers in honor of religious terrorism, and advocating gun rights as his main platform. I'm sure that if MLK was alive today, he would be comparing Edward and Elaine Brown to Gandhi and to himself, just like Ron Paul did. I'm sure that MLK would have had his thugs chasing reporters down like rabid zombies while yelling obscenities and throwing snowballs. I'm sure that Martin Luther King would have voted against the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Rosa Parks Medal of Honor, and Affirmative Action (Yes, contrary to what republicans have done to bastardize the King, here are his real stances on affirmative action.).

Ron Paul wants to claim that he is the anti-racist candidate, so I'm going to say four words that are long overdue, and which I haven't said until now: Fuck you, Ron Paul. You can't even handle the racism in your own staff in your own name, how the fuck can you proclaim to be the anti-racist candidate for the entire country? In order to bolster his point, Ron Paul uses some weak logic to say that he is the only candidate on either side willing to protect minorities from drug laws. There are some problems with this:

  • The argument seems to be based around the idea that if you oppose the war on drugs, then you can't be racist. I guess this means that Stormfront must not be racist either.
  • Yes, the war on drugs unfairly hurts minorities. A lot of things do, because minorities tend to be the least capable of defending themselves from abuse. Ron Paul's opposition to the war on drugs is entirely coincidental. Even if war on drugs was racially equitable, he would still oppose it.
  • Ron Paul isn't going to end the war on drugs, nor will he protect people from anti-drug laws. He's simply going to make it a state issue, like he wants to do for abortion and gay rights. In other words, Ron Paul isn't going to end the war on drugs. He's going to end the war on some drugs, in some states.
  • The main reason why the war on drugs is racist is because the inequalities involving cocaine enforcement. Guess what? Cocaine would still be illegal at the state level.
  • At best, most states would only decriminalize medicinal marijuana, which requires a prescription. Of course, most of the leading democrats have promised to decriminalize medicinal marijuana at the federal level as well. So what's your point?
Dear Paultards, I know that I have made the zombie comparison before, so let me make this clear: Leave the dead alone. Ron Paul is not Guy Fawkes, he is not Thomas Jefferson, he is not Mahatma Gandhi, and he sure as heck is not Martin Luther King. Stop exploiting the memories of dead people who can't speak for themselves. Why isn't it enough for Ron Paul to just be Ron Paul? Why can't you hoist Ron Paul up on his own accomplishments, rather than the accomplishments of others? Oh, that's right, because Ron Paul sucks, and his own list of accomplishments are non-existent. Good job.

I suggest that everyone write to the Martin Luther King Estate and ask them how they feel about Ron Paul using Dr. King's name for personal gain. Let's see how they respond. Surely, Ron Paul would have taken this simple step of seeing how they felt about his upcoming fund raiser before boasting about it on the air? I mean, it's not like he's completely incompetent and uncaring to the opinions of minorities, right?

Update: To everyone crying "That's a grassroots efforts, Ron Paul can't be held responsible!" don't bother. Ron Paul is the one bringing up the money bomb, and he's bringing it up in a way to suggest that it should absolve him of racism. He refers to the money bomb in the first person plural, rather than the third person plural. So Ron Paul still wants to take credit for this event, while denying responsibility for it. Gee, where have we seen that before?

18 comments:

Bellesouth said...

Seriously, this brings such joy into my life.

Mostly because I need affirmation that I'm not crazy by thinking Ron Paul is a douche.

FuckRonPaul said...

Bellesouth

No, you're not crazy, and yes, Ron Paul is a douche.

Ron Paul's paranoia of government is catching on simply because everyone is justifiably angry at the Bush administration.

But he doesn't want to reform government - he wants to dismantle it.

His vague message sounds great at first - it did to me.

But then I read the fine print.

Johnny C. said...

One thing you should understand about the "money bombs" is that Ron Paul has nothing to do with them. They are independent efforts from his supporters. That's one thing that is amazing ( or sad, or however you want to look at it)- he has 1000s of supporters who do all this stuff from the grassroots. And there is no direction from paul or his staff. His supporters complain. about not being able to get through to the staff about anything.

I am not a supporter, though at one point I was considering compromising and supporting the candidate who is actually correct on the highest % of issues when compared to the others. this racial business and some other realizations really did it for me.

Either way Ron Paul is pandering, and I dont know which is worse.

I am a libertarian ( either Paul is not a libertarian or he was at least pandering to non-libertarians with the newsletters). We don't believe in the racist bull. however there are some people who claim to be libertarians who do. And apparently they all work or worked for Ron Paul.

So either Ron Paul is an extreme racist social conservative who has made a career pandering to libertarians. Or he is a libertarian who has made a career pandering to racists collectivists.

I dont think we libertarians want to be associated with either.

I think what we are worried about is people will now think Libertarian= ROn Paul and Ron Paul= racist, so libertarian=racist.

Not the case at all since actual libertarians don't agree with those newsletters and think all those Christian Reconstructionists and Neo-confederate people are whackjobs.

Johnny C. said...

The main point I was trying to make was that I dont think MLK's estate has to give permission to Ron Paul for something he isn't doing.

That and the fact that sane libertarians are also sickened by the racist newsletters.

You make some decent points on the drug laws and federalism. I always make a point to tell people I am NOT a conservative, or a constitionalist or a federalist.

The gun rights issue I don't get. There is pretty good evidence and reason that gun control is a racist policy. If you oppose gun rights you seem to be siding white racists who want to disarm minorities and in many places give all the power to racist white copes. Think Jim Crow South. People who want minorities to have an equal right to self defense and be free from oppression are hardly racist. People can be nonviolent and believe in defense.

Ron Lawl said...

Check out the video. Ron Paul consistently refers to the money bomb in the first person plural. Why saw "our" and not "their"? Why say "we" and not "they"? He's giddy to report it as though it completely excuses himself from the accusations of racism. Remember, RON PAUL was the one who brought it up! He never once attempt to distance himself from it. Quite the contrary.

Therefore, I see no problem with associating this event with Ron Paul. You can't just takes all the credit for the event, but none of the responsibility. Isn't that the sort of behavior that got Ron Paul into this mess in the first place? I guess that Ron Paul never learns.

FuckRonPaul said...

Johnny C,

"I am a libertarian ( either Paul is not a libertarian or he was at least pandering to non-libertarians with the newsletters). We don't believe in the racist bull. however there are some people who claim to be libertarians who do."

Sorry pal, but that's just wishful thinking.

Just because you're a libertarian who isn't racist, doesn't mean that there aren't any libertarians who are.

In fact, it seems that there are plenty of people in Texas who don't want the government interfering with their right to discriminate by race.

"So either Ron Paul is an extreme racist social conservative who has made a career pandering to libertarians. Or he is a libertarian who has made a career pandering to racists collectivists."

I'd go for the latter, myself. He doesn't seem to be in any hurry to distance himself from Don Black, does he?

"I think what we are worried about is people will now think Libertarian= ROn Paul and Ron Paul= racist, so libertarian=racist."

That's exactly what people will think, and it's not fair.

But they also think that Libertarians want to repeal every single worker's rights, consumer rights, and tenant's rights regulation that people ever fought for - which is true.

Libertarians don't trust government, yet they trust corporations completely, and that's why you will always be on the fringe.

Ron Lawl said...

"The main point I was trying to make was that I dont think MLK's estate has to give permission to Ron Paul for something he isn't doing."

He probably should have thought of that before he bragged about it on the air. It's a matter of common decency.

Anonymous said...

I don't think Ron Paul understands why blacks (and other minorities) are overrepresented when it comes to crime, not just drug crimes.

It doesn't matter if a libertarian thinks that the color of your skin or which minority group you belong to doesn't matter, because racists will. And this means that no matter what you wish, if there's no regulation against racism, discrimination will occur, and when you're discriminated against, you will no longer trust the law, so breaking the law isn't that big of a deal. If you don't break the law, someone will discriminate you and you can't catch a break, but if you do break the law at least you have a chance to make something of yourself in the "outlaw comunity".

It's basic psycology, take away someones chances to get what he/she want leagally, and he/she will find some other way to get it.

You really doesn't have to take away someones posibillities, you just have to make it hard enough, or make it seem hard enough for this to happen.

Is Ron Paul going to adress the overrepresentation of minorities regarding other crimes the same way i.e. make it leagal?

Fritz said...

It is not a coincidence that the War on Some Drugs preferentially hurts ethnic minorities. And it is not just because ethnic minorities have less power in this society. The Drug War was clearly and explicitly crafted to hurt minorities. Any even rudimentary reading of the history of government anti-drug propaganda shows that.

Ron Lawl said...

So would Ron Paul approve of the war on drugs if it was racially equal? No? Then it's a coincidence. He's the guy who cried wolf a thousand times, and on the thousandth time, it turns out that the wolf was also a racist. Sorry, but no points.

recreate99.org said...

Ron paul can't be a racist-he said he wasn't on the TV! Those newsletters, sent out in his name to his supporters? He didn't approve of them, he just allowed them to be sent out in the thousands to foil hatted racists. It's his followers who are racists for reading that!

You can't blame him for pandering to his audience!

From "No friend of the Left:Ron Paul, libertarianism, and the freedom to starve to death"

Citing statistics from a study that year produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, Paul concluded: “Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

Anonymous said...

NAACP President is friend of Ron Paul for 20 years and is publicaly stating: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist

So who's side on you on, Sir?
Oh, sorry, I guess that's obvious.

Listen or read here:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm

Anonymous said...

I think Ron Paul is personally odious as well, but Martin Luther King and basically every black leader fought the racist gun control laws of the segregation era. Historical fact: gun control started its life as a way to stop freed slaves from owing guns. Historical fact 2: Dred Scott specifically reasons something along the lines of: "if we give them the right to be free, they'll be wanting guns next!"

BobbyUSBombs said...

ron paul is a racist bastard. See my page on You Tube, Ron Paul Truther Extroardinaire, BobbyUSBombs

Anonymous said...

One of the things that piss me off about Ron Paul is that he's a coward. Whether or not I agree with the stances of other candidates on abortion, gay rights, war on drugs, etc. At least they are promising to do something about it. Anything Ron Paul doesn't want to deal with himself, he pawns it on the states. What a coward.

I've actually heard paultards defend Paul's pawning big decisions to the states by saying people can just move to another state. Yeah, I'll just move whenever a law I don't like gets passed. Getting a job is no problem at all....

Seems the only issue Paul will have the federal government do something about is immigration. Not because it's their constitutional duty to do so. This bastard just hates Mexicans. His immigration ad just showed your typical wetback, while most illegal immigrants come legally.

Ron Paul in 2008? I'll pass.

Jackson said...

When I donated money to the Ron Paul campaign on Martin Luther King day, I did it in remembrance of Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Rosa Parks, as well as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and in fact, every human being who has ever stood up and said that people should be free. Whenever anyone, anywhere, stands up for the rights of others, I support them. None of these people will ever be perfect. No one is. However, the world is a better place because they chose to take a stand for freedom. Martin Luther King was not perfect. Malcolm X was not perfect. Thomas Jefferson was not perfect. Ron Paul is not perfect. However, of those running for President of the United States in 2008, he is the one who most consistently stands for the rights of all Americans.

Ron Lawl said...

So let me get this straight. You donated to a guy who voted against MLK Day in memory of MLK Day? What, was it just to spite him or something?

Jackson said...

I'm not sure who you think I would be spiting. I appreciate what Dr. King did by standing up for the rights of minorities. I appreciate what Dr. Paul is doing by standing up for the rights of all Americans. It seems that you are trying to paint these men as antagonists, whereas I see them working toward the same goal. I don't think either of them is/was aimed exactly right, but both were aimed in the right general direction.