Skip to Content
politicaljunkie_600.gif

The lynching of Ron Paul

Read More:

Why does the issue of racism pop up so frequently during the GOP nomination process?

Though it has never been as blatant as the claims made against Texas congressman Ron Paul on Wednesday via hacktivist group Anonymous' “Operation Blitzkrieg”, race continues to hang over the Republican debate. 

Republicans are rarely seen talking about how to correct racial discrimination in the U.S. However, they do often seem to use it as a tool to persuade voters who still have notions of racial superiority (as illustrated by a video on things Republicans say about black people).

People like Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich are the first Republican candidates in American history to be pitted against an incumbent black president. Given the long and colourful history of racism in traditional Republican states, some can see how obvious a need it would be to pander to the whims of white chauvinists.

Ron Paul has been accused of being a racist in the past, but his rhetoric seems positively benign compared to that of his rivals Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

Romney, a Mormon, has in the past refused to repudiate the teachings of his church that dark skin is a curse from God. Romney worked as a missionary for the Church of Latter Day Saints between 1966 and 1968.

Then there's his position on the DREAM act, which would allow for children of illegal immigrants to work towards achieving citizenship by completing high-school, attending college, or serving in the military. Romney has repeatedly said he would veto it if elected, calling it “a handout”.

Romney's comments on the act came in the leadup to the Iowa caucuses, an obvious play on the fact that there won't exactly be a whole lot of illegal immigrant voters to worry about.

Gingrich is no better. He made remarks about blacks and their supposed "dependency on welfare" before the Iowa primaries, labelling president Obama as the "the most successful food stamp president in American history."

He told audiences, “we [Republicans] believe people should learn to work, and that we’re opposed to dependency.” This doesn't smack of racism at first, until you consider that only about 33 percent of food-stamp recipients are black.

Paul, meanwhile, is accused of racism on grounds that he holds a strict position on illegal immigration and border security. According to Paul's website, he intends to “encourage legal immigration by streamlining the entry process without rewarding lawbreakers.” He has also been criticized for ties to Ron Paul and Associates, a newsletter that published racist and bigoted statements. Paul has continually denied sharing those views. 

Now, with an excess of leaked emails and personal messages dumped by “Anonymous”, some are claiming that Paul is a “Neo-Nazi” due to the fact that there are some white supremacists amongst his supporters.

It's interesting to note that the same can be applied to any of the other Republican candidates. “Anonymous” hasn't seemed to have picked up on them just yet, but just because a politician is endorsed by someone doesn't mean they all share the same beliefs.

Then there are the alleged conference calls with Jamie Kelso, American Third Position webmaster. Even administrators of affiliated websites have denied it. 

 

It doesn't appear coincidental that out of the huge amount of data which was posted, hackers found incriminating references to Paul. The great ordeal which was made of this “discovery” seems calculated.

Attacks like this one aren't typical of Anonymous: they tend to pick bigger battles. Their well-documented war against proposed “censorship” bills such as SOPA and PIPA, ACTA, as well as their continuous support of WikiLeaks indicates a general focus on freedom of speech. 

So while the hacking attack was praised earlier this week, it seems like it may not have been a crusade against neo-Nazis.

Instead, it may have been a calculated attempt to crucify Ron Paul. 

Take our survey and WIN a ski weekend at The Westin Whistler and lift tickets for Whistler Blackcomb.

 


 

(22) Comments

Dwight February 2nd 2012 | 4:16 PM

“Anonymous” is many, including evidently some foreign intelligence agency members that just did the Ron Paul hit while blaming it on “Anonymous”. Two birds with one stone. A false flag is attacking one place while laying the blame on another enemy. If elected Ron Paul would ruin their game in many ways.

 

Race has nothing to do with Ron Paul, as people from all over support him regardless of race or party. Newt and Santorum have no real supporters showing up at rallies for them or donating money individually to them and only Ron Paul has both. So who is providing them their money and what is the objective since it is obvious they can not win. It is clear the objective is to stop Ron Paul at any cost from winning. Then there was large amounts of proven vote fraud in the first 3 states elections, with SC requesting the FBI to investigate over 900 dead people voting they caught. Iowa had over 140 precincts they either totally lost the votes or counted tainted votes from in that small state and thats not an accident no more than 900 dead people voting.

Cody February 2nd 2012 | 5:17 PM

Anonymous reminds me of the shit that I have to scrape from the bottom of my shoe. Just like OWS.

The constitution, that's all that matters.

 

All of these other groups that "represent the people" need to piss off and fight for the only true law of the land. The constitution of the united states. If both Anonymous and OWS truly cared about this nation, they would be out Caucusing for Ron Paul.

Patricia February 2nd 2012 | 5:17 PM
This propaganda attack by "Anonymous" is just another in a long list of media bias against Dr. Paul. Ron Pal is a decent politition..an oxymoron when stated about anyone else. The truth is Dr. Paul scares the crap out of the establishment because he would put a stop to the rich elite getting richer and the loss of freedom being legislated as we speak.
tacitus February 2nd 2012 | 5:17 PM

"Race has nothing to do with Ron Paul, as people from all over support him regardless of race or party."

Really? Is that why Ron Paul's support is overwhelmingly white? I don't know whether Ron Paul is a racist himself, but his policies and political views certainly seem to attract a lot of attention from them.

Perhaps his opposition to they of "big government" that passes Civil Rights legislation, that helped to right a two centuries of injustices against black Americans, has something to do with that...

If Ron Paul is popular with racists, but doesn't share their twisted views, then he needs to repudiate their support long and loud, not make excuses for it. That may not be fair, but that's the way politics works.

tacitus February 2nd 2012 | 5:17 PM

Patricia wrote:
This propaganda attack by "Anonymous" is just another in a long list of media bias against Dr. Paul. Ron Pal is a decent politition..an oxymoron when stated about anyone else. The truth is Dr. Paul scares the crap out of the establishment because he would put a stop to the rich elite getting richer and the loss of freedom being legislated as we speak.

Um, no. Ron Paul wants to abolish virtually all oversight and regulation of the markets -- and that includes the financial markets -- and you know who benefits the most when the free markets are left to their own devices? Those who already own most of it. The financial crisis of 2008 would be chicken feed compared with the turmoil and chaos caused by a financial market freed from all oversight and regulation, and the only people who come out of it smell of roses will be the same ones who did last time -- the CEOs and Mitt Romney types.

Countries like France and Canada weathered the 2008 storm in much better shape because their banks had scricter lending requirements imposed on their by their governments. Likewise Texas banks (surprisingly enough). Ron Paul would be an unmitigated disaster for America -- at least as bad as the other Republican clowns still running, if not exponentially worse.

I do believe he is an honest man, for the most part, and that he actually believes what he says, but his Libertarian economic policies would sink this country into the abyss of Randian self-interest.

Dwight February 2nd 2012 | 8:20 PM
tacitus wrote:

Um, no. Ron Paul wants to abolish virtually all oversight and regulation of the markets -- and that includes the financial markets -- and you know who benefits the most when the free markets are left to their own devices? Those who already own most of it. The financial crisis of 2008 would be chicken feed compared with the turmoil and chaos caused by a financial market freed from all oversight and regulation, and the only people who come out of it smell of roses will be the same ones who did last time -- the CEOs and Mitt Romney types.

Countries like France and Canada weathered the 2008 storm in much better shape because their banks had scricter lending requirements imposed on their by their governments. Likewise Texas banks (surprisingly enough). Ron Paul would be an unmitigated disaster for America -- at least as bad as the other Republican clowns still running, if not exponentially worse.

I do believe he is an honest man, for the most part, and that he actually believes what he says, but his Libertarian economic policies would sink this country into the abyss of Randian self-interest.

No, he wants to get the government out of the way of the individual to compete with the fat cats while at the same time enforcing the fraud laws they have been breaking at will, that got us in this mess as they con (think fraud) the American people. Most laws today are to benefit the few and not to protect the masses. Where did the trillions go?? To the fat cats and thats NOT what Ron Paul would have done and insteadwould have left them lose their shirts and then put them in jail for FRAUD. THAT'S Ron Paul country.

kyle February 2nd 2012 | 8:20 PM

There is anew slave class now, and our masters are the big banks, and cronie corporations that are in bed with the government. The number one supporter of both Romney, and Obama is Goldman Sachs. I assure you they do not care if you are black, white brown or red. If you can produce a dollar they want it.

ken serick February 2nd 2012 | 11:23 PM

Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

tacitus February 3rd 2012 | 12:00 AM

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

Well, only if you told me you hated Jews as well as black people. Otherwise, I'd probably just call you a Nazi and leave it at that...

Maggie February 3rd 2012 | 7:07 AM
Lynching? Oh please. Ron Paul hasn't been hung from a tree and castrated because he decides to support racists. For a change, the media actually decided to do some actual reporting (though most of this stuff was around as far back as the mid 90s if not earlier) and revealed that Ron "I'm for States' Rights" Paul was nothing more than yet another racebaiting right-winger. As for those worrying about "white" genocide, projection is a terrible thing. For years, whites have gone all over the world and slaughtered the people living there while claiming the land as their own. But now that you think (in your characteristic paranoia) that the tables will turn, you're crying about "saving" your race? No one likes you and no one cares about your "superiority". I don't get nationalists. You have nothing in common with anyone save for living in the same artificial borders and maybe having the same race and yet you claim anyone as your "brother" or "sister". It's pathetic.
jay tea February 3rd 2012 | 11:11 AM

I think this story is fabricated.... For one thing the photo in question is like 10 years old... Im atheist and smoke weed.  I have met Ron Paul , given him money and had my picture taken with him.  I support him 100%  . Now does that make Ron Paul and atheist who smokes weed?   Nope it does not..

Besides Julian Assange of Wiki Links has already endorsed Ron Paul and he is like the defacto leader of Anonymous.

Mythic Mystic February 3rd 2012 | 11:11 AM
White + Male + American + Rich = SATAN So which "white people" are the "bad ones"? All of them? how racist! Every race has been servants and slaves to some other faction at one time in history or another. We can not forget, but we must forgive. Do those who blame the "White Devil" also blame poor (not wealthy) white people? Are the peasants in Europe to blame for the wealthy royals and merchants who took advantage of all races? The real evil is economics, not race. Let us not be manipulated by the psychological cattle prod of race. It is a political tool use to direct you into your new slavery which will be "equal" because it will be "fair".... HELLO.... TSA!! You can't profile so everyone gets molested. I don't think anyone should be molested by TSA goons! If you are truly anti-racist then you are against racism of whites AND blacks, against racism of Latinos AND Asians, against racism of Jews AND Muslims... grow up people, the battle is about freedom and liberty from designing men from on high. They get us to fight each other while they rape us all and pose as the saviors. Even though the Founders did not actualize the Constitution and our founding documents in its full potential, they understood the potential. All men (humans) are created equal and endowed by their creator (or by chance of sentience) with certain inalienable rights… That is the easy way to keep Ron Paul’s feet to the fire is to push this home. If he supports our founding documents then even if he was racist, he has to obey the Constitution and not discriminate. And if the Federal Government cannot discriminate neither can the individual States… that is a point that is not pushed as much because it takes too much power from the state. We The People, if we choose not to be racist, must understand even if our nation was born out of the hypocrisy of race relations at the time, we must realize it can never and will never go back to that point… we must guard against racism in all its forms. There is no such thing as “reverse racism” racism is racism. Hell, there are people who hate ALL of humanity and in their nihilistic dream world can’t wait for humans to be killed off so the Earth can breath… so we must understand how we are manipulated. It is easy to fall into tribal-mode, much like your locally convenient ball team of your favorite sport… you cheer them and hate the rivals… politically we are “given” rivals to “play” against while the “owners” make the money off of all of us. Wake up to the new Global Renaissance. There is no “Us and Them”, it has always been just US… Humanity on Earth. All racism is propaganda.
Mythic Mystic February 3rd 2012 | 12:12 PM
Oh, and why would Anonymous be against the only politician (at least most vocal) who is against SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and supports Wikileaks? Why would they be against the guy who is against the wars, the NDAA assassinations of Americans and indefinite detentions, against the Patriot Act, against Gitmo, and against civil rights violations? Anonymous could be anybody. Anonymous needs to find some way to make sure their message is not diluted by copy-cats who build straw men.
brux February 3rd 2012 | 2:14 PM

The bottom line is that Ron Paul and "Libertarians" seek to do away with anything PUBLIC - period.

People are confused by the root word liberty and all the talk about the Constitution by Paul and Libertarians, but that has nothing to do with any of it ... doing away with the concept of public means that the whole world and everything in it will by law be owned and controlled by the richest most powerful people on the planet ... and that those people can do anything they want to maintain that control and expand it with technology to anything they want in the future without a real challenge.

The government would just be their police department, their security force, and people would eventually be owned just like slaves, which were legal in our first Constitution, by they way.

Read between the lines of all these "movements" they are always a bait-and-switch that benefits some small special interest groups, and the loser is almost always the people.  We need the idea of public, because ever human being born on to this world should have some stake in it, and ownership stake and a responsiblity stake, and that is impossible if everthing is already owned by someone for hundreds of years.

Andrew February 3rd 2012 | 3:15 PM

This article is riddled with factual errors and plain old sophistry. You're completely right to point out that the two Republican front-runners are also racist; but how this becomes a justification of Ron Paul is anybody's guess.

You glide over Ron Paul's reactionary and racist newsletters by saying "Paul has continually denied sharing those views." Oh, well, OK, then. But even that weak-sauce defense is untrue: he actually took responsibility for the contents back in '96(http://www.criticalreactor.com/ronpaul/newsletters/1996_Dallas_Morning_N...) And even if he didn't see exactly what racist trash was being published in his name, there's no way he couldn't have known the unsavory nature of the publication given how long this went on and considering his close relationship with the notorious race-baiter Lee Rockwell. Maybe he's not a racist, but he certainly has no compunction about appealing to racists for their vote. How do we know he won't be willing to throw them a bone when he's in power?

It's true that there's some very good things about his candidacy: his willingness to challenge the War on Drugs (even if only the federal component of it) and the US' unconditional support for Israel are serious steps forward. But are they enough to outweigh the fact that he's willing to pander to racists and neo-Nazis and that his economic policies would make the Great Depression look like a hiccough? I think not, and in fact I worry that associating these worthy causes with such a character will do them more harm than good.

ItsLeeOwen February 3rd 2012 | 9:21 PM

Calling Paul a racist is as silly as calling Obama racist for having attended services of that racist Pastor Wright. Erroneous slander politics are bullshit, and none of us should stand for it. We share a great country, and have real issues to address.

Black people don't even think Ron Paul is racist: http://youtube.com/watch?v=JA2ehvB-_Ac

He took care of the family's hospital bill... doesn't sound racist to me :D http://youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4

The anonymous hack has been debunked. It was neither carried out by anonymous, nor were the reported forum posts indicating ties between Ron Paul and A3P members legitimate. As it turns out, public photos dating back to 2007 of white supremacists posing with Ron Paul at public events or what can only be described as photo-bombing him in public were used to come up with the names with which to create the fake forum posts. Interestingly enough, the A3P members mentioned are the most adamant about denying these claims as many of them are anti-Paul due to his hard line public stance against discrimination. More from the Vancouver Observer:http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/politicaljunkie/2012/02/02/lynching-ron-paul

That's as far as I entertain the nonsense "politics".

 

Karin Friedemann February 4th 2012 | 6:18 PM

With certainty, "Anonymous" is an intern employed by some pro-Israel organization. They train people to influence history through the internet in this way. They are busy with all these twitter revolutions. Well it could go both ways.

 

HonestB February 6th 2012 | 4:16 PM

Hi, you might have missed this, but I think if you're going to refer to those newsletters it's not enough to say that Paul denied them without even mentioning that there's a lot of evidence that he was actually lying. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-paul-signed-off-on-racist-new...


Good journalism means reporting facts, not just covenient ones. This kind of ommission really borders on dishonesty and I think it reflects poorly on editorial standards on this site.

Jumbie February 6th 2012 | 5:17 PM
tacitus wrote:

 

Um, no. Ron Paul wants to abolish virtually all oversight and regulation of the markets -- and that includes the financial markets -- and you know who benefits the most when the free markets are left to their own devices? Those who already own most of it.

 

I'm puzzled why the CEOs and corporatist oppose Paul then.  They donate huge to Romney and Obama but actively suppress Paul through their media operations.

Jumbie February 6th 2012 | 5:17 PM
HonestB wrote:

there's a lot of evidence that he was actually lying.

 This kind of ommission really borders on dishonesty and I think it reflects poorly on editorial standards on this site.

 

Maybe you could talk about the fact that the people you point to aren't crediable. One of them claimed that Paul was in the offices daily even though Paul lived in another town.

TruthSayer February 12th 2012 | 2:14 PM

Ummmm.... Anonymous has NEVER before released Inaccurate Information..

They have a Long track Record of in Fact releasing True Info.

Note that along with this Dump was the Syrian Dump which Funny enough NO ONE says is False....

Of Course the Info Uncovered by Anonymous about Mr. Paul is Accurate.

He has a Long History of Hobnobbing with White Nationalists.

Here is some Indicators as to his Stance..

1) Multiple Pictures of him with Various White Nationalist Leaders and Neo Conferderates..(Including the Founder of StormFront)

2)His Policy Stances AGAINST, The Civil Rights Act.... The Voters Rights Act...... His Pro Southern Seccession Stance.. 

3) There are a Decades worth of Racist Newsletters penned under his Name... And you can try to say it was just his Racist Pal.. But having a Racist Pal Writing in your Name is indicative as well.

4) His Views against Israel are well documented.. As is his wish to cut off all aid.

5) Now we have Correspondence between American Third Position and Mr. Paul.. Which of Course they ALL Naturally Deny.. Why? Because they are in fact Ron Paul Supporters.. And being Linked to them ... as they well know.. Is the Kiss of DEATH Politically.


EVERY Piece neatly fits... His STATED Policy Stances.. His KNOWN Aquantances.... His OWN Newsletters... LEAKED Correspondence....All the Known Facts... support this Latest Anonymous Claim..Anonymous has a History of Accuracy of Information....And Ron Paul has a Long history of Support of the Policy Positions of White Nationalists.... A Long History of Writing Newsletters targeting them... A Long History of Taking Canpaign Donations from them.... A Long History of having such people working in and around his Campaigns.. In short ... Mr. Paul is one of the Leading White Nationalists in this Nation

And it does not surprise me one bit to find out he Regularly Corresponds to Other Leaders of that Movement. 

I hate to be the bearer of bad news... But if the Shoe Fits.... 

Chris Mac June 28th 2012 | 7:19 PM

Isn't it convenient how short our memories are? I'm quite sure we've participated in behaviour that, while being accepted practice at that time, would be intolerable these days. Some of that is legit, some just a matter of politicial correctness; but it's worthwhile to keep in mind WHEN things were said.

In the 1950s and 60s, a rich whitie who wanted to build a separate, outdoor toilet for their black servant was considered progressive and tolerant. While we recognize that with chagrin today (at least, some do), you can't judge something like this purely on today's accepted standards. There IS a right and wrong here, but everyone makes mistakes and we hopefully generally forgive people who now see the error of their ways.

Basically all that was said in those articles (though not by Ron Paul himself) is akin to someone making a comment about female or Asian drivers. Not acceptable behaviour by any means, but I'm sure none of these offenders would even daydream about their fellow motorists being lynched. We've come a long way.

Finally, and probably most importantly, Ron Paul has clearly been affected by social change. He's a gyno! His respect for women and other racial groups is foolish to question. I'll post a video about a black man whose white wife who couldn't get a doctor to deliver their baby purely because of racism, and Dr. Paul stepped in and helped them for free. He's also rejected capital punishment because he's recognized how the system is prejudiced against blacks and latinos.He'd rather a racist store owner to be shamed and humiliated for not allowing blacks in his place of business than be shut down by the government. I don't need the govt to tell me not to hang out at a whites only restaurant. America elected a black president! I'm quite sure the public can police themselves on many of these issues.

I hope we're not asking each other to all be the same. You're not going to see Ron Paul at Pride Week. If that's what you want, you deserve the politicians you get. What's important is having a leader who respects your right to freedom and equality and to be treated the same as everyone else, not someone who will pick and choose what your rights are based on politics. What can be given can also be taken away. Individual rights for all. Not selective.