It seems to me that the “mainstream media” hates Ron Paul mainly because it is simply an organ of the entrenched establishment and status quo. We live in a big-government, anti-freedom, anti-white, sports-oriented world – and the powers that be want to keep it that way. Does this make them “conservative”?
While Barack Obama used the slogan “hope and change”, he clearly gets his directives from the same people who controlled Bush and just about every other president in living memory. Ron Paul, while not perfect, at least calls for meaningful change. He calls for more freedom and less government.
It just so happens that some people at Stormfront also want more freedom and less government. The folks at the New York Times did enough research to build a circumstantial case that Paul might have pro-white sympathies. Gasp! It seems he has associated with people who are not filled with hatred toward their own kind. The horror! Not only that, but he has stated he would have rejected the 1964 Civil Rights Act on libertarian grounds. The nerve! How dare he support property rights and freedom of association; those concepts are alien to all that is good and wholesome – at least according to the New York Times:
But a look at the trajectory of Mr. Paul’s career shows that he and his closest political allies either wittingly or unwittingly courted disaffected white voters with extreme views as they sought to forge a movement from the nether region of American politics, where the far right and the far left sometimes converge.
In May, Mr. Paul reiterated in an interview with Chris Matthews of MSNBC that he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawing segregation. He said that he supported its intent, but that parts of it violated his longstanding belief that government should not dictate how property owners behave. He has been featured in videos of the John Birch Society, which campaigned against the Civil Rights Act, warning, for instance, that the United Nations threatens American sovereignty.
Would the New York Times ever objectively examine the pros and cons of the Civil Rights Act? About as much as the Vatican would objectively examine the pros and cons of the Virgin Mary. To question the Civil Rights Act is tantamount to blasphemy in their eyes. Property rights? Way over-rated. “American sovereignty”? Since when was the Times concerned about that? In their eyes, America is just a random place on a map. A crime scene where “racist whites” have yet to make amends for their past sins.
The Times attacks Paul for noticing that whites are disproportionately victims of violence at the hands of blacks – a fact the Times has been trying to hide for decades:
An earlier edition of another newsletter he produced, The Ron Paul Political Report, concluded that the need for citizens to arm themselves was only natural, given carjackings by “urban youth who play whites like pianos.” The report, with no byline but written in the first person, said: “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self-defense. For the animals are coming.”
The only way a person could notice the black crime wave against whites is if he possessed independent thought. “We can’t tolerate that!” says the Times.
Of course it is also verboten to lament the loss of a white majority in a nation that whites founded:
Those newsletters have drawn new scrutiny through Mr. Paul’s two recent presidential campaigns. The New Republic posted several of them online in 2008 and again recently, including a lament about “The Disappearing White Majority.” The conservative Weekly Standard ran an article highlighting the newsletters last week.
This is a privilege reserved only for non-whites. Native Americans can mourn the loss of their nations, blacks can complain about the loss of their “communities” and so can Jews. But it is “hate” for gentile whites to express the same concern about their communities and nations.
According to the Times, it is “gay-baiting” to entertain the notion that some homosexuals might be malicious:
During that nominating battle, a flier produced by Mr. Paul’s opponents accused him of gay-baiting by reporting in one of his newsletters that the government was “lying” about the threat of AIDS and that the virus could be transmitted through “saliva, tears, sweat.” It said that some “AIDS carriers — perhaps out of a pathological hatred — continue to give blood.”
Obviously, the New York Times considers itself among Paul’s opponents. It attacks him for being concerned about the safety of children in schools:
Still, that same year he was quoted in The Houston Post as saying that schools should be free to bar children with AIDS and that the government should stop financing AIDS research and education.
I wonder if the authors of this Times abomination, Jim Rutenberg and Serge Kovaleski, would allow their own children to share spit with HIV positive people. Also, for all their whining about anti-semitism, I wonder if those authors (whose names give the impression of being Jewish) even realize that their grossly biased article gives credibility to anti-semitism.
While it is true that Paul has denied holding some of the above positions, he probably had little choice but to do so. Each of us must pick his battles. Paul’s battle is against big government. To acknowledge any sort of pro-white stance would jeopardize this. When big government comes crashing down some day, and our basic freedoms are restored, whites can once again have self-determination and pride in their own heritage.
In contrast to the article itself, we find a lot of truth among the comments. For example:
I care about Paul’s voting record. I care about Paul’s adherence to the Constitution. I care about Paul’s economic and foreign policy plans.
I could not possibly care less about whether anyone thinks he might or might not be a racist.
“Paul Disowns Extremists’ Views but Doesn’t Disavow the Support” Correct, just as Obama did with money from Hamas and Fatah. Ron Paul, like every other American politician does not have a black list for donations.I didn’t read past the silly headline, was there anything below it that was at all useful?Moving on…
I don’t usually comment on articles, but I thought I’d give the perspective of someone who’s still undecided.I voted for Obama in 2008, and still lean toward Obama. However, I’ve started to do some research on others to see what their policies and plans are. As I’ve been doing my research, I’ve found that it’s pretty easy to find fairly objective articles about Mitt Romney, and even a few about guys like Huntsman. However, I can hardly find any truly objective articles on Ron Paul. The only places that lay out Paul’s policies without prejudice are pro Ron Paul sites, and they are obviously biased the other way. All I want is objectivity on his positions and I can’t find it. Why is this? As a liberal-leaning moderate, I feel all the media should do is lay out each candidate’s policies without pretense. If they did so with Paul, I probably wouldn’t vote for him. I agree with him on pulling back on war, and like the idea of opening up avenues for research on medical marijuana, but the rest is a bit out there. Yet, when I search for Ron Paul on Google News, all I see are article after article from outlets on BOTH sides (liberal and conservative) just trying to tear him down. Do you know what this looks like to a 3rd party observer? It looks really bad. Almost like the media is trying to tell us who to vote for. I would have probably written off Paul based on his views alone, but now I’m interested in what he has to say because the media en toto seems so scared of him.
Yes, now that Paul is gaining traction, and the media has been called out on their obvious bias, they are scared. In the above article, nothing can be taken seriously – except for the fear that oozes from between its lines.