ron paul inspires domestic terrorists

in my opinion, this is the result of libertarian propaganda and misinformation

Alleged Georgia Plotters Belonged to Racist, Anti-Semitic Group

The FBI undercover tapes of four North Georgia militiamen arrested Tuesday offer an extraordinary glimpse of the terrorism the group is accused of planning. Details of how they allegedly intended to commit mass murder with deadly ricin, carry out assassinations of officials, and bomb government buildings abound in government affidavits that directly quote the men talking to undercover informants.

But there's one thing the affidavits don't tell you: What did these four elderly Georgians allegedly hope to accomplish? About as close you get to an answer is this cryptic quote from the alleged ringleader, 73-year-old Frederick W. Thomas: "When it comes to saving the Constitution, that means some people gotta die."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-potok/alleged-georgia-plotters-_b_1074379.html

 

I wonder... I mean I am pleased the cops got them... but I do wonder if they were basically a bunch of mouthy old fools.

 

Well, constitutionalism is like religion -- it has its fanatics too.

If you take any ideology too far, you can justify mayhem.

 

Wow, in YOUR OPINION, you claim Ron Paul advocated for this? With absolutly nothing to back that up? Ron Paul, the person that holds up to constitution as the premiss of how he conducts himself and VOTES in the house. I am sorry, have you lost your (*)(*)(*)(*)ing mind? He has never once called for violence, that has been all on the left. Van Jones, Trumpka, Learner, etc. All of them Obama's friends, and all of them in favor of a VIOLENT revolution. Maybe you missed the suddle "LOVE" in how Ron wants to conduct his "revolution".

 

notice what i wrote, not what the voices in your head are saying

you'll just deny it


By Palash R. Ghosh | September 11, 2011

Ron Paul, the once and future Republican presidential candidate and cult-hero among Libertarians, has a long and disturbing history of racialism and anti-Semitism.

During an appearance on Chris Matthews’ ‘Hardball’ TV program on MSNBC a few years ago, Paul defended earlier comments his son Rand made regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which he asserted his father’s Libertarian views would have led him to oppose the law).

Ron Paul told Matthews he would have voted against the Act in Congress, and added "I wouldn't vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws."
He explained that didn’t necessarily oppose the intent of the Act (to eliminate institutionalized discrimination against blacks), but rather because it imposed on the personal rights of private business owners.

In 2004, during the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, Paul spoke against the law, stating that it violated the Constitution and curbed individual freedoms.

“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society,” he said.

According to various reports, years ago, Paul was affiliated with newsletters that were obsessed with racial subjects.

Paul had published a plethora of newsletters over his political career with names including Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report, among many others.

In June 1992, in the wake of the ‘Rodney King riots’ in Los Angeles that killed dozens and caused $1-billion of property damage, the Ron Paul Political Report wrote: “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began,”
The editorial suggested that the looting and rioting was an inevitable consequence of the federal government providing blacks with “civil rights quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black TV shows, black TV anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.”

Paul’s screed also attacked the media for espousing the belief that “America’s number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.”

A few years before, in December 1989, Paul’s Investment Letter spelled out a doomsday scenario for the future, warning that “racial violence will fill our cities” because “mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’”

Two months later, another Paul newsletter predicted “The Coming Race War.”
In the following year an article advised readers: “If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it.”

In June 1991, following incidents of racial clashes in Washington, DC, a Paul newsletter featured an article titled: “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.”
“This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,” the newsletter gloomily warned.

In October 1992, in a segment on urban crime, Paul’s newsletter declared: “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self-defense. For the animals are coming.”

Following a basketball game in Chicago in which the Bulls won the NBA championship in 1992, Paul’s publication sneered that: “blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot.”

The newsletter also assailed white liberals for wanting “to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare. Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems.”

Another newsletter claimed that “opinion polls consistently show only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions,” and “if you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

Paul’s publication also attacked the distinguished black congresswoman for Texas Barbara Jordan as “the archetypical half-educated victimologist” whose “race and sex protect her from criticism.”

Another newsletter declared: "The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day -- are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."

In 1991, a Paul-controlled newsletter praised ex-Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.

“Duke lost the [Senate] election [in Louisiana], but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment,” it stated.

Paul also has expressed hostility toward the Jews.

According to the Philadelphia Jewish Voice, Paul refused to return a campaign contribution in 2008 from white supremacist and notorious anti-Semite Don Black.

Paul has reportedly called Israel “evil” and has alleged that the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, might have blown up the World Trade Center in 1993.
In 1987, an edition of Paul's Investment Letter described Israel as "an aggressive, national socialist state."

However, it isn’t clear if Paul himself wrote any of these inflammatory segments (the newsletters apparently lacked by-lines). Paul himself has reportedly said many of these passages were taken out of context.
When confronted by CNN, Paul insisted that he was not the author of the racialist pieces and that he had "no idea" who did.
Moreover, he denied having any racial bias.

"When you bring this question up, you're really saying, 'You're a racist' or 'Are you a racist?' And the answer is, 'No, I'm not a racist,'" he said.
He added that he repudiated “everything that is written along those lines.”
Paul also told CNN: "People [who] know me, nobody is going to believe this. That's just not my language. It's not my life. Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Gandhi, they're [my] heroes."

Paul has also claimed that he sympathizes with blacks who have been victimized by draconian drug laws. He once told a reporter: "I am the anti-racist because I am the only candidate -- Republican or Democrat -- who would protect the [minorities] against these vicious drug laws. Libertarians are incapable of being a racist, because racism is a collectivist idea."
However, David Gergen, a CNN senior political analyst, didn’t buy Paul’s denials.

"These stories may be very old in Ron Paul's life, but they're very new to the American public and they deserve to be totally ventilated," he said "I must say I don't think there's an excuse in politics to have something go out under your name and say, 'Oh by the way, I didn't write that.'"

Paul remains a unique and singular character in U.S. politics. His adherence to libertarian values, and opposition to foreign military intervention and drug laws have won him the admiration and support among many liberals, especially among the youth.

His espousal of limited government and attacks on certain government agencies, including the Federal Reserve, has gained him support among some conservatives.

However, the mainstream Republican Party largely rejects Paul and regards him as a crackpot.

Without broad support, Paul is unlikely to ever gain enough clout to win the Presidency.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/211823/20110911/ron-paul-racism-anti-semitism-republican.htm

 

Do you really think any of these illiterate old fools ever read the Constitution?



http://www.politicalforum.com/latest-world-news/175869-israel-ask-u-s-20-billion.html

 

i don't know, but i'd bet they've been extremely influenced by libertarian propaganda

 

The Far Left will divide & conquer all the various Groups that have any shred of conservatism .

 

I seriously doubt any of them read anything since the 8th grade.. and they wouldn't know a "libertarian" if one flew up their nose.

Do you have any idea how many stupid people there are in the world?

Look at the armchair experts here on PF.. Some of them discovered the ME last week.

Don't you see the total lack of information related to subject matter??

These Georgia crackers are most likely HS drop outs. Dumb and dumber.

 

LOL!!!!

People died during many wars defending the constitution... So you disagree with their deaths? Are you ungrateful that you breathe, and speak your mind, because they die...

Once again this is an attack by the left on free speech. Or, another case of "i dont like what hes saying, call a wambulance..."

Most intelligent people dont read such garbage, and jump to conclusions. This wont stop people from Voting for Dr. Paul...

 

Typical defense mechanism of the left: name calling...

 

You wrote...

I wasn't making it up.

Yes, a libertarian opposing a federal law that had no base of constitutionality, shocker.

Yes, again, he wasn't against getting rid of the racism, but the federal government can't force people to NOT be racist.

Do you see anywhere in the constitution or amendments that says anything about the federal government having the authority to tell people how to think, or treat others? The only thing the federal government is powered to do through the constitution is to keep individuals from intruding on the rights of other individuals. Sorry, but denying someone from eating at my restaraunt or comming into my PRIVATE property is NOT within the governments authority given to it by the constitution.

And all the rest is the same crap on and on. The more we have changed the rules and ignored the constitution, the more the federal government has taken away our rights little by little.

 

Word.

I am always amazed that opposition to the civl rights act of 1964, automatically makes one a racist. (it may be true if you have no logical thinking ability). Funny that the republicans tried a civil rights act in 1957, and all the democrats LBJ included, that supported the 2nd CRA opposed the 1st one.

this thread is a total joke.

stop feeding this troll.

 

Ditto ,just because the Democrat Party & their Klan/Segregationist Dixiecrat allies were dead set against the Civil Rights act ,that alone does not make them racists ..

 

You mean there are places in America where I don't want to visit at night!?

Wait, where does Ron Paul fit into this story?

 

Regarding the civil rights act and the Democrats voting against it...

I don't know why Republicans are proud of that civil rights fact or that their party hero Lincoln freed the slaves. They should be ashamed! Once Republicans could free the slaves and promote civil rights, but that was almost 50 years ago and somewhere along the line Democrats leap-frogged over the Republicans to be the model star of social issues.

What happened Republicans you had a half-century start (at least)?

 

Yes, great points. i never thought of the civil rights act as being unconstitutional. definitely an eye opener. I already knew that the democrats were racist, they always been racist. just look at their "bloodlines" All over the KKK. lol, silly liberals...

 

They've probably read the Constitution, but comprehending it is another matter....

 

If you possess ricin, you tend to get arrested.

 

have you ever read the constitution and amendments?

Section 8 - Powers of Congress- The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

The Congress shall have Power To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


Amendment 14

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

The thread title is misleading since the OP has nothing to do with Ron Paul.

 

What have the democrats done to advance the minorities standards of living through legislation? I just want to know how and why you claim the dems "leap frogged" the GOP.

 

Not a single thing in there said anything about making a private business owner sell to whom they do not wish to sell to. Actually, with the civil rights act, the government actually goes against the 14th amendment by depriving the shop owner of his liberty. And then you have the affirmative action which further makes white males less protection under the law cause of the quotas forced upon businesses.

 

it says congress can pass whatever law it sees as necessary and proper for execution of the enumerated powers, so according to expressed enumerations in the constitution/amendments:

a) congress can regulate commerce

b) no state can make or enforce laws that abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens

c) no state can deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

so people have to right to be treated equally by business owners

there's no liberty to deprive others of their rights of equality, on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion or disability

ron paul said he's against the civil rights and he's published newsletter making racist statements which inspire people like the ones arrested in geogia

 

Yes, among states, NOT among private business.

Again, not with private businesses. If the owner doesn't want to sell to someone, they shouldn't be made to.

Again, a private business owner has the right to deny service.

No, By the state. No state can make laws that segregate. So public parks and other public areas can't be forced segregated by the state, that doesn't mean the owner of the local pizza hut has to serve the people they don't want to serve. Private business is NOT the state.

Again, the federal government has made that law, it is called AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. Private business should NOT, be held to that standard cause nothing in the constitution says anything about the state or federal government having the power over PRIVATE business.

You are taking a leap to make that accusation. Ron didn't oppose the civil rights cause of racism, he did it cause it is NOT in the federal government ability to all that was in that bill. To make that jump, you have to be filled with hate, and weak minded liberal who can't win the argument when the FACTS are presented. The federal government just didn't have the right to make such a law, just like it didn't have the right the make Obamacare.