Using your criteria, Harvard’s late great Samuel Huntington would be a moronic “rascist”.

Funny, I never see a condemnation of extreme Zionism here. That is, Zionism which openly celebrates the murder of Arabs in the Holy Land. No, any criticism of that is ‘anti-Semitic’, any mention of the disproportionate Jewish composition of academia, entertainment, banking is also deemed anti-Semitic, while talking about WASP males as if they are naturally oppressive as a group is okay.

You are setting the standards pretty low, SPLC.

I haven’t laughed so hard in a while.

This SPLC is the left’s version of Faux news. Utter smear artists.

Second, it seems that a lot of other commenters on this article take it to be just another liberal/anti-Paul blog post. Look into the history of the SPLC before you make such charges. They have done many, many important things to advance individual liberty in the form of civil rights, and I personally can forgive them for going rather overboard in alarm at Paul’s perceived racism. I do, however, feel it necessary to rebut this particular article.

Which brings me to my third point. Ron Paul has to be acutely aware of the controversy surrounding his 1992 fundraising letter and his recent speaking engagements. He should clearly and unequivocally come out in opposition to racism and in support of civil rights, at least as far as his ideas of limited federal government will allow. It’s sad that a would-be president would have to take such a step, but his opponents have forced it on him, and I think he’s smart and eloquent enough to make it come off as a statement of strength rather than weakness.

And a final note on the absurdity of racism and charges of racism in presidential politics: some liberal group (I forget who) assessed every American president on a scale of 1 to 5, from “really really racist” to “anti-racist.” Only one president qualified as “anti-racist”: Johnson. If he can get away as squarely anti-racist for his domestic initiatives while at the same time murdering hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese people, then I don’t know how useful it even is to try to assess a leader’s policies in terms of racism and tolerance. There is liberty and there is oppression. The choice, at least this year, is ours.

The first was a description of a comedy skit from the “Chapelle Show” recounting a blind, black klansman raised in the south.

The second comment attempted to appeal to the moderators penchant for censorship. Apparently, either the moderator has no sense of humor or doesn’t understand satire. Here’s hoping he wouldn’t censor Jon Stewart of the Daily Show. Goodbye, I will not return to this web site.

http://www.hillaryproject.com/.....ist_group/

They will also be sued for making false claims against Pat Buchanan.

Although it is not in evidence here, I have seen some establishment liberals paint Ron Paul with the same broad “States’ Rights” brush that was used (appropriately, I might add) to strike back at Ronald Reagan’s covert promises to roll back the advances of the civil rights movement. Let us be extremely clear on this point: Ron Paul does indeed appeal to the concept of states’ rights, although he does so in the interests of fairness and liberty, whereas Reagan undoubtedly had more sinister motives. Reagan infamously promised to defend “states’ rights” in his speech announcing his 1980 candidacy for president at the Neshoba, Miss. County Fair. By all rights, that was a moment that will live in infamy. Reagan appealed to a disgusting strain of racist hate before an audience he knew would both understand the subtext of his message and be receptive to it.

By way of contrast, let me describe Ron Paul’s use of the term and concept. In October of this year, he deployed the phrase in a presidential debate among the current crop of Republican candidates. On national television. In order to defend an individual’s right to seek an abortion. In this case, context is everything. Whereas Reagan was a shameless panderer, Paul bravely pointed out that it truly should be at the discretion of state legislatures to make laws regarding a woman’s right to choose abortion over giving birth. The audiences Paul has addressed over his career might not consist entirely of, ah, desirable social elements, but the man is not a bigot. Period. As others have most likely pointed out, there is not a candidate on either party’s slate that has not at some point made an address to a group that will not wash with the mainstream.

Now, I am quite mindful that the status of race relations is even more complicated than the debate over abortion. While it is relatively easy to advocate a state-by-state approach to abortion law, the history of segregation and racial violence in this country has led the federal government to be by turns a great foe and a great friend to racial minorities, and I think that most of Paul’s supporters recognize that fact. Without the Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board and the national Voting Rights Act, civil rights would be even more crippled than they are today. Let me clearly identify myself as a libertarian who takes the need for real civil rights seriously, and say that I don’t think I’m the only one. Access to civil rights are continuous with access to civil liberties, and I would bet that the erosion of safety from government persecution is the main motivation of most of Paul’s supporters.

Personal liberty of the kind that Mr. Paul advocates is liberty across the board, for people of all races, colors and creeds. He might present his ideas to groups that include individuals whom right thinking people find abhorrent, but he does not pander to them.

Anyone who doesn’t fit on your Procrustean molding trays is an “extremist”! LOL. I love it. Keep it up, guys.

I happen to have been at the place where the photo with that don black guy took the photo win Ron… It was at the Las Olas Riverfront in Ft Lauderdale, the night of the Value Voters debate… Had you actually been there, you would have realized that the room had over 300 people and Dr Paul came, gave a speech, and took photos with everyone after the debate. I know, because I was there, and can prove it. Besides the room was full of many different races Latin, Like Myself, Black, Asian, and others.

If you would read the constitution for once, and understand it, maybe you would understand Dr Paul… Since you don’t Stop your BS… All you do is make yourself look REALLY bad at you ignorance and Conspiracy Theories… You sound as bad as the 9-11 Truthers with your drivel.

Few overt racists are liberal. Therefore, all conservatives are racists?

And I agree that few, if any, liberals are overt racists (a plus!). No, the liberal racist passes laws to compensate for perceived past injustices. The problem is their laws are still based on legal race discrimination, or “racism.”

Checked, found the photo and you are right; there is such a photo. However, Paul’s body language hardly shows embracement of this racist.

Bobbyusbombs, will you remain consistent when a photo of a leading democrat presidential candidate is found standing next to the head of the communist workers party?

How about Nixon meeting with the head of China?
(I always suspected that Nixon was communist. Not)

I believe Joseph McCarthy used the strategy of guilt by association. There is paranoia and insecurity when people are afraid to be seen near a polar opposite.

http://littlegreenfootballs.co.....!#comments
http://littlegreenfootballs.co.....;c=4638561

This is why I reject the sexism/racism of affirmative action (legal preference for women/minorities at the expense of the only group not included in the policy, male whites).

Strangely, I am often accused of racism for bringing the issue up which is odd as Rosa Parks addressed the issue of racist policy and was/is considered a principled hero (she is a hero who battled discrimination). I detect a double standard, here.

SPLC appears to infer our immigration laws are “hateful.”
To say that immigration enforcement rallies are “anti-immigrant” is simply untrue. My wife of 31 years, who has my full support, is an immigrant. We protest illegal aliens being lumped together with illegal aliens through propaganda.

Hmmm, sounds like Paul is really a racist.

freeatlast2008.com

Join the anti-big government revolution, and stop the gluttenous eltist pigs from taking down America.

ronpaul2008.com

Nuff said.

Lastly, when Ron Paul gives a speech to Alex Jones or the John Birch Society or wherever it is that you think is “too far out there” he does not wink at the interviewer. There are no back pats. No secret handshakes. No compromises. Just Ron Paul speaking the same message he has been spreading for the past 30 to whomever was willing to listen. These days, that’s a lot more people than ever before.

He’s the only candidate in either party that fully believes in equal rights to all Americans, granted by our creator, protected by our Constitution.

I’d suggest you search out the information, do the reading, and rethink your slanderous statements before they get you into some legal trouble.