How to handle "Ron Paul is Racist" objections

[Freedoms]

There are many people out there who are closed off to the idea of supporting Ron Paul, because they mistakenly believe Ron Paul is racist. (Even though they would probably agree with Ron Paul's positions, if they considered Ron Paul with an open mind.)

Here's how you can handle the objections that "Ron Paul is racist" - to get these people to take a second look at Ron Paul, and consider him with an open mind.

The "racist" claims come mainly from 2 issues:
(1) the Ron Paul "racist" newsletters
(2) Ron Paul's statements that the Civil Rights Act infringes on property rights - Ron Paul said that businesses should have the right to discriminate

So if someone brings up the objection that "Ron Paul is racist", the first thing you should do is ask the person "why do you say Ron Paul is racist?"
(IMPORTANT: Do NOT get defensive! You canNOT "argue" someone into supporting Ron Paul - you must PERSUADE them. Do NOT argue!)

They will probably bring up one of the 2 issues above - then you handle their objection accordingly.


(1) The Ron Paul "racist" newsletters

Let them know that an investigative journalist (Ben Swann) has found out the identity of the person who wrote the racist newsletters. The true author of the racist newsletters is James B Powell - NOT Ron Paul. (See the videos below.)

Also bring up the fact that Ron Paul has said he did not write the racist content, and that he disavows them, but he also has said that he takes responsibility for them (as he should), because it was published under his name.

It is important to mention that Ron Paul takes responsibility for those newsletters - because this diffuses their objection that "Ron Paul shouldn't have let the newsletters go out under his name". Agree with them that it was an oversight on Ron Paul's part for letting the newsletters go out under his name (and that Ron Paul has taken responsibility for the oversight), and their objection to the racist newsletters will be largely diffused. (After all, Ron Paul is only human, and he makes mistakes too - their main objection is to racism, and that's the objection you want to diffuse.)

Here are the videos that uncover the true author of the racist newsletters -

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrqI_4c3jMk



Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-FTlZHpBWw


Perhaps you might also want to point out that the mainstream media attacked Ron Paul non-stop about the newsletters - but now that the true author of the racist newsletters has been uncovered, the mainstream media has gone completely silent over the issue. The mainstream media did not bother to inform the public that the true author of the racist newsletters was James B Powell (NOT Ron Paul) - they are not concerned with reporting the facts. This shows how the mainstream media (and the establishment) is treating Ron Paul unfairly.



(2) Ron Paul's statements that the Civil Rights Act infringes on property rights - Ron Paul said that businesses should be allowed to discriminate

What you want to do here is first establish common ground - that you are also against racism. Then let them know that, while you are against racism, the best way to solve the problem of racism is NOT by government regulation. Below is a sample of what you can say - use it or tweak it as you see fit.

Respectfully, I think you misunderstand Ron Paul's position on the Civil Rights Act (as I did too, initially).

Racism is a problem - we agree on that. Consider the issue of "how to best solve racism?" Is it by government regulation?

Ron Paul believes government regulation is not a good way, nor is it necessary (today).

For example, lots of men/women only date within their race. That's a form of racism. But should we have laws that say "you MUST date people from other races"? Clearly that violates your freedom to choose who you date. The same principle applies to businesses.

Business is a voluntary transaction between 2 parties - the business owner and the customer. Either side has the right to say "no" to the transaction for any reason. The Civil Rights Act removes the right of the business owner to say "no", thus violating freedom.

But what about racist businesses who, say, refuse to serve blacks? How do we solve that problem? Ron Paul believes government intervention is unnecessary (especially in this day and age), because the free market solves that problem.

You see, if a business refuses to serve blacks, it loses black customers to their competitors. Furthermore, other customers will find their racism repulsive, and boycott the racist business. So their racism severely hurts their own business - that's their punishment. No government intervention needed. This solves the problem of racist businesses, without compromising freedom.

Or, think about it this way - if the Civil Rights Act were repealed today, how many businesses would ban black people? I say, very few - and the few that do would find it hard to compete (and also face severe public backlash), and soon go out of business. Racism solved, without compromising freedom.

Many people mistakenly think Ron Paul's stance only favors businesses, but that's not the case. Don't forget, consumers have as much right to discriminate (e.g. boycott) as businesses do.

Another common misconception - many people hear that Ron Paul said "businesses should be allowed to discriminate", and they mistakenly think that "Ron Paul wants to go back to the Jim Crow Laws and racial segregation - after all, the Jim Crow laws allowed racial discrimination".

In this case, you need to point out that the Jim Crow laws didn't "allow" racial discrimination, they ENFORCED racial discrimination. And that Ron Paul is against the Jim Crow laws too. Ron Paul supports the overturn of the Jim Crow laws - he just doesn't like the part of the Civil Rights Act that went too far in the other direction (and basically forced business owners to serve certain customers, thus violating the freedom of business owners).

Ron Paul believes in equal treatment under the law - business owners and minorities should have EQUAL RIGHTS under the law. The Jim Crow laws disregarded the rights of minorities - while the Civil Rights Act went too far in the other direction, and put the rights of minorities above the rights of business owners (thus disregarding the rights of business owners - so essentially, the Civil Rights Act is discriminatory against business owners). So the Jim Crow laws and the Civil Rights Act are actually 2 sides of the same discriminatory coin, which is why Ron Paul is opposed to them both.

Also see this: African-American Economist Walter E Williams defends Rand Paul's statements on the Civil Rights Act -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCgsgTOHt8s





Anyone who reads this - you have my permission to use any of the above as you see fit (you can even copy & paste if you want) to help clear up the misconceptions about Ron Paul being "racist".

[Enforcer]

Let me preface this by saying that I voted for Ron Paul. I've known him for quite a few years. We don't always agree on every issue, but he is still the best man in the race for POTUS.

Just a few hours ago I was in a meeting and went over some things that were said in the past regarding this issue AND how Ron Paul conducts his business. The reality is, regardless of Ron Paul's personal feelings, the poor guy attracts white racists. Having been in the fields of law and politics (with an understanding of history), it doesn't take but a few moments of listening or reading a person's debating points to figure out if they are Klan, National Socialists, or maybe members of the National Alliance... not to mention Christian Identity, Aryan Nations, and / or militia types.

I guess there could be a few people that really don't know what platform they are parroting, but I have witnessed the movers and shakers in this business get busted. There is one example where two guys that told the Internet world they were not racists, but were exposed in short order:

http://www.freeforum101.com/outcasts...utcastsandoutl

What brought them to the attention of better qualified patriots? Take a look at this:

http://www.freeforum101.com/outcasts...utcastsandoutl

If you study those two threads, you will find the same, identical mindset on the Ron Paul Forums. People can hide and say all the right things - speak the lingo and you can fool a lot of people. Those two gentlemen on that other board have fooled people by the THOUSANDS. The fact is, even politicians... even Ron Paul, get caught up in a web of deception and misinformation. That makes them make a lot of tactical mistakes.

While all of the stuff is true that Ron Paul did not author racist newsletters, it also true that Ron Paul has not empowered people with the Power of Attorney to stop individuals from using his likeness on publications, newsletters - or even discussion boards. Even THIS discussion board is not really an official Ron Paul board. I did not know that until contacting the man in charge over this being a site dedicated to Liberty, but quick to ban people. I was and am genuinely concerned over banning and censoring people on so - called "Liberty" sites, but as the owner of this board was quick to point out... this is HIS. He has the right to invite, ban, or anything else to those that pass through.

The thing of it is, if such treatment does not reflect well on Liberty (as did the racist publications), then Ron Paul will be held accountable in the court of public opinion. Ron Paul did not build this site. Neither has he laid down the law and told his supporters NOT to use his name, likeness, etc. in their efforts unless it was cleared with his campaign management team.

When you are a candidate for public office, it's a difficult balancing act. In order to get some votes, you have to dance around issues so as to maximize your vote gathering ability. The more prudent approach is to hire a campaign spokesman and he / she can make the party line the topic of conversation on talk radio, etc. If that spokesman says the wrong thing, they get thrown under the bus and you learn from your mistakes. The way that Ron Paul is doing it is to allow people carte blanche to use the name, image, picture and likeness and there is no oversight as to what they say or do. Once you do that, damage control becomes impossible.

What we can do to help Ron Paul is to locate the man what knows the man that knows the man, etc. that can confront Ron Paul and let him know that his current strategy is about as effective as a eunuch in a brothel.

[NewRightLibertarian]

I just explain how his policies would stop dark-skinned people from getting murdered or locked up for nonsense. It usually shuts them up

[RickyJ]

Ron Paul in no way attracts racists. Santorum, Romney and Obama attract them. Freedom lovers are not racist.

[Enforcer]

Ron Paul in no way attracts racists. Santorum, Romney and Obama attract them. Freedom lovers are not racist.

You're not very well read are you? I can point out National Socialist propaganda and talking points all day long. You may not know what those talking points are, but I can refer you to sites and then quote stuff here, word for word and it is the same, exact stuff. Even as I'm writing this, another poster is working on a rebuttal to something in another thread. He's going to try to prove that socialism is not socialism. All of it will boil down to race.