Saturday, January 14, 2012

RTO Destroys Blog Post Linking Ron Paul to White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis


[above picture, Ron Paul, the "racist", with a black woman laughing]

Lie infested blog post is a litany of implicative, guilt-by-association propaganda jammed-packed with omissions, distortions and absolutely zero refutations. I debunk every single one

by Larry Simons
January 14, 2012

I ran across a blog page yesterday that included an article called, "Top 10 Racist Ron Paul Friends, Supporters". It is written by yet another anonymous blogger on the site CafeMom.com who goes by the name "Kissy". Not surprisingly, she does not allow free commenting to her stories. You have to become a member. Her profile on the site is also set on private. Shocker.

After I began belly-laughing at the title of the story, I immediately went into debunk mode, because I knew it would be as easy scratching an itch on my ass.

The story includes 10 people who range from white supremacists and Neo-Nazis to cold-blooded killers, in whom "Kissy" miraculously ties to Ron Paul.

Also not surprising, what I found absolutely hilarious about this page is the fact that the writer, after each person's synopsis of why they are either racist or a nut, fails to mention either why some of the beliefs held by the person are erroneous, or fails to mention how the individual's obvious toxic ideologies are connected to Ron Paul.

It does not even take an educated person to spot how poor this article is written in the standpoint of defending her claims. The article is nothing but omissions of proof of her claims, guilt-by-association accusations and implications of certain beliefs about historical events to be offensive without informing her readers why the belief she is condemning is offensive.

Let's get to them, shall we? I will post the names she mentions, and include her text in dark red [in italics] and then my response will follow.


1. Under Willis Carto she says:

"Willis Carto is a holocaust denier, Hitler admirer and a white supremacist. A former campaigner for segregationist candidate George Wallace, Carto founded the National Alliance with William Pierce, the author of the “Turner Diaries,” which is credited for inspiring Timothy McVeigh. Carto founded the Populist Party in 1984 and ran David Duke as a presidential candidate."

God knows what all of the above has to do with Ron Paul, the writer omits that.

"Carto also founded the American Free Press, which is labeled as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), where Paul’s column runs."

I guess if the SLPC calls someone a hate group, that means they are. I have debunked them many times on my site.

"Paul has not sued Carto for running his column or explained how it wound up in a white supremacist publication."

Maybe he didn't know it was there????. What would the lawsuit be for?? Exactly what?

"The New York Times writes that Paul used the subscription list to a white supremacist publication of Carto’s to solicit donations."

Well, there you have it, the truth tellers NY Times have spoken! So it must be true!

Under Chuck Baldwin she says:

"Chuck Baldwin is a neo-Confederate New World Order conspiracy theorist who praises the confederacy and its leaders, Robert E. Lee andStonewall Jackson, and calls the Civil War the “War of Northern Aggression.”"

The writer fails to explain what exactly the bad thing is here. Baldwin is correct. The South was right. Notice how the writer does not refute it, but simply just lists the belief and its implication that it's erroneous??

The writer also omits the fact that one major belief among those who despise Lincoln is that Lincoln was a major racist who did not free one slave and wanted all blacks out of the country. That's fact. Lincoln's hero was Henry Clay, President and founder of the American Colonization Society, who wanted all blacks shipped to Liberia. Odd that Baldwin would be racist if he hates the racist Lincoln, huh?

"Baldwin writes a weekly column on the white supremacist site Vdare and is a proud supporter of American militia movements."

He writes it for the site or the site just posts his columns? Again, that is omitted. Also omitted is the fact the militias are permitted in our Constitution. We would not have established our country without militias. Why militias are bad...also omitted.

"Baldwin is also an Islamaphobe and homophobe."

The proof is omitted.

"Not only did Baldwin endorse Paul for president in 2007, but Paul returned the favor, endorsing Baldwin, who he calls his “friend,” for president in 2008."

Again, omitted is the fact that there is nothing wrong with this comment.

"While Paul was quick to criticize Michele Bachmann for her Islamaphobia, he has said nothing about Baldwin’s, the man he endorsed for president."

But where are the Islamaphobic statements? Omitted.

"Here are some choice quotes from Baldwin:

I believe homosexuality is moral perversion and deserves no special consideration under the law."

One does not have to be homophobic to believe this. This could be a person's moral belief completely independent of being "homophobic".

"I believe the South was right in the War Between the States, and I am not a racist."

Again, implied that this belief is wrong, yet the refutation of it is omitted. Baldwin is right, the South was right. They obeyed the Constitution.

"I believe there is a conspiracy by elitists within government and big business to steal America’s independence."

Again, another implication this is erroneous while the refutation is omitted.

"The Muslim religion has been a bloody, murderous religion since its inception."

This is true---but then again, all religions practically are. It's not an Islamaphobic statement.

Under Don Black she says:

"Don Black is a former Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan, a current member of the American Nazi Party, and the owner and operator of the white supremacist site Stormfront."

And?

"Black regularly organizes “money bombs” for Ron and Rand Paul and has even taken a picture with Ron Paul, who refused to return donations from Black and Stormfront even with the political tradition of not accepting donations from people who seem unfit."

Can Ron Paul control who endorses him? That means Ron Paul has the same beliefs as them?? Holy piss.

Ron Paul knew who Don Black was when posing for the picture? Is Ron Paul suppose to ask everyone before a photo is snapped, "Who are you and tell me everything you believe?" Insane.

Any proof that the money was donated under "STORMFRONT" rather than Don Black who RP may never have heard of? NOPE. NO proof. That is omitted.

"Black, who was sentenced to three years in jail for trying to overthrow the Caribbean country of Dominica in 1981, supports Paul through his Twitter account and on message boards for Stormfront."

What exactly is RP supposed to do about this? Assassinate the Twitter founder?

"Black told the New York Times that it was Paul’s newsletters that inspired him to be a supporter"

And? First of all no proof is out there that RP wrote them. Even if he did, is the writer suggesting that the source of inspiration should be the one charged with a crime? Then why did police not arrest and jail J.D. Salinger instead of Mark David Chapman for killing John Lennon? Chapman claims he was inspired by "The Catcher in the Rye".

Again...OMITTED.

Under Lew Rockwell she says:

"Lew Rockwell is a close friend and adviser of Paul’s who served as his congressional chief of staff between 1978 and 1982, worked as a paid consultant for Paul for more than 20 years, and was an editor and alleged ghost writer for his racist newsletters."

Proof? Omitted.

"Rockwell formed the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which Paul still has a close working relationship with."

This institute is about Austrian Economics! What is the implication about that? Where's the bad thing? OMITTED.

"The Ludwig Von Mises Institute is listed by the SPLC as a neo-Confederate organization. They also add that Rockwell said that the Civil War “transformed the American regime from a federalist system based on freedom to a centralized state that circumscribed liberty in the name of public order” and that the Civil Rights Movement was the “involuntary servitude” of (presumably white) business owners."

All true. Notice the writer fails to refute one word? [because they can't]

"Rockwell was listed as one of the racist League of the South’s founding members but denies membership."

Proof that it's racist? Omitted.

"Rockwell regularly posts articles on his website, attacking a New World Order conspiracy."

Again, the implication here is that this belief is wrong, but the refutation...omitted.

Under David Duke she says:

"David Duke is a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and candidate for Governor of Louisiana. Duke is also a New World Order conspiracy theorist who believes that Jews control the Federal Reserve."

Actually many do. Again, the implication that NWO conspiracy theories are bad...no refutation...it's omitted.

"On his website, Duke proudly boasts about the endorsements and kind words that Paul gave him in his newsletters and in turn endorses Paul for president"

Exactly how does this prove RP is racist?? Omitted.

Under Thomas DiLorenzo she says:

"Thomas DiLorenzo is another neo-Confederate who believes the South was right in the the civil war and that Abraham Lincoln was a wicked man who destroyed states’ rights."

They were, he was and he did. And once again, the writer does not refute this.

"DiLorenzo is listed as an affiliated scholar with the racist League of the South, which promotes segregation and a new southern secession."

Odd that DiLorenzo would be pro segregation when he devotes several chapters in his books to how racist Lincoln was. Odd for him to be racist whilst hating a racist. Hmmm.

"Paul invited DiLorenzo to testify before congress about the Federal Reserve and is close friends with Paul and works for the Ludwig Von Mises Instiute. Paul cited DiLorezno’s book when telling Tim Russert that the North should not have fought the Civil War."

Again, no mention at all of what is wrong with this, and zero refutation...zero. It's all just implication...devoid of refutation.

Under James Von Brunn she says: [This is the funniest yet]

"James Von Brunn was a white supremacist and anti-Semite who opened fired at the Holocaust museum, killing an African-American security guard. Von Brunn was an avid Paul supporter who posted a message on the Ron Paul Yahoo Group, saying, “HITLER’S WORST MISTAKE: HE DIDN’T GAS THE JEWS.”

Proof he was an avid RP supporter? The proof? OMITTED. Why would he say Hitler didn't gas the jews?? He DID!

"In 1983, Von Brunn was convicted of kidnapping members of the Federal Reserve Board, a common target of Paul’s, and was sentenced to six years in prison."

So he did this for Ron Paul, even though Paul has never said one, single solitary word about harming them? He only speaks of auditing them. I love how they use the phrase "target of Paul's" to create imagery to suggest RP would advocate Von Brunn's using force. Complete propagandised, psy-op bullshit.

Under William White she says:

"Bill White is a neo-Nazi who is a former member of of the neo-Nazi group the National Socialist Movement and founder of his own Nazi group, the National Socialist Worker’s Movement. He has called for the lynching of the Jena 6 and the assassination of NAACP leaders. White previously campaigned for Pat Buchanan and the Reform party. This year, White was convicted of threatening a juror but then freed by a judge who called the threats free speech. White is a former Ron Paul supporter who became disenfranchised with Paul, when a Paul spokesman called white supremacy “a small ideology.” Here is what White wrote about Paul on a popular white supremacist website:"

[the writer posts a long quote saying he has seen RP and his aides with members of stormfront and is mad that RP could call it a "small ideology]

What is hilarious about this is the writer basically answers their own question. The writer first admits White became upset at RP and White turns around and makes up claims that he has seen RP with these racist people.

Gee, did it ever occur to the writer that White wrote these words to denegrate RP for calling his movement "small"???

Nahhhhh.

Under Richard Poplawski she says:

"Richard Poplawski is a neo-Nazi from Pittsburgh who regularly posted on the neo-Nazi website Stormfront. Poplawski would post videos of Ron Paul talking about FEMA camp conspiracy theories with Glenn Beck."

Why is this Ron Paul's fault? Looks like another J.D. Salinger/Mark David Chapman guilt-by-association tactic again. I guess the writer has never heard of the fact that the camps exist. Ask Oliver North, who wrote the plans for them. Look up "Rex 84" on wikipedia.

"Polawski was afraid of a government conspiracy to take away people’s guns and wound up killing three police officers who came to his house after his mother made a domestic dispute call."

What exactly does that have to do with RP? Nothing.

Under Jules Manson she says:

"Jules Manson was a failed politician from Carson, Calif. Mason was also a big Paul supporter who would write, “I may be an athiest, but Ron Paul is my God,” on Paul’s website. Manson would also write, “Assassinate that n*gger and his family of monkeys,” of President Barack Obama."

I would like to hear what Manson's reaction was to RP saying Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks are two of RP's heroes. Hmmm?? So, is the writer implying that if Manson uses the word "n*gger", he got it from RP? He may have got it from Mark Twain--he used the word in Tom Sawyer...why is no one blaming Mark Twain? No evidence RP ever used the word. Omitted.

"This is not guilty by association."

Are you fucking shitting me? This whole fucking page is guilt by association!

"Ron Paul has spread white supremacy on conspiracy theories for years in his newsletters."

The writer provides zero proof of this. Zero. NONE.

"The racism and conspiracy theories have driven some people to violence. Not only have Ron Paul’s racist supporters endorsed him and his views, he has endorsed them through his positions on the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement, without disavowing the support he gets from racists. This is guilt by racism."

By being correct about the Civil War and that Lincoln destroyed states' rights and acted as dictator and invaded the South over an issue [secession] that the Constitution permits??

And as far as the Civil Rights movement goes, the writer is just plain ignorant on this issue. Ron Paul is not against Civil Rights. He is against government regulating hate, because it can't be done.

This is best summed up by someone who posted a comment under Andy Ostroy's article in December 2011:

"The Civil Rights Act is a Federal law which says no private business can discriminate. Paul's and any libertarian or freedom-concerned citizen's stance is that this is a violation of the constitutional right of what the Federal government can do. Can the government tell McDonald's to stop selling french fries to children? Can the government tell a small business owner that they can't open a cigar shop because it's discriminatory towards people who don't smoke? The government has NO right to tell a private business what they can do with their business or who they serve. The free market will decide who survives and who doesn't. If you hate a business owner because they are racist, just don't be their customer. Removing the Civil Right Act will no more make people more racist than legalizing drugs will make all people drug addicts. Laws cannot make people less racist. Individuals decide that on their own.

What business owner in their right mind would refuse to serve a large portion of potential customers? It's in their self-interest to make as much money as possible, otherwise, their competitors will put them out of business. And with Yelp, everyone can find out about such prejudices faster."

The writer omits this as well.

There you have it. All 10 debunked.

This might just be one of the worst articles I have ever read. It has nothing to do with the fact that I just diagree with 99% of it. It is because the writer makes accusation after accusation with absolutely no shred of proof. It is a smorgasbord of omitted facts, implication and guilt-by-association garbage. She would be the worst lawyer that ever lived if she took this exact same article into a courtroom.

If this is the lengths that people have to go to in order to smear Ron Paul, then it is very clear that there are truly people out there that abhor the Constitution and the sovereignty of this country [and not to mention just plain 100% brutish].

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

another blog destroyed and now owned by larry.

George Helou said...

What do u think of the occupy movement inspired song and music video 99 to 1?
99 to 1 - an occupy anthem song for our times. Occupy our heart, then the mind, then we can get on with occupying everything else from our hearts and minds. If we don't do this, then at best, we will occupy the past.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trqgT0jhw08