Not to pile on, and I know I’m preaching to the choir, but anyone who seriously thought for two seconds that Ron Paul published the newsletters without having any idea what was inside them or who wrote them was heavily in denial or impervious to logic and reason.
Which is why they are supporting Ron Paul in the first place.
Here’s somebody tweeting the newsletters, btw.
That is brilliant … good read.
Hilariously, Newt Gingrich is trying to get traction in Iowa by attacking Ron Paul over Ron’s newsletters. His effort is compromised a bit by the revelation that a Gingrich company newsletter (“Newt Notes”) several years ago praised Mitt Romney’s health plan - the same one Newt has been denouncing in the current campaign. Newt’s excuse is that it wasn’t really he who wrote that newsletter.
Boy, that sounds eerily familiar.
The relationship between Libertarians and fascists is sometimes friendlier than one might expect.
Ha!!! Thanks for sharing! This is brilliant. I love how he is helping spread the word of LIBERTY!
I like Paul more because he isn’t bending over backwards trying to apologize or make the newsletter content out to be such a big deal.
I agree with his comment about the TSA workers and their looks. The trigger for the creation of the TSA and the extensive searches were Arab terrorists, 9/11, the shoe bomber, etc.; its therefore ironic that a greater percentage of middle easterners work for the TSA than exist in American society overall, and these same folks are the ones searching the traditional American majority population while we refuse to racially profile (like, for example, what the Israelis do to every Palestinian who walks into David Ben Gurion airport).
And his race war comment was not far off: from the DOJ, since the mid-90s, blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks - 45% of their victims are white, 43% black, and 10% Hispanic…whereas when whites commit violent crime, only 3% of their victims are black; further, blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa. So clearly there is provocation; retaliation or a ‘race war’ has likely only not been a result due to white’s incredible unwillingness to recognize group interests even when every possible faction around them does.
. . . When you put it that way, do you really think Paul would agree? Publicly or privately?
I hope President Paul will safeguard our precious bodily fluids.
I think Paul would agree that black criminal behavior is a major issue in our society and yet it is not referenced in the media or spoken about in polite society due to the fear of being labeled racist.
In fact, I think any objective observer would agree. If someone disagrees that black crime is not a uniquely significant criminal issue - regardless of root causes - I’d be interested to know why.
Preferable to Gingrich, who will offer you his . . .
We’ve discussed black-on-white crime many times in GD before. It might have something to do with resentment, or with white victims having more to steal, or both. But, in either case or any case, what is there to do about it beyond what the police do already? I really don’t see how “recognition of group interests” of white people would be in any way helpful here.
I don’t have the ultimate prescription, either. But a first step which will help is honesty: acknowledging that there is a huge problem, and that this order-of-magnitude-plus criminality, especially in violent crime, is unique to blacks and blacks alone. This openness would shift accountability onto blacks which is where it belongs, rather than on whites, the government, or anything or anyone else.
And by acknowledging this, we’d stop expecting equal outcomes and berating ourselves, taking blame, or assuming racism when we didn’t produce them. Once we admit that blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes than other races - and this is true across all countries and times, and whether blacks are a minority or a majority or relatively rich or poor - we can then stop erroneously blaming white racism as the cause. We’d stop wasting energy in a million different ways: for example, in expecting school principles to suspend white children and black children at the same rates - rather than suspend them the same for the same offenses, even if that means blacks are suspended 5x more than whites (which, looking at the adult violent crime data, wouldn’t be surprising).
This, in turn, would allow us to spend time doing the right analyses and seek our the real cause.
The accountability is already on any black individual who is caught committing a crime. The question of accountability at the collective level, if it has meaning at all, is a much more complicated question than you seem to think it is.
Cite?
What, a race-specific genetic psychological predisposition to criminal behavior? If that’s what you’re suggesting, you’re reaching a lot further than Herrnstein and Murray ever did.
If you think about it, those statistics indicate blacks vicitimize whites at a much lower rate than racial demographics for the population at largewould predict, if they we choosing victims without respect to their race.
So the victims of black criminals would have to be more than 66% white (non-latino) in order to conclude that blacks were targeting whites based on their race. Your cite supports the conclusion that blacks are less likely to victimize whites than random selection would suggest. Is that what you intended to point out?
Before we take this any further, Buchanan, you do understand, don’t you, that there is no hard scientific evidence of any innate psychological differences between “racial” groups? Not IQ, not Myers-Briggs personality type, and not anything else either. The only contrary cites anybody ever comes up with seem always to come from the likes of Phillippe Rushton (whom other psychologists do not take seriously) and VDare (whom no sensible person takes seriously).
We’ve been trying to talk to the blacks about it, but whenever we bring it up, they run away! There’s nothing we can do. You know how fast they are.
The newsletters read like the work of an escaped mental patient.
Ron Paul is not running for King. He is running for President. The really important thing Presidents do is nominate judges. Ron Paul is likely to nominate the same types of judges that staunch conservatives would nominate including judges like Posner. I don’t see why everyone doesn’t want him to be the Republican candidate.
And it keeps getting better.
Obama warned them about this. Now the Republicans have got a tiger by the tail. Remember back in 2009, Republican were willing to do anything to avoid a long banishment into the wilderness and they embraced all the crazies that came out of the woodwork and claimed to be a new different type of Republican and then they realized that their new base actually expected them to deliver on all those promises that they never intended to keep.
Crime is not really a HUGE problem in the USA anymore. Unless you think we can get rid of crime altogether. The big racial gap we see these days isn’t the crime gap, its the achievement gap.
Which is mostly racism and the legacy of racism.
If anything, it seems like whites are specifically targetting whites.
I thought that it has been established that there is in fact a difference in how different races perform on IQ tests and we were now at the point where people were trying to invalidate the notion of IQ tests, the existence of race, pointing to other things that might explain the gap or just bringing up the fact that the only people that seem to bring this sort of thing have displayed demonstrably racist tendencies in other contexts.
I can’t believe everyone just let this slip thru. Cite?