More Evidence of Dr. Ron Paul's Insanity

I've thought for quite some time that Dr. Ron Paul is insane. For me, it only took a brief look into his archaic views of economics and the constitution (I guess Dr. Paul wants to go back in time to when the Supreme Court defended the "right" to employing children in coal mines). For many of my peers, though, Dr. Paul's views have struck a chord (I really can't figure out why).

Well, more proof has emerged that he really is, and has been for quite some time, insane. In the past, Dr. Ron has published the Ron Paul Political Report, the Ron Paul Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, and the Ron Paul Investment Letter. These newsletters have been found to contain many troubling (to say the least) passages. One refers to Dr. Martin Luther King as "a world-class adulterer," a "lying socialist satyr," and "the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."

Classy.

This one speaks praises of David Duke, a former Grand Wizard of the KKK.

In 1990, Al Sharpton and some friends staged a rally in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. Now, renaming such a major city after anyone (no matter how great) seems rather foolish to me, but the Ron Paul Political Report took it a step (or twenty) farther. The article suggested that NYC be renamed "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," or "Lazyopolis" instead.

Apparently Dr. Paul doesn't just hate blacks. He hates gays, too. In the Political Report, he writes, "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities." He continues, "The largest blood bank in San Francisco succumbed to political pressure and holds blood drives in the gay Castro district, where people give at three times the usual level. Either they are public spirited, or they are trying to poison the blood supply." (emphasis added)

In the Survival Report, he writes that gays try to get AIDS because "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick.

Naturally, Dr. Paul claims no knowledge of these articles.

Jesus in Jena

District Attorney Reed Walters, the prosecutor in the Jena 6 case, credited Jesus as the reason that the demonstrations taking place this week were peaceful:

"The only way — let me stress that — the only way that I believe that me or this community has been able to endure the trauma that has been thrust upon us is through the prayers of the Christian people who have sent them up in this community."

So what's the lesson here, Mr. Walters? That divine intervention is necesssary for a large crowd of black people to be peaceful?

"Well sure, haven't ya'll ever been to one of dem hip-hop shows?"

OK, that last one's not a real quote. But it might as well have been.

Liberals: unduly pessimistic about racism and Obama?

I was just reading Fz's excellent post on Obama when something jumped out at me. He says:

But, there is something else to think about. As the article points out, 90% of Americans say they would be "completely comfortable voting for a qualified presidential candidate who was black;" however, only 55% of Americans say that "Americans are ready to elect an African American or black as president." 35% say no. So, that means that at least 25% of people are comfortable with voting for a black candidate, but do not think that Americans are ready. Odd.

But, even with this mystery, I don't think Obama's race will effect him. The 35% of people who say America isn't ready are almost certainly Republicans anyway, so I don't think there's much to worry about.

I'm not so sure that the people who believe this are Republicans. One thing I have noticed is that many of my Democratic friends really like Obama, but are quick to point out that they don't believe a black man can be elected president. (They are all unable to back it up with polls or any form of evidence; they simply have a gut feeling that America is too racist for it to happen.) I've yet to hear a Republican say anything of the sort.

Obviously, a few anecdotes don't prove anything, but I think this attitude might help us understand the seeming inconsistency of the poll above. How can 90% of American be ready to vote for an African-American but only 55% think that he could win? Well, perhaps many of them, liberals in particular, are unduly pessimistic about the racism of the average American at the polling booth. I, for one, am convinced that if Obama loses, it will be his inexperience, not his ethnicity, that is his downfall.