Ron Paul, Ron Paul. Oh why, Ron Paul?
I started doing research on Ron Paul. Just for the sake of it. What I learned made me feel good. His drug law policies = Excellent. It focuses on relaxing the laws on marijuana mainly, such as making it an individual state decision instead of a national decision. That takes the confusion of California, Colorado, and other states like it. Then we move on to the wars. He wants to pull out of the Afghanistan war for a clear reason -- it's fruitless. Among those two political standpoints, he stands on some issues none of the candidates touch. Democratic or Republican. The issues he addresses are issues that need to be addressed. I was already beginning to make my imaginary vote for him.
Then I saw something that bothered me. On his website, he talked about how he was the only Congressman in the United States to vote against the Civil Rights Bill. What? His reason is because what the bill includes about property owners being told what to do. Really? The point of the bill is to hold business liable for the mistreatment of people based on race and gender. In that regard, I would be completely fine with the goverement telling me I have
allow everyone on my property, regardless of gender or race. He told Chris Matthews of MSNBC that he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act in 1964 either (which at the time was crucial to outlawing segregation) for the same reason. THEN, he's featured in video of the John Birch Society who was historically against the Civil Rights movement. Mind this is all this decade, and he made a John Birch Society appearance as late as 2008
. So I began to look into his history on race relations. And they are crap. Of course his infamous 1980's-1990's newsletters, popped up in my search. In those letters, he say such gems as this:
"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
"Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks." (This newsletter was referring to the LA Riots after the Rodney King fiasco)
One referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as "the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and who "seduced underage girls and boys."
How sweet, right? He claims to have not written any of this and did not know all this was in the newsletters until it was pointed out to him. However, he did call the quotes "terrible". Okay, I understand. But here's the problem though. How in the world did you not know what was published on a newsletter that printed for years
with your name
on at the forefront of it? I find that quite odd.
Then we move on to his crippling homophobia. It's okay not to like gay people. I understand. Many Republicans do not approve. That's not the point. His homophobia is to the point where you have to take a double take. First we refer to the newsletters:
"gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense," adding: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."
ďthose who donít commit sodomy, who donít get blood a transfusion, and who donít swap needles, are virtually assured of not getting AIDS unless they are deliberately infected by a malicious gay.
Those are just some example from the newsletter. I have not found any articles about how he replied to those statements. But he still sticks with he didn't make the newsletters or ever read the, they just have his name on it.
Then there are the claims of a former aide of his. Ron Paul couldn't even take a pee in a in a bathroom owned by a gay man or shake hands with a gay campaign funder. He swatter the dude's hand away. Being this homophobic won't help him if he becomes president, because, as many know, Washington D.C is full of gays.
Then we get to the groups to support him: white supremacists, neo-nazis, white nationalists, and others. Ron Paul reluctantly accepts their support of course. He doesn't really like it, which makes perfect sense. People say not to judge candidates based on who follow them, but I am. I'm not saying he supports them, but there's a freaking reason why they
. Catch my drift?
So, here's my question. What is more important about Ron Paul -- his political policies or his beliefs? You all can assume my answer.