Again, Ron Paul is NOT a Racist.

David Duke, he ain't.

I had previously refuted allegations that Paul is a closet bigot who loves to write newsletters disparaging black folk such as myself.

Since then, PDF files of the letters have been made public, and the Paul campaign has had to defend itself from charges of racism right and left.

Paul states that he did not write the letters, and his political and ideological opponents (who else) claim that he is too bigoted to be a serious contender for the White House.

A member of the DailyPaul website has posted this gem which mounts a very convincing argument, step by step, that our Man is anything but racist. The DailyPauler has assembled a variety of evidence to support Paul's position that he is not a bigot, and the case is a strong one.

In my view, the only "crime" that RP committed was either a serious lapse of judgment in writing the letters (if he did so), or a blatant lack of oversight if he didn't. We will probably never know the fully story, but I can imagine that the truth of the affair is somewhere in the middle, where it is normally found.

So what about the content of the letters themselves?

Shocking, brutally opinionated, very factual at some points, extremely hurtful in other aspects, and sometimes breathtakingly ignorant. Definitely not politically correct overall, and very unlike the Paul that presents himself in debates, in his books, or in TV interviews. In any event, I've linked to them, so go and read them for yourself.

The newsletters are quite damning, but the evidence that supports Paul's claim that he does not support White Supremacy is also compelling. So I leave it to you to make up your own minds on this one.

I will say this though: I am a Paulite to the very end.

You see, in the Finance world, we have a concept known as Sunk Costs. What this means is that when a businessman needs to make a financial decision, he only considers the relevant facts when analyzing the situation.

For example, if I am faced with a Repair vs. Buy decision, and I know the following facts:

Repair Costs

Initial Investment: $5000
Labor: $1500
Parts: $2500


Buy Costs

Initial Investment: $5000

Then I would compare the relevant repair costs ($1500+$2500=4000) to the cost of buying ($5000.00) and decide to repair my widget instead of buying a new one. The sunk cost of $5000.00 has already been paid. That money is gone and is never coming back. Therefore, the $5000.00 initial investment on the repair side is irrelevant to my decision making.

It's the same situation with Paul. The evidence that he is a supposed Anti-Semite or homophobic is equally (or completely) weighed (outweighed) by his "official" words, deeds, and policy positions. And in my calculus (R = Racist, NR = Not Racist):

-100R + 100NR = 0

or, more realistically:

-100R + 1000NR = 900NR

Advantage: PAUL.


So what is relevant or not relevant in my mind?

A) I know that the vast majority of Presidential Candidates are members of the Anti American CFR group. Because of this fact, it is relevant that I vote for an independent candidate that does not belong to an organization that is diametrically opposed to my interests as an American and a Free man.





B) I know that none of the other candidates can match Paul's wisdom with respect to the economy, personal freedom, Natural rights, and other important issues. The loss of my freedom and the collapse of my nation's economy are very real and pressing concerns. Therefore, these issues are relevant.

C) I know that the media is controlled by the aforementioned CFR and other political organizations that seek to derail the Paul campaign by any means necessary. The changes he advocates would destroy the stranglehold said groups have on power, and would liberate ALL people.

Therefore, the emphasis on Paul's alleged misdeeds, while racist and sexist statements made by other candidates in recent times, and in times long past, are swept under the rug; leads me to be even more rational (like any good stock trader... cold as ice!) in my evaluation of current events. Therefore, discounting negative media coverage of Paul, by taking in the information presented with many grains of salt, is a relevant way to make this most important of decisions.

D) Paul's positions and voting record, especially with respect to the War on "Terror" and the War on Drugs, two government efforts that violate the rights of Americans in general, and black men in particular, lead me to the conclusion that, since actions speak louder than words, that Paul is sincere when he says that he is not racist. His actions, in comparison to the other candidates on issues such as the War on Terror and the War on Drugs, are relevant in my decision making process.

For these very important reasons, and the inability to prove definitively that he is a card carrying member of the KKK right now and today, my continued support of Paul becomes the only logical choice.

Like I said, he's no David Duke. Duke is unapologetically (racist/pro-white/supremacist/whatever you want to call him) upfront about his positions, as most racists/pro-(ethnic group X)/feminist activists generally are. If Paul were indeed a raving racist, there would be a hell of a lot more evidence than a few questionable newsletters!

Ron Paul is unique; and there is no one else like him.

No one.

His positions, his actions, and all of his verifiable writings, based on my understanding of history, finance, economics, and abuses suffered by Men at the hands of an arrogant Matriarchal government, tell me that Ron Paul really is the best man for the job.

And I also believe, based on my forecast of events to come, that in four years, the People will regret with all their hearts that they rejected this remarkable man, based on circumstantial evidence that is, in the grand scheme of things, irrelevant.

And they will learn, the hard way, that everyone who claims to be a friend of your particular tribe, socio-economic class, religion, or Sex isn't always the grand savior they make them out to be.

Toku.