Chauncey DeVega

Chauncey DeVega
Chicago, Illinois, USA
September 11
A (Sometimes) Respectable Negro
Editor and Founder of the blog We Are Respectable Negroes He has been a guest on the BBC, Ring of Fire Radio, Ed Schultz, Joshua Holland's Alternet Radio Hour, the Burt Cohen show, and Our Common Ground. His essays have been featured by Salon, Alternet, the New York Daily News, and the Daily Kos. The NY Times, the Daily Beast, the Utne Reader, Washington Monthly, Slate, and the Week (among others) have featured his expert commentary and analysis on race, politics, and popular culture.

Chauncey DeVega's Links

Editor’s Pick
JANUARY 10, 2012 1:05PM

Real Life is Messy: Of Ron Paul and Racist Abolitionists

Rate: 16 Flag

Ron Paul's non-answer about his racist attitudes towards black Americans during the New Hampshire GOP debate was a classic evasion. It was also a virtual admission of guilt.

Akin to a man on trial for murdering his wife--but who insists on talking about how he is a good father--Ron Paul is unable to explain away the racist screeds in his newsletters, opposition to honoring Dr. King with a national holiday, and belief that the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be overturned because black folks' freedom is an imposition on white people's liberty.

Ron Paul is also a beneficiary of a cult of personality. With such status comes a reservoir of good faith among his public. To their eyes, the libertarian messiah could not possibly be a racist, for that would involve some reflection about the relationship between libertarian approaches to government in theory, and how in practice said philosophy enables white supremacy.

In all, if Ron Paul were a private citizen this would be a non-issue: his name is on the masthead of a newsletter which has repeatedly featured racist editorials; he cashes the checks from the subscribers to this newsletter; he believes that Civil Rights legislation is tyrannical towards whites; white supremacists have endorsed his works; his son, also an elected official,shares the same attitudes about sacrificing the full citizenship of black Americans to a "higher principle."

Check and mate.

Ron Paul's defenders have twisted themselves into all sorts of knots as they try to white wash these inconvenient facts. Their most common claim is that because Ron Paul supports ending the ruinous War on Drugs (with its well documented racial disparities in enforcement, imprisonment, and punishment), that he is a believer in racial equality. This is a symptom of a larger dynamic at work in post-Civil Rights era racial discourse

Primarily, the bar for what constitutes racism has been set so high that even the most obvious examples of racial animus have to be couched in careful terms lest an "innocent" white person be branded a bigot. Second, the definition of what constitutes "racism" has been narrowed down to include only bogeyman and caricatures of White wickedness, White hate, White sheets, White race pride tattoos, White hands holding nooses, and White hands burning crosses. And as an auxiliary-enabler of post-Civil Rights race discourse, the lazy newspeak of "playing the race card" was invented precisely to serve as a defense mechanism that exists only to enable such specious concepts as "white oppression" or "reverse racism."

Of course, real life is much more complicated. Here, the argument that Ron Paul is not a racist because he wants to end the War on Drugs is a logical fallacy. Racist people can support policies that are "race neutral." Racists can be "good people." Anti-racists and progressives can be forward thinking in some areas and unrepentant bigots in others. And of course, while many are loathe to admit it, racism is a sin of both liberals and conservatives alike.

As I am so fond of saying, history is once more our greatest teacher. For example, there were abolitionists who wanted to end slavery and the vile trade in human beings, yet who also thought that black Americans were subhuman. There were abolitionists who urged blacks to rise up against the evils of the Southern slaveocracy, yet these same people thought that the presence of Africans in America was a problem to be solved by colonization because their presence was antithetical to white democracy.

Hinton Rowan Helper was one such figure. His 1868 work, "The Impending Crisis of the South: How to Meet It", was second only to Uncle Tom's Cabin in its influence on the public imagination about the evils of chattel slavery. Helper was also an unrepentant white supremacist.

For example, in his compendium "The Negroes in Negroland", he included such observations as:

In every part of the United States, there is a broad and impassable line of demarcation between every man who has one drop of African blood in his veins, and every other class in the community. The habits, the feelings, all the prejudices of society, — prejudices which neither refinement, nor argument, nor education, nor religion itself, can subdue, — mark the people of color, whether bond or free, as the subjects of a degradation inevitable and incurable. The African in this'country belongs by birth to the very lowest station in society; and from that station he can never rise, be his talents, his enterprise, his virtues what they may." — African Repository , Vol. IV., page 118.

Even more pithy, Helper included how:

"'The negro is not wholly without talents, but they are limited to imitation, — the learning of what has been previously known. He has neither invention nor judgment. Africans may be considered docile, but few of them are judicious, and thus in mental qualities we are disposed to see a certain analogy with the apes, whose imitative powers are proverbial.'" — Burmeister's Black Man, page 14.

Or how about this gem of common sense race science:

"So great a difference of opinion has ever existed upon the intrinsic value of the negro, that the very perplexity of the question is a proof that he is altogether a distinct variety. So long as it is generally considered that the negro and the white man are to be governed by the same laws and guided by the same management, so long will the former remain a thorn in the side of every community to which he may unhappily belong. When the horse and the ass shall be found to match in double harness, the white man and the African black will pull together under the same regime. It is the grand error of equalizing that which is unequal that has lowered the negro character, and made the black man a reproach." — Baker's Great Basin of the Nile, page 195.

People are complicated. One can be an abolitionist like Hinton Rowan Helper and believe that black humanity and personhood are sub-par, well below that of whites, and that African Americans have no place in American society. Ron Paul can be right on foreign relations and government waste for example, but dead wrong on matters of race, justice, and civil rights.

Such is life. Despite the temptations, there are no easy answers. Some in the American public will see Ron Paul's racism as necessarily compromising his vision, ethics, and judgement more generally; it is a first order problem, not a mere inconvenience. For Ron Paul's supporters, attitudes about black people are secondary to his libertarian vision for the United States. How a person reconciles this matter tells us a great deal about their own ethics and values.

On questions of race and justice the personal is indeed the political. The challenge here--and for libertarianism more broadly--is how these personal choices become impositions on the full citizenship, full rights, and full personhood of other people. To this point, Ron Paul's version of libertarianism offers no satisfying answers for those who are not White, not privileged, and outside of the moneyed classes.

Is he a racist? I do not know. But the policies which Ron Paul advocates, and the philosophy which he subscribes to, are none too friendly to people of color. For me, that is enough of a disqualification.

Your tags:


Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:


Type your comment below:
Americans -- in particular Libertarian Americans -- in their bottomless ignorance, are incapable of comprehending that government is what insures their rights, and that absent government they have exactly none.

Anyone who doubts that should contemplate their chances of winning a fight with a mufti-national corporation like GE -- particularly absent that other institution wingnuts love to rant against -- plaintiffs attorneys. See the book A Civil Action for details.

In short -- to quote my 22-yr old son: "Libertarianism is the Scientology of politics."
Hi recent ad denigrating Hunstman for adopting two Chinese children is disgusting. Of couse, he disavowed this.
Tell it to David Sirota and Glenn Greenwald. They're trying to sell the notion that Paul is a "Progressive" and therefore superior to Obama.
Here's how I see - the extrajudicial killing of Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son sans due process harkens back to the days when folks would be convinced so and so was guilty of a crime (often so and so was an African American) and so they would lynch so and so. For me that trumps some racist rant in an obscure news letter from 20+ years ago. Doesn't excuse it or dismiss it - just that the killing of a citizen sans due process trumps it in being something to be worried about. They say politics is about compromise - well that's mine.
This article is attempt to smear Dr. Paul.
This is Dr. Paul transcript from NH presidential candidates debate:
"True racism in this country is in the judicial system," he said in his counterattack to the ABC News panelist at the New Hampshire debate. "And it has to do with enforcing the drug laws.

"Look at the percentages. The percentages of people who use drugs are about the same with blacks and whites. And yet the blacks are arrested way disproportionately. They're prosecuted and imprisoned way disproportionately. They get the death penalty way disproportionately.

"How many times have you seen a white rich person get the electric chair or get, you know, execution?"
Ron Paul doesn't need anybody to "smear" him. His bigotry and fanaticism speaks for itslef.
Your last paragraph says it perfectly. This post is inspired in its insight.

Thank you again for a well-documented and rationally presented argument.

Is Affirmative Action a racist program?
It isn't to anyone who knows the meaning of the word.

I know ya meant to sound all profound and such, but it's an easy Google.
Libertarianism is a fundamentalist philosophy. It advocates that the government stick to the basics, (fire, defense, etc) and not give a damn about society or social justice. Ron Paul does seem to stick to his principles and as such, one could argue that say, support for allowing "freedom of association" to produce a new set of de-facto Jim Crow is not racism, but philosophy. And conceivably he believes that morality and social justice are the province of institutions like churches, not Gov't.

But, ultimately, to me, such a view exposes the limitations of libertarianism. We have the Gov't do things because charities and churches are not effective enough.

The one drop thing is so funny to me. We are all ultimately descended from the original humans who came from Africa.
Michael Lynd has talked about Ron Paul's "friendlier" racism. Racism has its gradations from soft to hard. Paul's racism is "friendlier," as it recognizes the inequality that is built into the American system. Contrast that with the statements of Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich. Of course, since the GOP is really the party of reformed Dixiecrats (I'm thinking Strom Thurmond here), should we be surprised at the GOP's fear of a non-white planet?

The author of the racist articles in question is James B. Powell, presently working for Forbes magazine.

In addition, of 240 articles, a whopping EIGHT are in question and those were all written in succession over a span of four or so months and not before or after that. The point is IT WAS NOT RON PAUL.

Are you ready to go after Barack Obama for the Department of Justice/ATF program (tOperation Fast & Furious) hat allowed high powered weapons to be sold to Mexican drug gangs that has resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Mexico and near our southern border?

Or is it just Ron Paul that has to be perfect, when in fact, none of the crap sticks because it's not pertinent and it's A LIE.
@Malusinka: Libertarians are generally those who recognize that governments aren't comparable to churches and other private organizations - governments work because of the implicit threat of violence behind all its laws. Fall afoul of its laws, and you will have goods or money taken from you, and you may be forcibly confined for years. Therefore, the government is not the proper instrument for redressing certain wrongs, and 'social justice' isn't a proper aim of government.

@Tom Cordle: As for government being the source of rights, this idea is absurd. If government is the source of our rights, what is to keep governments from doing whatever it likes with its citizens? That is, what is wrong with governments, say, taking citizens' goods without trial? The best you could say if you believe that government is the source of our rights, is that it turns out we don't have the right to our property, and to a trial before having it seized, after all. Any conception of rights worthy of the name is one in which rights exist prior to government, failing which there is no reason governments couldn't capriciously take away our rights.
Landmark 1964 civil rights legislation? Hogwash. Blacks are 5X more likely to be convicted of crimes. They are 4X more likely to receive the death penalty, and they serve sentences 61X (that's not a typo, it's SIXTY-ONE times) longer than their white counterparts.

There is only one demographic whose most likely chance of death isn't heart disease. That demographic - black males 18-34. Know what their most likely chance of death is? Murder...VIOLENT Murder.

Much of these problems stem from the drug war, the rest from racism and bias in the legislative and judicial system.

Is Ron Paul a bigot? Probably. He's also probably a mysogynist and a homophobe, but ya know what? IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER. All that means is that if he's president, you probably won't get invited in for a state dinner. You gettin' a lot of those invitations from President Obama?

Ron Paul WILL DO all the things that Obama promised to do to reverse the Bush Totalitarian State, but has only sought to enhance since he's been in office.

Ron Paul will also fuck up a lot of stuff because his ideas on economics are crap, but that means he'll be batting .500. Obama is rockin' a goose egg, and if I got a batter who can get on base once ever 2 at bats as opposed to one who can't get the damn bat off his shoulders, I'm goin' with the guy who gives me a coin toss of a chance at bring the runner home.

Barrack Obama was a man that I was more excited to vote for than any other president I've voted for in my life. He is now the biggest dissapointment of any politician I have ever voted for. I am personally angry that HE is the 1st black president, and not one of the many, more worthy, more honest and forthright men who have come before him.

Why don't we celebrate Malcolm X's birthday? Why just MLK's? Paul would advovcate for each state to decide who got to celebrate what birthday and who didn't. He would advocate that the federal government should get out of the bizness that is killing and jailing more black people that any other. He would advocate that each state should decide if gays could marry or not.

But, he's old and he's from the south, so he probably wouldn't advocate for a lot of black dinner guests at his home.

Personally, I'm OK with that. You and the rest of the Paul haters got your collective heads up your ass as you ONCE AGAIN fall for these bullshit wedge issues that get you nowhere.

You wanna keep fighting over shit that don't matter (yes, the 64 token civil rights legislation doesn't matter. Brown vs Board of Education does, but the johnson legislation doesn't, in any meaningful way...all apologies to Rodney King), or you want some ACTUAL PROGRESS on the things that are doing you the most damage as a black man (assuming you are one...I skimmed your article because every word was more uninformed and stupid than the ones that came before it)?

Figure out what you actually care about, and don't let your UNINFORMED PREJUDICE COLOR your opinions until you understand the things about which you are forming an opinion.


I swear...I don't know who is worse anymore, the people who watch FOX or the people who watch MSNBC. They're both uninformed and full of shit, it's just that I think one side knows it, and is OK with it, and the other side still thinks they are righteous and truthful.

psssst - you're not.
Wow the lack of common sense that occurs here is overwhelming.
@Patrick Frank - A report came out on Monday showing that this "controversial" ad was actually uploaded at the Huntsman campaign site in NH.. So, needless to say Ron Paul no longer needs to disavow this item.. Yet.. you haven't heard much about it from the MSM.. I wonder why...

@Everyone else who believes Ron Paul is a Racist- Check this video out.. One lone media organization actually did real journalism.. The clown that wrote this article wouldn't know anything about that...

People tied to the military/industrial complex loathe Paul the most. He labels their banter against Iran “warmongering” and states: “In all wars minorities suffer the most. So I hope that they join me in this position … against the war in Iraq… and the war on drugs.” What other candidates will stand up and say “I will pardon … everybody convicted for non-violent drug acts and drug crimes. This is where the real discrimination is … the judicial system … that I’m attacking.”

Ron Paul is far from being a foe of Black Americans. He is to be admired as a man of principles and a comrade in foiling America’s imperialists and the war crowd that probably were sources of the racially-charged commentaries.

Paul is hardly the racist that the mainstream media would have Blacks believe him to be. Blacks have more in common with Paul’s opposition to America’s penchant for imperialistic wars and absurd rationalities behind them like “Manifest Destiny” and “American Exceptionalism” than with President Obama.

Think about it, Paul has been on the national scene for 30 years. He has been labeled “conservative”, “Constitutionalist” and “libertarian”, but never “racist.” Much of Paul’s opposition comes from fear in some pro-Israel circles that Paul reflects an ascendant faction that has little use for a foreign policy so tilted toward Israel. Paul is not “a mainstream man” and the only candidate seeking to change the status quo in America. A medical doctor, Paul advocates ending the drug war and fixing a biased court system that unfairly targets and punishes minorities.

By William Reed, NNPA Columnist
Ron Paul supporters:

You're wasting your time here -- these establishment-status-quo-sycophants are determined to hate him.

They won't watch the videos.
They won't consider the counter evidence.
They won't listen to the message.

Move on--You are part of something exciting--more exciting and meaningful than we have ever experienced in American Politics.

This movement is big and growing. Ron Paul is only the beginning. All the other candidates have to offer is measured rhetoric and careful positions -- Ron Paul has a mission (and becoming President isn't a necessary part of it).

When people understand that message, these polarized dinosaurs will claim they knew it all along.

Like I said -- move on -- these people are the past -- you are the future.

Great piece. I'd love to see more like this.
To this point, Ron Paul's version of libertarianism offers no satisfying answers…

It’s important to make this vital point: Ron Paul is NOT a libertarian, period. He is however a poser and a fraud. Real libertarians do not espouse his views (either personal or through their actions), such as those described above, nor do they selectively choose areas where the government can or cannot intrude in people’s lives. Here, the government doesn’t mean the federal government, but all levels of government (from the federal to local jurisdictions).

As shown in this libertarian chart, Ron Paul is far from being a libertarian.

Real libertarians take individual rights seriously - seriously enough to consistently uphold them against the initiation of the use of force by anyone (including government) for any reason. This means that government must be bound by the policy of "laissez faire" - which means that government has no business coercively interfering with the lives of peaceful (non-coercive) citizens in their private affairs and voluntary (market) relationships.

Does Ron Paul adhere to the bold statement for all areas, such as those related to abortion and gay marriage? Absolutely not.
Some of the “libertarians” (also fake?) above have forgotten to include one of Ron Paul’s books:

Rep. Ron Paul's early book included controversial passages

Like the newsletters, maybe he didn’t know what he wrote in his own book…
The link above didn't work. The chart can be found here:

Political Compass
Not Ron Paul's Race Problem. BLACK FOLKS RACE PROBLEM. African Americans can't keep defining their issues through race. We are bigger than just "Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson" moments. (No offense to the brothers). People know a good "race issue" is sure to get black folk started. There are so many other important issues about Ron Paul to discuss, but we (African Americans) get stuck on some stupid letters from the 80's.... that no one was talking about until the main stream media brought it up. Truthfully, most African Americans, in some way or another, work for or get their money from people who don't have the best interest of the black community at heart. (Even more so, some are probably racist.) Banks, jobs, the internet, Facebook, the stores we shop in, clothing, music, the food we buy, etc. But we never question or investigate. But as soon as someone makes a mainstream race issue, we bite the bait and jump on it. Some of these black writers that are saying people should not support RP are just jumping at the bait. Ron Paul now has to limit his responses because people are trying to twist his words and twist the story. For the most part,
RP has believed in complete freedom of the press. No Censoring. Which, partly explains why he allowed his name to be on a newsletter with known white sumpremacist. Yet we continue to ignore real threating issues to the black community at hand and continue to allow our homes, neighborhoods and culture to be the dumping ground for filth. .....
Also - ending war is a big part of Paul's platform, and one that so-called liberals used to care about. LOOK AT THE DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF BLACKS SERVING IN THE MILITARY and tell me that's a race neutral issue as well.

Drugs have ALWAYS been about race...Marijuanna (a make-believe name for cannabis, meaning Mary Jane in Spanish) was outlawed because of Mexicans. Cocaine, because of blacks. Opium because of Chinese (Oops...a bunch of white women buying "tonic" were actually the worst addicts).

Just because something doesn't have RACE plastered all over it, doesn't mean it's not a racial issue.

I'm NOT a RON PAUL-ITE. I just recognize that he is the only viable candate who I believe will actually do something about the things I care about (and the things Obama promised to do something about, but hasn't, when he took office). If there was another viable candidate who I believed would do these things, I would probably vote for them instead. Right now, there isn't.
PS - your avatar is AWESOME. You should check out Redd on the Jackson Family Variety Hour on Youtube, if you're a fan. Funny stuff (and, a little bit disturbing in how there were so willing to sexualize Michael and Janet at such at young age.)
State intervention on behalf of blacks and other minorities only deepens racism. Programs like affirmative action breed inner resentment and contempt in whites towards blacks and Latinos. Absent affirmative action, a black professional had a higher probability of being excellent than a white one. Under it the opposite is true and whites often revert to racist frameworks to attempt to gain maximum value in their purchases, and you can't fault them for it.

There is clearly a socioeconomic disparity between not just blacks and whites but between tropical peoples and non-tropical peoples worldwide. It may be millenia in the making but likely can be erased over time. We can only count on humanity's exponential growth of knowledge and acceleration of technology to organically bring about equality. Using the bumbling state to knock down some groups at the expense of others won't solve anything. Individuals need to be left alone to demonstrate their abilities and value in the marketplace, succeed economically, and eventually improve their families and local communities' economic standing. In a society that unfortunately respects wealth above all else, this is the only current viable solution to racism, making Ron Paul's libertarian philosophy a far better choice for blacks than the 'friendly' platforms of both party establishments.
"For Ron Paul's supporters, attitudes about black people are secondary to his libertarian vision for the United States."

I'm a Ron Paul supporter, I'm a Libertarian, I have no attitudes towards black people, nor do I towards whites, or latinos or any other 'ethnicities'. I do not believe in ethnicities, nor do I believe that government policies should ever revolve around 'ethnicities' or 'groups' of people. That's the whole point of libertarianism, something Dr. Paul has said over and over again, that there are no different groups of people, because we're all people. So stop grouping everyone. I belong to no race: I am a human being.
And the whole reason Paul says he would not have voted to support the Civil Rights Act isn't because he thought that certain people should be denied the rights of citizenship, he would have fought endlessly, as he does today, to ensure that everyone had their liberties. The reason he says he would've voted against it is because he believe, as do I, that the Federal Government has no place telling a person how to run their store or diner, etc.
Mr. Devega, in this anti-racism article of yours, you yourself have fed the racial flames that divide, you have given fuel to the fire simply by deciding people can be judged by what they look like.
And so what if Paul is a racist fearful old man? The last he would ever do is try to impose he social ideas on anyone; that's the meaning of libertarianism.
And for anyone here who views libertarianism as a mockery, well, you better head to Canada, because this movement has only begun.
I'm Brian McHugh, and the only thing I believe in is the Liberty of people. Libertarian Party, 2012
"Americans -- in particular Libertarian Americans -- in their bottomless ignorance, are incapable of comprehending that government is what insures their rights, and that absent government they have exactly none."
Tom Cordle, I suppose you haven't recognized the divide between libertarians and anarchists, eh?
Brianmchugh writes “Tom Cordle, I suppose you haven't recognized the divide between libertarians and anarchists, eh?

I don’t think most libertarians in the US know the difference either.
"There are a total of 20 editions of the Ron Paul newsletters, which have passages or sections of racist, bigoted, or anti homosexual language, as well as conspiracy theories."

See? Now if there had been 21. . .
"And the whole reason Paul says he would not have voted to support the Civil Rights Act isn't because he thought that certain people should be denied the rights of citizenship, he would have fought endlessly, as he does today, to ensure that everyone had their liberties."

It would be really nice if Obama believed in racial equality - you know the kind I mean. Where black people who live in mansions on Lake Shore Drive are equal to the ones that live in the hood.
Agreed. I argued with someone recently on this very issue. I maintained that even if Mr. Paul didn't actually write those nasty pieces of writing, he endorsed them with his name on the Newsletter and that makes him supportive of those ideas in principle. That, in my book, is a "Buck Stops Here" announcement of complicit agreement with what was written.

I had the displeasure of reading them when they were first published and I was still new to Texas. Four newsletters later, I was convinced this man would NOT make a good head of state.

I stand by that assessment still.

"belief that the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be overturned because black folks' freedom is an imposition on white people's liberty."

Hey!- the exact same thing you heard throughout the South before abolition! Deja Vu doesn't apply though because it never went away in the first place. The cowardice of white americans on race is immeasurable, other than the local haole of Hawaii who have copped to the whole deal and now are included in the greater group.

Imua (Onward)
Chauncey - it seems to me that you are bent on proving racism exists and assuring that it continues. Your writing does not sound like someone that wants it to end. It sounds like you are invested in it continuing.
You seem to think a large number of whites are racists. If they say they aren't you call the deniers.You seem to dislike black people that don't tow your line. In one post you assigned one of two potential "bad reasonings" for their views. I think you were talking about Herman Cain and the fact that he did not handle a particular life experience the way you see fit. Thus he is some combination of victim/sellout/denier/white man's fool.

You are well written and diligent in your research. Maybe you could spend the same energy being your own devil's advocate. If you did you could probably get another handle on salon and post just as much compelling evidence that things are not as black and white (absolutely no pun) as you seem to like them to be.
Tom - I am taking on a big corporation. And as you know a gov. agency well. Your experience with said agency may have gone smoothly, leading you to believe it is a great creation.
I can tell you from my experience I am winning against the corp. and I would be better off if the gov agency never existed in the first place.

I would take on a corp. in court (and am) any day compared to taking on gov bureaucracy. At least I know the corp is just plain nasty. I can beat that. The gov is just plain stupid and can't even gets simple facts straight and it takes an endless amount of time to correct them.
I hope you think justice is the role of the Gov't, otherwise, not much separates libertarianism from anarchy.
Thank you for your well researched and well presented analysis of Ron Paul. The modern Republican Party depends upon the continuation of white supremacy and white privilege, packaged now in a bland race- neutral color-blindness. This race-neutrality and color-blindness is designed to maintain our current racial inequities by doing exactly nothing about them.

One thing that this GOP primary has done is to reveal the actual racist contents of that carefully constructed package of racial neutrality and color blindness. It seems the candidates want to fall all over themselves appealing to the most hardcore neo-confederate white supremacist elements in their party. Those voters do not want blandness. They want the red meat of naked prejudice, served hot. The leading GOP candidates have not been shy in giving it to them.

If nothing else this Republican primary has been a very educational experience for naive Americans who think we live in a post-racial society. Readers of Open Salon can partake of that educational experience just by seeing the rage against African Americans expressed in some of the comments here.
Interesting article on Dr. Paul. Personally, I care less about articles written by someone else long before this election cycle than I do about what Paul can do in the future if he were President. I expect he would face as even more obstruction from Congress to carry out his programs than Obama has.

Also Hinton R. Helper published Impending Crisis in 1857, before the Civil War, not 1868, which obviously was after the war.
There is something you should know about that warm milk of justice and safety from the teat of government, that you old hippies are so fond of sucking on...

It ain't a teat --- and that's not milk.

(By the way, Big Sis is monitoring this site -- so make sure you only say nice things.)

Keep living the delusion Chauncey and see how it works out for you.
Let’s play a game. Let’s see if the quotes below are properly assigned to the right doofus.

Homer Simpson: “Really? I don't remember seeing Karl Marx's signature on the bottom.

Spumey: “Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.

Homer Simpson: “The young voters who support Dr. Paul do their research -- don't believe me?
Start an argument with one of them.

Spumey: “I'm having the best day of my life, and I owe it all to not going to Church!

Then, let’s determine who has the most brainless quotes between the two cartoon characters, one of which is aspiring to surpass one we see on TV in terms of idiocy.
Homer Simpson: “Really? I don't remember seeing Karl Marx's signature on the bottom (of the US Constitution).

(copy and pasted too quickly)
Kanuk, Kanuk, Kanuk,

You are just jealous that I'm clever and you're just snarky.

As for Cartoons:

I am Bugs Bunny and you are Elmer Fudd.
By clever, do you mean that you couldn’t even argue with yourself, as well stated on another thread? Then, everyone here would agree with your cleverness (or lack thereof). This is a trait of Bozo the Clown you should know. As much as you like to be Bugs Bunny, you’re just a Bozo wannabe (like you are a libertarian wannabe).