Ron Paul’s inclusive message attracting African American voters (HUGE black voter shift)

Ron Paul’s inclusive message attracting African American voters
Maple Brown, USA Daily
Published 10/25/2007 - 11:34 a.m. EDT

Ron Paul’s inclusive message of peace, freedom, and prosperity may be attracting African American voters. According to this poll, Ron Paul leads his GOP opponents among black voters in general election contests.

In general election matches Paul loses among African American voters 60% to 33% against Hillary Clinton and loses 61% to 31% to Barack Obama.

In 2004 CNN exit polls show Bush receiving 11% of the African American vote in the general election against Kerry.

The averages of general election match up against either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are for Paul, Romney, McCain or Giuliani are, Ron Paul - 32%, Mitt Romney - 23.5%, John McCain - 20%, Rudy Giuliani - 16%.

If the polls are accurate it could mean that Ron Paul’s message that ‘Freedom unites people’ is working. Paul’s uncompromising defense of the Bill of Rights is making him a Civil Rights Leader in his own right. ("Ron Paul inspiring new Civil Rights movements")

The poll, if accurate, could also mean that Ron Paul’s message of ‘repealing the police state’ is resonating with African American voters.

Paul does appear to be a uniting political force attracting supporters at his events from all walks of life.

USA Daily does not encourage its readers to allow polls to influence their voting decisions in any way. They are too often inaccurate. This statement is not a comment on the poll in question just on polling in general. (Discuss the election on www.usadaily.net)

By his own words, Ron Paul was NOT a Reagan Republican on foreign policy - as proven by the following quotes from Freedom Under Siege - Ron Paul (1988). His criticism sounds like it could have been from Ted Kennedy or Jimmy Carter. (No wonder he left Congress before Reagan's 2nd term (1985) and ran for President in 1988 as a Libertarian and NOT a Republican.)

Reagan Policy in Grenada

"The American people, unfortunately, could not see that both actions were the result of the same flawed policy. The Grenada invasion was heralded as a great triumph and applauded by the vast majority of American people. The truth is that neither the medical students nor the administrator of the medical school ever requested the rescue. The military argument for invasion was shallow. If the airbase in Grenada ever became a threat to the United States, a single missile fired from a ship offshore could destroy it in minutes..."
"The overwhelming "victory" in Grenada was less than a brilliant military operation. There were no Cuban troops of any significance. The landing was changed from 2 a.m. to 5:30 a.m. because the U.S. authorities were uncertain of night operations. Nineteen U.S. soldiers were killed seven by friendly fire..."
"Worst of all, and typical of our tragic foreign policy-in the midst of the Grenada invasion designed to make the world safe for democracy by stopping the spread of communism-President Reagan, behind the scenes, was forcefully lobbying for specific aid to "Communist-dictators" through additional IMF funding. The invasion of Grenada is hardly the victory the American people were led to believe."

Reagan Policy in Nicaragua & Libya

"The U.S. policy toward Libya further confirms our irrational foreign policy. Under Reagan we have been determined to pick a fight with Khadafi, defying him with naval and air maneuvers in the Gulf of Sidra. As we try to emphasize our right to navigate in international waters near Libya, we totally reject the territorial waters of Nicaragua by mining their harbors. The World Court rulings against the U.S. were ignored by the Reagan Administration, yet the President insists that international law is legitimate in the Gulf of Sidra. The most important point, however, is that the Gulf of Sidra has nothing to do with U.S. security."
"Bombing a foreign capital, and killing innocent civilians, including a young daughter of Khadafi - even if the opinion polls support the action - is an act of war and not authorized by our Constitution."

Quoting the World Court and screaming "act of war ... not authorized by our Constitution" during Reagan's Presidency and now calling himself a Reagan Republican is why real Reagan followers are repulsed by this fraud of a man.

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 4, 2003

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I am greatly concerned about abortion. Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem.

Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.

The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade.

Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.

For example, 14G in the “Findings” section of this bill states, “...such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide...” The question I pose in response is this: Is not the fact that life begins at conception the main tenet advanced by the pro-life community? By stating that we draw a “bright line” between abortion and infanticide, I fear that we simply reinforce the dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can determine which members of the human family are “expendable,” and which are not.

Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial-birth abortion. This greatly stretches the definition of interstate commerce. The abuse of both the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause is precisely the reason our federal government no longer conforms to constitutional dictates but, instead, balloons out of control in its growth and scope. H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause.

H.R. 760 also depends heavily upon a “distinction” made by the Court in both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which establishes that a child within the womb is not protected under law, but one outside of the womb is. By depending upon this illogical “distinction,” I fear that H.R. 760, as I stated before, ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes them as it should.

Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good.

Retraction?

You don't date that quote... but Ronald Reagan was always a gentleman and diplomatic when dealing with fellow Republicans... which Ron Paul stopped being in 1988. That's when he left the GOP to run as a Libertarian for President and when he published a book critical of Reagan and Reagan Policies.

More important than one small undated quote of Reagan on Paul, here's some extended and dated quotes of Paul on Reagan (from Freedom Under Siege - Ron Paul (1988) which debunk the Paulestinian claim that he’s a “Reagan Republicans.”

“Lie-detector tests and urine and blood tests are now common-place and have been strongly supported by the Reagan Administration – an administration that championed limited government principles. Today the government sends out planes and helicopters to spy on farmlands and industrial plants, taking pictures…”
“The CIA, not known for its intelligence-gathering skills, has 16,000 agents - 2,500 added under William Casey and two-thirds added during the last decade. This agency is only 40 years old and its activities, which include clandestine and ruthless intervention in the affairs of other nations, is neither morally nor constitutionally justified.”
“What is done in the name of national security is a disgrace, and the worst kind of disinformation conceivable. President Reagan put American intervention in a proper perspective. On July 16, 1986, he was asked whether sending helicopters to Bolivia for drug enforcement was in the national interest and he responded: "Anything we do is in the national interest."”

“Let me make this perfectly clear...

I would RATHER have hillery than Paul...

She may be a socialist power grubing bitch.....but she aint crazy...

Now begone zealot!

I smite thee!”

You are stupid, Crim. You’d rather have a socialist than someone with whom you’d agree more than 90% of the time? I take it back; you’re not stupid. You’re insane. Stupidity is not knowing the difference; insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. (in this case the repeated behavior is voting for socialists while expecting to have lower taxes, and more freedom)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.