In the Republican presidential candidates’ debate on January 7, Rep. Ron Paul said: “I’m the only one up here . . . that understands [that the] true racism in this country is in the judicial system.”
He said this racism has to do with “enforcing the drug laws,” and then added: “They [blacks] get the death penalty way disproportionately.”
Two groups immediately defended Paul — his supporters, and commentators on the left. The former support anything Paul says; and the Left supports anything that Paul says that portrays America as ugly (see, for example, the defense of Paul by the left-wing USA Today columnist DeWayne Wickham, whose columns are regularly devoted to how much blacks suffer from American racism).
Advertisement
Just last month, Paul was asked by a representative of an organization (We Are Change) that holds the U.S. government responsible for 9/11, “Why won’t you come out about the truth about 9/11?”
Paul’s response: “Because I can’t handle the controversy: I have the IMF, the Federal Reserve to deal with, the IRS to deal with. Because I just have more — too many things on my plate. Because I just have too much to do.” It is readily available on YouTube.
Whatever the implications of his cryptic response, when Paul is confronted by the mainstream media he denies that he believes the American government was involved in the 9/11 attacks. But what is undeniable is that Paul, like much of the Left, holds America largely responsible for 9/11 because of its foreign policy: its “occupying” countries all over the world; the sanctions on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, which Paul and the Left claim killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis; the injustices against Palestinians that America has supported (through its support of Israel); etc.
He mocks the idea that the primary reason for 9/11 was that people of great evil attacked a very good country — because this is the kind of thing the evil do, just as they did on Dec. 7, 1941, when the Japanese regime attacked Pearl Harbor.
It does seem that the Texas congressman’s description of the American justice system as racist is part of his generally dark view of America.
The claim that America disproportionately executes blacks is a falsehood, disseminated on virtually every left-wing website, from the ACLU’s to all the anti-death-penalty sites. The only way it can be regarded as true is if the disproportion is in relation to the entire population of the country: Blacks make up about 12 percent of the population, and since 1976 about 35 percent of those executed for murder have been black. But this is a statistic that tells no truth because it is meaningless in terms of determining alleged racial bias.
This is very easy to prove. Males make up about 50 percent of the American population but about 99 percent of those executed. Is the American justice system wildly anti-male?
Of course not. The statistic that matters in assessing bias in executions is the proportion of murderers of a given group that is executed, not the group’s proportion of the entire population.
And, here, it is clear that blacks are actually underrepresented in executions.
According to the Death Penalty Information Center, an anti-death-penalty organization, between 1976 and January 2012, 441 blacks (35 percent of the total of convicted murderers) and 717 whites (55 percent of the total) were executed. Given that blacks committed more than half the murders during that time (52 percent vs. 46 percent by whites), if we are to assess racial bias based on proportionality of murderers executed, the system is biased against whites, not blacks.
Because this fact is both obvious and irrefutable, virtually none of the anti-death-penalty sites note it. Instead they focus on the race of murder victims and even the race of prosecutors — in other words, the race of just about everyone except those convicted of murder.
It was bad enough for America and for moral clarity when the views on American imperialism and systemic racism expressed by Ron Paul were confined to the Left. That about 20 percent of Republicans believe such things about America makes one anxious about the future of this country, not to mention about the eternal battle against evil.
— Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio-talk-show host and columnist. He may be contacted through his website, dennisprager.com.
I just checked and it is indeed there. Unfortunately, the organization in question is a 9/11 Truther group whose website is full of nutty conspiracy theory, so I’d imagine that Mr. Praeger didn’t want to give them any more free publicity (Goodness knows the Ron Paul people aren’t afraid to drop links willy nilly). The Anti-Military propaganda on their site is indistinguishable from something you’d read on DailyKos, or the Democratic Underground (E.g., one loathsome post tries to blame "Military Culture" for promoting rape), which rather supports Mr. Praeger’s point.
the problem with neocon propaganda outfits ( and your station.., FOX ), is that your supposed logic is incongruent with reality.
You really expect people to believe that our presence in other peoples countries ( yes, they do not belong to us ), has no effect on the people there ? that our bombing their homes and cities has no effect on their opinions ?
Yes, we should have gone after Bin Laden.., found him and then left ( not remain for 10 years ). Bush stopped searching. there was no reason to go into Iraq.
Much of the supposed 'national security' problems are those we created in the first place. Did Bin Laden not train with the CIA ? Did we not give them weapons ? Did we not prop up Saddam ? If you refuse to see this you are just being disingenuous.., and therein lies the problem.
I wholeheartedly agree that the people of France, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Greece, Malta, the Scandinavian countries, etc. definitely wanted us out immediately so that they could have been overrun by communists. After all, look how wonderful the socialist utopias of eastern europe were. Why, they even had to build a wall to keep other Europeans out? Of course, those were socialist utopias, not America, where a border fence could be used to keep us in, right?
Dennis, this may be the most ignorant piece I've ever read by anyone ever. Your view on foreign policy is comical at best. I suggest you read more about how we sent the CIA to overthrow irans leader In 53 so we could help bp to continue to steal Iranian oil, then we put one of the most oppressive regimes into power and the Iranians suffered for two decades until komani came to power and gave birth to the rise of the islamic revolution. Then we put a little known baath party member into power named saddam hussien to fight Iran and who would later turn against us along with former US funded mujahadeen leader Osama bin laden. So we've been meddling In their affairs for half a century and have killed 3.5 percent of thier civilian population in the last decade so the idea that they attack us because we are free and prosperous is absolutely absurd. So killing 3.5 percent of a population ( that would be 11 million Americans in comparison) is acceptable to you?
Your recitation of Iranian history since 1953 is so incorrect as to be laughable. Iran in the late 70's was the most modern and free (economically, religiously, culturally, and politically) state in the Mid-East. The Shah had a (very) small problem with communists & muslim extremists. His internal security, SAVAK, were not as gentle with these insurgent/terrorists as say, we would be - but then again, much gentler than any communist dictatorship in the world. But Jimmah based our foreign policy on 'human rights', so the USA abandoned the Shah. How did that work out? Well, for us, it lead to an embassy violated (what, muslims not respecting international law?!), diplomats held hostage (until the day Reagan was sworn in, lol), and a list of terrorist atrocities over the last three decades that is pages long. But forget about the US, what about the Iranian people. If you think that, except for the muslim extremists (they took care of the commies with no complaint from the 'human rights advocates'), the Iranian people are better off, please step away from the cool aid.
And to answer before you ask, yes, America has a role in the world. To withdraw to our borders as if it was still the 18th century is naivete expected from someone (I'll guess) born in '79. From a 76-year-old Libertarian whose domestic policies make a lot of sense, such naivete is inexcusable.
Thanks for responding and trying to explain modern Iranian history to Josh79 - I was too tired to do it myself. It's incredible that so many people still swallow this "it's all the fault of U.S. Imperialism" B.S.
I have been thinking about hiring an armed mercenary to come and live in your house for the next 3 decades. Don't worry, though. He will be there only to protect you from intruders, as well as to protect you from your wife and children rising up to overthrow you. And finally, he will be there to ensure that every family decision considers my best interest as well.
Don't worry, you're just one of nearly 150 homes that I'm protecting, so it's not like I'm new to this or anything.
"Jimmah" did not abandon the Shah. He toasted him, and was in turn burnt in effigy by the Iranian revolutionaries.
You also completely ignore the significance of 1953 - the Shah's regime might have been free compared to other Middle Eastern states of the 70s, but it was not free compared to the Iranian state itself prior to his installation.
Are you serious? Are you really asserting that a country under 27 years of absolute despotism is "free"?
Can't you see your own brainwashing? Can't you see how preposterous an assertion you are making? That was one of the most ludicrous concoctions of propaganda I've seen in a great long time. Do you know how miniscule the probability that the causation of events was as you described it?
You don't think that living under a tyrant for a full generation might have had just a little to do with it? That the popular will for revolution might have been what gave the mullahs the strength to overthrow the Shah? Doesn't enter into this calculation at all?
They hit the embassy after it became clear how weak Carter was, but that was simply opportunity, not motive nor was it the means. One simply cannot take over a country of that size without some substantial base of popular support.
Iranians were bitterly unhappy under the Shah, and revolted of their own accord. You need to start viewing other people as full human beings with as much emotion, ambition, rights, and yearning to be free as resides in the hearts of Americans.
I do not presume to know your politics, but your argument (devoid of actual facts) sounds an awful lot like the liberal mythology promolgated by the MSM and political science professors - and also parrotted by the more rabid Paul supporters.
International politics is a complicated matter. It does not help when one's statements are distorted. Does "...most free...in the Mid-East" have any meaning to you? You will be hard put to find any non-Marxist historian to disagree with the assessment of Iran under the Shah as being the most 'modern' and 'free', state in the Mid-East. Of course the Left vilifies the Shah, much as it did Mubarrak. The self-loathing Left despises all non-socialist leaders around the world. Of course, it has nothing to say about leftists such as Castro & Chavez.
As to causation, yes, the Shah was toppled explicitly due to the withdrawal of US support by Carter. That does not mean a one-to-one causation; it means that without Carter's action the Shah would not have left. Again, few historians would dispute this fact - dispute, that is the fact, not whether the fact was good or bad.
Iran under the Shah was not perfect (like the USA, lol), but I dispute your assertion that the "Iranians were bitterly unhappy under the Shah". The communists & Islamists sure were, but the average Iranian was quite content - probably because he was comparing his lot not to America, but to his Mid-East neighbors.
I get the feeling that you are quite pleased with the replacing of Mubarrak with the Muslim Brotherhood. This is what happens when thousands of educated idealists, community organized by Islamists, demand 'free' elections only to discover that the other 70 million (uneducated) citizens get told for whom to vote in Friday mosque prior to the election. I am afraid that the people of Egypt will shortly end up as 'free' as Iran. But, hey, all that counts is that they got to 'vote' for the result. The vote - that's the full meaning of freedom, right? How about holding hands with a female acquaintance in public? Does that count as a freedom?
Finally, your last sentence is insulting. I think I care more about the 'real freedom' of people around the world than you do. (Of course, neither of us can prove our assertion.) Real freedom is living your day to day life with the least interference from your government. And there is no disputing that people in socialist & Islamist countries are less free than anywhere else - even if the 'anywhere else' doesn't meet your 'just like America' standard.
Which free are you referring to?
Is democracy free?
Is a republic free?
Is a dictatorship free?
You are saying that Iran under a dictator was more free than it would have been under a democratically elected leader?
Were the people of Egypt more free under Mubarrak than they would have been an elected leader?
What is your goal for the middle east,
Do you want them to all be "free" in our terms, even if it means secular dictatorship?
Or do you think our mission to be spreading democracy as has been decried in the past?
Here's the big one
Do you recognize our only reason for being there at all is Our strategic interests and that as a country we don't care about actual citizens in the Middle east? Recognize that if we really cared about freedom and civil rights for all, that there are countless countries around the world who could truly use our assistants?
Hang on. Yes the Shah was better then the Islamist. But the fact remains is that the U.S overthrew a democratically elected government. On tope of that the Shah did suppress religious institutions that were pushed underground and on top of that they didn't have free press and the freedoms your making them out to have. Yes they were modern in the sense they had equal treatment for women and schooling and education was better then currently. But the whole point from the previous post was not that there better off today then they were in the shah. It was that they didn't like the fact we overthrew a democratically elected government and placed in a dictator. Its not like they a self determination in the 60s and 70s.
Good data there showing your argument....to me it's not a big issue, but it's nice to see someone showing stats against Paul's argument...i will have to research this, and someone needs to pose a question on this to him and get mire clarification as to how he gets his figures. Where I really disagree with you is comparing the attack on Perl Harbor and 9/11. The Japanese attacked us after we placed sanctions on them, but we did so because they were helping our enemies. They then attacked us. We were not in their country messing with them, setting up bases, and choosing sides in order to keep the oil flowing for the corporations here, and we certainly weren't fighting wars for the purpose of making defense contractors rich. There is a long history of us messing around in the middle east...does that mean 9/11 was justified? Hell no! We have every right to go after him, but we don't need to bomb everyone and ruin our relationship with everyone else and make more enemies in the process, which is exactly what we are doing.
"the primary reason for 9/11 was that people of great evil attacked a very good country — because this is the kind of thing the evil do, just as they did on Dec. 7, 1941, when the Japanese regime attacked Pearl Harbor."
Just insipid.
We have to make a distinction between "we the people" and "the ruling class which runs the military." Did *we* deserve 9/11? No, of course not. Did the ruling class provoke it? Yes, absolutely, and *that* is why we need to run them out of office. Saying so is not hatred for America, but hatred for the people who are hell-bent on destroying America from the inside out.
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
