Women currently have abortion rights under existing law so there is nothing to “clear up.”

I’m not so sure from Paul’s writings that he would see Jim Crow laws as being illegal or that he would support intervention by the federal government. (Obviously the views of his supporters has no real bearing on Paul’s own views but I’ve also been disappointed to have many discussions with his supporters here where they tend to come down on the side of opposing any federal legislation in such situations.)

I should have a post up on Paul’s latest ad in a few minutes if you are interested.

You still haven’t cleared up on how a woman’s right to property trumps the right of existence of a fetus. In order for that to happen, either a court or a legislative body has to decide that a fetus is not a human with full legal rights.

“You assume that no state would enact Jim Crow laws but what if you are wrong, or attitudes change? There would be nothing to stop them with Paul’s extreme view of states’ rights.”

When talking about Jim Crow laws, those are illegal under the constitution’s equal protection clause, and so the federal government can strike them down. The only way out of it is for a state to secede. A state has the right to secede in order to avoid following the constitution, but loses the benefit of free trade and military protection, among many other things. So yes, she is correct, that is a red herring.

In any case, in a free market, a store that tries to block on group or another from participating is ultimately going to lose out to another store that welcomes anybody. This is *WHY* Jim Crow laws were passed in the first place – to trample economic freedoms by preventing businesses from giving adequate service to minorities. It is simply redundant to pass laws that say you MUST serve everybody; there is already an incentive to do so! No law should either positively or negatively discriminate. There will be unintended consequences, such as a person being fired for being a poor performer, then claiming it was because they had green skin with pink polka dots.

That’s rather absurd. Ron Paul doesn’t have the ability to strip anyone of his rights as a citizen. Having his donation returned would not affect his rights as a citizen at all. There have been plenty of other cases of people having donations returned and they continued to live with their full rights as citizens.

“Whether you like it or not, a large number of individuals do NOT agree with abortion rights and view them as fundamentally incompatible with the rights of the unborn and Mr. Paul is not going to impose his values on EITHER group.”

The fact that some people do not believe that women have the right to control their own body is no more relevant than if some people do not agree that others have freedom of speech. When Paul acts to make abortion illegal, he is imposing his views on others and restricting their rights. Anyone who would imprison doctors for performing abortions is not a consistent supporter of freedom. Paul has also supported federal legislation to override state law regarding abortion, also contradicting his views on states’ rights.

“When it comes to “Jim Crow” laws, that is a red herring. ”

Not at all. You assume that no state would enact Jim Crow laws but what if you are wrong, or attitudes change? There would be nothing to stop them with Paul’s extreme view of states’ rights. In addition, if we had lived under Paul’s principles, the Jim Crow laws would never have been abolished in the first place. This is one case where government did act to protect freedom.

Ron Paul has attracted his source of nuts but he has also emphatically distanced himself from them by his public statements. Furthermore, a true reading of his writings will reveal NO racist tendencies whatsoever. Toleration of racism and allowance of racism is far different from being racist oneself.

As an African-American woman, I support Ron Paul and his call for liberty and a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Mr. Paul calls for abolition of Roe v. Wade, as do almost all of the Republican candidates (Guiliani being the lone exception) but Mr. Paul is NOT for imposing his belief (that life begins at conception) on states that wish to enact laws to protect choice. Similarly, Mr. Paul does not call for a Constitutional Amendment eliminating gay marriage, even though he personally disagrees with it. In other words, under a Paul administration, the FEDERAL government retreats but the state governments can fill the void. Whether you like it or not, a large number of individuals do NOT agree with abortion rights and view them as fundamentally incompatible with the rights of the unborn and Mr. Paul is not going to impose his values on EITHER group.

When it comes to “Jim Crow” laws, that is a red herring. NO STATE in the United States is going to enact such laws in the present day because the attitudes of the public have been changed. And anyone who levies a charge of racism against Dr. Paul had better remember that his first choice for a vice-presidential nominee is an African-American man, Walter Williams.

Indeed, the real problem is not for the federal government to impose its “liberal” values on the states but for it to impose its “conservative” value on the states. Under Ron Paul, that won’t happen. For example, Ron Paul won’t deny medical marijuana to the sick in California. Remember that government intervention is a two-edged sword. Indeed, if truth be known, government cannot enact freedom, it is, always and everywhere, its antithesis.

Paul and his supporters can continue to try to spin this but what you fail to comprehend is that nobody but Paul supporters think the justifications make the slightest bit of sense. There is universal agreement from the left, right, and center that a contribution of this type, once identified, must be returned. His failure to do so is perceived by most as a lack of both ethics and judgment at very least as well as keeping alive the questions of racism. In light of his writings Paul especially needs to avoid any connection to such organizations.

Paul needs to consider what he wants to stand for on this matter.

The idea of not wanting to send money back for Don Black to use has come up many times during this controversy. There’s a simple alternative to sending him the money–donate the money to charity.

People aren’t only demanding that Ron Paul give back money. Other candidates have been in comparable situations and have returned the money. Paul is unique in his refusal to return this money, seriously harming his credibility. Any credible candidate in this position would return the money (or give it to charity) and Paul has destroyed any possibility of being taken seriously by his refusal to do so.