Re: Ron Pauls Campaign Runs a Neo-Confederate Endorsement

Several days ago a man posted to his blog calling Dr. Ron Paul and myself and related organizations racists and neo-Nazis. After being in the political world for a time you get used to the babbling of the under-educated, however, I feel it necessary to repond to this particular attack as it does not deal soley with me.

You may find the original blog here.

My reply is as follows:

In Response,
After reading the blog by "Sultan Knish" my first reaction was to ignore it, after all, reviewing the facts would surely prove how absurd the thing was. However, due to the negative light it places both myself and Dr. Paul in I felt it imperative I reply. This reply shall be a point by point correction of this persons highly skewed blog.

"Most people won't spend too much time poking through the list of obscure figures listed on the Ron Paul 2008 website as endorsing Ron Paul for President. The Ron Paul campaign has carefully sanitized the list excluding notorious racist Ron Paul supporters like Pat Buchanan, Larry Pratt or David Duke or burying them in the Acclaim section (itself a dishonest list that includes Ron Paul opponents like Giuliani and dead figures like Ronald Reagan who aren't remotely endorsing Ron Paul's Presidential campaign), though they clumsily did leave in Don R. Griffin, Buchanan's Missouri campaign chairman."

It would be obvious that acclaim is not an endorsement rather "acclaim" as defined as praise or positive comment. Christians differ with the doctrine of the Muslim faith but many, including myself, have commented on the strength of character of its adherents and the historical importance of the religion.

"But that is a typical example of the list being sanitized when it comes to the more famous or infamous figures, but camouflaged when it comes to the less famous ones. Case in point under Pastors and Clergy, the Rev. Jacob Bogle listed on the nomination only as "Rev. Jacob Bogle FAS". The Rev writes; "It is my honor to endorse Rep. Ron Paul for president in 2008. His message is one which transcends all barriers, political, socioeconomically, religious ad nauseam. For more than 20 years Dr. Paul has proven himself to be not only a true patriot and Constitutionalist but also a real friend of the people. His flawless voting record and strength of character proves that he and he alone is the best candidate for president. The nation has lost its way but praise be to Providence we have a man who has the message, know-how and drive to help show us back to our once glorious days."

This is indeed what I wrote. Fame is in the eye of the beholder, thanks to this little piece I'm sure I will be even more famous.

"Of course that message is so wonderfully camouflaged and politically correct you might never think to ask what those "once glorious days" involved. If your guess involved plantations, well let's just say you're getting warmer, because the Rev. Jacob Bogle FAS is no retired minister sitting by the fire."

To suggest camouflage is suggesting that I have an alterior motive or that I was hiding something. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am a person of some regional importance and simply wanted to offer my support to Dr. Paul, there is little extra I could have gained from doing so and in fact I could have taken fire from supporters of other candidates, not to mention people such as the author of this blog.

"Jacob Bogle is actually the Chairman of the Southern Party of Tennessee, the Tennessee Division Commander of the Southern Confederate Front, the former Vice Chairman of the Southern Independence Party of Tennessee and oh yes, the creator of the Jefferson Davis Fan Club. In other words he's a neo-confederate and he does not appear to be a working minister."

I am not currently active in the Southern Movement and have not been for over a year. The term "Neo-Confederate" means "new Confederate" I am not a "new" Confederate rather I support the historical cause that the South fought for from 1861-65 and I support the legal claims that the Southern States have for independence. Philisophically I am Southern, plain and simple. I shall go into this in greater detail later. As for me not being a "working minister" I provide many educational services for individuals and organizations dealing with theology and philosophy.

"That sure provides a whole other context to those "once glorious days", as does this badly misspelled essay on The Law of Natural Segregation on his website or this charming little poem on his party's website"

I cannot defend the misspellings except to say the article was written ,some 3 years or so ago, in haste and I am dyslexic. After writing it I never went back to the page. As for the "Law" itself, if one cares to read it they will find that all it states is " Individuals separate themselves, free of outside interference, according to similar cultures, languages, races, professions and other shared experiences." There is nothing sinister to that and is a generally accepted social fact. A brief look through history will show that during the times of forced busing it was not the idea of integration that caused some of the riots, it was the forcable nature of it. When people are allowed to structure society according to their own cultural means they will live together in a much more peaceable way. When governments move in to force such a drastic change it creates hatred and resentment on both sides.

"The only way to move at all
Is to tear it down and watch it all fall
And from the ashes of a government torn
Can liberty be resurrected and freedom reborn
But not until this dead limb is removed
Can the so-called "American Legacy" be disproved
That dream is but a battle cry away
And tomorrow we could be singing God Bless the CSA!!!"

This poem, as poems are, is an artistic expression of a political conflict. "Tear it down" refers to the clause in the Declaration of Independence stating that peoples have the right to peacefully remove a government they feel no longer meets the needs of the people and to rebuild one which better defends their safety and happiness. "Dead limb" is suggestive of the federal government which many feel is no longer working and is beyond repair. As for "American Legacy" it is referring to the legacy of large centralized government and socialist economic policies. I doubt any intellectual could find historical or logical faults in any of the ideas supported by myself or the former Southern Party of Tennessee.

"The CSA by the way is the Confederate States of America. It's an interesting endorsement for a man running for the office of the President of the United States, but perhaps not so surprising considering that Ron Paul counts plenty of neo-confederates as his friends. Ron Paul has even appeared as a spokesman at a neo-confederate conference on the theme of "The Once and Future Republic of Texas"."

Dr. Ron Paul has, on several occasions, said that just because people share his philosophies does not mean that he shares theirs. This is a typical attack with absolutely no factual backing. Blogs such as this merely prey on the "knee-jerk" reactions of people and attempts to paint a negative picture using highly biased, selected words.

"None of this can be too surprising for anyone watching Ron Paul's shameful appearance on Meet the Press with Tim Russert where he insisted that the civil war was wrong and that the whole matter should have been settled by buying up all the slaves. Now this was typical neo-confederate propaganda because it concedes the premise that millions of human beings were property to be paid for and that the United States was at fault."

Dr. Paul said, that the way in which we carried out a conflict instead of some form of peaceful action was wrong and suggested that that one way could have been buying the slaves. Nearly every modern society abolished slavery without a war, Dr. Paul was simply using England as an example. It is very clear that this blog was written without checking facts or statements.

"The fact of the matter though was that the Civil War was not fought because the government refused to pay for the slaves, like the Cold War it was a collision between two economic systems, the individual initiative of American settlers and the slave system that was fought out in places like Kansas before erupting into civil war. Slavery was an economic system, one that enslaved millions of black people and reduced millions of whites to the bottom of the economic ladder. It began with indentured servants and ended with people like Jefferson breeding and owning their own wife's half-sister. It was backed both by big business in the North and the South and it was not going to go away on its own for decades if not longer."

You are right in stating that the war was fought over conflicting economic systems, however, it was also fought over the rights of the individual States and the fact that Lincoln was did not carry a single Southern State in the election. If it was simply over slavery one might wonder why the Indian Territory sided with the Confederacy or why at least 65,000 African-Americans volunteered to fight for the South. It is also curious to note that Gen. Grant owned slaves and the tens of thousands of slaves in the Northern States. If the war was fought over slavery why did Lincoln say this in his first Inaugural Address "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Let us not forget the Lincoln-Douglas Debates where he time and time again stated his un-kind views towards slaves. On the issue of slavery we must not forget the many whites and Native-Americans who were held as slaves both North and South. Or the fact that no Confederate ship ever traded slaves. If the Confederacy was such a socially backwards place why then was Judah Benjamin, a Jew, the Secretary of State and Jefferson Davis' right hand man? I could go for hours on this absurd notion but let me say this, the Civil War was fought because of the disagreement about a perpetual union and proper role of the federal government economically, not a singular issue. Also I would like to point out that the Confederacy had been reviewing plans to free all the slaves without a single drop of blood being spilled.

"Of course Ron Paul knows this and he knows quite well that he's reciting neo-confederate propaganda. Just as his policies are not about the Constitution, neo-confederates have of course always used the Constitution as a cloak, but they are about dismantling the United States, pruning down the Federal government and replacing it with a Confederacy under the guise of States Rights, also the key rallying call of Neo-Confederates."

Dr. Paul is an expert on the Constitution, how do I know this? All a person has to do is read it. The Constitution is written in a way which is easy to understand and is very clear on the role of the government. I ask what part of the 10th Amendment is so hard to understand? In case anyone doesn't know the text, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. " I ask what is wrong with limiting the size of the Federal government? It seems as though you are a person in support of heavy government interference. We do not exist for the service of governments they exist for our benefit. Rights do not come from any government, they come from God and governments can't take them away. The Southern Movement does not seek to abolish the entire Federal government. It seeks to restore the legal claims that the Southern people and States have to self-determination. Any first year law student can attest to the fact that the Civil War ,as an instrument of governance, was illegal. Any State in 1860 or 2008 has the right to peacefully form itself into a sovereign nation. Also Dr. Paul and I have never met so how would he "know" these things you claim?

"Take a look at this apologetic for the Confederacy on the Lew Rockwell website and its emphasis on the Constitution and the rights of States. It's of course virtually identical to Ron Paul's themes and not only does the author support Ron Paul but Lew Rockwell was Ron Paul's former Congressional Chief of Staff who authored Ron Paul's infamous newsletter claiming that 95 percent of black men are criminals. Lew Rockwell itself featured outright racists like Sam Francis who openly endorsed slavery. And while Sam Francis is dead, Ron Paul supporters continue quoting him in defense of Ron Paul. Neo-Nazi leader Bill White listed Sam Francis along with Joe Sobran and Pat Buchanan (both current Ron Paul supporters) as the founders of a regular dinner later taken over by Council of Conservative Citizens aka David Duke and the KKK, writing; Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays. This is part of a dinner that was originally organized by Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and has since been mostly taken over by the Council of Conservative Citizens. Now Ron Paul has the right to believe whatever he wants and to run for public office. He has the right to accept the endorsements of neo-confederates though it isn't legal for him to act on them. But at the bare minimum, he needs to be honest about it. Instead his campaign clumsily tries to camouflage his ties with the far right as they keep trying to put lipstick on the pig. The problem is that underneath it all the Emperor of the Racist is naked. For bonus points, the clergy list of endorsements contains Bill Barnwell, another Lew Rockwell contributor, whose obsessions are the evils of the Jews, Israel, the War on Terror and conservative Evangelical Christians in that order."

Again let me stress that Dr. Paul does not endorse the ideas of racism or even the goals of the Southern Movement. I do not endorse the ideals of racism, the KKK or the Council of Conservative Citizens. Lew Rockwell, Thomas DiLorenzo and others are among this nations intellectual elite, it is beyond explanation why someone would try to suggest they are anything but outstanding individuals. It is clear that this blog serves only to try and discredit Dr. Paul and his supporters and gives no true educated attempt to verify the claims made in it. The lack of a real name to the author goes to show how false and skewed the claims made here are. I trust that those reading will research the facts and make their own decisions based upon truth and logic.

The claim that Dr. Ron Paul is guilty by association, not only runs contrary to modern thinking it is also opposite of progressivism. The notion that you can be judged based upon a few who support you is the same idea that you can be blamed for the actions of your father. Racism is an idea which denies the individual and promotes the extreames of a few. Dr. Paul is an individual and not a group, those who support him are not him and this idea that because some with radical ideas support him makes Dr. Paul like them, is totally ignorant and void of simple logic.

On a personal note let me stress the fact that I have never been engaged in racial politics nor have I uttered a single racial or anti-Semitic remark. I find the accusation, even the possiblility of an illusion that I am or ever have been engaged in such things totally reprehensible, the very idea of prejudice based upon a persons ethinc, religious or racial background goes against every fiber of my being. And furthernore, as a Christian I am compelled and honored to respect the sovereignty of Israel and the Jewish people.

Dr. Ron Paul delivered over 4,000 babies.
Dr. Paul never voted to increase taxes or to expand the Federal government.
Dr. Paul served in the Air Force and has been in Congress for 10 terms.
Dr. Paul has always voted according to the Constitution.
Dr. Paul has the most consistent voting record of anyone running for President.

God Bless,
Rev. Jacob Bogle, FAS
B.O.D Omni Research Group