Prometheus 6

Too bad the article you quote is not even accurate.

You registered for that?

My distaste for Ron Paul has nothing to do with immigration. It's his consistant opposition to civil rights legislation. Ron Paul's actions put him on the side of my enemies.

You mean to tell me the Defenders of Paul - United States (DOPUS) is still active? Don't you guys ever quit?

I'm not going to defend the guy in the article, but Ron Paul is easily the best candidate for black people.  He would end the war on drugs, the war on terror and the federal death penalty.  All of these things adversely affect black people, at much higher rates than our proportion of the population would predict.

Additionally, Ron Paul would allow young workers to opt out of Social Security - this is important because blacks have shorter life expectancies than whites.  In effect, black people are being taxed to pay for the retirement of white people!  For instance, my dad died from diabetes at 40, so all those years of paying into Social Security got him nothing. 

Obviously some black people still make it to retirement, but Ron Paul is the only candidate who GUARANTEES that all people dependent on Social Security will receive their full benefits.  He can promise this because of the substantial cuts he would make in military and domestic spending.  The status quo will only guarantee that future cuts in benefits will be made.  Youtube "David Walker" for more information on this impending crisis. 

I am a proud black man, but I will not be pulling the lever for Obama this fall.  I'll be voting for the oldest white guy running, because he is the best hope for our freedom and prosperity. 

Z

Are still up and at it.

All of these things adversely affect black people, at much higher rates than our proportion of the population would predict.

And why is that? What woud Paul do about the causes, which if left unaddressed would just manifest just as virulently in some other area?

Additionally, Ron Paul would allow young workers to opt out of Social Security - this is important because blacks have shorter life expectancies than whites.

I'm going to pretend you didn't say that. If I don't it may get ugly.

I am a proud black man, but I will not be pulling the lever for Obama this fall. I'll be voting for the oldest white guy running, because he is the best hope for our freedom and prosperity.

Are you rich?

By the way, my reason remains intact. Untouched, in fact.

"Additionally, Ron Paul would allow young workers to opt out of Social Security - this is important because blacks have shorter life expectancies than whites."

So what policies will Ron Paul support to make the life expectancy of blacks roughly equal to that of whites? Allowing blacks to opt out of the Social Security System will not achieve this goal. In fact, allowing folks to opt out of Social Security is nothing more than an effort to destroy the program, which the right-wing, including so-called libertarians, have been trying to do for 70 years.

Yup.

"Let them die, save the money."

As I said, his actions rank him among my enemies.

Leaving the system as is will destroy the system.  Social Security cannot maintain under the status quo.  Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. 

It is not the job of government to make everyone equal in every way.  We are all equal before the law of course, but in terms of other characterstics, we're not. 

Besides, I don't think anyone knows for sure WHY blacks have lower life expectancies.  There are many hypotheses, but why put forth an expensive government solution to the problem when you don't know whether it will work?  I mean, why can't WE figure out why we have shorter life expectancies and come up with the solution?  Why do we trust government to do ANYTHING for us?  What good has government done for us EVER?  Let's stop pretending and get the government OFF OUR BACKS so we can finally live a prosperous life. 

Z

I mean, why can't WE figure out why we have shorter life expectancies and come up with the solution?

We have. The short answer is, it's the excess friction caused by racism. Explaining it in detail would require going into biology, stress reactions, the impact of poor diet, stuff like that.

What good has government done for us EVER?

You think slavery would have ended on its own?

Even if someone took that idiot suggestion that the government should have bought all the slaves seriously, it would have cost more than the government had...the majority of th South's wealth was in the form of slaves. Plus it would have validated the idea of Blacks as property. And it would have destroyed their economy.

They wouldn't have taken the money. People keep slaves NOW whenever they can get away with it.

My reason remains untouched.

WHY does Ron Paul refuse to support civil rights legislation? Answer it directly.

"It is not the job of government to make everyone equal in every way."

The differences in black-white life expectancies is a direct result of government policies and government sanctioned policies dating back at least to the founding of this country.  

 

 

Social Security cannot maintain under the status quo.  Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. 

It can maintain as is. It will. I will become peeved if you call me a liar.

Exactly. That's why Ron Paul opposes government interventionism. Government causes far more problems than it solves. Good point.

Z

Tell you what, Zad...check this post to see what an actual libertarian is.

Meanwhile, you should understand we've heard this exact argument before. It wasn't convincing during the primaries and it's less so now. You really have nothing to add, and no chance of changing my mind or probably anyone else's here...a rare consensus.

You should either answer my question or give up. You're welcome to join in on the other discussions as long as you don't try to twist all of them into Ron Paul commercials. 

I would like to know specifically what legislation you're referring to - Ron Paul doesn't oppose civil rights legislation for the sake of opposing civil rights legislation.  He considers the merits of each individual piece of legislation before voting on it.  Many times he votes against legislation because there is no authorization for it in the Constitution, and that is reason enough, no matter how well-meaning the legislation itself is.  If you think there is some legislation that he voted against that IS Constitutional, then I'd like to see it.

I don't have any desire to turn your forum into an RP commercial, but to imply that RP hates black people is flat out wrong, IMO, and I felt I had to defend him.

Slavery is a bad example for a government good, IMO.  Government instituted slavery to begin with, so at best, it's a neutral for government, for first instituting and then outlawing it.  Besides, we didn't fully implement the plan Lincoln had in mind, which was to send us all back to Africa.

Z

Regarding Social Security, here's what David Walker has to say on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-16u9x3tfE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs

Z

I would like to know specifically what legislation you're referring to

All of it.

Name one civil rights bill he supported. 

According to votesmart.org, there are 19 bills/resolutions under the heading "Civil liberties and civil rights" that have been voted on since Paul returned to office in 1996.

Paul voted Y 5 times, N 10 times, and NV 4 times.

http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296&type=category&category=13&go.x=7&go.y=9

Again, if you want me to address something specific, please tell me and I will do so.  "Civil rights legislation" is such a broad and vague term.  I'm sure you'll look at the link and tell me, "That's not what I meant."  OK, well, then you'll have to point me in the right direction.  Find me a bill, any bill, and I will address why Dr. Paul voted the way he did.  (Unless he didn't vote, in which case, I couldn't answer that.)

Z

By the way, ending the federal war on drugs is a civil rights issue, so that's one where he's pro civil rights legislation.

Z

Also, he's against eminent domain.  He voted against the PATRIOT ACT.  He's against DOMA, although he wasn't in Congress when that was voted on.  Lots of examples, really...  Why do you think he's opposed to all civil rights legislation? 

Mr. Beck and Mr. Walker are being deliberately misleading. You know how I can tell? When they try to tell their viewers: There is no trust fund. There is a fund of debt to Social Security that is every bit as reliable as the obligations we make to every other purchaser of government debt.

As for spending, they're talking about all future obligations, of which the most problematic is Medicare.

I believe we were discussing Social Security. The graph I linked from Mr. DeLong's site tells the story plainly. Social Security is on solid footing.

Vote Smart reports Civil Liberties and Civil Rights, not Civil Rights.

Here's his "Yes" votes:

03/11/2008	Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 HR 2082	Y	Veto Override Failed - House (225 - 188)
12/13/2007	Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 HR 2082	NV	Conference Report Adopted - House (222 - 199)
12/11/2007	Recognition of the Importance of Christmas and Christianity H Res 847	NV	Resolution Passed - House (372 - 9)
11/15/2007	Electronic Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Review Act HR 3773	NV	Bill Passed - House (227 - 189)
10/16/2007	Reporter's Source Confidentiality Guidelines HR 2102	Y	Bill Passed - House (398 - 21)
10/16/2007	Sense of the House on Classification of Information on Corruption in Iraq H Res 734	Y	Resolution Passed - House (395 - 21)
05/17/2007	Guantanamo Transfer Plan H Amdt 197 to HR 1585	Y	Amendment Adopted - House (220 - 208)
09/26/2006	Public Expression of Religion Act of 2006 HR 2679	Y	Bill Passed (House) - H (244 - 173)

No civil rights legislation.

THIS is what he thinks of civil rights legislation:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

July 3, 2004

He's full of shit.

I think that one will leave a scar, P.

"He's full of shit."

Well, that's a well-reasoned argument.  Care to comment on what part you disagree with?  I'd also like to know which part of the Constitution allows the Congress to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

I like how you break down civil liberties and civil rights.  For many people, those two are indistinguishable.  But given your blind hatred of Ron Paul, you ignore his perfect record on civil liberties, and claim he's against civil rights, when in actuality, he's just against governmental overreach. 

Z

Well, that's a well-reasoned argument. 

I never promised you one of those. Just like I never promised to explain the obvious. 

I'd also like to know which part of the Constitution allows the Congress to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The preamble...the only statement of intent in the Constitution...the PURPOSE of which includes

1. forming a more perfect union
2. establish justice
3. insuring domestic tranquility
4. promoting the general welfare
5. securing the blessings of liberty

That's why the 10th amendment is there...to guarantee no one is confused into thinking the particular rights enumerated in the Constitution are all that exist.

And if you actually are challenging the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you aren't Black. Period. Not even Ward Connerly does that. Not even Clarence Thomas does that.

Since you're a liar, we're done with you. 

Don't forget the 14th, P:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[snippage]

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Originalists always try to leave this one out.

"I'd also like to know which part of the Constitution allows the Congress to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964." 

I would like to know which part of the Constitution allowed federal, state and local governments to support racial segregation? Or, which part of the Constitution permitted the federal, state and local governments to expropriate the value of the taxes and fees paid by black Americans to these governments since at least 1780 and not use these taxes and fees for the benefit of these same black Americans? I would like to know which part of the Constitution permitted the federal government to exclude black American citizens from various Homestead Acts passed in the 19th Century?

I have long, long list of things that I would like to know what part of the Constitution allowed black Americans to be excluded from prior to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

I would like to know, for example, what part of the Constitution allowed the officials at Hershey Park in Hershey, Pennsylvania in 1956 to deny entry to my cousin and other youth members of her church who had traveled by bus from New York City on roads that their parents had paid taxes to build and whose existence clearly provided substantial economic benefits to the park's owners?

You can see where I am going with all of this because your argument against the Civil Rights Act is patently absurd.    

 

"And if you actually are challenging the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you aren't Black. Period. Not even Ward Connerly does that. Not even Clarence Thomas does that."

I think that Uncle Clarence comes mighty close because he challenges the constitutionality of Brown v. Board of Education. Janice Rogers Brown walks to the edge of this precipice time after time but she has not quite leaped off yet.  

sigh

I should know better than to extend the benefit of the doubt to Clarence in any way... 

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Originalists always try to leave this one out.

I will remember that. 

I suspect that Clarence and Brown really believe in their hearts that the 1964 Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional but neither of them has the balls to say so, which is why they keep hopping around the issue. 

Bn ppl dn't gr wth? s hw t s. Mb shld cnsdr lgl ctn ndr th Cvl Rghts ct f 1964 fr bng blck prsn dn't lk. H h. Srsl, rspct r rght t r prsnl prprt nd ths wll b m lst pst hr.Rgrdng th Cvl Rghts ct, ths s th prt tht thnk s ncnstttnl: "Th Cvl Rghts ct f 1964 gv th fdrl gvrnmnt nprcdntd pwr vr th hrng, mpl rltns, nd cstmr srvc prctcs f vr bsnss n th cntr. Th rslt ws mssv vltn f th rghts f prvt prprt nd cntrct, whch r th bdrcks f fr sct. Th fdrl gvrnmnt hs n lgtmt thrt t nfrng n th rghts f prvt prprt wnrs t s thr prprt s th pls nd t frm (r nt frm) cntrcts wth trms mtll grbl t ll prts. Th rghts f ll prvt prprt wnrs, vn ths whs ctns dcnt ppl fnd bhrrnt, mst b rspctd f w r t mntn fr sct."Jst lk wn't brng lgl ctn gnst fr bnnng m, w mst lv wth th fct tht sm ppl dscrmnt bsd n nnsnscl fctrs f w r t hv tr lbrt. Th rsn Rn Pl s gnst crtn cvl rghts lgsltn s nt bcs h's rcst; t's bcs h dsn't gr tht t's k t dprv sm ppl f thr prvt prprt t cmpnst thrs, whch s prtt mch wht h ss bv. dn't blv ths xtnds t gvrnmnt, nd thr hrng sstm shld b trl clr-blnd. Lk, thr's n s nswr fr th sgrgtn/ntgrtn prblm. Whn ws n ndrgrd t MT, wrkd n ths bk: http://www.mzn.cm/Tchnlg-Drm-Rflctns-xprnc-1941-1999/dp/026223212X/rf=sr_1_1?=TF8&s=bks&qd=1210111920&sr=8-1 trnscrbd fw hndrd rl ntrvws wth blcks wh hd cm thrgh MT. Th ldr ns lmntd th cllps f blck nstttns. fw f thm cm cls t sng tht frcd ntgrtn ws mstk. nd ths wr clrl nt lbrtrns r ncl Tms r nthng lk tht. Th Cvl Rghts ct wrks bth ws - cnnt hv ll-blck nstttns ndr tht lgsltn thr. n sm ws, thgh, kpng ths nstttns ntct wld hv bn bnfcl - s "Frt Mlln Dllr Slvs" b Wllm Rhdn fr dscssn f tht. fnl qstn fr , Prmths. r prms s tht Rn Pl s rcst. k. S hw d xpln hs ppstn t th wr n drgs nd th dth pnlt? Whl n th cmpgn trl, h hs sd h wld mmdtl prdn ll nnvlnt drg ffndrs pn tkng ffc, s wll s cmmtng th sntncs f ll fdrl nmts n dth rw. Nw, f h wr tr rcst, ths sms bt f n dd pstn t tk. Wh wld h rls prsnrs tht wld dsprprtntl b blck? Wh wld h cmmt th sntncs f blck mn cndmnd t d? D ths snd th ctns f rcst t ? hp 'll gv sm thght t th nswr. 'll stp b t s f d. Bt wn't pst hr nmr. Srr fr th ntrsn. ndrstnd ppl nt grng wth Rn Pl's lbrtrn/cnstttnlst phlsph. Bt d strngl bjct t ppl clmng h s rcst. 'm nt sr 'v gttn nwhr wth r nn ls rdng ths, s 'll spnd m tm lswhr snc 'm clrl nt wntd hr. dmt t bng dsppntd tht s fw blcks hv gvn RP lk nd tr t prmt hm whnvr cn. Sgh...Gd lck wth bm - wld b hpp t s blck Prsdnt, bt hs spndng scrs m nd dn't trst hm t ctll brng th trps hm. Tk cr ll,Z

Z, please allow me to give you a preview of what's coming your way. You wrote:

Your premise is that Ron Paul is racist. 

Check your work.

I ban liars. Liars and fools. Pick one, I don't care which.

Any one seen this?

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca 

I think so, but under the circumstances it's worth another link.

Yes, I know it's a post but I want your idiot peers to see this and they're still crawling in on the link from ronpaulforums.com

---

Adam Wilson sent a message using the contact form at
http://www.prometheus6.org/contact.

Hey Prometheus,

Thanks for chatting today. I didn't realize you would end up being such a COWARD and run from the fight. I guess you can't handle the truth, which is why you blew up my final post. Also, it looks like you failed to meet my challenge. I don't blame you, though. There is no answer to my challenge, other than Ron Paul is NOT racist, and it would embarrass you greatly to leave that challenge on your website when you've been so strongly against him. So I don't blame you at all for censoring me. I would have done the same in your shoes. I do get a chuckle about the way you ran away, though, especially given how you call out Prof. Kennedy on your website, for failing to answer your response to his article. Guess the tables have turned, Earl.

FWIW, I didn't lie about anything I posted. Regardless, I will continue to fight for freedom and liberty for all people, even you.

Oh. You DO want to be publicly humiliated. 

First of all Dick, I said my issue is Ron Paul does not support civil rights legislation. If you don't know what "civil rights" means to Black folks, you are too stupid to breathe. You never addressed that, instead trying to flip the discussion in a direction you are more comfortable with.

Go back and read, Dick. Find where I called Ron Paul a racist. Email me the quote and I'll post it, even though I don't have to.

So in accusing me a calling Paul a racist, you lied on me. So you're a liar on multiple levels, "strong black man."

Be clear: Ron Paul opposes (let me nail it down for you) legislation intended to undo the damage (like shorter life spans!) inflicted on Black Americans by American Apartheid. You'd know that if you'd READ instead of letting your jerking knees hurl you out of your seat to defend a man that hasn't even asked for your help.

Additionally, Ron Paul would allow young workers to opt out of Social Security - this is important because blacks have shorter life expectancies than whites. In effect, black people are being taxed to pay for the retirement of white people!

Be clear: if you were fucking conscious AT ALL, you'd know a fucking Bush appointee was fired for suggesting this nonsense.

At the National Latino Congreso in Los Angeles earlier this month, Tanner said that voter identification laws primarily affect elderly people because they are less likely to have photo IDs, and that such laws are less likely to affect minorities because they tend to die earlier. A few days earlier, Tanner also suggested to the Georgia NAACP that poor people are likely to have photo IDs because check-cashing businesses require them.

The remarks prompted widespread criticism yesterday from Democrats -- including several black lawmakers -- who said Tanner's remarks indicated a lack of concern for minority rights and were based on flawed analyses.

National health statistics show that blacks have shorter life expectancies than whites. But lawmakers and some voting experts said other data also show that older minority voters frequently cast ballots at higher rates than their white counterparts.

Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.) said voting statistics in his own state show that a higher percentage of blacks older than 60 voted in the 2004 presidential election than whites in the same age group.

"You engaged in analysis without knowing the numbers," Davis said. "If you are basing your conclusions on stereotypes rather than facts, then it suggests to some of us that someone else can do this job better than you can."

I do on occasion waste my time, and the discussion with you was an example. So let me break it down for you: I've given you the reason I oppose Ron Paul. None of the issues you would distract me with address my issue with him, and because he is "principled" he will not change. Now, if a second amendment activist won't accept limitations on guns, no matter how much cities need to impose them, I see no reason as a 10th and 14th amendment activist to accept limitations on me, no matter how much you need to justify them.

You think there's a fight to be had or run from. You are wrong. And for your sake, I will now say directly

Paul's newsletters have carried different titles over the years--Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report--but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978. (Paul, an OB-GYN and former U.S. Air Force surgeon, was first elected to Congress in 1976.) During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman. The Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984. At one point, Ron Paul & Associates also put out a monthly publication called The Ron Paul Investment Letter.

The Freedom Report's online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul's newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles "Lefty" Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions," that "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be," and that black representative Barbara Jordan is "the archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism." At the time, Paul's campaign said that Morris had quoted the newsletter out of context. Later, in 2001, Paul would claim that someone else had written the controversial passages. (Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines.) Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul's explanation believable, "since the style diverges widely from his own."

Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.

But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.

Ron Paul give every sign of being a rather hateful racist and sexist pig.

If you ARE a black man...and you're not...you are a fool.

A final question for you, Prometheus. Your premise is that Ron Paul is racist. Ok. So how do you explain his opposition to the war on drugs and the death penalty? While on the campaign trail, he has said he would immediately pardon all nonviolent drug offenders upon taking office, as well as commuting the sentences of all federal inmates on death row. Now, if he were a true racist, this seems a bit of an odd position to take. Why would he release prisoners that would disporportionately be black? Why would he commute the sentences of black men condemned to die?

He's trying to save the white meth heads and can't do it without including Black folks.

I know this man Bill Johnson personally. He is actually part Japanese but looks white. He never wrote a book & he has many friends of every ethinic background. This IS A SMEAR CAMPAIGN FROM THE OPPOSING CANDIDATE MOBSTER BIANCO RUNNING FOR THE SAME SEAT. So STUPID BIANCO HAS BEEN MAJORLY MISTAKEN ABOUT JOHNSON. NOT A RACIST!!! I'm a friend of Johnsons with several nationalties myself!

If you're right I expect to see a lawsuit.

Immediately.