Posted on 01/17/2012 8:12:47 PM PST by mnehring
Republican presidential contender Ron Paul has been fielding questions about his controversial newsletters for years. While their troubling contents first came to light during the 2008 presidential campaign, the embarrassing newsletters have gained increasing attention over the past two months. As you’ll recall, many of the issues, published in the 1980s and 1990s, contained troubling comments about Israel, African Americans, homosexuals and AIDS, among other subjects.
It seems the controversy over the newsletters, though, is nowhere near over, as The New Republic has just released a new batch of questionable newsletters that are sure to nab attention. Like the former passages that were uncovered, new-found editions show themselves, according to Talking Points Memo, to be “embarrassing,” racist and homophobic. Additionally, they embrace various conspiracy theories and “junk science,” reports TPM.
Race was, once again, a theme in the newsletters, as one edition apparently read, (as per TPM):
“Today, gangs of young blacks bust into a bank lobby firing rounds at the ceiling. We don’t think a child of 13 should be held as responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult, and should be treated as such.”
That’s only the beginning.
According to the New Republic, in the June 1991 edition of the “Ron Paul Political Report,” a defense of the Church of Scientology was offered. Having been a target of the IRS over tax fraud concerns, the church apparently spied on the agency. This particular issue of the report defended the church, saying, “Any organization hated by the IRS and the Trilaterialist Time magazine has got to have something going for it!”
In this same issue, Paul’s fellow 2012 contender Newt Gingrich — who has called for Paul to better explain his connections to the newsletters — is targeted in a section titled, “More Nonsense From Newt Gingrich.” Paul‘s newsletter lambastes the former Speaker of the House’s support for a government housing program (see the last section of the PDF).
When it comes to Israel, Paul’s newsletters, once again, ignite concern. In a February 1988 issue of the “Political Report,” some odd allegations about a female terrorist who bombed a Berlin disco that was often visited by American serviceman were published. The newsletter said that she “was in cahoots with Syria, or Israel’s Mossad, which always seeks to stir up anti-Arab feeling here.”
Additionally, a November 1989 issue sought to add fuel to the conspiracy theory that Israel purposely attacked the U.S.S. Liberty — an American warship — in the Mediterranean. Both Israel and the United States ruled, based on investigations, that the attack was an error. And yet another issue in June 1990 called for the creation of “a German Anti-Defamation League.”
Controversial letter sent from Ron Paul to Amos Bruce
But perhaps the most concerning element when it comes to Paul’s view on Israel will be a letter that was apparently written from Paul to a Mr. Amos W. Bruce. In his note, the congressman thanked Bruce for an article in The American Mercury that he sent him. The New Republic has more:
The American Mercury was an anti-Semitic magazine owned by Willis Carto, one of America’s most notorious holocaust deniers and the founder of The Liberty Lobby. The issue of The American Mercury Paul praised included essays entitled, “You Can’t Escape the Kosher Food Tax,” “Are You Ready for the White Man’s Doomsday,” and “Racism – Black African Style.”
On the AIDS front, the writings pushed forward some bizarre theories (although, considering how new the disease was, this subject, while not able to be dismissed entirely, could potentially be explained more properly). A 1987 newsletter claimed that “AIDS can be transmitted through means other than sexual intercourse and blood transfusion, specifically saliva, tears, sweat, feces and urine.” And a 1990 issue quoted a doctor who allegedly claimed that AIDS could be transmitted “through sneezes, breath, etc. through the air.”
These, of course, are only highlights from the newsletters. There’s plenty more about militias, conspiracy theories and other related themes. You can read all of the recaps — as well as the newsletters themselves — here.
It doesn’t matter who may commit more of X type of crime or who may be the victim of statistically more of X type of crime, in our justice system, an individual should be tried on their individual action, not on the collective guilt or pity of whatever group the FedGov wants to classify them in.
If Joe Blow kills someone, Joe should be judged for the actions Joe did, not for the collective actions of his race. Liberals are the ones who tell us all the time Joe can’t be held accountable because his race or class is ‘oppressed’.
Collective guilt or collective salvation are not Conservative values.
No, you're deflecting with a non-sequitur that, intentionally, ignores the Constitutional question of equal justice under the law.
Exactly. We get enough of that Culture of Victimhood nonsense from the Progressives.
This is a typical leftist lie from New Republic. Paul's letter called "very interesting" (not "praised") a single article that had been clipped out and mailed to his office -- he did not praise "the issue." Clear lie. The New Republic hopes their readers are too stupid to notice such lies apparently.
included essays entitled, “You Can’t Escape the Kosher Food Tax,” “Are You Ready for the White Man’s Doomsday,” and “Racism – Black African Style.”
It is clear from the context of the letter that the article being referred to by Paul was about monetary policy. TNR covers that up and doesn't name the article(s) in the issue about monetary policy -- they just try to stir up their idiot leftist readers instead.
Shameful leftist dirty tricks.
I totally disagree. Like most non-Romney supporters, Ron Paul voters would be much more likely to migrate towards Gingrich, Santorum, or Perry.
IMHO, for most non-Romney supporters, Romney would be the very last choice, whether the potential voter is "conservative" or "libertarian".
“Your listing a bunch of claims against Ron Paul taken totally out of context, is a smear technique, not a rational argument.”
No, they’re all verified.
Here’s the original list:
-—voting to repeal DADT ? (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell)
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/2/638
-—refusing to defend traditional marriage with a Constitutional amendment ?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html
-—refusing to support Israel ? (Last time I checked, Jesus was born there.) [This comment was meant for the poster, not Jew hater Paul. I never insinuated that Herr Doktor had no idea where Christ was born.]
http://baltimorejewishlife.com/news/news-detail.php?SECTION_ID=2&ARTICLE_ID=25931
-—wanting to make peace with a genocidal maniac like Ahmadinejad ?
-—taking money from Neo-Nazi organizations like Stormfront ?
http://absolutelynonpaul.blogspot.com/2011/10/ron-pauls-jew-hating-and-racist.html
-—legalizing heroin and prostitution ?
-—supporting the abortion drug RU-486 ?
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/09/23/republican-debate-little-pro-life-focus-perry-stumbles/
-—calling brave American solidiers war criminals ?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2824532/posts
Scram Paulbot, and take your condescending, know-it-all attitude with you. This is a CONSERVATIVE site, not a liberaltarian site. You might get away with posting nonsense like that at the Daily Paul or Screwy Lewy Rockwell’s crappy websites, but that garbage won’t fly here on FR.
(By the way, amending the Constitution doesn’t violate States Rights, nor does it violate “Constitutional principles”. And yes, the federal government DOES have the power to ban illegal drugs.)
Your insulting tone, of course, does not strengthen your argument.
As for your being a "Conservative?" Perhaps, but not in the usual American context. The Founding Fathers were Libertarians; they rebelled against distant central control, such as you appear to advocate, over local control of local affairs. In contrast, I have been fighting for the American tradition since High School.
Yes one could amend the Constitution, such as happened under the disaster of Federal Prohibition, to give the Federal Government aspects of the Police Power; but why would you want to? Do you feel threatened if some State does not share your priorities? Why?
By the way, now that you have identified what you meant by DADT, I will respond to that item. I certainly would repeal don't ask don't tell policies. It is wrong to deliberately have closet homosexuals placed in close contact with normal personnel. The old ban, which Clinton ended, was not punitive, it simply recognized that most men do not want to have someone in an adjacent bunk or even a foxhole, who sees them as a possible object for some form of deviant conduct. When young men are willing to risk their lives for their country, their feelings on this must be respected.
Your suggestion that Paul is a "Jew hater," is vicious, as is your substituting a foreign title "Herr Doktor," for the American "Dr.". If you cannot argue for your convictions without besmirching people whom you disagree with, in this manner, you ought to retire from the fray. You certainly are not going to help any cause with which you identify.
William Flax
“You have simply collected a number of sources to affirm what you have previously taken out of context.”
No, that’s called proof.
“Your insulting tone, of course, does not strengthen your argument.”
Neither did yours.
“Yes one could amend the Constitution, such as happened under the disaster of Federal Prohibition, to give the Federal Government aspects of the Police Power; but why would you want to? Do you feel threatened if some State does not share your priorities?”
Comparing homosexual marriage (which no Founder would have approved of, BTW) and Prohibition is absurd. That’s like comparing apples to hand grenades. Homosexuals don’t need extra civil rights, last time I checked, the Bill of Rights applies to them as well. The evil Homosexual Agenda is just another excuse to curtail actual civil liberties.
“When young men are willing to risk their lives for their country, their feelings on this must be respected.”
What about the young men AND women who don’t want to share a squad bay with homosexual perverts ? Don’t their rights count ? And just so you know, the UCMJ already regulates sexual behavior. For example, it is illegal for officers to date enlisted service members.
“Your suggestion that Paul is a ‘Jew hater,’ is vicious, as is your substituting a foreign title ‘Herr Doktor,’ for the American ‘Dr.’ If you cannot argue for your convictions without besmirching people whom you disagree with, in this manner, you ought to retire from the fray. You certainly are not going to help any cause with which you identify.”
I will call that anti-American traitor whatever I like. If you don’t like it, I could care less. When that Jew hating pig does something to earn my respect, I’ll give it to him.
Alan Levy
I just went and read that excerpt in context. He wrote it right after the 1992 L.A. riots while continued violence in the predominantly Black neighborhoods continued for months and months. The acts described were those of actual events in Los Angeles -- committed by young African Americans. I lived through those riots -- a couple coworkers were shot. Those acts were NOT "committed by kids of all races." He was commenting on current news. To call his comments "racist" in this case is outrageous.
Yet he has years of newsletters with comments like that. Are they all taken out of context?
They all seem to be recited over and over from some of the same crazy leftist publications. Those I have taken the time to follow up on were indeed out of context.
I'm not a Paulist or defender but to repeat blatant lies or misrepresentations not only unfairly slimes Ron Paul but reflects poorly on the FReepers posting the stuff. JMHO.
I have a hard time imagining any context that removes the absolute spoken there about black males. I don't know what lie I have told either. I didn't make up the quote.
The lunacy does not require a Constitutional Amendment, simply a clarification under the Full Faith & Credit clause, such as the Defense of Marriage Act, that the insanity of one State Legislature, cannot force any other State to recognize what is void at inception. (Would we need a Constitutional Amendment to prevent any State from declaring that the sun revolves around the earth?) Marriage is a sanctification of human procreational activities--a million Leftists in a demonstration or at the polls cannot change that reality, one iota.
Your twisting of my comment as to why the Clinton policy of allowing closet homosexuals into the military should have been ended, is noted. My whole point, if you can read simple English in my last previous post, here, was that normal men should not be forced to have closet homosexuals sleeping in the next bunk, or in a fox hole.
My stand against Clinton's assexual agenda for the military was stated repeatedly. In 1999, for example, Abuse Of Power
William Flax
MLK was in bed with the communists and plenty of women too! Why not wiretap him?
Is this like a knock-knock joke? OK, I’ll bite; why not?
Sounds like you’re backtracking to me.
Alan Levy
Examples: Boy Scouts Of America & Leftwing Agenda
Feminist War On Love & Reason.
William Flax
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.