Posted on 11/10/2007 5:54:16 AM PST by shove_it
Edited on 11/10/2007 6:24:02 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
LGF reader Shiplord Kirel alerts us to some very interesting excerpts at Free Republic from the old Ron Paul newsletter, being posted by a Freeper over the objections of the site’s Paulians. The excerpts are from the mid 80s to the late 90s:
Ron Paul supported the PLO terrorists (1985) Ron Paul: Israel bought Jesse Helms (1985) Ron Paul: Traitor had direct line to President Reagan (1992, refers to commie business collaborator Armand Hammer) RON PAUL ON DEFENSE SPENDING (1992, sounds like Ramsey Clark) Ron Paul: Clinton didn’t cut defense enough (1993) Ron Paul: US “military is mowing civilians down in the streets” (1993, refers to Somalia) RON PAUL ACCUSED U.S. TROOPS OF WAR CRIMES IN DESERT STORM (1991, this one repeats Ramsey Clark’s allegations almost verbatim)
Ron Paul is not the person who should the Command-In-Chief of the world’s only Hyper Power during dangerous times (or really anytime).
Those were the kind of statements and positions that relegated Ron Paul to kook status.
They raise legitimate questions about his views for people to consider. The major question is whether he now recants all those positions or still believes them.
bump
Ron Paul is a Nut job.
325 comments on this thread on LGF.
Some are great. ie
Ron Paul. Intent on making Ross Perot look like a genius.
They all are a disgrace!
Americans are the real nuts. They buy into anything because of someones appeal to them. You cant trust the press and all of Congress steals. Hell,Amadinjhad is as honorable as any American politician and probably more truthful.
You're absolutely right, though I go further and ask for release of the newsletters so voters can determine his views. Short of that, and given his failure to reject neonazi support, Republicans should both condemn and shun him. Before the Dems attempt to hang the racist/antisemite tag on the GOP. My post from one of the abovementioned threads.
-------------------
On top of the Willis Carto/American Free Press/Council of Conservative Citizens columns/Stormfront-David Duke support, this doesn’t surprise me at all, and personally I think an explanation of this and his 1992 “expose” of the fleet footed, politically foolish, largely criminal population of blacks living among us. Full newsletter article here
The criminals who terrorize our cities--in riots and on every non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to "fight the power," and to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible.…
Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.
Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit--not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people. They are, however, outnumbered. Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence, reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their lives. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.
Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics. The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.
Blacks have "civil riqhts," preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black beauty contests, black tv shows, black tv anchors, black scholorships and colleges, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.
Two years ago, in a series of predictions for the 1990s, I said that race riots would erupt in our large cities. I'm now predicting this will be the major problem of the 1990s.
The good news, Paul (or someone) does correct predict the rise of a terror threat in the 1990s. Of course it’s the blacks and their ideology and culture, not the rational Islamists reacting to colonialization.
The Paul excuse is that though the article is signed by Ron Paul, and printed in the $50 per year Ron Paul Political Report, those aren’t his statistics and opinions, he didn’t actually write it, and apparently never read it.
The remedy, an apology, appropriate. A refusal to identify the individual Paul trusted with his name. IMO, unacceptable for a Presidential candidate. This individual was obviously close to Paul, given the years long gap between publication and discovery may reflect Paul’s views, and may well still be close to him. And a refusal to release other copies of the publication so the public can see just what Paul was advocating over those years. And yes, the link above, the only complete article from the newsletter was posted to usenet by a well known white supremacist.
These excerpts clearly address the issue of newsletter content. From a NYT magazine interview, The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Drug-Enforcement- Administration, Anti-Medicare Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul , earlier this year,
Paul survived these revelations. He later explained that he had not written the passages himself — quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own. But his response to the accusations was not transparent. When Morris called on him to release the rest of his newsletters, he would not. He remains touchy about it. “Even the fact that you’re asking this question infers, ‘Oh, you’re an anti-Semite,’ ” he told me in June. Actually, it doesn’t. Paul was in Congress when Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and — unlike the United Nations and the Reagan administration — defended its right to do so. He says Saudi Arabia has an influence on Washington equal to Israel’s. His votes against support for Israel follow quite naturally from his opposition to all foreign aid. There is no sign that they reflect any special animus against the Jewish state.What is interesting is Paul’s idea that the identity of the person who did write those lines is “of no importance.” Paul never deals in disavowals or renunciations or distancings, as other politicians do. In his office one afternoon in June, I asked about his connections to the John Birch Society. “Oh, my goodness, the John Birch Society!” he said in mock horror. “Is that bad? I have a lot of friends in the John Birch Society. They’re generally well educated, and they understand the Constitution. I don’t know how many positions they would have that I don’t agree with. Because they’re real strict constitutionalists, they don’t like the war, they’re hard-money people. . . . ”
Paul’s ideological easygoingness is like a black hole that attracts the whole universe of individuals and groups who don’t recognize themselves in the politics they see on TV. To hang around with his impressively large crowd of supporters before and after the CNN debate in Manchester, N.H., in June, was to be showered with privately printed newsletters full of exclamation points and capital letters, scribbled-down U.R.L.’s for Web sites about the Free State Project, which aims to turn New Hampshire into a libertarian enclave, and copies of the cult DVD “America: Freedom to Fascism.”
It strikes me that a request to release the newsletters is perfectly reasonable, but in no way could be an attempt to paint him as an anti-Semite. Racist, I suppose you could make that charge, but why antisemite? Unless unbeknownst to the world they contained questionable antisemitic content.
All in all, an embarrassment for the Republican Party. Paul should make his newsletters public and name the author, else the charge that they were simply survivalist/white supremacist/militia garbage will stick. The GOP doesn’t need what Medved refers to as a candidate for neonazis in the race. Paul needs to clear these issues as best as he can.
I disagree, Most Americans notice that Ron Paul is Nut Job, that is why he is so low in the polls.
Republican presidential hopeful, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, takes a break from campaigning at his headquarter in Concord, N.H., Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2007. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)
>>>Ron Paul is a Nut job.<<<
You discredit Nut-jobs by comparing them to Ron Paul.
Certain Ron Paul supporters were recently offended when he was excluded from a poll at the popular blog, Little Green Footballs. Therefore, in the interest of fairness, I have included him in this simple multiple choice test. Just to be fair. Right?
Who wrote that, “If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”
A. “Jimmy the Greek”
B. Fisher DeBerry
C. Robert Byrd
D. Ron Paul
Although my first inclination would have been “Jimmy the Greek” who made reference to blacks having “An extra bone in their feet.” Which got him fired from his job. Fisher Deberry, former head football coach at the United States Air Force Academy said, “… Afro-American kids can run very, very well.” He retired the following year. Ninety year old Robert Byrd, former KKK member, is the longest serving member of the United States Senate. If you voted “D” you are correct! Next question:
Who wrote, “Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action.”
A. Michael Richards
B. Mel Gibson
C. Rush Limbaugh
D. Ron Paul
Michael Richards? Well I’m not going to repeat his comment. Mel Gibson, who is such a religious extremist he thinks his own wife is going to hell? Wrong. Rush Limbaugh, while entirely correct in his assessment of Donovan McNabb, got fired from his sportscasting position at ESPN for suggesting, “the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.” If you voted “D” you are correct! Next question:
“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
A. Marion Berry, former Mayor of Washington, D.C.
B. Paris Hilton
C. Don Imus
D. Ron Paul
Marion Berry? While the former crack smoking Mayor of Washington, D.C. should be the most knowledgeable about that cities crime statistics, there is no evidence that he made the comment. And, by the way, he was re-elected Mayor after serving his sentence. Paris Hilton? While she is about to “enjoy” the criminal justice system on a first hand basis, she confines her DUI driving to the West Coast. Sixty seven year old Don Imus got fired for calling some young women, “nappy headed ho’s,” and has little to do with this question. I just didn’t want to leave him out. If you voted “D” you are correct!
Update: To the Ron Paul supporters that wish to convey that these words were not written by Ron Paul:
In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but explained that they did not represent his views and that they were written by a ghostwriter. He further stated that he felt a “moral responsibility” to stand by the words that had been attributed to him, despite the fact that they did not represent his way of thinking:
“They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them…I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that’s too confusing. ‘It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.’”
Yes, his newsletter, with his name on it. He has to live with it.
Tags: Ron Paul
The links at the top of the page are very funny as well.
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich should both be on the same ticket. They are a matching set.
That is ridiculous. That cretin isn't even close to being more honorable than Ron Paul, even though Paul has a donation link on nearly every page at Stormfront and is a frequent guest of Alex Jones.
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.