Posted on 12/23/2011 5:30:26 PM PST by mnehring
(The following is a transcript of a Ron Paul article from 1990 in his newsletter, The Ron Paul Survival Report. Links to the scanned copies are here:
http://i43.tinypic.com/2rylfv7.png
http://i44.tinypic.com/wgqgeh.png
David Duke received 44% of the vote in the Senate primary race in Louisiana, 60% of the white vote and 9% of the black vote!. This totaled 100,000 more votes that the current governor when he won.
Duke lost the election, but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment. If the official Republican hadn’t been ordered to drop out, he might have won. Certainly there would have been a run-off.
Duke’s platform called for tax cuts, no quotas, no affirmative action, no welfare, and no busing. “Tonight, we concede the election, “ he said. “But we will never concede our fight for equal rights for all Americans.”
To many voters, this seems like just plain good sense. Duke carried baggage from his past, but the voters were willing to overlook that. And if he had been afforded the forgiveness an ex-communist gets, he might have won.
Liberals like Richard Cohen of the Washington Post say he got so many votes because Louisianians were racists and ignorant. Baloney.
David Broder, also of the Post and equally liberal, writing on an entirely different subject, had it right: “No one wants to talk about (race) publicly, but if you ask any campaign consultant or pollster privately, you can confirm the sad reality that a great many working-class and middle-class white Americans are far less hostile to the rich and their tax breaks than they are to the poor and minorities with their welfare and affirmative-action programs.”
Liberal are notoriously blind to see the sociological effects of their own progress. David Duke was hurt by his past. How many more Dukes are waiting in the wings without such as taint?
ROTFLMYRonPaulOFF.
Blessed Merry CHRISTmas, Jim! It's Christmas Eve morning.
LOL. You betcha!
GO NEWT!
I’ve read some of Ron Paul’s more recent writings, and the style of this piece looks different.
How do you know that Paul is the author of those recent writings? It will be years before he’ll either claim them or deny them
No. This isn’t rino BS. This is legit. No one ever cared that much all the years ron paul was perceived as a slight distraction. And while no one paid attention, paul built a super machine that is both fanatic and wealthy.
NOW he is a real and present danger to this country. His views are right in line with obama in many more ways than they differ. Except for the race factor, ron paul holds EXACTLY the same views as the far, far hardcore left. And many of his supporters are equally as vicious as the union thugs and black panther types who support i-bama.
Wow. Got sidetracked on those Morton Downey vids. Paul was at his liberal best there
Duke didn’t win the Republican primary—Louisiana didn’t have party primaries at such time. LA had every candidate, irrespective of party, run on the same ballot in the “jungle primary.” Democrat Edwin Edwards finished first in the jungle primary, with Duke finishing second and Republicsn Buddy Roemer finishing third. Since Edwards didn’t get 50%+1 of the vote, he went into a run-off against Duke, and Edwards trounced Duke 61% to 39%.
“paultards suck. That’s my official policy.”
Does this mean that those who support Ron Paul will continue to be tolerated so long as they don’t enter into truther territory? Or does this mean that Ron Paul supporters will be receiving the same treatment that mittens supporters receive?
I’m still here, so I’m assuming the policy is tolerance.
As of this morning, the gop ballot here in Virginia has two candidates on it: Ron Paul and mittens. I don’t happen to like it one bit, but that’s where we’re at. Given the menu choices we have, I’ll pick Ron Paul and urge others to do the same.
Maybe we’ll get incredibly lucky and get a brokered convention and Sarah will emerge as the unity candidate. Unlikely, but I can dream.
What a complete cluster this election is turning out to be.
Is FR for affirmative action, welfare, and forced busing now?
Ron Paul hats Air Jordans be must be “rayciss.” Do you think only whites can be racist? Will the Paul haters hold Obozo responsible for sitting in some crazy anti-white preacher’s church for decades?
So lets see what these pics say since you are tossing them around like hand grenades.
First one, first paragraph:
“In that same Federalist Paper, Madison wrote:
Instead of being analogous to the power of declaring war, (the president’s power as commander in chief) affords a striking illustration of the incompatibility of the two powers in the same hand. Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things be proper or safe judges whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws.”
So what exactly is it about Madison’s statement that you don’t like?
I’ll take it you are also a David Duke supporter there as you are trying to change the subject from him.
Gotcha
Hold your horses. We are getting there. It is a long page.
Wow. I got knocked off line and McCaffee had to block some attacks and reboot. That’s strange.
Next paragraph:
“Jews and Christians Against a Mideast War”
I was pleased to facilitate, and to sign, an ad that ran on the op-ed page of the New York Times last month. It denounced the smear of anti-Semitism used on war opponents, and noted that “America can only be harmed by this war. Our kids killed, our liberties suppressed, our taxes raised, the government engorged, the recession deepened, our Constitution shredded.” It urged those “salivating for war” to “buy rifles and parachute into Baghdad. But not to kill our soldiers and wreck our economy.” The promoters of the war want a “New World Order,” said the ad. We believe in the “old American republic.”
Co-chairmen of the new group are Burt Blumert of the Center for Libertarian Studies and Lew Rockwell of the Mises Institute. Other signers included: Professor Richard M. Ebeling of Hillsdale College, Professor Paul Gottfried of Elizabethtown College Professor Edward Kaplan of Western Washington University, Dr. Gary North of Remnant Review, entrepreneur James Rodney, and Professor Murray N. Rothbard of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.”
The committee has a small deficit. To help, and to join, send dues of $50 to JCAMW, PO Box 2802, Auburn, AL 36830”
Is this the part you are against, perhaps?
Or is it this one.
“The Duke’s Victory
David Duke received 44% of the vote in the Senate primary race in Louisiana, 60% of the white vote, and 9% of the black vote!. This totaled 100,000 more votes the current governor when he won.
Duke lost the election, but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment. If the official Republican hadn’t been ordered to drop out, he might have won. Certainly there would have been a run-off.
Duke’s platform called for tax cuts, no quotes, no affirmative action, no welfare, and no busing. “Tonight, we...” end of page 3.
or is this the part you are objecting to?
You are getting there. Obviously, pimping for Duke, cheering that this Klan leader almost won, promoting the bs propoganda that Duke was just about tax cuts, welfare, etc, is where the line is crossed.
Do you not have a problem with the promotion of a Klan leader? Do you not have a problem with Paul’s cheering the sheep’s clothing the wolf donned knowing full well who the wolf is?
next page.
“concede the election,” he said. “But we will never concede our fight for equal rights for all Americans.
To many voters, this seems like just plain good sense. Duke carried baggage from his past, but the voters were willing to overlook that. And if he had been afforded the forgiveness an ex-communist gets, he might have won.
Liberals like Richard Cohen of the Washington Post say he got so many votes because Louisianians were racists and ignorant. Baloney.
David Broder, also of the Post and equally liberal, writing on an entirely different subject, had it right: “No one wants to talk about [race] publicly, but if you ask any campaign consultant or pollster privately, you can confirm the sad reality that a great many working-class and middle-class white Americans are far less hostile to the rich and their tax breaks than they are to the poor and minorities with their welfare and affirmative-action programs.”
Liberals are notoriously blind to the sociological effects of their own programs. David Duke was hurt by his past. How many more Dukes are there waiting in the wings without such a taint?”
Is this the offensive part?
Yes, because as I said before, it is telling the world that the wolf in sheep’s clothing is just a sheep. It is promoting the one of the most vile humans around because he said a few cute words knowing full well he was lying.
Or do you believe David Duke is for ‘equal rights for all Americans’? Are you that gullible?
So what is it you like about David Duke?
Is it the Klan robes? Is it the cozying up to Ahmadinejad? Is it the hosting of Holocaust denial conferences?
Tell us.
Still got a bit more to get through the entire post.
Or this one.
“More Federal Spying
On September 1, a federal data bank for tracking physicians, dentists, and other health-care professionals began operating at a cost of $16 billion. It will accumulate data on 50,000 providers in the first year. When a doctor is sued, his name is put on a blacklist. Since 80% of the OB-GYN doctors are sued, many innocent physicians will be blacklisted wrongly.
This program is designed to monitor physicians, but it will spread to all professions and businesses. If it is right for physicians, why not for attorneys, business people, and everyone else?”
Ouch. I didn’t remember this one. So is this the offensive part?
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.