Posted on 12/28/2011 11:40:14 AM PST by Kaslin
Attack dogs have finally been unleashed on Ron Paul. Those barking dogs caused Andrew Sullivan to Re-Think The Paul Endorsement
Time Magazine even launched a headline Paul Walks Away
No Need to Rethink Endorsement
There is no need to rethink endorsements. Here is the deal: Ron Paul did not say the things attributed to him. He denies them, disavows them, and most importantly, his voting record proves it!
Can anyone honestly tell me why things Ron Paul did NOT say over twenty years ago should be news today?
Paul Missed Best Tactic
How many times does he have to deny he wrote those things? Still, Ron Paul did not handle the CNN setup in the best possible manner.
This is what Paul said to CNN.
“Why don’t you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN and what I’ve said for 20 something years. 22 years ago? I didn’t write them, I disavow them."
That answer was perfectly fine, as far as it went. Then Paul walked out. It was a missed opportunity.
Proposed Follow-Up
Rather than walking out, Paul should have followed up with ...
"I'm not here to discuss imaginary topics or things I never said. Now, do you want to discuss my position on the economy, on the Fed, and on spending, or is your only point to this interview to discuss things I did not say 20 years ago and have explained to CNN countless times?"
That would have smashed the ball down CNN interviewer Gloria Borger's throat, right where it belonged.
OK. Admittedly, Ron Paul did not respond in the perfect manner. So Ron Paul is human. Who isn't?
Is a transgression 22 years ago of something Ron Paul never said, and whose track record in congress proves it, any reason to drop support of Ron Paul?
In favor of who? Flip-flopper Newt Gingrich? Mitt Romney, the man that practically wrote the Obama Health-Care legislation? The Mitt Romney who wants to starts a trade war with China? Another Republican candidate that has no chance of winning?
If case you are a misguided Mitt Romney fan please consider President Obama and Mitt Romney are Nearly One and the Same!
Anyone "rethinking" their Ron Paul endorsement based on things Paul never said is not thinking clearly.
Attack Dog Plus Side
Here's the plus side to the attack dogs: Ron Paul is now considered a serious candidate or the attack dogs would not have been unleashed on things he never said 22 years ago.
Interestingly, The State Column reports Ron Paul still holds a lead in Iowa.
Thus, a majority of voters have decided that 22-year-old never-made statements are irrelevant, even if some misguided souls can't.
Constitutional conservatives don’t vote to force perverts into the military.
And if he never said the crap in his newsletter why did he sign his name, have greetings and message from himself and his wife, and make a lot of money on them? If he didn’t write them, but pretended as though he did, or even didn’t read them, then he’s a lying incompetent. At best.
There was a thread with a lot of stuff from RPaul’s newsletters that he claims now that he didn’t read or write! ahahahahhah
I’ll see if I can find it a bit later.
Are you questioning the accuracy of what I pointed out about Newt?
You wrote: “I would also like to see the things from Paul’s newsletter that are being discussed. I watched them misquote Newt over and over last month and would believe they are misquoting Paul. Perhaps someone who knows where to find them will post a link...”
I haven’t read the whole thread, but here is something for you:
First, you need to know this:
FreeRepublic bans the likes of Alex Jones, Prison Planet, Lew Rockwell and other Ron Paul supporters
Sunday, December 27, 2009
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2415837/posts
<>//<>
Now:
Excerpted from the item below:
“....In the four years since my article appeared, Paul has gone right on appearing regularly on the radio program of Alex Jones, the most popular conspiracy theorist in America (unless that distinction belongs to Paul himself). To understand Jones’s paranoid worldview, it helps to watch a recent documentary he produced, Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, which reveals the secret plot of George Pataki, David Rockefeller, and Queen Beatrix, among other luminaries, to exterminate humanity and transform themselves into “superhuman” computer hybrids able to “travel throughout the cosmos.” There is nothing Jones believes the American government isn’t capable of, from “[encouraging] homosexuality with chemicals so that people don’t have children” to blowing up the Space Shuttle Columbia, a “textbook psychological warfare operation.” ....”
The Company Ron Paul Keeps
Meet Alex Jones.
Dec 26, 2011, Vol. 17, No. 15 • By JAMES KIRCHICK
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/company-ron-paul-keeps_613474.html?page=1
[snip]
In January 2008, the New Republic ran my story reporting the contents of monthly newsletters that Paul published throughout the 1980s and 1990s. While a handful of controversial passages from these bulletins had been quoted previously, I was able to track down nearly the entire archive, scattered between the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society (both of which housed the newsletters in collections of extreme right-wing American political literature). Though particular articles rarely carried a byline, the vast majority were written in the first person, while the title of the newsletter, in its various iterations, always featured Paul’s name: Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Political Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, and the Ron Paul Investment Letter. What I found was unpleasant.
“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks,” read a typical article from the June 1992 “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism,” a supplement to the Ron Paul Political Report. Racial apocalypse was the most persistent theme of the newsletters; a 1990 issue warned of “The Coming Race War,” and an article the following year about disturbances in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C., was entitled “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” Paul alleged that Martin Luther King Jr., “the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” had also “seduced underage girls and boys.” The man who would later proclaim King a “hero” attacked Ronald Reagan for signing legislation creating the federal holiday in his name, complaining, “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”
No conspiracy theory was too outlandish for Paul’s endorsement. One newsletter reported on the heretofore unknown phenomenon of “Needlin’,” in which “gangs of black girls between the ages of 12 and 14” roamed the streets of New York and injected white women with possibly HIV-infected syringes. Another newsletter warned that “the AIDS patient” should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,” a strange claim for a physician to make.
Paul gave credence to the theory, later shown to have been the product of a Soviet disinformation effort, that AIDS had been created in a U.S. government laboratory at Fort Detrick, Maryland. Three months before far-right extremists killed 168 Americans in Oklahoma City, Paul’s newsletter praised the “1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty” as “one of the most encouraging developments in America.” And he offered specific advice to antigovernment militia members, such as, “Keep the group size down,” “Keep quiet and you’re harder to find,” “Leave no clues,” “Avoid the phone as much as possible,” and “Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”
If the above were not enough to place Paul beyond the pale for the RJC, what the congressman had to say about Jews and Israel would probably be a deal-breaker. No foreign country was mentioned in the newsletters more often than Israel. A 1987 newsletter termed it “an aggressive, national socialist state,” and another missive, on the subject of the 1993 World Trade Center attack, concluded, “Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.” In 1990, the newsletter cast aspersions on the “tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of expertise.”
This is just a sample of the hateful and conspiratorial nonsense that Paul promoted for decades under his own name. His response to the revelations was nothing short of unbelievable. “The quotations in the New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed,” he said. “When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.” In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer two days after the article appeared, Paul waved away accusations of racism by saying that he was “gaining ground with the blacks” and “getting more votes right now and more support from the blacks.”
Yet a subsequent report by Reason found that Ron Paul & Associates, the defunct company that published the newsletters and which counted Paul and his wife as officers, reported an income of nearly $1 million in 1993 alone. If this figure is reliable, Paul must have earned multiple millions of dollars over the two decades plus of the newsletters’ existence. It is incredible that he had less than an active interest in what was being printed as part of a subscription newsletter enterprise that earned him and his family millions of dollars.
Ed Crane, the president of the Cato Institute, said Paul told him that “his best source of congressional campaign donations was the mailing list for the Spotlight, the conspiracy-mongering, anti-Semitic tabloid run by the Holocaust denier Willis Carto.”
This sordid history would not bear repeating but for the fact that the media love to portray Paul as a truth-telling, antiwar Republican standing up to the “hawkish” conservative establishment. Otherwise, the newsletters, and Paul’s continued failure to name their author, would be mentioned in every story about him, and he would be relegated to the fringe where he belongs.
But Paul has escaped the sort of media scrutiny that would bury other political figures. A December 15 profile of Paul in the Washington Post, for instance, affectionately described his love of gardening and The Sound of Music and judged that “world events have conspired to make him look increasingly on point”all without any mention of the newsletter controversy.
Though present at nearly every Republican debate, he has yet to be asked about the newsletters. Had Paul’s persona and views changed significantly since 2008, this oversight might be understandable. But he continues to say and do things suggesting that, far from disowning the statements he has claimed “do not represent what I believe or have ever believed,” he still believes them.
In the four years since my article appeared, Paul has gone right on appearing regularly on the radio program of Alex Jones, the most popular conspiracy theorist in America (unless that distinction belongs to Paul himself). To understand Jones’s paranoid worldview, it helps to watch a recent documentary he produced, Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, which reveals the secret plot of George Pataki, David Rockefeller, and Queen Beatrix, among other luminaries, to exterminate humanity and transform themselves into “superhuman” computer hybrids able to “travel throughout the cosmos.” There is nothing Jones believes the American government isn’t capable of, from “[encouraging] homosexuality with chemicals so that people don’t have children” to blowing up the Space Shuttle Columbia, a “textbook psychological warfare operation.”
In a March 2009 interview, Paul entertained Jones’s claim that NORTHCOM, the U.S. military’s combatant command for North America, is “taking over” the country. “The average member of Congress probably isn’t a participant in the grand conspiracy,” Paul reassured the fevered host, essentially acknowledging that such a conspiracy exists. “We need to take out the CIA.” On Paul’s latest appearance on the Jones show, just last week, he called allegations that Iran had attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States a “propaganda stunt” of the Obama administration. In a January 2010 speech, Paul announced, “There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup” against the American government. “They’re in businesses, in drug businesses,” the congressman added.
Likewise, Paul’s insistence that America should be a “friend” of Israel is belied by public statements like one from a November 22 GOP debate: “Why do we have this automatic commitment that we’re going to send our kids and send our money endlessly to Israel?” This is an echo of Pat Buchanan’s 1990 claim that if the United States went to war against Saddam Hussein it would be on behalf of Israel, and that “kids with names like McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales, and Leroy Brown” would be the ones doing the fighting and dying. The assertion that American soldiers are risking their lives to protect Israel and not the United States is as false today as it was two decades ago.
Last, Paul continues to be the favorite candidate of those who believe that the United States either orchestrated the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, or allowed them to happen in order to create the pretext for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s not hard to understand why. In a December 9 speech to supporters in Iowa, Paul had this to say: “Just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately before there was any assessment there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq.”
Paul’s more mainstream supporters have always explained away his popularity with 9/11 “Truthers” as an unfortunate consequence of his altruistic, if at times naïve, libertarian ethos: The man just loves freedom so much that he’s loath to turn away backers who may think differently from him.
To anyone who bothers to look into Ron Paul’s record, that claim is simply not credible.
James Kirchick is a fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a contributing editor to the New Republic. bttt
“Are you questioning the accuracy of what I pointed out about Newt?”
Nope. Wondering what the hell you are doing on a conservative website touting libertarian fools. Which part wasn’t clear?
Just for the record, I do not support Paul in any way, but I AM interested in the machinations of the media. Thanks for the info. :)
This are a few ZOT worthy RUPaul supporters in need of Zotting on this thread ~
Unleash the Viking Kitteh
You’re welcome! bttt
I’m sorry if I gave you the impression that I thought you supported him. I assumed all along you didn’t, but many FReepers are unaware of how many extremist nutcases and their web sites have been banned on FR.
Case in point:
Google Search of FreeRepublic shows over 1,200 pages with mentions of Alex Jones. Our censors must be falling behind, or yet again, others live in delusion of their greatness.
16 posted on Sunday, December 27, 2009 2:03:58 PM by kingu
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2415837/posts?page=16#16
<>
Partial list of extremist nut-cases banned from posting on FR:
Stormfront -a white nationalist and supremacist neo-Nazi Internet forum that has been described as the Internet’s first major hate site. (They just LOVE David Duke)
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/
<>
Lindon La Rouche and his trolls
http://www.larouchepac.com/
<>
Cindy Sheehan’s boyfriend Lew Rockwell and his trolls
http://www.lewrockwell.com/
<>
Prison Planet.TV and Alex Jones and his trolls
http://prisonplanet.tv/
<>
Infowars and Alex Jones and his trolls
http://www.infowars.com/
<>
The Birchers (The John Birch Society) and their trolls
http://www.jbs.org/
<><>////<><>
06/25/2010
Glenn Beck is a Skousenite.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/232435/beck-and-birchers-daniel-foster
“....Then things get weirder... [Glenn] Beck’s ties to a Bircher named W. Cleon Skousen and his world of fringe conspiracy theories.
Read and watch enough Glenn Beck, and you realize that he is not only introducing new authors and ideas into public life, he is reintroducing old ideas. Some very old ideas.
The notion that America’s leaders are indistinguishable from America’s enemies has a long and sorry history. In the 1950s it led Robert Welch, the head of the John Birch Society, to proclaim that President Dwight Eisenhower was a Communist sympathizer. For this, William F. Buckley Jr. famously denounced Welch and severed the Birchers’ ties to mainstream conservatism. The group was ostracized for decades.
But not everyone denounced Welch.
One author, the Mormon autodidact W. Cleon Skousen, continued to support the Birchers as he penned books on politics and the American founding. And Skousen continued to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that American political, social, and economic elites were working with the Communists to foist a world government on the United States.
Glenn Beck is a Skousenite.
During the “We Surround Them” program, he urged his audience to read Skousen’s 5000 Year Leap (1981), for which he has written a foreword, and The Real George Washington (1991).
“The 5000 Year Leap is essential to understanding why our Founders built this Republic the way they did,” the author writes in Glenn Beck’s Common Sense.
More controversially, Beck has recommended Skousen’s Naked Communist (1958) and Naked Capitalist (1970), which lay out the writer’s paranoid scenarios in detail.
The latter book, for example, draws on Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope (1966), which argues that the history of the 20th century is the product of secret societies in conflict.
“Carroll Quigley laid open the plan in Tragedy and Hope,” says a character in Beck’s new novel, The Overton Window. “The only hope to avoid the tragedy of war was to bind together the economies of the world to foster global stability and peace.”
Wanna know more about Skousen? Well, after some pecking around the archives, I found an excellent sketch of his weirder beliefs by NROer Mark Hemingway, penned in 2007 when it emerged that Mitt Romney was also a one-time fan.
Some highlights from therein:
– Skousen thought the Communists were creating “a regimented breed of Pavlovian men whose minds could be triggered into immediate action by signals from their masters.”
– Skousen thought that criticism of the Mormon church’s policy against priesthood for blacks was a Communism attack.
– Skousen accused the Council on Foreign Relations and the Rockefellers of conspiring to elect Jimmy Carter and pave the way for One World Government.
By the way, this sort of thing is alive and well today. I received an e-mail not eight hours ago, from a Bircher conspiracy group that I’ll leave unnamed, detailing how the McChrystal firing figures into the Council on Foreign Relations’ plans for World Government:
[snip]
<><>///<><>
Beck: Still endorsing Ron Paul over Newt Gingrich
http://www.therightscoop.com/beck-still-endorsing-ron-paul-over-newt-gingrich/
<>
Mark Levin torches Ron Paul
http://www.therightscoop.com/page/3/
VIDEO: Ron Paul Defends Occupy Wall Street (Blasts America’s “Obsession with war”)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2820134/posts
<>
Mark Levin slams Ron Paul caller
http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-slams-ron-paul-caller/
<>
Levin: Newt Gingrich is no Marxist or Socialist like these imbeciles suggest
http://www.therightscoop.com/levin-newt-gingrich-is-no-marxist-or-socialist-like-these-imbeciles-suggest/
<>
Mark Levin: I have no idea what philosophy Glenn Beck is promoting. And neither does he
Mark Levin Fan ^ | February 21, 2010 | Mark R. Levin
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2456317/posts
I was invited to be the opening speaker at Saturday’s CPAC session. I had accepted but then, to my amazement, I learned that the John Birch Society would be one of many co-sponsors. This takes the big-tent idea many steps too far for me. So, I withdrew. Apparently, others were not so moved. That’s fine. But it wasn’t for me. Bill Buckley and Barry Goldwater, among others, chased the Birchers from the movement decades ago. And they’re not a part of the movement. So, to give them a booth at CPAC was boneheaded. .....”
[snip]
<>
To: perfect_rovian_storm
I was alerted to this monster thread this morning and had to stop reading it after a while. I’ll leave this one post and then move along. These flame wars are vicious. They contribute nothing. If you love other hosts wonderful. If you don’t like my show wonderful. If you love other recent books, cool. If you hate my book, so what? But I will comment here as a long-time Freeper, on my show, and anywhere else about my views, whether you agree with them or not. I’ve worked too long and too hard in the conservative trenches to be chased or pushed here or there. I’ve seen great leaders up close and personal, like Reagan, and I’ve seen great talent up close and personal, like Rush. I fear for this nation. And I know the enemy. I have for 40 years. And I have fought them- at the polls, within the GOP, in Court, on TV, and in radio. I do not seek praise for it. I do it out of commitment to this society. And I did it when I didn’t have two dimes to rub together. It’s impossible to address all the poison here nor is it productive. But I can and do back up all I believe and say on the air and in my writings. They are the “links” some of the malcontents here demand. If you want to honestly know where I am coming from, how I get there, then listen and read about it. I explain myself in great detail all the time. Now let’s take our country back. Good day. (please excuse any typos as this iPhone keypad is murder.)
1,038 posted on Monday, February 22, 2010 9:16:42 AM by holdonnow
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2456317/posts?page=1038#1038
bttt
It would be wise to see what they said then, as to what they say now.
Newt broke his contract with America. Even Rush Limbaugh lost faith in him when, after promising to vote against something he voted for it. After the second time it happened, Rush wouldn't have him on his show. Rush really liked him back then, and called him Mr Newt.
"Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh on Monday reversed himself and signaled support for Newt Gingrich, praising Gingrich as "the last person" who was able to balance the federal budget and cut government spending. The move is a reversal from earlier, harsh attacks on the former House speaker.
"Who was the last person to actually cut government? Who was the last person who actually led a movement that balanced the federal budget? Who was the person that did that?" Limbaugh asked, before singing music from the show "Jeopardy." He continued: "You're not gonna take a guess? That's right, it was Mr. Newt! The last guy who gave us a balanced budget. Now, there are a lot of other Republicans involved...but Gingrich was Speaker. The last time this budget was - the last time there was true welfare reform, the last time government was cut, Gingrich did it."
Limbaugh has been critical of Gingrich in the past; as Ron Paul spotlighted in an ad last week, he hammered Gingrich for casting Paul Ryan's Medicare plan as "right wing social engineering," saying the comment "cuts Paul Ryan off at the knees." On the same show Monday, Limbaugh was repeatedly critical of Gingrich's top rival for the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QadeAkdI9xw
They shot at our planes but I never heard of them of hitting one.
Sorry you are incorrect, now remember I said his supporters not Paul himself. The Paulians I know are not dopers, far from it.
They didn’t. Nevertheless, it was a breach of the agreement. However there was a book out that stated that Clinton and his coterie wanted a plane shot down as a pretext to attack Iraq.
I disagree with you on this one Jeff. What seems to be working all over the world is the people tradeing with us and finding out about us and how we live.
YouTube seems to be having a good effect, too.
Last night at the Campaign Rally with Veterans, Paul said he would only send troops to fight when Congress would declare war. He said the Constitution did not allow the President to declare war. He said he would only ask them for a war against a country that threatens us and has the means to attack us.
I wish you would check it out on C-Span. I like his foreign policy. I'm paraphrasing but last night he said we give $3 billion to Israel every year but we give $12 billion to her avowed enemies that surround her.. Then he asked why do we do that? It doesn't make any sense.
I am voting for him.
Anyone that is interested in what he or Newt have ever said in interviews or on the floor of the House, check out the archieves on C-Span.
Actually the President can in the case of a foreign invader.
He said he would only ask them for a war against a country that threatens us and has the means to attack us.
I'd say 9/11 fit the bill. And you already saw my link that Iraq was linked to Al Quada. Your problem is that you forget recent history. There were pics all over FR of trucks leaving Iraq for Syria because some loudmouth, whose name I can't remember,(Richard Clark?) stated that we were attacking.
Also these statements by Ron Paul are dangerous:
*Wartime brainwashing that Islam is inherently warlike. (Apr 2011)
*We're endangered as a result of our foreign policy. (Apr 2011)
*We manufactured fear about Saddam, Al Qaeda, & Ahmadinejad. (Apr 2011)
He knows NOTHING about Islam and the Qu'ran. AND, he is MUCH too old to be President.
I have met and talked personally with Ron Paul. it’s been about 12 years ago now.
I have great respect for him in the mnonetary and budgetary areas.
However, for example, Bush went to Congress and got Congres to vote on an authorization to use force in Iraq. He got congress’s approval and fulfilled the constitutional muster.
The congress has also recognized that in any situation requiring immediate action, the president can , as the CIC order troops in harms way for very short durations and must receive congressional approval within that time stipulated...or pull them out.
congress also funds all wars and can at anytime, if it is clear that constitutional permission was not granted, defund and end any war.
Ron Paul’s idea that the Isamic Fundamentalists and Jihadists will be fine with nuclear weapons, or trade and worjk with us if we just treat them nice is not only short sighted, it is dangerouly naive. The fact is that thos epeople want us dead or enslaved. Those are the options, and they will lie, cheat, make war, assasinate, etc. in essence, do whatever it takes to achieve those ends and establish Sharia Law over the whole earth.
Those set of people cannot be negotiated with. We have 30 years direct experience with them in modern times...and had to relearn what Black Jack Pershing learned in the Philippines over a hundred years ago.
bookmark
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.