PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul Roundup (1-11-8)




RSDavis
01-11-2008, 02:13 PM
http://laceylibertarian.us/wp-images/rPaulRev.jpg

Ron Paul Roundup (1-11-8)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=346497421&Mytoken=DC95D761-CF5D-4286-80C7CDAEF99C043541150214)


Hello Freedomphiles! Let's just get down to it in today's Roundup and jump into more about the the New Republic hit piece. The Dallas Morning News is talking (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-ronpaul_11edi.ART.State.Edition1.3833b23.html) about it:

Writer James Kirchick unearthed piles of newsletters sent out by the Texas congressman in the 1980s and 1990s that were filled with racist, anti-Semitic, gay-hating rhetoric, a crackpot chrestomathy of extreme right-wing conspiracy raving.

To be fair, none of the offensive articles bore Dr. Paul's byline, and it's common for political figures to employ ghostwriters. The kindly Dr. Paul's campaign rhetoric has been utterly devoid of this garbage, and those who know him say he does not harbor those beliefs.

That may well be true, but it doesn't exonerate Dr. Paul. For one thing, it is impossible to believe that he had no knowledge that such disgusting material was being published under his name and for so many years. For another, his campaign responded by saying the candidate doesn't believe these things and by calling the report old news. (Which is technically true, given that reports of these bigot-grams have been circulating for some time.)

I'd love to refute that, but they make a valid point. The Houston Chronicle adds (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5445666.html) their two-cents, as well:

Asked on CNN to explain himself, Paul said he was too busy to pay attention to what was being published in the Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report and Ron Paul's Freedom Report. He said they don't reflect his views.

"Libertarians are incapable of being racist," Paul declared.

He accurately claimed that the newsletters were being brought up now "for political reasons." They certainly are he is a national candidate for president, demanding to be taken seriously. It's reasonable to investigate his past statements and writings.

But Paul, as he has been doing lately, took it a step further, suggesting the newsletters were resurfacing as part of an orchestrated conspiracy to discredit him.

"Maybe this is part of the anti-Ron Paul deal," Paul said from South Carolina on CNN, "and knock down Ron Paul because he's gaining ground with the blacks."

By all other appearances, Paul is not a racist, and his explanation is plausible, but it's incomplete. To dismiss questions about the newsletters as part of some plot against Ron Paul as the candidate increasingly refers to himself is a disservice to the young true believers supporting him. So far, he has yet to take responsibility for allowing it to happen.

Look, guys - this story isn't nothing. We'd like to be able to roll our eyes and blame all of this on some neocon conspiracy, but like the "vast right-wing conspiracy" lamented by Hillary, there's truth in this - and that is what hurts.

I honestly don't believe he wrote the offensive pieces, but we can't deny that it wasn't just one article, here. There were several over a decent period of time. I believe that he just wasn't paying attention to what they were writing, because the views expressed were so far away from his own views.

But to not even notice or set any guidelines for what is appropriate to go out under his name shows a remarkable lack of prudence. So does allowing these things to go out without oversight for years. Those are the most damning facts in this case, and it is only my years of experience following Dr Paul, reading his words, listening to him speak on the House floor, that convinces me these writings were not his.

I do appreciate that he took responsability for it, and I still love the guy. But this is just something we're going to have to face in this campaign - on this issue, we do not have the high ground.

So, what can we do to mitigate the damage from this and distance the grassroots and Ron Paul from the hateful bile that was printed in his name? This might help:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh-L0eCFEc4

USADaily reports (http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=224327) that Ron Paul was on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer:

When questioned on the letters by Blitzer, Paul said that he had not paid attention to the newsletter that was written in his name and that he didn't know who wrote them. Paul said that he had taken moral responsibility for not paying more attention to what went out in his name.

Paul then eloquently addressed the issue of racism and demonstrated that the collectivist concept of racism was entirely contrary to the Libertarian ideal of individual liberty. Paul also said that his ideology did not see people in groups but instead viewed everyone as an important individual.

Paul also said that the attacks and allegations against him were because his campaign is growing and gaining traction among black voters. Paul leads all Republicans among blacks.

Paul then said that he is the only candidate running that would pardon all blacks and whites convicted of non violent drug crimes and that the racism is in the judicial system. He said that he honored Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. for their acts of non violent Civil Disobedience which he said was a Libertarian concept.

And here's the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnH2k1b88y0

There has been a lot of speculation from Libertarian insiders about who the ghost-writer may be. Since this first came out years ago, many of us have wondered if it was Gary North or Lew Rockwell. I hope it wasn't either of them - I like them both, and if I find out it was, I won't be able to anymore. I think it's time that they step up and admit, one way or the other, what their role was in this mess. The Free Liberal agrees (http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/003165.html):

We suggest, Mr. Rockwell, that this behavior can only be characterized as stonewalling. It is widely known that you have been associated with Dr. Paul for many years. The writing style in the quotes Kirchick cites sound quite reminiscent of your style.

We simply do not understand why you won't stand up and deny that you are the ghostwriter, or admit it. The article appears to be factual, as no one denies that the newsletters contained these hateful racist and homophobic statements. This episode has cast a pall over the Paul campaign and over the great cause of liberty.

Liberty should not be associated with hate! To the contrary, the cause of liberty is one of peace and social harmony.

Frankly, it pains us to write you on this matter. It's unpleasant for us, as we imagine it is for you. We are truly sorry if it causes any offense. The message of liberty, however, is far more important than any of our personal feelings.

The Baltimore Sun wonders (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/by_frank_james_some_thoughts.html) why all this wasn't mentioned in the debates, to which Fox News somehow managed to invite Ron Paul:

But the Fox News journalists never raised the newsletters. At one time it looked like they might when Carl Cameron asked Paul if he was electable. But it didn't happen.

That was really astounding. The newsletters were the biggest story about Paul in that news cycle, burning up the Internet. Yet, the questions never came. It really was an amazing omission. A lot of people will be asking why and spinning conspiracy theories.

Was there a fear it would create a tidal wave of backlash against the news network by fervent Paul supporters? Or that it would derail the debate? Or that the other candidates would be forced to repudiate Paul, which could cost the eventual Republican nominee support from Paul supporters later on?

Speaking of the debates, The Los Angeles Times reported (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/01/ronpaulspeaksou.html) that Ron Paul did well setting himself apart from his opponents:

Fox's Carl Cameron noted Paul's numerous differences with Republicans and asked, can you "actually win the Republican nomination, sir?"

"Well," Paul replied, "we've only had two little primaries so far. So it's pretty premature to decide which one is going to be the candidate.... Are you suggesting the Republicans write me off because I'm a strict constitutionalist? I'm the most conservative member here. I have voted, you know, against more spending and waste in government than anybody else. (Applause)

"So you're suggesting that I'm not electable and the Republicans don't want me because I'm a strict fiscal conservative, because I believe in civil liberties? Why should we not be defending civil liberties and why should we not be talking about foreign policy that used to be the part of the Republican Party?

"Mr. Republican Robert Taft didn't even want us to be in NATO, and you're saying now that we have to continue to borrow money from China to finance this empire that we can't afford? Let me see if I get this right. We need to borrow $10 billion from China and then we give it to Musharraf, who is a military dictator, who overthrew an elected government. And then we go to war, we lose all these lives promoting democracy in Iraq. I mean, what's going on here?"

Fox News also reported (http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/11/gop-candidates-debate-in-strategic-state-of-south-carolina/) on the debate:

Of the six candidates, only Ron Paul said he thought the incident was being blown out of proportion.

"Let's put it in perspective. We have five small speedboats attacking the U.S. Navy with a Destroyer? They could take care of those speedboats in about five seconds. And here we're ready to start World War III over this? You know there are people in this administration and in Washington, D.C., that are looking for the chance" to bomb Iran, the 10-term Texas congressman said.

"I'm worrying about the policy of why we're looking for a justification. I mean, we're already, with our CIA, being involved in trying to overthrow that government, and we don't need another war. And this incident should not be thrown out of proportion to the point where we're getting ready to attack Iran over this," Paul said.

Romney responded to that claim by saying, "I think Congressman Paul should not be reading as many of (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad's press releases."

That's interesting, Mitt, because I think that there's no more important thing to be doing right now than reading everything our enemies have to say about us. Strangely, most of the piece deals with what Ron Paul said, and how the rest of the candidates responded. That's a lot of ink for an irrellevant racist kook, eh?

Point-spreads.com elaborated (http://www.point-spreads.com/politics/011108-ron-paul-wins-sc-republican-debate-sean-hannity-eats-boloney-san.html) on the Fox News coverage of Ron Paul:

After the debate, Fox's coverage was clearly slanted against Paul as the only negative reaction the hand picked "focus" group apparently had was towards one of Ron Paul's responses to the out of control foreign policy spending which received a tremendous applause from the audience in attendance. People that do not like Ron Paul's message are in complete denial of the state of our Republic. The Texas Congressman is telling it like it is and attacking the political establishment, which angers their supporters and puppets. Puppets such as Sean Hannity.

Hannity actually said every one of the candidates except Ron Paul could become the nominee. How did Ron Paul raise $20 million in last three months of 2007 then Sean? It is pretty obvious to me that Hannity could not tell the difference between a conservative and a baloney sandwich. The so called "conservative" pundit clearly needs to go back and checkout the definition of "conservative" as Ron Paul is clearly the most conservative Republican Presidential Candidate in 2008.

During the post debate analysis show, Fox ran a national text message poll designed to get the opinions of viewers that actually paid attention during the South Carolina Debate. Guess who won? Yup, Ron Paul won the text message poll with 32% of the votes and that clearly irked Hannity. The text message poll shows that the broader television audience clearly believe that Ron Paul was the winner of the South Carolina Republican Debate and Sean Hannity's view is in the minority.

Not a single Republican Presidential Nominee has won the White House without winning South Carolina. It's important for the Republican base to elect a conservative that will rally the base. I cannot understand why the so call conservatives are moving away from the fiscally conservative Ron Paul. He is clearly the most conservative Republican Presidential Candidate and the only true "change" agent the Republican Party has that can compete with Barack Obama.

Feel free to check for yourself. Here's the transcript (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-debatetrans11jan11,0,7962304.story). The Galveston Daily News ponders (http://news.galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=3542a9783c5f8b57) Dr Paul's chances:

Not only could he qualify for a vice-presidential invitation but, depending on the strength of his GOP nomination returns, he could revert to his former Libertarian Party and run against the two major candidates for the commander-in-chief's post.

That possibility may be anathema to diehard Republicans, but the mainstay of Paul's burgeoning support is hardly steadfast conservatism. The 72-year-old obstetrician and gynecologist is making his mark among all sections of society, most noticeably the young and not a few Democrats, plus swing voters disaffected with both major parties.

He has already made his mark in the presidential race, finishing fifth in both the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire's primary, and raising $20 million in campaign funds during the last three months of 2007.

As this figure came from 130,000 donors, all but 23,000 of them first-timers, at an average pledge of less than $90, it is clear that Paul's strategy of appealing to the individual rather than big business or lobby groups is paying dividends where it's most likely to matter with voters who actually go to the polls.

While he has significant cash reserves, he can stay in the Republican race and not only remain an effective combatant but also watch those not as well funded or not as well supported fall from the fold. He may even be a favorite to pick up the votes of supporters of the failed candidates.

So, even if he remains in fifth position as the Republicans elect their party nominee, his voter base could well be strong enough to propel him into the next round with or without a GOP running mate.

The Washington Post is examining (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/10/AR2008011003239.html) Ron Paul's appeal, and come out ignorant:

Though his campaign may owe its energy to 21st-century technology, Ron Paul is no innovator. To all the difficult questions of a complicated, interdependent world, he offers pretty much the same prescription that such right-wing American isolationists as Patrick J. Buchanan have offered in the past: The nation must disengage from international affairs so as to concentrate on the real enemies at home. To be sure, Mr. Paul, who would end the war on drugs, does not seem to want a Buchanan-style culture war. His demonology, inspired by idiosyncratic economic theories, centers on the Federal Reserve Board, as well as "elites" who might be plotting something he calls "the NAFTA superhighway" across Texas. Mr. Paul proposes a "golden rule" for foreign policy -- treat other countries as we would have them treat us. But as Mr. Russert forced him to admit, this bromide offers no help in such real-world scenarios as a North Korean invasion of South Korea, a democratic country with which we trade $72 billion worth of goods each year. Mr. Paul implied that it would be none of our business.

Mr. Paul goes so far as to express understanding of Osama bin Laden's antipathy toward U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia, which, Mr. Paul says, created the "incentive" for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "It's sort of like if you step in a snake pit and you get bit," he told Mr. Russert. "Who caused the trouble?" During the Cold War, the late Jeane Kirkpatrick chided Democrats for "blaming America first" in foreign policy. That may or may not have been apt. But in 2008, there is one candidate to whom her words definitely apply: Republican Ron Paul.

I'm glad to see this, because it's easy to refute. First of all, I don't understand the mindset that the "NAFTA Superhighway" is a myth - it's definitely real. I personally don't see it is a threat, but I can certainly see it.

Idiosyncratic economic theories? I guess if by "idiosyncratic" you mean "proven correct time and again." And Ron Paul is not an isolationist. The author does well to mention that Ron Paul is not interested in a culture war, but still misses the nuance of Paul's position on foriegn policy, which can be summed up in the words of Thomas Jefferson:

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

And Ron Paul was not "forced to admit this bromide offers no help in such real-world scenarios as a North Korean invasion of South Korea." He was asked and answered with the truth - North Korea is not going to attack South Korea, so the question is irrellevant. It'd be more likely that we'd get attacked by Canada.

And there's a huge difference between trying to understand why someone would be willing to give their lives to kill Americans and blaming America first. It seems the good folks would do well to pick up "Rudy's Reading List" and read the words of the other "blame America First" people - the fucking 911 Commission.

David Weigel shares (http://reason.tv/roughcut/show/226.html) a video with us from "a simpler time," by which he means five days ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkwRX5fNzpk

And finally, LewRockwell.com is pushing (http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski198.html) a new book on the Ron Paul Revolution:

A new book about Ron Paul, edited by Trent Hill, is now available, and it features exclusive commentary on Dr. Paul by several LRC contributors and other public voices. It also features commentary from a number of relatively unknown Americans, young and old, from a variety of ethnic, religious, educational and occupational backgrounds.

Apologies to Tolstoy, but if happy families are all alike, the Ron Paul family is joyously ebullient in a hundred different ways. Ron Paul and the New Revolutionaries is the book that can help explain that happiness, and more importantly, help others understand the Ron Paul phenomenon.

Contributors to the book include Walter Block, Jacob Hornberger, and me, along with a number of local activists from various political parties who have discovered Dr. Paul, and can't like the rest of us stop talking about him. Each contributor discusses their favorite issue, and explains why Dr. Paul inspires their faith and their imagination, and why they believe he should be leading this country. It's also a fun book, includes lots of nice photographs, and can be downloaded for a bit less than the cover price.

I might wait to find out if Lew is a big fat fucking racist before I buy this, but it looks interesting nonetheless.

http://www.brendangates.com/forumlogo.jpg

Jeremiah
01-11-2008, 04:41 PM
Let me make one or two observations about this Ron Paul is a racist thing. I am not an American, Scottish in fact, so perhaps I do not have the same sensibilities as Americans, living as they do in a mediasphere quite different than my own. I read The New Republic article and I found it really nasty, much worse than anything quoted as being written in Ron Paul's newsletter. I find this with other critics of Dr. Paul. Of course they cannot see that their own self righteousness is more blindly bigoted than anything from the newsletters they are lambasting. I am therefore disappointed by some of Ron Paul's supporters who accept uncritically that these writers are justified in their attacks.

I was living in Canada at the beginning of the 1990's when these newsletters were written so I am somewhat familiar with the social context. The riots in Los Angeles, the concerns about black on white violence in the big cities of the USA, the scandal of the AIDS infections causing hundreds of deaths among hemophiliacs and innocent blood transfusion victims, because gay activists had deliberately given blood to move this deadly disease into the heterosexual population, the abuse of welfare by minority communities and the breakdown in the African American family life due to widespread unmarried pregnancies and multiple fathers of children with one mother, and finally the widespread affirmative action programmes to ostensibly give blacks a leg up the social scale but at the expense of innocent young whites. These conditions were often engendered by the very government interference that is opposed by libertarians and indeed caused by the group rights mentality that is opposed by Dr. Paul. The articles themselves may have been critical of black people but that was in parody of the policies which created the group mentality. Why has no-one mentioned this? I suspect because they themselves have been conditioned to accept the self righteous judgements of those critics who now attack Dr. Paul.

Dr. Paul has accepted moral responsibility for the tone and manner in which these articles were written and indeed has apologised for the personal remarks made about his colleagues, with which he dissociated himself, and he went so far as to dismiss the person responsible for the articles in question. It is difficult to see what else he could do. He is not a racist, his views on all these things are well known and publicised, he has never acted in any way that suggests he has a xenophobic bone in his body, and he is the most balanced and humble politician in this race today.

There are still many thousands who support him who have not distanced themselves from him, who know that these smears will not go away but who will continue to defend him against these attacks, who know that his enemies do not want him to gather any momentum because he is a serious challenger to their hold on power in the nation, who know that he is speaking the truth. However, to those of his "supporters" who imagine that this movement could have a better leader I would say you are dreaming. The man and the message are one. This is Ron Paul's moment in history and no-one else can fill his place. It is time to decide once and for all whose side you are on. You have your leader, you have your message, where can you fit in. That is the only question you have to answer.

RSDavis
01-11-2008, 05:29 PM
the scandal of the AIDS infections causing hundreds of deaths among hemophiliacs and innocent blood transfusion victims, because gay activists had deliberately given blood to move this deadly disease into the heterosexual population

I'd like to see some proof of that. I've never heard that before, and it sounds like BS to me.


The articles themselves may have been critical of black people but that was in parody of the policies which created the group mentality. Why has no-one mentioned this? I suspect because they themselves have been conditioned to accept the self righteous judgements of those critics who now attack Dr. Paul.

I'm sorry, but there is no reasonable justification for the bile in those articles, and they perpetuated a collectivist mindset that painted an entire group of people as criminals, robbing them of their individuality and identity.


Dr. Paul has accepted moral responsibility for the tone and manner in which these articles were written and indeed has apologised for the personal remarks made about his colleagues, with which he dissociated himself, and he went so far as to dismiss the person responsible for the articles in question.

I haven't heard that one, either. From all accounts I have read (and I have read a lot), libertarian insiders are saying that the author is still friends with Dr Paul. In fact, most think it is Lew Rockwell.


It is difficult to see what else he could do. He is not a racist, his views on all these things are well known and publicised, he has never acted in any way that suggests he has a xenophobic bone in his body, and he is the most balanced and humble politician in this race today.

I believe that, but it is troubling to me that these vitriolic newsletters went out for years and he never noticed. I don't know what to make of that. It's given me pause.


However, to those of his "supporters" who imagine that this movement could have a better leader I would say you are dreaming. The man and the message are one. This is Ron Paul's moment in history and no-one else can fill his place. It is time to decide once and for all whose side you are on. You have your leader, you have your message, where can you fit in. That is the only question you have to answer.

Ron Paul says it's NOT about the man, but about the message.

- R

superschupp
01-11-2008, 11:14 PM
Dr. Paul is way too politically astute to publish such rubbish, even if he did believe it, which even casual review of his record proves that he does not.

I don't think the campaign has made the point clearly enough that Dr. Paul was out of public life at the time, running his medical practice and was not editorially in control of the newsletter. The damage has been done, the only way to make it worse is to not respond to it.

If the individual(s) responsible would grow a pair and fess up, we might salvage this thing yet.

Xanax Nation
01-11-2008, 11:52 PM
I'd like to see some proof of that. I've never heard that before, and it sounds like BS to me.



I'm sorry, but there is no reasonable justification for the bile in those articles, and they perpetuated a collectivist mindset that painted an entire group of people as criminals, robbing them of their individuality and identity.



I haven't heard that one, either. From all accounts I have read (and I have read a lot), libertarian insiders are saying that the author is still friends with Dr Paul. In fact, most think it is Lew Rockwell.



I believe that, but it is troubling to me that these vitriolic newsletters went out for years and he never noticed. I don't know what to make of that. It's given me pause.



Ron Paul says it's NOT about the man, but about the message.

- R

It is definitely about the message. There will come a time that another will arise, who will again take that message to the people. Hopefully it will be in my lifetime, and rest assured there will be no baggage, perceived or otherwise, that will accompany that person on the campaign trail. We are the revolution, and we will continue to grow. Today, we have Dr. Paul, and he himself has said that although he has his flaws, the message does not. That message we will take with us to the voting booth. That message will be on the phone, to the tune of 10,000 in Iowa and 17,000 in NH so far, to the Reps and Senators of those states over policy and legislation, and hopefully we will increase tenfold for each state by the time the election is over. We will begin to elect local and state reps with the message, and some of us will run for office on the message as well.

We are in this for the long haul, and I can guarantee that Dr. Paul will not be weighed in the balance, and found wanting. To bastardize the Chimp in Chief, on how he'll let history be the judge of him, we can unequivocally say that the message has already been judged by history, and is tried and true.

So, we will stand with Ron Paul, because he stands with the message of freedom. And if he is knocked down another will take his place, because an idea that is right and true can never be defeated.

Good night, and may God and the FSM bless America.

tomaO2
01-12-2008, 01:55 AM
I don't understand how he couldn't have known about it for so long but to imply that he wrote it, is insane. Even if he WAS racist and was hiding his racism (somehow I don't think he would hide his beliefs. No matter how unpopular). It was a publicly distributed newsletter. No way he would expose himself like that. I have to accept he didn't know and it's more then him not knowing. His family couldn't have known either or else they would have brought it to his attention. Also, what finally caused it to happen? I don't understand that. The question should not be 'did he do it' but 'how did this go on for so long with no knowledge'? It's also obvious that he DIDN'T know it was happening because he would have defended himself for doing so if he had. This guy doesn't have a dishonest bone in his body. I really need a better understanding of this situation though. Maybe with some other examples on how people lose track of newsletters...

Anyway, this info has been out for awhile and while I'm surprised by all the new quotes it could have been revealed at any time. It's in his wikipedia for crying out loud. Don't tell me that the timing was not solely intended to hurt him. Any reporter that looked into him at all could find this stuff. It's not hidden. I knew about it. Took me less then an hour after I googled him for the first time. I had assumed it wasn't worth reporting or it would have been done but now I see they were saving it for maximum damage. Jerks.

JohnM
01-12-2008, 07:42 AM
What do you think about the racist comments?

We only got four options to vote from.

We didn't get "They were shameful, and they show that McCain, Thompson, and Huckabee are unfit to be president."

I find it really amazing that Ron Paul, who, as far as I am aware has never (in 30 years in public life) said anything rude or politically incorrect, let alone racist, is being associated with racism - when other candidates are saying things that I find offensive and nobody seems worried.

Ron Paul looks as unbigoted as he did last week. The same cannot be said for some other people.

randolphfuller
01-12-2008, 07:47 AM
While he was our ot Congress in addition to publishin a racist and homphobic newsletter,Dr. Paul had television program that aired in my city ,Ibelieve, at 1015:p.m. on Simday. I don't recall if it was a hal-fhour of fifteen minute show but a review of the video tapes o that program might be revealing. I don't recall anything racist or homophobic on those programs but I watched very few of them and it has been a long time ago. He would hardly have made these sentiments a mainstay of his newsleter andkept them out of th TV program

JohnM
01-12-2008, 07:58 AM
On further reflection, I have a new theory.

John McCain wrote the offensive stuff in the newsletters. It sounds like him. It is exactly the sort of thing he would write.

Dr Paul knows that he wrote it, but being a gentleman, he feels that revealing McCain's identity would not be gentlemanly electioneering, and so he is keeping his mouth shut and hoping that McCain will 'fess up.

:)

MN Patriot
01-12-2008, 07:59 AM
Are there any links to the actual articles themselves, so we can see for ourselves what they said? Were the newsletters filled with racist statements, or were there just a few comments sprinkled here and there?

I may have even been a subscriber to one of these newsletters for a while, I've subscribed to various ones over the years. I don't remember any racist comments being made, so it makes me wonder if this whole thing is being blown out of proportion.

Charles Wilson
01-12-2008, 08:17 AM
I have a request: Moderator please ban those posting on this forum that do not support Ron Paul. Ron Paul has enough detractors without having a bunch of MSM infiltrators bashing him on one of his friendly web sites.

Jeremiah
01-12-2008, 12:37 PM
Are there any links to the actual articles themselves, so we can see for ourselves what they said? Were the newsletters filled with racist statements, or were there just a few comments sprinkled here and there?

I may have even been a subscriber to one of these newsletters for a while, I've subscribed to various ones over the years. I don't remember any racist comments being made, so it makes me wonder if this whole thing is being blown out of proportion.

The only full article I have found is the first one on the LA Riots and that seems to be the source for many of the so-called racist quotes. The others are all excerpts and we have to take it on faith that all of these are actually as published but my guess is they are, but out of context, which makes a big difference as you will see.

In my view there is nothing particularly inflammatory in the writing and the quotes that are being used by Dr. Paul's critics have been taken out of context. Let me give just one example:

Critics quote the newsletter as saying:"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 they claim as being evidence of racial bias. In fact, after giving a litany of dreadful fighting, looting and killing by black mobs, the complete portion states: "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 difficulty 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." Placed in context the quote being used is not in the least "racist". If it is judged as such, then the present furore about "Muslim terrorists" in our midst must also be seen a "racist" and all Dr. Paul's opponents in the nomination race could be seen as such, given some of the remarks they have made, without adverse comment, during the debates.

The Ron Paul Political Report. Article on the LA Riots. Also read the article from the Journal of Historical Review on the same page that provides some context.

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?people/g/gannon.dan/1992/gannon.0793

The Ron Paul Survival Report (excerpted photostat only). It is interesting that many of these excerpts are dealing with the first war in Iraq, the Somalia adventure, and the influence of the Israeli lobby on US foreign policy. The New Republic is mentioned as one magazine strongly supportive of Israel. Since Dr. Paul has always been critical of the Israel lobby, because he believes it is wrong for a foreign nation to have undue influence on American foreign policy, it is not surprising that he is a target of Israel supporters like The New Republic. The question that is begged here is just who is supporting America? The answer clearly is Dr. Paul.

http://s212.photobucket.com/albums/cc289/LSUfanFR/

A series of quotes from the newsletters published in the Austin Chronicle as part of the campaign against RP for the seat in the House orchestrated by his opponent Charles Morris. This repeats the quote about the 13 year old black that I have seen in other smears but I have never seen it in context. The others are not all by Dr. Paul and the only one that is possibly questionable is the description of Barbara Jordan. The question in that case is, how true are the statements made? They are certainly far less offensive than those made about Dr. Paul and he is on record as being friendly with Professor Jordan. The problem is the apparent sensitivity of the politically correct. They appear to be the only ones permitted to make sneering, vicious ad hominem attacks. They can even do so withouit having the obligation to back up their allegations with solid proof. Groundless denunciation and vicious innuendo are the weapons they use to destroy their opponents. They call it "jamming", a deliberate strategy to silence opponents.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue9/pols.paul.side.html

Ron Paul's speech on Cuba from the same website that had all the links to the newsletters. They don't like this either.

http://www.newsandpolicy.com/news/2007/10/ron-paul-blasts-us-policy-on-cuba.html