Remember when Ron Paul wouldn't give back donations from white supremacists? His explanation was almost plausible, and back then you could imagine that he needed the money:
"Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom."However, earlier this year TNR reported that newsletters bearing Paul's name have regularly been filled with racist, homophobic tirades. We'll get to the weak denial shortly, but first here are some quotes that should keep any half-decent voter far, far away from Ron Paul if he's even remotely associated with them.
- "[O]pinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions."
- "[I]f you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
- In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo."
- "I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."
- "Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems."
- "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
"Dr." KingSo now even the establishment press admits that Martin Luther King plagiarized his PhD dissertation, his academic articles, his speeches, and his sermons.
He was also a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.
King, the FBI files show, was not only a world-class adulterer, he also seduced underage girls and boys. The Rev. Ralph David Abernathy revealed before his death that king had made a pass at him many years before.
And we are supposed to honor this "Christian minister" and lying socialist satyr with a holiday that puts him on par with George Washington?
"A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no." He [Paul's campaign spokesman] added that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Martin Luther King, because "Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero."Amazingly, the TNR accepts that there is some possibility that Ron Paul did not write or directly approve these articles, saying only that "many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author." The articles are not merely written in first person. They clearly convey that Paul is the author.
The newsletter containing the "'Dr.' King" passage concludes this way:
"My wife Carol, and our children and grandchildren, join me in wishing you and your family a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year."Also, in January 1991 "someone" has this to say about Dr. King:
"St. Martin was a world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours ('non-violence' didn't apply in all spheres, I guess). He was a flagrant plagiarist witha phony doctorate. He replaced forced segregation in a few states with forced integration in all all states. And he was a dedicated socialist. What a guy. He probably deserves two holidays.Later, on the same page of the newsletter, a mysterious "someone" reveals himself to have a personal stake in the matter:
Why, he often asked, 'is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that is two-thirds water?' (Forget a PhD. Give this man an IQ test.)"
"In 1988 when I ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket, I was berated for hours by LP members because I had refused vote, while in Congress, for a Martin Luther King national holiday."Hey, who knows. Could have been anybody.
Just so we don't end on a bad note, I just wanted to reassure all you Ron Paul supporters that he's not one of those fickle "compassionate conservatives." From the Ron Paul Survival Report, January 1994:
"First, these [gay] men dont' really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered around new sexual partners. These conditions do not make one's older years the happiest. Second, because sex is the center of their lives, they want it to be as pleasurable as possible, which means unprotected sex. Third, they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick. Put it all together, and you've got another wave of AIDS infections, that you, dear taxpayer, will be asked to pay for."
14 comments:
Talk about rehashing an old smear tactic. You DO realize Paul went up against the Bush machine and won, and this was one of their tools to try to keep him from his Congressional seat right?
The GOP ran a Democrat against Paul for the Republican ticket with millions of dollars in backing AND endorsements from BOTH Bush's and Newt Gingrich. Paul STILL won!
It was proven back then that he didn't write those articles, and he's refuted them even today.
Why don't you do a story on Mitt's racist Mormon history or McCain's "Gooks" or Huckabee's crusade to make Americans all christians?
The difference is in the Youtube digital video age we live in you'd think you'd capture Paul being racist or saying something racist on video. Instead, all you have is xeroxed text of a newsletter.
Oh yeah, and last year Paul praised Muhammad Ali on his birthday on the floor of the house, not because of the color of his skin, but because of the content of his charicter.
In other words, this arguement puts you on the side of the establishment, and you're defending corrupt government in doing so.
I have a few rebuttal links for you.
http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/kirchicking-of-ron-paul.html
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=82917
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822
http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/editors-note-the-ron-paul-vid-lash/m
Ah yes, a mere xeroxed copy of a racist newsletter, which no one is saying was faked. Perhaps I could take a video of the document and put it on YouTube.
Please show me Ron Paul's mea culpa wherein he apologizes for lending his name to racist, homophobic publications for years if not decades.
This would be a lot more of a smear if those newsletters didn't exist, as opposed to a criticism, which is what I'm offering.
Thanks for your conclusion, soulmantim. You nailed me, in a way that connected thoughts never could. Long live corrupt government! Viva antidisestablishmentarianism!
Mr. Dube, your links got cut off, but I was able to read most of them.
I think it's pretty disappointing that in this post Ron Paul thought it was his duty to stand by someone else's words. I think the duty there is to disavow those statements and get the hell away from them.
It's not exactly an isolated incident either. I'm pretty sure this is why he just snagged (whether he wants it or not) the endorsement of white-power group StormFront.
Here is Ron Paul confronting these rehashed newsletters on CNN:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uk7qiY-aoiQ
In addition if you look at other youtube videos of Paul interacting with supporters you will see he could not possibly be a racist, it's not in his personality.
Now during his tenure in Congress yes, he did write in that newsletter, but there wasn't anything racist in there while he was running the show. I think his mistake was putting the editing process in someone else's hands. This probably made it very easy for someone to sneak in a few controversial articles in this newsletter.
He has refuted the racist remarks time and time again, this was a blatant attack done by the political powers.
Here's another video, this is Albert Howard, a lesser known candidate and Ron Paul supporter that ran in New Hampshire asking Paul a question (about 1/2 way through the video). Albert Howard even helped set up a recount for New Hampshire because there was suspected voting fraud in NH and did this for Paul, even though Paul didn't approve of it.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=E3FzFUPMHRA
Here is another supporter of Paul, he's the owner of the "Ron Paul Limo".
http://youtube.com/watch?v=arNBnAFqNLI
Notice how Paul doesn't act fake or nervous around his African American supporters like Romney is:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0H8Nq7BglIg
Like I said before, if Ron Paul is a racist you will see it in his behavior in the youtube generation.
The real racists could be Romney and McCain. I know that Hillary has had books written about her anti-semitism. I don't know what else is needed to prove to you that Paul isn't a racist.
There is good of this though, this brought up the topic of racism.
Paul did a good job turning this into a strike against the war on drugs.
Like the many attacks on Paul, this one is going to end up boomeranging back to help him. I think he has a chance of winning Louisiana today and picking up some more delegates (notice there is no news of it in the media).
And here's the article of Paul v. Bush in Texas.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080105/FRONTPAGE/801050301
I know it's easy to think I'm just a conspiracy nut, there is a tie the media is trying to make between Paul supporters and those folks to discredit all supporters and Paul.
But I like to base my stuff on facts.
When I say there is an establishment that the Bush's are involved in that don't want Paul in power, I mean it.
Read that article and you will find that not only can Paul take on the Bush machine, he can take down that bitch Hillary too!
"Ron stopped to see him after the election," Carol Paul said. "Bush just leaned back, had his feet up on the desk, and said, 'Well, you ran one hell of a race!' "
Also, dude, Jason, baby, it's not like Paul ASKED for stormfront's endorsement. He's actually denounced their philosophy (as well as 9/11 truthers that have been tried to be linked to his campaign).
After you read the concord monitor article of Paul, then make a judgment. Paul stands for a smaller government, less money being filtered in to Washington D.C., that doesn't make the lobbyists happy at all.
I bet you're going to bring up the Don Black (that KKK guy) $500 donation too?
Don Black also donated $500 to Ronald Reagan's campaign, his wife donated another $500. Reagan didn't refute it either, so then does that make Reagan a racist too?
Paul has already proven in his long career that no lobbyist can influence his vote with cash, what makes you think a pitiful $500 from a racist is going to do it?
Paul would openly accept a donation from a lobbyist, however, they avoid him like the plague because they know he'll always vote in line with the constitution and his party's platform.
That clip was the same implausible explanation from my original post.
Way to respond to a racist charge with a sexist one against Hillary.
http://sonic.net/maledicta/clintons.html
Read this article and tell me what you think of Hillary now.
(Language warning)
Also, I'm no sexist, in fact in my marriage I'm not afraid to admit my wife is my boss and is probably the smarter one. But don't tell her that.
But your argument that Paul is a racist, in itself, is flawed.
Did you see the videos I sent you?
All three of them?
You are insane to think he's a racist because he's not uneasy around African Americans. Body language is a tell-all, he's very comfortable talking to people of all colors, because as he describes himself, he is color blind.
I don't know what country you're from, but here in America the burden of proof is on the accuser.
I've provided plenty of information for you, including a motive for why he would be a target of a smear campaign like this. Innocent until proven guilty.
All your proof is in a typed up document that could have had been doctored very easily, even by early 90's standards. You have Paul in the CNN video saying he refutes the racist comments. You have proof that during the time the newsletters where written doctored up the Bush machine and GOP basically where working hard to make sure Paul didn't win the Congressional seat back, even if it meant getting a Democrat to run against him for the Republican ticket. What ELSE do you need?
Seriously, this story is a dead horse, it's been rehashed because of political reasons. If you want to know why, ask George Bush, either of them. Furthermore I discovered that TNR once endorsed Mussolini in the 1920's (watch the Daily Show a few nights back, the guest calls them out). They HAVE been caught throwing around false propaganda before (Scott Thomas Beauchamp, wiki him at bottom). Plus that TNR guy looked like a major conspiracy theorist on Tucker when he "revealed" these newsletters. I think he called Ron Paul a "Transmitter that sends out secret codes of racism". Are you siding with TNR?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Thomas_Beauchamp_controversy
"Also, I'm no sexist, in fact in my marriage I'm not afraid to admit my wife is my boss"
Sorry but that's not a good defense. That's like saying you aren't racist because you can have black friends. You can still be sexist and make sexist comments even if your wife is "the boss". Those are unrelated.
Btw, Jason, I like your blog. Well put and well argued.
"Sorry but that's not a good defense. That's like saying you aren't racist because you can have black friends. You can still be sexist and make sexist comments even if your wife is "the boss". Those are unrelated."
So what you're saying is that if I have black or female friends, which I did when I lived in Philly, that I can still be a racist or sexist?
Are you insane? That's the part of the very defenition of what a racist or sexist is!
Seriously, please define to me what a racist or sexist is.
I personally don't understand this rigmarole you're trying to pull here, but your rebuttal is very weak. What exactly does a friend mean to you?
So, instead of hitting the point I'm trying to make I get a personal attack. I was called a sexist because I called Hillary a bitch.
I provide a link to the reason why, and you come back with a straw man argument that I'm a sexist?!?
Is that all you have? You must not have taken debate in school.
I'll use tags for links from now on.
official response to TNR
Yeah, it happened. He's not a shirking, duplicitous enough of a politician to completely separate himself from the newsletters. He has disavowed the text both in explanation and in action. I don't view his explanation as implausible as you do. He's not shirking responsibility, and he admits he must bear that moral culpability. I guess all the man has is his voting record and "http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html">his word.
Also, regarding Stormfront's endorsement. Appalling ideas, to be sure, but he has not taken that organization's money. What he did receive was a personal donation by a private citizen, and besides, free speech is, afaik, still ok.
Further addressing your fund raising issues. In my opinion, there is sketchier fund raising in this election cycle. I find unclear influence in raising election capital reprehensible, but I guess thats us Ron Paul supporters and our crippling xenophobia.
On a personal note, Jay, I'll call you later to discuss when I can come out to your residency to paint a big Ron Paul revolution sign on your front door.
the ron paul official response is the best response i've seen so far, because he takes responsibility for letting the newsletters go out.
the reason i find it implausible is because of the number of incidents over the years. it seems like after the first time he discovered what was happening he would have either shut the operation down, or starting checking every issue.
i'm not saying that he's out there seeking the stormfront endorsement, but there's a reason they endorsed him. they've seen the newsletters, and they think he's one of them. another reason he has their endorsement is that he hasn't called them out specifically. he should be out there saying "you are a hate group. i reject your endorsement and your ideology."
now, paul does talk about racism, but his idea of fighting racism is very different than, say, the justice department's idea. he wants to get rid of "taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs" from the issues/racism section of his website. Those are not typically the forces associated with racism.
if ron paul said on his website that he was going to fight racism by enforcing the voting rights act and ensuring that there were voting machines in poor, black districts, you can bet he would have lost the stormfront endorsement.
as for the war on drugs issue, paul doesn't think we should fight the war on drugs at all. it fits nicely with the crack/powder problem, but it's not really a racial issue for paul
Ron Paul is anything but typical, and does not ascribe to typical views of what causes racism.
His point is that racism is, in simple terms, drawing distinctions between people and the inherent dislike those specific differences.
The government aids/causes/abets racism - in Paul's theory - because we make and enforce laws that target specific demographics. I mean, is murder any more or less worse because someone killed out of greed or out of racial intolerance? We do judge intent in this country, and I still support that, but premeditated is premeditated, and specific laws regarding those motivations can be viewed as audaciously unfair. Is a white redneck harassing, stalking, and tormenting a black guy any worse than a crazed fan harassing, stalking, and tormenting a celebrity? In this country, with these laws we have, the obvious answer that we view the racially-motivated crime as overwhelmingly more heinous. Dr. Paul posits that this is not equality, and our governments position in this point breeds contempt and fosters racism.
Personally, I'm conflicted as to the extent I subscribe to his views, but I certainly understand where he's coming from. I'm sure he won the stormfront endorsement because he supports no law that targets specific demographics in any way, including the "anti-racist" ones including affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, and hate crime legislation.
I can certainly understand how one may take that as a racist stance, but in my opinion it's a principled stance supporting unwavering liberty and equality, regardless of societal circumstances.
To each his own, certainly, but I still voted with a clear conscience, have firm conviction in my choice, and my Ron Paul sign won't be coming off my front lawn anytime soon.
Post a Comment