RSN April 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Excerpt: "Here's a selection of some especially inflammatory passages, with links to scanned images of the original documents in which they appeared."

Newsletters from the '90s with Ron Paul's name emblazoned in the masthead have focused a spotlight of scrutiny on the recently-rising GOP presidential hopeful, 12/21/11. (photo: Joshua Lott/Reuters)
Newsletters from the '90s with Ron Paul's name emblazoned in the masthead have focused a spotlight of scrutiny on the recently-rising GOP presidential hopeful, 12/21/11. (photo: Joshua Lott/Reuters)



A Collection of Ron Paul's Most Incendiary Newsletters

By The New Republic

26 December 11

 

or years, Ron Paul published a series of newsletters that dispensed political news and investment advice, but also routinely indulged in bigotry. Here's a selection of some especially inflammatory passages, with links to scanned images of the original documents in which they appeared.

Race

"A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" analyzes the Los Angeles riots of 1992: "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. ... What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided."

The November 1990 issue of the Political Report had kind words for David Duke.

This December 1990 newsletter describes Martin Luther King Jr. as "a world-class adulterer" who "seduced underage girls and boys" and "replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."

A February 1991 newsletter attacks "The X-Rated Martin Luther King."

An October 1990 edition of the Political Report ridicules black activists, led by Al Sharpton, for demonstrating at the Statue of Liberty in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg,"and "Lazyopolis " would be better alternatives - and says, "Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house."

A May 1990 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report cites Jared Taylor, who six months later would go onto found the eugenicist and white supremacist periodical American Renaissance.

The January 1993 issue of the Survival Report worries about America's "disappearing white majority."

The July 1992 Ron Paul Political Report declares, "Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems," and defends David Duke. The author of the newsletter - presumably Paul - writes, "My youngest son is starting his fourth year in medical school. He tells me there would be no way to persuade his fellow students of the case for economic liberty."

A March 1993 Survival Report describes Bill Clinton's supposedly "illegitimate children, black and white: 'woods colts' in backwoods slang."

Gays

The December 1989 Ron Paul Political Report contains entries on a "new form of racial terrorism," cites former Congressman Bill Dannemeyer's claim that "the average homosexual has 1,000 or more partners in a lifetime," and quotes Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, in the third person.

In January 1990, the Ron Paul Political Report cites "a well-known libertarian editor" who "told me: 'The ACT-UP slogan on stickers plastered all over Manhattan is 'Silence=Death.' But shouldn't it be Sodomy = Death'?"

The September 1994 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report states that "those who don't commit sodomy, who don't get blood a transfusion, and who don't swap needles, are virtually assured of not getting AIDS unless they are deliberately infected by a malicious gay."

The June 1990 issue of the Political Report says: "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."

A January 1994 edition of the Survival Report states that "gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense," adding: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."

Survivalism and Militias

The January 1995 issue of the Survival Report - released just three months before the Oklahoma City bombing - cites an anti-government militia's advice to other militias, including, "Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here."

The October 1992 issue of the Political Report paraphrases an "ex-cop" who offers this strategy for protecting against "urban youth": "If you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example)."

Conspiracies

This 1978 newsletter says the Trilateral Commission is "no longer known only by those who are knowledgeable about international conspiracies, but is routinely mentioned in the daily news."

Middle East

A 1989 newsletter compares Salman Rushdie to Ernst Zundel, a Canadian Holocaust-denier.

Anti-Government Paranoia/Conspiracy Theories/Survivalism

A fundraising letter from Paul's 1984 Senate campaign in which Paul complains about the "minions of Kissinger and Rockefeller" and "the big New York banks, and their pals in Texas" who "want me silenced."

The January 1988 Ron Paul Political Report approvingly cites Dr. William C. Douglass, who "believes that AIDS is a deliberately engineered hybrid" developed at a World Health Organization experiment conducted at Ft. Detrick. Douglass has long been a fringe medical guru, and today claims that "smoking can help you live longer!!!"

The November 1989 Ron Paul Political Report reports on the Bohemian Grove and Ronald Reagan's "old Trilateralist agenda item of four-year terms for Congressmen."

This 1993 Ron Paul Strategy Guide entitled, "How to Protect Yourself from Urban Violence," is a special supplement to the Ron Paul Survival Report.

In the April 1993 Ron Paul Survival Report, the author - writing in the first person - states, "Whether [the 1993 World Trade Center bombing] 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." The newsletters also warns readers to "do your very best to keep your family away from inner cities. If you can't, have a haven remote from the metropolitan areas."

The May 1995 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report warns of "The Trilateralist Alan Greenspan" and its author writes, "Now that my five children are grown and educated, I've listened to the many supporters who've urged me to return to office. I can now give up my medical practice, and dedicate every fiber of my being to saving our country." The newsletter also contains an advertisement for the Ron Paul congressional exploratory committee.

The September 1995 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report asks about "Black Helicopters?"

The June 1996 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report refers to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms officers as "Jackbooted Thugs."

Jews

The November 1992 Ron Paul Survival Report defends chess champion and Holocaust-denier Bobby Fischer, saying that "the brilliant Fischer, who has all the makings of an American hero, is very politically incorrect on Jewish questions, for which he will never be forgiven, even though he is a Jew. Thus we are not supposed to herald him as the world's greatest chess player."

Pat Buchanan

In January 1992, Paul writes about his consideration of a presidential bid which he dashed after Pat Buchanan expressed his intention to run. Paul wrote of "the essential compatibility between [Buchanan's] ideas and mine" and "agreed to serve as the chairman of his economic advisory committee."

A 1992 issue of the Rothbard-Rockwell-Report tells of Paul's decision to defer to Pat Buchanan in the 1992 Republican presidential primary.

Newsletter Authorship

The masthead of March 1987 Ron Paul Investment Letter lists "the Hon. Ron Paul" as "Editor and Publisher" and "Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr." as one of several contributing editors.

An undated personal solicitation letter - signed by Paul - asking the recipient to subscribe to his newsletter in anticipation of (presumably) the 1988 Libertarian Party Presidential nominating convention.

The April 1988 Ron Paul Investment Letter lists Paul as Editor.

The May 1988 Ron Paul Investment Letter lists Lew Rockwell as Editor. It also advertises books by the far-right conspiracy theorist Gary Allen, who was a contributing editor to the Ron Paul Investment Letter.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
-3 # Richard Raznikov 2011-12-26 17:51
I'd like to make several points.

First, most remarks attributed to Paul are about 20 years old. Few seem less aged. Why is that?

Second, as many people know, the New Republic is ideologically attuned with a neo-liberal, pro-war agenda and has backed the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Third, at least some of these statements have been denied by Paul, who says that he did not personally write much of what went out under his name at the time. I don't know whether this is true or not, but he's entitled to that defense.

Fourth, in my opinion he is right about the trilateral commission, Rockefeller, Kissinger, and others of that ilk.

Fifth, I will probably not vote for him, however there are three things which elevate him above the other Republican candidates and Obama: he says what he really thinks, he is against turning America into a police state, and he opposes the wars we're waging against the countries of the middle east.
 
 
-33 # Michael_K 2011-12-26 18:21
When one takes into consideration the fact that ALL American politicians (possibly not Bernie Sanders, but who knows?) harbour astoundingly stupid notions on one topic or the other, I don't think any of this knocks him off the "lesser evil" position in the 2012 presidential race. He's certainly preferable to O'Bama who seems to be under the impression that the Constitution is a presidential substitute for toilet paper.
 
 
+37 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-12-26 21:46
Bernie Saunders would be horrified to be mentioned on your post MICHAEL_K

Evil will pevail if good men do not take a strong stand against bigotry which is evil and those who qualify the evil of bigotry as a "lesser evil"...?
 
 
+12 # John Locke 2011-12-27 08:43
People with Bigoted Views are Bigoted! They don't change any more that a con man could change, or an anti-semite, or a homophobic, this is all a learned response to that persons views of themselves, society and their need to be superior to some group, it is their foundation for self respect
 
 
+6 # lionsdenmother 2011-12-28 15:49
I disagree with you, I was raised in Pittsburgh around very racially bigoted people and held those views myself until i was 23 and moved to Texas. People can change their views as they grow older.
 
 
+5 # ericlipps 2011-12-28 07:03
Quoting Michael_K:
When one takes into consideration the fact that ALL American politicians (possibly not Bernie Sanders, but who knows?) harbour astoundingly stupid notions on one topic or the other, I don't think any of this knocks him off the "lesser evil" position in the 2012 presidential race. He's certainly preferable to O'Bama who seems to be under the impression that the Constitution is a presidential substitute for toilet paper.

Well, according to Mr. Paul, the government set up under the Constitution needs to be pared down to what it was before passage of the Thirteenth Amendment went and spoiled everything; so much for his respect for that document. He seems to prefer the Confederate version.
 
 
+1 # disgusted American 2011-12-29 19:17
Bernie Sanders talks a good game in a loud voice - looks like he's about to have a heart attack when he gets going with his hair flying wild.

But, he votes in favor of the bullcrap laws that are not in our best interest and also takes lobbyist money.

Don't know what his vote was on the recent detention of Americans law or if he supports SOPA. You might want to check these out before you continue to praise him although to your credit, you did add "but who knows?"
 
 
+23 # maddave 2011-12-26 22:19
Whoa, Hoss! I watched the CNN interview, and Ron Paul's denials of knowledge regarding these newsletters - which he published - were evan less believable than Herman Cain's denials regarding his infidelity.

Ron Paul is a successful, long term congressional candidate and Member of the House. This alone attests to his mental acuity and his obvious dexterity and savvy in dealing with his own public image. Further, third-rail racial issues were continually on the floor of the House during his tenure in-and-out of Congress. Consequently, he simply CANNOT expect us to believe that he did not know what was being published under his imprimatur. It is clear that Ron Paul - like Knewt (sic) Gingrich - was using his position as Member (or ex-Member) of Congress to make money from the sale of hate- and fear-mongering "news". It is utterly inconceivable that "he did not know".

On the other hand, that which played well in the 80's & 90's for a local white politician in rural Texas is anathema for a Presidential candidate in the the 2010's. Who'd 'a thought?
 
 
-2 # lionsdenmother 2011-12-28 15:52
his district houses Alvin Texas that is a very very racial district. I would not live there if I was a minority.
 
 
+7 # cadan 2011-12-26 22:23
That's a good point about the quotes being 20 years old.

Of course if they are genuine they are pretty damning, even if old, and hard to disown.

But in any event, whether good or bad, nobody will get a chance to vote for Ron Paul because he is so anti-war. The Republicans will never nominate him, but if they did the media wouldn't let him win ---- and if he did, he would promptly be assassinated. Defusing the war bomb is slow work and may take generations, and may simply not happen before we collapse. We'll still have troops in Germany, Japan, Korea, and all over the Middle East in 2016. Count on it. Our next president, democrat or republican, will betray us.

Nevertheless, having said all this, and taking in the most negative light all the things Paul may have said or written, one would still have to consider voting for Paul (if it were possible) simply because the bipartisan war party has killed millions of Arabs and Muslims. There are times when you have to count (millions of) victims when you are determining who really is the lesser evil.
 
 
+10 # kelly 2011-12-27 08:36
Nobody seem to mind(especially RP) pointing out Gingrich's follies made 20 years ago. Ron Paul called Barbara Jordan a whiner. Said Martin Luther King Day was equivalent to Hate Whitey day and a whole host of other things too awful to mention. Still his blind, loyal base wants to annoint him. When I first heard of him, I thought, how cool, some one against the war and for decriminalizati on of drugs. Then I started really listening to his rhetoric. He has yet to say one thing positive. I have never heard him say we can do this or we can do that but he is always ready to tell us how we will soon fail because we are doing what we do. He has said our path is clear get rid of big government(then why doesn't he get out of it and not run for it) stop spending(of course he'd lose his job) and forget about the rest of the world with the exception of defending ourselves from its nasty reaches. Pure Libertarianism cannot exist because we,as evolved social beings, MUST co-exist. We are dependent upon each other. Ron Paul's little dream world where each must rely on his or her own is great for the lone hunter out in the woods but we are raised in communities for a reason. Here is a person who would go against our nature in pursuit of an empty, unattainable goal.
 
 
+1 # AMLLLLL 2011-12-27 10:54
I agree, Richard, that Paul believes his own myth. And he does have some good points regarding war.

My own personal suspicion is that his adorable little son, Rand, is at the bottom of this scurrilous publication, and dad is hardly likely to implicate him. Look up what Rand was doing in college in that very era.

Imagine there were such a publication running for a decade with your name on the letterhead. Would you let that one go, or disavow it?
 
 
+8 # Stacey Kengal 2011-12-27 11:15
To me, the most-important issues are the war-machine and the corrupt banking/economi c system that supports it. Any other issues take back seat to these, because I don't think we can solve any other issues till we solve these. You gotta fix the hole in the boat before you fix the sail. Paul is the only candidate (that I know of) who's willing (i.e. brave enough) to tackle these issues head-on. Once we have peace (for our country, at least) and an honest economy/money-s ystem (that works for all, not just some), then we can progress and tackle other issues.
 
 
0 # wrodwell 2011-12-27 11:17
You forgot to mention his stand regarding the legalization of marijuana, a timeless idea.
As for the "Ron Paul Newsletter" quotes from the 1980's and 1990's, they're abhorrent. However, people can and do change over time but the question that needs to be answered is this: will Ron Paul now disavow such pernicious ideas and would he be willing to do so during the next Republican Presidential debate? If he fails to come clean, one can only conclude that he still holds fast to his old poisonous beliefs. If he can't take responsibility for a Newsletter sent out in his name, what kind of effect would a man of his ilk have were he to become President?
 
 
-4 # ruralhorseman 2011-12-27 15:59
First, the authors are trying to give you a picture of continuity.
Second, Who cares? The NR has a small readership and is far from representing liberals in general.
Third, No he is not entitled to make up his own defense after going on the offense. Proof of point made against him have been provided. Did he or did he not say or believe in those things and take credit for publishing them.
Fourth, you might get somewhere with this one but it eventually gets back to the 1%. Give their power back to the people and get them out of government.
Fifth, so does Gingrich and for the same reason: to curry favor, but has no policy to prevent it and has not brought it to the publics attention when he had knowledge of it, and his opposition to the wars beg the same analysis: how is he going to get out of the middle east and when, and why didn't he take the opportunity to hammer home how immoral the wars were when he was on National TV and had the audience?
 
 
+2 # ericlipps 2011-12-28 07:00
Re Richard Raznikov: You can't have it both ways: "He says what he really thinks" and "the damning quotes cited in the New Republic are 20 years old." If he actually said those things and refuses to disavow them, it doesn't matter how old they are; people are entitled to conclude they still reflect "wnat he really thinks."

I suspect Mr. Paul, having finally come within hissing distance of the Reptilian, er, Republican presidential nomination he's sought for years, is onw backpedaling to avoid alienating independent voters and whatever sane GOP'ers remain. What he really believes, beyond the idea that government is satanic, is anyone's guess--and if government is so evil, why is he so eager to vault to the top of it?
 
 
0 # disgusted American 2011-12-29 19:12
So who will you vote for? Hopefully not Obama or any of the Republican yutzes.

Other two choices I know of to date are Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson.

Jill is worth looking at. Her site is about to be redesigned. She is traveling the country and making headway in several states. She supports a single payer health care system and knows that the MA plan doesn't work, hence, Obamacare won't either b/c it is the MA plan on steoids. And much more.

Don't know that much about Rocky but I'm for Jill b/c she's honest and doesn't talk out of both sides of her mouth like Obama, Hillary and all the others on both sides of the aisle.
 
 
0 # MidwestTom 2011-12-26 21:12
Ron Paul obviously does not believe in Political Correctness, but I do believe that he does not purposely mislead voters like moat of our recent and present leaders. He does not address why M.L King was at a motel in the middle of the day, and who was with him. He is the only candidate that actually describes what he would do to balance the budget. He is hated by all major media because he has quested our need to fund and protect Israel, since all media is controlled and owned in NYC. The Republican establishment hates him because they cannot control him, and Wall Street hates him because he wants to take away their taxpayer guarantees, and shrink their cookie jar. I like him for all the right reasons,and I overlook some of his faults. Nobody is perfect, but I do believe that he is homest
 
 
+14 # wsh 2011-12-27 05:27
"I like him for all the right reasons,and I overlook some of his faults. Nobody is perfect"....Tom , I agree with Mussolini that the trains should run on time, and he did that. But that doesn't mitigate the other evils he did.

Yes, I agree with Paul's stance on Israel, war, and civil liberties; but if he were elected, I'd be figuring out how to move my family to Sweden before he took office.
 
 
+2 # disgusted American 2011-12-29 19:21
wsh,

If Obama or any of the Rs win, you should also be figuring out how to move your family to Sweden ASAP.
 
 
+31 # davegowdey 2011-12-26 21:24
It's appalling that the folks above can attempt to apologize for a fellow who is obviously a racist and so many of whose ideas come from the lunatic fringe. He is not the lesser of two evils to anyone - he is a fellow who has mistaken his libertarian dogma for reality. In that respect, his concern about the police state are more grounded in fear that the state might actually attempt to create and enforce regulations against the wealthy and powerful. What can you say about a fellow who runs for president even though he doesn't believe in the Constitution and whose concept of what the American Government should be like is based upon the Confederacy rather than the United States. The fact that anyone is thinking of voting for this fellow is proof that the republican base is so religiously intolerant that they would vote for a John Bircher instead of a Mormon, and that the republican base has now gone so far beyond the historic parameters of American political thought that there isn't anything to compare them to except the secessionists prior to the Civil War.
 
 
0 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-12-26 22:15
Davegowdry: Your comment is a breath of fresh air and demonstrates a righteous and highly evolved human being on a post that's truly "appalling that the folks above can attempt to apologize for a fellow who is obviously a racist...whose ideas come from the lunatic fringe". You are astute to point out that a would be vote for Ron Paul is a vote for "a John Bircher". What's confusing is this is supposedly a "liberal" post and liberals are noted for being anti-John Bircher and KKK ideals/ideas.
 
 
-2 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-12-26 22:21
davegowdey: "Bless You" for your historical, ethical, literary and political genius!
 
 
-2 # hd70642 2011-12-27 05:57
- he is a fellow who has mistaken his libertarian dogma for reality. In that respect, his concern about the police state are more grounded in fear that the state might actually attempt to create and enforce regulations against the wealthy and powerful.
Anyone thinks having business held accountable and the safety net is a form of dictatorship really should be considered as crack pot in the first place.!!!! Does he have a few decent ideas? Well even a busted analog clock is right at least once day . Him and Ross Perot are the weird al Yanakavick and Spike Jones of American politics . Undoubtedly if you were go back to the nineteeth century like this crackpot advocates striking workers and folks like OWS would have been gunned by the Police, National Gaurd or privately hired goon squads like Pinkertins !
 
 
-4 # hd70642 2011-12-27 05:58
Anyone thinks having business held accountable and the safety net is a form of dictatorship really should be considered as crack pot in the first place.!!!! Does he have a few decent ideas? Well even a busted analog clock is right at least once day . Him and Ross Perot are the weird al Yanakavick and Spike Jones of American politics . Undoubtedly if you were go back to the nineteeth century like this crackpot advocates striking workers and folks like OWS would have been gunned by the Police, National Gaurd or privately hired goon squads like Pinkertins !
Yes a foreign a foreign policy based soley on intraventions for the sole purpose of corporate errands is as healthy as intravenous drug usage . Also drug policy is best treated as a medical crisis instead of a criminal offence since nobody glamorizes sick people but it still presents a societal problem . Deregulation tax breaks outsourcing has neither given higher standards of living or produced superior people either intellectually or morally
 
 
0 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-12-26 21:51
Richard R: You speak of..." Rockefeller, Kissinger and others of that ilk", in a negative tone. What about your "ilk"?
 
 
0 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-12-26 22:16
Your "ilk" being synonomous with bigotry
 
 
-4 # scallywag 2011-12-27 00:20
I love Ron Paul's honesty and consistency, especially when it comes to foreign policy and social libertarianism (abortion is fuzzy, although he's said he would never get the Federal government involved). His economic stances sound like they're straight out of the 1800s, but at least he's not a crony capitalist like Obama or a depraved schmuck like Romney or Newt. He hates corporate and Wall Street influence in government as much as Kucinich and Sanders, he just has different solutions. Do I think they're better solutions? No, but at least it's a change of pace. Paul was the only Republican Presidential candidate to stand up for Occupy Wall St from the beginning.

As for the racist/bigotry allegations, none of these snippets were penned by Paul himself, and most are vague. His objection to the civil rights act was in reference to the forced racial quotas in businesses, not some deep-seated resentment or bias against non-whites. Again, not a Ron Paul fan-boy, but this reeks of a smear campaign. I mean look at this : "The September 1995 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report asks about 'Black Helicopters?'" Right... Ron Paul and his "Black Helicopters." That wily old coot and his nutty conspiracy theories. And that first point from the "Ant-government ..." section only backs up my claim that he opposes a lot of the same things progressives oppose.
 
 
+11 # feloneouscat 2011-12-27 07:57
Except when Paul wasn't serving in Congress he was serving as a crony capitalist. Ron Paul & Associates (RP&A), Inc. published a variety of newsletters citing revenues of $900,000 in 1993. He published "The Ron Paul Investment Letter", "The Ron Paul Survival Report" and "Ron Paul Political Report".

(USA Today) "Although he now says he did not write them and knew little of their contents, GOP candidate Ron Paul described specifically his controversial newsletters in a 1995 C-SPAN interview made when he was seeking to return to Congress."

"On CNN on Wednesday, Paul said he read the newsletters only "on occasion," did not write them and "disavow(s)" the racist comments. Pressed by a reporter on whether the newsletters were "incendiary," Paul removed his microphone to end the interview and walked away."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-22/ron-paul-newsletters-youtube/52163920/1

HE WALKED AWAY... Is this the qualities you look for in a leader? Someone that when the going gets tough goes "OMG I can't handle this" and walks away?

So now the meme is "he didn't know what was being published under his masthead". WHAT?!?! Then why do I want him as President? I mean if he can't manage to look at his own newsletters, what is to say he won't completely ignore a Presidential Daily Brief? Or will he blame that he was "too busy".

When something is under your name, you own it. Period.
 
 
+3 # maddave 2011-12-27 09:17
scallywag Quote: Again, not a Ron Paul fan-boy, but this reeks of a smear campaign.Unquote

Let's see now: Ron Paul - who presents himself as a serious candidate for the Office of President of the USA - admittedly and openly published (and profited from) scurrilous right wing and racial newsletters for some ten years. And now, when CNN breaks the story about this serious-but-acc urate flaw in his character and past actions, it is accused of orchestrating a smear campaign.

Your logic reminds me of the Bradley Manning trial in which the messenger is being persecuted for blowing the whistle on the real war criminals who were given a free ride. Same tune, different verse.
 
 
-1 # LeeBlack 2011-12-27 15:43
Hitler was consistent and honest. Consistently wrong and honestly bigoted are not recommendations .
 
 
+1 # scallywag 2011-12-28 21:29
Good points, I didn't know all those details feloneouscat. Still, he has not outwardly shown any racism, whether in speech or voting record. I've heard him say several times that he admires people like MLK because he is a staunch supporter of civil disobedience and nonviolent protest. He's never profiled Muslims as terrorists. It makes very little sense that a person would never read articles published under his own name. But who knows?
He's not Newt, who basically stole 2 million dollars in taxpayer money and in the king of all hypocrites. He's not Romney, the most disingenuous candidate and a man who participated in the type of bloodsucking corporate chicanery that got this country into such a big mess. He's not Santorum, who is, well, Santorum. He's the only GOP candidate who I would ever consider voting for simply because he wants to move on from all the fundamentalist BS infiltrating the government and he doesn't worship Israel. I don't like his economic policies or opinions on healthcare. When he talks about these areas he sounds like he's waxing nostalgic as opposed to analyzing history and current dilemmas. Whether or not these racist allegations are true (and I highly doubt they are), I'd vote for him over any other GOP candidate. That's all. Would I vote for him over Kucinich? No way. Would I vote for him over Obama? I don't know. I do know Obama isn't the answer to our nation's problems. Ron Paul probably isn't either, but at least he appears to have a spine.
 
 
-3 # hd70642 2011-12-27 02:13
Anyone thinks having business held accountable and the safety net is a form of dictatorship really should be considered as crack pot in the first place.!!!! Does he have a few decent ideas? Well even a busted analog clock is right at least once day . Him and Ross Perot are the Weird Al Yanakavick and Spike Jones of American politics . Undoubtedly if you were go back to the nineteeth century like this crackpot advocates striking workers and folks like OWS would have been gunned by the Police, National Gaurd or privately hired goon squads like Pinkertins !
Yes a foreign a foreign policy based soley on intraventions for the sole purpose of corporate errands is as healthy as intravenous drug usage . Also drug policy is best treated as a medical crisis instead of a criminal offence since nobody glamorizes sick people but it still presents a societal problem .
 
 
+5 # boudreaux 2011-12-27 05:14
This is just more shit to keep us fighting on this post and I'm not having any part of it.....!!!!
 
 
0 # rom120 2011-12-27 06:58
You may not like what he is saying but a lot of it is true, very true. I rather listen to him than to the politically correct shysters.
 
 
+6 # feloneouscat 2011-12-27 08:07
Ron Paul makes some fact-like statements.

In Congress, July 19, 2011 he says:

'I do not understand, though, that if the debt is the problem – and I agree, the debt is the problem – that for us to come here and raise the debt by 2.4 trillion dollars is the solution. That just baffles me. I think it’s a distraction, because when a country gets indebted to the degree that we’re indebted, the country always defaults. This is historic, especially if the country is a significant country."

The country always defaults. WHICH country, Mr. Paul? Oh... he never says. Nor does he point out that raising taxes on the millionaires and billionaires would mitigate. In fact, the 2.4 trillion increase is JUST ABOUT what the Bush Wars cost us. Funny that.

But Mr. Paul doesn't look at history. He just looks at pretend facts. And his pretend facts say that defaulting will not hurt the US of A.

And he is, of course, horribly, horribly wrong.
 
 
+4 # karenvista 2011-12-28 22:28
And the increase in the debt limit was to pay for items that Congress had already authorized. Not for new purchases. It was to pay bills already incurred. Not that the Republicans ever wanted anyone to understand that.
 
 
+6 # stannadel 2011-12-27 09:12
It was 4 years ago, not 20 when Paul accepted campaign money from Stormfront neo-Nazis and said he thought that was ok and wouldn't give it back or donate it to charity. It was this year that an organization linked to his campaign provided a web server for Austrian and German neo-Nazis so they could run a web site calling for violence against their opponents--and when I asked that they stop doing so they passed my name and address on to a neo-Nazi web site so I got threats. Paul has a racism and neo.Nazi problem and any leftist who supports him puts themselves into August bebel's old definition of Antisemitism--" the socialism of fools."
 
 
-1 # wallybarrett@aol.com 2011-12-27 10:28
Amerikka was and is based on Black slavery and racism, the most vile and embarrassing in the history of the world. It has not changed. To believe that Paul is "ok" is to continue supporting Racism. He is a Racist. If you believe that is alright, supporting it will continue tearing our lovely country apart from the inside out. Paul is a white Amerikkan and speaks for most of us.
 
 
-2 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-12-30 02:50
Paul doesn't speak for me. I'm a caucasian woman and find his comments and attitude "vile and embarrassing."
 
 
-2 # Stacey Kengal 2011-12-27 10:49
What does Ron Paul say NOW? What does he stand for NOW? The past is a political red-herring, a concoction of lies, half-truths, rumors, innuendos and speculation (and that's just the useful part) leading away from us asking the right questions now. Paul is no racist, of that I'm sure. A strict constitutionali sts, yes. And that makes some less-inclined to truth and righteousness to cry fowl. Paul is light years ahead of his time is the real problem. The public is just now starting to catch up a little bit though. It'll be the younger generation that saves of us, if any, though, that's for sure. And Paul does appeal to them 20-30-something s for sure. If I were in their shoes I'd say, "Hell yeah, tear the whole thing down and start over. What have we got to lose?" The Constitution is the rule book we all agree to go by though. Breaking it's rules outright just because we don't like them and they don't fit our idea of what's right doesn't make it right to do. "A Constitutional Republic, if you'll have it, sir."
 
 
-2 # karenvista 2011-12-28 22:38
Paul is for the Constitution of the 18th. Century. When some people were far more equal than others and white, male, property owners had the vote.

To all Prospective Paulistas, Please read his website and budgets.
Also keep in mind that he is surrounded by Christian Reconstructioni ist Theocrats who do not believe in Democracy. Look up Gary North and lew Rockwell. Two of his long-time advisors.
 
 
+3 # Stacey Kengal 2011-12-31 09:11
Principals are either true or false and time is irrelevant. That said, it's true technology can change the dynamics of the principals (i.e. the right to bear arms), but that doesn't alter the basic thinking behind those principals. In regards to the Constitution and it's basic principals on limiting government and freedom of the individual, they're just as applicable today IMHO. We now have a system of government that wants to be everything to everyone by crawling in bed with big money and corporations. It can't be that and still be a free republic. The Constitution is still the map to true freedom and we ignore it at our peril.
 
 
+5 # Activista 2011-12-27 12:08
As before - $1.3 trillion/year on militarism, Middle East War for Greater Israel this is #1 issue - rest is the coffee money.
I admire King for his Vietnam War opposition, I admire Paul for his Neocons war opposition.
Can not see ANY future of the US with "For the past 13 years U.S. military spending has increased 114 percent."
www.businessinsider.com/military-spending-budget-defense-cuts-2011-10#ixzz1hleDTGxy
 
 
+3 # bluepilgrim 2011-12-27 16:20
Problem is, regardless of what Paul wrote or knew about the writing, neither he, nor any other of the candidates are qualified to be president. I personally know at least a half dozen ordinary people who are more competent, have more common sense, have better morals, and would be better doing the job than the lot of them (and I'll bet all of you know people like that too). But those are not the same characteristics needed to play the game and get elected. The system is broken, and we keep ending up with lunatics.
 
 
+1 # RMDC 2011-12-27 17:10
Ron Paul is a southern/Texas Republican. I would not expect anything else than these comments to come from him. this sort of stuff is in the air they breathe down there.

All of this is really idiotic and hateful. But I still say Paul is a thousand times better than the rest of the republican field. I'm sure they have said worse than this and have been associated with even worse. Gingrich is a racist of the worst order, one who thinks the genocide of Africans in the 19th century scramble for Africa was OK because it was a superior civilization replacing an inferior one.

Paul's only good point is his anti-war and anti-imperialis t stance. Just because of that, he's the best one in the race, including Obama. None of the other candidates have even a single good point about them. At least Paul has one, and he's against the FED which is also good.
 
 
0 # Paul Caubet 2012-01-01 07:08
Homophobia has become transparent, revealing more about homophobes than anything else. It was long suspected the violence of gay bashers had roots in sexual insecurity. Political and religious gay bashing looks to be symptomatic of that same struggle. Interventions are led against every measure intended to protect us from harm, from housing and employment discrimination, orr to include us in marriage, adoption, and military service by clergy and political figures almost certainly conflicted sexually. Eddie Long, George Rekers, Richard Curtis, Ted Haggard, Glenn Murphy, David Dreier, Bruce Barclay, Roy Ashburn, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Jim West, Ed Schrock, Robert Allen, Phillip Hinkle, Paul Barnes, Paul Franklin Crouch, Roberto Arango-Vinent, Billy James Hargis, John Paulk, Albert Odulele. And so on . . . and so on.

In the words of Shakespear: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” Religious and political activists who demonstrate a conspicuously heavy burden of contempt for homosexuality are likely to have a hankering for male genitalia.
 
 
0 # Brendano 2012-01-03 11:58
01.03.12
I like Ron Paul because he speaks to the most important issues: war after war for Israel and the fraud of the privately owned Federal Reserve System.
I was surprised at the mention of gay men's surmised high number of sexual partners. Is that Libertarian to poke the nose into the private affairs of putatively free men ?
But then I realized it was because of AIDS that such considerations might be deemed valid by a Libertarian.
Apparently Ron Paul did not know at that time that AIDS and CFS are creatiolns of
and in US government laboratories in a program commenced by Nelson Rockefeller
in the Eisenhower Administration. A Secret program under various title's suggesting cancer research.
Luckily, Ron Paul and us all can now learn the details of the program that created AIDS just by buying -or try Inter library Loan- the marvelously researched [over 10 years] book by Canadian Medical Researcher
Donald Scott and son William Scott. They left no stone unturned.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN