Not signed in (Sign In)
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeJan 11th 2008
     (487.1)
    Someone managed to get hold of more copies of Ron Paul's old newsletters.

    I'm sure that as with the claim 95% of African-American males were criminals these statements were all made without Ron's knowledge or approval and certainly don't represent his views: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

    "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," read one typical passage.
    ...
    As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled "What To Expect for the 1990s," predicted that "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.'" Two months later, a newsletter warned of "The Coming Race War," and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, "If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it."
    ...
    South Africa's transition to multiracial democracy was portrayed as a "destruction of civilization" that was "the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara"; and, in March 1994, a month before Nelson Mandela was elected president, one item warned of an impending "South African Holocaust."
    ...
    Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. ("What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!" one newsletter complained in 1990. "We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.")
    ...
    One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as "a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."
    ...
    While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled "The Duke's Victory," a newsletter celebrated Duke's 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Senate primary. "Duke lost the election," it said, "but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment."
    ...
    Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.
    ...
    In 1990, one newsletter mentioned a reporter from a gay magazine "who certainly had an axe to grind, and that's not easy with a limp wrist." In an item titled, "The Pink House?" the author of a newsletter--again, presumably Paul--complained about President George H.W. Bush's decision to sign a hate crimes bill and invite "the heads of homosexual lobbying groups to the White House for the ceremony," adding, "I miss the closet." "Homosexuals," it said, "not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
    ...
    Surprisingly, one item expressed ambivalence about the contentious issue of gays in the military, but ultimately concluded, "Homosexuals, if admitted, should be put in a special category and not allowed in close physical contact with heterosexuals."
    ...


    In 1990, one newsletter approvingly quoted "a well-known Libertarian editor" as saying, "The ACT-UP slogan, on stickers plastered all over Manhattan, is 'Silence = Death.' But shouldn't it be 'Sodomy = Death'?" Readers were warned to avoid blood transfusions because gays were trying to "poison the blood supply." "Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers?" a newsletter asked in 1990. That same year, citing a Christian-right fringe publication, an item suggested that "the AIDS patient" should not be allowed to eat in restaurants and that "AIDS can be transmitted by saliva," which is false. Paul's newsletters advertised a book, Surviving the AIDS Plague--also based upon the casual-transmission thesis--and defended "parents who worry about sending their healthy kids to school with AIDS victims." Commenting on a rise in AIDS infections, one newsletter said 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."


    And these are only the tip of the iceberg.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeJan 11th 2008
     (487.2)
    More Ron Paul craziness: http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/2004/paulrf2.jpg
    •  
      CommentAuthorScribe
    • CommentTimeJan 11th 2008
     (487.3)
    I was watching CNN the other night and Ron Paul was on. Wolf Blitzer asked him about the articles. I paraphrase below.

    Wolf: Who wrote these articles?

    Paul: I don't know and it doesn't matter. What good what it do now? I was the editor,how many editors know everything that goes into their magazines?

    My answer to Paul would be this; Every editor I have worked for knows what goes into their magazine, hence the title editor.


    I mean seriously. If you look at the language used, the style of writing, and the references made to the writers personal life, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out it was Paul.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeJan 11th 2008 edited
     (487.4)
    Hey maybe it was a Ron Paul staffer who was a medical doctor and had a wife called Mary who wrote the LA riots piece.
    •  
      CommentAuthorScribe
    • CommentTimeJan 11th 2008
     (487.5)
    Here's how I see it. There many articles written over several months. Let's, for argument's sake, say that one article slipped through the cracks and someone set him up. Why would you allow it to happen a second, or third, or fourth time? If he can't run a four page newsletter, how in the hell can he run something as complex as the US government?
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeJan 11th 2008
     (487.6)
    As a blogger said - if Ron Paul can't manage a monthly 8 page newsletter how can he hope to manage the most powerful country in the world?
    •  
      CommentAuthorScribe
    • CommentTimeJan 11th 2008
     (487.7)
    Yeah, that's been my argument all along. Well ... at least one of them. I will not go as far to say all his ideas are crazy, but some of them are out there. Non-interventionism is just a way to redefine isolationism. I equate it to the way the religious right took the word creationism and repackaged it into intelligent design. His wanting to go back to the gold standard is a total joke. His tax system has been attempted in several countries, and failed miserably every time. I could go on and on, but you get the drift.
    •  
      CommentAuthorroque
    • CommentTimeJan 11th 2008
     (487.8)
    Ron Paul kinda strikes me as a latter-day Lyndon LaRouche.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeJan 11th 2008
     (487.9)
    "Non-interventionism is just a way to redefine isolationism."

    Oddly though, his noninterventionism doesn't extend to supporting handing the Panama Canal back to Panama.
  1.  (487.10)
    Thanks for linking to this article.
    •  
      CommentAuthorScribe
    • CommentTimeJan 11th 2008
     (487.11)
    "Oddly though, his noninterventionism doesn't extend to supporting handing the Panama Canal back to Panama."

    I found out about the Panama bill he introduced right after he announced he was running. Of course he doesn't believe in earmarks either, unless it's 400million for his district.
    •  
      CommentAuthorUnsub
    • CommentTimeJan 11th 2008 edited
     (487.12)
    I'm having a time out until I can learn some manners.
    Are you really holding something someone else said ,against Ron?

    If you have an issue with something he said or did fine but trying to paint him as a racist because some of his supporters are is silly.
    I have a lot of respect for libertarian views especially how people should be responsible for their own actions and government should stay out of people's lives.
    A Republican who voted against the Patriot act and the war on principle while under considerable pressure not to seems much much more pertinent than what some nut job wrote in to
    a 8 page newsletter years ago. Ron is the type of person who will respect your rights regardless if you are gay or a fundamentalist Christian. He is the kind of guy who would not let
    abortion be banned because he does not want the government to have that much control. Right and left are outdated 19th century concepts that have little meaning anymore.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeJan 12th 2008
     (487.13)
    Actually the evidence is that he DID write this stuff - and even if he didn't he published it.

    "Ron is the type of person who will respect your rights regardless if you are gay or a fundamentalist Christian. He is the kind of guy who would not let abortion be banned because he does not want the government to have that much control."

    No, Ron Paul is the type of person who wants to hand back civil rights back to the states so that, for example, they can discriminate against gays and blacks. All because he knows his extreme anti-abortion position would be adopted by a number of states while it has no hope of being adopted nationally.

    "Right and left are outdated 19th century concepts that have little meaning anymore."

    Maybe but "racist, homophobic lying hypocrite" still has a meaning - Ron Paul.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeJan 12th 2008
     (487.14)
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeJan 12th 2008 edited
     (487.15)
    Ron Paul speaks on a John Birch video about the UN conspiracy to destroy the US and ban Christianity.

    http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=4ArUoyuDd74
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeJan 12th 2008
     (487.16)
    Here's Ron talking about the New World Order and conspiracy for a North American Union:

    http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8DpKKSmaa8&feature=related
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeJan 12th 2008
     (487.17)
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

    Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.


    Of course, by this reasoning, the Federal courts also have no power to strike down miscegnation laws.

    From the same essay: "...our founders did not intend a separation of church and state, and never envisioned a rigidly secular public life for America."
    • CommentAuthorjmarquiso
    • CommentTimeJan 12th 2008
     (487.18)
    Wow, for the "constitionalist" that he is, I don't think he's read it.

    Or the precedent that makes everything else possible.
  2.  (487.19)
    From a strictly technical and legalistic standpoint, the view quoted in the LewRockwell.com column is correct. The Founders wrote the Constitution to severely curtail Federal power and leave quite a bit of leeway to the states. The 14th Amendment is said to apply the Bill of Rights to the States, but there is room for debate on to what extent that also applies.

    However from a libertarian standpoint, state-level thuggery is just as objectionable as Federal-level thuggery.

    The Constitutional debate in this country has always been whether the intent of the Founders should be strictly followed or whether and to what extent the document's words should be re-interpreted in light of contemporary values. And there is a secondary, practical argument: which is whether giving Federal power greater supremacy over state power for laudable purposes, such as giving fair treatment to racial and sexual minorities, doesn't also give Federal power supremacy over state power for evil purposes, such as preventing medical uses of marijuana.

    But all that aside, this whole newsletter business is bringing to light a deplorable trend that has been going on in the greater libertarian movement since the late 1980s, which is the infiltration of right-wing bigots into both Party and non-party libertarian institutions. A few lonely voices have been crying out about this for years, but until now few have listened to them. There are so danged few of us anyway, even many of us uncomfortable with the bigots haven't been keen on shrinking our ranks even further.

    And even now, many otherwise enlightened libertarians who are more afraid of the Dick Cheneys of the world than the Archie Bunkers, and fear there is little time left to stop the Grim Meathook Future, don't want to talk about the racists under the bed. They believe Paul is the only one who can stop the Iraq war and nullify the Patriot Act and prevent the world of 1984 from finally happening, and nothing else matters right now.

    But this topic is boiling through the libertarian blogosphere now. I'm of the opinion that the bigots need to be outed and purged from the movement, no matter the cost in funding or short-term prestige. The infinitesimal chance of winning one election isn't worth giving up the ideals of liberty to a bunch of atavistic, epistemological savages.
    •  
      CommentAuthorUnsub
    • CommentTimeJan 12th 2008
     (487.20)
    I'm having a time out until I can learn some manners.
    Thanks Scott as a Canadian I am not up on american libertarian internal politics as much as maybe I should be.

    Kosmo it seems like you are ascribing evil racist motives to Ron's stand on states rights when it is clear that he is a believer
    in the constitution. While more rights for states may let a few make abortion illegal it is already a huge pain in the butt to get abortions in those states anyway.
    The fact that it would make things a lot better in most states and make it much harder for Cheney style fascists to rule the entire country.
    Besides banning abortion goes against the whole principle of libertarianism which is "though shalt mind thine own business".
    I don't agree with the entire libertarian platform as the free market is NOT designed by Jesus to solve all the worlds problems and I like medicare and controls on Corporations(not people).

    Look at what he actually says not what other people say about him or what you want to believe.

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.