-
The SPLC: Big Bucks, the FRC, and Jimmy Carter
May 7, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Mark Levin Talks to the NRA
May 7, 2013 | 0 comments
-
POLITICO: RUSH LIMBAUGH MAY PART WITH CUMULUS
May 5, 2013 | 13 comments
-
The Problematic Frank Luntz’s Stockholm Syndrome
April 25, 2013 | 11 comments
-
Dead Terrorist Tamerlan Tsarnaev Channeled Islamic Videos
April 19, 2013 | 67 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Yesterday, during a discussion on Ron Paul with Sean Hannity on the latter’s radio show, Hannity brought up with me the impossible-to-get around subject of the infamous Ron Paul Newsletters.
As Hannity quite correctly pointed out, with the other GOP candidates having received the political equivalent of an anal exam, somehow Ron Paul has escaped notice.
No more.
While I think the lack of attention has been due to the fact that many did not take him seriously, a justifiable complaint from his supporters, I have tried to do just that in this space. And in doing so launched a fusillade of angry response from Paul supporters that, peculiarly, never seems forthcoming when I criticize Gingrich/Romney/Perry/Huntsman etc etc.
But as we head into this last debate of the season, Hannity has raised an excellent point. The higher Ron Paul goes, as with his fellow candidates who have floated to the top previously, the scrutiny will intensify. And Ron Paul will have to seriously answer.
To refresh, Reason magazine came out with a detailed piece on the Paul newsletters back in 2008. The piece was written by reporters Julian Sanchez and David Weigel.
The article was as disturbing as it was alarming.
Here, according to Reason, was a potential Republican nominee for president who had for whatever rationale acquiesced to having a newsletter sent out under his name that used the most vile of racist language. To wit, this from the May 22nd Dallas Morning News in 1996:
Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are “semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
And this, from the Houston Chronicle on May 23, 1996:
…we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.
And this from the Austin American-Statesman, also on May 23, 1996:
Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions.
Look.
One can, unfortunately, go on and on and on here with this story and various appalling quotes.
But since we are busy doing political proctology exams on all these candidates, and Congressman Paul has mostly escaped the examination, it’s past time for discussion and explanations. Were Ron Paul the GOP nominee the liberal media would pounce within micro seconds, so better that the questions come here and from Sean Hannity and Mark Levin and others on the conservative side.
It has to be said there is a disturbing pattern that appears with the Paul proctology. Quite aside from his decidedly McGovernite foreign policy pronouncements (“Come Home America” as McGovern used to say) there are other serious signs of leftism in the Ron Paul world view. Whether it’s the appalling statements on race (and there are more) made either by Paul himself or someone on Paul’s newsletter writing team in his behalf and under his name — this has nothing whatsoever to do with conservatism. This isn’t Ronald Reagan much less Edmund Burke. This is sheer progressivism — the domestic version of progressive sentiments that match like a glove with a McGovernite foreign policy.
Mark Levin has taken all kinds of heat for exposing this business over the last few months. The sheer nuttiness of the Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant/James Madison and the Founding Fathers never intervened anywhere stuff, the latter flatly untrue. Not to mention the and-oh-by-the-way-pay-no-attention-to-all that-anti-Semitic-stuff that trails the Paul candidacy like the little cloud of dirt that used to follow the Peanuts cartoon character Pigpen around.
Pigpen, as a matter of fact, once said of all the dirt following him around: “Being dirty is a practical matter…I’m never bothered by girls or mosquitos.”
In the world of presidential politics, a political version of this has been following Ron Paul around for years, which is why he was never bothered by serious seekers of Republican presidents or the media.
Yesterday, Sean Hannity took Ron Paul seriously — and respectfully so, just as he has done with all the other candidates. Mark Levin has been seriously examining this situation for a long time.
Now…as Iowa approaches and Ron Paul rises in the polls…so will others.
Stay tuned.
View all comments (226) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/15/the-ron-paul-newsletters
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- What’s in a Name?
- The End of the Castros?
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ed| 12.15.11 @ 2:28PM
3, 2, 1, paultards to the walls.
Randy | 12.15.11 @ 6:34PM
LOL.
Quartermaster| 12.15.11 @ 8:50PM
Lord is usually a buffoon, but he finally found something with a bit of traction against Paul. I was wondering how long it would take.
Still, the fact remains that Paul is the only man in this lot of midgets that is talking about what needs to happen to FedGov to turn things around.
Personally, the accusations of racism and bigotry might be true if they were simply dealing with stereotypes rather than facts. I can't make the judgment since I haven't read the newsletters.
Go ahead and act like a leftist, Ed. You say more about yourself than you do about the supposed "Paultards." Too bad it's all to your shame.
Eds-tinydick| 12.19.11 @ 1:36PM
So Eddy -- who's your choice?
Newt, Mitt, Michelle, Obama...
...Oh wait, they're not choices -- they're all the same neo-con in different bodies.
Pull you head out of your neo-con anus Ed.
Clint| 12.15.11 @ 2:28PM
Asked & Answered In The 2008 Election.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82CYNV0U_kg
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Daniel| 12.15.11 @ 6:09PM
*Bump* Good link Clint.
Also, why is Jeffrey Lord digging through the trash to find old news like this? Had Jeffrey Lord done even a little investigating (as Clint did) we would have been saved from the headache of having to read these tired, old, fake anti-Ron Paul sentiments. You, Mr Lord, are a hack.
Jeffrey Lord | 12.15.11 @ 7:51PM
So all those people digging through Newt and Romnney and Michele's and Herman's old trash are hacks! OK Daniel. I just wish you had spoken up sooner on this.
Quartermaster| 12.15.11 @ 8:51PM
It's OK, Lord. You aren't a hack. You are, however, a buffoon.
dferreira| 12.19.11 @ 1:38PM
I don't think you're a hack.. I would think if you were someone people took seriously and you wrote this you'd be a hack..
To me, you're just a wannabe journalist incapable of free thought.. Which is why the idea of being responsible for your own actions frightens you.
Jeff-O-Crite| 12.19.11 @ 2:09PM
Hey Jeff -- this is kind of like the time you called Shirley Sherrod a liar.
Which of your Neo-Con slumlords put you up to this hit-piece?
Like all neo-cons POS's-- it's only a matter of time before we will be reading about Jeffery Lord caught in a men's room with Larry.
Occam's Tool| 12.20.11 @ 12:06AM
Mr. Lord:
are you seeking a record number of comments for any writer?
Otherwise, why enter the world of the Paul Cult? It's sickening, cowardly, gutless, and scummy---just like the man himself.
Mowyak| 12.15.11 @ 6:22PM
In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:
"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
"In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.'
"This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the
day of the New Hampshire primary.
"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention
to what went out under my name."
source: http://www.reuters.com/article.....BW20080108
Sue Taylor| 12.16.11 @ 3:33AM
Great link!
Thanks, Clint. Will share.
Dai Alanye | 12.15.11 @ 2:30PM
Paul is more suited to be a cult leader, a la L Ron Hubbard, than a Presidential candidate. Simply a fact.
Celeste| 12.15.11 @ 2:41PM
Interesting you bring up the word cult. Every one, every one ,of the other candidates belong to the CNP. Google it. It was started by Tim Lahaye and includes the Rev. Moon. Talk about a cult.
Paul is the only hope American has.
Celeste| 12.15.11 @ 2:43PM
That is the Center for National Policy.
April| 12.15.11 @ 2:46PM
I heard that too. Its the Council on National Policy .
tonypal| 12.15.11 @ 2:58PM
"Ron Paul is the only hope America has."
God help us!
americus soul| 12.17.11 @ 6:34AM
God isn't going to help us. YOU and your friends need to help us. Spread the word.
It's either going to be More-of-the-Same (Change? lol) or better yet, replace 1/3 of the Fed Gov with Ron Paul . And see what happens. Anyone who says or thinks otherwise is either bought by the establishment (invest in the MIC, anyone?) or needs to do some real research and thinking of their own. Listening to fools like the author does not count.
Marco2| 12.15.11 @ 5:50PM
An old neo-Nazi crackpot is the only hope America has? Let the light shine on him and his minions and let's watch the roaches scatter. It's long overdue. They have no business associating with a legitimate political party.
Mowyak| 12.15.11 @ 6:16PM
assume the worst. assume that Paul DESPERATELY hates all black people and thinks that they're illiterate, fried chicken eating monkeys, and that he wants them all to "go back to africa". i don't buy this, but let me accept that premise for the sake of argument...
how many muslim children do you think the "racist" Paul would kill in drone strikes? more, or less, than Obama?
how many non-violent incarcerated black men, who have been victims of the stupid, freedom hating, evil, started-by-that-psychopath-Nixon war on drugs have been freed by obama? none. but Paul says that nonviolent offenders should be freed.
who has said that the US should stop taking the side of Israel against the Palestinians in every possible conflict? is it Obama? *crickets*
who has said that we should be friends with, and not consider war against, the persians? even if they seek nuclear weapons (which they aren't, but nevermind)
even if RP is in fact deeply racist and hateful (which, again, i don't believe, but accept for the sake of this argument) what does it mean if the EFFECTS of his policies just HAPPEN to be more kind and humane and loving and decent? saying you can't support RP because you're "pretty sure" that he "might be" a racist, while supporting actions and policies that ACTUALLY HAVE RACIST EFFECTS makes you either intellectually dishonest or a partisan hack.
*thanks AM!*
sirbourbon| 12.15.11 @ 6:37PM
"legitimate political party" that has helped the other "legit" political party raise our national debt to 15 Trilion dollars? Oh, that
legitimate party!"
I get your point that you like status quo illegitimacy, but what does that have to do with Ron Paul trimming a Trillion from the debt in year one of this adminnistration?
John Morris | 12.19.11 @ 1:56PM
You forgot to put quotes around the word "legitimate"... because it's anything but.
zagggg| 12.19.11 @ 2:28PM
"legitimate political party" ?????
Do you mean the Grand Old Neo-Con, religious-fanatic, Corporate Owned one?
Thanks for helping screw-up our country a$$hat.
Occam's Tool| 12.20.11 @ 12:07AM
Paul is an ignorant buffoon.
Simon Templar| 12.15.11 @ 4:31PM
Clint is the proof, and a loyal and perfect example.
Clint| 12.15.11 @ 6:32PM
Uh Oh !
The Israel Firster Crybaby Simone Pimpler Is In The Building.
http://www.grimmemennesker.dk/.....people.jpg
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Occam's Tool| 12.20.11 @ 12:08AM
Yes. Whenever people think about voting for Paul, they should read Clint. He is the perfect salesman for his master.
Mowyak| 12.15.11 @ 6:17PM
Yet the Paul movement, as should be obvious, is the very opposite of a cult. For one thing, their leader hardly ever uses the word “I.” For another, they have substantive reasons for supporting him. Speak to a Ron Paul supporter and you’ll find someone who knows much more than the average person about topics like monetary policy, the Constitution, U.S. history, economics, etc. That person can give as many solid, substantive reasons for supporting Ron Paul as you have time to listen to.
Contrast this to what we often see from supporters of other candidates. They like theirs because the candidate “looks presidential,” “seems like a leader” (isn’t that kind of cultish?), was a businessman, gives a nice speech, etc. In other words, the reasons tend to be entirely based on the person as opposed to the ideas the person champions.
Read More: http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/r.....following/
9thID| 12.15.11 @ 10:23PM
Ron Paul is the Lord of the Flies candidate...
zagggg| 12.19.11 @ 2:12PM
You wouldn't know a fact if it crawled up your butt and forced you to vote for Newt or Mitt.
Bill| 12.15.11 @ 2:31PM
This has been brought up in the past and he didn't write them. Nothing in his books or thousands of videos suggests he believes any of that.
Secondly, read George Washington’s farewell address. You will know what he is talking about when he refers to how the founders wanted a non-interventionist foreign policy.
Simon Templar| 12.15.11 @ 4:36PM
I suggest you actually read the article in Reason magazine and then make your pronouncments.
His many years of close and direct assocations with some very nasty people not just these letters have come into view and are exposed in the Reason article. This must really frighten you as Reason IS a libertarian publication.
Here is the last paragraph for those really interested in the truth..
"Yet those new supporters, many of whom are first encountering libertarian ideas through the Ron Paul Revolution, deserve a far more frank explanation than the campaign has as yet provided of how their candidate's name ended up atop so many ugly words. Ron Paul may not be a racist, but he became complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists—and taking "moral responsibility" for that now means more than just uttering the phrase. It means openly grappling with his own past—acknowledging who said what, and why. Otherwise he risks damaging not only his own reputation, but that of the philosophy to which he has committed his life." -Reason
Quartermaster| 12.15.11 @ 8:54PM
Reason is a Pseudo-Libertarian publication. It doesn't take long reading on their site to realize they have statist leanings.
Simon Templar| 12.16.11 @ 2:15AM
Oh, I see. Yes, kinda like when the bolshevik communist claimed that the other communist were fascist when they disagreed with them.
Statist leanings, oh my!
Another proof positive that you are anarchist left wingers posing as conservatives. You think EXACTLY like the LEFT, talk like them, fight like them, and push essentially the same BRAVE NEW WORLD.
americus soul| 12.17.11 @ 6:38AM
Bingo. We have a winner. Statist leanings.
Statist stomping of others is the easy way out for lazy people who feel a need to be greedy.
I wish we didn't have to work harder, yes. But if it means being able to rest better knowing we are treating everyone else better, so be it.
Thank you, all you thoughtful posters.
Occam's Tool| 12.20.11 @ 12:09AM
Reason has Statist leanings. Hmmm, QM, are you an anarchist?
zagggg| 12.19.11 @ 2:17PM
Simpleton Templar:
Another establishment, status quo whore.
How's the status quo working out -- have you looked at the economy lately?
Idiot.
Clint| 12.15.11 @ 2:32PM
The Israel Firster Propaganda Squad Is In The Building.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is here And In Iowa.
Sue Taylor| 12.16.11 @ 3:38AM
Hey Clint, here's a good link for you to share-
Benjamin Netanyahu Prime Minister of Israel agrees with Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded
Barry| 12.15.11 @ 2:38PM
Yes I'd like to see Ron Paul address these issues. In the meantime the media seems to prefer drumming up fear about Paul. If you could make a coherent argument as to how any of this impacts on Ron Paul's campaign positions I'd be much more interested. For some reason I'm more concerned about sending my (minority BTW) son into another war of occupation, seeing my daughter struggle to find a job while Washington bails out the billionaires, and watching Washington trample on civil liberties of all of us.
BrooklynChick| 12.15.11 @ 2:54PM
You can see him address it with Wolf Blizer on youtube. He's not a racist.
jt| 12.15.11 @ 2:38PM
tea party racist allegations are worse than this by far, if you were to entertain these loose guilt by associations. he already said he didn't write those. does any politician you know manage their own facebook/twitter accounts, various forms of publications? tea party raCiStTt~
Clint| 12.15.11 @ 2:43PM
The Israel Firster Propaganda Squad Is All Cranky & PMS'Y Because:
" (Dr.) Ron Paul, the once-forgotten presidential candidate, is picking up steam in Iowa and now appears poised to overtake frontrunner Newt Gingrich, according to a new survey released today from the left-leaning Public Policy Polling.
The poll finds support for Gingrich has slipped to 22%, with Ron Paul just behind with 21%. Mitt Romney trails in third place with 16%.
That's a five-point drop in favorability for Gingrich, who has raced to the top of the Republican presidential field over the past month. PPP found Gingrich's favorability numbers have fallen 19 points over the past week"
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Sea Cucumber| 12.15.11 @ 2:39PM
Jeff, are you angling for a job at the SPLC? If not, then what's the deal with this leftist thought police stuff?
Jeffrey Lord | 12.15.11 @ 3:54PM
Sea Cucumber...
I suspect pointing out Ron Paul's leftist tendencies will not get me anywhere with the SPLC. It could get Ron Paul hired, however...
Sea Cucumber| 12.15.11 @ 4:26PM
Jeff,
What are you talking about? While you did touch on Paul's opposition to the liberal internationalist foreign policy pursued by the Bush/Obama administrations, my comment was in response to the main focus of your piece - his "racist" newsletters. My point was that this kind of thought policing is a tactic commonly employed by leftists to smear conservatives.
Shouldn't conservatives work towards delegitimizing this tactic instead of sheepishly embracing them in a futile effort to appease the left?
BTW Jeff, do you disagree that "Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers?" If so, why?
Simon Templar| 12.15.11 @ 4:48PM
LOL. Do you ever actually listen to yourselves or are you EXACTLY like liberals, self deluded projectionist? Thought police. You invented the neo-con label and throw it like the race card! Like liberals you hold yourselves as all knowing and determine who is politically correct and a 'true' conservative.
Like liberals you have no problem with rewriting history, defaming and smearing, chasing media pundits down streets that disagree with you, paling around with far left idiots like Kucinich, and blaming America first in everything.
Conservatives should be working to remove you.
Lord was not being PC here but just pointing out the story written about Paul by a libertarian magazine concerned itself with his past associations.
Sea Cucumber| 12.15.11 @ 5:14PM
Where exactly did I use the "neo-con" label?
"Like liberals you hold yourselves as all knowing and determine who is politically correct and a 'true' conservative."
Isn't that what you're doing here?
"paling around with far left idiots like Kucinich, and blaming America first in everything."
While I don't ever recall putting up fences with Mr. Kucinich, I don't see any problem with conservatives working with the few pro-civil liberties leftists to preserve our traditional liberties. I also don't "blame America" for the failures of various policies, I blame the federal government.
"Lord was not being PC here but just pointing out the story written about Paul by a libertarian magazine concerned itself with his past associations."
A left-libertarian magazine that is.
Simon Templar| 12.16.11 @ 2:24AM
You are just obscufating and misdirecting again. The Reason article is not going away and you still have not addressed the facts contained in it. You would rather continue trying to dodge them, just like a liberal.
Sea Cucumber| 12.16.11 @ 12:24PM
What did I obfuscate and misdirect about?
As for the Reason piece, I don't really see any "facts" that need addressing. I'm not a leftist after all.
americus soul| 12.17.11 @ 6:43AM
tip: every time you see the name Simon Templar, you should skip the writing. It's just a bunch of words sewn together to make you waste time trying to understand. There is no time to waste. Take the time you would spend trying to understand Simon Templar and spend it with your friends and family spreading the word.
And the word is Dr. Ron Paul in 2012 . And if not, Rand Paul in 2016 and 2020. Start watching. I'll get the Aqua Buddha bong freshened up in the meantime.
Mowyak| 12.15.11 @ 6:09PM
No. The neoconservatives from think-tanks groups such as The Project For The New American Century are the creaters of the label neocon. That is what they call themselves. They have convinced many so-called conservatives that global government through force, which is a liberal massive government idea, is what's good for business. This was their intent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CRH9XNMb8E
Jeffrey Lord | 12.15.11 @ 6:27PM
Sea Cucumber...
You say:
BTW Jeff, do you disagree that "Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers?" If so, why?
EXCELLENT question, SC.
Answer: I am a conservative, not a leftist. Unlike leftists...who judge others by skin color (see: slavery, segregation, the KKK etc)...I do NOT believe in judging others by color. So...men are committing these crimes...the fact that you see them as "black men" is the telling definition of all leftists on race. And has been from the beginning of the Democratic Party in this country to this minute. It was, after all, liberal Chris Matthews who said he listened to Obama and for a moment he forgot Obama was black. Exactly.
Sea Cucumber| 12.15.11 @ 6:40PM
Okay then, Jeff. I can respect that. Let me rephrase the question:
Do you disagree that men identified by leftists as black "commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers?" If so, why?
And, if I may, let me ask a follow up question:
If it's wrong to judge people based on color, why is it okay to judge them based on sex? Why call them "men" instead of "people?"
Jeffrey Lord | 12.15.11 @ 7:49PM
Sea Cucumber...
"...why is it okay to judge them based on sex? "
You are a 10 today, SC! Exactly right? Were Lizzie Borden's parents any les murdered because their child was a girl? maybe not! Were Gerald Ford's 2 would be assassin's any less serious behind a gun because they were women? of course not!
Can I have a baby? Well...no. So are there some differences that apply to biology? Sure. But do white men and women murder? Yellow men and women? Red men and women? Yes...and the fact has nothing to do with being white, black, yellow or red or man or woman. Human? Ahhhhhhhhhh. Yes indeed. And a core belief of all conservatives is that humans are imperfect. But, not to get Biblical, and in spite of my last name, judgment is not mine, sayeth this Lord.
Sea Cucumber...we'll make of you a good conservative yet. You have promise! LOL!
Sea Cucumber| 12.15.11 @ 8:24PM
Thanks for the response Jeff. Very educational! I had never realized that Richard Lewontin is really a conservative.
But you forgot to answer my other question, that is:
Do you disagree that men identified by leftists as black "commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers?" If so, why?
Wouldn't want someone to get the wrong idea and think you were avoiding the question!
Quartermaster| 12.15.11 @ 9:09PM
Lord won't answer the real questions. Don't let the man off the hook, he doesn't deserve it.
There is a color to crime. Only Leftists like Lord will not admit to noticing the crime rates among whites here is nearly the same among whites everywhere in western Europe. It is nonzero, but quite low. GO among the places where you have large concentrations of blacks, Latin Americans, and Muslims, and it is through the roof by almost every measure. Only leftists refuse to recognize this.
Lord is a leftist and is a conservative only in comparison to the loony left. The GOP began, and still lives, on the left. When it comes right down to it. Lord hates the founders as much as he hates Paul.
There are things I don't like about Paul. I think his foreign policy stand is for the birds, but I don't think he would hesitate to defend this country. His stand on domestic are solid, but I fear we have gone too far down the road Lord and his ilk have taken us to be able to turn things around. When his ilk refuses to note simple things such as the color of crime, then he's just as liberal as the people he supposedly opposes. It's all fake.
Having said that, I will point out that mass statistics do not deal with individuals. I am a Professional Engineer and many years ago had a Structural Engineer friend who was black. As good a man as you would ever want to know. His son, however, held a hatred for whites as cordial as my friend held friendship for me. I trusted him, but not his son. Same way with my black shipmates on my first ship. By the time of my second ship, black racism and entitlement was making serious inroads into the pool from which manpower was recruited. I saw serious splits among blacks who cordially hated those male blacks who weren't really men, but who had made themselves into little more than animals. There are also an increasing number of whites who are adopting the ghetto mentality and turning into the same type of low life.
Jeffrey Lord | 12.15.11 @ 10:16PM
I think the premise of the question is racist and illegitimate...as so many questions based on a leftist premise are. I don't buy the question...period. No dodge. Do more brunettes than blondes drink water? No idea. Are both humans and do they drink water? Yes. Blonde, brunette, white, black...irrelevant and racist to boot.
Sea Cucumber| 12.16.11 @ 12:21PM
Really? You don't think the answer might be interesting from a sociological perspective? Or have some bearing on pressing social issues?
That aside if race is really irrelevant, then there shouldn't be any problem with providing a actual answer to my question. Do you disagree that "Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers?" If so, why?
If that question is too hard, you can try answering this one:
Shouldn't conservatives work towards delegitimizing the the racism smear instead of sheepishly embracing it in a futile effort to appease the left?
Sea Cucumber| 12.15.11 @ 6:43PM
Oh, and I hope you'll answer the other question I asked in the post you replied to while you're at it.
americus soul| 12.17.11 @ 6:45AM
LOL . Nice Christmas present. Keep it up, SC!
sirbourbon| 12.15.11 @ 6:51PM
Q: If you are elected president in 2008, what positive and significant legacy, if any, will you leave for Black Americans?
Ron Paul: I would like to believe that if we had a freer society, it would take care of Blacks and whites and everybody equally because we’re all individuals. To me, that is so important. But if we had equal justice under the law, I think it would be a big improvement. ... repeal of most of the federal laws on drugs and the unfairness on how Blacks are treated with these drugs laws, it would be a tremendous improvement. ... if you’re going to have prosperity, it serves everybody. And if this is done by emphasizing property rights and freedom of the individuals, making sure that the powerful special interests don’t control Washington, that the military industrial complex doesn’t suck away all the wealth of the country, and then we would have prosperity.
Source: 2007 GOP Presidential Forum at Morgan State University , Sep 27, 2007
Inner-city minorities are punished unfairly in war on drugs
Q: What policy would you support to guarantee young Black and Latino men a fairer equal justice system?
Ron Paul: A system designed to protect individual liberty will have no punishments for any group and no privileges. Today, I think inner-city folks and minorities are punished unfairly in the war on drugs. For instance, Blacks make up 14% of those who use drugs, yet 36 percent of those arrested are Blacks and it ends up that 63% of those who finally end up in prison are Blacks. This has to change. We don’t have to have more courts and more prisons.
William R| 12.15.11 @ 5:05PM
I heard your interview on Sean Shammity yesterday Lord and yall are both dishonest liars. The Ron Paul newsletter story was coverd in 1996, 2000, and again in 2008. Shammity's own network Fox News covered the story around the clock but he acted like he's never heard of it.
Truth be told the story is so bogus that the President of the Austin Chapter of the NAACP came to Paul's aid. Imagine that, the NAACP coming to the aid of a Republican.
You're fundamentally a dishonest scumbag and dumber than a load of bricks Lord.
The Great Russell Kirk had Mark Levin's number 23 years ago today. Dec 15 1988 in a speech at the Heritage Foundation Kirk said ""as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States."
Ron Paul NAACP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk9HSMB-YaU
Daniel| 12.15.11 @ 2:41PM
This is good to bring up, lord is right that the liberal media will surely pounce on this. This is a good video that documents Ron Paul's position on Race and racism, as well as the details behind the newsletters. This was all hashed out 4 years ago. He took the moral responsibility for it going out under his name, but definitely did not write them. The reason he escapes the scrutiny on this is because anyone who has listened to his speeches on the issue of race will understand that racism is completely antithetical to his philosophy on society and liberty.
here is the vidoe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE8DBUpIdQo
Vineyardgal| 12.15.11 @ 2:44PM
I am no Paul fan. However,you state these are "appalling quotes", but if they are truth - statistically, then why does speaking the truth become "Appalling"?
The left and Johnson's Great Society HAVE created this lack of intact black families and self respect/self reliance. I think we need to look it in the eye and speak the truth about this dispicable decay in our country!
Nathanael| 12.15.11 @ 2:55PM
hear hear!
Simon Templar| 12.15.11 @ 4:52PM
Vgal, read the article linked to Reason. The Paulbot trolls here want to distract you with the charges of racism when the whole story is much bigger than that.
americus soul| 12.17.11 @ 6:48AM
Again, no. The story that is "bigger" is that everyone viable candidate from Obama to Romney is "more of the same" .
It can't be much simpler.
Ron Paul in 2012 . Or vote for more problems again.
ZTTim| 12.15.11 @ 2:44PM
...while the words used in the newsletters are abhorrent. They were not written by Ron Paul, nor do they reflect his believes and values. To those who cry fowl saying that there were written under the banner of Ron Paul, I kindly suggest you visit Sean Hannity's forums page...or Mark Levin...or any other public figure. In it you'll find remarks made that are equally as disturbing....yet no one blames Hannity or Levin or believes they feel the same way as some of their followers....even though they are written and published under their perspective owners' names.
This smacks of a desperate ploy by those in power to divert attention away from the one candidate who cannot be bought and paid for.....Newt Romney....I'm looking at you.
Simon Templar| 12.15.11 @ 4:56PM
They were written by his close associate and approved ghost writer for his publication of which he has never disavowed.
There are these troublesome things called facts.
There is nothing in Levin's or Hannity publications that come close to this.
William R| 12.15.11 @ 5:07PM
He did disavow them. You're lying.
Simon Templar| 12.16.11 @ 2:08AM
No. He did not. He refused to talk about them and denied writing them. He never disavowed the ghost writer. You are lying as usual. Read the article.
Curt| 12.15.11 @ 2:48PM
That's all you got? Three misquotes from the Dallas Morning News, the Houston Chronicle and the Austin American-Statesman? Get a hold of the original newsletters and post that content if you are going to be real about this, do your homework and don't just google a few quotes from the national media. Make your case and make it concrete or you are just slandering with rumors.
Simon Templar| 12.15.11 @ 4:58PM
Read the Reason article. No, there is more.
Mowyak| 12.15.11 @ 6:13PM
Did the reason article backup its claims? Are you satisfied that they offered you the whole truth and that's that?
americus soul| 12.17.11 @ 6:52AM
tip: just ignore everything Simon Templar has to write here.
He exists solely to waste your time.
As do the "articles of proof" Lord and Simon keep referring to.
There are HOURS of Ron Paul videos out there on You Tube. There are BOOKS of Congressional record (unvarnished, unlike these websites).
The truth can be seen with your own eyes, people.
Don't take my word for it, don't take Simon's word for it, don't take ANYBODY'S WRITTEN WORDS for it.
Use your own eyes and ears. You will see the words match up with what his lips are doing. LOL
And you will realize Dr.Paul is NOT a racist.
Ron Paul in 2012
anonoped| 12.15.11 @ 2:51PM
" And in doing so launched a fusillade of angry response from Paul supporters that, peculiarly, never seems forthcoming when I criticize Gingrich/Romney/Perry/Huntsman etc etc."
Because they don’t have any support, they are just media created Golums. But you know this.
Please provide examples of his leftist progressive stances.
BTW, are you still a Trotskite? Why should we take you more seriously than Ron Paul? He's promoting peace and you're promoting war and murder.
Ron Paul could be the largest racist on the face of the history of the earths history and I'd still vote for him because he's the only person running for president on a peace platform.
A vote for any other including obama is a vote for war, assassinations, warmongering, deficit spending and the debt enslavement of your children and grandchildren.
There's no difference between Newt Romney than Obama so why vote for any of them?
americus soul| 12.17.11 @ 6:54AM
Bingo. We have a winner.
If you question, get off this website and get on Youtube and watch about 8 hours of Ron Paul videos.
You will see he is not racist.
Then you can come back here and tell the newbies what I just told you.
Ron Paul 2012
Bill Evelyn | 12.15.11 @ 2:52PM
This is where Mr. Lord goes off track.
When McGovern was running for President the Soviet Union, a nation state, could direct all its production to machines of war. It could use its states power to interject themselves. The Soviet Union had 40,000 nuclear tipped and MRV'd missiles pointed at us. Millions of men under arms with machines of war. Hundreds of thousands of aircraft and tens of thousands of surface combatants. Pulling back then would have been suicide.
Our enemy now are terrorists that are not backed by a nation state that is capable of putting in its entire resources in backing a war. China though building a military is still much weaker and besides, who is going to buy all the sneakers and plastic toys made there if they attack us.
Mr. Lord has decided that he does not like the fact Ron Paul wants to end foreign aid to Israel. We send billions to Israel that is used to pay-off crooked politicians and Palestinians.
Our dollars are squandered in Israel and not used for defense. The Israelis could incinerate the Middile East overnight with nuclear tipped Jericho Missiles, capable fighter squadrons, and all able bodied young people ready to fight.
Nah ... Mr. Lord is confused; Levin is deranged.
Marco2| 12.15.11 @ 5:59PM
Perhaps the Isrealis could incinerate Ron Paul?One less Nazi on the planet and the biggest remaining clown off the debate stage. A fine return on our investment, don't you think?
Quartermaster| 12.15.11 @ 9:15PM
So much for the Godwin argument. Nice to see all these fake conservative running around accusing people of being Nazis. Raaaaacism anyone?
Conservatives have been such cowards about these accusations. As Marco2 shows, leftists will stop at nothing. No matter that it's a smear, libel, or slander, it matters not. What Marco2 is doing really is exactly what the Nazis and Reds did for years, and they are still at it.
americus soul| 12.17.11 @ 6:56AM
"our investment" ? What?
What investment is that which you believe Ron Paul has benefited from?
Is that like "our investment" in Newt?
Or like "our investment" in Obama?
Need I go on?
Nathanael| 12.15.11 @ 2:53PM
Are we really this scared of racism, that an article in response to racially motivated riots killing hundreds of people mentions the rioters' race and is cited as a reason to be scared of Ron Paul?
Dr. Paul's voting record is clear, he believes that all individuals should have an equal right under the law to be responsible for their own decisions. The newsletter, which if you read in its entirety is not far off, although exagerative and sarcastic, which style alone is evidence for someone else writing it. Ron Paul's writing and speaking is clear, pointed and reasoned, and he can back up everything he says if questioned. The article in question was muddy, blunt, and based mostly on emotion.
Dr. Paul's individual record is also clear, when no one in his Texas district was turned away for lack of funds when he was a practicing ob-gyn. No one has ever accused the man himself of racism so far, and this newsletter is old news.
C Bowen | 12.15.11 @ 3:43PM
Jeff Lord was scared of Iraq, for goodness sake.
He is scared of everything.
americus soul| 12.17.11 @ 6:59AM
Worth repeating:
"Jeff Lord was scared of Iraq, for goodness sake."
Yes. It is written.
How's that Iraq thing working out?
Oh, that's right. Now we are "equal partners", says Obama.
If that new smack doesn't fan the flames, I'll be surprised. Obama should shut up.
Maracuya| 12.15.11 @ 2:53PM
Perhaps I would agree if his actions matched the words found in these unsigned "newsletters." Yet his actions show that he is anything but a racist or bigot, rather a principled man who fights for everyone's civil liberties. I'm saddened when people I thought who were truly conservative, like Hannity, Levin, Rush, and Beck all run after unprincipled men. Yet the veil has been lifted, I'm am finally examining things for myself. Sometimes I wonder if even a principled man like Ron Paul could really change anything, when we have been inundated with such cowards and thieves.
… as a lesser evil is a kind of good, even so a lesser good is a kind of evil if it stands in the way of a greater good. - Leibniz:(Theodicy)
John| 12.15.11 @ 2:55PM
Lord, Levin, Hannity, and Limbaugh are always getting their Depends Diapers dirty when the Liberals pull the race card. But these statist liberal internationalists i.e. neocons have no problems pulling the race card when it suits their agenda. There is no recognizable difference between the above mentioned and Al Sharpton, when it comes to race.
Lord, your racist assertions of Ron Paul have already been debunked in 2008. In fact, a guy named Matt Welch has already admitted to writing these racist letters using Ron Paul newsletter headers.
As I have stated, the above mentioned names are not Conservative, you are bunch of liberal internationalists. Rush Limbaugh already confessed to being water carrier for the Liberal George Bush, who once passed legislation with Ted Kennedy by his side.
The more liberal internationalists such as yourself make their way to the confessional, the better it is for true Conservatives.
The liberal internationalists will be exposed and neutralized in this 2012 election, forever and will only exist as a tragic history of this beautiful and powerful nation. The United States of America.
tonypal| 12.15.11 @ 3:25PM
John, your first paragraph renders everything else you will say for the rest of your life irrelevant. To compare any of the men you mentioned to Al Sharpton is probably the most blatant act of anti-intellectualism ever seen at TAS. That includes all the non-sensical rantings of Clint.
Are you even remotely aware of what Al Sharpton has done over the past 25 years. If not, here's a brief recap:
1. Engages in the Tawana Brawley hoax, whereby a young black woman claims to have been raped and smeared with feces by just about every white law enforcement official within a 50 mile radius of Manhattan. I'm having trouble recalling a similar incident involving Rush Limbaugh. Perhaps you'll enlighten us.
2. Starts a multi-day riot outside Freddie's Fashion Mart in Manhattan. Eggs on an increasingly violent crowd by complaining about white interlopers taking over the business district. 8 people die from a subsequent attack by an assailant egged on by Sharpton. Does Mark Levin have a similar episode in his past?
3. After a Jewish man loses control of his car and runs down a young black man named Gavin Cato in Crown Heights, riots ensue. Sharpton leads a march through the streets and a young Jewish man named Yankel Rosenbaum is murdered by an angry mob. Did Sean Hannity ever encourage a mob to murder someone?
This is the problem with people like you and Clint and all the other people here who worship at the altar of Ron Paul. You do not deal in logic, instead resorting the same type of idiotic hyperbole we normally associate with the left.
In fact, I've been called an Israel-Firster. Funny, but when I google Israel-Firster, I come up with a whole bunch of left wing cites. So while you tar and feather the aforementioned conservatives and Mr. Lord as "statist liberal internationalists" getting their diapers dirty, you seem to be the one in legion with the left. I know of no conservative who even knows what an Israel-Firster is or where the term even originated. But I know where it's used; on left wing cites and by supporters of Ron Paul, such as that legendary cut and paste master, Clint.
Here's a suggestion, if your brain is up to it. Try persuading us that you're right and we're wrong. Stop it with the left wing foolishness and make the case for Paul. If you can't do it rationally without all the vitriole and silliness, perhaps that's a not so subtle clue that you're wrong and we're right about your hero.
C Bowen | 12.15.11 @ 3:52PM
The Iraq is a Threat hoax is even bigger then any of Sharpton's despicable rackets.
Remember when Newt toured with Sharpton promoting a Good Education? That was sickening.
tonypal| 12.15.11 @ 5:07PM
Really, it was a hoax? So in spite of the fact that the intelligence agencies of all the world's major powers concluded that Iraq was indeed a threat, you and Ron Paul know better. Let me ask you a question my friend: What color is the sky in your world?
C Bowen | 12.15.11 @ 5:12PM
Umm--Iraq wasn't a threat. Looking at the financial crisis, its pretty obvious that the major government all lie together.
When Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, and John Kerry all say Iraq has WMDs, you can rest assure they didn't.
You Lefties were scared of Iraq--not us on the Right.
Were you scared of Iraq, Tonypal?
LOL--and you still post on the Internet? Have you no shame.
You were tricked into supporting a debt financed invasion of a secular nation, with an army that featured girls on the frontlines, that made Iraq a Muslim nation and made Iran stronger in the region and you still post on the Internet?
At conservative sites?
Is this a joke?
Quartermaster| 12.15.11 @ 9:19PM
CBowen, Iraq was a threat. Before we invaded they quickly packed their nuke program up and shipped it to Syria. The nuke site the Israelis took out in 2007 was Saddam's nuke program being set up again. We had the intel on that and knew where it was going as we came in from Kuwait.
You can believe otherwise if you wish, but it is a fantasy that you are believing.
tonypal| 12.16.11 @ 10:51AM
Like any good leftist, all you do is make assertions. Every post addressed to you is greeted with "Iraq wasn't a threat." That's not a fact pal, that's an assertion. I know it's difficult for leftists and Ron Paul worshippers like yourself to understand these little nuances. I suggest you google examples of factual statements versus assertions and learn something about how the English language works.
C Bowen | 12.16.11 @ 2:02PM
Shipped their nuke program to Syria in 2007?
Do you even read the news on such a serious charge? How many time do you let them lie to you? That report from the US-Israelis has been debunked re: Syria nuke site.
Are you people on drugs?
I get it--you were scared of Saddam, and are presently posting from your mom's basement.
C Bowen | 12.15.11 @ 5:14PM
Rush and Hannity both promoted the idea, I know its ridiculous, that intel fed from Curveball and Iranian agent Chalabia, suggesting Saddam was behind 9/11, was true.
That level of hoax--I mean when you consider the consequences--would require an honorable man to take a lonely walk into a park, no?
Quartermaster| 12.15.11 @ 9:20PM
I will agree with you on Saddam and 9/11. That's pretty well been put to bed.
C Bowen | 12.16.11 @ 2:04PM
Why no resignations or suicides? (At least Britian had one--or maybe he was murdered.) They have some honor left I guess.
These people don't even believe their own lies and lack honor, so why should you?
Figure it out already.
Sea Cucumber| 12.15.11 @ 5:03PM
Yet Newt Gingrich went on tour with that same Al Sharpton:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....wDoTg-Kljw
Where's the outrage?
Josh| 12.16.11 @ 2:59PM
John,
Could you provide a link tot he admission or some sort of proof of this. I have tried but can find no evidence of this. It appears clear to me from the style of the writing it is not Paul, but an ID of the true writer, and the circumastances of the writing could put this issue clearly to rest, and I'd like the information to do that.
ivykid| 12.15.11 @ 3:02PM
I’m sorry but four or five letters that have a racial tone after five or six newsletters have been published by him and other writers for thirty plus years would not indicate that his core beliefs are racist. If you look at his voting record, personal interviews, and speeches he has given will show quite the opposite. Everyone’s rights should be protected equally in his libertarian stance. He wants to stop the killing of American citizens without a trial regardless of race or religion. He wants to stop the groping of people by TSA agents regardless of whom they are. He has fought against the new indefinite detention act for anyone who is an American citizen. Hi stance on not giving jail time to people for minor possession of pot does not have a certain race that is singled out. Your point is invalid. I’m donating to and voting for Ron Paul.
Simon Templar| 12.15.11 @ 3:03PM
Excellent points, once again, Mr. Lord.
I would like to make a prediction as to what would happen if Ron Paul did take the lead in the polls.
The paulbots would do exactly as they have done like the 'bolshevik' liberaltarians that they are.
They would keep the focus off Paul and destroy like a sunami any criticisms, create more divisiveness, throw the neo-con label, smear and cooperate with the MSM to keep down anyone else, and create as much political chaos as possible.
The MSM media would largely ignore him as they have done and secretly throw a party behind closed doors celebrating victory. They would help him sail on with general hands off and let those disgruntled with Paul within the republican party to level the criticism and just report about the infighting and chaos going on.
Obama would be licking his chops and preparing for the easy contrast, reelection win, and second term goals. Of course, the paulbots would be thinking that they are making history and be self congratulating to ad nauseum. Yeah, they would be making history allright.
Quartermaster| 12.15.11 @ 9:22PM
'bolshevik'
What projection. You faux conservatives are just like your moonbat brothers, and just as pathetic.
americus soul| 12.17.11 @ 7:02AM
Jeeeze... this website needs an "Ignore Simon" button to give everyone a hint.
Jeff, suggest that, would you?
WhalenDave | 12.15.11 @ 3:19PM
What bothers me more than anything else possibly is that if this were any other candidate, it would be THE issue all the way until that candidate was unemployable. But with Ron Paul, it is largely ignored and to the extent it is brought up, he is excused with a simple "I didn't write the letters."
Now even if he didn't write the newsletters, what kind of leadership is displayed when the man lets these things be written about him, in his name, in his newsletter. Not only that, but he can't even pinpoint the person who did it!
It's obvious to me that if Paul had leadership ability and these weren't (and aren't) his views, he would have immediately sought the person who wrote these words, denounced them and then fired them. That's what you do when people defame your name and you want to reclaim it.
C Bowen | 12.15.11 @ 3:42PM
Supporting the invasion of Iraq is a far bigger crime (worse a mistake) then these newsletters.
What are you talking about?
tonypal| 12.15.11 @ 5:09PM
C Bowen, the first Monday morning quarterback inducted into the NFL hall of fame.
C Bowen | 12.15.11 @ 5:17PM
Nobody thought Iraq was a threat except soccer moms and girly men.
Quartermaster| 12.15.11 @ 9:23PM
And Shin Bet. So I guess the Israelis are girly men.
C Bowen | 12.16.11 @ 2:06PM
Israel wasn't scared of Iraq.
No, not girly men.
americus soul| 12.17.11 @ 7:08AM
Is it true that Israel has 100's of nukes, the best tanks in the world, and nearly Israeli citizen needs to go through a time in the military?
And we have to worry why?
Politics aren't war. This is all politics.
And it's going to lead to war if we let it.
Which is why we are going to get Ron Paul elected.
I have no doubt in my mind that we or the jews can and will vaporize anyone who gets out of line -- as required. Lather, rinse, repeat.
We just won't do it again without good reason.
Ron Paul 2012.
tonypal| 12.16.11 @ 10:52AM
Again, another assertion by a low watt intellect from the left.
Simon Templar| 12.15.11 @ 5:04PM
Yeah, he did not write the letters. It is a half truth.
His close associate and approved ghost writer did for his publication. He did not want to mention that.
L. Ross| 12.15.11 @ 3:22PM
Regarding the quote from Paul in the Austin American-Statesman on May 23, 1996:
"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions."
I don't see the problem here. Only about 5% of black Americans vote Republican. The other 95% consistently vote Democrat. The party of slavery. The party of the KKK. The party which gives them consistent lip service then ignores them because they know that no matter what, black votes are in the bag. If that's not a clear indiation that "only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions", I don't know what is.
A Remnant Conservative| 12.15.11 @ 3:26PM
Justin Raimondo read all of the newsletters in context: http://takimag.com/article/why.....r_ron_paul
Tonewah| 12.15.11 @ 3:43PM
Yup, Ed, like many people who actually care about our nation, I'm for Ron Paul. I don't think I'm a 'tard, but you are free to express your opinion. :-) Clint is correct: this has been asked and answered. Maybe I'm 'trolling', and I'm sorry, but I think the country is worth it. And yes, Jeff, I remember these ghost-written letters as being akin to the aqua buddha idiocy in 2010. Some people are just going to hold on to this as their attack on Paul, just like they held on to the aqua buddha story against his son.
If I felt there was any consistent proof, in the slightest way, that Dr. Paul held racist beliefs I would not support him. It is just not there. Not in any of the other multiple publications bearing his name at the time, nor in anything I've read or heard him say before or since. These obscure, ghost-written letters are the only thing they "have" on him. That must mean Dr. Paul has led a pretty clean life. Bill Clinton got busted for using the "N" word to describe Jesse Jackson. To me, that is way worse than these weak accusations. Paul must have watched his people more closely than even Obama, who allowed a Black Panther page to be posted to his 2008 campaign site, which was not viewed by only a few dozen subscribers, but by tens of millions!
You are all free to keep chasing the aqua buddha even after Dr. Paul takes his oath of office, but you'll have to excuse me if I won't take a toke.
BettyLiberty | 12.15.11 @ 3:44PM
1. It’s unusual for a newsletter to be written by the figurehead. My clients put out newsletters, they don’t write them. When getting advice about starting one, my most successful client told me specifically not to do the content myself.
2. Paul’s known for his consistency. But one of the few issues he’s changed his mind on is the death penalty… because of it’s disproportionate use on blacks and minorities.
3. When asked in 2007 who he might pick as a running mate, he named one guy, Walter Williams, a black man as a strong possibility. Walter also refers to Paul as a friend and said of Paul he’s one of 3 people the founders would even talk to.
4. Nelson Lender, the director of the NAACP in Austin, Texas said last campaign that he’s known Ron Paul personally for 20 years and is sure he’s not a racist.
5. Ron Paul got into politics and his libertarian views come from studying… the work of two Jews, Mises and Rothbard.
6. I’ve followed essentially everything Ron Paul has done or said since 2007, every single day, and nothing he’s ever said has ever come close to what was written in the newsletters.
7. In fact, the opposite is true. A lot of people like Ron Paul because of what he says about racism: that it’s an ugly form of collectivism, that we don’t get our rights as groups but as individuals and everyone should be treated the same way.
Casey Abell| 12.15.11 @ 3:53PM
Every one of those stinking newsletters will get dragged out of their stinking holes and used against all conservatives if Paul gets anywhere close to the GOP nomination. "He didn't write it" is going to be a really convincing defense.
C Bowen | 12.15.11 @ 4:13PM
Here is full context for one of the 'scandalous' points mentioned by Trotyskite Lord:
"“Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit—not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people.”
JP| 12.15.11 @ 4:17PM
Mr. Lord - the Reason piece states that these Crackpot Newsletters made $1/mil in 1991 and Paul paid his WIFE and Daughter a salary from them.
So, did Mrs. Paul know contents or not Dr. Paul? If not, how?
Sean| 12.15.11 @ 4:23PM
What Leftists like Lord and Hannity don't know is that conservatives don't care about your pc racial huckstering. What blacks disproportionately commit crime. Who knew? What blacks support the socialist Obama in huge numbers? Dang I didn't know about that. Pointing it out must be racist.
tonypal| 12.15.11 @ 5:10PM
Sean Hannity is a leftist? Really? List for us his leftist positions.
Quartermaster| 12.15.11 @ 9:25PM
The man is a statist, and a neoconservative. That's all that needs to be known about him.
tonypal| 12.16.11 @ 10:53AM
Like C Bowen, you confuse fact with assertion. Provide a single piece of evidence to support your assertions.
DRed| 12.15.11 @ 4:27PM
Obviously, I'd never vote for Ron Paul, but it's interesting to see a hard party line hack like Sean Hannity actually badmouth a republican. He clearly freaks out the party elites, which is why it's somewhat confusing to me that he seems to also engender so much hostility from the alleged anti-elitists in the tea party.
JP| 12.15.11 @ 4:27PM
another tip Mr. Lord - Checkout Paul's lone vote against the ROSA PARKS Medal of honor from Congress.
He lied in trying to justify it, claiming Taxpayers could not afford it. It didn't cost taxpayers a dime, a fund in Treasury paid and offset cost with replicas that were sold.
It gets better, Paul voted FOR a similar Medal for Boyscouts and this Medal DID cost Taxpayers money.
rabble| 12.15.11 @ 4:37PM
Try harder next time.
Only at American Spectator do conservatives get criticized for being frugal with taxpayer money. Hilarious.
"He has also been criticized for being the only dissenting vote against giving Pope John Paul II, Rosa Parks, and Mother Teresa the medal. The medals and ceremonies held to bestow them on recipients are expensive. Texas Monthly awarded him the "Bum Steer" award for voting against a congressional honor for cartoonist Charles Schulz, but also noted, "When he was criticized for voting against the [Parks] medal, he chided his colleagues by challenging them to personally contribute $100 to mint the medal. No one did. At the time, Paul observed, 'It's easier to be generous with other people's money.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.....f_Ron_Paul
JP| 12.15.11 @ 4:48PM
and your wiki source is based on a LIE, straight from Paul:
Rep. Paul tries to portray himself as the only consistent fiscal conservative on Capitol Hill, and his supporters praise his opposition. As usual, they never tell the truth. The Rosa Parks medal did not cost the taxpayers anything.
It was funded by the Treasury’s Private Enterprise Fund, and the entire cost was offset by replicas which sold out. The Congressman’s offer to make a personal contribution was one of his many hollow gestures. Paul’s Republican and Democratic colleagues said his arguments had no merit, and the Congressman knew they were telling the truth.
He was a co-sponsor and voted for the Boy Scout Commemorative Coin. It came out of the same fund, but this time the profits went to the Boy Scouts, not the Treasury. The taxpayers paid for the Boy Scout coin, not the Rosa Parks medal.[47]
QBert| 12.15.11 @ 5:38PM
"Treasury’s Private Enterprise Fund"
I googled this and don't see that it exists. Can you link your source?
JP| 12.15.11 @ 5:45PM
This is it
http://www.usmint.gov/pressroo.....action=pef
Full name is: The U.S. Mint Public Enterprise Fund
JP| 12.15.11 @ 5:46PM
They made replicas and sold of the Parks medal that paid for the medal they gave her, and Ron Paul voted against.
Imagine what the MSM can do with this and pair it with his newsletters
Margie| 12.15.11 @ 6:31PM
He also voted AGAINST a bill that stated that we are for Israel's right to protect herself from terrorists.
He refused to sign it, that is~ which is the same as "voting against it."
There is no neutral. What's that saying about all it takes for EVIL to triumph is for good men to do NOTHING??
Josh| 12.16.11 @ 3:09PM
What else was in that bill? Seem completely out of character. Do you have a bill number or a link to the text. Trust but verify.
rabble| 12.15.11 @ 5:50PM
So Paul voted for a constitutionally approved function of Congress (coining money) and offered to use his own money for Rosa Park's medal instead of billing taxpayers. What's the problem here?
Seems pretty consistent with his beliefs and voting record.
americus soul| 12.17.11 @ 7:11AM
Bingo. We have a winner.
Ron Paul 2012. Or if not, Rand Paul in 2016/2020 .
Vision
facts| 12.15.11 @ 4:29PM
Why don't you try taking a walk tonight across Washington, D.C with out a gun and you will soon realize that 95% is probably an understatement.
The rest of the semi-criminal or entirely criminals are in the White House
It's impossible to be objective when some ethnicities are exempted from criticism for fear of being labeled as racist.
This article is a classic Neoconjob.
JP| 12.15.11 @ 4:29PM
We need all the ins/outs of this to just go ahead and be in Major News stories followed with Attack ads so the Paul cultist can get a lesson in Politics 101
C Bowen | 12.15.11 @ 4:38PM
Bring it on, as you chickenhawks like to squawk.
Margie| 12.15.11 @ 6:33PM
Chickenhawk.. that's you definition of for one who is strong on Defense.
I'd say it's the opposite then, of a coward. Ah-hem.
Quartermaster| 12.15.11 @ 9:33PM
Sorry Margie, but it isn't. It is a term applied to those who are hot to place troops in harms way while doing all they can to keep themselves, and theirs, out of harm's way. Dick Cheney, for example, was a chickenhawk. Bush, who placed himself in harms way flying the hardware he did, and volunteering for Vietnam, was not.
Another example of a Chickenhawk is Jonah Goldberg (along with most of the NRO staff). It's really easy to be for a strong defense in theory, but putting skin in the game is a bit different matter and really tells the world just how important such is in your world view.
people that are happy to send others, but refuses to even serve when they are of that age are worthy of nothing but contempt. They are Chickenhawks.
Rob C| 12.16.11 @ 3:27AM
Ron Paul served in the Air Force as a surgeon. I forget which branches Gingrich, Cain, Santorum and Romney served in. Whatever the case, these brave patriots obviously didn't serve among those cowardly Air Force surgeons.
C Bowen | 12.16.11 @ 2:08PM
A chickenhawk is the opposite of coward?
A chicken hawk is someone who was so scared of Saddam they favored a trillion dollar debt financed invasion of a secular nation with an army that featured girls on the front lines and ensured an Islamic state you be created.
Oh, and a chickenhawk is willing to send their neighbors kid and doesn't want to pay for it.
facts| 12.15.11 @ 4:46PM
Here, that's your Politics 101
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po.....eferments/
JP| 12.15.11 @ 4:52PM
Paul served a year and never left the States.
Clint| 12.15.11 @ 5:10PM
" Dr.Ron Paul served in the United States Air Force as a flight surgeon for several years (1963-1965). While in the air force, Paul reached the rank of Captain. Directly after his service in the air force, Paul worked again as a flight surgeon for the United States Air National Guard (1965-1968)."
' Dr.Ron Paul served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force in the 1960s, spending time on the ground in countries like Ethiopia, Iran, Pakistan, South Korea, and Turkey. "
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Quartermaster| 12.15.11 @ 9:37PM
Clint, you need to quit saying "he reached the rank of Captain." Physicians were given direct commissions as Captain because of the MD behind their names. I was around the military (both as an AF dependent, as well as direct personal service, on and off, from 1972-1986 and that was the case my entire time. It is my understanding that it still works that way. There is nothing dishonorable about Paul's service, although hacks like JP disagree, even though he never advanced beyond O-3. It was harder for flight surgeons to advance than those who were normal physicians.
JP| 12.15.11 @ 4:39PM
Lots of Info on Paul can be found here
https://www.facebook.com/notes/republican-security-council/the-case-against-ron-paul/113176538781526
JP| 12.15.11 @ 4:43PM
The Anti-Paul, Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson Letter to Madison, "Empire for Liberty"
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/je...
"I would immediately erect a column on the southernmost limit of Cuba & inscribe on it a Ne plus ultra as to us in that direction. we should then have only to include the North in our confederacy, which would be of course in the first war, and we should have such an empire
for liberty as she has never surveyed since the creation: & I am persuaded no constitution was ever before so well calculated as ours for
extensive empire & self government. as the Mentor went away before this change, & will leave France probably. . .:
Noticer of things| 12.15.11 @ 4:48PM
That link is dead.
JP| 12.15.11 @ 4:50PM
Just didn't paste all of it, again from Jeffersons famouse "Empire for Liberty" speech. Strategizing on taking over all of Cuba:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/149.html
JP| 12.15.11 @ 4:54PM
after strategizing the takeover of Cuba...
Thomas Jefferson on Constitution:
"I am persuaded no constitution was ever before so well calculated as ours for extensive empire & self government."
C Bowen | 12.15.11 @ 5:03PM
Pat Henry, Luther Martin, they were right, JP. Jefferson was wrong.
That is the American Tory tradition--the conservative tradition.
Now if you will just come out and say that America should be proud of her Empire, we can have an honest debate within our political system as it is.
But you prefer to live with lies, slander and tricks--I understand the nature of your game.
I am not puzzled by it.
JP| 12.15.11 @ 5:22PM
Patrick Henry advocated the Monroe Doctrine and all sorts of "Interventionisms".. Including long before the Constitution, going into the Ohio Valley and the French/Indian wars
JP| 12.15.11 @ 5:24PM
“As early as 1832, the United States sent a fleet to the
Falkland Islands to reduce an Argentine garrison that had harassed
American shipping. The Mexican War was, of course, the greatest
example of American intervention [in Latin America], but by the
Civil War, American forces had seen action in Haiti (1799, 1800,
1817-21), Tripoli (1815), the Marquesas Islands (1913-14), Spanish
Florida (1806-10, 1812, 1813, 1814, 1816-18, 1817), what is now the
Dominican Republic (1800), Curacao (1800), the Galapagos Islands
(1813), Cuba (1822), Puerto Rico (1824), Argentine (1833, 1852,
1853), and Peru (1835-36). Between the Civil War and the
Spanish-American War, marines were sent to Cuba, Uruguay,
Argentina, Chile, Colombia, and Haiti.”
- Walter Russell Mead, "Special Providence"
JP| 12.15.11 @ 5:24PM
"As early as 1812 the Spanish minister in Washington warned his
government that the United States intended eventually to take
Texas, New Mexico, California and some of the northern provinces of
Mexico as well. “This project will seem delirium to any rational
person,” he mused, “but it certainly exist.” He saw the workings of
“Manifest Destiny” long before it became an expansionist rallying
cry: “The Americans believe themselves superior to all the nations
of Europe, and see their destiny to extend their dominion to the
isthmus of Panama, and in the future to all of the New World.”
- Dangerous Nation, "Manifest Destinies"
Quartermaster| 12.15.11 @ 9:41PM
These are the same delusions you've been posting for days. You still haven't learned the difference between offense and self defense. prior to Lincoln, it was all self defense. We didn't start seeing what we know as intervention to put up regimes favorable to us until Lincoln refounded the country.
Clint| 12.15.11 @ 4:54PM
Ronald Reagan,
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
Dr.Ron Paul, " I would ask Congress for A Declaration of War against Iran, if necessary."
Dr.Ron Paul vote to allow the use of force in Afghanistan.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
JP| 12.15.11 @ 4:55PM
Ron Paul on how much he hated Ronald Reagan:
----------------
As a lifelong Republican, it saddens me to have to write this letter. My parents believed in the Republican Party and its free enterprise philosophy, and that’s the way I was brought up. At age 21, in 1956, I cast my first vote for Ike and the entire Republican slate…
Since 1981, however, I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the Republican Party’s efforts to reduce the size of the federal government. Since then Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together? Tip O’Neill, although part of the problem, cannot alone be blamed…
Knowing this administration’s record, I wasn’t surprised by its Libyan disinformation campaign, Israeli-Iranian arms-for-hostages swap, or illegal funding of the Contras. All this has contributed to my disenchantment with the Republican Party, and helped me make up my mind…
I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that have given us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy…
I conclude that one must look to other avenues if a successful effort is ever to be achieved in reversing America’s direction…
I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card.
- Ron Paul
Clint| 12.15.11 @ 5:23PM
Dr.Ron Paul Got It Right On.
Dr.Ron Paul,
“But, in the 1980s, we spent too much, we taxed too much, we built up our deficits, and it was a bad scene. Therefore I support the message of Ronald Reagan. The message was great, but the consequence -- we have to be honest with ourselves -- it was not all that great: Huge deficits during the 1980s. And that is what my criticism was for, not for Ronald Reagan’s message. His message is a great message.”
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Margie| 12.15.11 @ 6:51PM
"I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card.
- Ron Paul."
And he did, except now he's back pretending to be a Republican but he's a full blown Lefty-Libertarian, as many of his cult followers are.
He only re-joined the party to try and take it over and fill it with those of his Left leaning ilk. He's a Republican in Libertarian clothing (and worse).
Some are fooled by the Liberalterrior liar and blame America-Firster.
Others, as a sad product of our school systems and
Leftist universities have been TAUGHT (a sad thing indeed) a lot of what Paul believes:
That America is E-vil.
That it is wrong and disgusting to believe in American Exceptionalism.
That the poor, poor terrorists need to be "understood", treated as civilians in our courts for their murderous deeds, and that it's OUR fault they are what hey are.
War is wrong.
Drugs should be legal along with everything else. Abortion too?
Government is evil and tries to tell us all what to do, unlike us. (We get to be the boss and tell YOU what to do.)
The ones who are taught this way, they will vote for Ron Paul, along with the Wall St. Protesters, another group of anarchists.
Cult mentality and behavior is always the same. One leader to follow, and the truth be damned.
Quartermaster| 12.15.11 @ 9:45PM
Sorry, but Lefty-libertarian is an oxymoron. Leftists have been statists from the beginning. They are on the same end of the spectrum as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim, and Pol Pot.
To right lies anarchy, or no state or government in it's extreme incarnation. The Founders attempted to balance the two for the sake of liberty. Frankly, if you hate Paul, then you hate the founders.
Margie, this is so basic that I'm embarrassed for you.
Josh| 12.16.11 @ 3:25PM
Do you even understand what American Exceptioalism is? I had to explain to my wife (who didn't believe in it due to the explanation she heard in college) that it has nothing to do with America being inherently better in any way. American exceptionalism is based on the exceptional constitution which guides our republic. To say that Paul, who champions the constitution above all else, does not believe in American Exceptionalism either shows that you don't know what it means, or that perhaps you are lying about Paul and his beliefs.
Clint| 12.15.11 @ 5:05PM
Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address March 4,1801:
"peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
JP| 12.15.11 @ 5:21PM
and yet, clearly not what he meant. between fighting the Jihadist and invading North Africa to plotting to takeover Cuba and setup an "Empire for Liberty".
Jefferson not opposed at all to "interventionism", in fact he promoted the idea constitutionally.
We should follow the "Advice of our Founders"
Clint| 12.15.11 @ 5:41PM
Do Your Homework.
Dr.Ron Paul, " I would ask Congress for A Declaration of War against Iran, if necessary."
Dr.Ron Paul vote to allow the use of force in Afghanistan.
Dr.Ron Paul,
" Unlike this President, I do not believe it is our place to dictate how
Israel runs her affairs. There can only be peace in the region if those
sides work out their differences among one another. We should respect
Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate her policy from Washington.
“The President also defended his unconstitutional intervention in Libya,
authorized not by the United States Congress but by the United Nations."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Margie| 12.15.11 @ 6:54PM
"Dr.Ron Paul, " I would ask Congress for A Declaration of War against Iran, if necessary."
But there's the deceit. He DOESN'T think it's necessary, and probably never will.
Oh, unless we are attacked first I suppose.
read hoover's papers| 12.15.11 @ 8:53PM
How many American's did Saddam kill before we invaded his country in 1993? None, but we had to invade, because Thatcher was getting nervous Bush 1 was going to go wobbly on them and not protect their interests. However, as of May 2002, the VA reported casualties resulting from the Gulf War include 8306 veterans dead and 159705 veterans injured or ill . Better we go to war with a country who had no beef with us than us just wait and see that Saddam Hitler's Kuwait invasion had no real affect on us I guess. How can we support the troops if we aren't killing and maiming them first??
And I won't even discuss blow back..I'll let you read the CIA's reports on that.
Now let's see, how many Americans would be dead had we not invaded Iraq in 2003? Give me a plausible number if you can? Having trouble? But I can give you a number of alive and healthy troops had we not: U.S. Troop Casualties - 4,486 US troops. US Troops Wounded - 32,226, 20% of which are serious brain or spinal injuries. (Total excludes psychological injuries.) US Troops with Serious Mental Health Problems - 30% of US troops develop serious mental health problems within 3 to 4 months of returning home.
Draft Dodger Neocon Newt wanted war with N. Korea in 2009 because he thought their missile tests (which failed) was really going to be an attack on the west with an EMP tipped warhead that would totally disable US. Neocon Newt wanted war with Russia over Georgia in 2008. So Iran, who hasn't invaded another country in over 250 years is suddenly an existential threat to the US and thus we must go to war. Which of the republican candidates up there have any intention of keeping us out of war with Iran? The most probable motive for war with Iran since the vacuum left would obviously be filled by Iran and we would come into direct conflict with them. But outside of Iraq, Iran is close to zero threat to the US. There is a country in the Middle East that would like us to think otherwise however.
read hoover's papers| 12.15.11 @ 11:01PM
"The most probable motive for war with Iran since the vacuum left would obviously be filled by Iran and we would come into direct conflict with them."
meant to say motive for war with Iraq was to bring us into direct confrontation with Iran who everyone knew would fill the power vacuum in Iraq considering the majority of Iraqis are Shiites. Thus now they can say that IED's are coming into Iraq from Iran thus Iran is killing Americans. Ironically, but if you know anything, all we have done is removed a bulwark against Iran and let Iran effectively take control of Iraq. Genius thinking their Bush et al.
Quartermaster| 12.15.11 @ 9:46PM
And this is deceit based on what evidence? Like most leftists you simply resort to emotion rather than fact.
Josh| 12.16.11 @ 3:27PM
The jihadist tripolitan pirates were a threat to peace and commerce, and had show they were not interested in honest friendship (note the cash we were paying for peace) and as such Jefferson rightly took them out. The thing to notice here is all other avenues were exhausted before war.
Clint| 12.15.11 @ 4:46PM
Bring It Israel Firster Propaganda Squad Agendist.
(Dr.) Ron Paul, the once-forgotten presidential candidate, is picking up steam in Iowa and now appears poised to overtake frontrunner Newt Gingrich, according to a new survey released today from the left-leaning Public Policy Polling.
The poll finds support for Gingrich has slipped to 22%, with Ron Paul just behind with 21%. Mitt Romney trails in third place with 16%.
That's a five-point drop in favorability for Gingrich, who has raced to the top of the Republican presidential field over the past month. PPP found Gingrich's favorability numbers have fallen 19 points over the past week"
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
facts| 12.15.11 @ 4:52PM
The Neomorons are nervous.
aware| 12.15.11 @ 5:33PM
Pathetic, as usual for you Lord. Another "guilt by association" try, huh? Kind of a variation on the anti Semite smear you tried a few weeks ago.
You really suck as a hitman for the Status Quo. But they must have confidence in you, I guess. I'm sure your effort will be worth at least another "appointment" to a low level cog position in the vast machinery of corruption that is the State, should the "right" candidate win.
Don't you have anything substantive? Or even new?
JP| 12.15.11 @ 5:40PM
Guilt by writing and publishing and profiting from?
Clint| 12.15.11 @ 5:46PM
Asked & Answered In The 2008 Election.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82CYNV0U_kg
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Margie| 12.15.11 @ 6:57PM
"Will two walk together except they are
agreed?" Amos 3:3.
aware| 12.15.11 @ 7:09PM
Jer 5:5
5 So I will go and speak to their leaders.
Surely they know the ways of the Lord
and understand God's laws.
But the leaders, too, as one man,
had thrown off God's yoke
and broken his chains.
JP| 12.15.11 @ 5:39PM
Ace has must read post on this
http://minx.cc/?post=324757
Clint| 12.15.11 @ 5:49PM
Asked & Answered In The 2008 Election.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82CYNV0U_kg
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
stovepipe johnson| 12.15.11 @ 6:25PM
the newsletter was unsigned you jerkoff
Randy | 12.15.11 @ 6:32PM
Paul is actually fading nationally. He's the new pet BTW of the hard anti-Israel left. Weird alliance.
Clint| 12.15.11 @ 9:20PM
Uh Oh !
Israel Firster Propaganda Squad Flunkoie Stooge Randy Plays The Anti-Israel Card.
Actually, Romney & Gingrich Are Fading,When & Where You Look At RCP Averages.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Jeffrey Lord | 12.15.11 @ 10:03PM
But not here...or New Hampshire, South Carolina, California, Florida...
Uh-oh....
Shenager| 12.16.11 @ 11:12AM
Oh your wrong mr Lord. We are alive and strong I'n CA
Josh| 12.16.11 @ 3:31PM
based on what? Nationally he is rising slightly per the Real Clear Politics average (it's all graphed out nicely so you can see the upswing) He is SURGING in Iowa and New Hampshire where he is on the air and campaigning. People who are hearing his message are liking it.
Mark in LA| 12.15.11 @ 6:44PM
What isn't true?
...we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.
Sorry, but the MSM will try to make hay out of this and everybody white above 30 interviewed on the street will say how horrible it is, and then change their vote to Ron Paul.
Quartermaster| 12.15.11 @ 9:48PM
And you think it isn't true? Pray tell, what have you been smoking to render you so delusional. That statement is fact. They do commit crime well out of proportion to their numbers.
lester| 12.15.11 @ 6:51PM
the press will never cover this because it involves ron Paul . irony!
Jim| 12.15.11 @ 8:07PM
Repeat the lie over and over. We get that the MSM is terrified of an honest man in the white house.
Let the lies and the smears begin. America will see through it.
Quartermaster| 12.15.11 @ 9:50PM
I wish your last sentence were true. Frankly, I think the Obummer will be re-elected. The GOp hates a man like Paul so much they would rather Obummer be re-elected than see someone that isn't controlled by the establishment in the oval office.
julie| 12.15.11 @ 10:55PM
This is a very outdated article, as this issue came up the past few times Dr. Ron Paul ran for President. Can't come up with any new dirt? Must recycle.
Bob S| 12.15.11 @ 11:04PM
Anal exam?
Give me a break/what a flipping joke.
If the other candidates had got one, Romney would be out. Romneycare.
Gingrich would be out. Shilling for Freddie Mac.
And Perry, the Gardasil Gestapo would be out.
Which leaves who? Huntsman to take the nomination in Lord's opinion?
Suck it up and deal with it. RP is the only candidate that would offer some real hope and change in marked contrast to GW. Obama and the rest of the Repug clones.
Jeffrey Lord | 12.15.11 @ 11:10PM
Sea Cucumber...
What's the other question?
Skip| 12.15.11 @ 11:44PM
While I don't excuse some of the quotes from those ancient newsletters that were published under Ron Paul's name, I think that they were taken out of context and were also far and few between. The reason why the Neocons are now going after Ron Paul is that he is the only Republican candidate who hasn't sold out to AIPAC and the rest of the likudnik cabal.
Gandhi Meets Dirty Harry| 12.16.11 @ 12:31AM
"First they IGNORE you, then they MOCK you, then they FIGHT you, then you WIN"-Gandhi.
Great! Looks like the media has debased itself to about the 3rd step- and I will joyously discharge every 2nd Amendment device in my possession (it'll take a while) when the Honorable Ron Paul achieves the 4th step- that WILL truly be a great day! Let it rain.
read hoover's papers| 12.16.11 @ 12:38AM
J. Lord is a petty political hack. But look at his recent claims. We are at a Churchill moment and Neocon Newt is ready to take the helm as the Churchill of our time? umm, ok folks, prepare yourself for WW3..obviously Newt has no shortage of dragons to slay. But remember, "Churchill presided over the dissolution of the British Empire and demoted a country that was arguably the most powerful in the world to a second or third-rate lapdog of America. He undid the 450 year English domination of the world. "
As proof of our Founding Father's holding neocon ideology, he references Madison's sending the US navy to Chile to intervene..yes with the British. He fails to mention the fact that we were still at war with the British into 1815!! It wasn't until much later after most founder's were long dead that he can point to examples of the US succumbing to the siren songs of Empire. But as a reminder.. it was John Adams who celebrating Independence day in 1821! proclaimed this to congress:
Jeffrey Lord| 12.16.11 @ 12:41AM
Look Ron Paul is clearly the worst candidate for the GOP nomination. I will do whatever it takes to stop him from getting the nomination. I know his loyal band of followers are going to dig up a bunch of articles and every other piece of material to prove me wrong but that shows how crazy they are.
read hoover's papers| 12.16.11 @ 12:51AM
the ends justifies the means, my friend? truth be damned? well at least you admit it. kudos for being honest about that. It is funny that you call people crazy for proving that you are either intentionally misleading people or are just plain ignorant.
SpeakerFTD| 12.16.11 @ 1:45AM
Wow, you just jumped the shark, Mr. Lord.
The people that actually bring up documented evidence exposing the falsehoods in the article are the crazy ones? The Raimondo article alone demonstrates that almost all of those quotes are out of context and makes it pretty clear this is a hack piece. AS does still have editors, I hope? Do they have access to the Web?
Look, if you want to shred candidate Paul, he has published plenty of books and white papers. He has argued a political philosophy and consistently defended it for decades. There is no shortage of legitimate material for you to attack, which means one of two things. You are either too lazy to extend your analytical skills beyond the realm of defamation or you are having a difficult time attacking Paul's arguments on their merits.
shenager| 12.16.11 @ 10:45AM
Wow your a gem. Grow up punk
Josh| 12.16.11 @ 3:35PM
Really, so you admit you have an axe to grind, but his supporters are crazy because they dare to prove your spurious attacks false. How does the world look from inside your bubble?
read hoover's papers| 12.16.11 @ 12:42AM
When John Quincy Adams served as U. S. Secretary of State, he delivered this speech to the U.S. House of Representatives on July 4, 1821, in celebration of American Independence Day.
(trying to cut down to not get the spam tag but get the point across)
Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.
She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.
She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.
She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.
She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.
(continued..)
read hoover's papers| 12.16.11 @ 12:44AM
(continued.. John Q. Adams rebuts J. Lord's feeble attempt to recast the founder's as old neocons)
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.
But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.
The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....
She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.
Jefferey Lord | 12.16.11 @ 1:45AM
Yep, this is the best you got. Well, that and the whole war drum thing. He's not bloodthirsty enough and 20 years ago someone published some stuff with his name on it. It's almost as if I said I like sodomizing small children. What?!?! It SAYS Jefferey Lord right in my tag line. Of COURSE you should break down my (Jeffery Lord's) door and perform an intrusive and humiliating search. That's all the proof we need, right?!?
Rob C| 12.16.11 @ 3:07AM
The Newsletter thing is old news, and provably not Paul who wrote any of those things. The only reason it gets brought up, is because Neoconservatives have nothing left to attack Paul with but rhetorical devices and poisoning the well. Forget his ideas, just insinuate that he is a racist. Forget his stated positions on issues concerning race and tolerance and civil liberties, just stick to the narrative: it's easier than debating ideas.
And say, didn't Hunstman and Romney's religion have an open racial discrimination policy up until a couple of decades ago? I guess it wouldn't be nice to write a hit piece on that. Is it, after all, just their religious identity. Nothing as serious as an obscure 20 year old Newsletter that Ron Paul clearly didn't write!
As to the more interesting part of this blog: "This is sheer progressivism," you say Ron Paul endorses. Do you mean the Progressive foreign policy of Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, Jack Kennedy, FDR, Truman, Clinton, Bush 1 & 2, Obama, Gingrich, Romney, Santorum & Bachman? I mean, many of these people were/are DEMONSTRABLY Progressive. A couple are indisputably Progressive. All are persons Paul departs from philosophically; all are persons you and the rest of the Neoconservatives largely agree with on foreign policy. So I'm confused. You often like to redefine the meaning of "Conservatism" so I wonder if you've done the same with respect to "Progressivism." By "Progressive" you must mean "one who openly opposes what has been considered, for over a century, to be the Progressivist foreign policy of T. Roosevelt & Wilson."
Btw, notwithstanding the glib analogy you're trying to make here, there are demonstrable and obvious differences between Ron Paul and George McGovern's foreign policies; inasmuch as there are obvious differences between Nixon 72 and, say, Santorum 11. Nixon, for all his many flaws and many non-Conservatives positions, authored detente and the opening of Red China. He also brought us home from Vietnam. He was not sounding the war drums, and calling for sanctions on every nation then said "boo" to us.
Grant| 12.16.11 @ 6:48AM
So, Jeffery, you've found the newsletters, the articles, and Paul's responses from 4 years ago. You've already called him a liberal, so now tell us, is Ron Paul also a racist or even, as many liberals have charged a neo-confederate, white supremacist? Do you have the backbone to actually make an allegation or not?
shenager| 12.16.11 @ 10:39AM
Way to promote CRAP Mr Lord. Hannity WOW. Dude i like your work, and when your dishonest in it, your sickly transparent. "I got ask you, I gotta run, Take responsibility for your racism" Mr paul, "well do your homework giving proof" hannity blurts in leaving no room for answer. Levin your just vial, funny, but you and rush all have the same contempt, and I hope you all have to vote for Paul with us Americans who have carried the torch these years. You guys are not the authors, we are. The right has slept, but rose, and it important you at the top of the heap be responsible to not be so acceptive of Statism. I alludes me the hypocrisy from Lardass, excuse me Levin. You all know Paul is right on domestic issues, and need to lay aside your "dont tread on me" foreign policy and start listening to the soldiers, instead of the Commanders. I learned of Ron Paul through the 08 campaign from a Vietnam Vet at my job who survived the draft and served 8 years, watching countless friends die and did several point man missions. He said, "you need to listen to Ron Paul, not the people who say things about Ron Paul, and if you want a Republican who is against war, then you need to vote for Ron Paul." I missed out last time, and cast my primary vote for Huckabee. When my friend told me about Paul, I went and quickly looked him up, hoping i could vote for him in the general somewhere. I was sorely disappointed we had two jerks from the same team running for president. Now were here again, and it looks like were going to have that same option because 3 important DJ's agreed that Ron Paul is dangerous. Levin who are you going to promote when your 2 drop out for lack of support? Levin what are you going to say when we get Newt? Lardass you're the crackpot. Paul has the best ground game going, we all know it. So mature up, quit being the mouth piece for war and just do a little homework. Reason's scoop was one sided. Lets listen to our vets and our soldiers today. We owe them that.
JCB| 12.16.11 @ 3:10PM
Mr. Lord, please do some open-minded homework before you write your articles. I would suggest reading “The Shadows of Power” which details America’s foreign policy from Wilson to Reagan. This may provide you with some insight as to why America’s foreign policy does not provide the results most Americans hope for and maybe why some countries do not love us. Happy reading.
James Turner| 12.16.11 @ 3:35PM
And all of this coming from two "conservatives" so called who "cream in their jeans" at the mere mention of NEWT "the ZEWT" GINGRICH.
Of all people who do NOT deserve the Office of POTUS.....it is Newt Gingrich.....who has the WORST "RECORD"....the WORST "CHARACTER"....and the WORST "BEHAVIOUR" of anyone running for the Office including OBAMA himself.
While you two are "blowing smoke" on Newtie Boy.....AMERICA.....BURNS.
All American American| 12.16.11 @ 3:42PM
I read and re-read the quotes and still come away thinking:
What isn't true about them? You could argue I guess that the first one is conjecture, but a quick sampling of FBI crime stats shows black men commit proportionally more violent crimes than any other demographic in America.
The other quote about blacks having illogical political ideas is true as well, but its not only limited to politics. They don't trust anyone not black. Talk to a random black person on the street and start asking them about the gubmint or po-leece and you'll hear all sorts of nonsense. Crack/AIDS/random drug or disease was invented by the FBI to kill black people. The "Willie Lynch" letter. Black liberation theology. KFC is really backed by the KKK. Bush blew up the levees. And on and on and on.
Again I ask, what's not the truth in those quotes???
Paulscum| 12.16.11 @ 3:59PM
Ron Paul is the only reason I would ever supprt Obama again.
Jay Jefferson| 12.16.11 @ 5:20PM
Look Jeff, you bring up good points a lot of times. Even as a normal Paul supporter, I find myself a little on edge about wondering what he'd do to halt Al Qaeda's advance in Yemen and places like that. By "normal" I mean that 9/11 was not an inside job, although terrorism is often in response to a percieved "occupation," it is not the sole cause, I'm not anti-Semite, despise Alex Jones, and wish Ron Paul would do a better job of calling out some of his fringe supporters, which he has done before. But Paul has the right idea with Iran; giving a bully more power than they have (calling them an Axis of Evil) will only embolden them more, perhaps making them more dangerous. They're not the USSR. But if the bully threatens you or the world (if they do close Hormuz, etc...) then we strike back quick, hard, win, and come home. A bully won't bother you anymore if you punch him in the nose. But nuking the bully would only draw in the boy's parents, sympathizers, and stir up everything. Ron Paul is right on cautioning not to overreact with Iran. The focus with Iran shouldn't be about whether they get the bomb, but the groups that they've been known to support and harbor (Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda?). Limited strikes against terrorist camps, should they be found, is something more Reaganesque. Nation building, especially while a war's going on, is something he definately would vehemntly oppose. As for the newsletters, there're plenty of people in the Paul camp, who've worked for him for years, that all say the same thing; Lew Rockwell should come clean with what he wrote in those news letters. Paul never wrote them.
Richard Baker| 12.16.11 @ 5:36PM
Paul's newsletter and excuses sound just like the furor surrounding Henry Ford's printing of the "Dearborn Independent" with its anti-semitic stance in the 1920's (a headline referred to Jewish Moronic Jazz). Ford professed no knowledge of the goings on at the paper but he paid for it and the editor was a close confidant of his. In this Ford was and Paul is a weasel under the skin.
Soma| 12.16.11 @ 6:22PM
Lies and damned lies.. take whatever dirt you can right and see if it sticks? Well this one didn't stick years ago since Paul didn't write the articles. I used to have respect for the Spectator .. no longer is just another National Enquirer..
americus soul| 12.17.11 @ 7:18AM
Yeah, I can't believe I just wasted an hour of my Saturday morning.
I guess their goal was accomplished . Wasting my time arguing with slippery critters.
At least I saw some good arguments from others.
EVERYONE - watch some videos of Ron Paul talking. You'll simply realize he is not a racist, he is not a loon, and he is different than the other Obama-Romney problems on deck.
Ron Paul 2012, Rand Paul in 2016/2020. Flush out the rest of the Senate and House while we're at it. More power to us. Enjoy the weekend and love your neighbors, MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY HANNUKAH AND OTHER HOLIDAYS, ALL (sorry if I spelt anyting wrong). Peace out!
AnonRRealist| 12.17.11 @ 8:42AM
Sadly, race realism is considered "racist," regardless of truth. It's the reason why we talk about "bad neighborhoods" and "bad public schools" as euphemisms. Detroit is said to be a destroyed and dangerous city because of "liberal policy" when it is inhabited by 81% "bad" type of people. While Sweden is much more liberal and heaven in comparison.
Ron Paul will never be elected nationally because he has Eyes That Can See (or did, when the newsletters were written).
MT| 12.17.11 @ 9:23PM
debunking this hit piece:
http://www.dailypaul.com/19330.....nt-2025367
Chad Nance | 12.18.11 @ 12:19PM
Excellent work. I'm a journalist as well and the Paul cult members have attacked our site with cyber attacks, tried to have us banned from facebook, and have made death threats etc. The only response Paul has ever had to this garbage is "saying" that he didn't do it. Apparently, though, the word of Paul is good enough for his followers.
john dubose| 12.18.11 @ 10:28PM
Ron Paul is not the least bit interested in "race" . He has other fish to fry. Minor stuff like saving the republic from financial catastrophy.
Robert| 12.19.11 @ 1:05PM
Just curious. Could you tell us what author signed their name to these, because if I remember correctly, there was no author signature. Hmmmm.
Dewey Daye| 12.19.11 @ 1:31PM
The founder of Stormfront is a supporter of certain platforms in Ron Pauls presidential campaign. This is used as evidence supporting the claims that Ron Paul is racist. Yet beyond the headline, and into the depths of common sense you're confronted with the information that hundreds of groups like Stormfront exist. Individuals from these far-right fringe groups could be tied to all the current GOP candidates. Who would you expect them to support? Obama? The picture with Ron Paul and the founder of Stormfront is often painted as a campaign photo-op. In reality its a personal picture that was taken after waiting in line at a public rally. Ron Paul does not personally vett the thousands of supporters that have waited to take a picture with him. Further evidence of racism appears in the infamous Ron Paul Newsletters in the fo...rm of 4-5 controversial, racially charged statements. Dr. Paul has taken moral responsibility for the statements that appeared over an almost ten year period in various newsletters bearing his name in the title. Not for writing them, but for not providing the proper oversight. Beyond the headlines one finds an investigation of the newsletters done by a texas newspaper in the early 2000's. This investigation included professional writing reviews of all the newsletters and compared to the many known samples of Pauls writing. This report concurred with Pauls position that these entries were in fact more than likely written by ghost writers. Why not believe Ron Paul? A man who is noted for his consistent positions, even controversial ones faced with heated scrutiny. Controversial positions like addresing the War on Drugs and undeclared wars. Issues that affect minorities disproportunately to whites. Not believe a man who has never charged Medicare or Medicaid one dollar, even while practicing medicine in one of Texas poorer districts. Taking payment in vegatables and chickens in some cases. Ron Paul has been in the public eye for 30 years and never has anyone heard any racist comments from Ron Paul. Not one person has ever came forward and said they have heard Ron Paul make racist comments. Ron Paul voted against giving Rosa Parks the Congressional Medal of Honor. This is used to again show Ron Paul being a racist. Beyond the headline you see that Ron Paul didn't approve of the federal funding of the project, challenging his fellow members of the house to put up the hundred bucks each it would take to fund the medal. Many influential minorities have endorsed or supported Ron Paul on this issue. These of course are discounted as "paultards" or "paulbots." Conservative elites are guilty of what they have so long complained about coming from the left, baseless claims of racism meant to divide and end honest discussions on issues of race. Ill end with words from the man himself, Dr. Ron Paul, on racism. "Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather then individuals. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. We should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty." Well said indeed.
Tess| 12.19.11 @ 1:46PM
Nelson Linder, President of the local chapter of the NAACP in Dr. Paul's district, say's Ron Paul is not a racist. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a78_1200407971
Gary| 12.19.11 @ 2:37PM
After reading that old piece from Reason, it's clear that what went on was simply a vile attempt to rake in big bucks, and thereby support Ron Paul Inc. To try to deny that Paul had no knowledge of all this is akin to the famous line from that inter-galactic fave: "These are not the droids you're looking for".
Like someone wouldn't have called Paul up and alerted him to it, even if we're to believe that he "never read the newsletters"? His own family and extended family didn't read them, or did, and didn't then alert him to what was going on?
Right.
I don't think Paul is a racist. But then again I don't think Jimmy Carter is either. Both however pandered and profited to/from genuine racists in order to advance themselves.
http://tinyurl.com/shame-on-Jimmy
I think what's most disturbing is Paul's (and Carter's for that matter) refusal to come clean on this disgusting behavior. I don't know what's worse ... an honest genuine racist, or someone willing to use racism for profit and political gain and then act like all ... "I didn't know anything about all that!".
Bruce| 12.25.11 @ 5:39PM
Just so you know, The Koch Brothers hate Ron Paul greatly - and David Koch is the owner of Reason.com. Charles Koch funds a group that is directly connected to James Kirchick, who was the one that submitted the newsletters & started this frenzy.
Mr. Kirchick & both Koch brothers gave glowing opinions of William Buckley, who has posted & submitted extremely racist editorials for the National Review for nearly a half a century.
Therefore, reason.com is no friend of Ron Paul or his supporters - and they will not support him in any way whatsoever.
Bruce| 12.25.11 @ 5:32PM
This attack is a very well-funded, sophisticated smear against Mr. Paul.
We need to go back approximately 55 years in time, to 1957. In August of 1957, a very racist editorial company asked this question to the public of whether "the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally."
That editorial, National Review, answered its own question by then saying: "The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is entitled because . . . it is the advanced race." At the time of that release, a man (who the media will not mention) named William Buckley was the editor-in-chief of National Review. From that date on, the National Review has been engaged in outrageous forms of racism.
In March of 1960, the National Review editorial wrote: "in the Deep South the Negroes are retarded and any attempt to argue this point is mere 'demagoguery'." It also said on October 28th of 1983: "The GNP, after all, is not produced by people marching in the streets," (against MLK movement). It also said: ""Perhaps MLK Day should be celebrated only by the gainfully employed, and all those on welfare should be required to collect their checks as usual."
On July 23rd of 1976, William Buckley himself criticized the UN. Why? Because the UN was criticizing how the Apartheid laws were contributing to the murders & slaughter of Blacks.
One of its more offensive secrets - In November of 1979, the National Review praised the "Apartheid" laws in South Africa, saying the law "has earned the benefit of a doubt from responsible critics."
February the 8th, 1985 - it praised the "liberalization of the Apartheid laws under Prime Minister Botha," (Promoting Apartheid).
May 23rd, 1986 - it criticized anyone calling an end to "Apartheid" laws.
February 13th, 1987 - the editorial called Martin Luther King, Jr. A "communist sex maniac" & also referred to MLK as "a compulsive philanderer, and compulsive may be too weak a word." That same day, it also disliked Martin Luther King Day, saying: "let’s hang in there," and contribute to the disposal of the historical Dr. King down the memory hole." (!!!)
Newt Gingrich also voted AGAINST the reservation of a Martin Luther King Day. Who voted FOR it? Ron Paul - the one being accused of racism.
National Review also used unknown & unverifiable statistics that "prove" the "cultural superiority of White over Negro". It went further to say that blacks should not vote, as it would hurt "the claims of civilization." It praised the British Embassy in Kenya in the 50s because of its discrimination against blacks, as it showed the "qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes."
On December 2nd, 1991 - he praised David Duke when he said that "White people also have rights." - claiming that they have been taken away (by whom, we will never know).
HOW ALL OF THIS RELATED DIRECTLY TO THE RON PAUL NEWSLETTERS
All of the racism from National Review was done while a man named William Buckley was editor-in-chief. Some of this material was written by him personally. William Buckley passed away in 2008.
A certain man said a eulogy for Buckley, quoted saying "liberals could not find a more gracious intellectual opponent than William F. Buckley. Relishing Buckley’s intellect, style and the voluminous service he performed on behalf of the English language. No American writer of the last half century had a more significant impact on our politics than he has."
This man, James Kirchick, PRAISED THE RACISM by William Buckley. THIS IS THE GUY WHO accused Ron Paul of being racist & submitted the newsletters to Reuters just days ago to start smearing him, and is assisted by an anti-Paul group that is associated directly by "Kochtopus" - which is funded directly by Charles Koch.
Mr. Kirchick is directly connected to Newt Gingrich through FDD (Foundation for the Defense of Democracies).