The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Smoking Ron Paul Gun: Part II

Text Size

Smoking Ron Paul Gun: Part II

By Jeffrey Lord on 12.16.11 @ 5:11PM

Our friend Andrew McCarthy from National Review has made a very interesting discovery in the piece I linked to on Ron Paul's newsletters, to which he has kindly alerted me.

If you noticed in the photo images of the Ron Paul Newsletters over at Conservatives News you will see that one of the images clearly shows Ron Paul listed as "editor."

Now move on to this link provided in the story...a link that takes one to a Ron Paul interview
with CNN's Wolf Blitzer on the newsletters. At 2:45 into the interview Blitzer asks about "how did this stuff" (various racist nonsense) get into the newsletter. "Who wrote it?"

To which Ron Paul responds:

"I have no idea. Have you ever heard of a publisher of a magazine not knowing every single thing ....The editor is responsible for the daily activity."

And who is listed in the pictured newsletter as the editor?

That's right: Ron Paul.

Big problem - and growing.

View all comments (289) | Leave a comment

asaaz| 12.16.11 @ 5:17PM

http://www.unlimitedupload.vipfree.us

Jack in Wi.| 12.16.11 @ 11:48PM

More nonsense from Jeff Lord, chief Israeli stooge, and hasbara spiller at the American Spectator. Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Bachman, Huntsman and Perry have zero chance of being elected. I at one time thought that Romney might of had a posssiblity. But he is such a flip flopping fool that no one believes a word he says. The rest belong in an insane asylum not the White House.

The neocons and countryclub elites have gone bannanas because Ron Paul has already won. No person who spouts war propaganda can be elected on the Republic ticket. That excludes everybody but Ron Paul. Get used to the fact that it is either Obama or Ron Paul. I have to run now because Ron Paul is coming up on the Tonight Show in a couple minutes.

Sanjay| 12.17.11 @ 10:21PM

Jeff Lord is a racist, supremacist.

Have you married a Black girl Lord?

No!!!!!

You racist. You are a supremacist Jeffery Lord. You do not want to marry black and share house with blacks, send your kids to black schools but you want to accuse others of racism.

You are a racist!!!!!!!

Eric Dondero| 12.18.11 @ 8:48AM

You make the assumption that only "conservatives," oppose Ron Paul. We libertarians oppose him, as well. Ron Paul sees no threat from Islamism. We libertarians care about our sexual liberties. We don't want our wives/girlfriends to be forced to wear ugly black burqas from head to toe. Call us crazy, and yes a little "libertine," but we like our American woman to be buxom, vivacious, and outgoing in their sexuality.

Ron Paul could care less about protecting sexual liberties. And he could care less about the Islamist agenda of outlawing booze, gambling, free speech rights, and basically anything in life that's fun.

He's a 50%-er freedom supporter. He's 100% right on economics. 100% wrong on foreign policy.

Clint| 12.18.11 @ 9:34AM

" Ron Paul on Eric Dondero
In Libertarian, Republican, Terrorism on May 22, 2007 at 11:18 am

Just the other day Nigel told us about Dondero’s plan to run against Paul in TX District 14. We all think it’s a laugh, and apparently, so does Ron Paul. reason hit & run has a short interview with Ron Paul about his thoughts on Eric Dondero.

Reason: Your former staffer Eric Dondero is challenging you for your House seat in 2008.

Paul: He’s a disgruntled former employee who was fired.

Reason: But he says he’s running because of your debate performance. So is this presidential campaign weakening your standing in your district?

Paul: Well, if it affects my standing in my district then I wouldn’t be a very good candidate for the presidency. If these views are popular, and I think they’re popular enough, then they should be popular in my home district. They’ve been hearing me saying this for a lot of years and I keep getting re-elected rather easily. I think politicians are always concerned about how they’re doing in their district, but right now, if Eric Dondero is the only thing I have to worry about, then I don’t have a lot to worry about."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa,

chuck| 12.18.11 @ 9:19AM

Do you Paul-bots realize you come across like Hitler's brownshirts?

Truthfully, at times you scare the shit out of me!

I think its time to go buy some extra ammo.

Clint| 12.18.11 @ 9:37AM

As usual, RINO-CINO Chuckie is full of shit & has a lot to get out of him.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

chuck| 12.18.11 @ 9:47AM

Gee, Clintie-pooh, I'm not worthy of your "face stomping" comment?
Clint=brown-shirt wannabe!

Clint| 12.18.11 @ 10:00AM

Gee Chuckie, You Sound A Little Light In Your Loafers.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Occam's Tool| 12.19.11 @ 10:40PM

Paul is a scumbag, as are 99% of his followers. In that 99% are Clint and Jack.

In honor of Kim Jong-Il's DEATH, in addition to playing Queen's "Another One Bites The Dust," let's look at the NK news random insult generator: http://www.nk-news.net/extras/insult_generator.php

Why do I mention it here, in a comment blog on Ron Paul? Because Paul and Kim Jong-Il had very similar views on the appropriate steps US policy should take.

Rhymes With Right| 12.20.11 @ 1:08PM

"Do you Paul-bots realize you come across like Hitler's brownshirts?"

Why do you use the word "like" in there when the world "as" would be more appropriate.

Except, of course, the average brownshirt was less deranged and had better social skills. Also, they didn't live in mama's basement.

Dai Alanye| 12.18.11 @ 12:25PM

One more debate, if the questioners are gutsy enough, should see the end of Capt Ron.

Quartermaster| 12.18.11 @ 5:31PM

Here is a link to a coomment over at "Sabrepoint" about the newsletters. More importantly, he has links to the newsletters themselves at the bottom of the comment. Lord has missed this entirely.

I'm no Paulbot. I don't like his foreign policy ideas. But I hate to see someone smeared by small contemptuous people like Lord.

http://saberpoint.blogspot.com.....ppear.html

Carlos Fernandez| 12.21.11 @ 10:44AM

Using Eric Dondero as a source automatically disqualifies this charge as valid. Can you find another source that is not a disgruntled former Paul staffer that was fired? Dondero touts himself as a Libertarian that supports Romney. This oxymoron also disqualifies him from being taken seriously in any discussion.

Clint| 12.16.11 @ 5:18PM

" Texas Rep. Ron Paul has surged to second place in a new Iowa poll of likely Republican caucus goers, just one percent behind former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, the current front-runner.

Paul has consistently placed in the top tier of Republican presidential candidates in recent Iowa polls. With Iowans heading to vote in only three weeks, Gingrich holds a razor-thin 22–21 lead.

The poll, conducted by Public Policy Polling, found weakening support for Gingrich among self-identified tea partiers, and a dramatic rise in Paul’s favorability rating.

“There are a lot of parallels between Paul’s strength in Iowa and Barack Obama’s in 2008 — he’s doing well with new voters, young voters, and non-Republican voters,” said PPP in an explanation of its poll’s findings."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Tom| 12.16.11 @ 7:50PM

So, Kerr Klint, are you asking Santa for a shiny, brand new swastika for Christmas like a good little Paultard???

Margie| 12.16.11 @ 8:25PM

And he'll tatoo it on his shiny little bald Neo-Nazi head.

Clint| 12.16.11 @ 8:35PM

Uh Oh !
American Spectator's Resident Fat Ass Joisey White Trash Anti-Catholic Bigot Broad Margie Has Waddled Into The Building.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Margie| 12.16.11 @ 9:10PM

Uh Oh!
The Neo-Nazi's cult leader got exposed for the liar he is, but Clinty-pooh won't repent from following a liar, will he?

Clint| 12.16.11 @ 10:01PM

You're A Slandering Liar And America Spectator's Resident Religious Bigot, Joisey White Trash Bigot Broad, Margie.

Now Tell All The Practicing Jews And Muslims Where You Say They Go When They Die.

You're Up Joisey White Trash Bigot,Margie.

Margie| 12.16.11 @ 10:07PM

Q: Where do all the practicing Neo-Nazis go when they die?
A: The same place all unrepentant Reprobates and liars go.

Clint| 12.17.11 @ 8:41AM

Ask Your Old Man. The Crippled Russkie Bigot Victor, Joisey White Trash Bigot Broad Margie.

Margie| 12.17.11 @ 12:53PM

Better to be crippled in body than in soul.
Reprobate.
I hope you repent and believe the Gospel of the Grace of God.
What you now believe leads you to be who you are, and it isn't right.

Clint| 12.17.11 @ 3:29PM

Better To Be Crippled In The Body Than Both The Mind & Soul.

See A Religious A Psychiatrist And A Religious Counselor.

Margie| 12.17.11 @ 6:17PM

My Physician is the Great Physician.
I'm a sinner saved by His Grace.
What's your excuse. liar?

Clint| 12.17.11 @ 8:14PM

You're American Spectator's Resident Serial Twisted Joisey White Trash Anti-Catholic Bigot Pig, Margie.

You're One Sorry Ass Hypocrite Excuse.

Margie| 12.17.11 @ 8:36PM

You spit in the Face of God, hypocrite.

Herb Tarlek| 12.17.11 @ 10:51PM

It is time to break out my all time Clint quote for 2011...

"Take two shock treatments & call Bibi in the morning"

Clint| 12.16.11 @ 8:32PM

Uh Oh !

Tommy Plays His Dog Eared Nazi Card On Tea Party Clint.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On Tommy's Face.

Tom| 12.16.11 @ 10:02PM

Uh Oh!

Herr Klint frantically searching for his copy of "Mein Kampf" for some nighttime reading!

Clint| 12.17.11 @ 8:57AM

Uh Oh !

Israel Firster Tommy Frantically Searches For His Bibi Hand Puppet For Some Nightime Action.

Tom| 12.17.11 @ 10:53AM

And Blamer America Firster Herr KKKlint does his daily homage in front of Der Kult Fuhrer's portrait.

Clint| 12.17.11 @ 3:32PM

America First Trumps Your Israel Firster Traitor Bastard Agenda, Traitor Bastard Israel Firster BibiBot Tommy Girl.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Tom| 12.17.11 @ 4:13PM

Poor little Blame America Firster Herr KKKlint is so besides herself that she is mumbling to herself agaia.

Clint| 12.17.11 @ 8:26PM

Gee Israel Firster Traitor Bastard Tommy Girl, Why Don't Ya Tell It To The CIA, The Department of Defense And The 9/11 Commission,Who Agree With The CIA's Michael Scheuer And Dr.Ron Paul.

" Michael Scheuer, who was the head analyst at the CIA’s bin Laden unit, Alec Station, and authored the books Through Our Enemies Eyes and Imperial Hubris, said “I thought Mr. Paul captured it the other night exactly correctly. This war is dangerous to America because it’s based, not on gender equality, as Mr. Giuliani suggested, or any other kind of freedom, but simply because of what we do in the Islamic World â€“ because ‘we’re over there,’ basically, as Mr. Paul said in the debate.”

Scheuer also agreed with Dr. Paul’s statement in the debate that the war in Iraq was a diversion from capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and that bin Laden was “delighted” that the U.S. is occupying Iraq as it has become a training ground and recruiting tool for new jihadists joining the movement."

You're Up Israel Firster Traitor Bastard Tommy Girl.

Tom| 12.18.11 @ 9:40AM

So, Herr KKKlint, how long have you and Michael Sheuer been dating??

Clint| 12.18.11 @ 10:03AM

So, Israel Firster Tommy, How Long Have Ya Had Bibi's Bone In Your Mouth ?

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Tom| 12.18.11 @ 3:32PM

So Herr KKKlint, looking for new partners now that Usama can't stick his up your rear end??

Occam's Tool| 12.19.11 @ 10:42PM

I bet, Clint, that you're not man enough to take Northern Minnesota in the Winter. That's because you support Ron Paul, punk.

Rhymes With Right| 12.20.11 @ 1:10PM

Ron Paul's Iowa surge proves that everybody gets to be the anti-Romney flavor of the month prior to Romney's nomination. Santorum should be FOTM in time for New Hampshire or Florida.

Clint| 12.16.11 @ 5:32PM

Listen To The 2008 Election Wolf Blitzer Interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82CYNV0U_kg

Ron Paul said in 2008:

"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."

"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 publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what when out under my name."

The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Are Throwin' Jello Against The Wall To See If Something Sticks.

Bring It RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges!

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Joe M| 12.16.11 @ 5:37PM

Jeffrey Lord, AmSpec attack dog. You guys are freaking out about this nonsense because you know Paul is going to win Iowa and maybe New Hampshire. Then what will you do??? Haha I love it.

Jeffrey Lord | 12.16.11 @ 5:43PM

Joe M

And decidedly not the nomination or the election...ergo...nothing to "freak out" about...

Joe M| 12.16.11 @ 5:51PM

Yes, just keep repeating that to yourself. He has "zero chance" of winning.

Quartermaster| 12.16.11 @ 8:20PM

Lord is just engaging in his trademark buffoonery. The chances of Paul winning are nonzero, but they are not high. The chances of getting a conservative into the white house is about the same chance of Paul getting there. And when what needs to be done doesn't get done, he will among the loud whiners, just as the CINOs always are.

Clint| 12.16.11 @ 5:58PM

" With only a few weeks to go before the Iowa Caucuses, Ron Paul is surging. It isn’t coincidence that it is this moment that the MSM has chosen to bring up the heretofore unmentioned “Ron Paul Newsletters” scandal. In the past 24 hours, the likes of American Spectator, the Washington Post, the Huffington Post, New York Magazine, Slate and other media have begun reporting on the newsletter story. We have none other than the neo-con Sean Hannity to thank for stoking the fire of this non-scandal and encouraging Jeffrey Lord of the American Spectator to look into the issue. Lord writes:

"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."

Lord goes on to call alleged statements by Paul "the most vile of racist language", "appalling" and "disturbing".

http://www.nolanchart.com/arti.....tters.html

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Bumr50| 12.16.11 @ 5:58PM

I would honestly vote for Obama over Paul.

Clint| 12.16.11 @ 6:05PM

Obama will get on his knees & give ya an Alinsky

9thID| 12.16.11 @ 9:28PM

I could never vote for either one, but Paul is to the Left of Obama on social issues and an national security...

Clint| 12.16.11 @ 10:03PM

That's Because You're One Of America Spectator's Resident Israel Firster RINO-CINO Propaganda Squad Flunkie Stooges.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Occam's Tool| 12.19.11 @ 10:43PM

Yes, he is---he's (Paul) happy with Marijuana legalized and nukes in Iran...

Positions of a fool.

KLP| 12.16.11 @ 6:00PM

a good criticism of Paul would be that he subordinates all his views to federalism, a worthless procedural "conservative" ideology that means nothing if the states choose to engage in fundamentally leftist practices.

a newsletter saying negative things about blacks coming off the crack decade and homosexuals coming off the AIDS decade? not so much. that doesn't mean they're _right_ necessarily, just understandable in context.

i'm kinda baffled at how conservatives against Paul make this their centerpiece, as if it's possible to out-tolerance the Tolerant Left and get any props from them. in liberals' mind the fact that Bill Buckley and Barry Goldwater were against forced desegregation discredits the entire conservative movement and no amount of "inclusive" gestures on the GOP's part are going to make up for it. better to just emphasize the GOP's strong issues than try to constantly proclaim it's non-racist bonafides and/or pander on immigration that never win any minority votes anyway.

Eric Dondero| 12.18.11 @ 8:45AM

It's not just "conservatives against Paul." We libertarians oppose him, as well. He does not recognize the threat to our civil and sexual liberties that Islamism represents. He doesn't even acknowledge that Islamo-Fascism exists. How can you take someone seriously, when they flirt with 9/11 Trutherism, and repeatedly say that Islamists are friendly people who pose no threat to the United States?

Ron Paul is a 50%-er. He's 100% right on 50% of the issues. His economic views are superb. His foreign policy absolutely sucks.

Clint| 12.18.11 @ 9:40AM

Eric Dondero
" I am this morning, declaring my candidacy for Congress in the GOP primaries against Ron Paul. If he does not resign his seat, and if another Republican candidate does not declare against him, I will run a balls-to-the-wall campaign for Congress in Texas CD 14.

I am the guy that got Ron Paul elected to Congress in 1996. I can and will defeat him in 2008.

Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
1997-2003"

Tea Party Patriots For Dr. Ron Paul Are Here And In Iowa.

Occam's Tool| 12.19.11 @ 10:44PM

Absolutely correct, Eric.

Sean| 12.16.11 @ 6:06PM

American Spectator's local leftist Jeffrey Lord is once again attacking the most conservative candidate we ever had running for President. The left is obsessed with being PC about race.

Jeffrey Lord | 12.16.11 @ 6:26PM

Sean...

Racism is a leftist doctrine..I oppose racism...you are defending leftist/collectivist doctrine...conservatives do not believe in judging people as groups or by color....

C Bowen| 12.16.11 @ 6:48PM

Is Israel a racist state, Jeff?

They have miscegenation laws that really must look odd to you, being so anti-racist as you are.

Of course, since I am actually a conservative, I am going to just say that Israel may govern as Israel sees fit (I just don't want to pay for it.)

Jeffrey Lord | 12.16.11 @ 8:18PM

What do you know? We agree! Israel gets to govern itself as it sees fit.

Merry Christmas to you too!

C Bowen| 12.16.11 @ 10:10PM

Nice double standard, Jeff- we don't call you Israel Firsters for nothing.

We just ask that American citizens of the Old Stock, have similar rights; you just call us racists like a good Communists.

And can I put it on record that you approve of the Ron Paul position of cutting all funding to Israel?

I don't want to misunderstand you.

Margie| 12.16.11 @ 8:28PM

"I am going to just say that Israel may govern as Israel sees fit."

Really? Your cult leader refused to sign a bill that the Republicans put forth that stated that Israel has the right to defend herself.

It appears he's a flaming hypocrite.

Clint| 12.16.11 @ 8:41PM

Dr.Ron Paul,
“I am not the only one who can see the absurdities of our foreign
policy. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her enemies.
Most Americans know that makes no sense.

“We need to come to our senses, trade with our friends in the Middle
East (both Arab and Israeli), clean up our own economic mess so we set a
good example, and allow them to work out their own conflicts.”

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Eric Dondero| 12.18.11 @ 8:43AM

We were attacked brutally on September 11. 2011. We don't need to "come to our senses," when it comes to seeking revenge for our 3,000 fellow Americans who were incinerated and crushed to death by the Islamists.

In fact, the exact opposite is true. We need to loose our senses and rein bloody hell on our Islamist enemies in revenge. Whatever it takes. And for the rest of our lives.

Never, ever forget 9/11.

chuck| 12.18.11 @ 9:24AM

Absolutely,

They see it as a fight to the death. They wish to die for Allah. We should oblige them. A few nukes would do just fine. Vaporize a few of the bastards, and they will leave us alone for a long time.

Clint| 12.18.11 @ 9:45AM

" Ron Paul on Eric Dondero
In Libertarian, Republican, Terrorism on May 22, 2007 at 11:18 am

Reason: Your former staffer Eric Dondero is challenging you for your House seat in 2008.

Paul: He’s a disgruntled former employee who was fired.

Reason: But he says he’s running because of your debate performance. So is this presidential campaign weakening your standing in your district?

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa,

Occam's Tool| 12.19.11 @ 10:47PM

Corect again, Eric. I'm really coming to like you. (The MOST important issue of the 21st Century, so far, is the DEFEAT of political Islam. Without that, NOTHING else matters.)

For example, I don't care what your position is on Medical marijuana if you understand that issue. Let me know if you're running to replace Paul in his district.

Rob C| 12.16.11 @ 8:49PM

What in God's name are you talking about? What bill? Is that all the bill said: "The Israel Has a Right to Defend Herself" Congressional Bill #....? Oh, no, nevermind, it's ok, I'll just take your word that it was an awesome bill.

Let me try: Did you know Newt Gingrich once authored the "Newt Gingrich is Gigantic Buffoon" bill?? No, seriously!

....also, I find it truly amusing that you think it would be neccessary for the US Congress to author bills giving Israel "the right" to defend herself. You Neocons just make this way too easy....

Margie| 12.16.11 @ 9:25PM

Robbie baaaaby:

"On January 9, 2009, Kucinich was one of the dissenters in a 390-5 vote with 22 abstentions for a resolution recognizing Israel's "right to defend itself [against Hamas rocket attacks]" and reaffirming the U.S.'s support for Israel. The other 4 "no" votes were Gwen Moore of Wisconsin, Maxine Waters of California, Nick Rahall of West Virginia, and Ron Paul of Texas.[45].

Some more junk on the RuPaul:

"Kucinich and Ron Paul are the only two congressional representatives who voted[42] against the Rothman-Kirk Resolution,[43] which calls on the United Nations to charge Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the genocide convention of the United Nations Charter based on statements that he has made. Kucinich defended his vote by saying that Ahmadinejad's statements could be translated to mean that he wants a regime change in Israel, not death to its people and supporters, and that the resolution is an attempt to beat "the war drum to build support for a US attack on Iran."[44] In October 2009, Kucinich and Ron Paul were the only two congressional representatives to vote against H.Res.175 condemning the government of Iran for “state-sponsored persecution of its Bahá’í minority and its continued violation of the International Covenants on Human Rights.”

A Leftist in Republican clothing, indeed.

Sea Cucumber| 12.16.11 @ 9:27PM

I don't see anything there that would make Paul a leftist.

Margie| 12.16.11 @ 10:08PM

Figures. You're all washed up, Cukey!

Occam's Tool| 12.19.11 @ 10:48PM

That's because you suck slime at the bottom of the ocean. I presume your comment is a joke consistent with your name.

Clint| 12.16.11 @ 10:38PM

"Texas congressman Ron Paul was the biggest gainer in our Inside Facebook 2012 Election Tracker after the Republican presidential debate Thursday night — the last debate before the Iowa caucus on Jan. 3rd. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney also saw a surge after the debate, passing Newt Gingrich in daily new Likes for the first time in nearly a month.

Paul came into the debate rising in the polls, and he expressed strong anti-war views that might have led to increased activity on his Facebook page. Paul gained nearly twice as many new fans as Romney after the debate"

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Bob Grant | 12.16.11 @ 11:34PM

I said third last night but after his dismal performance at the debates last night (Michelle unveiled his foreign policy mask) and this little revelation, I'm sayin' he'll be lucky to stay ahead of huntsman, and he's not really running in Iowa.

Oh, how they fall.

Occam's Tool| 12.19.11 @ 11:04PM

I loved your TJ quote, Clint. Too bad you're not man enough to note his further quotes about ransom versus war.

Jay Jefferson| 12.16.11 @ 11:48PM

Who knows why Kucinich did? But why'd Paul vote no on a vote about the UN? Simple... HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN A UN. I'm tired of this "he's Mcgovern's foreign policy" crap. McGovern wanted the UN to rule the world, Paul doesn't. Paul voted for SDI and supported Israel's raid on the Iraqi reactor in the 80's-aka-its right to defend itself; again George McGovern didn't. There is a distinction.

Red Phillips| 12.17.11 @ 11:01AM

Margie it was a RESOLUTION. Paul votes against all such resolutions that express Congress' opinion about a foreign situation. This has been explained to you before.

Let me explain to you how this is supposed to work. You make a statement that you believe to be true. Someone corrects you on a matter of fact not opinion. (The difference between a resolution and a bill.) You then change your statement accordingly. To not do so after you have been corrected changes it from a mistake to a lie.

Margie| 12.17.11 @ 1:00PM

Oops, I made a boo-boo. I said Bill instead of Resolution~ so sue me! LOL.
Perhaps RCV is for hire!

And your oh so lame excuse for Ron Paul not signing it is just that~ oh so lame!!

And it's not my "opinion" that he refused to sign it, it's a fact, Reddy.

Merry Christmas, kiddo!

Rob C| 12.17.11 @ 11:53AM

Right, so as evidenced by your reply the bill involved just a little bit more than your description, Margie baby. And do we pass resolutions everytime any country has been attacked or anytime we think that country has a right to defend itself? You take for granted the assumption that we have any business passing such resolutions.

By the way, you're also talking about 2 bills here; one of them was a resolution to Ask the UN to charge Iran's president with violation of an international genocide law... for 'statements he made.' Um... Did you need help with the definition of "genocide" Margie, baby? Also, the position that his statements have been intentionally mistranslated is not novel or shocking. You think the US government has misrepresented its targetted enemies before with propaganda in order to go to war? Heard of the Spanish American War? And Do you speak Farsi? How about Arabic? Then why don't you sit down and listen to what Iran's president has said and translate it for yourself.

Again, I still find it amusing that you think Isreal's right to defend herself is contingent on the approval of the US Congress. You Neocons arent big on irony and subtley.

Margie| 12.17.11 @ 1:11PM

Rbby Baaaby:

Uh oh~ you just called it a BILL! You must now repent of your sin as I did!!
Yes, I posted 2 different "bills" because the other one happened to be there and I didn't know about it but wanted to show what a Leftist Ron Paul is and just how he really votes!

I think my mission was accomplished, don't you?
No? Oh, well.

The rest of your post is so utterly convoluted I'm not going to even bother. Readers who have eyes to see can see for themselves where you are coming from.

And that is:

"Israel baaaad".
"America baaaad". (Except for you guys, the "TRUE conservatives of the world!).

Rob C| 12.17.11 @ 8:02PM

So... Then you do think Israel's right to defend herself is conditioned on the approval of the US Congress? Got it.

How fascinating, because you Neocons don't even think America's decision to intervene and 'defend' Libya is conditioned on US Congressional approval. You must know a lot about being convoluted.

Margie| 12.17.11 @ 8:39PM

Hey, I didn't see any repentance! Admit your wrong!
You called it a bill!!
Stupid people.

Nope, I didn't say that. either.
like I said, I'm not dancing.. with a fool, and a liar who makes stuff up as he goes along.
Remember~ if you didn't make stuff up~ you couldn't exist!!

Rob C| 12.19.11 @ 3:06PM

Margie, Red's criticism of you was that you called a "resolution" a "bill." This is an extremely good point, given the legal distinction of bills and resolutions.

Nevertheless, this was not MY criticism of you, so it's totally irrelevant that I made the mistake of using your own language. It's also a moot point that I made this mistake, since I'm not the ony arguing that the resolution (which you called a bill) actually should have been passed.

My criticism is that you misrepresented what the resolution contained--which you absolutely did by your (note the proper use of "your") own post on 12/16 at 9:25 pm: You were thinking of 2 separate resolutions, and neither one of them merely* stated that Israel had a "right to defend herself." That's like describing Obamacare as 'a bill that gives Americans the right to healthcare.' Clearly, there was a lot more going on in this resolution which you initially described as a bill to give Israel "a right to defend herself."

Moreover, I've made the point at least 3 times now that suggesting, as you clearly have, that Israel's right to defend herself requires an act by the United States Congress, is patently absurd. It is also highly condescending to the soveriegn nation of Israel (which you Neocons claim to love and support) inasmuch as this attitude treats Israel like a state of the USA. Do we always take Congressional votes to confirm the right of soverieng nations to defend themselves? This doesn't seem odd to you? Do you think it's the US Congress' role to confirm the right of self defense of other nations?

Do you think the United Nations is a supreme world authority? That's a rhetorical question, because the second Congressional act which you think was so imperative, expressly acknowledged the UN's authority (namely, to charge Iran's president with violation of genocide law).

Do you think the leading elected and appointed officials of the US government have EVER in 230-some years erred in their decision to go to war? Do you think ulterior motives have ever guided the decision to intervene or go to war? Thus, do you think it would be possible that our 'enemy' has been intentionally misrepresented to drum up public support for a war? Or is this nation infallible?

Do you also agree that IF Paul and Kucinich are right about the translation of the statements made by Iran's president concerning Israel, THEN it would be perfectly reasonable not to pass that resolution calling him genocidal? Or do you simply think we should find some other, better pretext by which to invade Iran and topple their government in the name of freedom, democracy, and fill in the blank?

C Bowen| 12.16.11 @ 10:13PM

Do you agree to cease funding Israel, Marge?

Or do you put America first (or a close second)?

Margie| 12.16.11 @ 11:01PM

Got some kinda thing for Israel, C. Bowen? Or I should say, against?

William R| 12.17.11 @ 3:26AM

Why do you defend a country that murders American Sailors. ????

http://video.google.com/videop.....7114591367

Unpatriotic American that's why!!!!

Margie| 12.17.11 @ 1:02PM

Why do you trash America and Americans as well as our ally, Israel?

Unpatriotic, that's why!

C Bowen| 12.17.11 @ 7:00AM

No--you do Marge.

You want to give a racist--Jeff Lord apparently agrees they are a racist state- my money.

And you promote lies that Saddam was behind 9/11.

Margie| 12.17.11 @ 1:05PM

How come Ron Paul doesn't mind taking money from Racists?
How come he doesn't mind sympathizing with the poooor terrorists and blaming America for them?

Why is it that you people are so utterly depraved in your thinking that you find it so easy to actually believe these things?

KLP| 12.16.11 @ 6:49PM

lol@racism being a "leftist" doctrine...this is the same Left that tells us all cultures are equal and that the foremost American value is Tolerance and Nondiscrimination (tm,) correct? and that all immigrants are equally assimilable, and that even if they aren't that's OK, because we're not a melting pot we're a "multicultural society?"

obviously conservatives don't have to embrace racism to be against this, but they don't have to embrace "colorblindness" either.

Sea Cucumber| 12.16.11 @ 7:42PM

I guess that's why leftists devote so much time to trying to prove that race doesn't exist.

Jeffrey Lord | 12.16.11 @ 8:20PM

Sea Cucumber...

Hello? What America do you live in? Leftists supported slavery, segregation, the KKK (they were the KKK!) and now racial quotas...Which is to say every race based idea out there. It's conservatives who believe "all men are created equal" and in a color blind society.

Sea Cucumber| 12.16.11 @ 9:17PM

Jeff,

Can you name more than one prominent white leftist who believes that biological races exist?

Sea Cucumber| 12.16.11 @ 9:23PM

That is currently alive, I might add.

KLP| 12.16.11 @ 10:14PM

i'm sorry, but this whole "the LEFT were the real racists!" gambit by modern conservatives just shows how bankrupt they are on the subject of race today. i don't agree with the Left on affirmative action/immigration/multicultural BS but why should they take the "colorblind society" talking point seriously when conservatives try to dishonestly flip past ideologies around in order to try to out-left the Left?

the fact that the Democratic Party used to be the pro-slavery party and that its Southern wing used to be pro-Jim Crow says absolutely nothing about the national Democratic Party since the '60s or the post-1964 Republican Party. it's like saying, hey, before the religious right became a thing there were a lot of pro-choice Republicans -- therefore conservatives are all about abortion man! ideologies and the parties' demographic bases of support have changed over time. the idea that a George Wallace voter in '68 would be more comfortable in today's Democratic Party is goofy, as is the idea that because the GOP received ex-segregationist votes with the Southern strategy that said voters didn't have legitimate fears given the turmoil and crime rates of the era.

i'm just waiting for when same-sex marriage is decreed by the Supreme Court and future conservatives try and say that "real conservatives" have always been about gay liberation or some shit...

LC JB| 12.17.11 @ 12:01AM

"i'm just waiting for when same-sex marriage is decreed by the Supreme Court "

Really now? That's a leftist view if ever I saw one. That they wait for the Supreme Courts to 'decree' something is quite telling. Where is the constitutional authority for the Supreme Court to assume powers reserved for the congress? The left can always count on a friendly court to legislate that which would never pass the congressional test, i.e. "The Will of The People". When we finally get a Congress and Senate that have some balls, perhaps they'll stand up to this clearly unconstitutional situation we have, after decades of the left's project to pack the benches with activists.

KLP| 12.17.11 @ 1:14AM

i wasn't stating my own opinion on it, just talking about the conventional wisdom that same-sex marriage is going to exist nationwide in ten or so years, whether through the Court (i suppose it may all depend on Anthony Kennedy) or, if it rejects the inevitable 9th Circuit ruling, through legislation/popular referenda/homosexual couples suing other states that don't recognize them as married. and i'm predicting that if and when this happens, many mainstream conservatives are going to have been successfully shamed into thinking being against same-sex marriage is bigoted, and in the future may try to claim that gay marriage was a "conservative" success, much like "colorblindness" today is held up as some kind of conservative virtue.

Margie| 12.16.11 @ 8:28PM

Cukey's spent a bit too much time in the Sea.

Quartermaster| 12.16.11 @ 8:23PM

Sorry Lord, you are a racist in best sense of the word as you are afraid to deal with those things that really have associations with race. I have pointed this out to you before, and have also pointed out that you are a PC poltroon. When you are able to deal with the data in books like teh Bell Curve, then maybe we can talk about ending my contempt of your type. Until then you are just another CINO PC coward.

Jay Jefferson| 12.16.11 @ 11:30PM

Lord, have you not read anything Paul has written? Whether you like him or not, he has the same stance as you do on race. In Government and Racism, on April 16, 2007, he wrote this. "Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. 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. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity." Would a real cold-blooded, calculated racist say that? It goes against his libertarian philosophy of holding the rights of the individual above a collective group's rights, whether they be labor unions or ethnicities. Has Paul ever been in the KKK, Aryan Nations, or Neo-Nazi groups? No, but Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd were. They were in fact racist, and yet you mentioned nothing about Thurmond back in the day, and there was concrete proof with that one.

russ| 12.17.11 @ 10:06AM

Oh, you mean like gays, pro-abortionists, muslims, environmentalists? Yeah right.
Ron Paul rules baby.

Anthony M| 12.17.11 @ 10:52AM

Do you really believe Ron Paul is a racist, anti-semite? Give me a break. Whether or not you support his views, nonsensical attacks, common on the left, will not reduce his support and may actually gain him votes. What do you do if he gets the nomination, four more years of Obama? Will we have a country after that?

C Bowen| 12.16.11 @ 6:26PM

Andrew McCarthy, another one who furthered the lie that Saddam might be behind 9.11

He should fear a Ron Paul Presidency.

Could mean a trip to Gitmo.

Eric Dondero| 12.18.11 @ 8:40AM

Andrew McCarthy is entirely correct on that. Saddam was behind 9/11. He harbored TWO Al Qaeda terrorist training camps in Iraq - Salman Pac and Ansar Al-Islam. Of course, the leftist media covered up any connections, and sought to portray anyone who pointed this out, as "fringe."

So ironic, that the Ron Paulists are eager to align themselves with the left media. But then again, Ron Paulists are at their core leftists. They care little for the libertarian agenda of free markets and sexual liberties. Rather, all you ever hear from them is "End the Wars... End the Fed..."

Clint| 12.18.11 @ 10:15AM

Apparently, An Israel Firster Neolibertarian Agendist Is In The Building.

" Neolibertarianism:
Neolibertarians are fiscal libertarians who support a strong military, and believe that the U.S. government should use that military to overthrow dangerous and oppressive regimes. It is their emphasis on military intervention that distinguishes them from paleolibertarians (see below), and gives them reason to make common cause with neoconservatives."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

C Bowen| 12.18.11 @ 6:29PM

Tin Foil Hat Dondero, still promoting Iranian intelligence.

Gitmo might actually be a good solution here.

Lethalmiko| 12.16.11 @ 6:32PM

Mr Lord and others like him have no sense of perspective. America is in a massive crisis and about to fully go bankrupt. And this is what he thinks is worth discussing on Ron Paul? WTF is all this noise about? Is it meant to prove he is a racist? Everyone that cares to research knows he is not racist. How about we spend our time more productively talking about how RP will balance the budget by cutting $1trillion in his first year? How about discussing how workable that is or its possible weaknesses instead of this newsletter BS that wont make a bloody difference when the riots begin?

David| 12.16.11 @ 6:48PM

Gotta just love it when neoconservatives feel uncomfortable when someone from off the GOP plantation makes an impact -- regardless of size. It results in attack dogs like Mr. Lord twisting anything to smear the upstart -- reminiscent of how the progressives respond when one of their protected class of victims attempt to escape the modern day plantation -- same application of low ethics and integrity in both cases.

It's very telling when he uses as references other dyed in the wool neocons in a weak attempt to substantiate his twisted meanings. Again, reminds me of a progressive circle jerk....

Jeffrey Lord | 12.16.11 @ 8:22PM

David...

Since you are the one supporting the guy with the progressive foreign policy views I confess I must say I've never been invited to your rituals. Thanks though.

Sea Cucumber| 12.16.11 @ 9:34PM

As opposed to the 'conservative' foreign policy views of FDR and Harry Truman, I assume.

William R| 12.17.11 @ 2:57PM

Lord, the foreign policy that you, Shammity, Levin, and Hush Bimbo promote comes straight from Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and LBJ. Ron Paul's foreign policy is traditional conservatism. Caution, Restraint, and Prudence. Taft, Buffett, Kirk, and Reagan.

Dai Alanye| 12.18.11 @ 1:27PM

There is no point in arguing rationally with Paulists. Facts and logic mean little or nothing in their world, except as material for distortion. Paulism has all the hallmarks of a cult not a political movement. Might as well argue with convinced Scientologists.

I only wish they would stop referring to themselves as Libertarians and Tea Partiers - labels that simply don't fit the hard-shell Paulists.

Red Phillips| 12.16.11 @ 6:49PM

The saddest part of all of this is how quickly so called "conservative" opponents of Paul will resort to left-wing Cultural Marxist PC thought enforcement and grandstanding tactics if they think it will hurt Paul. They all act like a bunch of Morris Dees wannabes. It is simply pathetic. I don't know how such shills sleep with themselves at night knowing that they are empowering the PC zeitgeist by dancing to its tune and acting as its enforcement arm.

All this prostituting to the PC right-think enforcers and the “racist” newsletters are defensible from a conservative standpoint when read in context anyway. Read this defense from Justin Raimondo. Jeffrey Lord and the rest of the anti-Paul PC Gestapo are an embarrassment to authentic conservatism, and should be ashamed of yourselves. But I’m sure Morris Dees is proud of you.

http://takimag.com/article/why.....z1gk65TaRr

Eric Dondero| 12.18.11 @ 8:37AM

Alas, Paul's opponents are not merely "conservative." Many of us LIBERTARIANS oppose Paul because he doesn't take the threat of Islamism seriously.

Islamism runs completely counter to libertarian goals of legalizing drugs, prostitution, gambling, opposing infringements on free speech, and making sure our gay friends aren't harrassed, jailed and executed.

Ron Paul and the NeoCons are rather soft on fighting Islamism. We REAL LIBERTARIANS wish to defeat it.

Clint| 12.18.11 @ 9:48AM

" Ron Paul on Eric Dondero
In Libertarian, Republican, Terrorism on May 22, 2007 at 11:18 am

Reason: Your former staffer Eric Dondero is challenging you for your House seat in 2008.

Paul: He’s a disgruntled former employee who was fired.

Reason: But he says he’s running because of your debate performance. So is this presidential campaign weakening your standing in your district?

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa,

Sanjay| 12.16.11 @ 6:51PM

Jeffery Lord is the part of the traitorous 5th column establishment that wants American children to fight and die in wars.

Lord wants to bleed and bankrupt America in wars and empire.

These traitorous neocons must be retired from America once and for all.

These crooks control federal reserve, media and washington DC and our intelligence agencies.

We must remove these traitorous neocons and win our freedom.

No more federal reserve slavery!

Jeffery Lord's wealth should be give away to homeless veterans and he and his family should be sent to Afghanistan so they can blow up their legs.

Jeffrey Lord | 12.16.11 @ 7:35PM

The left speaks.....

William R| 12.16.11 @ 8:24PM

as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States----Russel Kirk, Dec 15, 1988

Ivan| 12.17.11 @ 10:18PM

The commie Russel. He obviously never read Jeffry Lord.

Quartermaster| 12.16.11 @ 8:25PM

But it ain't Sanjay that is the leftist.

TheRevolutionThatWas| 12.16.11 @ 8:51PM

You are the left sir, Trotskyite. We are the real Right.

aware| 12.16.11 @ 7:19PM

You should be writing for the Enquirer. You're vile enough.

What next, pictures of Paul's love child?

Sea Cucumber| 12.16.11 @ 7:43PM

Paul's LIBERAL love child.

Margie| 12.16.11 @ 11:24PM

That's really LOW, aware.

aware| 12.17.11 @ 6:55AM

Unfortunately, Lord does not possess the intelligence nor a command of any facts to have a real debate on policy. Think about it, Margie, can you have a real conversation with an Al Sharpton?

Conservatism has petered down to this, accusing those you disagree with of "racism". So not only has conservatism never given us limited government it promised, it has become a pale imitation of the collectivism it claims to oppose. But you are so caught up in the horse race mentality of farce elections you can't see the hypocrisy of this.

Another reason I no longer subscribe to being a "conservative". Intellectually bankrupt for a while, now it is proving to be morally bankrupt as well, as boasting a political whore like Gingrich proves.

Lord is a statist and the conservative movement is now shot through with statists who only have a problem with the society destroying State when they aren't running it. This makes it part of the problem, not the solution.

David| 12.17.11 @ 12:49PM

Excellent observations, aware. I didn't leave the conservative movement, it left me when the neocons infiltrated and then dominated true conservatism. Now the neocon-controlled "conservative intellectual" movement is a statist orientated enemy of liberty seeking to act as the philosopher kings who should be graciously controlling our society...and as pathetic as it is, they have managed to slowly "convert" many (former) conservatives into their twisted, imperialistic way of thinking -- like the proverbial frog placed in a pan of slowly heating water.

The only difference between neocons and progressives is whether they have a left or right hitch in their git-up as they race to see who gets to rule us benighted, unwashed masses barely worthy of surviving according to their benevolent rule. Both groups will lie and spin the truth to advance their agenda without any moral or ethical concerns as both believe that the ends justify the means -- to use us poor drones as slaves to their goals.

Margie| 12.17.11 @ 1:26PM

"I didn't leave the conservative movement, it left me..."

And where have you gone? To the Left.

David| 12.17.11 @ 6:07PM

Libertarian with conservative leanings. I hold the leftist progressives in the same disdain that I hold the neocon-conservatives.

If one were to go back and study true conservatism they would note the change over the years. A good place to start would be Mickey Edwards, "Reclaiming Conservatism: How a Great American Political Movement Got Lost -- and How It Can Find It's Way Back."

"The conservative movement--which once nominated Barry Goldwater for President, and later elected Ronald Reagan--was based on a distinctly American kind of conservatism which drew its inspiration directly from the United States Constitution--in particular, an overriding belief in individual liberty and limited government. But today, Edwards argues, the mantle of conservatism has been taken over by people whose beliefs and policies threaten the entire constitutional system of government. By abetting an imperial presidency, he contends, so-called "conservatives" have gutted the system of checks and balances, abandoned due process, and trampled upon our cherished civil liberties. Today's conservatives endorse unprecedented assertions of government power--from the creation of secret prisons to illegal wiretapping. Once, they fought to protect citizens from government intrusion; today, they seem to recognize few limits on what government can do. The movement that was once the Constitution's--and freedom's--strongest defender is now at risk of becoming its most dangerous enemy. Edwards ends with a blueprint for reclaiming the essence of conservatism in America.

"Touching upon many current issues, this passionately argued book concludes that many of today's conservatives seem to have it all backwards. They have turned conservatism upside down--and this book calls them on it."

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaimi.....042&sr=8-1 ...if you're interested in an objective comparison of conservatism then and now.

Margie| 12.17.11 @ 7:38PM

David,

Wow. A comment without a personal attack and without a hint of condescension!

Now, you say: " hold the leftist progressives in the same disdain that I hold the neocon-conservatives."

There it goes again. That Neo-con thing. What is a neo-con? You guys are acting like we're the neo-cons~ right? Jeff Lord, me, and anyone who doesn't agree with Ron Paul.

This gets realllly tiring, you know?

Yes, I understand that things have moved to the Left in this country but it isn't conservatives like me who've done that.. it's the Left. And it's partly the fault of conservatives like me who don't get involved and vote in every election (I have since I started voting in '92. Bill Clinton's coming on the scene woke me right up. One word out of his mouth and I knew we had trouble).

So, in my way of thinking, conservatives~ there have always been conservatives, and we all want the same things. Freedom to live our lives as long as it is within the rule of law.

What's the biggie there? Well, along comes Ron Paul type conservatism and it ain't conservatism.
Sorry, but that's how I see it. This guy is in agreement with the Left on foreign policy, and in his seeming hatred of Israel, our only ally in the Middle East.

I don't care what he says about "fiscal" responsibility or how he tries to claim it as his own, and that all the other bad guys are stealing his stuff.. as far as I'm concerned, he's not in his right mind. And sadly, his followers (mostly) reflect that.

You see, I recognize the cult language in the quote you posted by your book suggestion:

"By abetting an imperial presidency, he contends, so-called "conservatives" have gutted the system of checks and balances, abandoned due process, and trampled upon our cherished civil liberties."

Really? We conservatives.. uh sorry, I mean Neo-cons (I mean, let's face it, that's who he's really talking about, right, us Ron Paul non-conformists?) are abetting an imperial Presidency???

Say whaaaat?

What, you mean we don't have a system of government here where we actually vote for a President? What did I miss all these years? I mean, how could I be so DUMB?!

So, is this author for anarchy?
If so, what's the plan?
What is any of your plans?
How are you going to pull it off?
Guess we should ask Clint, the most violent "rebel" here.. what, by force if we Israel-Firster Scum don't obey?

And then what? Total anarchy in the streets? Chaos?
Complete Isolationism? These things are impossible, and it'll never happen.
But you'll keep dreaming, won't you?

read H. Hoover's FDR papers| 12.18.11 @ 3:21AM

seriously, if you haven't learned what the term "Imperial" or "Imperialism" at this point in your life, your effort is in the wrong direction. you need to spend a little time educating yourself on the basics, then come back. here is a freebie for you..US imperialism isn't about an actual unelected emperor in power, remember the now defunct British Empire existed well into it's democratic period, but is as Webster defines it, 2
: the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence. Read a little more, maybe listen to Hannity a little less. If you have anymore questions, feel free to ask.

Margie| 12.18.11 @ 2:54PM

Yeah Paul zombie~ I know what imperialism means, and that's the weird thing about you zombies~ that's what you think we are and have imperialism~ and we fooooooooorce it on the wooooooorld.

Because America is so E-vil!!

Right??

Cpm| 12.19.11 @ 3:50PM

OT, "H Hoover's FDR papers" ? Herbert Hoover? Don't you mean J. Edgar Hoover?

Eric Dondero| 12.18.11 @ 8:35AM

It's not "NeoConnism," it's libertarianism. Pro-defense libertarianism to be exact.

NeoCons, like the Ron Paulists are soft on Islamism. Both want to coddle the Islamists. Only the NeoCons want to do it with our tax dollars and more "diplomacy."

Libertarians oppose Islamism because we see it as a direct threat to our civil and sexual liberties. We don't want our wives/girlfriends to be forced to wear ugly black burqas from head to toe.

Margie| 12.17.11 @ 1:24PM

OMG! You're comparing Jeffrey Lord to Al Sharpton.
Aware!!!!

And elections are the way this country is set up, and yeah, they get screwed over but not by us, but by the Left!

Why do you always lump us together with the LEFT and call us Leftists???
Aware, you need to PRAY because your thinking is so wrong.

And we shouldn't abandon conservatism, we should continue to strive to elect people that are as conservative as possible. Jus because they're not as conservative as we want them to be, doesn't mean the philosophy is flawed. It simply means that we need to find real conservatives.

This is the same argument that disparages marriage because "people get divorced." It doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to be faithful and loyal to our spouses because some can not or will not!

Throwing the baby out with the bath water is NOT the answer, nor is going apoplectic anarchist.

Oh, and it isn't conservatives that cry Racism all the time, again~ you're accusing the wrong people~ it's the LEFT you need to be taking up your battle with!

Why aren't you??

aware| 12.17.11 @ 5:12PM

Margie, I am glad we can talk even though we are of different minds on this.

If it "isn't conservatives that cry Racism all the time" Then why is Lord is doing just that, as the left does so frequently? If he won't act like Rev. Al then I won't call him Rev. Al. Lord is a statist and all statists are leftists.

You probably don't remember but I used to read people like James Bovard and Florence King in the Spectator 20 or more years ago, but now this is what we have. Hacks real short on facts or lucid argument but long on bias and conformist mentality. See there is such a thing as establishment conservatism too.

Understand that this, and other, "commentaries" becoming all to common here are not about policy points or philosophical differences, they are personal attacks, pure and simple. Thinly disguised character assassination without even the pretense of being anything else. Again exactly what you expect if you were dealing with leftists.

Vile and pathetic.

Margie| 12.17.11 @ 7:04PM

Aware,
We can talk because we both love the Words of God. I remember the great conversation we had almost a couple of years ago, now and I'll never forget it.

Anyone who loves the Bible has hope in them and we both know that it isn't JUST the Bible as the Religionists say and try and accuse us of being Bible Idolators, but it is because it contains the Words of God Himself.

By the way, a word of encouragement:

"..for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I came from the Father." Jn. 16:27.

I just don't see what you're talking about as far as conservatives crying Racist all the time like the Left.
I think we call it when we see it. The Left just makes it up.

Mr. Lord will have to speak for himself as to your charges, I just reacted to them and don't agree.

What I also cannot figure out for the life of me too, is how on earth you guys call us statists? I admit I am not as keen on, and actually by far, as to knowing the entire history of conservatism but I always thought being a conservative meant being for America and everything good it stands for.
I'm pro free market enterprise, low taxes, I hate and I mean HATE out the Left has punished and continues punishing business with its despicable regulations and taxes for everything under the sun, as well as punishing the individual for the same, for the reason that we're free.

The Left HATES freedom, their philosophy is from Satan himself and I know you agree with me on that. After all, when we compare Hitler or Stalin or any of the murderers of freedom, including the so-called Religious ones who murdered Christians~ they all served their Father the Devil and shared his hatred of the individual's freedoms.

And what better way to choke the life out of a country than to do EXACTLY what Obama and his minions have been doing.

The sick thing about it is that they have no qualms about it! And the pions, the unenlightened and the just plain evil souls who agree with them have no intention on stopping. They'll vote him in again.

I mean, when it came time for Billy Boy Clintoon to have his second time around~ I was REALLY nieve. I thought that in no way possible he could get re-elected, and I was utterly shocked when it happened.

That really was the time in my life that I gave up any hope that the electorate in this country would never do it again, and I am bracing myself for the worse to come again. I am begging for God to have mercy on us and not let him be re-elected, and yes I know that Newt's got issues, and Romney I think even more so, and the rest of them are no angels (well, Michele Bachmann sorta comes close in my book even though I got mad at her the other night :>)).

But it always keeps coming back to being a realist for me, as you know. We do the best we've got with what we have.
maybe I'm just not as angry as you yet, though I was so fed up at what they did to Herman Cain that I wanted to quit even trying to care anymore.
But that just isn't in me I guess.

Anyhow, I am guilty of not knowing the authors you mention, sorry. And I still don't see the charge of Racism on Lord's part that you speak of~ again, you'll have to take it up with him.

As I see it, he is presenting the truth concerning Ron Paul and I'm glad to see it. We should know what we can about those who are running for the Presidency. And they destroyed Herman Cain with smears. All I want is the truth.

It isn't character assassination when it's the truth is all I can say. And truth is greatly lacking these days in all things.
And it sure DOES have to do with Ron Paul's philosophical and political leanings. And if he's dishonest in a little, well you know what the Bible says about that!

David| 12.17.11 @ 7:59PM

Margie -- I'm not one of those yelling racism in general about conservatives -- every conservative (and libertarian [small "l", not capital"L" Libertarian Party]) I know only regard other people by their character, not the color of their skin, gender, ethnic origin, religion, etc.

I do yell foul when neocons like Jeffery Lord keep delving into the past and work at re-spinning, re-twisting -- in other words, smearing Paul as a racist over material that has been asked and answered numerous times publicly. This blog has many links referencing those responses by Paul where he has accepted responsibility for not micro-managing a newsletter that went out under his name. The efforts by the neocons to breath new life into a dead horse is just desperate ad hominem attacks to discredit a candidate they can't legitimately defeat with honest logic and debate -- a tactic made famous by the racist left; which is one of the reasons I equate the lack of morals and ethics of the progressives with those of neoconservatives --NOT real conservatives. It's bordering on racism to level provably false charge of racism against someone.

As to being anti-Jew because of his stance on foreign aid and policy decisions toward Israel, Dr. Paul is the best friend that Israel has in the entire Congress. He is among the few that favors Israeli independence. He speaks out in favor of the sovereignty of this country. U.S. foreign "aid" to Israel’s enemies is a multiple of what that country receives. Ending that program thus redounds to the benefit of Israel. Currently, Israel receives ~$3 billion/yr and their neighboring nations -- the avowed enemies of Israel -- receives `$12 billion...so we are essentially supporting Israel's enemies on a scale of 3 to 1!

Unfortunately, a lot of what people claim as "the truth" about Paul is shaded by those who have an agenda to smear him. Is he perfect -- of course not! But from my experience gleaned over 40 years of political study and participation, he is more honest and consistent than any other candidate, whether from the left or the right. Do I agree with everything he stands for -- no. But he's much closer to be both an honest politician and one with a Constitutional basis than any other politician.

You believe in small government and liberty -- consider carefully what the other candidates actually support and you''ll find a big difference in what they say and what they support. Start with the latest defense authorization act -- the one that allows an American citizen to be held without legal recourse based on the judgment of the executive branch. Although one part of the act exempts Americans, another part gives the executive branch the right to "reclassify" the status of anyone.

Both the progressives and neocons work to incrementally revoke more and more of our civil rights and individual liberties under the guise of providing needed "security." That's the same way all totalitarian governments have gained ultimate control over the citizens.

There's conservatism and neoconservatism, and there is a vast difference between the two. And the neocons are constantly spinning the truth in order to convince real conservatives that they -- the neocons -- are the real conservatives when their goal is total state control under their governing elites; not small government and individual liberty.

Margie| 12.17.11 @ 8:46PM

I'm getting dizzy. Let's se.. so the Neo-cons are constantly spinning the truth.. in order to fool the REAL conservatives (the Paul-bots), that the Neo-conservatives are the REAL conservatives when it's the Paul-bots who are the REAL conservatives!

Do I have that straight?
I KNEW it!!!!!
It is ALWAYS a conspiracy, isn't it?!
CON-SPIRACY~ get it?
Hey, where's Post American when we need him?

W| 12.16.11 @ 7:31PM

This can be easily cleared up. Ask Paul if he was the editor. Yes or No.

C Bowen| 12.16.11 @ 10:16PM

The Accuser lied your own county into war by suggesting Saddam was linked to 9/11--trillions spent, 100,000 dead, the most ancient Christian community ethnically cleansed, and this is your post, W?

W| 12.17.11 @ 12:22PM

Bowen,
Since the issue is whether Paul knew about the articles and whether he was the editor, then the obvious question is to ask him. Paul strikes me as honest in his interviews and is not afraid to answer any question.
You are interested in debating the Irqaq war,however. Who is the Accuser that fooled the entire country and congress into war? Your non response is similar to the lefty Dem attacks on the war.

Margie| 12.17.11 @ 1:27PM

"Paul strikes me as honest."

That figures.

W| 12.17.11 @ 2:10PM

You can say one is honest and still disagree with that honest opinion. Evidently this is too complicated for you since you believe your are right and everybody else is a liar.
Go play with your snakes and stay out of serious conversations.

Margie| 12.17.11 @ 2:41PM

Awww, aren't we just sooo lovely as usual?

Evidently you can't tell honesty from truth as your posts to me always prove.

Flaming Hypocrite!

W| 12.17.11 @ 3:46PM

You having fun today, MULLAH, arguing with everyone here? Do you realize everybody here thinks you are a loon? Do you even read or undersand the replies to your drivel? You can't form a rational thought in a sentence so you quote some verse that you don't even understand.

You really need help.

Margie| 12.17.11 @ 7:07PM

Bah, blah, blah you sick creep.

Margie| 12.17.11 @ 7:08PM

"W"~ You're nothing but a poor excuse for a human being in my book~ and a lying Troll to boot. God's got your number, as they say.
And I for one can't wait till it's up!

W| 12.17.11 @ 7:22PM

MullahMargie,
I take that as a compliment coming from a MadMullah like you. I would be worried if you liked me because then you would think I share your intolerant bigoted views.

Margie| 12.17.11 @ 7:16PM

Oh, and by the way, speaking of "Mullah's" you ought to practice what you preach, hypocrite.
Seems like you get caught playing Mullah here each and every day with your filthy lying accusations towards me.
As usual, hypocrites like you are so blinded by your own hypocrisy you can't even see it that you are doing the very thing you always accuse me of.

And if you really believe that God isn't going to hold you accountable for each and every false statement that you make towards one of His own, you're deceiving yourself, you disgusting fool.

He sees you, He knows you, and He also knows EVERY Troll name you take each and every day.

Your true colors~ the hateful, denigrating, pompous sickening lies you spew at me daily~ have been revealed.

And if you think you have the power to chase me away with your haughty bullyness, think again, sicko.

Not sure just who you think you are, but unless you own this place you should put a lid on it, dude., because I'm not going anywhere.

W| 12.17.11 @ 7:25PM

MullahMargie,
I don't care whether you stay or leave. It is fun having you around. Who could believe that in year 2011 there is such an intolerant bigot posing as a Christian lecturing everybody, worse that a street corner mullah in Iran?

Margie| 12.17.11 @ 7:47PM

Troll: You're an utter hypocrite and liar. But yes, I know you love harassing me, because you're of your father, the Devil, and he enjoys using you.

You pose as a concern Troll here, but God's got your number, like I said, and so have I.

Anybody who hates the Scripture like you do when it is spoken by ANY Christian here~ and you oppose them ALL~ only proves who his daddy is~ and you are a good and faithful servant to the Father of lies.

Enjoy your short time on this earth, for you have eternity to face sooner than you think, for our lives are but a breath, as He says. Then comes Judgment, and to your horror~ guess who will be judging the godless along with Christ?

Oh no! Christians will be!

"Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!" 1 Cor. 6:3.

Oh, that NASTY Scripture! There it is again!

Snake.

Herb Tarlek| 12.17.11 @ 7:56PM

I object to you defaming Christianity by speaking the way you do. I regard you as I regard the Westboro Baptist people. I ask American Spectator to have a block button so that I may not read your foolishness anymore.

Margie| 12.17.11 @ 8:48PM

Who? The lying Troll or me?
Herb~ if you mean me~ screw you.
Freedom of speech and defamation of character for Trolls, but not for me?

C Bowen| 12.17.11 @ 6:39PM

The Accuser is Jeff Lord in this case.

He is part of a media network that took a lie the emanated from Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Maloof, convicted of espionage Larry Franklin who deliberately fabricated a story that Iraq/Saddam was behind 9/11.

Media outlets and figures that promoted surrogates such as Ken Timmerman, Laurie Mylroie, James Woolsey, then editor Jeb Babbin-who was illegally taking money from the Pentagon and posing as a reporter... should thus be suspect and called before Congress.

It is this very network that has a lot to lose--not just jobs and money--should something resembling a Truth Commission ever arrive at Babylon on the Potomac.

TheRevolutionThatWas| 12.16.11 @ 7:35PM

Jeffrey Lord - may you live forever.

Tharms| 12.16.11 @ 7:41PM

This isn't a big problem. It it tired old news. Stale. Irrelevant. Suspect in every way. Especially considering the people pushing the story are probably embarrassed by the fact of who was actually writing and editing those articles.

TheRevolutionThatWas| 12.16.11 @ 7:42PM

At least the smearbund has the following equivialent to the fire rating of seating at a quiznos. Garbage in , garbage out.

Sea Cucumber| 12.16.11 @ 7:45PM

So how about those crime statistics Jeff?

Jeffrey Lord | 12.16.11 @ 8:52PM

What about them? People commit crimes? Did you expect parakeets?

Sea Cucumber| 12.16.11 @ 9:26PM

Well see Jeff, I've got this friend and he needs a question answered. It goes something like this: Do you agree that "black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers?"

I thought I could tap into your wisdom to help my buddy out.

David| 12.16.11 @ 7:45PM

What's the next earth-shattering expose scheduled to come forth from the GOP Neocon Collective -- laughing minds want to know...we can always count on neocons and progressives to provide abundant laughs as they hold hands in a joint effort of destroying what's left of this country.

Another four years of subservience under either Obama or a mirror image GOP neocon replacement may necessitate the resurrection of the neocon's hero, Lincoln, to forcefully keep the union together.

Jeffrey Lord | 12.16.11 @ 9:18PM

"neocon's hero, Lincoln"

A Jefferson Davis man, are we? So were all good leftists. Thanks for the self-ID.

Sea Cucumber| 12.16.11 @ 9:32PM

Jeff,

Can you name some of these pro-Confederate leftists?

TheRevolutionThatWas| 12.16.11 @ 11:20PM

Mr. Lord cannot overcome his base instincts of ego, penis envy and tribalism to control societies.

David| 12.16.11 @ 10:24PM

Wow, with rapier wit the neocon feints to the right while trying to avoid letting his statist beliefs be seen.

Mr. Lord -- statism instituted by the left or statism instituted by the right is still statism -- tyranny by those who feel they know better than us poor benighted commoners how we should live our lives. Obviously, we are not worthy to be in your presence!

Neocons and progressives share the same imperial goals of interventionism and preemptive slaughter of other people -- except the neocons brag about it and the progressives deny it and play coy, then not only maintain but enhance the totalitarian state structure erected by you neocons. Keep the citizens scared of imminent attack, that there's a bogyman in every shadow and promise them safety in return for forfeiting more personal liberty. The Democrats and Republicans are but the right and left wings of the same national bird -- the vulture.

Bush and the neocon led push for the (un)Patriot Act leading, and the Obamessiah and fellow progressives enhancing it provides a perfect exemplar of this common denominator of an all-powerful and controlling central authority coalescing of outcomes.

Unfortunately, you neocons of the establishment GOP are going to nominate another drone as the candidate. Similar to 2008 we'll be faced with a choice between a flaming liberal -- Obama -- on the one hand, and a "liberal lite" -- i.e., Romney, on the other hand -- to vote for. While I'm sure that the neocons are operating on the assumption that the Obamessiah is so detested that most people on the right will hold their nose and vote for the less of two evils -- i.e., Romney (or replace with your preferred stooge), that's not a given.

I wouldn't count on that scenario working this time around, Mr. Lord. A lot of folks are going to vote third party -- or not vote presidential at all -- even while realizing that it may well give the Obamanation another four years to flush our country down the toilet. Unfortunately for your neocon wise men you might find that a large chunk of the benighted commoners might have reached the conclusion that heads we lose, tails we lose regardless of whether Obama or the GOP stooge is elected.

aware| 12.17.11 @ 6:58AM

Yes.

Eric Dondero| 12.18.11 @ 8:32AM

Just because someone opposes Ron Paul does not make them a "NeoCon."

There are many pro-defense libertarians who oppose Paul. We see him as a defeatist, and a surrenderist to Islamism. Islamism runs completely counter to libertarian views on civil and sexual liberties, i.e. burqas, marijuana, alcohol, legalized gambling, prostitution, ect... It is entirely inconsistent for one to claim that they support civil and sexual liberties, yet be at the same time, an appeasor of Islamism.

Clint| 12.18.11 @ 9:55AM

These Are The Neocons' Fellow Travelers.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

aware| 12.17.11 @ 7:04AM

Hey Jeffy, you are the one standing arm in arm with Paul Krugman. What does that tell you?

Red Phillips| 12.17.11 @ 11:10AM

You mean like that raging leftist Robert Stacy McCain who writes for that magazine called ... wait a minute ... it's on the tip of my tongue ... oh yeah I got it, American Spectator.

Lord you are so dense you don't know your dense.

Ivan| 12.17.11 @ 10:29PM

Karl Marx to Abraham Lincoln:

Sir:

We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class...The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.

Lord Acton to General Lee:

I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. The institutions of your Republic have not exercised on the old world the salutary and liberating influence which ought to have belonged to them, by reason of those defects and abuses of principle which the Confederate Constitution was expressly and wisely calculated to remedy. I believed that the example of that great Reform would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.

Any comments, genius? A "leftist" - Lord Acton and a "conservative", Lincoln-worshiping Karl Marx...

Ivan| 12.17.11 @ 10:31PM

Karl Marx to Abraham Lincoln:

" Sir:

Lord Acton to General Lee:

" I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. The institutions of your Republic have not exercised on the old world the salutary and liberating influence which ought to have belonged to them, by reason of those defects and abuses of principle which the Confederate Constitution was expressly and wisely calculated to remedy. I believed that the example of that great Reform would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo."

J williams| 12.16.11 @ 7:50PM

I love the smell of desperation in the morning. You go four years decrying all the false charges of racism the left bandys about and now here you come with yoru own desperate grab at it.

The newsletters are asked and answered. Anyone who has paid any attention to Paul through his career or his life know this is baseless and an unfortunate instance of someone abusing his trust.

Lord you would be funny if you weren't so pathetic really.

Jeffrey Lord | 12.16.11 @ 9:21PM

"I love the smell of desperation in the morning. "

You must. Otherwise why would Paul supporters be deluging this place instead of Romney, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Huntsman, Santorum supporters. Desperation, perhaps?

C Bowen| 12.16.11 @ 10:30PM

Romney, Gingrich, Perry et all supporters cannot use the Internet.

They are the ones yelling "hands off my medicare"

Just a theory.

Rob C| 12.17.11 @ 12:11PM

This is my favorite criticism of Ron Paul: 'Paul is only popular among those crazy Internet people... with there, Internets!'

Um... That's like saying his supporters consist only of people who own toasters. A small fringe, indeed.

And did it ever occur to you that Paul has a bigger Internet presence (which he needs to fight all the slander and libel) because his supporters are young and computer literate, unlike the geriatrics who support Rick Perry.

And did it ever occur to you that the true meaning of a grass roots campaign involves one where many common supporters are taking independent initiative to advocate your position.

Crazy Internet people!

chuck| 12.17.11 @ 9:26PM

I might believe you, except for stunts like the "money-bombs". You know, all the Paul-bots get together and donate online on a specific day, just for the impact. Paul collects X- million in one day!!!!

Seems to me something like that takes planning and communication.

Just sayin'!

read H. Hoover's FDR papers| 12.18.11 @ 3:41AM

except look at the average size of those donations. now compare to $10,000 a plate fundraisers and corporate/labor contributions for the establishment dem/gop candidates.

Rob C| 12.20.11 @ 12:34AM

If he didn't have a lot of supporters, clearly these money bombs wouldnt be very effective. Moreover, these arent comprised of several large donations, but thousands of small donations. And even if there were intense supporters giving to more than one of these money bombs, all that proves is that he has... intense supporters. Why is it suspect to have intense supporters. Is that not a good thing? Is that not how a grassroots campaign operates?

Rob C| 12.20.11 @ 2:58AM

Yes, because grass roots campaigns never involve "planning and communication." The only effective grass roots campaigns are those that involve disorder and aloofness... Just sayin'!

chuck| 12.18.11 @ 9:37AM

"his supporters are young and computer literate, unlike the geriatrics who support Rick Perry."

Ahhhhhh, to be young and to know everything, again.

When my son was 16, he thought he knew everything. One day I asked him if he knew more now that he was 16, than when he was 8. His answer, "of course". My reply "imagine how much more you will know when you are 32, or even 64.

Think about it, you young punk.

Margie| 12.18.11 @ 2:57PM

You used the word punk!!!

OH MY GOODNESS!

HOW UNCHRISTIAN OF YOU!

Where are the hypocrites to accuse you of horror among horror and crush you with their insults and threats!!

Rob C| 12.20.11 @ 12:42AM

Ron Paul is 75. By your logic, he must be vastly smarter than you if you are younger than this.

With age often comes wisdom (not always). Youth often brings the ability to see the world with fresh eyes (not always). I've been raised in a very Conservative Catholic home, and I remain a very Conservative Catholic. Through study, I've come to conclusions on topics, that some older people simply don't take the time to think about it.

My point, was that criticizing Paul supporters for their 'Internet presence' is idiotic and shows your age. My generation takes computer literacy for granted. Naturally, a candidate with strong support among young people will have a more computer literate base than his competitors.

Finally, being that it is my generation that is getting stuck with the decisions of the 3 or 4 dumbest generations of American history, beginning with THE dumbest (the Baby Boomers) I think it's telling that people of my generation prefer the OLDEST person in the GOP to the 7 Neocons he is running against. Some of these baby boomers remain in power. They remain as dumb as crap, even in their 60s and 70s.

Think about it, old moron.

PM| 12.16.11 @ 7:50PM

@Sanjay "Jeffery Lord's wealth should be give away to homeless veterans and he and his family should be sent to Afghanistan so they can blow up their legs."

Is this excrescence of a post typical of Paul supporters? I've read one or two paulbot comments on the web, and ignored many, many more, but this one is surely one of the worst.

Sanjay, you and the other 'attack dogs' commenting here are far more disgusting than anything Mr.Lord could ever write.

Paul's supporters add considerably to the repulsion that many of us experience when hearing his crackpot views.

How shameful that a Presidential candidate should espouse lunatic anti-American views, which attract like-minded sorts, such as you and your fellow posters.

Mr.Lord, thank you for your reporting on this particular issue, and for doing so in spite of the type of 'comments' you must have known it would elicit.

Matt| 12.17.11 @ 12:55AM

Mr. Lord posts these stories precisely so he can get traffic for Ron Paul supporters. Good for ad dollars and all.

There is also the fact that he is a clear neo-con, and the neo-con GOP establishment has been given the go ahead to go after Ron Paul because he is a threat to the establishment. Will he wi the nomination? Probably not. But Rand Paul will, run for president before too long, and he is younger and more well-spoken. Will people like Jeffery Lord use these newsletters against Rand also? I am sure they are cooking up equally as seedy, misleading and irrelevant.

Ron Paul rejects philosophically the kind of collectivist views that lead to racism. He is the only candidate who has not just said that "all men are created equal," but acted as such throughout his career. He is the only candidate who seeks to treat everyone equally. Do you deny this Mr. Lord?

You clearly dislike Dr. Paul, but do you truly believe these newsletters are actually relevant? They have been addressed again and again, and even if you don't accept the explanation, what precisely does it mean? Has Dr. Paul done anything as a member of congress that treated anyone with any legal inequality? I know that you and your neo-con buddies want this to be an issue, and I know you are pushing it hard, but be honest: As president, what concerns would these newsletters lead you to have with Dr. Paul?

Sanjay| 12.17.11 @ 7:30PM

Stop debating with Lord and his indoctrinated zombies.

They are not interested in debate. They want to destroy Paul and freedom movement of conservatives.

Jeffery Lord is a despicable and traitorous thug, part of the trotskyte neocon establishment that has looted trillions from us and bled us in wars.

They are propagandists, they don't care about debate.

I pray that Jeffery Lord's wealth is confiscated and distributed to veterans.

Send him and his family to wars. Do not bleed middle class christians.

Rob C| 12.16.11 @ 7:55PM

Wow, I always write 11 blogs of the course of 14 days (3 in the past 2 days, alone) about presidential candidates I consider to be crazy and irrelevant. Especially since their arguments and positions are so obviously wrong, I just need to make sure to harp on the same point 10 or 11 times in a 2 week period, just to let everyone know how secure I am in my position.

Matt| 12.17.11 @ 12:59AM

Excellent point. Care to explain Mr. Lord? You are very good at trite, sarcastic answers, but how about so during thoughtful? You would either have to admit Ron Paul is a serious threat for the nomination, or you'd have to admit you are making a concerted effort to harm his candidacy because you dislike him? The former is likely true, the latter would show a massive lack of journalistic integrity. Pick one. I think you pick options two because you don't care a whole lot about integrity.

Rob C| 12.17.11 @ 12:32PM

Matt, as evidenced by his few replies, he only replies two statements that give him fodder for quick vacuous zingers. He won't respond to actual substantive challenges for fear his intellectual house of cards will fall.

schill| 12.16.11 @ 7:57PM

Jeffery Lords legs should be removed then given to the veterans who return from these wars with out any.

Helga| 12.16.11 @ 8:03PM

Ron Paul said he did not write the racist newsletters and that is good enough for me.
Since Mr. Lord is such a great investigative journalist -- this is decades old breaking news lol. You seem to be implying that Ron Paul lied about this. Why don't you do a little research Mr. Lord, and find ONE person who will say that Ron Paul is anything but honest; that he's lied about anything. Good luck.

Eric Dondero| 12.18.11 @ 8:30AM

This is correct. Ron did not "write" the Newsletters. He did however, have to approve every single line in the Newsletters before they were published. He was a very dedicated editor with the red marking pen. I can remember numerous occasions when he called Lew and Jeff Tucker to castigate them for bad grammar or badly written sentences.

It is correct to say Ron Paul was not the "writer," of the Newsletters, but that's kind of mis-leading. He was most certainly the editor-in-chief emphasis on chief.

Clint| 12.18.11 @ 10:06AM

Listen To The 2008 Election Wolf Blitzer Interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82CYNV0U_kg

Ron Paul said in 2008:

"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."

"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."

The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Are Throwin' Jello Against The Wall To See If Something Sticks.

Bring It RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges!

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

William R| 12.16.11 @ 8:12PM

Gawd you dumbass, Hush Bimbo is listed as the author of both his books, but they were written by John Fund!!

William R| 12.16.11 @ 8:18PM

Who is behind Conservative News?? Go to their Face Book page. Very revealing. LOL

Herb Tarlek| 12.16.11 @ 10:04PM

Two points.

1. I have been reading on this site for several years & there has never been anything close to this level of Ron Paul support in the comments section until this year. This may mean big changes for the complexion of conservative politics going forward.

2. The people that really own this country will never let a guy like Paul get anywhere near the levers of power. Bankster apologists like Lord are doing what they can to stop him & the usual suspects are receptive to the garbage but Paul's message is getting out & getting popular. If he gets taken out dramatically it will lead to social problems.

David| 12.16.11 @ 10:35PM

Herb, you're spot on with your observations. People have become fed up with the neocon/progressive governing elites sharing a stranglehold on our country. Most likely we'll end up with either the Obamessiah for four more years, or a neocon stooge as president -- either way we are going to continue swirling around the bowl on the way down the drain with the only difference being either an "R" or a "D" behind the name.

We either break the trajectory of our leadership with someone like Paul or we are going to have growing social unrest and problems. The place to change that trajectory is at the ballot box, not the ammo box.

Vote wisely, very wisely....

Margie| 12.16.11 @ 10:11PM

Ron Paul is still a nut:

http://theundergroundconservat.....eanut1.jpg

C Bowen| 12.16.11 @ 10:27PM

Marge--

Do you think Saddam was behind 9/11?

Margie| 12.16.11 @ 11:06PM

C Bowen--

Do you think Hitler was behind the Holocaust?

read H. Hoover's FDR papers| 12.17.11 @ 1:53AM

LOL..you are proving his point with that comment Margie. Too funny.

Margie| 12.17.11 @ 1:29PM

Wrong. It's called illustrating the absurd by being absurd.

Hardy har.

read H. Hoover's FDR papers| 12.17.11 @ 3:01PM

wrong. it's called you don't know how to make analogies. the polls show most neoconed sheeple believe saddam had a hand in 9/11. and since you fit that description, (from your ranting you sound just like the profile of the 41% who did in this article http://rawstory.com/news/2007/....._0624.html ) then his is legitimate. your response is just stupid (no offense).

Margie| 12.17.11 @ 3:28PM

Now, now. Like I said to you in another post, you REALLY need to quit with the lying.

I never said Saddam was responsible for 9/11, no matter how hard you and your buds here try and get me to say it, and I haven't seen anyone here who did, but you and your pals HAVE TO make stuff up because if you don't you can't exist!

And in reality it's you guys who tend to actually believe that the government was responsible for 9/11, and that would be OUR government!!!

Are YOU in THAT camp?

read H. Hoover's FDR papers| 12.18.11 @ 4:02AM

I'm in the camp that saw through all the lies, conflation, obfuscation, and misrepresentations that led us into Iraq War, Gulf War, Serbia, etc.

You have not yet once in all your rantings offered a justification for our invading Iraq on any level, e.g. national security, national interests, economic, etc. the only argument I can infer by your comments is that you justify it based on your religious beliefs, which pretty much puts you on par with those it seems you hate the most, islamic extremists. the irony here, but again, not to anyone that knows anything about these countries, the policies and politicians you support have meant doom for christians living in those countries. way to go.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ru.....intro.html

Margie| 12.18.11 @ 3:13PM

So, ok, you think the war in Iraq was wroooong. So are you ever going to move on from there in your life?

You act like a Papal Inquisitor "You MUST confess that the Iraq war was wrong!"

Or what? Off with my head?

I have no need to "justify" anything, zombie.

And I am used to your despicable ilk's accusations of being like the Islamists because of my FAITH in the LORD Jesus Christ~ but those who falsely accuse me of this have their own special reward.

The fact is that the Paul-bots AND the haughty Religious Papists are the most vile, most hateful people on the face of the earth. They, along with the jihadis, cannot bear to hear the Scriptures, because the WORD of GOD goes against everything they believe in~ and unless you are one of them~ they'll DESTROY you~ physically if they could-and the Papists did for six centuries~ the Islamists still do it, and the Paul-bots do it by character assassination, along with the Pope worshippers.

And it is happening on these very pages daily, as in this very thread.

The Pope worshipping "W", "Clint" here.
The America hating anarchists spewing their hatred and false accusations at Jeffrey Lord.

And there's nothing worse than the Idolatrous Pope worshippers who are Paul-bots. Their hatred knows no bounds!!

And yet, the Truth that is in Christ will NEVER be destroyed. Not by them, not by anyone.

"The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thess. 2:9-12.

You are delusional. I hope you repent, and believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Repent from Idol worship~ whether it's false Religion, or false philosophy, it's Idolatry~ and that of Man and not God.

C Bowen| 12.17.11 @ 6:51AM

Margie;

Is that why you and your husband were so scared of him you supported a trillion dollar debt financed invasion of a secular nation, with an army that featured girls on the front line?

I feel sorry for you--to be married to such a "man."

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11-- hate to break it to you.

Those were lies pushed by schemers and in some cases, traitors.

It was a lie and patriots should be demanding justice.

Margie| 12.17.11 @ 1:31PM

"..such a man."
Ha! Thank God I am married to such a man! At least he is not a liar and false accuser such as yourself.

And you do not feel sorry for me, you are hard hearted and can feel no sorrow for anyone!

Fool.

C Bowen| 12.17.11 @ 7:27PM

Margie thinks Saddam was behind 9/11.

She is the 1%.

Margie| 12.17.11 @ 7:49PM

C Bowen can't exist without lying. You & "W" ought to get a room, so to speak.

LOL.

read H. Hoover's FDR papers| 12.18.11 @ 4:04AM

poor margie. the end.

Steve| 12.18.11 @ 10:07AM

Margie the Village Idiot;

Can't help but talk like white trash.

W| 12.18.11 @ 1:56PM

MullahMargie,
You really are white trash as others have said. Speaking of rooms how are those kenny emails? Go read them.

Margie| 12.18.11 @ 3:16PM

Who knew that "W" +Troll was not only a Pope worshipper and hater of Christians, but a stinking Paul-bot as well.

The most vile of persons, and accuser of the brethren.

See my above post.

W| 12.18.11 @ 4:29PM

MullahMargie,

You are truly insane.
You believe I am Clint. It must make you feel better to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is Clint using different names. You are correct,Mullah. Nick,RCV, Tony, ConChef, Markenoff, and the rest, and me are Clint. Even Ken is Clint. Everybody is wrong and you are right.

You really do need professional help, not kidding or insulting. Get help, soon.

Margie| 12.18.11 @ 5:00PM

Not what I said.
But then, you're a professional concern Troll and liar extraordinaire!

Clint| 12.16.11 @ 10:47PM

American Spectator's Resident Zany Crazed Religious White Trash Bigot Screwball Apocalyptic Crank Lady, Margie Calls Dr.Ron Paul Nuts.

This Is The Giant Yellow Bus Callin' A Lemon Pie Yellow.

Attendants Get The Net.

Margie| 12.16.11 @ 11:05PM

Didn't your parents or teachers ever teach you how to write?
Have you ALWAYS been like this?
I know a man here who claims that odd spelling and usage of words reflects your mental capacity in some way.
You might want to summon him.
But what I can see with my own eyes is that you project onto me (and others) what in fact you truly are~ a sick soul in need of true repentance.

Bob Grant | 12.16.11 @ 11:36PM

Forgive Clint, his boy has had a rough 24 hours.

Margie| 12.17.11 @ 1:34PM

Mr. Grant,

It isn't up to me to forgive him, as his sin is between him and his Maker.

And hey~ Ru Paul may have had a rough week, but it was very profitable.
Remember~ he gets to keep that money for future campaigns, and probably can under the law, give it to fellow Paul-bots for future campaigns, like Hilary Clinton did, I believe.

read H. Hoover's FDR papers| 12.17.11 @ 2:02AM

Margie,
Please provide a cogent justification for the blunder that is the Iraq War. From any angle..US national security, national interests, humanitarian, economic, artistic, humor, anything...please. it's always a little entertaining watching someone trying to defend the indefensible.

Clint| 12.17.11 @ 9:07AM

" Ron Paul Surges In Polls Before Sioux City Debate

Longshot Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul has gained serious ground in the early primary states - rocking an already volatile GOP race.

Paul, a longtime Texas Congressman, has closed to within one percentage point of frontrunner Newt Gingrich in Iowa, where voters will make their choice in less than three weeks.

He also now trails Gingrich by just one point in New Hampshire - and has cut Granite State frontrunner Mitt Romney’s lead in half.

The polls - the first by Public Policy Polling, the second by Rasmusssen Reports - have instilled new life in Paul’s quixotic quest for the White House."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Margie| 12.17.11 @ 1:36PM

As soon as you provide a "cogent" justification for the loss of your mind.

FYI~ And since you didn't bring me to this dance, I'm not dancing.

read H. Hoover's FDR papers| 12.17.11 @ 3:07PM

that's what i thought, margie. it's obvious you were a rabid supporter of that war. and when the question comes back to you again, after it is obvious to everyone else, that the war with Iran, that you are so rabidly in favor of, is another disaster, with 10's of more American soldiers dead and maimed, and America bankrupt and unable to deal with true threats, your non-answer will be just as much a condemnation on your sweet little holier than thou soul. god bless.

Margie| 12.17.11 @ 3:31PM

He says, "That's what I thought", and then proceeds to tell me what I thought without me having said what I thought.
And what I said was I'm not dancing.

read H. Hoover's FDR papers| 12.18.11 @ 4:10AM

you're not dancing because you can't. your non answer to the question says it all. that's what i thought. (curious - does your interpretation of the bible allow you to dance? surprise us with your answer.)

Margie| 12.18.11 @ 3:17PM

See my above post~ you prove it.

Clint| 12.17.11 @ 9:02AM

Margie Has Gnawed Her Way Out Of Her Resrtaints And Is Running Wild Across The Ohio Institute For The Criminally Insane Grounds.

Attendants Get The Net.

Margie| 12.17.11 @ 1:43PM

The inmates are running the asylum, or should I say, the dogs are running the kennel!

read H. Hoover's FDR papers| 12.17.11 @ 3:07PM

or should you say, the tail is wagging the dog. again.

Margie| 12.17.11 @ 3:33PM

Actually, you guys are making up stuff because as I said, if you didn't~ you couldn't exist!

No one is clamoring for war with Iran, no one WANTS it. It's just that you guys have to have a "cause", and your "cause" is to clack with a lunatic.

William R| 12.17.11 @ 3:21AM

And you're a very unpatriotic American who always puts the interest of a foreign country first.

TheRevolutionThatWas| 12.16.11 @ 11:28PM

Gingrich: Gov. Should Allow Terror Attacks To Remind People How Much We Need Them
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1o8d01r6KQ

David| 12.17.11 @ 12:51AM

A good commentary addressing this topic (and others) regarding Ron Paul can be found at:

http://lewrockwell.com/kwiatko.....ki281.html

Excerpt: "...recycled charges of politically incorrect thought in the 1960s and 1970s based on newsletter articles written by others and apparently taken out of context. It is true that no amount of context would interest an angry progressive, but to ridicule Paul’s admiration for Rosa Parks and the peaceful resistance of Dr. Martin Luther King is going just a bit far, even for the ill-informed Tomasky. As early as the late 1970s, Democratic Senator Patrick Moynihan publicly condemned the measured and calculated government destruction of African Americans, their families and their economies, through the application of the uber-progressive Great Society welfare state. Others have observed that historically the co-existing warfare state did little for people of color and the poor. Americans of all colors, ethnicities, race, and even parties join together in admiration for those who peacefully and boldly resist government tyranny, at any level, from township to city to state and federal levels. It doesn’t make them libertarians – it makes them Americans. "

martin j smith| 12.17.11 @ 8:27AM

If there is any matter that causes people to oppose Ron Paul --it is his so called supporters some of whom post on Am Spec. But I say to them keep it up because it is educational for those who are uninformed about Ron Paul. Your Anti-Jewish attitudes are so glaring that even a cave man can see it. I am almost 100% certain that my encouragement to continue showing your bigotry. As I have said any candidate cannot afford to offend large blocks of sure voters if they want to win the election that is. I strongly believe that Ron Paul is not that different from Obama and his supporters are certainly not very far off those who are Obama's base.

Clint| 12.17.11 @ 9:12AM

Uh Oh !

Now Smith Reaches Into The Barrel Bottom And Plays The Dog Eared Anti-Jew Card On Dr.Ron Paul's Supporters.

" Ron Paul Surges In Polls Before Sioux City Debate

Longshot Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul has gained serious ground in the early primary states - rocking an already volatile GOP race.

Paul, a longtime Texas Congressman, has closed to within one percentage point of frontrunner Newt Gingrich in Iowa, where voters will make their choice in less than three weeks.

He also now trails Gingrich by just one point in New Hampshire - and has cut Granite State frontrunner Mitt Romney’s lead in half.

The polls - the first by Public Policy Polling, the second by Rasmusssen Reports - have instilled new life in Paul’s quixotic quest for the White House."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Bob Grant| 12.17.11 @ 10:01AM

Please. Which debate did YOU watch? Bachmann destroyed him, exposed his naif-like world views for what they are.

Don't you find it a bit curious the extent to which he defends Iran? ...a bit odd to me.

Clint| 12.17.11 @ 11:37AM

Dr.Ron Paul, " I will ask Congress for A Declaration of War against Iran, if necessary."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

William R| 12.17.11 @ 11:40AM

No you idiot, he exposed Bachmann for the dumb Bimbo she really is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F60Ce7SAjUQ

read H. Hoover's FDR papers| 12.17.11 @ 3:39PM

Look a little further down the comments where Politifact completely refutes her claim and gives her a big old "FALSE" on the truth-o-meter".. and Paul was factually correct again in the post debate interview with Scam Hannity on the mistranslation..he never said "wipe israel (or anything else) off the map". you guys are dupes.

devinesara| 12.17.11 @ 8:18PM

What I find curious is that an utterly shameful lack of prudence and historical understanding can be applauded by anyone. Michelle Bachmann is the definition of a fool.

Bob Grant | 12.18.11 @ 9:35PM

Wow! Pretty harsh. Care to expand?

martin j smith| 12.17.11 @ 10:32AM

I am very happy for Clint--if he is happy I too am happy.
Shalom

Clint| 12.17.11 @ 11:35AM

Ite in pace

Jason | 12.17.11 @ 1:10PM

Jeffery Lord doesen't like Ron Paul's Foriegn Policy positions. But has anyone noticed like all Arm Chair Warriors Jeffery Lord never put on a uniform and fought in many of the Foriegn Entanglements that he thinks we should be in? Nope, instead he spent his life Leeching off of the American Tax Payer as a Government Bureaucrat. Although he probably thinks being a Propaganda Mouth Piece for Leviathan as a Hack Writer is private work.Jeffery Lord and his Statist Cronies are the problem. Ron Paul is the solution.

read H. Hoover's FDR papers| 12.17.11 @ 3:22PM

add do that that Newt dodged the draft with multiple deferments.

"Newt Gingrich. In 1985, he told Jane Mayer of The Wall Street Journal that he still believed that "Vietnam was the right battlefield at the right time." Why didn't he go? "Given everything I believe in, a large part of me thinks I should have gone over," he allowed.

(it is just that other hypocritical coward part that makes him think good thing he didn't).

"But, recovering, he added, "Part of the question I had to ask myself was what difference I would have made.""

(true..the pudgester probably would have ended up getting more of his comrades killed..

Ron Paul served during vietnam even having a family..flight surgeon. 1963-1968.

J. Lord...how bout them chicken hawks?

Herb Tarlek| 12.17.11 @ 2:28PM

The Ron Paul support is real & spreading. I saw TWO bumper/window stickers for him today in this tiny town in Oklahoma. First time EVER. No Romney, no Perry, No Gingrich. The bankster apologists need to come up with some new material because what they have used so far is NOT WORKING.

Margie| 12.17.11 @ 8:51PM

Oh my!
I now relegate you to the dustbin of anti-Americanism! How DARE you speak your mind!
You disgrace America!
I will now ask AmSpec to remove your horrid and despicable posts!
For shame!!!

read H. Hoover's FDR papers| 12.17.11 @ 3:34PM

And since Michelle Bachmann likes to point to politifact...(erroneously usually)..here is there answer to her: FALSE

"But we’re focusing on Bachmann’s actual statement during the Nov. 22 debate. She paraphrased Ahmadinejad as saying, "He has said that if he has a nuclear weapon he will use it to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. He will use it against the United States of America."

Ahmadinejad has said some tough things about the United States and Israel, but we find no evidence that he has said he would use a nuclear weapon against either country. In fact, he has maintained Iran has no interest in building one. We rate this claim False."

Bob Grant | 12.17.11 @ 6:56PM

"...in fact, he has maintained Iran has no interest in building one."

Well, that settles it. After all, we have every reason to take him at his word.

Get back with me in a year.

read H. Hoover's FDR papers| 12.18.11 @ 1:40AM

yeah, i got back to you in 1994, and i got back to you again, in 2004, i told you those were foolish blunders that were creating far more problems for us than they would ever solve. so i'll get back to you again, when another one of your neocon chicken hawks leads us into another epic blunder. by the way, when india was going nuclear, did you call for a war? it was no secret pakistan was going nuclear. when israel went nuclear thanks to our european allies mechanations, the nixon administration was totally blindsided and none to pleased, he should have taken them down, you know before they got subs, i guess. i know newt has been jonesing for a war with n. korea. newt's got a long list of dragons to slay. china has nukes. no need to mention the former ussr. so where to begin? oh..yeah but the actual lesson taught to the countries with out nukes, via iraq, libya, if you don't produce a nuke or you negotiate with us to stop working on one...you will eventually end up dragged behind a truck, beheaded, quartered, whatever. real politik. you neocon's sheeple think blood and treasure grows on trees..well, fed printing press or not..the piper will be paid. and that is how this empire falls.

Bob Grant | 12.18.11 @ 9:41PM

None of the other countries you mention have the obvious ties to terrorism as Iran.

This seems beyond your comprehension, and therefore, will not be able to add anything of substance to this thread.

You are a naif.

devinesara| 12.17.11 @ 8:11PM

I think it's common knowledge that all raging racists draw the line at waging preemptive war, especially where people of other races are concerned. They also tend to espouse the release of non-violent drug offenders (largely minorities). Otherwise, it would just be too easy to be racist, and racists like a challenge.

Joe Mama| 12.17.11 @ 8:25PM

LOL yeah let's NOT vote for the one guy who would fight the corrupt establishment, end the endless wars and save our country from economic collapse. Cause, you know, he might um, force congress to pass some racist laws or something. Or um, he might do something to hurt black people like end the war on drugs or force everyone to be equal instead of specially privileged based on race. Oh no! Not that! Anything but that! I'll take economic collapse over that any day! LOL.

Herb Tarlek| 12.17.11 @ 9:28PM

I watched the Leno interview with Paul. He did well. I predict he will be run 3rd party & win the White House with 35-40 % or so of the vote. Or, he will be heart attacked or have a plane crash. If he is taken out in this way it will be clear that we cannot effect meaningful change through elections. "They" will have to act fast as the Paul phenomenon is spreading rapidly & there is a risk of creating a martyr.

chuck| 12.18.11 @ 10:20AM

Adjust the tin hat a little to the left, and rear. Also add a little to the top, so it looks like the Washington Monument. This will allow to to receive the Paul-bot instructions clearly.

Herb Tarlek| 12.18.11 @ 2:10PM

I'm looking at a 5:1 ratio here in the comments section in favor of Paul. On American Spectator, what used to be one of the bastions of mainstream conservative thought. If anyone is out of the mainstream & wearing a shiny hat, it is YOU. Stay thirsty my friend.

chuck| 12.18.11 @ 8:53PM

Naaa, it's just the Paulistas out in force.

And you know "the most interesting man in the world" is gay.

Herb Tarlek| 12.18.11 @ 9:57PM

I think that's great. Did you have sex with him?

Scott| 12.17.11 @ 10:04PM

When those newsletters came out, Ron Paul was practicing medicine and providing care to minorities who couldn't even afford to pay in some cases. You can dwell on some questionable newsletter from decades ago, or you can judge the man by his actions over the his lifetime.

PK| 12.17.11 @ 10:28PM

Even if you could prove to me that Ron Paul wrote racist statements a long time ago (which I highly doubt), I would consider it unimportant because his political philosophy is completely non-racial in any sense. He's for shrinking government in all areas. That's a message that I love. I'm not going to take a big government RINO like the rest just because you tell me they're more racially sensitive. (Seriously, do Republicans honestly care about racial sensitivity? No, this is just a weapon to try to defeat Ron Paul because he doesn't want to start more wars.)

Phil| 12.17.11 @ 11:58PM

Looks like someone has gone green. Trying to recycle debunked trash won't work. Keep it up though. It makes for good comedy on a slow weekend.

Harry Potter| 12.18.11 @ 12:09AM

NAACP PRESIDENT: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist
http://www.nolanchart.com/arti...

>Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded "No I don't," adding that he had heard Ron Paul
>speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many
>occasions.
>
>Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years.
>
>"I've read Ron Paul's whole philosophy, I also understand what he's saying from a political standpoint and
>why people are attacking him," said Linder.
>
>"If you scare the folks that have the money, they're going to attack you and they're going to take it
>out of context," he added.
>
>"What he's saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that's what they fear," concluded
>the NAACP President.

/I bet Gingrich would not get that kind of endorsement...so much for the media taking this path during a general election.

Casey Abell| 12.18.11 @ 11:04AM

Ron Paul accusing other people of ethnic and religious hatreds really is Dillinger decrying bank robbers.

Eric Dondero| 12.18.11 @ 8:24AM

Lew Rockwell and Jeff Tucker wrote the Newsletters (with major input from Murray Rothbard and Marc Thornton). Jean McCiver edited them for clarity and grammar out of the Houston office on Nasa Blvd. Ron was merely a figurhead.

But he did read them, every line of them, off his fax machine at his Clute office before they were published. He would typically sign them at the bottom of the last page giving his okay, and re-fax them to Jean to go to the printer.

Eric Dondero, Personal Asst./Travel Aide
Ron Paul, Libertarian for President, 1987/88
Crdtr. Ron Paul for President Exploratory Comm. 1991
Campaign Coordinator, Ron Paul for Congress, 1995/96
Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997-2003

Casey Abell| 12.18.11 @ 11:06AM

Oh swell, Paul's so dumb he can't even write his own bigoted newsletters. How does this ghostwriting in any way absolve Paul from blame for that filth?

PK| 12.18.11 @ 3:30PM

I don't think Mr. Dondero is defending Dr. Paul, moron. He used to work for Ron Paul and is now a disgruntled ex-employee. The newletters do sound like Rockwell's writing to me. I highly doubt that Dr. Paul would approve anything so racially insensitive, and I don't think Mr. Dondero could know that Dr. Paul read every line.

Cpm| 12.19.11 @ 3:34PM

One man's "disgruntled employee" is another's whistleblower.

Eric Dondero| 12.18.11 @ 8:56AM

One other note before I sign off. Many here in the comments section have called Ron Paul, an "anti-Semite." I wouldn't use that phrase exactly. I worked for the guy for 12 years, and never once heard an anti-Semitic word come out of his mouth. He has absolutely no problem with Jewish Americans.

However, he is most certainly Anti-Israel. He wishes Israel did not exist at all. He told me so numerous times. His basic view is that the Israeli State is much more trouble than it's worth, and costs the American taxpayer way too much money; better to hand it over to the Arabs he said to me on numerous occasions.

Ron also care not one wit about protecting Western civilization. He is an isolationist in the truest form. Protecting France, the UK, Germany, Italy, Greece from Islamist immigrants and worse, Islamic terrorists, is not at all on his radar screen.

Finally, let me clear one thing up for the record. Ron Paul did NOT want to vote for the intervention in Afghanistan after 9/11. He sided with our Legislative Director Joe Becker (a self-described Anarchist) and Paleo-Conservative Norm Singleton, then Legislative Asst. in opposing any sort of strike against Al Qaeda.

It was only the threat from half of his staff at the time, including myself, and our District Director Jackie Gloor, to publicly resign if he did not vote for the Afghanistan bill, plus his wife Carol and almost his entire family (INCLUDING HIS SON RAND PAUL), haranguing him to change his position, that finally convinced him to vote for the bill. And he only made that decision on the very final day, in the very final hours, causing us staffers incredible anxiety and angst.

Eric Dondero, Senior District Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
1997-2003

chuck| 12.18.11 @ 9:27AM

Wow,

Thanks for your input. An eye opener from someone who has worked for Ron Paul.

Watch out for the brown-shirts, they'll be after you!

Clint| 12.18.11 @ 9:32AM

Uh Oh !

RINO-CINO Chuckie Attempts To Play The Nazi Card.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

chuck| 12.18.11 @ 10:23AM

Uh-Oh!

Clintie-pooh can't reply with his patented "face stomping" comment lest he look like a brown-shirt!

William R| 12.18.11 @ 12:37PM

Dondero, you don't even know what isolationism means. Ron Paul is anything but an isolationist.

William R| 12.18.11 @ 12:37PM

Dondero, you don't even know what isolationism means. Ron Paul is anything but an isolationist.

Les Nesman| 12.18.11 @ 2:33PM

There is a question that needs to be answered for those that keep bringing up this Israel stuff all the time. The question is, do the American people care so much about Israel that a candidates position on that country would be a deal breaker. My answer would be that formerly yes it would be. But like so many things in the last few years, that has changed. My read of the situation is the large majority of people are wanting a president that will put the interests of the US 1st, 2nd & 3rd. Now whether we will be allowed to have such a president is another question. And no, the interests of Israel are not always the interests of the US as it is a foreign country.

Margie| 12.19.11 @ 8:13PM

Hey Eric,

Saying Ron Paul's against Israel but he's not an anti-semite is like saying you're FOR the Troops, but against the war, or like saying you believe in Jesus, but reject the Scriptures, or you believe in Jesus, but trash the Apostle Paul.

In other words, he's a flaming anti-semite!

Clint| 12.18.11 @ 9:19AM

" Ron Paul on Eric Dondero
In Libertarian, Republican, Terrorism on May 22, 2007 at 11:18 am

Reason: Your former staffer Eric Dondero is challenging you for your House seat in 2008.

Paul: He’s a disgruntled former employee who was fired.

Reason: But he says he’s running because of your debate performance. So is this presidential campaign weakening your standing in your district?

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa,

Eric Dondero| 12.18.11 @ 11:04AM

Chris Peden, Friendswood City Councilman, ended up running against Paul in the GOP primary. I helped his campaign. He put in a respectable 30%.

Clint| 12.18.11 @ 4:12PM

Dr. Ron Paul Understands Real Conservative Foreign Policy & Doesn't Want Israel Firster Agendist Using Our Warriors For Cannon Fodder And Global Policemen.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/316304

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Clint| 12.18.11 @ 9:29AM

I am the guy that got Ron Paul elected to Congress in 1996. I can and will defeat him in 2008.

Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
1997-2003"

Tea Party Patriots For Dr. Ron Paul Are Here And In Iowa.

sirbourbon| 12.18.11 @ 10:46AM

Secretary of State Madeline Albright who served in the Clinton administration spoke on television, and actually heard by millions of people, that "the price was worth it." This madwoman was referring to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children that would die due to US imposed sanctions on food and medicine. Bombings would kill more children.

Does this bother Mr.Lord more than an article allegedly attributed to doctor Paul who was then in private practice? Or is the actual racism of a former Sec of State that thinks that 1/2 million dead kids is worth the price of a sanctions war on a country whose dictator the US government helped out with money and guns in the 1980's?

The betryal of the American people's civil liberties by using a former ally to start a war with him is Machavellian since the war was a pretext to begin disarming Americans of their Bill of Rights. Yet the alleged article in a long ago newsletter is worse than a US foreign policy that first props up dictators then uses them as boogie men to start wars that dismember and blow up innocent children.

Yes, I suppose that in the minds of some pro-establishment journalists Ron Paul is the more evil. His crime: he enters congress to stop the devouring cancerous growth of government. Paul says that congress needs to follow the Constitution and to stop these senseless wars of aggression.Yet, his williness to defend the Constitution, which protects Americans from our own government, is a bigger crime in the eyes of establishment yeomen than Madeline's inhuman policy of sanctions on a country that will surely produce hundreds of thousands of deaths to noncombatants!

To stop doctor Paul from performing his sworn oath to the Constitution the establishment journalist hit men bring up a forgotten newsletter article.

My, my to what levels they will stoop to protect the status quo of war, welfare and big government!

ivykid| 12.19.11 @ 9:26AM

I'm just wondering why the rest of the world seems to agree with Ron Paul. I see no other nations jumping in on the on the attack Iran plan. Bleeding ourselves dry trying to cure a part of the earth that has been at war since the dawn of civilization is probably a bad financial mistake not to mention the cost of American lives.

Rob A| 12.19.11 @ 1:37PM

Is it possible to have been editor in 78' while in congress and then have someone else as editor in the 1990's when he was a full time physician?

Rob A| 12.19.11 @ 1:58PM

Open letter to Lord, Kircheck et al.

Mr. Kirchick, this is in response to your politically timed "expose" on the thirty-year-old Ron Paul newsletters, "The Company Ron Paul Keeps." (Though, technically, to qualify as an "expose," your piece would have to include something new, which it does not.)

Not knowing your background as a writer, I'm not sure if you're familiar with ghost writing, how prevalent it is, or how to works. So following is my professional take on the Ron Paul Newsletters issue, as a professional ghost writer and marketing expert with over 20 years of experience.

How does ghost writing work?

I've been a direct marketing copywriter for nearly twenty-five years now, and 99% of that writing work was never attributed to me. I've ghost-written for CEOs of Fortune 1000 companies, as well as executive vice presidents, chief

operating officers, chief marketing officers, chief financial officers, and various other c-suite executives; presidents, publishers, partners, principals, owners...well, you get the picture.

Very, very few top-level executives ever do their own writing. Armies of people like me are hired to create content behind the scenes. And it's extremely rare for a ghostwriter like myself to have any direct contact with the person for whom I'm ghost-writing. Generally, I'm hired and managed--and the work is reviewed and approved--by someone several steps below that executive on the food chain. My sense is that very few of the people I write for ultimately read what goes out over their names.

The Ron Paul brand

Brand management is a relatively new concept in marketing, and I doubt that managing the "Ron Paul" brand was much of a concern among anyone working on the newsletters, nor for Dr. Paul, who had returned to private practice after what was to be his first stint in Congress. When these newsletters were published, Dr. Paul may not have had any intention of running for office again, and thus may not have given the content of the newsletters much, if any, thought, as long as they were a good source of passive income.

But by the time Ron Paul returned to Congress, "Ron Paul" had become a brand, separate and distinct from Dr. Ron Paul, the physician who was running a busy private medical practice. "Ron Paul" had become a brand in the same way that "Martha Stewart" has become a brand. The Ron Paul newsletters had become something like Forbes Magazine—a publication that made money for its namesake and founder without his hands-on involvement. (Frankly, this is the optimal outcome in the publishing world—the outcome I have sometimes been hired to create for clients. This is the definition of success!)

How publications make money

The purpose of any for-profit publication is to make money by giving certain audiences the kind of content they prefer…because by doing this, the publication becomes a platform for advertisers to reach a desired demographic. The purpose of its content is to attract or serve a lucrative readership—period.

And back in the 1980s through the 1990s, there was increasing dismay over the lawless actions of federal law enforcement agencies against innocent Americans—demonstrated at Ruby Ridge in 1992 and the Waco siege in 1993. There was a market for commentary on these events and issues like gun rights, the Constitution, preparedness, home schooling, and self-sufficiency, and the Ron Paul newsletter capitalized on that market. That's what any successful publishing company does—identify a market and then create a product that market wants to buy.

I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "the views expressed on this program are not necessarily the views of staff, advertisers and/or management of this media outlet."

It's a fallacy to assume that all of the employees of the Martha Stewart brand were aware of—much less, guilty of—lying to investigators and deserved to be jailed like the publication's namesake, Martha Stewart. It's just as wrong to assume that the actions or opinions of every employee were endorsed by Martha. That's just not how these things work. And the same can be said for any publisher.

Thirty years ago, as today, the revenue stream from a newsletter often doesn't come from the newsletter itself (for example, through print ad sales or subscriptions.) The value is often in the mailing list, which can be rented to many other organizations, individuals, companies, causes, etc. Oftentimes, the content of the publication can become something of an afterthought, as long as the list still performs well, and subscription sales remain steady.

Pre-Internet niche communications

In the pre-Internet days of the 1980s and up through the mid-1990s, people in special interest groups (stamp collectors, survivalists, classic car buffs, investors, libertarians), communicated via newsletters, which were often promptly thrown away after being read.

I've never seen a copy of a Ron Paul newsletter, and it appears surviving copies are rare—judging by the amount of effort it took for you to assemble a collection of them. That would seem to indicate that they weren't taken very seriously by the recipients. It may also indicate that as commentary on current events, the content quickly became dated.

The character of the content

I read an article about the Los Angeles riots online which purports to be from a Ron Paul newsletter; however, I have no way of confirming it. (The newsletters would have been copyrighted material, so whoever posted it has violated the copyright in doing so. I imagine that the owner of the copyright would have worked to have any authentic materials removed from the Internet.)

But for the sake of argument, let's pretend that the article I read (which I no longer have a link to) was from an issue of a Ron Paul newsletter. It was allegedly written soon after the LA race riots—and is an understandably emotional reaction to the deaths of 53 innocent people and the injury of thousands, not to mention the $1 billion in property damage from over a thousand arson fires and countless lootings. For six days, crowds of criminals shut down south central Los Angeles, committing arson, assault, battery, vandalism and murder, often in front of law enforcement agents who were specifically told not to intervene. The perpetrators were frequently black; the targets were mainly non-blacks (Asians, Hispanics and whites.)

This article—several thousand words long—chronicles some of the worst incidents and touches on a laundry list of conservative and libertarian issues, including (if I remember correctly) gun control, racism, political correctness, law enforcement, the dangers of inter-generational welfare dependency, personal responsibility, and morality. One of the most frequently reproduced "smoking gun" quotes that purports to "prove" bias on the part of Ron Paul is from this article.

I read the article, expecting the worst, and was…puzzled. There's nothing racist about it (if you define "racism" as the belief that all members of one race are inherently inferior to all members of another race--typically, the one the racist belongs to.)

At worst, some passages can be described as very "politically incorrect" (which is not the same as "racist," nor is it the same as "untrue.") None of the passages struck me as being very far outside standard conservative thought—then, as now—that welfare is destructive to the recipients and an armed society is a polite (and looting-free) society.

Changing definitions of racism

The Ron Paul newsletters were limited-circulation niche publications that never had a general readership. The LA Riots article has the kind of non-PC tone one would take among like-minded friends around the dinner table, out of earshot of the PC police. Nowadays, these politically incorrect conversations take place under cover of anonymity on the Internet. In the 1980s and 1990s, they took place in ephemera like the Ron Paul newsletters.

And the "smoking gun" sentences simply aren't racist, though they certainly sound bad, removed from the context of historical events, and removed from the context of the article itself.

In fact, these sentiments were ultimately proven to have a lot of validity a decade later, when thousands of residents of New Orleans—many of them multi-generational welfare recipients—died in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina as a result of decades of learned helplessness and government dependency. They didn't die because they were black; they died because they had lost all sense of personal responsibility and self-preservation, believing the government to be completely responsible for their welfare. This is the kind of tragedy Dr. Paul has warned about for 35 years.

To judge this article as "racist," you have to use today's definition of racism—which, according to collectivists on the Left, can only be perpetrated by whites—and can consist solely of disagreeing with the opinion of a black person, or saying something negative about a black person, no matter how factual the statement is. (So, Mr. Kirchick, by your standards, the previous paragraph was most certainly "racist.")

How can you tell Ron Paul didn't write it?

As a writer and editor, it's simple for me to notice stylistic differences in the way other writers express themselves. In fact, as a ghost writer, I'm hired to create content in someone else's "voice," so I have to be aware of these things—it's my job.

The ghost writer of the LA Riots article may have done an excellent job of appealing to the target market's preferences, but he certainly didn't do a good job of mimicking Ron Paul's writing style, nor his views (which, in fact, may often have been counter to the readership's views.)

However, if this was the kind of content the readership wanted, it would have served the editor's purpose of maintaining and/or increasing circulation.

I haven't read any other material purported to be from a Ron Paul newsletter from the period between his Congressional terms. I have, however, read several of Dr. Paul's books, and watched hours of his testimony before Congress (having been elected and re-elected to twelve terms, there is no shortage of public statements from Dr. Paul.)

The one article I read that is alleged to have come from a Ron Paul newsletter simply was not written by Ron Paul. Both the style and the content are markedly different from anything else I've read or heard from Ron Paul.

In this wealth of material written by Dr. Paul, or spoken by Dr. Paul, I have never—not even once—seen or read anything that contradicts his belief in the value of the individual. In fact, his entire career has demonstrated his commitment to fight groupthink, bias and prejudice based on race, religion or any other form of group identity.

So why doesn't the ghost writer come forward?

When I'm hired to ghost-write for a client, both parties sign an extensive non-disclosure contract that governs my work. Not only am I barred from claiming authorship of the work I create for hire, I'm typically barred from even acknowledging the business relationship between my client and myself. These agreements sometimes contain clauses that specify "liquidated damages" I would have to pay for breaking the agreement. So "outing" myself as a ghost writer could be financial suicide. What's more, it would be extremely hard for me land future ghost-writing jobs, having betrayed a confidence.

Why doesn't Dr. Paul "out" the ghost writer?

The newsletters were published by a corporation, not Dr. Paul personally, so any contracts would have been drawn up in the corporation's name. If there was a contract between the company that owned the newsletter and its ghostwriter(s)—which would have been standard—only a court order could induce Dr. Paul, as an officer of the corporation, to break that non-disclosure contract if the other party didn't agree to it. And why would the ghost writer agree, knowing he or she is certain to be labeled a racist and anti-Semite by the mud-slingers in the agenda-driven media? And there's no legal reason for either party to go to court to seek such an order.

Given Dr. Paul's personal integrity and belief in the sanctity of contracts, I can't imagine his ever breaking a non-disclosure agreement, even to refute allegations like yours, Mr. Kirchick. Not only would it be a violation of his principles, it could open him up to legal action for breach of contract.

As I've said before, I take Dr. Paul's word for it that he had little or no hands-on involvement in the operations or content of the newsletter after returning to his medical practice. He appears to have handed it off to a group of people to run on his behalf (people whose only goal seems to have been making as much money as possible, not preserving the value of the Ron Paul "brand" for political purposes). I believe him when he says he doesn't know who wrote all the content in that publication.

Who's the real danger?

In summary, Mr. Kirchick, I have worked as a ghost writer for over twenty years, and having worked on dozens of projects that are similar to the Ron Paul newsletter. I find it not just plausible, but likely, that Dr. Paul had no knowledge of the content of the articles published in the newsletters that had his name in the title.

The "damning quotes" I have read that were purported to be from an article in a Ron Paul newsletter were not racist. At worst, they were politically incorrect—by today's standards, removed from historical context and removed from the context of the lengthy articles in which they appeared.

Nothing in any of Dr. Paul's public statements—or the books he has written himself—nor his behavior, nor his voting record—indicates any bias or bigotry on his part. The opposite is true, in fact.

Ron Paul's personal integrity is widely acknowledged, even by his opponents, as is his dedication to individualism and the principles espoused by one of his heroes, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

And here's the real issue, Mr. Kirchick. The gist of your argument is that Ron Paul is too dangerous a bigot to be elected to public office.

Had Dr. Paul not already been elected to high office numerous times—and had he not already demonstrated a total lack of bigotry in his words or deeds during two decades of service as a United States Representative—your argument may have held some water.

But unfortunately for you, Mr. Kirchick, the entire weight of Dr. Paul's public record goes against your conclusion.

What's more, even if he were the bigot you claim him to be (which he, demonstrably, is not), what kind of racist policy could he possibly implement, as president of the United States? Discrimination on the basis of race or religion is already a violation of federal law.

And should President Paul attempt to implement policies that reflect the imaginary racism with which you charge him, do you not think there would be a media firestorm from the likes of people like you?

Your article, far from being an attempt to protect America from the make-believe dangers of a Ron Paul presidency, is instead a rather transparent attempt to inject yourself into the GOP nominating process.

Destroying a good man's reputation to advance your own political agenda is despicable. But you know what's even worse than that? In rehashing this non-controversy for your own purposes, you may have helped create racial animosity that didn't exist before.

And that is simply inexcusable.

Cpm| 12.19.11 @ 3:32PM

The big problem with Paulbots, aside from their notable sociopathic tendencies, is the fact that once their Messiah doesn't make it out of the primaries, that's it, having put all their eggs in one basket, they won't vote for anyone else. They just take their ball and go home. Re-electing Obama doesn't concern them nearly as much as seeing their savior go down to defeat yet again.

Rob C| 12.19.11 @ 8:55PM

The big problem with Neocons, aside from their *demonstrable* sociopathic tendencies [eg, invading nations and conquering the world], is the fact they are completey ignorant of history, politics and economics.

Notably, this idea that one who votes for Paul in the Primary is morally obligated to vote for a Neoconservative in the General. Excuse me? My vote doesn't belong the Republican Party. And the GOP base is going to be influenced by people like Jeffrey Lord and his Neocon echo-chamber, as they regularly slander and libel the one candidate in the Primary who shares MY philosophy, then the GOP can enjoy this election without the benefit of MY vote.

You Neocons operate under the assumption that Obama created all the problems we have today, and, therefore, ANYONE but Obama (except Ron Paul) would be an improvement. Catch up. Obama didn't invent Socialism, he's just a Left-Progressive true-believer. We've been marching down this road of entitlements and imperialism for over 100 years now. And the Republicans have rarely ever upheld their promise to the Conservatives to actually reduce the size and scope of government. Why should I believe that now, all of a sudden, Romney or Gingrich or some other statist Neocon shill is going to do the trick?

Taking my ball and going home would mean not participating, correct? You Neocons are screaming mad that we Paul supporters ARE talking about not participating, given the treatment Paul has been given by Lord, et al.

And you've got to be joking about who suffers from the Messiah complex: The people who support a 75 year old man with admittidely imperfect speaking skills, or the people who jump from vaccuous personality to personality on a weekly basis, hoping he'll be the "next Reagan" [Romney, Bachman, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, now Romney again]? I don't really care all that much about Ron Paul, the man; although he is a very admirable person. I care about liberty, the idea. By the way, did you type this in your Ronald Reagan t-shirt?

Someone should study the number of times public Neocons refer to Ronal Reagan (accurately or inaccurately) or electing the next Reagan, versus the number of times public Ron Paul supporters refer to the Constitution. That ought to give us a sense of who has the Messiah complex.

Bravebear| 12.19.11 @ 5:32PM

Interesting article title, since a 'smoking gun,' via the Second Amendment, may be all that saves us from quacks like Dr. Paul and his army of moonbats in the end .