Ron Paul

[mr_genius]

What exactly do you plan on doing with all of the military, military personal, military bases, military equiptment, military spending etc? You are talking about taking 20% of spending out of the economy. Take 20% out of your paycheck and tell me what happens.

 

 

Pointless military bases in Germany do not add much to the economy. If the money has to be spent, then I would prefer we invest it somewhere useful. Invest in infrastructure, technology, almost anything would be a better investment.

 

Still, spending needs to be cut, a $9,000,000,000,000 debt is bad for the economy. Obviously, all the cuts should not be military or foreign aid... but some things in both of those categories need to be scaled back. I'm all for cutting pork and some useless social programs too. But the way government is spending, things are going to get a lot worse.

Edited January 21, 2008 by mr_genius

[AngelasDaddy0427]

http://pennsylvaniaprogressive.typepad.com...aul_white_.html

Ron Paul: White Supremacist

 

Ron Paul has become something of a phenomenon on the campaign trail as a GOP candidate for president. What everyone needs to realize however, is his deep involvement in the patriot/militia movement and his publication of radical racial epithets over the years. Congressman Paul is a white supremacist. Orcinus has the goods on this guy collected from a newsletter he used to distribute and pictures of him in the recent company of extremists.

 

Some liberals have taken to Paul's opposition of the war while not realizing his true agenda. There's far more to this man than the issue of Iraq and it's quite ugly. The patriot movement of the 1980's-90's saw a surge in survivalist, white supremacist militia groups threatening the stability of the nation in order to impose their white male leadership on the entire society. The current Minuteman organization is a successor to this mentality.

 

Ron Paul has been part and parcel of this and he is "one of theirs." Past issues of "The Ron Paul Survivor Report" survive in archives at the University of Wisconsin and elsewhere and bloggers are digging them out and re-publishing them so voters understand the true nature and political philosophy of this candidate.

 

A few excerpts:

 

"...our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin."

 

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

 

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

 

I think you begin to get the idea of who this man is and what he REALLY believes. Such toxic, racist diatribes have no place in civilized men and civilized culture. Please don't support Ron Paul.

 

Update: This article has received many links and much traffic. I have a question for all the Paul apologists and deniers leaving comments: if he isn't a white supremacist why are all the white supremacists endorsing him? I have to credit Orcinus for digging out the facts and the truth about Ron Paul. It was their coverage which was the basis for this article. They found this picture of Paul with white supremacist Dr. Robert Clarkson at this website:

 

Paulronnclarksonrob

 

Posted by John Morgan at 08:52 AM in Campaigns | Permalink

 

What a racist scumbag.

[EvilMonkey]

http://pennsylvaniaprogressive.typepad.com...aul_white_.html

What a racist scumbag.

Uh oh, look out now. I wonder how long until YOU get the PM from Rowands Rowdies calling you a jackass and telling you to defer to his better judgement?

[vandy125]

http://pennsylvaniaprogressive.typepad.com...aul_white_.html

 

 

What a racist scumbag.

 

Just curious, but are there sources for this other than blogs? Below is a quote from his own web page on racism as well as information on the controversy from wikipedia. The wikipedia entry includes some credible sources including a quote from a President of a chapter of the NAACP saying he does not believe it. I would hope that you are basing these accusations on more than a blog.

 

This is being completely honest and not having any green at all. I would like to see some credible sources on this. I have not yet seen any. Maybe I have some blinders on, but I try not to do that and want any information that I can get.

 

Ron Paul Racism Issues Page

 

A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

 

The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

 

Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

 

It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

 

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as 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.

 

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.

 

In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

 

Ron Paul Wikipedia

Newsletter controversy

Newsletters published under Paul's name from 1978 through 1995 first became an issue in his 1996 run for Congress, when opponent Charles Morris ran numerous ads about the newsletters.^[106][107] The newsletters, which carried various names over the years—Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report—,^[108] contained derogatory comments concerning race and other politicians. Alluding to a contemporary scientific study finding that "of black men in Washington... about 85 percent are arrested at some point in their lives"^[109][110] one issue proposed that "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in Washington DC are semi-criminal or entirely criminal", and stated that "the criminals who terrorize our cities ... largely are" young black males, who commit crimes "all out of proportion to their numbers".^[111][112] Paul's campaign replied at the time that the quotes were taken out of context and misleading^[108] and rejected Morris' demand to release back issues; Paul went on to win the election.^[11]

 

In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in the newsletters under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by unnamed writers and did not represent his views. He said newsletter remarks referring to U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan (calling her a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism") were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."^[37] In 2007, with the quotes resurfacing, New York Times Magazine writer Christopher Caldwell concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own", but added that Paul's "response to the accusations was not transparent."^[11]

 

In January 2008, James Kirchick of The New Republic revived the controversy by publishing a story detailing the contents of several issues of the newsletters, including images of the actual pages of some of them.^[113] His article concluded that Paul was an "angry white man", noting that the newsletter showed "an obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays", attacked Martin Luther King Jr. and offered "kind words" for David Duke.^[108] Other issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories.^[114][115] Most of the incendiary items appeared between 1989 and 1994.^[116] While the newsletters were published under Paul's name and frequently in the first person with personal interjections,^[117] most lacked specific bylines for articles.

 

Paul disavowed the writings in a response to the New Republic article, saying that the quotations do not represent his beliefs, that he has "never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts", and that Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks were his personal heroes because they stood for individual rights. He again noted that he accepts "moral responsibility" for not paying closer attention to writings published under his name.^[118] In a subsequent interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, he said he did not know who wrote the articles and stated he "[repudiates] everything that is written along those lines." Blitzer told Paul that he was "shocked" by the newsletters, because they did not seem to reflect "the Ron Paul that I've come to know, and the viewers have come to know" over the course of several interviews during the campaign.^[119] David Gergen, CNN senior political analyst, commented "I don't think there's an excuse in politics to have something go out under your name and say, 'Oh by the way, I didn't write that'."^[119][120]

 

In the interview with Blitzer, Paul asserted that racism is incompatible with his beliefs and that he sees people as individuals—not as part of collectives. He also dismissed the attack as an attempt to accuse him of racism by proxy, claiming that he has collected more money among African-Americans than any other Republican candidate.^[119] Nelson Linder, president of the Austin chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), defended Paul, saying that he has known him for 20 years, saw him as a "free thinker", "very intelligent and very informed", talking about "real issues" that "invite attacks on him", who was "correct in what he's saying", and that knowing his intent, he believes Paul has been misconstrued and taken out of context.^[121] Former LA Times editor Andrew Malcolm noted that Paul got second place in the January 19 Nevada Republican caucus despite the recent reports about the newsletters.^[122]

 

The identity of the author of the controversial pieces remains unknown, but Reason magazine identified then prominent paleolibertarian activist Lew Rockwell, who also served as Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982,^[108] as "Paul's chief ghostwriter". The magazine also cites a 1993 tax document showing that the year the newsletter made the "welfare checks" comment in regards to the L.A. Riots, Ron Paul & Associates reported an annual income of $940,000. The document listed four Ron Paul & Associates employees in Texas (Paul's family and Rockwell) and seven more employees around the country.^[116] This now-defunct entity, in which Paul owned a minority stake, was during some periods the publisher of the newsletters; at other times, they were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit Paul founded in 1976.

[EvilMonkey]

Ron Paul can say that HE didn't write those things, and that may be true. He also says he won't reveal who did write them, even if he knows. Well, the editor of those publications should know, and that would be Lew Rockwell. From Lew's wiki page:

[edit] Ron Paul newsletter controversy

On January 16, 2008 libertarian publication Reason claimed "a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul" had identified Rockwell as the "chief ghostwriter" of several controversial, anonymously written articles published in Ron Paul newsletters from "roughly 1989 to 1994." However, the magazine also noted Rockwell has denied responsibility for the articles and "has characterized discussion of the newsletters as 'hysterical smears aimed at political enemies.'"[15]

The company behind the newsletters only had Ron's family, Lew and 7 others listed as employees, so it shouldn't be too hard to know who wrote and/or approved what. Everyone else in this election cycle seems to be damned by the company they keep. Why not him as well?

[Rex Kickass]

Because he's Ron Paul and you should check him out. Unless you actually do, then ignore that part.

[kapkomet]

Because he's Ron Paul and you should check him out. Unless you actually do, then ignore that part.

 

I love it.

 

[vandy125]

Because he's Ron Paul and you should check him out. Unless you actually do, then ignore that part.

 

Yep, that's right, you nailed it. Really, I love your points and the excellent discussion.

[vandy125]

Ron Paul can say that HE didn't write those things, and that may be true. He also says he won't reveal who did write them, even if he knows. Well, the editor of those publications should know, and that would be Lew Rockwell. From Lew's wiki page:

 

The company behind the newsletters only had Ron's family, Lew and 7 others listed as employees, so it shouldn't be too hard to know who wrote and/or approved what. Everyone else in this election cycle seems to be damned by the company they keep. Why not him as well?

 

I had not seen that before. Thanks for the info. To be completely honest I'm not sure where I stand. I always try to put myself in someone else's position when issues come up, but I do not know what to think about it yet.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I checked out Ron Paul. FOund out he was a bit of a nut job... moved on.

[rangercal]

I have to admit, I didn't know much about Ron Paul. I did some research after this thread and liked everything about him.

 

I found a cool pic too