• news
  • THURSDAY JANUARY 10 2008 10:00 AM

Naiveté Or a Lame Defense?

I'll cut to the chase: this is another article about Ron Paul. The man has become nigh unavoidable these days on the internet (especially on SG). His supporters range from dissatisfied Republicans to Libertarians to more moderate Democrats to stoner Canadians to white supremacists.

In early October, Stormfront Radio endorsed Ron Paul for president.

From the recorded broadcast:

Whatever organization you belong to, remember first and foremost that you're a white nationalist, then put aside your differences with one another and work together. Work together to strive to get someone in the Oval Office who agrees with much of what we want for our future. Look at the man, look at the issues, look at our future. Vote for Ron Paul, 2008.


Stormfront's founder, Don Black, also contributed $500 to Ron Paul.

According to Federal Election Commission records, on 9/30/07 the Ron Paul presidential campaign received a $500 contribution from a Mr. Don Black, who lists his address as 203 Lakeland Drive and identifies his occupation as “self-employed/website manager”


David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Klu Klux Klan, is also a fan of Ron Paul, going as far as calling him "our king".

If this were a chess game, the neocons have just put our king in check. We must come up with a good response immediately to stay in the game.


Paul's campaign and supporters claim that he should not be held accountable for donations from neo-Nazi groups (much like they denied any affiliation with the Liberty Dollar). Likewise, Ron Paul also fails to repudiate other supporters, who have displayed anti-semitism, (posted by Will Williams, southern coordinator for the National Alliance Party), 9/11 conspiracy theories, homophobia, and anti-atheism.

The denial, bordering on uncomfortable complacency, is presented as naiveté. How can Ron Paul be held responsible for the personal views of his supporters? How is he to know exactly who is contributing to his campaign?

Problem is, they may not just be the opinions of his constituency. The New Republic's James Kirchick explains.

Most voters had never heard of Paul before he launched his quixotic bid for the Republican nomination. But the Texan has been active in politics for decades. And, long before he was the darling of antiwar activists on the left and right, Paul was in the newsletter business.

Paul's newsletters have carried different titles over the years--Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report--but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978. (Paul, an OB-GYN and former U.S. Air Force surgeon, was first elected to Congress in 1976.) During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman. The Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984. At one point, Ron Paul & Associates also put out a monthly publication called The Ron Paul Investment Letter.

The Freedom Report's online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul's newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles "Lefty" Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions," that "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be," and that black representative Barbara Jordan is "the archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism." At the time, Paul's campaign said that Morris had quoted the newsletter out of context. Later, in 2001, Paul would claim that someone else had written the controversial passages. (Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines.) Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul's explanation believable, "since the style diverges widely from his own."

But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.


Well, that doesn't sound too positive. While not all of the newsletters' content could be attributed directly to Ron Paul, the inclusion of the questionable articles is an endorsement of their views by the publisher. Filled with animus towards various social groups (including blacks, gays, and Jews) and anti-government paranoia (including passages alluding to a government cover-up of AIDS), the newsletters are damning indeed.

Choice selections from the newsletters:

On race:

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

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

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

On gays:

The June 1990 issue of the Political Report says: "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."

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

On conspiracy and government:

In an undated solicitation letter for The Ron Paul Investment Letter and the Ron Paul Political Report, Paul writes: "I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or no threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove--perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress's Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica."

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


When approached with the newsletters, Ron Paul's campaign spokesman, Jesse Benton, responded by saying "that over the years, Paul had granted 'various levels of approval' to what appeared in his publications--ranging from 'no approval' to instances where he 'actually wrote it himself.'"

After I read Benton some of the more offensive passages, he said, "A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no." He added that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Martin Luther King, because "Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero."

In other words, Paul's campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically--or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point--over the course of decades--he would have done something about it.

From his newsletters, however, a different picture of Paul emerges--that of someone who is either himself deeply embittered or, for a long time, allowed others to write bitterly on his behalf. His adversaries are often described in harsh terms: Barbara Jordan is called "Barbara Morondon," Eleanor Holmes Norton is a "black pinko," Donna Shalala is a "short lesbian," Ron Brown is a "racial victimologist," and Roberta Achtenberg, the first openly gay public official confirmed by the United States Senate, is a "far-left, normal-hating lesbian activist." Maybe such outbursts mean Ron Paul really is a straight-talker. Or maybe they just mean he is a man filled with hate.


To think that Ron Paul lacks editorial control over newsletters bearing his own name is ludicrous, and for him to not recognize the vitriol published in his name for over a decade is not naïve, but disgustingly negligent and wholly inappropriate for a politician. For his campaign to attempt to portray him as having "minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf" is irresponsible indeed. Therefore, the question must be asked: is this man really capable of holding the position of President of the United States? The answer, regardless of whether or not he participated in the creation of the questionable articles, is a resounding "NO."



MrCrisp spent too much time researching and writing this article, instead of packing the rest of his belongings and moving into his new apartment. In his opinion, though, sleeping on the floor for one night is worth it.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 10

Next

Comments
buckshot420

buckshot420

I'm lost
April 2006

JAN 11, 2008 01:58 PM

coyotemike said:

buckshot420 said:

MrCrisp said:

Chainlink said:
Great article MrCrisp !
It's nice to see a more thorough break down of Ron Pauls racism. It's one of the most unpalatable aspects of him I can think of. Too frequently his supporters seem to resort to denial or are simply completely unaware of Pauls positions and their retort is something along the lines of
" what do you mean he's a RACIST ?!?! * gasp* !!!
Dr. Paul has delivered thousands of babies !! ".

And while there are a few choice quotes that are pretty definitive of his position in my mind, such as his statement that " only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions" and a half dozen other well know sound bites, it's sweet to see an entire article dedicated to it.
He's earned it. He has a long, and colorful history of making outrageously bigoted and racist remarks as well as promoting his racist ideas in government. Fuck Him



my main beef with ron paul supporters is not that they feign ignorance regarding his positions, but that they don't really understand his positions at all, nor are they capable of independently forming their own positions on key topics.

those are just excerpts, too. i can only imagine what other atrocities are floating around out there. and, if we run out of incriminating newsletters, we'll always have his voting record.



Can you guy's read this post?
I've heard they might be censoring you net access, so if YOU CAN read this, don't be afraid....we're all rooting for Ron Paul to win up here and we know that the truth will out!

I know how much everyone on SG loves Paul, Paulites, and TRUTH!
So I thought I might try and open the Iron curtain and give you some good news-



wink



So, does this count as "Naivete' " or "Lame Defense"?



Naivete', yep....nail on the head

buckshot420

buckshot420

I'm lost
April 2006

JAN 11, 2008 01:59 PM

DhD_No_Pants said:

buckshot420 said:


Can you guy's read this post?
I've heard they might be censoring you net access, so if YOU CAN read this, don't be afraid....we're all rooting for Ron Paul to win up here and we know that the truth will out!



Who is the 'they' censoring our net access, and where did you hear that 'they' are doing it?



No comment, not the point.

DhD_No_Pants

DhD_No_Pants

Katy, TX
May 2006

JAN 11, 2008 02:00 PM

buckshot420 said:

DhD_No_Pants said:

buckshot420 said:


Can you guy's read this post?
I've heard they might be censoring you net access, so if YOU CAN read this, don't be afraid....we're all rooting for Ron Paul to win up here and we know that the truth will out!



Who is the 'they' censoring our net access, and where did you hear that 'they' are doing it?



No comment, not the point.



So, in other words...

You have no clue what you are talking about?



SPOILERS! (Click to view)

It is ok, sweetie, I figured as much anyways

Uncognitive

Uncognitive

Brooklyn, NY
May 2003

JAN 11, 2008 02:00 PM

Ron Paul 2008: Really, Some Of His Best Friends Are Negroes, So He Can't Be Racist!

buckshot420

buckshot420

I'm lost
April 2006

JAN 11, 2008 02:00 PM

buckshot420

buckshot420

I'm lost
April 2006

JAN 11, 2008 02:04 PM

DhD_No_Pants said:

buckshot420 said:

DhD_No_Pants said:

buckshot420 said:


Can you guy's read this post?
I've heard they might be censoring you net access, so if YOU CAN read this, don't be afraid....we're all rooting for Ron Paul to win up here and we know that the truth will out!



Who is the 'they' censoring our net access, and where did you hear that 'they' are doing it?



No comment, not the point.



So, in other words...

You have no clue what you are talking about?



SPOILERS! (Click to view)

It is ok, sweetie, I figured as much anyways



Right, I was making a point, and you missed it, OLD LADY

Nessuno

Nessuno

Washington, DC
May 2006

JAN 11, 2008 02:07 PM

buckshot420 said:

DhD_No_Pants said:

buckshot420 said:


Can you guy's read this post?
I've heard they might be censoring you net access, so if YOU CAN read this, don't be afraid....we're all rooting for Ron Paul to win up here and we know that the truth will out!



Who is the 'they' censoring our net access, and where did you hear that 'they' are doing it?



No comment, not the point.



He's reffering to internet regulation under the banner of stopping child pornography. The laws that have been proposed in congress would allow the government to take anything down in the name of hunting down child porn. It's a doorway to censoring the net. I say this while being anti-Ron Paul.

Nessuno

Nessuno

Washington, DC
May 2006

JAN 11, 2008 02:11 PM



Just to make a quick point, Mexicans aren't the same as blacks in this mess. His comments were against blacks, not hispanics. As a hispanic myself, most people can't tell I'm of hispanic decent and I'm a second generation immigrant.

What is being said is this, Ron Paul's newsletter, which supposedly represents him, it's a stretch to say HIS newsletter would publish something so offensive without his okay, and that all of these comments were the result of some rogue ghost writter. There are too many over too many years.

The outrage is over what he seems to think of blacks, not wether he employs them.

buckshot420

buckshot420

I'm lost
April 2006

JAN 11, 2008 02:14 PM

Nessuno said:

buckshot420 said:

DhD_No_Pants said:

buckshot420 said:


Can you guy's read this post?
I've heard they might be censoring you net access, so if YOU CAN read this, don't be afraid....we're all rooting for Ron Paul to win up here and we know that the truth will out!



Who is the 'they' censoring our net access, and where did you hear that 'they' are doing it?



No comment, not the point.



He's reffering to internet regulation under the banner of stopping child pornography. The laws that have been proposed in congress would allow the government to take anything down in the name of hunting down child porn. It's a doorway to censoring the net. I say this while being anti-Ron Paul.



Your absolutely right, I find it so hard to believe that SG would be against the pro Liberty candidate,

I mean cmon, It wasn't my cup of tea but I remember when I would go to browse an album and I would get THAT ROBERTO GONZALEZ CREEP.

Wake up,
don't believe the smear


wink

Chainlink

Chainlink

Key West, FL
August 2005

JAN 11, 2008 02:17 PM

buckshot420 said:
Wake up,
don't believe the smear


wink



No one is believing the "smear".
We are believing the evidence. Which is quite clear.

Uncognitive

Uncognitive

Brooklyn, NY
May 2003

JAN 11, 2008 02:17 PM

buckshot420 said:
Your absolutely right, I find it so hard to believe that SG would be against the pro Liberty candidate



Ron Paul isn't "the pro-liberty" candidate. He's the states rights candidate.

buckshot420

buckshot420

I'm lost
April 2006

JAN 11, 2008 02:20 PM

Uncognitive said:

buckshot420 said:
Your absolutely right, I find it so hard to believe that SG would be against the pro Liberty candidate



Ron Paul isn't "the pro-liberty" candidate. He's the states rights candidate.



WTF ever, it gets that jerk OFF YOUR BACK!
Who cares how you frame it?
wink

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

JAN 11, 2008 02:43 PM

Oh, yay. Rocketman is back.

Uncognitive

Uncognitive

Brooklyn, NY
May 2003

JAN 11, 2008 02:48 PM

buckshot420 said:

Uncognitive said:

buckshot420 said:
Your absolutely right, I find it so hard to believe that SG would be against the pro Liberty candidate



Ron Paul isn't "the pro-liberty" candidate. He's the states rights candidate.



WTF ever, it gets that jerk OFF YOUR BACK!
Who cares how you frame it?
wink



Setting the Constitutional wayback machine to 1799 does not get "that jerk", whoever he is, off my back.

Coyotemike

Coyotemike

USA
May 2006

JAN 11, 2008 02:49 PM

Zarth said:
Oh, yay. Rocketman is back.



Oh, God, we're not going to have to listen to William Shatner sing, are we?

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 10

Next