This Could Get Ugly For Ron Paul

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This Could Get Ugly For Ron Paul

Here's a recent broadcast by Mark Levin.

He mentions racist comments in Ron Paul's newsletters in the 90's, Neo-Confederate ideology of professors who surround Paul (including their hatred of Abraham Lincoln), blame-America first foreign policy and a series of other things.

In our corner of the world, we all know about these things and the standard explanations, arguments, controversies, etc., from all sides.

But the thing is that Mark Levin is mainstream. I have no doubt others in the mainstream news will now start to pick up on these themes.

If they do, and if videos, quotes, etc., start circulating in the mainstream, I suspect it will get ugly for Ron Paul's campaign with the "silent majority" (to coin a phrase).

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0twlMmxFWMA?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

I have been waiting for this for weeks.

Here is the Reason article from January 11, 2008:

"Old News"? "Rehashed for Over a Decade"?

Matt Welch | January 11, 2008

In Ron Paul's statement responding to The New Republic's story about his old newsletters, he said the following:

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. [...]

When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.

http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d

[Selene]

Here it comes...

Angry White Man

The bigoted past of Ron Paul.

If you are a critic of the Bush administration, chances are that, at some point over the past six months, Ron Paul has said something that appealed to you. Paul describes himself as a libertarian, but, since his presidential campaign took off earlier this year, the Republican congressman has attracted donations and plaudits from across the ideological spectrum. Antiwar conservatives, disaffected centrists, even young liberal activists have all flocked to Paul, hailing him as a throwback to an earlier age, when politicians were less mealy-mouthed and American government was more modest in its ambitions, both at home and abroad. In

The New York Times Magazine

, conservative writer Christopher Caldwell gushed that Paul is a “formidable stander on constitutional principle,” while

The Nation

wrote of “his full-throated rejection of the imperial project in Iraq.” Former TNR editor Andrew Sullivan endorsed Paul for the GOP nomination, and ABC’s Jake Tapper described the candidate as “the one true straight-talker in this race.” Even

The Wall Street Journal

, the newspaper of the elite bankers whom Paul detests, recently advised other Republican presidential contenders not to “dismiss the passion he’s tapped.”

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man

The above article came from within this one:

News Bulletin: Ron Paul Is a Huge Racist

• By Jonathan Chait
  

Not a herald of tolerance for multiculturalism.

With Ron Paul ascending in Iowa, winning the hearts of independents, and even the endorsement of Andrew Sullivan, it’s worth pointing something out: Ron Paul is not a kindly old libertarian who just wants everybody to be free. He’s a really creepy bigot.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/12/news-bulletin-ron-paul-is-a-huge-racist.html

[BaalChatzaf]

With Ron Paul ascending in Iowa, winning the hearts of independents, and even the endorsement of Andrew Sullivan, it’s worth pointing something out: Ron Paul is not a kindly old libertarian who just wants everybody to be free. He’s a really creepy bigot.

http://nymag.com/dai...uge-racist.html

In a less warlike world a know-nothing like R.P. would be a blessed relief from the ueber Statists who channel Alexander Hamilton with every breath they take. Unfortunately that is not the world we live in. Creepy Bigot or not, he is less inclined to pick our pockets. That is Good. But he is less likely to attack our attackers. That is Bad.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dennis Hardin]

Evidently Paul has decided to try to convince voters that he is the multi-culturalist Republican.

Ron Paul says Michele Bachmann Hates Muslims

Paul made his comments on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” when the host asked him for his take on the other GOP contenders in the field.

On Bachmann, the Texas congressman said: “She doesn’t like Muslims, she hates Muslims, she wants to go get them.”

Leno: “Wow, And Santorum?

“Gay people and Muslims,” Paul answered.

Paul‘s views on foreign policy are indistinguishable from the far left apologists for America’s greatness. Now he is also endorsing the left’s dim-witted, clueless “explanation” for the viewpoints of those who want to be pro-active in preventing a repeat of 9-11.

I also understand that he refuses to offer a word of criticism against the “9-11 Truthers” (i.e., the lunatic fringe who say Bush orchestrated the 9-11 attacks) among his fanatical supporters.

Seriously, now. Is this pathetic, laughable old crank the best libertarians have to offer as a presidential candidate?

How terribly, miserably disheartening.

[Selene]

Evidently Paul has decided to try to convince voters that he is the multi-culturalist Republican.

Ron Paul says Michele Bachmann Hates Muslims

Paul made his comments on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” when the host asked him for his take on the other GOP contenders in the field.

On Bachmann, the Texas congressman said: “She doesn’t like Muslims, she hates Muslims, she wants to go get them.”

Leno: “Wow, And Santorum?

“Gay people and Muslims,” Paul answered.

Paul‘s views on foreign policy are indistinguishable from the far left apologists for America’s greatness. Now he is also endorsing the left’s dim-witted, clueless “explanation” for the viewpoints of those who want to be pro-active in preventing a repeat of 9-11.

I also understand that he refuses to offer a word of criticism against the “9-11 Truthers” (i.e., the lunatic fringe who say Bush orchestrated the 9-11 attacks) among his fanatical supporters.

Seriously, now. Is this pathetic, laughable old crank the best libertarians have to offer as a presidential candidate?

How terribly, miserably disheartening.

Dennis:

Unfortunately, he is not acquiting himself well the more the spotlight shines on him,

And he is certainly not the best the Libertariian Party can put up.

I mean look they put up Bob Barr and a Bookie last time...hmm - opps - well maybe he is the best.

Main article: Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008 Former Congressman and U.S. Attorney from Georgia. Barr won the nomination of the Libertarian Party on May 25, 2008 at its 2008 National Convention, in Denver, Colorado with 324 votes on the sixth ballot. Barr received 523,686 votes, 0.4% of the national vote.^[2] Wikinews has related news: Bob Barr wins the Libertarian Party presidential nomination Sports handicapper, businessman, author, and TV show host from N

Well, at least the Libertarian Party is buying a building in Washington DC, now that will change America...

Well, maybe not.

Maybe America will just die laughing instead.

Adam

[Dennis Hardin]

Dennis:

Unfortunately, he is not acquiting himself well the more the spotlight shines on him,

And he is certainly not the best the Libertariian Party can put up.

I mean look they put up Bob Barr and a Bookie last time...hmm - opps - well maybe he is the best.

Adam,

Barr was also a joke and an embarrassment, but it’s not as though libertarian candidates have any great legacy to live up to. According to Wikipedia, the highest vote total and percentage received by a libertarian presidential candidate was Ed Clark back in 1980. He got 921,128 votes and 1.06 % of the total nationwide. (I remember getting a letter from Nathaniel Branden soliciting financial support for Clark’s campaign. I wonder how NB feels about Ron Paul.)

Clark’s noninterventionist foreign policy would have been just as disastrous as Ron Paul’s. Clark denounced Ronald Reagan’s proposals to increase military spending, arguing that this “dangerous” way of thinking would bring the world to the brink of a global nuclear catastrophe. Of course, it did just the opposite, bankrupting the Soviet Union and ending the Cold War.

You would think the success of Reagan’s aggressive military build-up at making the world a safer place might have prompted the losertarians to rethink their passive, myopic approach to foreign policy.

Yeah. Sure. Like Ron Paul thought through his idiotic accusations against Bachmann.

[Brant Gaede]

Dennis:

Unfortunately, he is not acquiting himself well the more the spotlight shines on him,

And he is certainly not the best the Libertariian Party can put up.

I mean look they put up Bob Barr and a Bookie last time...hmm - opps - well maybe he is the best.

Adam,

Barr was also a joke and an embarrassment, but it’s not as though libertarian candidates have any great legacy to live up to. According to Wikipedia, the highest vote total and percentage received by a libertarian presidential candidate was Ed Clark back in 1980. He got 921,128 votes and 1.06 % of the total nationwide. (I remember getting a letter from Nathaniel Branden soliciting financial support for Clark’s campaign. I wonder how NB feels about Ron Paul.)

Clark’s noninterventionist foreign policy would have been just as disastrous as Ron Paul’s. Clark denounced Ronald Reagan’s proposals to increase military spending, arguing that this “dangerous” way of thinking would bring the world to the brink of a global nuclear catastrophe. Of course, it did just the opposite, bankrupting the Soviet Union and ending the Cold War.

You would think the success of Reagan’s aggressive military build-up at making the world a safer place might have prompted the losertarians to rethink their passive, myopic approach to foreign policy.

Yeah. Sure. Like Ron Paul thought through his idiotic accusations against Bachmann.

All's well that ends well. In fact, there was a point or two during the Reagen presidency that could have resulted in a nuclear catastrophe. The entire Cold War was a suck up to such. Some serious danger lingers. A careful analysis of the wars of the 20th Century reveals how much qua war, including the Cold War, was consequential to American inappropriate foreign involvement. Each major war led to a more difficult sittuation: WWI, WWII, The Cold War--with many little proxy wars, the worst being Korea and Vietnam. We are already right in the middle of what is next on the plate. The idea that the United States is going, through purely secularist means, to wage war on one of the two great monotheistic religions for the sub rosa sake of oil in the name of fighting "terrorism" in lieu of a Christian crusade is pure insanity for the gobble-it-up masses and saturated power lust for their masters.

--Brant

[Dennis Hardin]

A careful analysis of the wars of the 20th Century reveals how much qua war, including the Cold War, was consequential to American inappropriate foreign involvement. Each major war led to a more difficult sittuation: WWI, WWII, The Cold War--with many little proxy wars, the worst being Korea and Vietnam. We are already right in the middle of what is next on the plate. The idea that the United States is going, through purely secularist means, to wage war on one of the two great monotheistic religions for the sub rosa sake of oil in the name of fighting "terrorism" in lieu of a Christian crusade is pure insanity for the gobble-it-up masses and saturated power lust for their masters.

--Brant

Here ya go, Brant. This should look great on your wall. Put it right next to the poster that says “WE HAD IT COMING”

(BTW, I promise to start taking my medication, right after I gobble up some more pablum on right-wing radio and FOX News.)

[Brant Gaede]

I don't support Ron Paul. I support defending this country with an appropriate, rational foreign policy based on economic and military strength and the intelligence and will to use it without being grossly destructive.

--Brant

[Selene]

I don't support Ron Paul. I support defending this country with an appropriate, rational foreign policy based on economic and military strength and the intelligence and will to use it without being grossly destructive.

--Brant

Brant:

Agreed.

Additionally, it should be clearly announced that this is the policy of the US and it will be enforced.

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

I don't support Ron Paul. I support defending this country with an appropriate, rational foreign policy based on economic and military strength and the intelligence and will to use it without being grossly destructive.

--Brant

Brant:

Agreed.

Additionally, it should be clearly announced that this is the policy of the US and it will be enforced.

Adam

Given the current Administration, that cannot be counted on.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

I don't support Ron Paul. I support defending this country with an appropriate, rational foreign policy based on economic and military strength and the intelligence and will to use it without being grossly destructive.

--Brant

Brant:

Agreed.

Additionally, it should be clearly announced that this is the policy of the US and it will be enforced.

Adam

Unfortunately, I don't see this happening. Politicians are too power-seeking, stupid and ignorant to govern the gigantic United States. The country needs to be broken up into smaller countries. This won't happen soon either, but if it does eventually it will be driven by gross economic stress and distress, violence and political disintegration.

--Brant

batten down the hatches

[Selene]

The Republican presidential primary has become a bit feisty, but it will get downright ugly if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucuses.

The principled, antiwar, Constitution-obeying, Fed-hating, libertarian Republican congressman from Texas stands firmly outside the bounds of permissible dissent as drawn by either the Republican establishment or the mainstream media.

(Disclosure: Paul wrote the foreword to my 2009 book.)

.....

.....His conservative critics and the mainstream media will imply that he is a racist, a kook, and a conspiracy theorist.

Paul's indiscretions -- such as abiding 9/11 conspiracy theorists and allowing racist material in a newsletter published under his name -- will be blown up to paint a scary caricature. His belief in state's rights and property rights will be distorted into support for Jim Crow and racism.

Many of Paul opponents will take heart in concluding that Paul cannot get more than 25 percent in any state, and so he can be dismissed as a spoiler. But for the enforcers of Republican orthodoxy, a Paul victory in Iowa will be an act of impudence that must be punished.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/gop-will-take-gloves-if-ron-paul-wins-iowa/264111

[Dennis Hardin]

Unfortunately, I don't see this happening. Politicians are too power-seeking, stupid and ignorant to govern the gigantic United States. The country needs to be broken up into smaller countries. This won't happen soon either, but if it does eventually it will be driven by gross economic stress and distress, violence and political disintegration.

--Brant

batten down the hatches

Publius (with a little help from Montesquieu) pretty much disposed of that theory back in 1787, and I see no basis for thinking that the arguments in The Federalist Papers are not just as valid today.

The governing bodies of many cities and states are just as corrupt as Congress, if not worse. The problem is not the size of the country but the fact that the voting public does not grasp the need to severely limit the province of government.

[Brant Gaede]

Unfortunately, I don't see this happening. Politicians are too power-seeking, stupid and ignorant to govern the gigantic United States. The country needs to be broken up into smaller countries. This won't happen soon either, but if it does eventually it will be driven by gross economic stress and distress, violence and political disintegration.

--Brant

batten down the hatches

Publius (with a little help from Montesquieu) pretty much disposed of that theory back in 1787, and I see no basis for thinking that the arguments in The Federalist Papers are not just as valid today.

The governing bodies of many cities and states are just as corrupt as Congress, if not worse. The problem is not the size of the country but the fact that the voting public does not grasp the need to severely limit the province of government.

If the government were smaller the citizens would be more powerfull relative to the politicians.

--Brant

practically speaking it's all hypothetical and beyond my lifetime for sure

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I've been observing this thing grow, and grow it is growing. Walking off CNN after a flat denial was not a smart thing for Ron Paul to do.

The Blaze finally jumped on:

Is Ron Paul Changing His Story on What He Knew About Those Newsletters?

There's a 1995 video of him discussing his newsletters, showing he clearly knew what was in them.

I, personally, don't care. I know what I think of Paul and newsletters from 20 years ago will not change that.

But I think people are weary of the rewrite history game politicians do about their past. On this score, Ron Paul is proving to be typical.

Not good for a person famous for ideological consistency.

"Oops. Sorry. I was unclear and stupid about the way I said things in my newsletters back then," would have been a lot better.

Michael

[Peter]

From a Ron Paul newsletter 22 years ago:

“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal“ and ”If you’ve ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.”

end quote

That is funny, and a perhaps a slight exaggeration, though DC is almost all black. Blacks have slightly longer tendons and ligaments. I remember their arms are only one quarter inch longer than other races which does give them an average strength greater than a white person or Hispanic. Their legs may be a lot stronger and faster as Jimmy the Greek said, and which got him fired for stating the truth. Per the Prison Policy Initiative the general prison population is 65 percent black, while the young 21 to 29 years old prison population is 70 percent black. When I worked for the Ocean City, Maryland Police Department I was in charge of the sub station jail, housing mostly juveniles and women. I saw one Hispanic but no black prisoners. Of course this is in a family, friendly resort town.

Ron Paul is polling near or over the top in Iowa so it is his turn to get the shaft. President Clinton was being interviewed by O’Reilly and was asked, “You’ve been to Haiti with former President Bush after the earthquake. But why have Haitians lived in poverty for 200 years?”

“They have been neglected by their neighbors,” was former President Clinton’s answer.

That exemplifies the racism of Progressives and Liberals. Blacks need help. Haiti is 99 percent black and countries with predominantly black populations require assistance to raise them to a sufficient economic level for white Liberals to tolerate. Is Clinton correct? Isn’t this the same attitude Liberals have for the blacks of America who support them at a rate of 90 percent? Oh, wait. I’m not supposed to say the truth because then I will seem like a racist while the real racists get the black vote. Roll over in your grave, President Lincoln.

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh’s guest host Mark Davis today and he had sentiments similar to those above.

One caller lambasted Callista Gingrich as the first home wrecker to be a potential first lady, but Mark did not want to go there. Mark did agree that the 2012 Presidential election is about Obama’s record but Newt Gingrich is the only potential republican candidate who would shift the negative scrutiny to himself.

George H. W. Bush just endorsed Romney, while Jeb Bush has endorsed struggling Jon Huntsman.

Peter

[caroljane]

From a Ron Paul newsletter 22 years ago:

“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal“ and ”If you’ve ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.”

end quote

That is funny, and a perhaps a slight exaggeration, though DC is almost all black. Blacks have slightly longer tendons and ligaments. I remember their arms are only one quarter inch longer than other races which does give them an average strength greater than a white person or Hispanic. Their legs may be a lot stronger and faster as Jimmy the Greek said, and which got him fired for stating the truth. Per the Prison Policy Initiative the general prison population is 65 percent black, while the young 21 to 29 years old prison population is 70 percent black. When I worked for the Ocean City, Maryland Police Department I was in charge of the sub station jail, housing mostly juveniles and women. I saw one Hispanic but no black prisoners. Of course this is in a family, friendly resort town.

Ron Paul is polling near or over the top in Iowa so it is his turn to get the shaft. President Clinton was being interviewed by O’Reilly and was asked, “You’ve been to Haiti with former President Bush after the earthquake. But why have Haitians lived in poverty for 200 years?”

“They have been neglected by their neighbors,” was former President Clinton’s answer.

That exemplifies the racism of Progressives and Liberals. Blacks need help. Haiti is 99 percent black and countries with predominantly black populations require assistance to raise them to a sufficient economic level for white Liberals to tolerate. Is Clinton correct? Isn’t this the same attitude Liberals have for the blacks of America who support them at a rate of 90 percent? Oh, wait. I’m not supposed to say the truth because then I will seem like a racist while the real racists get the black vote. Roll over in your grave, President Lincoln.

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh’s guest host Mark Davis today and he had sentiments similar to those above.

One caller lambasted Callista Gingrich as the first home wrecker to be a potential first lady, but Mark did not want to go there. Mark did agree that the 2012 Presidential election is about Obama’s record but Newt Gingrich is the only potential republican candidate who would shift the negative scrutiny to himself.

George H. W. Bush just endorsed Romney, while Jeb Bush has endorsed struggling Jon Huntsman.

Peter

Only Gingrich would shift the negatie scrutiny to himself? The Dems are praying for Paul to get the nomination. Those newsletters will do him in in 100 ways.