Despicable: Ron Paul Says [Republican] Dr Martin Luther King is a “Gay Pedophile” and More Things That Piss Me Off

By Gary P Jackson

I was hoping to finish out the week sending out good tidings and cheer, and get back to politics next week, but with all of Ron Paul’s racist newsletters in the news, and this bit of business from 2008 coming up, I simply must say something.

Ron Paul is a well known racist and anti-Semite. There’s a reason why white supremacist groups like love the guy. All one has to do is read these Neo-Nazis’ website to understand what you got here. The hate drips off the page.

Here we have Tucker Carlson and Jamie Kirchick discussing one of the despicable comments Ron Paul made about Dr Martin Luther King. It seems Herr Doktor Paul called Dr King a “gay pedophile.” and over twenty years had all sorts of, as Kirchick describes it, “racist, anti-semitic, homophobic invective” in his newsletters

Vodpod videos no longer available.

*If you are having problems with the MSNBC video player, click on the Reason link below.

Reason Magazine has more on this here.

I was quite young during Dr King’s time, but I do know this. At a time when radical socialists and communists were running wild, burning cities, and becoming mainstream democrats, Dr King, a Republican, was talking about the need for all God’s children to find a way to live together. LBJ and Hoover had files on King. They illegally wiretapped his phones. They did everything to destroy him.

Like all men, Dr King was not a perfect man, but after he was gunned down, what had been a peaceful movement turned violent. Domestic terror groups like the Black Panthers would eventually find themselves in partnerships with the likes of Bill Ayers and his Weather Underground. Nothing but crime and terrorism came from that marriage.

Dr King is an inspiration to us all. He wanted change, but he wanted to change man’s heart, mind, and soul …. not start a violent revolution.

And yet, here’s Ron Paul calling Dr King a “gay pedophile” and all blacks “animals.”

As much as he may hate the Negoes, he still managed to endorse former disgraced Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, an out and out communist, for president in 2008. McKinney was once arrested by the Israelis while trying to give aid to Hamas, BTW.

This is the kind of clown the Republican Party wants in it’s ranks? [or as the Iowa frontrunner?]

As bad as it is, nothing is worse than Ron Paul [and his supporters] hatred for the Jewish people. In Ron Paul’s sick little world, which includes conspiracy theorist and industrial strength lunatic Alex Jones, everything wrong in the world is the Jews’ fault. The Jews control all of the banks, the media, hell, they control everything. Only Ron Paul is pure.

It’s a friggin; cult!

This is pretty typical of how Herr Doktor Paul’s cult thinks:

Notice they don’t differentiate between Team Obama, who hates the Jews more than they do, and is actively working towards their destruction, by making sure the Muslim Brotherhood comes to power all over the Middle East, and Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin, of course does support Israel. In fact she’s kept a small Israeli flag in her office for years. One even flew in her governor’s office.

According to these loons BTW, Sarah is a front for all of the boogie men from the Build-a-Burgers, Council on Foreign Relations, and what have you. Never mind Sarah is more of an outsider, and a REAL Libertarian, than Herr Doktor Paul, or those he surrounds himself with.

The Weekly Standard exposes what Ron Paul really is:

The Company Ron Paul Keeps

The Republican Jewish Coalition announced this month that congressman Ron Paul would not be among the six guests invited to participate in its Republican Presidential Candidates Forum. “He’s just so far outside of the mainstream of the Republican party and this organization,” said Matt Brooks, executive director of the RJC, adding that the group “rejects his misguided and extreme views.

Paul’s exclusion caused an uproar, with critics alleging that his stand on Israel had earned the RJC’s ire; an absolutist libertarian, Paul opposes foreign aid to all countries, including the Jewish state. “This seems to me more of an attempt to draw boundaries around acceptable policy discourse than any active concern that President Dr. Ron Paul would be actively anti-Israel or anti-Semitic,” wrote Reason editor Matt Welch. Chris McGreal of the Guardian reported that Paul “was barred because of his views on Israel.” Even Seth Lipsky, editor of the New York Sun and a valiant defender of Israel (and friend and mentor of this writer), opined, “The whole idea of an organization of Jewish Republicans worrying about the mainstream strikes me as a bit contradictory.”

While Paul’s views on Israel certainly place him outside the American, never mind Republican, mainstream, there is an even more elementary reason the RJC was right to exclude him from its event. It is Paul’s lucrative and decades-long promotion of bigotry and conspiracy theories, for which he has yet to account fully, and his continuing espousal of extremist views, that should make him unwelcome at any respectable forum, not only those hosted by Jewish organizations.

In January 2008, the New Republic ran my story reporting the contents of monthly newsletters that Paul published throughout the 1980s and 1990s. While a handful of controversial passages from these bulletins had been quoted previously, I was able to track down nearly the entire archive, scattered between the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society (both of which housed the newsletters in collections of extreme right-wing American political literature). Though particular articles rarely carried a byline, the vast majority were written in the first person, while the title of the newsletter, in its various iterations, always featured Paul’s name: Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Political Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, and the Ron Paul Investment Letter. What I found was unpleasant.

Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks,” read a typical article from the June 1992 “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism,” a supplement to the Ron Paul Political Report. Racial apocalypse was the most persistent theme of the newsletters; a 1990 issue warned of “The Coming Race War,” and an article the following year about disturbances in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C., was entitled “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” Paul alleged that Martin Luther King Jr., “the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” had also “seduced underage girls and boys.” The man who would later proclaim King a “hero” attacked Ronald Reagan for signing legislation creating the federal holiday in his name, complaining, “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”

No conspiracy theory was too outlandish for Paul’s endorsement. One newsletter reported on the heretofore unknown phenomenon of “Needlin’,” in which “gangs of black girls between the ages of 12 and 14” roamed the streets of New York and injected white women with possibly HIV-infected syringes. Another newsletter warned that “the AIDS patient” should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,” a strange claim for a physician to make.

Paul gave credence to the theory, later shown to have been the product of a Soviet disinformation effort, that AIDS had been created in a U.S. government laboratory at Fort Detrick, Maryland. Three months before far-right extremists killed 168 Americans in Oklahoma City, Paul’s newsletter praised the “1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty” as “one of the most encouraging developments in America.” And he offered specific advice to antigovernment militia members, such as, “Keep the group size down,” “Keep quiet and you’re harder to find,” “Leave no clues,” “Avoid the phone as much as possible,” and “Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”

There’s a lot more that you can read right here.

Of course, Herr Doktor Paul’s crazy-eyed supporters will have you believe he never wrote these newsletters, or even saw them, though he’s listed as editor of them. Or maybe someone from the government snuck in during the night, on coffee break from setting up the FEMA camp down the street, and planted all of those crazy racist, anti-Semitic rants. Which ever, I’m sure it’s the Jew’s fault somehow.

No one documents Nazis and anti-Semites better than Pamela Geller. She’s rounded up some of Herr Doktor Paul’s newsletters and posted them in all of their glory. Check em out here.

Ron Paul is a despicable human being, and a cancer on the Republican Party. He and his bat-shit crazy cult-like followers are why the democrat party, the party that created the KKK, and had a Grand Exalted Cyclops [Senator Robert Byrd D-West Virginia] as one of it’s respected elders. The party of Jim Crow. The Party of Bull Conner. The party that institutionalized racism in this country, the democrats, are able to paint Republicans as racist, and get away with it.

I’m sick of looking for ways to justify Ron Paul, or his supporters. Sick of hearing about how great he is on the economy.

Like Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul is a con man. A fake, a phony, and a fraud.

Though Herr Doktor Paul rails against government spending, he was one of only four Republicans to request earmarks in the 2011 budget. $157 million worth, as a matter of fact. He requested $398 million in 2010’s fiscal year budget.

Like Newt and his rationalizations, Ron Paul has a great scam going. He attaches his earmark requests to bills that are certain to pass, and become law, then he sits back and votes “nay” on the legislation, so he is on the record as voting against the spending. Of course, he cheerfully collects the money afterwards.

Ricochet has a list of Paul’s earmarked projects here. Conservatives Network has even more.

You know, I have mixed feelings on earmarks. After all, the federal government takes our tax dollars, gets their cut off the top, and then sends some of it back to the states for things IT deems fit. How else is a community to benefit from it’s own money, if their representative in government, their Congressman, doesn’t make it happen?

That said, it should be a transparent process. Something where all members vote on each item, and some sort of due diligence is done. Far too often these earmarks go to family members or cronies to prop up their businesses. Some are finally caught and some are not. Most times it doesn’t matter anyway as no one goes to prison.

If Government had less involvement in the way cities and states conduct themselves, we’d have fewer of these problems to start with.

The problem with Ron Paul is he tries to have it both ways. He tries to claim to be all about the Constitution, and rails against government spending, especially pork spending through earmarks, when in fact, he’s one of the biggest porkers in Washington! He’s a hypocrite of the highest order.

Couple this with the liability of being a vile, nasty racist, and it’s time for Ron Paul to take his act and go home.

There is no room in polite society for someone like him. He stains the Conservative brand, and reinforces all of the lies the left tells about the patriotic members of the Tea Party.

Ron Paul is a despicable human being who sides with the most vile elements of society. There is simply no place for him in the Conservative movement, or the Tea Party. No place at all.



Filed under In The News, Politics

39 responses to “Despicable: Ron Paul Says [Republican] Dr Martin Luther King is a “Gay Pedophile” and More Things That Piss Me Off

  1. Chad

    He thinks he is Hitler’s predecessor I am sure ~ And I believe he is the one using the Charlie Chaplin great speech video over 10000 times on youtube as we speak to indoctrinate kids and teenagers and this makes me sick as well as everything else about racists~ Want to divide the country as much as Obama and cause a literal hell on earth vote Ron Paul~

  2. joy

    Spot on, Gary!! Excellent dissection of that creep, Ron Paul – may we hear less & less of him as 2012 moves along, and he FINALLY exists Congress!! And, as you point out so well, thanks to Pam Geller and others (and I also follow these shenanigans on Barenakedislam [BNI], an increasingly important and influential blog, as well), Paul’s rantings & ravings are in print form & available online for all the world to see. As I posted elsewhere, he’ll either bask in glory (totally unlikely!) or sink in disgrace…

    • Gary P

      I’ve never much cared for the man. But this is just beyond the pale.

      You know, he’s always running for president because his cult members send in crazy amounts of money. He ends up being able to have so much money to defend his congressional seat no one can take him on.

      He’s no different than any other dirt bag in Congress, just has a different angle.

      The GOP is in it’s last days.

  3. angela

    I’m guessing that you censor comments. What a piece of scum you are. These are outright LIES.

    • Gary P

      Don’t censor at all. We do moderate all comments though.

      Please point out the lies? This is Ron Paul’s actual words and actual voting record. Are you calling Herr Doktor Paul a liar?

      • Nunya Business

        Well for a guy who has Reagan as his profile pic youd have to consider yourself part of the antisemitic, black hating, cult conspiracy because after all, Ron Paul and Reagan were affiliated and on relatively good terms with one another…
        Besides what is more anti-black than wanting to repeal the federal drug laws (which are biased towards blacks) and let all nonviolent drug offenders free from prison.
        Gary, you are either or lost and confused soul, or just someone who loves to spread lies

      • Gary P

        Are you talking about the same Ron Paul who trashed Reagan for years?

        Face it, the only reason many of you care about Ron Paul is because you think he will legalize drugs. You couldn’t care less about anything else.

        Drug laws aren’t racist. That’s an insane notion.

        Fact is, drug use is often coupled with crime. Druggies often steal to feed their habit. Those in the lower income brackets, black or white, are especially likely to commit crimes to feed the monkey.

        We should execute drug dealers.

        Now I agree, NON-VIOLENT drug offenders don’t belong in jail, but again, most are in jail because they’ve committed other crimes. You won’t find many in jail just because they smoked a joint!

        You claim I lie, but can’t seem to offer up any evidence of any lie. The fact is, Ron Paul is a racist. Always has been. These are his writings. There’s plenty of video of him talking about these newsletters, which we’ll be posting after our Christmas holiday.

        Ron Paul is a cancer on society.

      • Carey

        “Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.”

        If you can’t take the Austin NAACP president’s word for it, who CAN you believe? Paul is not racist, it’s just election year mudslinging.

      • Gary P

        Got a link to that? Video proof? I’ve found many of the things stated by Paul supporters, though maybe unknowingly, are patently false. There is recorded proof of Paul’s racism.

      • Joy

        You claim that the local NAACP President, a long-time friend of Ron Paul’s, denies that Paul is a racist. Well, given the fact that many in the NAACP now are anti-semitic, I could see where Paul’s anti-Zionism and, de facto, anti-Semitism, would be a “plus” in the eyes of the anti-Zionist/anti-Israeli NAACP; and that would trump any perceived anti-Black bias on the part of Ron Paul.

        Frankly, as long as Ron Paul’s name is attached to that newsletter – no matter how many years ago – no amount of ‘splainin’ that he never read it and had no control over its content, etc. ad nauseum, will NEVER wash among the general public – let alone the MSM!! The DNC will have his candidacy for lunch – if, sadly, it ever comes to that…

      • Patrick Freeman

        Hi Gary. I’ll address the question of racism in a separate post but I wanted to point out that your claim that Drug Laws aren’t racist would seem to be contradicted by the fact that, given the same charges, black persons are many times more likely to be arrested and even more disproportionately likely to be convicted of drug-related crimes.

      • Gary P Jackson

        Seriously? Laws are applied to everyone. There’s not one law directed at one race and another law directed at another.

        You ever think that a certain group ends up more in prison than another because they commit more crime? Sadly, the liberal way of life, which includes the drug culture, has helped destroy the black family unit. Kids grow up with no father, and little future. They end up joining gangs looking for some sort of “family” to belong to. These gangs don’t sit around and knit blankets you know. Most are involved in the violent drug trade.

        More blacks are in prison for drug crimes because they commit most of the drug crime. You can thank liberalism for that. Yes I know you Ron Paul people pretend to be libertarians, but you most certainly are not. You are left wing democrats who can’t face reality.

        BTW, citing to ultra-left wing rags to make your point doesn’t impress anyone.

        What we need is to stop playing around. Stop worrying about the nickle and dime users and start going after the dealers and the king pins. A mandatory death penalty on first conviction will solve a whole lot of problems. Let the end user go and execute the ones selling the product, at very level. THAT is how you get this nonsense under control!

        Drugs are not healthy for a society. Long term drug use destroys the body and destroys the soul.

        I know you liberals wanna spend your entire life high rather than face reality, but that’s not how life works. Wise up, sober up, and became a productive member of society.

      • Patrick Freeman

        “Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never 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. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups. Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern liberalism, however well intentioned, is a byproduct of the same collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions. 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 market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees — while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, 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. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.” – Ron Paul on Racism

        First off let me warn you in advance that this will be a long post and that in addition to providing a counterpoint to the assertion that Ron Paul is racist it deals with several other criticisms that have been made in reference to him.

        Some have suggested that the newsletter issue proves that Paul is a racist. It’s important to keep in mind though that, according to the psychological principle known as “confirmation bias”, people have a tendency to uncritically accept as fact claims that fit in with or confirm their existing belief system – even in the absence of any confirming evidence and conversely, they will tend to reject claims that conflict with their preconceived notions even in the presence of strong supporting evidence. Another way of stating this is that people tend to filter reality in a manner that confirms what they already believe and they will ignore evidence that conflicts with their ideology.

        When I encounter people who claim Ron Paul is a racist I ask them about their opinion of Paul before they heard about the newsletter and without exception, they always tell me that they could never stand the guy and have always strongly disagreed with his views. It makes sense then that such persons would ignore information that is discordant with the claims of racism such as the fact that Paul received more support from minorities than any other Republican candidate and that several prominent African Americans – including the head of the NAACP in Austin, TX and economist Walter E. Williams – released statements indicating that they have known Dr. Paul on a personal level for decades and can vouch for the fact that he is not remotely racist and that they view the “racist newsletter” issue as nothing more than political mudslinging. Numerous other black leaders including the Rev. Voddie Baucham and Louis Farrakhan have praised and/or endorsed Paul as well and his support among Hispanics was so strong that the Republican Party in certain States instructed its cronies to avoid selecting Hispanics as delegates for fear that they were likely to be Ron Paul supporters which would of course interfere with the GOP’s planned coronation of their pre-selected candidate, Mitt Romney.

        Here are a few supporting videos demonstrating the support of Dr. Paul by African Americans, many of them prominent leaders and activists:

        Here’s an interesting post that examines the newsletter issue from the perspective of a professional ghost writer:

        …and here’s an interesting piece from Reporter Benn Swann regarding who may have actually written the newsletters in question:

        We should also keep in mind the fact that public attitudes towards minorities, including the terminology used in reference to them, change over time and therefore judging the language of 20+ year old articles as “racist” on the basis of currently prevailing attitudes and terminology is a dubious proposition. It is also critical to keep quotes in context as many of the quotes that sound so racist in isolation don’t sound racist at all when read in the context of the article they were pulled from. Let’s look at a couple of these quotes and then examine them in context. The comments I’m including come from the following article by Justin Raimondo. I recommend reading the full article for further clarification of these issues:

        In the interest of brevity I’ll only address a couple of the “racist” comments here but there is more analysis at the website linked above. Here are two of the apparently racist comments that have been pointed out:

        – “[O]ur country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin.”

        – “only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions”

        Raimondo’s analysis clearly shows that the comments in question do not appear particularly racist when viewed in their original context:

        “…on closer examination, the material that is being called “racist” turns out to be no such thing. When we go to the source of the above, and other examples cited by Kirchick, we come to a rather conventionally conservative analysis of the Rodney King riots of 1992: the rioters are condemned, the Koreans are valorized, and the culture of black entitlement and its relation to the welfare state are delineated in no uncertain terms. Nothing, in short, that would be out of place in any conservative magazine. The above-cited phrase about the enemy being defined “by the color of their skin” is here placed in its original context:

        “Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficulty avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.”

        “In context, the author was clearly saying that people will draw unfair conclusions – that racism will increase — as a direct consequence of the Los Angeles riots. How, exactly, is that “racist”? If anything, it’s a warning that the sociological consequences of Statist policies – and the failure of the elites to address them—will lead to the rise of the David Dukes of this world, if more responsible politicians don’t face them head on.”

        “…Another phrase that has been lifted out of context—“only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions” — placed in context reads quite differently:

        “Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit—not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people.”

        “The idea that people are not to be treated as representatives of racial groups is the antithesis of bigotry. While the author of the above is most emphatically anti-racist, he is also anti-looter, anti-violence, and justifiably angry at the sight of white motorists being pulled out of their cars by thugs of whatever color.”

        Some concede that Paul probably didn’t write the material in question however they contend that even so, the fact that he didn’t catch these articles before the periodical went out implies a poor ability to function as a manager and suggest that if he could not even handle that seemingly simple task he certainly can’t handle the responsibilities of being President. The problem with this contention is that it fails to take into account the circumstances of Paul’s life at the time these editions were published. Again, it’s all about context. Paul had just concluded a year-long Presidential bid as a candidate with the Libertarian Party and was in the process of getting his medical practice as an OB/GYN back up and running after that long absence. Part of being an effective manager involves being able to prioritize tasks. If a medical doctor is devoting long hours to re-establishing and running a busy medical practice and that same physician has a newsletter that is effectively on auto-pilot as a result of having a team of professional ghost-writers and editors running that project and if this team has been writing, producing and editing the newsletter for a while and there had been no known issues then, assuming there is insufficient time to handle both tasks effectively, would a responsible manager take time away from the medical practice he is busy re-establishing in order to focus time and energy on a periodical that he has no reason to believe requires additional attention at that point in time?

        Let’s look at this from the perspective of a President Ron Paul. Let’s say Ron Paul was POTUS Paul and that even before taking office he had agreed to work with writers on the production of his authorized biography and that production of this volume also began before he took up residence in the White House. If things became sufficiently busy that he was unable to devote the time necessary to ensure that the results of both endeavors were in accordance with his vision would we want the good Doctor to focus his energies on his responsibilities as POTUS and risk having an errant biography or visa-versa. In can certainly be argued that Paul’s decision to focus his energies on ramping his medical practice back up and providing quality patient care demonstrate an ability to focus on the truly important tasks during times when “doing it all” is not an option. The suggestion that making money from the sale of the infamous newsletter is somehow indicative of tacit approval or even overt corruption is difficult to take seriously when we consider that Ron Paul, unlike every other member of Congress save North Carolina congressman Howard Coble, has refused to accept money from the Congressional Pension since he believes it unconstitutional and immoral to force taxpayers to fund the retirement of members of Congress particularly when the majority of its members are millionaires (as are an even larger percentage of Senators). Paul didn’t have to do anything for this money other than accept it. He also returned a portion of his Congressional Salary to the Treasury every year. Anyone willing to turn down free money and then turn around and give back a percentage of his Salary on top of that has earned the right to not be accused of greed or of selling out for profit – particularly when virtually no one else in Congress does so.

        Moving on from the newsletter issue, you point out that Paul was unable to rally Congress to adopt his views and suggest that this is a failure on Paul’s part but is it not the case that the members of Congress are responsible for their own actions? One of the lone voices calling for integrity, transparency and adherence to our Charter Document can hardly be faulted for the corrupt and partisan nature of Congressional decision-making as it exits today. You can, after all, lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. Unfortunately, members of Congress are often more concerned with their political careers than with adhering to the Constitution and/or being fiscally responsible. Most of them don’t even *read* legislation before they sign it, instead making the decision to support legislation solely on partisan grounds. Ironically, it was Ron Paul’s son Rand who recently introduced legislation aimed at rectifying this inexcusable behavior on the part of our elected representatives.

        Also, although Congress has without a doubt been resistant to Paul’s advocacy of compliance with Constitutional limits on power or the critical importance of acting in a fiscally responsible manner, he did make significant headway in raising awareness of the effect the Federal Reserve has in creating recessions and devaluing our currency, issues that could scarcely be discussed before Paul. Indeed, there have been items added to the Republican Platform this year – such as auditing the Fed, requiring Congressional approval before waging war and preserving internet freedom – that Paul is almost entirely responsible for. I don’t expect the Republican Party to comply with its own platform of course but that’s another matter.

        Paul’s position on earmarks is often misunderstood although to be fair, he’s hardly the best or clearest speaker. He is critical of the exploitation of earmarks tacked onto inappropriate appropriation (say that 10 times fast!) bills by bureaucrats in order to funnel cash into pet projects. That being said, he understands that such unaffordable and/or unconstitutional appropriations will continue to be passed and therefore his way of making the best of a bad situation is to vote against the appropriations bill while tacking on his own earmarks so that in the extremely likely (politicians LOVE to spend after-all) event the appropriation passes in spite of his dissenting vote he can at least ensure that his constituents get back some of their money. If the appropriation passes and Paul does not include earmarks then any non-earmarked funds will be disposed of in whichever manner the executive branch desires. The benefit of earmarks is that they promote transparency in that they allow one to specify exactly how and where funds are to be spent rather than giving carte blanche to the executive branch to spend the loot on whatever they wish. Paul has been criticized over the fact that he often earmarks appropriation bills and then votes against them, something his critics have called hypocritical but as is so often the case, they miss the point.

        Let’s say, for example, that Congress votes to appropriate $20 billion to build low-income housing somewhere in the US. Paul will vote against such an appropriation because he does not view the building of homes as a function authorized by the Constitution. Despite Paul’s ‘No’ vote, he knows the bill will pass because he’s greatly outnumbered by those in Congress who either don’t know or don’t care about Constitutional limitations on power. Therefore Paul will place earmarks on the same bill he plans to reject so that if/when it is passed he can at least ensure that a portion of his constituents tax dollars will be spent in their own district. If Paul had not earmarked the bill then the homes paid for with that $20 billion would be built wherever HUD decides and it is very possible that none of that cash, even the portion taken from his district, will be spent in his district – possibly as a punishment for his principled “no” vote – thereby leaving his constituents with nothing to show for the pilfered monies.

        Moving on to Foreign Policy…the claim that Paul’s foreign policy is outdated makes me wonder if the poster thinks it wise to wage perpetual war against Countries that never attacked us, never threatened us and couldn’t hurt us even if they intended to. Ron Paul is no isolationist though as he advocates the Jeffersonian position of “free trade with all, entangling alliances with none.” Isolationists – North Korea comes to mind – oppose free trade, preferring instead to, as the term suggests, isolate themselves from the international community. Hardly Paul’s position. Instead, Paul is a non-interventionist in that he adheres to the “extreme” position that the U.S. Military should fulfill it’s intended role of protecting the United States of America rather than playing the role of Global Cop and sticking its nose into everyone’s business. Wasting billions of dollars and spilling American blood to defend the people of Libya is not the proper role of our Military and such meddling actions not only make it impossible to get out of our extremely serious National Debt but also serve to increase terrorism for the same reason that you would be filled with rage and seek revenge were a foreign military to occupy your neighborhood and kill your children. That our “War on Terror” actually increases terrorism should not be surprising since it seems that everything we declare a war on only grows in response to our actions. Drug use has soared since the beginning of the “war on drugs” for example and whereas the Taliban had Opium production well in check, Afghanistan, post U.S. invasion, now supplies 90% of the world’s heroin even as we have our soldiers guarding poppy fields.

        The idea that U.S. Interventionist Foreign Policy is the primary motivation of the terrorists, including the 9/11 attackers, is hardly controversial when you consider that the 9/11 Commission, the DOD, the Pentagon, the CIA, Israeli Mossad and the attackers themselves have all identified the U.S. invasion and occupation of sovereign nations as the primary motivation behind terrorist attacks.

        The most effective terrorism — including that on 9/11 — is suicide terrorism. The average suicide attack kills 12 times as many people as the average non-suicide attack and according to a study funded by our own Department of Defense, over 95% of all such attacks are motivated by a desire to compel a democratic state to withdraw combat forces from territory the terrorists consider to be their homeland or otherwise prize greatly, and every identifiable suicide campaign has been waged by terrorist groups for that strategic objective. The 9/11 commission identified the presence of the U.S. military base in the Muslim Holy Land as the primary motivation of the attackers. Osama bin Laden himself agreed in his “Open Letter to America” when he said (paraphrasing):

        “Wny do we fight against America? We fight because you attacked us and continue to attack us. You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of your international influence and military threats. Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them…etc, etc.”

        Nor should we be so naive as to believe that the official reaons given by our leaders for various military campaigns represent their true motives. Bush’s Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill reported that in the first cabinet meeting following his inauguration, Bush told his cabinet that his primary goal was finding a pretext to invade Iraq. “It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,'” O’Neill said. O’Neill is also quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting asked why Iraq should be invaded. Former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind confirmed this. “There are memo…One of them marked ‘secret’ says ‘Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'” He cited a Pentagon document titled “Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts,” which, he said, outlines areas of oil exploration. “It talks about contractors around the world from … 30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq.”

        Four Star General Wesley Clark also confirmed this theme in a 2007 interview in which he talked about a visit he made to the Pentagon in the days immediately after 9/11. He wanted to find out what was going on and upon arriving he ran into an another General he knew who showed him a briefing he had received from the DOD that laid out a U.S. plan to invade and topple the regimes of 7 Countries in a 5 year period. The listed Countries included Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Lebanon, Sudan, Syria and Iran. Video and brief commentary here:

        Also, keep in mind that the incessant marginalization of so-called “Truthers” as paranoid nut-jobs demonstrates an ignorance of history as, whether or not 9/11 was an inside job, it cannot be denied that False Flag operations have been used by governments throughout history in order to create the needed pretext and public support for a desired military attack against a Nation that had done nothing to warrant such an action. In fact, in 1962 Lyman Lemnitzer, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff laid out a False Flag proposal that was delivered to President Kennedy, who decided not to act on it. The goal of Operation Northwoods was stated thusly: “The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.” The series of false-flag proposals suggested in Northwoods “called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or other operatives, to commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order justify the subsequent military attack planned against Cuba and to drum up public support for a war against that nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro. One part of Operation Northwoods was to “develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.” The Operation’s tactics included “…hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government.

        I don’t have time to go any further as I need to leave the office but I’d close this out by saying that it is never a good idea for a people to trust their government but rather should demand transparency and be perpetually vigilant and prepared to “throw the bums out” should they grow too big for their britches. As John Basil Barnhill opined in his 1914 “Indictment of Socialism #3” – “Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.”

        In short, Ron Paul is no more perfect than any other man but critics are often guilty of repeating charges that they heard but never bothered to investigate themselves. Many of the charges leveled against the good Doctor are based on misunderstanding of his positions or disinformation perpetuated by a corrupt two-party system with the aid of the lapdog media aimed at preserving the power and privilege of the corrupt officials who have managed to dupe the people into sitting passively on their arses, paying taxes and watching Jersey Shore while said leaders turn our once free Republic into a socialist police state. More and more people are waking up and it is probably no coincidence that these same people are ignoring the mainstream media in record numbers in favor of getting their news from numerous online sources in addition to independent media. Is it any wonder that for every Internet Censorship Bill that is shot down in flames two new ones rise from the ashes? If the Power’s That Be hope to maintain their stranglehold on the American People then they MUST gain control of the Internet. Failing that, banning the possession of firearms will be necessary.

      • Gary P Jackson

        Goddamn it. Have you drug addled Ron Paul cultists EVER just left a simple comment somewhere?

        Every single one of you insist on posting the long cut and paste rants that absolutely no one will read or give a rat’s ass about.

        We ALL know what racism is, and you crazies can twist and turn all you want, but drug laws, or any law, for that matter, are NOT racist.

        Here’s a plan for you. If something is illegal, DON’T DO IT. Then you will never have any problems.

        Fact is, it’s the insane ideas proposed by people such as yourself, that helped destroy the family unit among blacks, and led to situations that have seen a disproportionate amount of crime among blacks.

        You people pretend you are “enlightened” but your ideas have already been tried and failed miserably. Maybe instead of following an old con man and political nothing, you should think about sobering up, taking a bath, and joining the real world.

        When you and the rest of the Ron Paul loons start talking about 9/11 and false flags you prove to the world that you don’t have the sense God gave canned cling peaches.

        All that dope you’ve been smoking has made you paranoid and has eaten what had been passing for a brain. It makes you say stupid shit with alarming regularity.

        After you sober up, take that bath, and get your act together, leave the insanity of Ron Paul, Alex Jones, Jesse Ventura, and Prison Planet behind. It’s all only made you stupider and stupider.

        In the future, please see our comment policy regarding long cut and paste rants. As a rule we don’t allow them because they rarely add anything of value.

      • Patrick Freeman

        Hey Gary. This is in regards to your response to my comment on disparate sentencing for blacks with regards to drug crimes. The point being made is not that blacks are incarcerated more often because they commit more crimes but rather, given two individuals with similar criminal backgrounds who were arrested for the same crime, the black guy is far more likely to be sentenced to time behind bars whereas his white counterpart would likely get probation. I’ll quote a relevant excerpt from one of the articles:

        “Class 4 possession laws, the least severe felony charges, accounted for the majority of racial disproportionality in incarceration, the Commission writes. In Cook County, home to Chicago, Class 4 possession accounted for the majority of all arrests in 2005. Few of those charged only with Class 4 (and not with some other crime, drug or violent) were sentenced to jail terms. But the overwhelming majority of those who were, by an eight-to-one ratio, were black.

        Most Class 4 cases were dropped, at roughly equal rates among nonwhites (45 percent) and whites (40 percent). But of those cases that were continued, white defendants were nearly twice as likely (36 to 19 percent) to be sentenced to court supervision or probation.

        Critics of the study were quick to point out its limitations. Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez pointed out that a larger proportion of minorities were repeat offenders, which could have contributed to their outsized representation in prison. And the Associated Press quotes Republican State Rep. Dennis Reboletti, saying that variables like gang affiliation weren’t taken into account.

        Still, none of these criticisms addresses the underlying fact: the eight-to-one statistic controls for arrest record, meaning that even among suspects with comparable criminal histories, the nonwhite suspect is far more likely to go to prison than the white one.”

      • Gary P Jackson

        Yeah yeah, I know. I’ve already told you why this is. Liberal policies destroyed the black family. These kids are more likely to get involved in criminal activities.

        There’s also more to the story than the statistics you cite. You did note that many of these minorities are repeat offenders, and that most certainly means they will serve jail time.

        Like most issues, it can be both complicated and pretty damned simple, at the exact same time.

        The bottom line is drugs are illegal and that ain’t gonna change. The harm drug use does to a society far outweighs any good that would come from legalizing them.

        You guys can cite all kinds of studies and statistics, but the fact that drugs are bad, is all that matters.

        Again, if I had my way, we would spend less time worried about a cat holding a dime bag, and instead execute anyone caught trafficking. At some point you’d either dissuade individuals from taking part in the drug trade, or kill em all off.

        The rest is of no consequence whatsoever.

      • Patrick Freeman

        Hi Joy. If I may ask, what specifically has led you to the conclusion that Ron Paul is anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic?

      • “By your words are ye known!” There are many sources (all tedious, dull and depressing, of course) that sit some of Ron Paul’s various policies & beliefs – including, first & foremost, his disdain for the State of Israel (masked under the protest of decrying the long-standing “special relationship” between the USA and Israel).

        Then, since most THINKING Conservatives and pro-Israel supporters know (from various & nefarious associations with which people like
        Ron Paul associate) that often/usually “anti-Zionist” is also code for “anti-Semitic” (ho-hum, one of the oldest prejudices in human history!!); ergo, Paul has absolutely no special ties to or feel for the State of Israel. To him, it’s merely an impediment to the Pan-Arab/Pan-pisslamic world he’d prefer to see ruling the Middle East.

        One of the better results to which we can look forward in November is NO MORE RON PAUL in Congress – YEA! He’s been at the public trough long enough – and, from the record, has accomplished precious little EXCEPT bringing home to bacon to his District. Well, folks,
        THAT little gravy train is about to make its last run between DC & TX!!

        Ron Paul

      • Gary P Jackson

        Well said Joy!

        Sadly, his supporters are the most paranoid, unreasonable human beings on the planet. All of us are frustrated with government, and most of the players involved, but we also know we have to work with what we got. The Ron Paul cult doesn’t understand that.

        Of course, most juts want some weed and a bag of Cheetos.

  4. My fellow Americans are waking up. Say what you will about Dr. Paul. He has already won. People are talking about the FED. They are questioning America’s foreign policy. They are talking about constitutional philosophies and more of us will win congressional seats and take the power back. Ron Paul is just the beginning.

    • Gary P

      Not really. Everyone is back to calling Republicans and the Tea Party racists thanks to this moronic Jew hater.

      Whatever good Paul might have done, has been wiped out.

      Conservatives have always know Ron Paul is a racist and a jerk-off. This stuff is only new to the rest of the country, which is why it will be talked to death.

  5. Zionism and the Jewish people are two different things. International banker Nathaniel Rothschild used the Jewish people to fulfill his political goal of using the building of a Jewish state by taking the land of the Palestinians so the threat of world war 3 is always looming and we’re always directed right into it along with the rest of the world. The Jewish people have always been harassed originally by their own elite just like we Americans were thanked by Hitler for showing him how to treat the Jews based on how we treated the American Indians. So, I’m connected with anyone around the world that knows that evil people promise the world and to care for you but their ultimate goal is war which is a racket we shouldn’t be dumb enough to continue to support. We all need to respect each other’s sovereignty. Everything about America is un-American these days including the public education (actually its become animal trading instead) that encourages people to do whatever gets the reaction they or some superior desires, truth schmooth most people say. Or, they could throw around charges of prejudice to find others who will accept their hateful words as somehow positive.

    • Gary P

      Oy vey!

      Why is it always some kind of goddamned conspiracy with you Ron Paul people?

      Herr Doktor Ron Paul is on record as saying he wishes Israel did not exist.

      Ron Paul is done.

      • joy

        This is basically a pro-Palin site – and all the good & positive things she supports and for which she stands! She has not been publicly critical of Ron Paul, but Paul – through his own words! – has shot HIMSELF in the foot; no need for help from others!!

        Frankly, if we lose all the Paul-bots who comment with such inane, ignorant and anti-Semitic theories & ramblings, it would be no loss at all. They will stick with their Prison Planet conspiracies – and false histories – until they are either de-programmed or un-brain-washed. I speak from experience about the “my way or he highway” mentality of the Paul-bots, ’cause I was once a hard-core libertarian (but only briefly and barely a Paul supporter) in the past.

      • Gary P

        Never been a fan of Ron Paul. Back in the early 1990s his buddy Alex Jones was making videos and selling insane conspiracy theories.

        What’s so sad, is every now and then, both Ron Paul and Alex Jones accidentally come across a real problem, but since they have little credibility, it is written off as more kook fringe.

        Things about our monetary system that Ron Paul comes up with are mostly on the right track. But he’s the wrong voice.

        I’ll say this though, as annoying as the Paulbots are, often they are asking the right questions. In fact, they’ve done better opposition research on the candidates than anyone. But since they are Paulbots, everything they put out there is written off as the rantings of a loon. That’s a shame.

        I do know that Ron Paul really is a vile man. An embarrassment to Texas.

  6. Pingback: We need Sarah Palin bad ! - Page 5 - Forums

  7. Jason

    Gary wtf are you talking about?

    RP has already said he did not write the letters and did not read them at the time and does not hold any of those beliefs written in the newsletters.

    The only thing you can blame him for is not paying close enough attention to what his ghost writers were writing under his name.

    Can you provide any evidence Ron Paul is a racist besides these newsletters that were written 20+ years ago and weren’t even written by him? If he is such a racist then I’m sure you could show me an audio or video of him saying something racist, right? If you cannot provide any evidence of him saying anything racist from his own mouth, then sorry, you have no credibility.

    I will be waiting….

    • Gary P

      How about Ron Paul saying Israel shouldn’t exist, and praising terror group Hamas on Iranian TV? I’ll have video up later.

      Oh, and are you REALLY stupid enough to think Herr Doktor Paul didn’t write that crap? He’s listed as the editor of that racist bullshit newsletter. Editors read EVERYTHING.

      He’s also on tape bragging about that crap.

      Sorry Paulbot, but Ron Paul is an evil, racist POS. An embarrassment to Texas and all of humanity. I’ll be glad when he’s gone from politics.

  8. Pingback: Q.How do spell toast? A. R- O- N P- A- U- L - Page 3 - HCS Snowmobile Forums

  9. You people make me chuckle. Yea, RP must be a closet “racist” for the last 30 years when he’s continuously called MLK a hero, offered free medical services to minorities that couldn’t afford it, and has the backing of the NAACP president who he’s been good friends with for the last 15 years. That doesn’t = racist to me, sorry.
    BTW–where’s proof that he’s the editor of the newsletter, that he profited from it, etc? At the time these statements were released he was running a medical center full time AND was a congressman. There were literally THOUSANDS of articles printed under the newsletters and a handful of racist statements were made. RP has repeatedly admitted that he’s guilty of negligence and lack of oversight. No one’s perfect.

    • Gary P

      Are you kidding? Herr Doktor Paul hated Dr Martin Luther King. Reading through his diseased newsletters, he trashes the Great Ronald Reagan repeatedly for signing Martin Luther King Day into law. Calls it the annual “hate whitey day”.

      There’s a reason the neo-Nazis over at Stormfront support Herr Doktor. If Herr Doktor was a supporter of any black man, that bunch wouldn’t support him. Same goes for former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke.

      BTW, Herr Doktor Paul’s neck of the woods is the last stronghold for the KKK in Texas. A whole bunch of mouth breathing inbreeds down there.

      I’m thoroughly convinced you cats are either under the influence of some really good drugs, or think the rest of the world is just stupid.

      And which is it? Herr Doktor isn’t a racist, or he said a whole lot of stupid shit, and only some of it is racist?

      You loons try and have it both ways.

      Here’s some of Herr Doktor Paul’s nonsense

      There’s a fellow who tweets passages straight from Herr Doktor. Today he focused on Dr King:

      My favorite here. Dr King was, in fact, a Conservative REPUBLICAN. His own family verifies this:

      They typical racist Ron Paul cultist responds:!/libertarian_adi/status/152876641968852992

      Ron Paul is a vile, filthy racist. The sooner he disappears, the better.

  10. I have to laugh about the accusation that this is a “pro Palin” site…… hey Ronbot…,psssst come here for a second…….put the joint down so I can let you in on a secret…….(looks both ways and then leans in to whisper)….. Sarah Palin ia not running in this election cycle…

    • Gary P

      Thanks Derek!

      We are a “Pro-Palin” site. As out “About” section notes, we are Reagan-Palin Conservatives. That said, none of us are backing a candidate, at this point. We’re just reporting the facts about all of them and letting the chips fall where they may.

      We’ve hammered Mitt Romney, Rick Perry [my governor] Rick Santorun, That Huntsman fellow, and of course, Newt. [repeatedly!] We’re not real big on Obama either.

      Ron Paul supporters are strange ducks. Jim Jones would have loved to have such devoted minions.

  11. Sorry to break the news to the people commenting that Ron Paul is a racist, but the link above shows that Ron Paul didn’t write those newsletters. If the link above still doesn’t convince you, then I recommend this one:

    • Gary P

      Of COURSE Ron Paul wrote them. Or at least most of them. He endorsed ALL of them. They were HIS newsletters and he is listed as editor. An editor’s job is to read every post.

      You Ron Paul cultists are just as silly as those who support Newt Gingrich and actually believe he took millions from government agencies like Freddie Mac, in exchange for “history lessons”!

  12. Mike Mceleney

    Literally 5 minutes of research (I don’t care either way on this issue; but I wanted to confirm my suspicion on sensationalism) has this exact article written by a James B Powell; verified by 3 different content analyzers. It seems this blog isn’t informative, how disappointing. Did you know that it was also titled the “Lew Rockwell Letter” afterwards? The editor took responsibility and transferred the letter to his own name. Not surprising for a blog..

    • Gary P

      Ron Paul is listed as the author and editor of the newsletters. Maybe you should put the Koolaid down and let the fog clear from your brain.

  13. P.S. Oops, there were a couple glitches in my last email: Namely, in the 2nd line, it should read “FIT some of Ron Paul’s policies & beliefs,” etc. And, at the very end, somehow Ron Paul’s name is sitting there as a sort of “sign off!” No explanation, just edited it too hastily!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s