Subscriptions
RSS
Withdrawal Of Paul
For months now most of us here at The Rec Show have been vigorously banging a drum for the campaign of Ron Paul. His ideas for fixing many of the problems plaguing America - and, by association, the world - seem both practical, respectful, and intelligent.
However, the behavior of his supporters, in addition to a new investigative report, has me rethinking this position.
Politics are often mentioned with religion as two topics everyone should avoid in polite conversation, mainly due to the fact that the conversation will quickly become un-polite. With that understanding, it is easy to see why people become so passionate when someone comes along with a fresh perspective and bold ideas. The passion can quickly whip into a frenzy when the supporters of that person feel that their ideal candidate is being treated unfairly.
The supporters of Ron Paul have every reason to be offended by the exclusion of Paul in public debates and polls, and the general marginalization of his platform in the media. However, they do not have the right to physically assault private property with spray-paintings and signs, or chase citizens of America through the streets who oppose Paul’s message - even if that citizen is the thoroughly-disgusting Sean Hannity. While it may be unfortunate, Hannity deserves the right to go out at night without being subjected to this:
How classy!
And while Ron Paul’s motley collection of conspiracy theorists, anti-government sociopaths, and disaffected, middle-class hopefuls continue to erode the campaign with their own violent brand of physical and virtual antics, Ron Paul’s own words have emerged to place a different face on his once-promising message.
A new report published by The New Republic entitled Angry White Man reveals the results of an investigation into the early nineties writings of Dr. Paul in the newsletter he has kept running continuously in his name since 1978. Some of the thoughts contained in these newsletters - particularly those written in the early nineties - are quite disturbing for a man thought to believe and support individual freedom and liberty.
Check out some of these doozies:
Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. “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,” read one typical passage.
According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with “‘civil rights,’ quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.”
It also denounced “the media” for believing that “America’s number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.”
And while I might sometimes feel angry over welfare, I’m not sure that I feel like this:
As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled “What To Expect for the 1990s,” predicted that “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because “mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’”
And you certainly do not publicly make statements like this:
In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC’s Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” “This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,” the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter’s author–presumably Paul–wrote, “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.”
That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which “blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot.” The newsletter inveighed against liberals who “want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare,” adding, “Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems.”
Paul also seems to single out certain black leaders for scorn, including - unbelievably - Martin Luther King:
In the early 1990s, a newsletter attacked the “X-Rated Martin Luther King” as a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” “seduced underage girls and boys,” and “made a pass at” fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” were better alternatives.
Yikes.
Blacks aren’t the only ones who upset Dr. Paul; he also seems to have a problem with homosexuals:
In 1990, one newsletter mentioned a reporter from a gay magazine “who certainly had an axe to grind, and that’s not easy with a limp wrist.”
In an item titled, “The Pink House?” the author of a newsletter–again, presumably Paul–complained about President George H.W. Bush’s decision to sign a hate crimes bill and invite “the heads of homosexual lobbying groups to the White House for the ceremony,” adding, “I miss the closet.”
And this lovely passage:
“Homosexuals,” it said, “not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”
When the reporter tried to get confirmation that Paul wrote these things in the newsletter that bore his name, he was told that Paul had other writers who concocted those thoughts. However, the reporter noted that the thoughts are consistent in the newsletter for over a decade, which makes it hard to believe that Paul had no knowledge of the ideas contained within.
For someone like myself, who actually praised Paul’s message of freedom, the following quote is the most disturbing one of all. After praising Klu Klux Klan member David Duke’s successful showing in the Louisiana primary in 1990, Paul took away a few lessons from Duke’s campaign:
”Duke lost the election,” it said, “but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment.” In 1991, a newsletter asked, “Is David Duke’s new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?” The conclusion was that “our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom. (italics ours)”
That, folks, sounds like an agenda on par with anything FOX News has cooked up against Dr. Paul recently.
Honest supporters of Dr. Paul need to understand the difference between ideals and the ideal candidate. Paul may have hit on the solution to many of society’s ills, but he also festers a deep hatred for changes that have been positive ones in society. The ideal candidate is one who has the capability and capacity to work for all people in today’s world, not one who remains stuck socially in the past. As even Dr. Paul would admit, the right medicine at the wrong time can be just as deadly as the wrong medicine at the right time.
It is, at least, for this person. I withdraw my support for Ron Paul.
Last 5 posts by Ray
- Why STAR TREK Fails - November 17th, 2008
- Useless Tube - November 17th, 2008
- Hold Me Closer, Tiny Dicker - November 14th, 2008
- What The Deficit Means To You - November 13th, 2008
- Stealing Movies - November 12th, 2008
Comments
14 Responses to “Withdrawal Of Paul”
Leave a Reply
WOW!
What a dick.
These are the things that I’ve been reading about Ron Paul from the get-go. His ideas, for today’s political climate, don’t sound bad, but he is, at his heart, a very VERY conservative politician.
I’ve never understood how you can be PRO personal freedom and still be ANTI abortion and ANTI homosexuality. Don’t they both fall under personal freedom? Regardless of how you feel about them personally, if you are going to say people ought to be free to make their own choices, shouldn’t those choices be included? It all just seems very contradictory.
And whether he wrote the items or not, if his name is associated with the newsletter for any length of time, it has to be assumed that he is at least aware of the content. And that he didn’t immediately have his name removed should be seen as a tacit endorsement of the message.
WOW! I can’t beleive that a human being claiming to be for the constitution and a proprietor for personal freedoms, could actually say this ridiculous shit. I for one don’t need to withdraw my support, because I have always supported Obama. I did however think that he may have been the least to evils and I thought that the surprising and unusual support for him was a fun thing to watch.
It seemed the he may have been the most interesting thing in this campaign, form an entertainment standpoint. I am surprised that a man who would say these things would even run for President. He had to have known that it would get out.
It runs out Ron Paul isn’t the best of the evils, he actually may be the only true evil running for President.
You guys are falling for the the spin. These statements are taken out of context and exemplify the problem with big government and Paul isn’t stating racial remarks here, rather the fact that big government itself creates these situations, it actually creates the class of the poor and rewards them, therefore self generating the very problems it desires to eliminate. Learn to read a little more than this spin BS that gets sent around the net and look into the man a little before flaming him with BS taken out of context. Paul has a 30 year record in Congress of protecting liberty and INDIVIDUAL freedom no special groups; women, gays, whites, blacks; because this separates us into categories and eventually forces you to give to another against your will. I have been reading tons of his writings and beliefs for a year now and truly can say that Paul is far from being racist.
As far as Sean Hannity goes, I’m very annoyed at those Paul supporters for doing what they did. Paul’s campaign needs this energy but directed in a civil and intelligent manner, like Trevor Lyman’s efforts for the first money bomb. On the other hand, Hannity is a dick and promotes the killing of hundreds of thousands of Muslims, he promotes the actions of private bankers that steal YOUR wealth (through no fault of his own-he probably doesn’t understand the current monetary system) and generally thinks that he can get away with using his powers in the media to continue a soft-fascist movement that is killing America.
Here is Ron Pauls recent Press Release regarding this BS that has been going around:
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:
“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.
“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person’s character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’
“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
Do a little research before you open your mouth next time. Or are you content to believe everything you read? If thats the case: “Listening to the libelous lies of TNR and Jamie Kichick will result in immediate, irreversible brain damage. The only prevention is to NOT TRUST EVERYTHING YOU READ, especially in a slander article.”
Come on, pull your head out of your ass and check your resource first.
@ Luth - Look, if Ron Paul has issued a retraction, as quoted by Caldera above, then that means that the quotes DO exist and WERE printed under Ron Paul’s name. It is not a lie to write an article quoting from Ron Paul’s newsletter. These quotes actually exist, so there is no need to “check my resources first.”
Let’s imagine that Ron Paul DID NOT write any of those articles over the course of several YEARS. The fact is that they were written with his tacit endorsement by having his name plastered on it. And while he has taken responsibility for apparently not paying any attention to what he had his name attached, does that kind of personal irresponsibility translate into good Presidential material???
I think you know the answer.
@ Caldera - the “out of context” thing just floors me.
Statements like “black people leave basketball games and of course start breaking windows” has nothing to do with big government or the welfare state. It has to do with black people.
Statements like “gay people should go back into the closet” are not big government screeds; they are attacks on a group of people based on their sexual orientation.
Of course it was taken out of context. See, that stuff was written for angry white guys to read. Not you, Ray. If only angry white guys read it, it’s not racist at all.
@ Caldera - I can understand that at times things can be taken out of context, but come on that many times? I knew what we was saying and he was fine saying it. He’s a racist, like many people his age. Even if those things were written by somebody else, it’s his responsibility to over see the things written for him. He let them be released, didn’t he?
The revolution is over and the best part, a black man or woman will be the next President. I wonder what kind of stuff will, fly out of his mouth then. I’m sure it will all be taken out of context, I mean who would ever believe an old white man from the south could possibly be racist.
@ ryk - I’m definitely angry enough. And white enough. It’s that male part that keeps tripping me up LOL
Well Ray, I would like to say that I am sorry. For many months you have supported Ron Paul, and to be let down cannot be easy, especially considering that you do not lightly give political support to public officials. The New Republic is one of the few publications that I do not question the integrity of and have followed their reporting for many years (although I do disagree with their stance concerning Isreal). I will offer no cynical comment, even though I never supported Ron Paul. However, I still believe he should be allowed a “moment in the spotlight”.
In America today, we need as many ideas offered as possible. There is no easy answer to the nations ills and only by examining all alternatives will we find a path by which we can tread an honorable course. Hopefully we can accomplish this, but you must realize after our conversation the other night that I am very sceptical.
Once again, I wish your experience with politics could have been more positive than my own. But I suppose only us cynics hold the beat of the a pulse of the populace.
j
By the way, please forgive any typos, it is 2:30 am and I have been to several bars tonight.
j