Ron Paul: Too weird for the White House

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Update #2: Buzzfeed - In 1995 Video, Ron Paul Takes Credit For The Ron Paul Survival Report

"I also do an investment letter -- it's called the 'Ron Paul Survival Report' -- which is a gold oriented newsletter. But it's also expressing concern about surviving in this age of big government," Paul says, by way of introduction, in this 1995 video filmed by an MBA student at the University of New Mexico. In another 1995 video, Paul described the Report as an "investment" newsletter. Though Paul has recently denied paying any attention to newsletters published in his own name, he was very willing to plug them in 1995.

--

Update #1: A video of Ron Paul on CNN responding to the newsletters

Also, here is the full text of a selection of newsletters. And here is another source of newsletters in PDF format.

--

I have little doubt that this thread will quickly end up focusing upon Mr. Paul's views on Israel, but the real story here is the at least implicit endorsement of the occasionally racist, hateful and always paranoid things printed in his newsletters. I also had no idea that Mr. Paul regularly appeared with Alex Jones... That's just disappointing in general.

National Post - Too weird for the White House

...

While [Ron 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 neighbourhood 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 HIVinfected 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, Md. 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."

If the above were not enough to place Paul beyond the pale for the RJC, what the congressman had to say about Jews and Israel would probably be a deal-breaker. No foreign country was mentioned in the newsletters more often than Israel.

A 1987 newsletter termed it "an aggressive, national socialist state," and another missive, on the subject of the 1993 World Trade Center attack, concluded, "Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little."

In 1990, the newsletter cast aspersions on the "tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to [work] for the Mossad in their area of expertise."

This is just a sample of the hateful and conspiratorial nonsense that Paul promoted for decades under his own name. His response to my revelations was nothing short of unbelievable. "The quotations in the New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed," he said. "When I was out of Congress and practising 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."

In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer two days after the article appeared, Paul waved away accusations of racism by saying that he was "gaining ground with the blacks" and "getting more votes right now and more support from the blacks."

Yet a subsequent report by Reason found that Ron Paul & Associates, the defunct company that published the newsletters and that counted Paul and his wife as officers, reported an income of nearly $1-million in 1993 alone. If this figure is reliable, Paul must have earned multiple millions of dollars over the two-decades-plus of the newsletters' existence.

It is incredible that he had less than an active interest in what was being printed as part of a subscription newsletter enterprise that earned him and his family millions of dollars. Ed Crane, the president of the Cato Institute, said Paul told him that "his best source of congressional campaign donations was the mailing list for the Spotlight, the conspiracy-mongering, anti-Semitic tabloid run by the Holocaust denier Willis Carto."

...

Had Paul's persona and views changed significantly since 2008, this oversight might be understandable. But he continues to say and do things suggesting that, far from disowning the statements he has claimed "do not represent what I believe or have ever believed," he still believes them.

In the four years since my article appeared, Paul has gone right on appearing regularly on the radio program of Alex Jones, the most popular conspiracy theorist in America (unless that distinction belongs to Paul himself). To understand Jones's paranoid worldview, it helps to watch a recent documentary he produced, Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, which reveals the secret plot of George Pataki, David Rockefeller and Queen Beatrix, among other luminaries, to exterminate humanity and transform themselves into "superhuman" computer hybrids able to "travel throughout the cosmos."

There is nothing Jones believes the American government isn't capable of, from "[encouraging] homosexuality with chemicals so that people don't have children" to blowing up the Space Shuttle Columbia, a "textbook psychological warfare operation."

In a March 2009 interview, Paul entertained Jones's claim that NORTHCOM, the U.S. military's combatant command for North America, is "taking over" the country. "The average member of Congress probably isn't a participant in the grand conspiracy," Paul reassured the fevered host, essentially acknowledging that such a conspiracy exists. "We need to take out the CIA."

On Paul's latest appearance on the Jones show, just last week, he called allegations that Iran had attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States a "propaganda stunt" of the Obama administration. In a January 2010 speech, Paul announced, "There's been a coup, have you heard? It's the CIA coup" against the American government. "They're in businesses, in drug businesses," the congressman added.
 
Last edited:

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
Ed Crane, the president of the Cato Institute, said Paul told him that "his best source of congressional campaign donations was the mailing list for the Spotlight, the conspiracy-mongering, anti-Semitic tabloid run by the Holocaust denier Willis Carto."
That's not true AT ALL. Ed Crane is a liar and he's just bitter that the libertarian faction of the LP was victorious over the moderate faction.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Ron Paul is a lunatic. He is:

1. a vile disgusting racist
2. believes in a joke of an economic theory that doesn't believe in reality
3. anti-Constitution
4. anti-civil liberties.

So, yeah, he is too weird for most people who aren't racists.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
As I've heard it, Paul maintains he had nothing to do with the racist columns and had just lent his name.

While there's every reason to be dubious and check, until I hear otherwise I don't mind presuming his innocence on that. He has plenty he's guilty of to deal with.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
As I've heard it, Paul maintains he had nothing to do with the racist columns and had just lent his name.

While there's every reason to be dubious and check, until I hear otherwise I don't mind presuming his innocence on that. He has plenty he's guilty of to deal with.

Not surprising. Some people are very accepting of racists. Moreover, it's easy to sweep under the rug his defending of the newsletters when you're accepting of such views.
 

guyver01

Lifer
Sep 25, 2000
22,135
5
61
Alex Jones' wife (and kids) are Jewish so no anti-semitism found there.

You do know this defense... is almost always PROOF of racism/anti-semitism.

"i got a friend who's black/or jewish.. i'm not a racist/anti-semite!!!" lol ... fail.


im-not-racist-i-have-a-black-friend.jpg
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
LOL at New Republic. Should have just posted this bullshit in the other thread that Rabid is shitting all over with his lies.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
I think it's possible that he didn't write some, or maybe even all, of the articles in those newsletters. I also think it's irrelevant. It's not just that's he's responsible in a buck stops here sense. It has to be much worse than that. The newsletters went out under his name for literally years. It beggars belief that he didn't know the contents of any of them before the fact, or at least after the fact, enough to order the discontinuance of the hate rhetoric in future issues. He certainly did not fail to read any of them for years and years on end. And of course he defended the articles in several 1996 interviews. It is completely fair to tag him with holding those views, at least at some time in the past. So far as I'm concerned, he's a piece of shit.
 

Spikesoldier

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 2001
6,766
0
0
Ron Paul is a lunatic. He is:

1. a vile disgusting racist
2. believes in a joke of an economic theory that doesn't believe in reality
3. anti-Constitution
4. anti-civil liberties.

So, yeah, he is too weird for most people who aren't racists.

LOL @ #3 & 4.

you're trying much too hard.

p.s. link me up for #3 and 4, i know you have the racist pages on favorite/bookmark.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
He will never get into the WH for the main reason he isn't a Warhawk/neocon because War is Big Biz and Biz is goooooood.
 

Spikesoldier

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 2001
6,766
0
0
He will never get into the WH for the main reason he isn't a Warhawk/neocon because War is Big Biz and Biz is goooooood.

For once I agree with Ausm!

edit: and if by some miracle he does, I fear he will be JFK'd.
 

bradley

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2000
3,671
2
81
Could it be possible that Mr. Paul solemnly believes in the First Amendment's 'novelty,' but also does not condone what was written in his paper? Republican talking heads lately have been latching onto this story, meaning Ron has become a prime-time threat.

Oh, but he's "too weird" for the Presidency. Whatever that means. Billions in locked-box money and whole people disappear under the Clinton Administration, but somehow that's not odd.

We're getting down to the wire now. If this is truly the worst they can dredge up against Ron, you know he's clean.
 

Spikesoldier

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 2001
6,766
0
0
You do know this defense... is almost always PROOF of racism/anti-semitism.

"i got a friend who's black/or jewish.. i'm not a racist/anti-semite!!!" lol ... fail.


im-not-racist-i-have-a-black-friend.jpg

idk does your black friend/jewish friend live in your same household? what about marriage in matrimony? what about your offspring?

generalization fail. you're trying much too hard as well.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
RabidMongoose is a baby rapist. I've never heard him actually admit to it, but I know in my heart that he is and that's good enough for me.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
I think it's possible that he didn't write some, or maybe even all, of the articles in those newsletters. I also think it's irrelevant. It's not just that's he's responsible in a buck stops here sense. It has to be much worse than that. The newsletters went out under his name for literally years. It beggars belief that he didn't know the contents of any of them before the fact, or at least after the fact, enough to order the discontinuance of the hate rhetoric in future issues. He certainly did not fail to read any of them for years and years on end. And of course he defended the articles in several 1996 interviews. It is completely fair to tag him with holding those views, at least at some time in the past. So far as I'm concerned, he's a piece of shit.

His entire platform makes sense if you realize that he's a racist piece of shit. His whole idea of shredding the Constitution into pieces and to believe that states can ignore and flat out abrogate civil rights enjoyed today makes perfect sense once you realize his very racist tendencies.

His platform is very similar to that of other racists who despised civil rights.
 

Spikesoldier

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 2001
6,766
0
0
His entire platform makes sense if you realize that he's a racist piece of shit. His whole idea of shredding the Constitution into pieces and to believe that states can ignore and flat out abrogate civil rights enjoyed today makes perfect sense once you realize his very racist tendencies.

His platform is very similar to that of other racists who despised civil rights.

IC wut u did thar.

and i see finally your direction and 'conspiracy' with overreach of states' rights.

however there is a checks and balances system to prevent such. the federal government has its place, and it is currently encroaching WAY too much on states' rights. Dr. Paul plans to shift the balance towards the states once more in the direction towards equilibrium.

you need to find a new way to express your dislike for Dr. Paul rather than spinning the broken record of racist racist racist. it will get played out eventually and lose its gravity. spin wisely!
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Could it be possible that Mr. Paul solemnly believes in the First Amendment's 'novelty,' but also does not condone what was written in his paper? Republican talking heads lately have been latching onto this story, meaning Ron has become a prime-time threat.

Oh, but he's "too weird" for the Presidency. Whatever that means. Billions in locked-box money and whole people disappear under the Clinton Administration, but somehow that's not odd.

We're getting down to the wire now. If this is truly the worst they can dredge up against Ron, you know he's clean.

I don't know about you, but if something was making me millions of dollars and had my name on it I'd have a pretty keen interest in what its contents were.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
IC wut u did thar.

and i see finally your direction and 'conspiracy' with overreach of states' rights.

however there is a checks and balances system to prevent such. the federal government has its place, and it is currently encroaching WAY too much on states' rights. Dr. Paul plans to shift the balance towards the states once more in the direction towards equilibrium.

you need to find a new way to express your dislike for Dr. Paul rather than spinning the broken record of racist racist racist. it will get played out eventually and lose its gravity. spin wisely!

Ron Paul feels like the states can put their respective boots down onto the civil rights of individuals and nobody else can do anything about it because he doesn't believe that those civil rights apply against state governments. So, no, Ron Paul isn't interested in directing anything towards equilibrium. He wants total abrogation of individual civil rights and liberties when it comes to the states.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
IC wut u did thar.

and i see finally your direction and 'conspiracy' with overreach of states' rights.

however there is a checks and balances system to prevent such. the federal government has its place, and it is currently encroaching WAY too much on states' rights. Dr. Paul plans to shift the balance towards the states once more in the direction towards equilibrium.

you need to find a new way to express your dislike for Dr. Paul rather than spinning the broken record of racist racist racist. it will get played out eventually and lose its gravity. spin wisely!

I don't agree with RM on all his points. However, this is rather non-responsive to the point he's making. When you say he is trying to restore a balance in federal vs. state power, you are talking about something different - his narrower interpretation of the Commerce Clause. What RM is talking about is that Paul doesn't believe in the incorporation doctrine, i.e. that the Bill of Rights applies to the states. Meaning state governments can trample on individual rights as much as they desire. That has nothing to do with federal power over the state. It has to do with state power over the individual. What kind of "libertarian" thinks a state government can infringe on freedom of speech, take away your Second Amendment gun rights, and search your house without probable cause?
 
Last edited:

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,839
2,623
136
As I've heard it, Paul maintains he had nothing to do with the racist columns and had just lent his name.

While there's every reason to be dubious and check, until I hear otherwise I don't mind presuming his innocence on that. He has plenty he's guilty of to deal with.

At a minimum he "lent" his name to that vile crap for years. Paul was a public figure all along, he knew the value of his name as a brand and utilized it in this way. It matters little whether he actually wrote the words. He assumed responsibility for what was published under his name, to attempt to evade it now is weasely.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Not surprising. Some people are very accepting of racists. Moreover, it's easy to sweep under the rug his defending of the newsletters when you're accepting of such views.

Craig isn't thinking staight on this issue, but calling him a racist is over the top here. I'm often critical of Craig, but this is beyond the pale.
 

Spikesoldier

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 2001
6,766
0
0
Ron Paul feels like the states can put their respective boots down onto the civil rights of individuals and nobody else can do anything about it because he doesn't believe that those civil rights apply against state governments. So, no, Ron Paul isn't interested in directing anything towards equilibrium. He wants total abrogation of individual civil rights and liberties when it comes to the states.

I don't agree with RM on all his points. However, this is rather non-responsive to the point he's making. When you say he is trying to restore a balance in federal vs. state power, you are talking about something different - his narrower interpretation of the Commerce Clause. What RM is talking about is that Paul doesn't believe in the incorporation doctrine, i.e. that the Bill of Rights applies to the states. Meaning state governments can trample on individual rights as much as they desire. That has nothing to do with federal power over the state. It has to do with state power over the individual. What kind of "libertarian" thinks a state government can infringe on freedom of speech, take away your Second Amendment gun rights, and search your house without probable cause?

I feel that while states can make up their own laws, they cannot supersede national federal laws such as the Civil Rights Act 1964 etc. If RP were elected president and by executive order repealed CRA and other federal level bills, or tried to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, IMO there would be riots and armed anarchy in the streets.

Checks and balances, as well as our rights in our constitution should be permanent and untouchable. It is the insubordination of the constitution as well as the checks and balances systems our founding fathers instituted that will be our downfall.

Meanwhile, whats sad is that novel liberty-crushing bills like SOPA and NDAA tried by our current crop of "constitution stompers" is met with little protest or opposition.