Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« "In a democracy, we do not recognize the right not to be offended" | Main | Ed Stelmach vs. edstelmach.ca »

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

The Truth About Ron Paul

This article fron The New Republic does an excellent job detailing Ron Paul's history as a member of the pro-Confedracy, racist, militia-loving, wacko fringe side of American politics.

Indeed, I've often reflected that the one really interesting  thing about the Ron Paul campaign is how, for such a nut, he's been very careful to calibrate his message.  Hell, the guy who voted no on every Federal program pretty much ever is running for President on a promise to keep Social Security.  Indeed, asked about the government programs he's professed to hate for so long, he just goes back to his talking points on the war.  Brilliant.

Indeed, one can't help but wonder - given the relatively small number of ads that he's actually run - if, rather than a Third Party bid or whatever, Ron Paul is running this campaign as a for-profit endeavor.

Some highlights after the cut:

The rhetoric when it came to Jews was little better. The newsletters display an obsession with Israel; no other country is mentioned more often in the editions I saw, or with more vitriol. A 1987 issue of Paul's Investment Letter called Israel "an aggressive, national socialist state," and a 1990 newsletter discussed the "tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of expertise." Of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a newsletter said, "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."

Of course, we know from Paul's more rational supporters that he doesn't support 9/11 "Truth" nuts.

(A) newsletter listed "Ten Militia Commandments," describing "the 1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty" as "one of the most encouraging developments in America." It warned militia members that they were "possibly under BATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] or other totalitarian federal surveillance" and printed bits of advice from the Sons of Liberty, an anti-government militia based in Alabama--among them, "You can't kill a Hydra by cutting off its head," "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."

Interesting, in light of the mob-like behaviour of his supporters.

They appear to be chock-full of conspiracy theories, warnings of an imminent race war, and even more.  Fun!

Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on January 8, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54fd8d0378834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Truth About Ron Paul:

Comments

This newsletter is pure hogwash! And for anyone that believes or pretends to believe that dr. paul is racist is simply silly. Continue writing your smear pieces, its pathetic and will not sway my belief in a Great man like Dr. Paul.

Posted by: hogwash | 2008-01-08 2:20:10 PM


There is a lawsuit on the way....

Posted by: Jon | 2008-01-08 2:22:34 PM


Bunk!
This is all old news. And has been discussed and explained to my satisfaction many times. Ron Paul is the most pro-gay rights, anti-racist, and anti-sexist candidate running in either party, bar none. He is a libertarian in name and in principles. He would never have been nominated to be the LP presidential candidate if he was not pro-freedom for everyone, including the folks that all of us hate.
Ron Paul did not write these things in the old newsletter. Some one else did. The person was fired. Additionally, be careful of the context and the question being asked. Ron Paul does not speak in 30 second sound bites. It takes time to explain his positions on complicated issues where the government has been screwing things up for people and the harm needs to be undone. Furthermore by his actions over many years it is 110% clear that these accusations are all part of a smear campaign by the neocons to discredit Dr. Paul. The reason is simple; he is beginning to have his anti-war, pro-economic and pro-individual freedom message heard by America. And he is taking votes away from the other 5 pro-war candidates. Slowly but surely he is showing them all out to be inconsistent flip floppers! He is the un-politician. It is a simple and ugly smear campaign. That has been tried before. Check out his web site and his voting record for 30 years. He is the most consistent pro-individual rights person running. He voted against the Patriot act for gosh sakes! The New Republic, like Fox News, seems to have been taken over by the neocons present in both parties. I support and trust Ron Paul.

Posted by: DenisL | 2008-01-08 2:23:10 PM


Well, Hogwash, let's just say that someone whose newsletter seems to have spent a lot of time predicting the "coming race war" and accusing the Jews of all forms of perifidy should probably be scrutinized a little more closely.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-01-08 2:23:15 PM


Nice try ace. Consider the source you're quoting. The New Republic lost all credibility years ago. This flimsy attempt to smear Ron Paul is a joke. Your logic is flawed, as are your sources. Now please return to the flock with the rest of the sheep...

Posted by: Get A Clue | 2008-01-08 2:23:49 PM


You are ridiculous

Posted by: Adam's Father | 2008-01-08 2:26:25 PM


This is not an old smear, this is a perfectly ne one.

DenisL - assuming that you're not a bot of some sort, I'd just suggest that you read the article. It shows the lie that those previous statements were an isolated incident - instead, the recorded remarks and statements cover most of Ron Paul's career, through several incarnations of his newsletter.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-01-08 2:28:19 PM


Adam, this is a good post! I think the crazy uncle can get only 8-10% of the entire thing. He's gonna drop out of the race any time soon!

Posted by: Winston | 2008-01-08 2:29:25 PM


Lol,
This election is a rare opportunity to reverse this deeply disturbing trend, this death march to collectivist oppression. One man in the field of pesidential candidates wants you to be treated as an individual, not a member of a special intrest group. He doesn't even think in terms of ethnicities or voting blocks. When he looks at you, the only colors he sees are red, white and blue.

Mr. Yoshida, what are your intentions here exactly? Cuz a good'o laugh is all I got. Laughing at you that is.

Posted by: Dave | 2008-01-08 2:30:48 PM


Where's journalistic integrity nowadays? This crap is horrible even for an opinion piece.

Posted by: Trey | 2008-01-08 2:30:50 PM


Where's journalistic integrity nowadays? This crap is horrible even for an opinion piece.

Posted by: Trey | 2008-01-08 2:31:19 PM


Roo Paul may or may not be a racist, but many of his supporters and contributors are! He refuses to disavow them - which tells me all I need to know about him.

Ronald Reagan disavowed the endorsement of Louisiana KKK leader David Duke. Roo Paul refuses to do the same.

Posted by: obc | 2008-01-08 2:34:42 PM


Don't quit your day job!

Posted by: Jason | 2008-01-08 2:36:10 PM


Nah, Winston, Ron Paul's not going anywhere. Clearly, he's figured out a way to take stupid people for an awful lot of money - as, it seems, he's been doing for many, many years - what with these newsletters and all.

I imagine he'll keep it right up.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-01-08 2:38:09 PM


i think you're misinterpreting his message. he is defending the right for every nut job out there to be able to think and say whatever they want to say. defending that right is not an endorsement of their hate speech. the constitution protects neo nazis viewpoints just as much as it protect mine and yours.

Posted by: nick | 2008-01-08 2:38:17 PM


Has nyone bothered to google..James Kirchick?

Posted by: Mair | 2008-01-08 2:39:33 PM


Good work, keep up the smear campaign! The publicity this dis-info stirs up will only show your true colours once they hear the man speak. They'll know instantly these allegations are completely fallacious. You know why...because we're not stupid! We can tell the difference between sincerity & desperation!

First they ignore you, Then they laugh at you, Then they attack you, Then YOU Win!

JDC

Posted by: JaydaCee | 2008-01-08 2:40:28 PM


Dear Adam,

I'm glad you and your neocon ilk continue to write anad disseminate these ridiculous andludicrous smear pieces on Ron Paul. If you are trying to attack him and stifle his growing popularity, however, you should be aware that your desperate, Goebbels-like propaganda only serves to ENHANCE his further well-deserved respect by a growing number of North Americans, and reflects the intellectual impotence and political vacuity of those such as yourself who would rally behind the banner of the failed, big-government status-quo.

Posted by: akak | 2008-01-08 2:40:36 PM


Good work, keep up the smear campaign! The publicity this dis-info stirs up will only show your true colours once they hear the man speak. They'll know instantly these allegations are completely fallacious. You know why...because we're not stupid! We can tell the difference between sincerity & desperation!

First they ignore you, Then they laugh at you, Then they attack you, Then YOU Win!

JDC

Posted by: JaydaCee | 2008-01-08 2:42:03 PM


Good work, keep up the smear campaign! The publicity this dis-info stirs up will only show your true colours once they hear the man speak. They'll know instantly these allegations are completely fallacious. You know why...because we're not stupid! We can tell the difference between sincerity & desperation!

First they ignore you, Then they laugh at you, Then they attack you, Then YOU Win!

JDC

Posted by: JaydaCee | 2008-01-08 2:42:12 PM


I haven't had a chance to go through the entire article, although I plan to. I do know that RP had a ghost writer for the newsletter for a very long time. I believe it was Lew Rockwell, but I could be wrong.

At any rate, I just can't see Ron Paul writing some of this, or endorsing it. Since I'm a fan, I've gone through many of his writings and speeches with a fine-toothed comb. He seems consistent, principled, and an individualist. That last goes against the grain of putting people into categories, but rather judging each one on their merits. That seems like a noble thing to do, near as I can tell.

I did find this (http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kirchick-i-dont-think-ron-paul-is.html), however, and it paints the author of the TNR piece in a bad light:

"Anyways, I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I’d have called him a fascist. But I must say, the Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic of the bunch!"

If he doesn't think that Paul is a homophobe, then why accuse him of it? And he'd be willing to call Giuliani a fascist, just to rile up his supporters? Seems like the motivation is all wrong here... Could it be a case of hyperbole? Sort of like the global warming thing?

Just don't be so quick to decide that Paul is a racist or a homophobe just because you don't like him, Adam (winston, obc, and so on). I *get* that you don't like him. But don't jump on every possible smear as though it were the scientific consensus.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-08 2:52:15 PM


1) Nick - of course the Constitution protects Neo-Nazis and every other scumbag. Indeed, I believe that they ought to be perfectly free to mouth whatever trash they wish.

On the other hand, Nick, the Contitution doesn't say that you have to accept money from Neo-Nazis or, for example, publish their views under your own name in your own newsletter.

2) If someone would explain to me how talking about the things written by someone in their own newsletter is a "neo-con" smear, it would be much apperciated.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-01-08 2:52:37 PM


"Indeed, one can't help but wonder - given the relatively small number of ads that he's actually run - if, rather than a Third Party bid or whatever, Ron Paul is running this campaign as a for-profit endeavor."

Besides being ridiculous, that's getting mighty close to libel and slander and I strongly suggest you stop and reconsider if that's a wise thing to say in print.

Ron Paul voted no for a congressional gold medal for Pope John Paul II and Ronald Reagan and Rosa Parks. He says the medals are an unconstitutional use of taxpayer money and once suggested each House member instead contribute 100 bucks from his or her own pocket. Nobody took him up on it.

While you're sitting there reflecting (as you so often do), consider that in Paul's 30 year career no one has ever heard him utter a racist word. We have heard him denouce racism as a sickness of the heart. We have heard him denounce racism in all of it's ugly forms.

You are either being intellectually dishonest or drowning is a sea of ignorance. Do the right thing and pull this article now. Assassinating a man's character unjustly reflects more on you than anybody else. And don't forget, karma can be a ugly force to reckon with.

Posted by: Billy Budd | 2008-01-08 2:55:03 PM


I don't just "dislike" Ron Paul. I hate him. I think that he's a latter-day Copperhead whose dangerous views, were they to be adopted, would eventually lead to Western Civilization been subjugated by its enemies.

Indeed, it would be fair to say that racism is one of the fundamental assumptions of Ron Paulism - in that it claims that the United States can withdraw from the world without eventually been forced to bow down before its enemies. Assuming that Ron Paul isn't a Chinese agent, the only way he could actually believe that is if he believes that the West's enemies are, in some way, genetically incapable of defeating it, even if the West gives up.

And, in any case, this stuff was published by Ron Paul, under Ron Paul's name, for the profit of Ron Paul.

And, in any case, articles about "the coming race war" and how the Jews attacked the World Trade Centre are so bizarre and unacceptable that, if Paul had any sense or didn't agree with them, he'd have dealt with them at the time, not fifteen to twenty years later.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-01-08 2:57:00 PM


Hi, I am Adam Yoshida,please look over here while I distract you from the more important topics. After all thats what I get paid to do :D. I must confess, I do not know how the system works, but I like it!

Posted by: Dave | 2008-01-08 2:58:24 PM


Interesting... I've been reading the comments left on that article. Mostly from pro-Paul people (but of course, they own the internets). Another possibility for the author of the pieces is Eric Dondero. He was fired by the campaign many moons ago.

Take a look at some of the comments there. Some of them might provide an interesting counter-weight to the story. http://www.tnr.com/talkback.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-08 2:59:51 PM


"just don't be so quick to decide that Paul is a racist or a homophobe just because you don't like him, Adam (winston, obc, and so on)"

Did you bother to read my post???

Posted by: obc | 2008-01-08 3:05:28 PM


I've read the comments, I'm also aware of Ron Paul's history - namely, that he's someone with a history of making money by pandering to conspiracy nuts and their ilk.

Indeed, taken in that context, this all makes far more sense - his campaign, I mean.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-01-08 3:06:50 PM


Adam: I appreciate that you hate him. That's fine, I guess.

I hope you do mark a distinction between a man and his views, however. For instance, you might hate me if you knew that I think America's best national interests are met by withdrawing from Iraq and having a lot less (militarily) to do around the world. But you could also choose to believe that I hold a false belief, and might change my mind about it if presented with the right arguments.

I don't hate George W. Bush because of his policy of foreign interventionism. I don't hate him at all. I hate his policies. There's a difference.

Of course, I doubt you've met Ron Paul, Adam, and that might be part of the reason for why you hate him. I've had a run-in with Paul in Michigan once, and plan on going to a forum this Saturday where Paul was an invited speaker (along with John Stossel, Rudy Giuliani, and some others). My experience is that he is a gentleman, a humble man, and a man who will shake everyones hand even if it takes him three hours.

He also sincerely believes, in my judgment, that getting out of Iraq is best for America. His motivation and attitude is right, even if, as you suggest, his policies are wrong.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-08 3:07:26 PM


My bad, obc, do forgive me. I didn't mean to throw you in with those who do think Paul is a racist and a homophobe. I just know that you're not exactly a fan of his, and so prematurely included you in the group.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-08 3:09:08 PM


Jamie Kirchick (author of the New Republic story):

"I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I’d have called him a fascist."

http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kirchick-i-dont-think-ron-paul-is.html

Posted by: The Truth | 2008-01-08 3:10:55 PM


how pathetic, this is OLD retarded S***T u clueless fool
The NY Times debunked this whole thing months ago, why dont u do some research? rofl

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE
http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kirchick-i-dont-think-ron-paul-is.html
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE


Also, Adam is pure evil here, just look at these quotes i got from dozens of news papers and magazines like time and the new york times and blah blah
"I Eat Babies Everyday" - Adam T. Yoshida
"I hate straight men and women" - Adam T. Yoshida
"I rape little kids as much as possible" - Adam T. Yoshida
"We should all kill people randomly for SPORT!" - Adam T. Yoshida
"You stupid jews, since when has being a loyal Satan worshiper, that rapes then eats babies at daily rituals, like myself been a bad thing!?" - Adam T. Yoshida

OMFG!!!!!!!!!!! YOSH YOUR SECRET HISTORY IS NOW PUBLIC IN GREAT DETAIL NOW YOU JEW HATING LUCIFER WANNABE THX TO MY AWESOME JOURNALISTIC SKILLZ OOF TRUTH

Posted by: Yoshida Scum | 2008-01-08 3:11:01 PM


SERIOUSLY, the guy isn't a f'ing racist psycho. He's a peaceful role model. If a website wants to pull up a scandal already pulled up, and if "news sources" in return want to claim the "news" as their own- I really believe your integrity is lost.

Please Read:
- http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/01/08/ron-paul-race-smear-erased/

- http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/ron-paul-respon.html

Posted by: Matt | 2008-01-08 3:12:58 PM


Only The Mentally Minuscule Take Words Out Of Context To Bend Them To Their Preconceived Paradigm.

If you refuse to look at the actions of a man for temperance of judgment then you truly castrate you mind and make it easy to arrive at wrong conclusion.

The weak minded are easily led by the bridle of emotion.

Racism is not consistent with the philosophy expressed by Ron Paul. He has rebutted these accusations from the same distortions in previous days.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that I would trust with my money and my family's safety.

I Vote For Virtue; I Vote For Ron Paul !!!

Posted by: Brad | 2008-01-08 3:15:07 PM


How many black babies has RON PAUL delivered?

Posted by: MARK from ALABAMA | 2008-01-08 3:16:14 PM


How many black babies has RON PAUL delivered?

Posted by: MARK from ALABAMA | 2008-01-08 3:16:23 PM


I have lost respect for Adam Yoshida. How easily fooled this man can be by his search for evidence to support his initial perceptions based on lies.

Posted by: G-men | 2008-01-08 3:16:31 PM


P.M., I don't give a damn about motivations and attitudes. I care about results.

Thus, let's be very clear here. Ron Paul doesn't "oppose American involvement in Iraq." That's just a fancy way of saying that he wants America's enemies to win the war. His reasons for wanting that are of no concern to me.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-01-08 3:18:09 PM


Why are US citizens so stupid? You are a bunch of half witted mindless cattle that are to lazy to do your own research. This crap about Paul is exactly that, a bunch of crap and most of you are going to run to the feeding trough of the MSM and eat it up. And no, I am not voting for him because I am a Californian with no right to vote! US citizens are, for the most part, IDIOTS!

Posted by: Jeff | 2008-01-08 3:18:27 PM


Warning! As President Ron Paul would be a huge threat to rich white men everywhere. If your a rich white guy and you want to maintain your hold on the military, medical, and wall street industrial complex don't vote for Ron Paul.

Posted by: Rand Thinker | 2008-01-08 3:22:31 PM


Adam, you misunderstand. We are justified in thinking someone blameworthy only if they intend the bad, not if the bad results from good intentions. This is how you judge character.

We judge policy based on outcomes, and not on the basis of intentions.

This is the fundamental problem with many left-wing types. They confuse the difference between judging a man and judging his policies. Take W. Bush as a perfect example, and the Kyoto protocol as another. We might think Al Gore is a great guy (provided he really means to do good), but a terrible policy wonk (because Kyoto does more harm than good).

And to think that Ron Paul wants America to be defeated by her enemies is... that's just you being provocative, right? I'm going to be charitable and think that, rather than think the other thing.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-08 3:24:26 PM


In the "article", Kirchick claims that Dr. Paul was an Army surgeon.

Dr. Paul was in the Air Force.

If he can’t get a simple empirical fact right, I’d have my doubts about the rest of his "journalistic" abilities.

Posted by: JD | 2008-01-08 3:29:40 PM


P.M. - Nonsense. We can judge character based upon the decisions that people make, when they are aware of the outcomes of those decisions.

The outcome that Ron Paul and his supporters want is for the United States to be defeated in a war. The thought of such a thing - to adovcate such a thing - makes an individual morally repugnant in my eyes. The only people lower in the human race, so far as I am concerned, than those who seek the defeat of the West are certian clases of grotesque criminal and, even then, it's a damn near-run thing.

Yhat Ron Paul wants the defeat of the United States because of some other thing he thinks it will bring is totally irrelevant to me.

And of course Ron Paul and his supporters want America to be defeated. That's the whole basis of his campaign and movement: the desire to see the United States defeated by its enemies.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-01-08 3:30:22 PM


JD - Do you dispute that the words in the article appeared in newsletters bearing Ron Paul's name, produced for the profit of Ron Paul?

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-01-08 3:31:27 PM


Oops, hasty writing:

To clarify: When we judge a person's character, we ask something like the following questions:

"What did they do?"
"What did they mean to do?"
"What was the result?"
"What result did they intend?"
"Did they do a sufficient amount of research?"
"Are their belief-forming processes sufficiently up-to-snuff?"
And so on.

What we want to know is their actions, their intentions, and their methods of forming beliefs.

This is how we judge character, through a combination of these things.

On the other hand, when we are judging policy, we should ask these questions:

"What do we want?"
"How likely will policy x, y, or z be at getting us there?"

The end. We judge a policy (or should) *purely* on the basis of outcomes.

But judging character is, as I hope you agree, a much more complicated thing than judging a policy.

It's kind of amazing how often people make this category error.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-08 3:34:06 PM


Adam: "The outcome that Ron Paul and his supporters want is for the United States to be defeated in a war."

It's not a war until Congress declares it as such. This is an illegal invasion that must be stopped.

America's biggest enemies are sitting in Washington, DC.

Posted by: JD | 2008-01-08 3:35:01 PM


Is there a full moon out tonight? I love it when
the name "Ron Paul" is published. The ensuing babble provides great entertainment. Read a piece about him in the NP today. Enough said.

Posted by: atric | 2008-01-08 3:37:46 PM


"The NY Times debunked this whole thing months ago"

Anyone who believes anything the NY Slimes says is a bigger fool than I thought - if that's even possible.

NICE TO SEE THAT THE "PING" HAS RUNG ON ROO PAUL COMPUTERS CONTINENT WIDE.

Androids leaping to their master's defence again.

Posted by: obc | 2008-01-08 3:39:00 PM


I don't dispute it, nor should you dispute the regrets of an honest man such as Dr.Paul.

Unless you wish to believe the already error-prone research of the likes of Jamie Kirchick...

BTW, Kirchick is a racist and a supremacist of the first order. He's said far worse things about Arabs and Muslims with his own words than were printed under Dr. Paul's name. That makes Kirchick not only a liar but a hypocrite.

Par for the course. Neocons are liars and hypocrites by nature.

Posted by: JD | 2008-01-08 3:39:15 PM


"Anyone who believes anything the NY Slimes says is a bigger fool than I thought - if that's even possible."

Much like those fools that believe The New Republic.

Posted by: JD | 2008-01-08 3:40:29 PM


1 2 3 Next »

The comments to this entry are closed.