Up until now I have been careful not to paint Paul as a too bad a guy but have pointed at the people he attracts to him. I wondered why he did not reject them.
Well now we have the answer. Seems that Ron Paul shares their racist and antisemitic views. [We don't know about his Holocaust denial.]
A reporter at the New Republic, James Kirchick, has done the legwork and discovered that Ron Paul has over the years expressed highly racist views, has attacked gays, and he also showed an "obsession" with Jews and Israel... not in a positive way.
Here are some quotes:
In December 1989 in his Investment Letter he predicted that in the 1990s "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.'"He has not done well in the campaign thus far.... but remember how much money he has raised.... and how he has swept some people off their feet.
In November 1990, an item in his newsletter advised readers, "If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it." In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo." "
"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."
Regarding gays: He 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."
Regarding the World Trade Center bombing: His 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."
Pretty scary.
7 comments:
Notice also that his supporters enthusiastically embrace the abusive vocabulary of National Socialism, to wit: "Earlier in the day, a crowd of diehard Paul fans gathered at St. Anselm to protest Paul's exclusion. 'Elitist media pig dog!' a man yelled at a FOX News truck as it pulled onto campus."
I have nothing but contempt for the hacks at Fox News, but it strikes me as extremely unlikely that Paul's thug came up with the construction "pig dog," the rather comical English translation of the classic Nazi pejorative Schweinhund without knowing exactly whom he was aping.
The source for the "pig dog" quote: http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2008/01/supporters_figh.php
The New Republic also posted a collection of articles from the Ron Paul newsletters that Kirchik came upon while researching the article.
Thank you for sharing this.
I would expect better research from a professor...
I read Kirchick's piece in the New Republic. I also watched him interviewed by Tucker Carlson. Kirchick could not make a single coherent statement. He said Ron Paul speaks in "code" but could not substantitate any of his ridiculous claims.
Ron Paul left Congress in 1984. He ran for President in 1988 as a Libertarian. He returned to his medical practice in 1996. The issue of the Ron Paul newsletter has been addressed several times by Ron Paul. These racist comments, which are offensive to all morally conscious people mind you, were all made while Paul was practicing medicine. Paul said he never wrote them, that he does not use language like the type seen in the newsletters, and said the publications were not something he followed while he was out of office.
He has also issued a public apology for not following more closely the things that came out with his name emblazoned on the top of the page.
He said further that Libertarians see the individual and not the group, and this dynamic makes it hard to ascribe those comments to Paul, since racism is a group dynamic.
He has many times referred to the legacy of non-violent civil disobedience advocated by King and Ghandi. I am not sure I've ever seen a racist praise Dr King as Dr Ron Paul has.
Before you assassinate the character of someone, you should try and gather as much information as possible, and if your only source is James Kirchick from the New Republic, I would try and assemble a more credible source.
Have you heard of the group Zionists for Ron Paul ?
All i have to say is that if something were put out over my name or, even more strikingly, in a newsletter which bore my name, I would take responsibility for it.
If it had been one comment or even one article, I would accept that maybe someone else wrote that particular piece. But there is a pretty long paper trail.
Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.
And so what if there are Zionists for Ron Paul. What's that got to do with anything?
Professor he did, in fact, assume moral responsbility by saying he should have monitored more closely the things coming out in his name, but was very clear he did not write them.
I know Paul's platform, I watch his videos, and I know his language usage better than most. I read the comments in the newsletters, and the language is strikingly different.
There is a collection of Ron Paul comments made on the floor of the house which you can find by clicking here :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG_HuFtP8w8
and he discusses the race dynamic in the context of individual liberty, and after reading these comments there should be no question on Dr Paul's racial stances.
Kirchick's piece was a hatchetjob, plain and simple. Quoting Shakespeare does not exonerate your using a questionable source and rushing to judgement.
One of your Paul pieces says that Paul has support of some Holocaust denier, and I thought I saw a mention of anti-semitism on your site about Ron Paul (perhaps I'm mistaken) so the point that there is a group (Zionists for Ron Paul) that supports Ron Paul's stance that the US should stop meddling in Israeli affairs is pertinent. If the Republican Jewish Coalition did not invite Paul to speak at their affair with the stated reason that Paul votes against Israeli aid every year, one might think that pro-Israel advocates have a problem with Paul's stance on this matter.
Such a statement is not universally true; that was my point.
Thank you for your comments.
Best,
Post a Comment