The End of Ron Paul: He's a RACIST.

[Danno 1,228]

In 08 Obama got a Media pass on his current racist affiliations, don't think for a minute ROn Paul will get the same free ride.

Here's The Real Story Behind Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters

So as Ron Paul is on track to win the Iowa caucuses, he is getting a new dose of press scrutiny.

And the press is focusing on the newsletters that went out under his name in the late 1980s and early 1990s. They were called the Ron Paul's Political Report, Ron Paul's Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report and the Ron Paul Investment Letter.

There is no doubt that the newsletters contained utterly racist statements.

Some choice quotes:

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."

After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

One referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as "the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and who "seduced underage girls and boys."

Another referred to Barbara Jordan, a civil rights activist and congresswoman as "Barbara Morondon," the "archetypical half-educated victimologist."

Other newsletters had strange conspiracy theories about homosexuals, the CIA, and AIDS.

In 1996 when the Texas Monthly investigated the newsletters, Paul took responsibility for them and said that certain things were taken out of context. (It's hard to imagine a context that would make the above quotes defensible.)

When the newsletter controversy came up again during the 2008 campaign, Paul explained that he didn't actually write the newsletters but because they carried his name he was morally responsible for their content. Further, he didn't know exactly who wrote the offensive things and they didn't represent his views.

But it is still a serious issue. Jamie Kirchick reported in The New Republic that Paul made nearly one million dollars in just one year from publishing the newsletters. Could Paul really not understand the working of such a profitable operation? Reporters at the libertarian-leaning Reason magazine wrote that the author was likely longtime Paul-friend and combative polemicist Lew Rockwell.

Even though many of the newsletters are written in a first person, conversational style, many observers don't believe that Ron Paul actually wrote them.

There aren't any videos on YouTube with Paul speaking in incendiary terms about minorities. The newsletters don't "sound" like Ron Paul - he doesn't do wordplay like "Morondon" or use prefixes like "semi-criminal" or "half-educated" in his speech or his recent writings. Further, most newsletter and direct-mail operations in politics employ ghostwriters.

So why were Ron Paul or his ghostwriters engaged in racism and conspiracy theories? And why did Ron Paul allow this?

The first answer is simply that marginal causes attract marginal people.

The Gold Standard and non-interventionism have long been pushed to the fringe of our politics, and ambitious people tend to dive into the mainstream. That means that some of the 'talent' that marginalized ideas attract will be odd and unstable.

There are two strategies for dealing with this problem. You purge your movement of cranks to preserve credibility and risk alienating a chunk of supporters. Or you let everyone in your movement fly their freak flag and live with the consequences. Ron Paul, being a libertarian, has always done the latter.

The second answer to this question: These newsletters were published before a decade of war that has exhausted many Americans, before the financial crisis, and before the Tea Party.

All three made Ron Paul's ideas seem more relevant to our politics. They made anti-government libertarianism seem (to some) like a sensible corrective.

But in the 1990s and 1980s, anti-government sentiment was much less mainstream. It seemed contained to the racist right-wing, people who supported militia movements, who obsessed over political correctness, who were suspicious of free-trade deals like NAFTA.

At that time a libertarian theorist, Murray Rothbard argued that libertarians ought to engage in "Outreach to the Rednecks" in order to insert their libertarian theories into the middle of the nation's political passions.

Rothbard had tremendous influence on Lew Rockwell, and the whole slice of the libertarian movement that adored Ron Paul.

But Rothbard and Rockwell never stuck with their alliances with angry white men on the far right. They have been willing to shift alliances from left to right and back again. Before this "outreach" to racists, Rothbard aligned himself with anti-Vietnam war protestors in the 1960s. In the 2000s, after the "outreach" had failed, Rockwell complained bitterly about "Red-State fascists" who supported George Bush and his war. So much for the "Rednecks." The anti-government theories stay the same, the political strategy shifts in odd and extreme directions.

As crazy as it sounds, Ron Paul's newsletter writers may not have been sincerely racist at all. They actually thought appearing to be racist was a good political strategy in the 1990s. After that strategy yielded almost nothing - it was abandoned by Paul's admirers.

You can attribute their "redneck strategy" to the most malignant kind of cynicism or to a political desperation that made them insane. Neither is particularly flattering.

Phil Klein of the Washington Examiner is correct when he writes:

Rick Perry and Mitt Romney have both attacked each other for what was written in their respective books. If either of those books had included a number of overtly racist statements, their candidacies would be over before they started.

This is undoubtedly true. The media seems to simply accept that Ron Paul has some oddities in his past and in his inner circle. They take his grandfatherly demeanor at face-value. In part this is because they believe he is not a serious candidate.

Winning the Iowa caucuses would change all that instantly. Undoubtedly the movement that Paul inspired has moved far beyond the race-baiting it engaged in two decades ago. Young people from college campuses aren't lining up to hear him speak because of what appeared in those newsletter about the 1992 L.A. riots. Rand Paul tried his hardest to place Paul-style libertarianism into the context of the Tea Party. And he will likely carry on the movement without this 1990s baggage.

But the questions remain. If Ron Paul is so libertarian that he won't even police people who use his name, if his movement is filled with incompetents and opportunists, then what kind of a president would he make? Would he even check in to see if his ideas are being implemented? Who would he appoint to Cabinet positions?

These are all legitimate questions. And the media is going to start asking them now.

If there isn't already a "ceiling" on Ron Paul's support, widespread knowledge of the newsletters could build one quickly.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-real-story-behind-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-2011-12#ixzz1hBi4bTFQ

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Tell the truth is not racist.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Tell the truth is not racist.

Spoken like a true Lew Rockwell supporter. We know who wrote the newsletters. I live in the district and campaigned for RP back then. After the complaints about the newsletters ( I was one) . Ron Paul fired Lew Rockwell. Rockwell then tried to run against Ron Paul but lost badly of course. It was a pretty nasty break up as Lew Rockwell turned out to be a nasty dude. He is nice on the outside though. Lew Rockwell again tried to run on the ticket a couple of elections ago and when I went to the polling place his supporters were there trying forcefully to get anyone to do a write in for him. I of course recognized one of the supporters and we had words that was not a good scene. Lew Rockwell is still bad news.

I know RP and he is not a racist but he should have not trusted a newsletter going out under his name and did a proofread. This is the Neocons weapon they needed to destroy a fine man.

[Danno 1,228]

Spoken like a true Lew Rockwell supporter. We know who wrote the newsletters. I live in the district and campaigned for RP back then. After the complaints about the newsletters ( I was one) . Ron Paul fired Lew Rockwell. Rockwell then tried to run against Ron Paul but lost badly of course. It was a pretty nasty break up as Lew Rockwell turned out to be a nasty dude. He is nice on the outside though. Lew Rockwell again tried to run on the ticket a couple of elections ago and when I went to the polling place his supporters were there trying forcefully to get anyone to do a write in for him. I of course recognized one of the supporters and we had words that was not a good scene. Lew Rockwell is still bad news.

I know RP and he is not a racist but he should have not trusted a newsletter going out under his name and did a proofread. This is the Neocons weapon they needed to destroy a fine man.

If the Neocons don't use it the LEFT most certainly will, in fact this is their stock and trade.

Naturally the media will fawn "great concern" over these news letters, the same media who never wanted to touch the Rev. Wright story until it was hoisted in their lap and even then they never explored the ideology of Obama's Church which by any measure is nothing more than a religion based in race and worse.

Had Ron Paul

failed to make Child support payments

Cheated on his wide.

Had a Homosexual relationship

Used or sold drugs

dodged the draft

Conspired to comite tax fraud

been a member of the Communist party

All this could be forgiven but the unpardonable sin of being connected to a "race" story is beyond hope.

R.I.P. Ron Paul.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If the Neocons don't use it the LEFT most certainly will...

Why would the left be concerned about a candidate that was never gonna make it onto the ticket of his party anyways?

[luckytxn 2,265]

If the Neocons don't use it the LEFT most certainly will, in fact this is their stock and trade.

Naturally the media will fawn "great concern" over these news letters, the same media who never wanted to touch the Rev. Wright story until it was hoisted in their lap and even then they never explored the ideology of Obama's Church which by any measure is nothing more than a religion based in race and worse.

Had Ron Paul

failed to make Child support payments

Cheated on his wide.

Had a Homosexual relationship

Used or sold drugs

dodged the draft

Conspired to comite tax fraud

been a member of the Communist party

All this could be forgiven but the unpardonable sin of being connected to a "race" story is beyond hope.

R.I.P. Ron Paul.

Good time to be a RINO Danno. Congrats.

[slim 1,530]

At least he didn't have a rental property called ******gate.

[Danno 1,228]

Why would the left be concerned about a candidate that was never gonna make it onto the ticket of his party anyways?

The Left is saving their ammo for the nominee, My comments about the Left using it meant to suggest ...if he got that far.

[Danno 1,228]

Good time to be a RINO Danno. Congrats.

No RIno here, I'm simply pointing out whats coming if RP keeps picking up steam.

RP is not my first choice (actually I don't have one) but I think I could vote for him in the general, though I didn't for McCain.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The Left is saving their ammo for the nominee, My comments about the Left using it meant to suggest ...if he got that far.

Yeah, because the right would never do any such thing.

[Danno 1,228]

Yeah, because the right would never do any such thing.

Are you hitting the holiday cheer early?

I already said the Right will be the first ones to use it if he gets enough momentum.

Oh never mind, Merry Christmas and Bottoms up.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Neither party is ever going to allow someone to represent them that would dismantle their carefully crafted political machine.

The only way it will ever happen is if the 300,000,000 FREE people in this country realize "we do not need to have only two parties"

Ron Paul never had a chance of being elected (maybe get the nomination, I doubt it though) Herman Cain actualyl could have had a chance but it was not allowed.

What is left? One or two long time, big government Republicans. Either would do nothing different than Obama in terms of fixing the problems. They will try to control different parts of your life, that is all.

The dysfunctional government cannot even come to agreement on a simple 2% tax cut on a temporary basis because there is too much BS attached to it. The FIRST problem we need to correct is a reliable, untouchable, unadulterated source of funding for the government that cannot be manipulated for political gain.

FAIR TAX

Without a stable source of income the government cannot begin to do anything else.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Gary and Alla

[jkelly07 120]

ron pauls son is far more worst then the father.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Why would the left be concerned about a candidate that was never gonna make it onto the ticket of his party anyways?

They aren't. It was not the liberals that attacked Cain. It is not the liberals attacking Paul. The comment was valid though, yes they would attack him with this IF her were nominated. He will not be.

Thr Republican machine is doing this. The political machine is doing this. The candidate nominated will have to toe the party line, which most importantly protects the system over all else.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

ron pauls son is far more worst then the father.

And he will never be president either. You will get the occasional House representative that is "out there" because they are harmless to the "system", they are just carried along by it. Unwitting beneficiaries. They do not care about Rand Paul, per se, he is another ® which gives them the "majority" which means the PARTY controls the agenda of congress.

Any old ® or (D) will do. Witness the foo-for-rah whenever one switches parties. Did he really change? Did his way of voting on issues change? No! But he can make a difference on who controls the agenda. What the parties have done with congressional RULES is how they control the agenda.