The Email Exchange Lives On

Oh the fact that the man you want running the country has newsletters spouting some racist ass shit gets blown off to next week. Way to be non-chalant. No matter how long ago the shit was or whether or not he wrote it he still allowed the shit to published with his name in 30 point font on the top. so he can miss me with that "Blacks love me" bullshit. If Obama had a newsletter that had his name on top of it talking about white folk his ass would be blown out the gotdamn water. But since he's Ron Paul and he's cool somebodies out to get him. The fuck out of here

January 11, 2008
Ron Paul's Racist Rheoric Uncovered
Rick Moran
American Thinker has been documenting the strange campaign of Ron Paul for months. Most notably, Andrew Walden has delved into the Texas Congressman's acceptance of funds from neo-Nazis and other troubling aspects of his campaign in several articles.

Now one of Paul's staunchest defenders, Matt Welch of Reason Magazine, has dug deeply and discovered that Ron Paul is indeed, a racist.

Here is Ron Paul yesterday on CNN talking about newsletters published for 17 years under his name that carry numerous examples of the most nauseating kind of blatant racism imgaginable:

Paul told CNN's "The Situation Room" Thursday that he didn't write any of the offensive articles and has "no idea" who did.

"When you bring this question up, you're really saying, 'You're a racist' or 'Are you a racist?' And the answer is, 'No, I'm not a racist,'" he said.

[snip]

Paul said the editor of publications "is responsible for daily activities." But he also cited "transition" and "changes" and said that some people were hired to write stories "but I didn't know their names."

The presidential hopeful described the newsletter revelations as a "rehash" of old material dug up by his opponents because he is gaining ground with black voters due to his stance against the war in Iraq and the war on drugs.

"I am the anti-racist because I am the only candidate -- Republican or Democrat -- who would protect the minority against these vicious drug laws," he said. "Libertarians are incapable of being a racist, because racism is a collectivist idea."

To sum up, Paul said he didn't know who wrote the articles and didn't write any of them himself. He says the sentiments are not his own and that the newsletters are just a "rehash" of old charges made against him.

To put it as succinctly as I can, Ron Paul is a lying racist.

Here's what Reason Magazine's Matt Welch -- formerly one of Paul's biggest supporters -- found out about Paul and those newsletters when doing a Lexis-Nexis search:

Has Paul really disassociated himself from, and "taken moral responsibility" for, these "Ron Paul" newsletters "for over a decade"? If he has, that history has not been recorded by the Nexis database, as best as I can reckon. The first indication I could find of Paul either expressing remorse about the statements or claiming that he did not author them came in an October 2001 Texas Monthly article -- less than eight years ago.

[snip]

So what exactly did Paul and his campaign say about these and more egregious statements during his contentious 1996 campaign for Congress, when Democrat Lefty Morris made the newsletters a constant issue? Besides complaining that the quotes were taken "out of context" and proof of his opponent's "race-baiting," Paul and his campaign defended and took full ownership of the comments.

Indeed, Paul even said back in 1996 that he actually wrote some of the newsletters. This is from a Dallas Morning News article from 1996 found by Welch:

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...] In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.

"Them" meaning those skittery black folk. BTW - I would mention to Paul supporters that stereotyping is racism - period. No excuses. No apologia will change that stark, singular fact.
CNN has more evidence of Paul's duplicity on the subject of the newsletters:

The controversial newsletters include rants against the Israeli lobby, gays, AIDS victims and Martin Luther King Jr. -- described as a "pro-Communist philanderer."

One newsletter, from June 1992, right after the LA riots, says "order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks." Another says,

"The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day -- are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."

In some excerpts, the reader may be led to believe the words are indeed from Paul, a resident of Lake Jackson, Texas. In the "Ron Paul Political Report" from October 1992, the writer describes carjacking as the "hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos."

The author then offers advice from others on how to avoid being carjacked, including "an ex-cop I know," and says, "I frankly don't know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."

Ron Paul lied when he said he didn't write some of the newsletters. He lied when he said they didn't reflect his thinking when clearly they did. And he lied when he said he didn't know who wrote some of the newsletters.

Ed Morrissey, from whose blogpost many of these excerpts have been taken, sums it up nicely:

People wonder why this matters, given Paul's fringe appeal. It matters because we can't allow this kind of hatred to get legitimized in mainstream politics again. This kind of rhetoric used to be mainstream, and not just in the South, either. Republicans cannot allow the party to get tainted by the stench of racism and conspiracy mongering. If enough of us don't step up and denounce it, strongly and repeatedly, we will not be able to avoid it.

Matt Welch and the people at Reason have reached that same conclusion in regards to libertarianism and their magazine. Good for them, even if it came a little late.

His supporters, blinded by a zealotry that is now even more impossible to understand, have not been affected by these revelations in the slightest. But we at American Thinker have been deeply troubled by elements seemingly welcomed into Dr. Paul's campaign. It has cost us much in the way of hate mail and sneering, self righteous pablum from Paulbots.

My question to them is very simple; how can you in good conscience continue to support the candidacy of this racist, anti-Semitic crank?

January 11, 2008
Ron Paul's Racist Rheoric Uncovered
Rick Moran
American Thinker has been documenting the strange campaign of Ron Paul for months. Most notably, Andrew Walden has delved into the Texas Congressman's acceptance of funds from neo-Nazis and other troubling aspects of his campaign in several articles.

Now one of Paul's staunchest defenders, Matt Welch of Reason Magazine, has dug deeply and discovered that Ron Paul is indeed, a racist.

Here is Ron Paul yesterday on CNN talking about newsletters published for 17 years under his name that carry numerous examples of the most nauseating kind of blatant racism imgaginable:

Paul told CNN's "The Situation Room" Thursday that he didn't write any of the offensive articles and has "no idea" who did.

"When you bring this question up, you're really saying, 'You're a racist' or 'Are you a racist?' And the answer is, 'No, I'm not a racist,'" he said.

[snip]

Paul said the editor of publications "is responsible for daily activities." But he also cited "transition" and "changes" and said that some people were hired to write stories "but I didn't know their names."

The presidential hopeful described the newsletter revelations as a "rehash" of old material dug up by his opponents because he is gaining ground with black voters due to his stance against the war in Iraq and the war on drugs.

"I am the anti-racist because I am the only candidate -- Republican or Democrat -- who would protect the minority against these vicious drug laws," he said. "Libertarians are incapable of being a racist, because racism is a collectivist idea."

To sum up, Paul said he didn't know who wrote the articles and didn't write any of them himself. He says the sentiments are not his own and that the newsletters are just a "rehash" of old charges made against him.

To put it as succinctly as I can, Ron Paul is a lying racist.

Here's what Reason Magazine's Matt Welch -- formerly one of Paul's biggest supporters -- found out about Paul and those newsletters when doing a Lexis-Nexis search:

Has Paul really disassociated himself from, and "taken moral responsibility" for, these "Ron Paul" newsletters "for over a decade"? If he has, that history has not been recorded by the Nexis database, as best as I can reckon. The first indication I could find of Paul either expressing remorse about the statements or claiming that he did not author them came in an October 2001 Texas Monthly article -- less than eight years ago.

[snip]

So what exactly did Paul and his campaign say about these and more egregious statements during his contentious 1996 campaign for Congress, when Democrat Lefty Morris made the newsletters a constant issue? Besides complaining that the quotes were taken "out of context" and proof of his opponent's "race-baiting," Paul and his campaign defended and took full ownership of the comments.

Indeed, Paul even said back in 1996 that he actually wrote some of the newsletters. This is from a Dallas Morning News article from 1996 found by Welch:

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...] In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.

"Them" meaning those skittery black folk. BTW - I would mention to Paul supporters that stereotyping is racism - period. No excuses. No apologia will change that stark, singular fact.
CNN has more evidence of Paul's duplicity on the subject of the newsletters:

The controversial newsletters include rants against the Israeli lobby, gays, AIDS victims and Martin Luther King Jr. -- described as a "pro-Communist philanderer."

One newsletter, from June 1992, right after the LA riots, says "order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks." Another says,

"The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day -- are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."

In some excerpts, the reader may be led to believe the words are indeed from Paul, a resident of Lake Jackson, Texas. In the "Ron Paul Political Report" from October 1992, the writer describes carjacking as the "hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos."

The author then offers advice from others on how to avoid being carjacked, including "an ex-cop I know," and says, "I frankly don't know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."

Ron Paul lied when he said he didn't write some of the newsletters. He lied when he said they didn't reflect his thinking when clearly they did. And he lied when he said he didn't know who wrote some of the newsletters.

Ed Morrissey, from whose blogpost many of these excerpts have been taken, sums it up nicely:

People wonder why this matters, given Paul's fringe appeal. It matters because we can't allow this kind of hatred to get legitimized in mainstream politics again. This kind of rhetoric used to be mainstream, and not just in the South, either. Republicans cannot allow the party to get tainted by the stench of racism and conspiracy mongering. If enough of us don't step up and denounce it, strongly and repeatedly, we will not be able to avoid it.

Matt Welch and the people at Reason have reached that same conclusion in regards to libertarianism and their magazine. Good for them, even if it came a little late.

His supporters, blinded by a zealotry that is now even more impossible to understand, have not been affected by these revelations in the slightest. But we at American Thinker have been deeply troubled by elements seemingly welcomed into Dr. Paul's campaign. It has cost us much in the way of hate mail and sneering, self righteous pablum from Paulbots.

My question to them is very simple; how can you in good conscience continue to support the candidacy of this racist, anti-Semitic crank?

For those of you who thought after the last eight years the political culture of our nation couldn't get worse, think again.

Newsletters allegedly written by Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul were recently published by The New Republic, a Washington, D.C.-based magazine that covers public affairs.

The newsletters, called the Ron Paul Political Report, were written in the late 1980s and early 1990s and included inflammatory statements about gays and AIDS victims, according to a report by CNN.

In one newsletter, according to CNN, the writer refers to Martin Luther King Jr. as a "pro-Communist philanderer."

In an interview on CNN's "The Situation Room," Paul vehemently denied writing or knowing who wrote the newsletters.

"When you bring this question up, you're really saying, 'You're a racist' or 'Are you a racist?' And the answer is, 'No, I'm not a racist,'" Paul said.

However, several other racist remarks were published in the newsletters.

In reference to the 1992 Los Angeles riots, the writer says "order was restored in L.A. only when it came time for blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

"The criminals who terrorize our cities - in riots and on every non-riot day - are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."

The writer of the newsletters is unknown, but readers are led to believe that Paul, a resident of Lake Jackson, Texas, is indeed the writer.

The writer says "even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."

All signs point to Paul.

And really, it doesn't matter who wrote the letters. They were published in the Ron Paul Political Report.

Any publication goes through a vigorous editing process. Plenty of people on staff would have known what was being put in the letter. If the ideals expressed by the writer were not in accordance with those of Paul, then someone must have thought to run the story by Paul himself.

No excuse is enough to clear Paul of these newsletters. There is no way he can say the newsletters or their writers had no association with him.

It's called the Ron Paul Political Review.

It wasn't such a large operation that Paul didn't know what was going on its pages.

Paul claims to be "the anti-racist" presidential candidate because of his protection of minorities against harsh drug laws.

"Libertarians are incapable of being a racist, because racism is a collectivist idea," Paul said.

Whether or not Paul wrote the newsletters, an apology should have come 15 years ago, not now.

Paul gained ground with younger voters thanks to a strong online support base. With these newsletters to his credit, it seems Paul isn't the candidate for revolution after all.