Libertarian Ron Paul isn’t being very liberal with the truth.
The Republican presidential candidate denies knowledge of anti-gay newsletters sent in his name during the 80s and 90s. Paul also claims not to know who penned to offensive pieces, including notes which references a “limp-wristed” homo-journo. James Kirchick has discovered, however, that Paul and his cohorts not only know who wrote the newsletters, but seemed poised to reveal his identity: Paul’s former chief of staff Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
…[Last] Wednesday, I spoke with Tom Lizardo, Paul’s congressional chief of staff. He now says that Paul was prepared to finger Rockwell in anticipation of “Angry White Man.” Lizardo says that last week–either on Monday or Tuesday–Paul and [spokesman Jesse] Benton agreed that the campaign would release a statement acknowledging that Rockwell was a principal in the production of the newsletters. The statement was drafted by Benton and approved by Paul himself, Lizardo told me. Shortly before Paul was about to go public, however, Lizardo says Kent Snyder, the campaign’s chairman, stepped in and “stopped the outing of Rockwell’s involvement.”
Paul then went to the press saying he hadn’t the foggiest how those letters were produced. Kirchick rightly wonders, then:
If Paul was prepared to name Rockwell as having a principal role in the production of the newsletter on Monday or Tuesday of last week, how could he have told Blitzer on Thursday that he “absolutely honestly” did not know who the responsible parties could be?
Oh, we know! He lied!
His answer was they he didnt know who WROTE the pieces…..no lie. Do you have a life?
Please read this excellent article regarding the issue of these letters. It’s long, but it should be read in its entirety. It was written by Justin Raimondo, an openly gay journalist.
DW, are you seriously trying to draw a line between “produced” and “wrote”? You have to know full well that in this context, they mean the same thing, and even if using them at their most specific level, the person who produced the newsletters would most certainly have to know and have approved who wrote the articles in it. Come on, stop making excuses for this nutjob just because you people don’t want to pay your taxes!
You get the most consistent candidate that has voted inline with the Constitution for 30 years, that has always stood up for individual rights, who penns the American Freedom Agenda Act, who voted against the Iraq War, who has never taken a junket in his life, who cannot be bought off by any lobbyist, who never voted for an unbalanced budget, who has always returned the surplus of his congressional district to the Treasury, who doesn’t even partake in the Congressional retirement plan, who has consistently spoken up for individual rights during the entire time, and whose Congressional record proves it – and what do you guys do?
Shit all over him, at every opportunity you get.
You guys are stupid pawns. You’re shooting yourselves in the head.
Lie/Truth, Fact/Fiction, truth, you think you know truth.
Richard Wicks summarized it perfectly. One candidate who wants to treat everyone as adults. One candidate with consistent integrity. And he is attacked on any minor thing that can be found. To believe the Kirchick piece and to imagine that a person with 30 years of consistent integrity in Washington DC must be hiding something dire, is to be a bigger nutjob than any conspiracy nut out there. There is more evidence for the grassy knoll than there is for Ron Paul being a racist or a homophobe.
Tommy Thompson, George Bush’s 1st Secretary of Health and Human Services said, “We went to Washington to change Washington. Washington changed us.”
There is one candidat that cannot agree with that statement. Ron Paul. He never allowed Washington to change him in 30 years, a singular accomplishment. Yet he is being smeared and belittled, and called a nutjob at every opportunity. I wonder at the type of person that feels compelled to do that? Certainly no one who could hold a candle to Ron Paul.
This is all really quite appalling.
Why smear a good man?
I think I now know why the New Republic is down 40% in circulation since 2000. They also likened Ross Perot to Hitler. Just amazing.
Go here for the definitive explanation/rebuttal by Justin Raimondo:
Remove asterisks to go that site
Ron Paul in my opinion is an anti-racist, “pro-individual rights” hero.
Im a gay latino from Los Angeles and I believe Ron Paul. I will be voting for Ron Paul and this article seems to be driven by emotion. I have dedicated much time listening to all the candidates and believe Ron Paul is the only candidate not selling me rhetoric.
Ron Paul 2008!
If noone took the time to read the link that JL left, I recommend you do so. It provides these “racist” quotes in the context to which they appeared, and it proves that this smear campaign is just that.
No evidence, Tony? No evidence except a newsletter produced in his name for years. And I for one am tired of hearing of all the allegedly wonderful things this “individual liberty” will do for me. The last time we had what Paul calls “individual liberty” where the states get to decide things, black folks had to drink out of separate fountains.
Fact: Ron Paul is virulently anti-choice. He’s against the Iraq war because he doesn’t think we should have dealings with foreign nations. His views that are allegedly “inline” with the Constitution perfectly match those of Clarence Thomas. This is not someone who would be good for gay people or the nation in general. It is amazing what people are willing to overlook if it means they have a chance to get out of paying taxes and smoke pot legally.
“doesn’t think we should have dealings with foreign nations” – you sir, are a virulent liar, or direly misinformed. He thinks we should trade with nations and have diplomacy with nations. He’s against preemptive strikes and war that bypasses congressional authority. Are you saying, Mozzer13, that you are for these things?
Oh don’t start with that kind of with us or against us faulty logic, Jeremy! Of course I’m not for preemptive strikes. I did, however, sit and watch Paul a few weeks ago on Meet the Press spout the most isolationist ideas promoted since the movement to keep us out of WWII. I was actually appreciating the fact that he was taking the US to task for being to a certain extent responsible for terrorist activities until he started in outling a policy which would basically isolate the US from the rest of the world and take us back somewhere to the late 1800s. I have no idea what kind of fantasy land this man lives in, but it isn’t a land called reality where the economy is global.
mozzer13: Thanks for the accurate summary. The Ron-heads who are posting here have totally drunk Paul’s koolaid. Like most libertarians, Paul’s policies will work very nicely for citizens who happen to never face an unwanted pregnancy or be homosexual; who are not impoverished, sick, or or one of several historically discriminated-against groups (–oh wait, that’s like, rich white guys). His “foreign policy” is limited to not inhibiting capitalism — just a reviving of old notions of isolationism. The man’s a menace, the smiling face of american facism predicted by Orwell.
*sigh*… I’m sorry, I didn’t intend a with us or against us mentality.
But here’s a “did you know”: Did you know that Ron Paul is the only candidate from either side of the fence that isn’t a member of the Council on Foreign Relations? (well, Huckabee isn’t either, but who cares about Muckabee)
So, no matter who we vote for, we’re voting for the Council. I dare you to go to http://www.cfr.org and read through their philosophies. We are all Americans, right? We would all like to stay Americans, right? Well, the politicians would rather see us become global citizens. Fine, our economy is “global”… that doesn’t mean we should recognize a global authority over our constitution.
I have heard the conspiracy theories about the Council on Foreign Relations. I feel fairly confident that a group with members as divergent as Barbara Walters, Dick Cheney, and Gary Hart is not capable of building a consensus to overthrow the Constitution and institute a one-world government.
Jeremy N: I followed your link to the CFR, and honestly I don’t see the Horror. What is it, exactly, about these folks that’s so scary?
No. 3 mozzer13 says: “are you seriously trying to draw a line between â€œproducedâ€ and â€œwroteâ€?
This website is “produced”, I presume, by Jossip Initiatives LLC. It’s their copyright at the foot of the page. You, me and others “wrote” the comments here. Do you really see no difference?
To complete the analogy, Mr. Rockwell is presumably the equivalent of the person at Jossip who occasionally cast an eye over this site to check it isn’t getting too far out of hand. And Ron Paul is Mr. Queerty.
“I feel fairly confident that a group with members as divergent as Barbara Walters, Dick Cheney, and Gary Hart is not capable of building a consensus to overthrow the Constitution ”
IT IS OVERTHROWN.
Military Commissions Act.
Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act.
It’s GONE people. They took it away while you bickered over relatively unimportant things. YOU can be labelled a terrorist by the president with no evidence at all presented, and because you’re then suddenly an enemy combatant, you no longer have Habeas Corpus.
You guys are worried over GAY MARRIAGE – a RELIGIOUS institution, something the state shouldn’t even recognize at all, one way or another, and you didn’t notice the constitution is all but overthrown.
It would be funny, if the entire population of the United States hadn’t been FUCKED by it, as you guys worried about trivialities. I know that it’s important to be able to have visitation rights, inheretence rights, power of attorney if your lover is sent to the hospital, but that’s CONTRACT law. You can get all this with a damned contract. Get a contract!
Get a ring, love one other, be faithful to one another, but recognize that marriage is, and has always been, a religious institution and the government shouldn’t even be allowed to be involved with religious institutions.
There really are more important things to worry about than gay marriage, Roe v. Wade (take a massive overdose of birth control pills, pregnancy gone!), and school fucking prayer.
As you people argue about these relatively minor issues (which neither the Republicans or Democrats really care about anyhow once they get in power in case you haven’t noticed) actually important and DETRIMENTAL legislation has been passed.
Help us to stop it.
Martin, David is the editorial director, but I believe Andrew does most of the writing. Does that give David a pass if Andrew is writing racist rants on a site produced by David? This isn’t about people who comment on the writing, it is about the actual writers and publishers of the newspaper. There is a vast difference.
Richard, I won’t argue that our constitution has been severely compromised by the Bush administration. That said, I think there are other candidates who can protect it without hating the personal freedoms inherent in the penumbras of protection in the Bill of Rights and thinking those should be managed by the states. You can call my concerns trivial all you want, but my bottom line is that I’m not casting a vote for some crackpot conspiracy theorist isolationist “fair” taxer who lets people bash me in his newsletters.
I’ve read enough PDF documents from that website to feel fairly certain that these people directed all of the bush administrations actions for the past 8 years. Why, if the democrats are so against Bush policy, are they in the same buddy buddy group?
Now that I go to the website I see that they are directing attention to Reason magazine’s attack on Ron Paul. Why? If they are truly a “non-partisan resource for information and analysis” are they involved in hurting the campaign of the only person running for president that’s not of member of their non-governmental entity?
here’s some info on the CFR:
what are these rich white people doing? I certainly didn’t see any “diversity” in that room.
and here’s some eye opening quotes from various ex-CFR members
They aren’t scary. They are rich old white men. That is all.
hells kitchen guy
Ron Paul’s supporters remind me of Clay Aiken’s fans. Same level of batshit craziness.
Wicks, marriage is a civil institution, sanctioned by the state, and that’s the way it should be. You can shove your bible up your ass; I’ll take the Constitution. And it’s not “gay marriage.” Gay people are already married. (Usually to Liza Minnelli.)
I am for Dennis Kucinich, but if Ron Paul is sincere when he says he’d get out of Iraq immediately, as opposed to a gradual phase out, and close down the CIA, then I can overlook some of his quirkiness.
Its all well and good but if you have seen the David Walker video, how can you back any candidate other than Ron Paul. All of the others are either have their head in the sand or are lying to themselves. Our country is headed full steam down a dead end road. Someone needs to slow us down and get us back on the right track.
David Walker video
It is also on the GAO website here:
Click on Americaâ€™s Fiscal Future, June 2006
Did a Dennis Kucinich supporter just call Ron Paul quirky?
Marriage wasn’t considered a state function until they started requiring licenses in the early 1900’s. The reason for government intervention was for “health” concerns. Hmm… Never heard that excuse used before.
Believe it or not, I’m personally sympathetic to the “gay-marriage” cause. However, “marriage” is a religious institution that was hijacked by the state. The state should not force religious institutions to do or not do anything.
The answer is quite simple though. “Marriage” licenses should really be eradicated; period. Individual “partnership contacts” should be the setup. People could draft these documents between themselves, and include “prenuptual” safety nets thus reducing the load on divorce courts.
Under this setup the state would have no constitutional right to deny a contractual agreement between individuals no matter their sexuality.
“Come on, stop making excuses for this nutjob just because you people donâ€™t want to pay your taxes!”
MY taxes, you ignorant little creep? You mean the extortion racket grapping nearly half of all wealth produced, that forces me to fund a military empire committing mass murder around the world?
You are the nutjob. A sadistic nutjob.
PRESIDENT OF NAACP BACKS RON PAUL
fast forward to the 55 second mark:
Hey good job winners! What are you going to tell the troops who die *after* Ron Paul could have brought them home? “Sorry kid, I couldn’t vote for Ron Paul. He may have been associated with someone who may have been associated with with racist newsletters two decades ago.” You don’t really care though, do you?
I support Ron Paul.
I support Ron Paul and so does my boyfriend. 🙂
Griz, you act like Paul is the only person who wants to bring the troops home. He clearly is not. What’s more, I’d like our troops to come home to a country where we haven’t decided the solution to our foreign policy problems is to build a wall around the country and just not deal with all the foreigners any more. We’re a better nation than that at our core. So yes, I do care, and I’ve cared very deeply since this farce of a war began. I cared enough to call my congressman out on it at what was supposed to be a happy shiny forum at my law school last week.
John, people who scour the Internet looking for blog stories on Congressman Crankypants, regardless of whether they have any interest in the content of the blog, simply so they can spam the comments section (because clearly the more comments in favor mean you’re winning the election!) has no room calling anyone crazy. Though I will say sadism often comes up in the topics of this blog, so kudos on being topical to some extent.
hate to break it to you mozz, but the winner of the presidential election this year will have an immigration ploicy similar to Paul’s–be it Hillary or even McCain. It’s still a Democracy, and people feel very strongly on this.
No major candidate really wants to bring the troops home. President Hillary WILL continue to build permanent bases in Iraq, and McCain is on the record saying we’ll stay 100 years if need be. Obama is racing to catch up. All of the candidates besides Paul are under the influence of the neocons. Sorry, kiddo. Them’s just the facts.
Alobe, that’s simply not true. Show me the other candidates who advocate pulling out of NATO as Paul did on Meet the Press. How about pulling out of the UN? Treating our international relations like a game where we can just take our marbles and go home is no way to rebuild the incredible ill will we’ve gotten under the Bush administration, but it is what Paul wants to do.
Oh, and pointing out that an NAACP leader scoffs at any suggestion that Paul is racist is crazy!? You’re just clapping your hands over your ears and going: “LALALALLALAL I can’t HEAR you!”
Read Justin Raimondo’s analysis of the newsletters.
Mozzer13, we went to war under UN resolution in Korea and Iraq. You seriously think that sitting in as a spectator rather than giving UN powers over Washington and the states is such a bad thing? I mean, really. The UN is the most overrated organization there is, sure we should talk to people, that’s a good thing. But to give up more powers and money to an unelected world bureaucracy is just silly.
Also, I’ve heard Ron Paul defend gays to a homophobic radio host just this past year, you think he did this just to try to make him look not like a homophobic? Some of the Republicans right now are straight up anti-gays while Ron Paul is not. Saying “marriage shouldn’t be a government program, but if it is, leave it up to the states” is such a bad thing? It’s called federalism!
As for these newsletters, he didn’t read them. I believe him, the gay man (Justin who writes for antiwar.com) who has known him for 20-30 year believes him, the NAACP president of Austin who has known him for 20 years believes him, but you don’t. Ron Paul should be charged with neglect, not racism.
No. 19 mozzer13 says: “Martin, David is the editorial director, but I believe Andrew does most of the writing. Does that give David a pass if Andrew is writing racist rants on a site produced by David?”
In the analogy that would make David equivalent to Mr. Rockwell, and Andrew equivalent to A.N. Other. Ron Paul is still Mr. Queerty.
The finger of suspicion does point heavily at Mr. Rockwell as being responsible for the day-to-day running of the newsletters, but Mr. Rockwell himself has denied that he wrote the offending comments. I suspect that he knows who did, and that he personally hired the writer in question, but I doubt if anyone has asked him about that. It’s much more profitable to put all the blame on Ron Paul or, failing that, on his prominent supporter.
Ron Paul stated, entirely truthfully, that he didn’t know who wrote the offending articles. Your attempt to make him out a liar, by blurring the distinction between “produced” and “wrote”, defies logic.
No, Martin, that makes Paul the equivalent of David and Rockwell the equivalent of Andrew. When your employees are sending out newsletters with your name on them, you have a responsibility to make sure they don’t have racist and homophobic diatribes. He needs to take some responsibility for his actions on this.
Federalism, Brent? Yes, let’s give Mississippi back their power. It isn’t like there are a lot of lunch counters for black folks to be excluded from anyway. State power in a Republican primary is little more than code to white male voters that they should be the ones making the rules.
Ron Paul supporters are no more a lockstep joined at the hip politically monolithic, homogeneous group than are Clinton supporters, Obama supporters, McCain supporters, gays, African-Americans, or what have you. (That remnant still doggedly supporting Bush this late in the game may well be, however ::grin::)
Longtime Paul supporters such as I confronted the problem of supporting someone with whom we did not agree on all important issues long ago. (In my case in 1988 when I voted for him the first time he ran for President.) It’s the same process that everyone goes through on election day when none of the alternatives perfectly mirror our personal views. (And unless we ourselves are the candidate, when does that ever happen?)
I am pro-choice on everything. I unreservedly support gay marriage. I think the United Nations is perfectly fine as an international diplomatic vehicle. I reject the notion of a CFR or any other conspiracy.
I don’t believe in political litmus tests, although to be frank, in my case what comes closest is the Patriot Act and ancillary legislation of the same kind. Unless there is some overarching reason to do so — and I can’t think of any, but one might theoretically exist — I will never knowingly vote for anyone who supports that kind of unconstitutional Big Brother legislation, no matter what their explanation or excuse.
Some folks with a libertarian bent come to their views from the left and some from the right. What is important is that the state mechanism not be used to inflict repugnant views or force upon those who disagree on public policy issues, and on that all libertarians agree.
So at the end of the day it is the biggest tent imaginable. Everyone else I know — certainly everyone else running for President — of seeks to use the levers of power to impose their own preferences by force (which is what government basically is) and override those who disagree by threat of doing violence to them if they do not conform.
Although there are many prominent gay members of the libertarian community, Republican, Democrat, big-L Libertarian, etc., it has always baffled me that a majority of gays seem to be antagonistic to the only political view in the US that offers individual liberty and defends everyone against those forces which would deny it.
So, no, I don’t agree with Ron Paul’s personal preferences and some of the issues he emphasizes more than others, but I can live with them because he won’t force conformity down anyone’s throat. All the alternatives would. And as we’ve seen, whichever faction is politically ascendant one day can be on the ropes the next, with policies lurching crazily in the process.
If there were a different, maybe ‘left’ libertarian running against Ron Paul where even the few points of preference and priority about which I disagree with Paul were not in conflict with my own views, and I had to choose between them, I probably would support that candidate.
But there is not this time. Nobody else even comes close, in terms of policy views, principles or character. (Incidentally, it’s fascinating to me that rather than to take on Paul’s policy views, his opponents this time around seem bent on ludicrous character assassination. But I suppose if you can demonize someone, then you don’t have to actually deal with their principles and policy choices.)
Kipload, are you married? Ron Paul is. I would be willing to bet that you are just as big a hypocrite as he is on this issue.
Furthermore, I bet Ron Paul never called for legal marriage to be abolished until gays started asking for it.
Actually, I thought I was discussing his policy choices regarding his ludicrous revisionist foreign policy ideas. Steve, I think yours is the most well-reasoned argument of any Paul supporter I’ve ever heard, and I think we would probably agree on a great many things. For me, however, whenever it comes down this idea of personal liberties, the solution from Paul seems to be to take the federal government out of the equation, allowing for more local control at the state level. History in the United States has shown that this is a virtual guarantee that personal liberty will only be granted to the majority in many many states.
One thing that’s hurt Ron standing amoung social conservatives many years ago was his endorsement of an openly gay candidate running on the Libertarian ticket. -And it looks like it didn’t score points with the gays either. Maybe it’s better politically to distance yourself from gays, since they don’t seem to do much research.
I am truly frightened by what is going on today in America. America has forgotten that the constitution of the United State of America state “We The People” not we the government.
Here is a video to remind you… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PTry–cdTI
If We The People did not forget…
Did We The People agree to give up the right to be held without a trial?
Did We The People agree that “a list” be created where the innocent can not be removed?
Did We The People agree that the current administration should be pardoned for all crimes?
Did We The People agree to inflation that is caused by a private company named the Federal Reserve?
Did We The People agree to income tax to pay a private company interest?
You will find if care to look We The People did not agree. You are the people and you have the power to change things not the government, you can be apart of a peaceful Revolution with a Vote if you just believe you can make a difference.
I get a lot of chain email asking me to forward the email to as many people as possible and I will receive money. Today I am asking that you make a difference and send this message to everyone you can for FREEDOM.
mozzer13 wrote: “And I for one am tired of hearing of all the allegedly wonderful things this â€œindividual libertyâ€ will do for me.”
Boy, but if that doesn’t sum up the modern political left.
The more that I hear groups saying that Ron Paul is not for this group or that one, the more I know he’s the right person for the job. The president of the United States should be for everyone, equally, no expections, period. Thinking in groups and putting any other word before “rights” except “human” is precisely what has gotten us into this cultural mess.
You have a point when you describe Paul and his supporters as being a bit different, though. In fact, you might go so far as to say that … we have a dream.
Way to take me out of context, fractalchez, and make it sound as though I oppose freedom. That’s a bit of a traditional Republican tactic. I think I pretty clearly said individual liberty isn’t going to come from the methods championed by Paul, not that I’m tired of individual liberty as your pull quote implies.
Is Obama homosexual:
That skit is hilarious! Thanks for the giggle!
No. 39 Zeke says:
Kipload, are you married? Ron Paul is. I would be willing to bet that you are just as big a hypocrite as he is on this issue.
Furthermore, I bet Ron Paul never called for legal marriage to be abolished until gays started asking for it.
Sir you are obviously confused. First, I am not married. Not planning on it either. Secondly, how would Ron be a hypocrite on this issue? OMG he’s married. So what? Just because you practice your religion and get married doesn’t mean you believe the state should be involved.
Just because I support the right for “christians” to follow their religious ceremonies as they see fit doesn’t mean you should be inhibited from your own ceremony or from one that a church feels inclined to setup for you.
The state should do one of two things. One is to not recognize marriage (taxes, visitation, or inheritance) in any way, or simply recognize a private contractual agreement between two parties on a purely financial basis thus leaving sexuality out of the state’s scope of control.
You might also want to research a person’s positions, before making an ass out of yourself. (See last statement above) The man follows the school of thought set forth by Jewish Holocaust refugee Ludwig von Mises, his stance on contractual agreements, property rights, and civil liberties go back over 30 years.
I think Ron Paul’s position on foreign policy is nonintervention rather than isolationism. I have no position on whether or not to pull out of NATO and UN, but I think the idea is that we don’t get much from being in them (We can still communicate with other nations just fine without them), and various resolutions that they might impose go against his noninterventionist stance.
As far as the newsletters go, I think they are largely a nonissue. Two decades ago, some of the people Ron Paul was associated with may have thought it was a good idea to try to curry favor with bigoted southerners by appearing to be bigoted as well. They were wrong. If the idea behind bringing up the newsletters is to make it seem like Ron Paul was bigoted 20 years ago, then the attack is misinformed. And even if it were true, it would hardly matter as he certainly isn’t bigoted nowadays.
“Way to take me out of context, fractalchez, and make it sound as though I oppose freedom.”
I want to be free of the UN. I want to be free of NATO. I want to be free to make my own economic decisions. I want to be free to make *all* of my own decisions. I want to contract with who I want, hire who I want, work where I want, live where and with whom I want, spend money on what I want, not spend money on what I don’t want, listen to who I want, support who I believe in, and not support who I don’t.
So: do you oppose my freedoms or not? If not, then I don’t think I was taking you out of context at all.
“Thatâ€™s a bit of a traditional Republican tactic.”
An interesting analysis given that I am an anarchist who has not voted in years, and mostly voted third party back when I did.
“I think I pretty clearly said individual liberty isnâ€™t going to come from the methods championed by Paul”
You are right, because individual liberty does not come from above, and certainly not from any strong central anything. “Individual liberty” is not a policy; it’s an already existent state of being. The role of institutions is not to give it or allow it or allocate it: it is to recognize it and get out of its way.
Paul is the only candidate who has stated that he is running for president because he *doesn’t* want to run our lives. There’s my litmus test for believing in freedom.
Mozzer13, He did say he had a moral responsibility. That he did not write it, but that his lack of direct oversight allowed this to occur, and so therefor he had a moral obligation to accept responsibility. He already did what you’re demanding, do not pretend he did not, or that he is obligated to apologize for more so you can whine a bit more. Show me another politician, or even a public figure who does that.
His ideas are the only ones that allow a true choice. Not just one that is acceptable to you. To allow choice by only allowing selections to be made from a pre-approved list is the tool of a dictatorship. And he is the only candidate calling the troops home. The democrats winning in congress was supposed to be bringing our troops home. Instead they voted for a surge. Republicans gave us the Patriot Act, 66 Representatives voted against that the first time (including RP). Democrats have now passed the Homegrown Terrorist Prevention Act, which will lead to worse abuses than the Patriot Act and only 4 Representatives voted against that.
EMB, Facism is bandied around quite a bit. Facism is not racism. Facism is allowing the state so much power that it can do whatever it wants and no one can question it or stop it. Jim Crow was facism. Suppressing MLK was facism. But supressing white supremacists is also facism. Proposing a bill where certain words are illegal because they are hurtful is facist because it allows for the policing of ideas. To fight for the policing of other people’s ideas is irresponsible and if those in power ever don’t like your ideas, you have no one to blame except yourself if you advocate that other people’s ideas must be regulated. Facism is what government wants. If you are not voting for a libertarian candidate, another step towards facism is what you are voting in. Orwell wrote against political manipulation of people through the devaluing of words, against totalitarianism selling itself as liberty. Orwell was against what Ron Paul is against. Ron Paul speaks plainly and wants government to have less power. Orwell warned against the opposite message of what Ron Paul is speaking of.
Individual liberty means freedom for you and everyone else, not just the people who agree with you, nor just the people who don’t. I know it’s scary. It means having to be responsible for yourself. You have to be an adult to embrace individual liberty. I note with sadness a significant lack of people who should qualify as responsible adults in America.
And as far as isolationism is concerned. Trade with all, war with none, that is his message. That war is the last resort for a country and it should only be undertaken in defense. That economic trade with all nations is our best course. How’s that for working with a global economy? Compare that with our present policy of exploiting other countries economically, and manipulating their politics for our own benefit. And if all else fails, going to war for economic benefit. Does no one see what we have been doing?
I see people using racist, isolationist, fascist, but none of these words apply to him. In fact in many instances the opposite applies. But as Orwell predicted, people will accept the dialogue of political manipulation, finding cliche and sound bites easier than careful dialogue and examination. People who will not parse the words out to examine their meanings, opting to listen to other’s opinions on what they should think, will fall prey to those who seek to exploit and enslave them because if they do not trully understand the meaning of the language, they fall prey to the changing of words which changes the meaning of the argument. You want Orwellian politics, don’t vote for Ron Paul. Any of the other candidates will do.
Oh and please note Billy’s comment. That says a lot.
“When your employees are sending out newsletters with your name on them, you have a responsibility to make sure they donâ€™t have racist and homophobic diatribes. He needs to take some responsibility for his actions on this.”
He already has. He has stated that those words aren’t his, but that he claims “moral responsibility” for them for exactly the reasons you state.
So in short, he made a mistake in managerial judgment and oversight, nothing more, and has corrected it. Next?
Oh and for the record, yes, I am white, but I’m not rich and I am male. So yep, I’m white, male and straight, if that means something to you. If anyone thinks I can be pegged by my race, my religion, my sex, or my orientation, I think that person needs to really examine what prejudice truly means.
“Oh and please note Billyâ€™s comment. That says a lot.”
It sure does. It means there are a lot of folks on here who really don’t belong.
“An interesting analysis given that I am an anarchist who has not voted in years, and mostly voted third party back when I did.”
Anarchy as a viable political system? Okay, I’m officially done, y’all. See you back on Venus.
JEEZ JAMES PULLS A “HITCHENS” AND YOU GUYS GO BESERK… SORRY, BUT HITCH CAN DO THIS KINDA THINK IN HIS SLEEP, AS WELL AS DO IT WITH NOTHING BUT THE FACTS! YOU SEE A REAL JOURNALIST, HAS TO VERIFY HIS REPORTING. NOT JAMES. BUT I GUESS THE ONLY ARTICLES YOU PUBLISH HAVE TO PREACH TO THE CHOIR!!! SO BE IT, JUST DON’T DARE CALL IT JOURNALISM.
You’ve gone and done it, you’ve activated the Paulbots! Look, over 53 comments so far, more than any other article on this blog. Whenever and wherever anything negative about Ron Paul is posted on the net, the Paulbots respond in great numbers. The word quickly spreads. There are people posting on Queerty today that have never heard of or posted here before and won’t be heard from again unless you put up another negative Paul article. They are truly fanatics. They will not change their minds and cannot change the subject. And anyone who disagrees with them or Ron Paul is labeled “misinformed” or a smear merchant or worse. The good thing is Ron Paul has no chance of getting into the White House unless he takes a tour. The best way to deal with Paulbots is to ignore them, much as the press and the American electorate has done.
This was one of the first links on the list from a google news search of “Ron Paul” … no ‘paulbot’ information spreading, you were just subject to the whims of google news.
By the way everyone… today is the Money bomb, go to http://www.ronpaul2008.com to donate!
Those anti-gay letters didn’t write themselves — that’s for sure. Here are some other things that didn’t happen by themselves: the US government’s military imperialism, with men with guns stationed across the globe to impose its will; its active wars which are butchering innocent people in a couple of countries; its support for bloody dictators in a number of others; the War on Drugs, which has caused untold misery and bloodshed in our own cities.
No, these things happened because politicians voted to implement and fund these things. Of the leading candidates (to use the media term), all of them would basically continue these crimes; in fact, McCain, Obama, Edwards, and Clinton have all explicitly aided and abetted these atrocities as U.S. Senators.
I’m no longer a Paul supporter. But those who are condemning his supporters need to keep this in mind: even if he personally wrote every word in those newsletters, and much worse, this wouldn’t even come close to the moral repugnancy of the leading candidates’ complicity in the actions of the U.S. government. I can see a person of good conscience supporting Ron Paul, despite his very disturbing flaws, because he wants to end the butchery; I’m not so sure how anyone could support the leading candidates who will continue most of it.
Let’s see if you’re really done.
“It sure does. It means there are a lot of folks on here who really donâ€™t belong.”
Interesting comment. It says even more. It says to me that elitism is alive and well in every social group. It says that there are many who want equality, but that desire always seems to end up being, in practice, for the right to be as equally exclusionary as the racists and the homophobes and the sexists. I guess oppression is only bad if you’re being oppressed.
It’s sad to me that Ron Paul is being dismissed, but not at all surprising, with any level of casual knowledge of how humans actually behave.
I know several gay men who are supporting Ron Paul, and the content of these stupid newsletters are not even an issue to them. The only people interested in them are the media and fools who are trying to sound like they’ve discovered some deep dark secret, when really this non-story has been rehashed dozens of times over the past 2 decades. Get some lives.
Today is the donation drive. Please donate as much as you can. freeatlast2008.com
This is the stuff the puppeteers uses to make sure the puppets tow the line!
Here is how they keep Hillary on her toes:
And this is how they keep George Bush doing as he is being told:
Ron Paul Didn’t write the things in the news letters.
One of the things supposedly slamming gays was that there are gays trying to get infected with HIV.
As a Gay man with HIV I can state that that is something that is happening. The gay community knows this. It’s called bug chasing. I have had numerous gay men wanting me to infect them. I have not gone along with their crazy request because I would never want to pass this on to anyone. Ron Paul is the only candidate running from either party other than Kucinich that think gays should be allowed to get married and that it’s none of the governments business, so Ron Paul support gays being able to marry more than Clinton, Obama or Edwards.He also understand that Don’t ask Don’t tell is absurd and should be changed. He sounds more like what you would or should be hearing from the Dems. Ron Paul never takes money from lobbyist or special interest. Ron Paul wants to give the country back to the people.
Gay issues are not why I’m voting for Ron Paul, but it is because Ron Paul is the only honest candidate who will follow the Constitution, bring our Troops home, and stop the out of control spending that has this country on the brink of the abyss. If the country crumbles then your rights and something someone else wrote won’t matter one damn bit.
“You can call my concerns trivial all you want, but my bottom line is that Iâ€™m not casting a vote for some crackpot conspiracy theorist isolationist â€œfairâ€ taxer who lets people bash me in his newsletters.”
And you won’t be voting for one, if you vote for Paul.
As I said, you guys are pawns, and you are shooting yourselves in the heads. If you JERKS haven’t woken up to the fact the US media is total bullshit after “the new economy”, after “weapons of mass destruction”, after “Hussein worked with Al Qaeda”, after “the housing market miracle”, after “the soft landing”, you never will.
New is propaganda.
Incidentally, I am not gay, but I have a business partner who is, who is taking care of his dying husband who is HIV positive, and I have a cousin who is gay who is an expatriot because his lover is Argentinian and they cannot marry. They both support Paul, not because they are stupid, it’s because they aren’t.
Paul is the greatest advocate for personal freedom I’ve ever seen running for president. He doesn’t allow his personal views to interfere with his constitutional duty.
If you haven’t realized it by yet, let me point out who the “nuts” are, so labelled by the media:
Every one of them is an outspoken critic of the Iraq war and has been before the war started.
Every one of them doesn’t support attacking Iran, a nation that does not threaten us.
Every one of them believes in personal liberty, at least at the social level, they differ on the economic level.
Those are the THREE candidates running, everybody else is merely a meat puppet of whatever powers that be that run this country. The people who run this country, don’t care if you have anal sex or get married, they don’t care if abortion is illegal, these are divisive minor issues. The real issues are personal freedom, economics of this country, and war.
Hitler was putting homosexuals into concentration camps, that’s where the pink triangle comes from. I want you guys to realize that we have concentration camps here, they are called detention camps.
No doubt you think these are nothing more than a conspiracy theory, VISIT ONE. They do exist.
I know gay marriage, abortion rights, etc are important, but they are only important when we have a FUNCTIONING country, and we may not have one for long. Get your priorities straight and stop being a tool to the media which isn’t a free media at all.
Go fly to France, and watch CNN THERE and marvel as to why it’s so radically different in content to CNN here. I am 1/2 Polish, I can tell you that I know, NOBODY ever believes the people warning of approaching police states, but it’s in my genes because my “paranoid conspiracy theorist” ancestors left, before Auschwitz was built.
Directive 51 exists. We hang together, or we’re going to hang seperately folks. Hillary Clinton and Obama are not on your side. Kucinich and Gravel are but Paul has the best chance, and I know it’s not the biggest chance, but it may be our lest hope to get him elected.
In response to Billy
> One thing thatâ€™s hurt Ron standing amoung
> social conservatives many years ago was his
> endorsement of an openly gay candidate running
> on the Libertarian ticket. -And it looks like
> it didnâ€™t score points with the gays either.
> Maybe itâ€™s better politically to distance
> yourself from gays, since they donâ€™t seem to
> do much research.
Most people don’t do much research.
This is so depressing and troubling that there is so much ignorance, and that the population can be so easily manipulated and that there are so many people willing to manipulate.
We have a true opportunity with Paul. To end our murderous wars, to stop the military industrial complex which DOES exist, to stop eroding our freedoms, to reduce an abusive and insane government, and to respect everybody’s rights – black, gay, Christian, atheist and people are throwing it away. Clinton, Obama, and all the Republicans except Paul are neocons.
Kucinich and Gravel are Democrats, they are courageous Democrats, and the Democratic voters won’t vote for them. They are “nuts”. Nuts for opposing the war, nuts for talking about the one document that protects us all – the Constitution.
We’re headed for an economic disaster, and directive 51 is in place. If you believe in God, and I do not, pray – because 51 covers any upset in the normal flow of operations.
“You can call my concerns trivial all you want, but my bottom line is that Iâ€™m not casting a vote for some crackpot conspiracy theorist isolationist â€œfairâ€ taxer who lets people bash me in his newsletters.”
Would you vote for someone who has actively enabled, and will continue to basically support, all of the government butchery (war, global military occupation, propping up dictators, bloody War on Drugs) that I discussed in my post above?
The defense of smearing Ron Paul I keep hearing on al these sites is that they don’t agree with his policies that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the newsletters.
They don’t argue that Ron Paul IS a racist, just that they are justified in smearing him BECAUSE they feel his other policies would be “dangerous.”
The truth is, this author wants to take Ron Paul down because he wants a socialist country. And anything he has to do, including lying and smearing, is perfectly justified to acheive those means.
Their comments in the thread betray their agenda.
Yes, apparently he would. The truth is many socialist democrats have absolutely no problem with the war or any of the over-reaching powers of the federal government. They simply want to be the ones in control of it.
They oppose it now, but that opposition will disappear once they hold office.
Didn’t the “democratic upset” in 2006 prove this? There is no opposition to policy, just opposition to party.
I think gay people are great. But the ones on THIS SITE are whining babies looking for special rights from the gubmint.
GROW UP PLEASE if you want any respect from the mainstream!
I have many conservative gay friends and you make them ashamed.
> Didnâ€™t the â€œdemocratic upsetâ€ in 2006 prove
> this? There is no opposition to policy, just
> opposition to party.
I’m afraid you’re right. Nobody really seems to care about policy, all they care about is whether the current morons in charge have a D or an R at the end of their name.
Hell, we have a nation building, Federal government growing, deficit spending nutcase in the white house, and plenty of “Republicans” support him. I’ve been tearing my hair trying to figure out what “Republicans” are thinking, but you’re probably right, they aren’t Republicans at all.
This nation is so doomed it’s not funny. Republicans and Democrats have essentially the same policy, just different rhetoric.
And for those that don’t believe this: Is abortion illegal? It could have been, for 6 years the Republicans dominated the executive, judicial, and legislative branch.
Oh, and and that “great president” Clinton implemented the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy – you know the SAME FUCKING POLICY THAT WAS IN PLACE BEFORE.
God, I hate being in a flock of sheep racing off to the edge of a cliff. I now understand what the Cassandra complex is.
I knew he was a quasi-fascist the moment I heard him speak. The paranoid style in American politics and all that…
Those who follow Paul blindly, despite facts such as these, are similar to those who followed Hitler or Joe McCarthy!
> Those who follow Paul blindly, despite facts
> such as these, are similar to those who
> followed Hitler or Joe McCarthy!
For fucks sake! Calling Paul supporters blind supporters as you nuts vote for people that are considering using NUCLEAR WEAPONS on Iran, that is irony in the extreme.
Read about the other candidates.
Oh, it’s just hopeless.
No Kipload, YOU are being the ass if you are trying to convince ANYONE here that Ron Paul does not have a LEGAL, CIVIL MARRIAGE. He IS hypocritical because he could have forgone the legal marriage that he claims he doesn’t believe in and had personal contracts with his partner as he and you claim to support. Instead he got married and has stayed in an LEGAL, STATE ADMINISTERED institution that he claims people, especially gay should not be offered.
You are either acting ignorant or you are truly the most stupid person on this site if you believe that most people in this country only have religious marriages that are not registered and administered by the STATE.
You, bubba, are the one who needs to find out more about who your talking to before you make an ass out of yourself.
Yes, I agree completely, whether the state legaly recognizes marriage is more important than the financial solvency of the country OR pre-emptive nuclear attacks on countries.
I’m sure glad all of you have your priority’s straight!
It’s ironic how afraid of any significant deviation from the status quo a lot gay people are.
Calling Paul a “quasi-fascist” and comparing him to Hitler and Mccarthy betrays your complete ignorance on just about everythng you wrote. For the record, a ‘fascist’ is a person who advocates a LOT of state control over the individual citizens of the state. Hitler was a fascist. You could argue that McCarthy as a “quasi-fascist” because he advocated a lot of state control.
There has never been a political candidate at this level of American politics who advocated LESS state control and LESS government, period.
Where are those “Orwell was right” buttons? We need them. “War is peace!” “Hate is Love!” “Ron Paul is a fascist!”
No matter who is elected (because it won’t be Paul) we will have a neocon in office. Obama jabbering about invading Pakistan? Hillary unafraid to nuke Iran? But you were told long ago that these were the good guys, right?
And you’re calling us sheep?
I had to comment on this from “ProfessorVP”
> Wicks, marriage is a civil institution,
> sanctioned by the state, and thatâ€™s the way it
> should be.
Why should a consenting relationship between anybody be sanctioned by the state? Why should the state be determining anything about what adults do? If 5 men want to marry 12 women and they all want to have sex, why should the state be saying “no” to that?
What business does the state have getting involved at all?
“You can shove your bible up your ass;”
I’m an atheist. The only bible I read is online. I suppose I could stuff my keychain up my ass, it does have 4 GB on it. I have tried a carrot up my ass, I’m pretty certain that if I have any gay tendencies, I’m not a bottom.
> Iâ€™ll take the Constitution. And itâ€™s not â€œgay
> marriage.â€ Gay people are already married.
I hope you do take the Constitution.
Because it doesn’t say anything about fucking marriage. Read it.
The Federal government shouldn’t be recognizing marriage AT ALL.
Ron Paul is much more of a capitalist than a socialist — he believes if government just got out of the way market forces would take care of all. I don’t think socialism is a bad word, for healthcare, mail, cops, fireman, etc. and many other instances. But I do think unregulated capitalism is a bad idea as shown in the last 8 years.
I really don’t care who wrote what, I’m interested in a candidate that grows some balls and shoots from the hip, you either support gay people and our rights or you don’t. This Ron Paul sounds good, but read more, he really is a nut job.
Unfortunately, Ron Paul’s disbelief in evolution and its principals of scientific theory and discovery disqualifies him from being US President. We’ve had too many loons already and human survival is riding on it.
Alyssa M. Lopez
I’m the group administrator for Facebook’s Gays & Lesbians for Ron Paul. (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6699671620)
Paul has been a staunch advocate for the rights of ALL individuals.
“We donâ€™t get our rights because weâ€™re gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. If there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if thereâ€™s heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isnâ€™t the issue of homosexuality. Itâ€™s the concept and the understanding of individual rights.”
-Ron Paul in Republican Presidential Debate, June 5th, 2007
John Stossel: Homosexuality. Should gays be allowed to marry?
Ron Paul: Sure.
Stossel: The State says, we will believe in this?
Paul: Sure they can do whatever they want and they can call it whatever they want , just so they donâ€™t expect to impose their relationship on somebody else. They canâ€™t make me, personally, accept what they do, but they gay couples can do whatever they want. In fact, Iâ€™d like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I donâ€™t think itâ€™s a state function. I think itâ€™s a religious function. There was a time when only churches dealt with marriage, and they determined what it was. But 100 years or so ago for health reasons they claim that the state would protect us if we knew more about our spouses and we did health testing and you had to get a license to get married and I donâ€™t agree with that.
After reading through lo these many interesting comments, I’d like to say that I think the mistake many of you people are making is trying to make a politician your hero. I’ve been on this planet over fifty years and I’ve never come across a politician who isn’t flawed. Look to your mothers or fathers for a hero figure, or that old man down the street who years ago helped fix your spokes when you feel off your bike or paid attention to you as a kid when no one else would listen. Instead people make rock stars and politicians the heroes on their wall. Trust me, that’s the wrong way to go.
Edward, I think the mistake is in expecting our heros to be unflawed, in other words to be inhuman. Show me person with no flaws and who has made no mistakes, and I can show you someone who has been incredibly lucky for one thing, and someone who has never had to learn or grow wisdom. Your parents are flawed, the guy who fixed your bike is flawed. I am flawed, and so are you. To model your life after some distant idol is bad, but only if you expect that idol to be more than human. That is setting yourself up for disappointment. I’d rather admire someone with principles learned from a lifetime of mistakes than someone who is supposedly unflawed.
This is an in depth analysis of the newsletters from a different perspective, and it clarifies the length of time that these newsletters went out. Yes, they went out over decades, However, as the article points out, the “sensational” articles were a small part of newsletters published over the course of 4 years. And puts some of the quotes in proper context.
It is interesting for me to note that you could say that I hate gay people and you can quote me on it if you just pulled that portion of this comment and published it. The quote would not present my views, nor give the context of it as an example of how I could be misquoted. All you need to do is pull those words and state correctly that I wrote them.
First of all, these so-called “anti-gay” newsletters were published after Congressman Paul sold his controlling interest in the newsletter. And the January 1994 newsletter which Kirchick (who, by the way, openly admitted that he published his article merely to get Ron Paul supporters riled) is merely critical of irresponsible sexual behavior. As gay “activists”, I’m sure you’ve heard of “bug chasers”, gay men who go around deliberately attempting to get infected with HIV. This is the sort of behavior that the Political Report newsletter was criticizing.
Johnm writes, ” I don’t think socialism is a bad word for healthcare, mail, cops, firemen, etc. and many other instances”. Actually, Johnm, our healthcare system was much better before it became socialized the way it is now. And as for mail, FedEx, UPS, and DHL do a better job than the USPS, and you don’t have to worry about the infamous long lines with these private companies the way you do with the USPS.
Comments are closed.