Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters Indicative of…Racism. Duh!

“Through it all though, Ron Paul was a constant.  He kept plugging away, first at the center of the paleo strategy as evidenced by the newsletters.  To be clear, I am quite certain he did not write them.  There is little doubt that they were written by Rockwell and Rothbard.  People I know who were on the inside at the time confirm it and the style matches pretty well to those two and does not match to Ron Paul.  Paul knows who wrote them too, but he’s protecting his long-time friend and advisor, unfortunately.  And even more sadly, Rockwell doesn’t have the guts to confess and end this whole megillah.  So although I don’t think Ron Paul is a racist, like Archie Bunker, he was willing to, metaphorically, toast a marshmallow on the cross others were burning.”

Ron Paul is an ass.  I like a lot of what he has to say about pure economic theory, but the ookie racism and conspiracy theories that go along with Paul make him unacceptable as a candidate.

Steve Horowitz doesn’t think Paul is a racist.  I do.

Here’s why: Paul profited from these newsletters.  Paul’s name was on the byline.  Paul was the reason these newsletters were published.  These newsletters were Paul’s vehicle to peddle his influence.  That Paul allowed racist thought to be so deeply ingrained into his newsletters is a very clear sign that the racism didn’t bother him.  He did not find it repugnant enough to stop it.  That points to Paul’s own racism.

If Paul isn’t a racist and didn’t pay close attention to what was being published in his own name means something else – he is entirely too stupid and too careless to ever be trusted with the responsibilities of the position of President of the United States.

Since Ron Paul is a doctor, I am assuming he isn’t stupid and does pay attention to detail.  Therefore, I can only conclude that he is a racist. 

Also, Mr. Horowitz, Archie Bunker was a racist too.  That was part of the whole plot, to watch a racist confronted with the humanity of the people he hated.  Holding repugnant values doesn’t necessarily make a person wholly repugnant.  Archie was likable because he learned to value people despite his racism and antisemitism.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters Indicative of…Racism. Duh!

  1. Brandi says:

    Even before the racism stuff came out, I had worries about him. He’s full of great ideas, but I’ve yet to see him lay out ANY kind of a plan for how he would actually implement his ideas. I’ve seen people get excited over him closing all us military bases on foreign soil. That’s great, but there are thousands and thousands and thousands of Americans employed by the commissaries, post exchange, housing offices, on-base public works, Burger King, etc… on those bases who will be jobless. Also, all the US bases are at or over capacity. All those soldiers need a job to do on a US base if their job on the base in Germany is gone. Is he going to drastically shrink our military? If so, I want to know that before I cast a vote. So, while I don’t disagree with closing the bases, I want to know what he’s going to do about all the jobs he’ll eliminate. That’s just a minor example. I want to know how he plans to implement the rest of his ideas.

  2. vivianlouise says:

    Apparently by spraying vinegar at them.

    I wish this was a joke, I really do. Between the racism, the conspiracy theory truthers and now the Paulsamics, I want Ron Paul out of the race. He’s a crazy person.

  3. My husband and I LOVE Ron Paul! Here is an article from last week: CNN Poll: Ron Paul Most Popular Republican Amongst Non-Whites‏
    So much for the “racist” smear
    Paul Joseph Watson
    Thursday, December 22, 2011
    The latest CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday finds that Congressman Paul scores highest amongst minorities when matched up against Barack Obama in a hypothetical election head to head.
    While the establishment media continues to hype a 15-year-old story concerning decades old newsletters as part of a dirty tricks campaign to smear Ron Paul as a racist, the latest CNN poll shows that Paul has the most support from non-whites out of all the Republican candidates.
    Paul scores 25% of the vote amongst non-whites, whereas Romney polls at 20% and Gingrich gets 15%.
    Ron Paul is clearly the most popular GOP contender amongst non-whites out of the entire field, suggesting that the “racist” smear, which was heavily pushed back in 2008, has had very little impact whatsoever on the views of those who presumably would be the most likely to be offended by it.
    Indeed, it’s a remarkable coincidence that those who seem to be most offended by the non-controversy are well to do, white, establishment Republican cheerleaders, Paul’s foremost political adversaries.
    The establishment media has predictably launched a second round of smear concerning the “racist newsletter” controversy that was first reported in 1996 and firmly debunked when it cropped up again in 2008.
    Unsurprisingly, the hit piece was originated by a hardened anti-Paul neo-con who enjoys membership of the same shadowy billionaire-financed lobbying group as Paul’s election rival Newt Gingrich.
    Paul has repeatedly pointed out that he had nothing to do with writing the offensive statements and didn’t even read them until years later, at which point he completely disowned the content.
    The key piece of evidence, universally ignored by the race baiters, which proves Ron Paul’s stance was the exact opposite of that portrayed in some of the newsletters released under his name in the early 1990′s, relates to Martin Luther King.
    The attack dogs have attempted to imply that Ron Paul either wrote or at least signed off on the characterization of civil rights hero King as a violent philanderer who “seduced underage girls and boys,” and that he criticized Ronald Reagan for signing legislation creating the federal holiday in his name, which Paul’s newsletter (not written by Paul) labeled “hate whitey day”.
    If this was Paul’s belief in the early 90′s then why, over a decade previously and then again in the early 80′s, did Paul vote to recognize Martin Luther King day as a public holiday, the only time in history that the Congressman has ever voted for something that is not explicitly authorized in the Constitution?
    Ron Paul has accepted responsibility for the newsletters, he did so no less than 15 years ago, but he has maintained the fact that he never wrote or approved what was written in them. His support for a day to honor Martin Luther King years before newsletters were written by other authors denigrating King, provides concrete evidence for this assertion.
    Paul’s support for King back in the 70′s proves that the newsletters were written by other people and did not represent the views of Paul himself, debunking the entire farce for what it is – a craftily manufactured smear attack.
    Ron Paul is the most popular Republican candidate amongst minorities because he seeks to end the war on drugs and the biased, racist court system it engenders that unfairly targets minorities.
    The video below illustrates how Ron Paul’s policies are almost universally in the same spirit as Martin Luther King, and how minorities are resonating with his message of true liberty.

  4. vivianlouise says:

    Joni, then Paul is too careless to be POTUS. He profited from racist arguments, by profited I mean he made actual cashy money for his newsletter with racist crap in it. Now suddenly I am supposed to believe that he never read the newsletter? Or knew about the white supremacists he took donations from? Or the truther conspiracists who send him money? Doubtful. If he isn’t then he has no discernment about who he associates with. Again, too careless to be POTUS.

    It’s the same with Robert Byrd. The man was a grand dragon in the KKK, opposed civil rights but he only did that stuff to get elected.

    Bull. Both men are racists. Both profited from racism. This stuff matters.

  5. I don’t think he is too careless or racist to be POTUS.
    The Ron Paul newsletter controversy is a textbook liberal smear campaign
    A racist these days is all too often really just a conservative winning an argument with a liberal. It should come as no surprise, then, that the most principled conservative in the GOP race is being assailed and viciously smeared as a racist because of the content of a newsletter written 20 years ago which he credibly denies writing or having any knowledge of, and has repeatedly disavowed as contrary to his own views.
    The racist smear is a common and favorite tactic of big-government liberals and their collaborators in the mainstream media. In 2009, with the tea party movement in full swing, members of the mainstream media did everything they could to assail these patriotic conservatives as racists, searching desperately at every tea party event for any wayward protest sign that might have racist content that could be used to assassinate the character of an entire national grassroots movement. The media even went so far as to fabricate a racial confrontation between tea party protesters and Democratic members of Congress, but it was nothing more than a smear and a lie.
    The tea party movement didn’t have anything to do with race: it was about fiscal policy, monetary policy, systemic problems with our legislative process, and the proper nature and role of government. Tea party protesters were all about diminishing the size, role, and influence of an out-of-touch, out-of-control, out-of-solutions, and out-of-money federal government. They were right. And just like the tea parties, Dr. Ron Paul’s life, message, and record as a 12-term U.S. congressman have absolutely nothing to do with race.
    Ron Paul is not a racist and doesn’t have a racist bone in his body. Throughout a political career that has spanned over four decades, Ron Paul’s message has always been about fiscal policy, monetary policy, and the proper nature and role of government. He has a message that has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the liberty our Founding Fathers fought to preserve, a liberty that he believes is granted to us as individuals made in the image of our Creator, not as members of any race or other collective group. And that message has resonated throughout the nation, which is why he is leading the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire as his campaign continues to steadily gain momentum.
    Why should we trust Ron Paul’s unequivocal denial of having written or known anything about these racist rantings?
    First, there’s his uncanny record of integrity. Even his harshest critics begrudgingly acknowledge that the Texas congressman (and faithful husband of over 50 years) is one of the most honest, principled, and consistent men in politics today.
    No one in the media really thinks Ron Paul is a racist or a liar. In fact, they know he isn’t. They ask him about the racist newsletters over and over again in order to smear him by association. That’s how the textbook, liberal, race-baiting smear works. Whether the “target” (to use Alinsky’s terminology) is really racist or not doesn’t matter. Accomplishing the goal, which is to destroy the target’s character for political reasons, is what matters to the left.
    The second reason Ron Paul’s adamant denials of racism are credible is that, as Andrew Sullivan points out, Ron Paul is “not exactly known for self-editing” — and that’s an understatement. Ron Paul has an almost pathological inability to filter anything in his mind on its way out his mouth. It’s not just that he compulsively tells the truth — he compulsively tells the whole truth about whatever he’s thinking; the more passionate he is about it, the more impossible it is for him not to wax indignant about it. If it’s on his mind, he can’t hold it in.
    You’ve seen him in the debates. One can easily picture frustrated campaign staffers coaching Ron Paul to stick to a more disciplined message during debates, only to watch nervously as he shares every stray thought he may have on an issue in jumbled fashion, whether it is likely to help him win the primary or not. As Ron Paul’s mind wanders, so wanders his mouth. If Ron Paul were really a racist, why has he never, ever publicly — or even privately to anyone’s account — said anything remotely racist? Surely we would have witnesses to Paul’s racism piling on at this point in the news cycle. Surely there would be at least one video capturing an errant word of racism escaping the kind country doctor’s lips. Surely Ron Paul would have had a macaca moment by now. But we don’t, there isn’t, and he hasn’t. Because Ron Paul isn’t racist.
    The third reason we can trust Ron Paul is his frequent and close association with racial minorities. Throughout his career, Ron Paul has employed racial minorities in his office staff, including Hispanics, African Americans, and Jews: most notably Eric Dondero, his chief of staff and travel aide for over a decade. Dondero bitterly parted ways with Paul over foreign policy after 9/11, but despite his general hostility toward Ron Paul, Dondero, who is half Jewish on his mother’s side, recently stated:
    I worked for the man for 12 years, pretty consistently. I never heard a racist word expressed towards blacks or Jews come out of his mouth. Not once. And understand, I was his close personal assistant. It’s safe to say that I was with him on the campaign trail more than any other individual.
    Noted African-American economist Walter Williams also endorsed Ron Paul for president in 2008, and Paul even suggested Williams as a possible VP pick. There’s also Nelson Linder, the president of the Austin, Texas, chapter of the NAACP and a personal acquaintance of Paul’s for 20 years, who stated in an interview that he had never found Paul to exhibit any racist tendencies, “adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.” Moreover, Paul polls better among minority voters in hypothetical matchups against Obama than any other GOP contender.
    So why is the media following this story so closely?
    Because it can no longer avoid talking about Ron Paul, as it has conspicuously done ever since he announced his candidacy, as it did after he statistically tied for first place at the Ames Iowa Straw Poll in August, as it did during the CBS foreign policy debate during which Ron Paul (a veteran who serves on the House Foreign Relations Committee and gets more donations from active duty military than the other GOP candidates combined) was only given 90 seconds to speak during an entire televised hour of debate … and the examples go on and on.
    As Ron Paul surges in the polls and the possibility of a Ron Paul win in Iowa becomes all too real, the mainstream media would look stupid — instead of merely biased — if it continued to ignore him and he actually pulled off a win in Iowa and a strong second-place finish in New Hampshire. But if the media doesn’t smear Ron Paul with these racist newsletters from over 20 years ago that Paul did not write and does not agree with, reporters and pundits will have to talk about the actual issues that Paul’s campaign raises, issues that matter deeply to the American people, issues that Ron Paul has always been on the right side of throughout his 12 terms as a U.S. congressman, both in word and in deed.
    I am a fan of Stanley Crouch’s “flip it” test as applied to bigotry … let us ”flip it,” and ask what we would think of Barack Obama who, under his own name, published such racism directed at whites and HIV. How seriously would we take the “He didn’t actually write it — he just published it” defense? Would we really be so forgiving?
    Is Coates trying to be funny? Is he deliberately choosing to ignore Barack Obama’s 20 years as a close friend and active member in the church of Jeremiah Wright, who peddled radical racial demagoguery and nutty theories of his own about HIV? To give just one example, Wright claimed that the U.S. government invented HIV to perpetrate genocide against people of color. Yes, let’s “flip it” for a moment and talk about the media’s treatment of Mr. Obama then! By giving one speech addressing the issue, Barack Obama laid the matter to rest, like waving a wand and making two decades of association with a racist demagogue — along with any questions about Obama’s judgment and his own views on race — magically disappear. He disavowed Wright’s words as “profoundly distorted” and the media took Obama at his word, ultimately letting the issue drop from the headlines. Today Barack Obama is president of the United States. If only Ron Paul received this kind of treatment!
    Before concluding, let’s use the “flip it” test for bigotry just one more time — on the late Robert Byrd, the Democratic senator from West Virginia and the longest-serving member of Congress in American history. When he died last year, Byrd was celebrated as a hero of the Democratic Party, a talented statesman, and a favorite son of West Virginia. A casual observer would have hardly been able to tell from the media’s many lauds and accolades that before he became a congressman, Robert Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan and held the title of “Exalted Cyclops.” Robert Byrd once wrote in a letter to a segregationist senator from Mississippi:
    I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side … Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.
    He wrote again to a “grand wizard” of the Ku Klux Klan:
    The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation.
    Here isn’t a man who simply neglected to be careful enough in overseeing what others were publishing in his name on a newsletter. This guy literally had a white hood in his closet. Robert Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan and a vicious racist. He even filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Somehow all of this didn’t stop the media or the electorate from allowing this man to become the most senior member of Congress and one of the most powerful men in Washington. When he died, he was unabashedly celebrated and his sins were swept under the rug, defended, polished, and explained away. The former Klansman was even praised in a statement released by the NAACP. Seriously.
    The “flip it” test actually proves just how big of a smear campaign this entire newsletter business has been. If Ron Paul were not the most conservative candidate in a Republican presidential race, things would be different. Just what do Democrats have to do to be held accountable for their racism by the mainstream media? Apparently even joining the Klan isn’t enough to warrant condemnation if you have a “D” next to your name. But heaven help any Republican who isn’t by any stretch of the imagination even remotely racist if his candidacy threatens to shake up the establishment and transfer power from an out-of-control government to the people.
    Wes Messamore is the editor in chief of

  6. vivianlouise says:

    The Trouble with Ron Paul’s Defense
    December 26, 2011 9:45 A.M.
    By Jonah Goldberg

    The New York Times has an interesting front page piece on Ron Paul’s relationship with the racists, anti-Semites and neo-Nazis in his coalition (sorry, but whatever you think of Lew Rockwell, Stormfront and David Duke certainly deserve such labels).

    His three defenses are: 1) He didn’t have direct knowledge of the really bad things and cannot remember anything when people provide evidence that he did.

    2) He won’t disavow support from neo-Nazis and white supremacists because their endorsement of him doesn’t imply or suggest his endorsement of them. “If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what I do or say — it has nothing to do with endorsing what they say.”

    3) Last he believes that his continued reliance on their support can be justified because he’s championing the cause of liberty. “I’ll go to anybody who I think I can convert to change their viewpoints — so that would be to me incidental,” he said. “I’m always looking at converting people to look at liberty the way I do.”

    All of these are deficient. Let’s start with his first argument. I simply don’t believe him. His claim would require not only that he never wrote the newsletters in question but that he never read them, either. It would also strongly suggest that he never discussed their basic editorial thrust with a close aide and editor who was writing under Paul’s own name. He even claims that he never paid attention to his lucrative newsletter business because nobody ever complained about their content.

    I admit to a writer’s bias here, but your byline is one of the most valuable things you own because it reflects not just your work and thought but your character and reputation as well. I think Paul is lying about at least some of this. But even if you take him at his word that he was merely grossly irresponsible and incompetent in his handling of a few newsletters, how are we supposed to believe he could do the job of president if he has such poor management skills and such rotten choice in staff? (Admittedly, his choice in staff was only rotten if he’s telling the truth and his newsletters don’t reflect his views).

    Then there’s his second argument. Yes, it’s true that support from racists doesn’t make you a racist. But working with them is a different matter. Tolerating them, never mind campaigning for their support, even obliquely, is damning.

    Which brings us to his third claim: that he’s on a quest to convert people. I’m actually very sympathetic to this argument, as it is one I’ve invoked myself and it’s one Bill Buckley used to make. Politics is about persuasion. If Ron Paul were out there converting neo-Nazis to classical liberalism I’d be cheering him on. But where is the evidence he’s doing anything of the sort? Talking about hard money and the conspiracy at the Fed is not a sincere way to convince racists to drop their odious views. Is there any serious evidence that he’s tried to convince such supporters they’re wrong? I’ll take the word of people like Cato president Ed Crane and others that Paul doesn’t in fact believe much of this stuff. But where’s the proof Paul ever spent any real effort trying to enlighten Lew Rockwell, never mind the folks at Stormfront? If there is such proof, his communications people are doing a fantastic job keeping it secret.

    If Paul’s explanations are to be believed at face value, he’s a shockingly naïve man. If your goal is to persuade people that the libertarian cause is free of bigotry, courting support from bigots is a really stupid way to do it.

Comments are closed.