Posted on 12/23/2011 1:04:03 PM PST by Nachum
A blast from the past is blowing a big hole in Ron Paul's campaign. A recently surfaced video from 1995 shows the GOP presidential hopeful discussing controversial newsletters that he claimed this week he didn't even read until about 2001. The Texas congressman has come under fire in recent days for the newsletters, called Ron Paul's Political Report, Ron Paul's Freedom Report and the Ron Paul Survival Report, which went out under his name in the late 1980s and early 1990s during his time in and out of office.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Hey RP... getting a little hot in the kitchen for ye'?
Hope this news is BLASTED throughout Iowa and Iowans CARE enough about it to vote for Gingrich.
This kind of scrutiny comes with being a frontrunner. That being said, Ron won’t have to endure this for long.
It's long past time for Paul to retire into obscurity.
Apply tag line and stand clear.........>
What a slimy little prick.
All who dare threaten Willard must face the army of rats.
What he said about Michelle and Rick on Leno made me absolutely hate him as a human being. Lowest of the low not only in politics but in life itself. A blithering gossip and I hate gossips.
He's describing the newsletter (nonracist content) in 1995, but in 2001 he described the racist content. Apples and oranges.
What did he say?
He labeled Bachmann and Santorum as Muslim-haters. and said later that Santorum hates gays.
I think the key is that he is acknowledging that in 1995 he's quite familiar with the newsletters that are published under his name, and their contents. To me it makes it difficult to believe that he then was blissfully unaware of what was written in them for years; that nobody spoke with him about a shift in focus of the newsletters; that it's a coincidence that when questioned about the contents, he was able to back up certain statements without having any knowledge of them.
So, was Ron Paul a naïve, absentee overseer of his newsletter, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf for years, while profiting mightily and only pretending to do business in the marketplace of ideas? Or was Ron Paul a man who was willing to put his name to anything as long as it brought in money and support - without regard to the ideas attributed to him?
Because he appears to know what was going on in 1995.
Nowhere does he focus on racism, fear of black people, hatred for Israel, etc.
He just talks about his experience in DC, a vague description of his economic concerns, and his distrust in career politicians.
He doesn't really even talk about his newsletter so much as mentioning his educational foundation and all of the work that it did, including the making of several educational videos.
I don't know what the real fuss is. Ron Paul should have known what was in a newsletter under his name. If racist and antisemitic material was allowed to be published over years without him putting a stop to it, then it shows that he is at least incompetent and insensitive.
However, the charge that he is some sort of crazed racist, antisemitic radical cannot be sustained by the video.
“He’s describing the newsletter (nonracist content) in 1995, but in 2001 he described the racist content. Apples and oranges.”
Oh, I see. In 1995, he read the non-racist part of the newsletter he didn’t write but published under his name in the 1980s. Then, in 2001, he read the racist part of the newsletter he didn’t write but published under his name in the 1980s.
Question: How did he know in 1995 which parts of the newsletter, the one he didn’t write but published under his name in the 1980’s, he shouldn’t read? Were the racists parts of the newsletter, the one he didn’t write but published under his name in the 1980s, somehow redacted? Or, was there some kind of content warning? You know, something like ‘Warning: this part of the newsletter, which wasn’t written by Ron Paul but you paid good money on his representation that it was, contains racist content.’.
I agree. Let’s say for the moment he did not write what was written in the newsletters. Being his name was on it I bet he received copies and was on the mailing list. Surely I bet someone on the mailing list objected and let it be known.
After all this was written in 1995+ and not 1935. If there were no objections then that shows what kind of an organization Paul was running. So for Paul to claim innocence and not knowing what was going on is to far of a stretch for me.
Of course Paul knew what was in the newsletters. Even if he didn’t read them (doesn’t sound like him) he would have heard about them (by way of praise or criticism) from consituents.
None is this is very important. This is Paul’s last presidential campaign. The general electorate won’t vote for a man who would turn 80 during a first term, and in 2016, at the age of 81, he will finished even if he’s still living.
Intentional distortion by the author of the article. RP never said he hadn’t read a a single issue of the newsletters until 2001. What he said was that he only read an issue occasionally, and so had never seen any of the issues with the offending comments until 2001.
And that should tell you everything you need to know about the reliability of those making these accusations.
There’s little doubt that Paul wrote whatever is in his news letter. The issue is his lying about who wrote it instead of just coming out and defending it. Its a bit like Weiner claiming his Twitter account was hacked...
The lying about who wrote it is what’s going to get him trouble.
You are overanalyzing, he probably didn’t read any of it.
“You are overanalyzing, he probably didn’t read any of it.”
How could he explain in 1995 some parts of the newsletter he didn’t write but published under his name in the 1980s unless he did read it?
And, if never read any of it, wasn’t he perpertrating some kind of fraud upon those who paid money for his newsletter? At least similar to the fraud perpertrated by Obama when he claimed to have written ‘Dreams of My Father’?
It wouldn’t be nearly so bad if it weren’t for well documented fact that RPaul has accepted money from neo-nazi, white supremicists. The whole newsletter thing and money from Stormfront paint an unforgiveable picture.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
However, when there are verifiable quotes that validate a picture, then it does mean something:
Rosa Parks is one of my heroes. Martin Luther King is a hero. Because they practiced the libertarian principle of civil disobedience, non-violence. Libertarians are incapable of being racist because racism is a collectivist idea, you see people in groups. A civil libertarian sees everyone as an important individual, it’s not the color of their skin that is important like Martin Luther King said. What is important is the character of the individual. You know what is really interesting though? And this could be behind it. Because I as a Republican candidate, probably am getting the most number of black voters and black supporters.~ VIDEO of Ron Paul on the subject of Rosa Parks
In a sane world, having the following comments out in print via his books would have knocked him out of the running. (they would have crucified a white candidate for far less)
From Dreams from My Father, I FOUND A SOLICE IN NURSING A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER’S RACE”. Barack Hussein Obama
From Dreams from My Father: “That hate hadn’t gone away,” he wrote,.. BLAMING “WHITE PEOPLE — some CRUEL, some IGNORANT, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives.” Barack Hussein Obama
From ‘Dreams From My Father’, “There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs,” he wrote. “It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, TO SHOW YOUR LOYALTY TO THE BLACK MASSES, TO STRIKE OUT and name names” Barack Hussein Obama
From ‘Dreams From My Father’, 'I VOWED THAT I WOULD NEVER EMULATE WHITE MEN and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. IT WAS INTO MY FATHER'S IMAGE, THE BLACK MAN, SON OF AFRICA, THAT I'D PACKED ALL THE ATTRIBUTES I SOUDHT IN MYSELF, THE ATTRIBUTES OF Martin and MALCOLM, DuBois and Mandela.”
From The Audicity of Hope: TO AVOID BEING MISTAKEN FOR A SELLOUT, I CHOSE MY FRIENDS CAREFULLY. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. THE MARXIST PROFESSORS and structural feminists.”
From The Audicity of Hope: (After graduating from college, Obama eventually went to Chicago to interview for a job as a community organizer. His racial attitudes came into play as he sized up the man who would become his boss:) “There was something about him that made me wary,” Obama wrote. “A little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.”
From The Audacity of Hope:..'the white race...“that ghostly figure that haunted black dreams.”
From “Dreams”: (after making his first visit to Kenya, he wrote of being disappointed to learn that his paternal grandfather had been a servant to rich whites. that the revelation caused) “ugly words to flash across my mind. Uncle Tom. Collaborator. House n-----".
From The Audacity of Hope: “We are no longer just a Christian nation... We are also a Jewish nation, a MUSLIM nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of disbelievers"
From 'Audacity': “Her memories of the Christians who populated her youth were not fond ones....For my mother, organized religion too often dressed up closed-mindedness in the garb of piety, cruelty and oppression in the cloak of righteousness.”
From Audacity: “Malcolm X’s autobiography seemed to offer something different. His repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me; the blunt poetry of his words, his unadorned insistence on respect, promised a new and uncompromising order, martial in its discipline, forged through sheer force
Then there is his love of Islam:
From Dreams From My Father: "THE PERSON WHO MADE ME PROUDEST OF ALL, THOUGH, WAS MY [half brother], ROY..HE CONVERTED TO ISLAM".
From ‘Dreams From my Father’, "IN INDONESIA, I SPEND TWO YEARS AT A MUSLIM SCHOOL" "..I STUDIED THE KORAN.."
From ‘Audacity of Hope: "LOLO (Obama’s step father) FOLLOWED ISLAM...."I LOOKED TO LOLO FOR GUIDANCE".
From ‘The Audacity Of Hope, "I WILL STAND WITH THEM (MUSLIMS) SHOULD THE POLITICAL WINDS OF WAR SHIFT IN AN UGLY DIRECTION.." .
http://www.examiner.com/a-536474~_Trapped_between_two_worlds_.html http://www.examiner.com/a-534540~Can_a_past_of_Islam_change_the_path_to_president_for_Obama_.html?cid=dc-article-obama
Hear it in his own words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5XPaSSUR_Y
...beware of those that speak with a forked tongue b/c you never know what side of their mouth they are speaking from..
That was coooooooolllllllllllldddddddd! BRRR!!!!!
+1!
Kudos!
Isn’t amazing how many people choose to bury their heads in the sand *shakes head* and it is these people *gags a little and swallows* that my husband, brothers, and many friends are out there protecting their freedoms w/ their own lives so they can live their lives “at the mall”...
I grew up in Sugarland, TX, this guy wears a freaking tin hat *shakes head*
Regarding accusations of ‘isolationism’ or ‘racism’ against Ron Paul:
1) For all those who would see Ron Paul stoned for any cause on motive that Ron Paul is clearly neither neo-con nor neo-liberal I ask you to take care for your soul's sake.
Both neo-cons and neo-liberals are statists who raise big government as an idol to replace a big God they feel has abandoned and abused them.
2) Those that have no problem with 'bearing false witness against their neighbor', being children of the lie, have no problem playing the role of the 'accuser' by hyperbole raised far beyond all reasonable extrapolations of evidence that could reach
2.1) the probable cause criteria
2.2) and certainly very far from the wrongful intent that must be proved so as to meet the beyond a reasonable doubt criteria
2.3) were the evidence given hyperbolic extension is so ancient that any civil or criminal misdemeanor complaints that could arise from that evidence is decrepitly ancient - so far beyond the time limits established by statute that evidence witnessed is legally false at least to the point of being inadmissible witness in justification for ANY cause of action.
3) I will grant that blessing any candidate with your vote is a civil issue –
but when an accusation upon Ron Paul is made to forestall that purpose - and that accusation that goes so far as to impune malum per se intent on a Ron Paul action which could only be misdemeanor at worst and constructive good at best - the criteria for judgement in assigning guilt MUST shift to both the felonious criteria and the malum per se criteria of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' - else by slander (false witness) a person may make themself accomplice with evidenced criminal intent much as Saul did with respect to the martyring of St. Stephen and friends.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.