Take a look at this interesting peice......
TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum
Ron Paul '90s newsletters rant against blacks, gays (16 posts)
-
Posted 16 years ago #
-
What excuses do the Ron Paul fanatics have for this crap? I'm sure they'll come up with something.
The controversial newsletters include rants against the Israeli lobby, gays, AIDS victims and Martin Luther King Jr. -- described as a "pro-Communist philanderer." One newsletter, from June 1992, right after the LA riots, says "order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."
Another says, "The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day -- are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."
Maybe this is the kind of MLK bashing Ron Paul was into: http://www.martinlutherking.org/
I don't trust Ron Paul for a second. He seems like just another two-faced politician, willing to ride any wave of sentiment, any issue or demographic to power.
Posted 16 years ago # -
I think the original sources for this was from here? http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161...
And this is the article they based on this stuff:
Angry White Man by James Kirchick The bigoted past of Ron Paul. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397...
I saw it on ICH:
Posted 16 years ago # -
There's a write-up on Paul here now --
What You Might Not Know About Ron Paul, and Why You Should Know It by Bov January 8, 2008 http://911review.com/articles/bov/RonPaul_08.html
Sort of long, but includes a lot of info.
Posted 16 years ago # -
It is very true that Ron Paul's "truther" supporters tend to be very uninformed about his real positions. On top of that, they seem to make excuses and rationalizations for almost any critique of him.
Posted 16 years ago # -
Interesting
Ron Paul Set To Raise Millions On MLK Day Congressman cites "hero" as supporters plan mass donation day
Posted 16 years ago # -
All of this is totally dreadful.
I can confirm by recent direct experience that some Ron Paul supporters I met did not have any idea about how his platitudes would translate into policy. They also has no idea why a deregulated "free" market might not be such a great idea. And they could not tell me what Paul was planning to do with all this support when he does not get the Republican nomination.
I saw Ron Paul interviewed on Bill Moyers Journal and Moyers asked him about the racist rhetoric. He dodged the question as said that Libertarianism is inherently not racist as it puts an emphasis on the individual and not on social groups.
One thing to keep in mind here. We should not be lumping all libertarians in with the Ron Paul/Alex Jones set. Noam Chomsky is a libertarian socialist for instance. So was my father. And libertarian or not, there is usually a wide difference between people's stated ideology and how they live their lives.
Posted 16 years ago # -
Victronix said:
What You Might Not Know About Ron Paul, and Why You Should Know It by Bov January 8, 2008 http://911review.com/articles/bov/RonPaul_08.html
I have to admit that I skimmed some of it and read the end, where this jumped out at me, Bov said:
And there is also the biggest risk of all. This is the risk of losing the work of world peace that has been slowly built upon since World War II...
Without getting into a debate about the pro's and con's of the UN this ending does seem to a bit delusional about the "post-war" world -- this hasn't been a period of world peace -- leaders talking to each other at the UN hasn't ended war -- some estimates are really shocking:
the United States most likely has been responsible since WWII for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/05/371890.html
Posted 16 years ago # -
this ending does seem to a bit delusional about the "post-war" world
Actually w/o the UN and treaties we've signed, the US would likely have killed far more than they already have, so we could talk about billions instead of millions, or far worse types of killings and intimidations. Because of the UN, such things exist called "War Crimes." The CIA destroyed the tapes when they realized they could be charged with war crimes. When the CIA destroys it's own evidence criminally in a way that could lead to a severe blow to that institution, there is a good reason. W/o the UN, that reason ceases to exist.
Here's an excerpt from the paper showing the gyrations the US engaged in to try to prevent being hit with that charge:
While the Bush Administration was, not surprisingly, able to secure it's own immunity from criminal prosecution within the US, what is the relevance, then, of the International Criminal Court for the Bush Administration? In 2002, before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush Administration sought "a blanket exemption of all US citizens" from the United Nation's International Criminal Court in the Hague:
With the Bush administration gearing up for a "preemptive" war against Iraq, Washington this week dispatched a senior US diplomat, Marisa Lino, to Europe to demand that the governments of the European Union (EU) agree to a blanket exemption of all US citizens from the jurisdiction of the newly formed International Criminal Court. US demands total impunity on war crimes Bill Vann, October 12, 2002, wsws.org
By 2003, those demands escalated into actions to force compliance:
In a further bid to place US officials and military personnel beyond the reach of war crimes prosecution, the Bush administration cut off military aid to about 35 countries that failed to meet a June 30 deadline for signing bilateral immunity agreements. . . At least 90 have reportedly resisted the US blackmail effort. US retaliates over war crime immunity demand Bill Vann, July 5, 2003, wsws.org
Although the Bush Administration won the exemption, because it contained the requirement for a renewal, within just one year the exposed atrocities of the Iraq war had destroyed any possibility for such a renewal, so the exemption was short-lived:
Facing global opposition fueled by the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal, Washington has dropped a contentious UN resolution that sought to renew an exemption shielding US troops from international prosecution for war crimes. The decision followed an intervention by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who urged Security Council members to oppose the resolution. Annan Victory as U.S. Drops War Crimes Exemption Demand June 24, 2004, Scotsman.com
But Ron Paul has supported barring the International Criminal Court from having jurisdiction over the U.S. military. Unlike much of the rest of the world, Paul sees the International Criminal Court as an affront to US freedom. Yet the ability of a renegade US executive branch to protect itself from it's own laws is already clear. Under a Ron Paul America, the rest of the world would be left with no means to limit a rogue US Administration, meaning the only recourses for desperate nations or populations would be military or other tactical responses.
So we have to ask ourselves, what if the decision to grant war crimes immunity had been left up to the US Congress and not the world court of UN?
Posted 16 years ago # -
Victronix!?! Are you trying to limit 'prosperity'?
The very essence of Ron Paul's message is jingoistic. As I've been ranting since WAC NY decided to promote him, Ron Paul wants 'freedom' and 'prosperity' for White Americans only. That's a relatively coded message, but not to such a degree that I'm not really disappointed in a bunch of his supporters who do not recognize this.
Many of those who support him are people who have no history of any interest in or investigation of the electoral process. They don't know how the government works. They know little about its history. And, when Ron Paul is not the Republican candidate running for office, many of them will lose their interest in the election.
Ron Paul's advocating 'prosperity' really signifies the advocacy of US geo-strategic primacy, as Brzezinsky would put it. Or imperial domination if you prefer. Capitalism only looks good from the top looking down. The false morality of the 'free market' is based in the concept that people will shop with a conscience. They don't! They buy what's cheap.
Free market capitalists assert that if you deregulate industry, then people can decide not to buy products from businesses that utilize slave labor, for instance. Well...Walmart makes a profit because people in China are working for a few dollars a day, and dying from unregulated pollution. When you have to work and shop at Walmart because they have driven all the other businesses out of your small town, you don't have that choice to make.
The promise of equal opportunity for prosperity is a myth created by and for people supporting imperialism, and Ron Paul is just another fascist 'American.'
We are all guilty of reaping the spoils of imperialism. But some of us are trying to give something back while we can, and hope to create greater balance in the world between the rich and the poor.
Posted 16 years ago # -
We just had our Green Party Presidential Debate in San Francisco, and I posted my pictures and brief description:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/13/184722...
Only one Ron Paul promoter was outside. I cropped him out of my picture . . .
Posted 16 years ago # -
Hey, I was there too!
I saw the RP guy, he and a couple others were at the January 11th action.
The debate was a bit of a disappointment. I was surprised that the candidates weren't better public speakers (most of them seemed a bit flakey) and that there was actually very little time spent on environmental issues. Aren't there more articulate and experienced Greens out there? Maybe they just don't want to run for president...
Cynthia McKinney was good, and she made a point to reference "the truth of 9/11" at least 2 or 3 times.
In terms of clear and concise argument, and a handle on priorities, Ralph Nader seemed to blow the rest of them away.
Posted 16 years ago # -
Cool! Nice to know that someone else here was there too.
I wasn't surprised by the debate because I already did the write-ups on all the candidates for the Alameda County Voter Guide, so had to really look into their campaigns. My main concern was that no one got completely out of control, no one threw pies, there wasn't an audience instead of no one (800!), the format happened and didn't not happen . . . you see what I mean.
This was organized in 2 weeks. That's just where the party is at now.
Basically, as with 9/11, I've learned that if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. Literally, do it yourself.
That includes setting up a firewall the wall off the nonsense. In this case, the fact that some of the candidates are blundering around is just part of what real democracy is about, and the true nonsense was filtered. The Ds and Rs have the same thing only the public is never allowed to see those people -- they are actively suppressed in a variety of ways. The Greens are democratic and fair about it, so the questions all came from the audience and the media. If a candidate could do the bare minimum necessary, they were allowed on the ballot, participate, etc. Some were kept off the ballot who were non-functional or disruptive. But this -- as the saying goes -- is what democracy looks like, only on a shoestring and not with all the cool anarchists in the streets who know how to make amazing puppets, etc.
Nader, in 2000, filled a stadium sized arena of thousands in Oakland. It was a religious experience for me because that's how I heard him, the first time. My mother had been voting for him and I wanted to see what he was about. He is an amazing person, and human with his limitations, but it shocks you to hear him. I always say that he's probably saved more lives than Bush has taken away.
Posted 16 years ago # -
Overall it was a very uplifting and informative event, but I did expect a little more coverage on environmental issues (Green party--right?).
I'd actually like to get involved with the Green party, are there any meetings you would suggest?
Back to the Ron Paul subject, how about this stuff? Is it legitimate?
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.ph...
http://robertlindsay.blogspot.com/
White responded to this affront by dropping the bombshell that Ron Paul and top staffers meet weekly with staffers from the Institute of Historical Review, Stormfront, and American Renaissance in the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays.
IHR is a Holocaust Denier group. Stormfront is a neo-Nazi bulletin board on the Internet with 119,000 members. American Renaissance is a magazine that represents the most moderate tendencies in White Nationalism. For instance, it has many Jewish readers. White said that Paul was a closeted White Nationalist and that he had a long history of involvement with WN:
Posted 16 years ago # -
how about this stuff? Is it legitimate?
It appears not:
Update 3:22 PM PST: New revelations have come out that Bill White is in error about Ron Paul and his aides regularly attending these dinners. The dinners were held by a man named Peter B. Gemma, Jr. of Reston, Virginia (photo here), and Gemma says that not only did Ron Paul never attend, but that Bill White was never there either. Gemma also disputed the notion that these were "neo-Nazi dinners". http://robertlindsay.blogspot.com/2008/01/ron-paul...
Posted 16 years ago # -
Posted 16 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.