Who is Ron Paul?..

Video: "Ron Paul Doesn’t Believe in Evolution"

-Video of Ron Paul saying he doesn’t accept the theory of evolution, while the founder of a white supremacist internet forum says most of Ron Paul’s views coincide with theirs, and Ron Paul’s Iowa chair touts the endorsement of a pastor who believes in the death penalty for homosexuals.

Why would progressives support a guy who doesn’t accept evolution? Because they are not progressives! No progressive would support Ron Paul- PERIOD.

Raw Story’s Mike Rogers: Ron Paul hiding an extremist agenda

Raw Story’s managing director Mike Rogers was a guest on Thursday’s The Ed Show, discussing Ron Paul and the real ramifications of the candidate’s views on “states’ rights,” civil rights, and the rights of LGBT people under a potential Paul administration.

Related: Paul once criticized equal pay, AIDS patients, sexual harassment victims

The Paul campaign prominently featured the endorsement of Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, a Christian pastor who believes that gays should be executed in accordance with “Biblical law.” Kayser is a Paul supporter, saying that he believes that Rep. Paul’s policies are consistent with a Biblical world view. As Kayser’s more controversial statements have come to light, the Paul 2012 website scrubbed any mention of the pastor.

VIDEO: http://youtu.be/GabD0Nucwa4

Rep. Paul has said before that he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a view that is shared by his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-TN), who claimed that the Civil Rights Act was an intrusion on the rights of businesses owners, who he feels should be able to determine for themselves who they will and will not serve.

MORE http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/30/raw-storys-mike-rogers-discusses-ron-paul-and-gay-rights-on-ed/


Most Ron Paul supporters dont care if hes a racist.

Should Ron Paul be President? Concerning Paul’s views on healthcare, war on drugs, war on terrorism, economy, etc. Would he be an improvement from Obama?

No, Ron Paul should absolutely NOT be President. And I urge you to read the following in order to see why he shouldn’t be president.

Too few people know that Ron Paul has in the last several years “remade” himself into this supposedly moderate civil libertarian. Too few people are aware of his very real, and very bad, links to all manner of white nationalists and very fringe, irrational, and frankly paranoid groups and conspiracy theories (I use the term to mean the common-use understanding of the phrase, because it absolutely applies here) about secret international cabals plotting to take over the USA, be it a Mexican invasion to seize the southern U.S. or U.N. troops commanded by “international/European bankers” (very transparent and common anti-Semitic code for “Jews”) who will seize our guns and create a one-world religion and government, a big race war that will seek to enslave white citizens, and other such dangerous, far-right extremist ramblings.

Here is a sampling of information about Ron Paul that I like to share, to make the factual and undeniable case that he is indeed a racist who embraces many seriously delusional, dangerous, and hateful views.

There are some of the more fanatical and extreme supporters who will refuse to even look at or believe the documentation about Ron Paul’s views, his past, his votes, his links to extremist white nationalist groups and conspiracy theories, etc, and who will just not even address any of it but instead outright dismiss it as “lies/slander/whatever” or claim it’s a conspiracy against him (that apparently includes a clone of him who went back in time to give interviews taking credit for writing those inflammatory newsletters and even went into detail to defend them and explain the “research” he did to “prove” his remarks about black people etc). But hopefully the vast majority of folks, who are rational and intelligent supporters of progressive policies and support civil liberties, will realize they simply weren’t aware of these facts because these things rarely get covered in the media and Ron Paul’s campaign and most vocal supporters have just been very good at shouting it down and denying it.

Anyway, here is the text from a document I keep on hand to send to friends and family and others when they ask for information/evidence/whatever about Ron Paul’s true nature.


Ron Paul has about as much compassion as his former Michigan campaign coordinator, Randy Gray. You should probably google "Randy Gray and Ron Paul"

Also- http://moronpaul.tumblr.com/post/14000262826/for-the-record-the-naacp-never-defended-ron-paul

FACT CHECK: Ron Paul Personally Defended Racist Newsletters

Recently, Ron Paul has been subject to intense criticism over controversial newsletters written under his name in the 80s and 90s that frequently included racism, bigotry, and conspiracy theories. Over the last few days, Paul has responded that he did not write the newsletters and disavowed their contents, claiming this has been his consistent position for 20 years. Here’s what Paul told CNN on December 21:

PAUL: I never read that stuff. I never — I would never — I came — I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written… Well, you know, we talked about [the newsletters] twice yesterday at CNN. Why don’t you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN, andwhat I’ve said for 20-some years. It was 22 years ago. I didn’t write them. I disavow them and that’s it.

Paul’s denials, however, are not supported by the public record. When the newsletters first arose as an issue in 1996, Paul didn’t deny authorship. Instead, Paul personally repeated and defended some of the most incendiary racial claims in the newsletters.

In May 1996, Paul was confronted in an interview by the Dallas Morning News about a line that appeared in a 1992 newsletter, under the headline “Terrorist Update”: “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.” Hisresponse:

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation…

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

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

Paul also defended his claim, made in the same 1992 newsletter that “we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in [Washington, DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal” Paul told the Dallas Morning News the statistic was an “assumption” you can gather from published studies.

Paul’s failure to deny authorship was not an oversight. He was repeatedly confronted about the newsletters during his 1996 campaign and consistently defended them as his own. A few examples:

– In 1996, Ron Paul’s campaign defended his statements about the rationality of fearing black men. (“[W]e are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.”) The Houston Chronicle reports, “A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson.” [Houston Chronicle, 5/23/96]

– Paul said that his comments on blacks contained in the newsletters should be viewed in the context of “current events and statistical reports of the time.”[Houston Chronicle, 5/23/96]

– Paul defended statements from an August 12, 1992 newsletter calling the late Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-TX) a “moron” and a “fraud.” Paul also said Jordon was “her race and sex protect her from criticism.” In response, Paul said “such opinions represented our clear philosophical difference.” [Roll Call, 7/29/96]

– “Also in 1992, Paul wrote, ‘Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions.’ Sullivan said Paul does not consider people who disagree with him to be sensible. And most blacks, [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said, do not share Paul’s views.” [Austin American Statesman, 5/23/96]

Contrary to his statements to CNN last week, it was not until 2001, that he first claimed that newsletters were not written by him. He told the Texas Monthly in the October 2001 edition that “I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me.” The reporter noted, “until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret.”

There is no evidence that Paul denounced the newsletters in clear terms until he ran for president in 2008 when he said “I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.” Paul has never explained how this blanket denial squares with his vigorous defense of the writings in 1996.

Further, some of the disturbing ideology embedded in the newsletters is reflected in Paul’s legislative record. In 1999, he was the only member of Congress to oppose the issuing on a Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks. In May 2011, Ron Paul said in an interview that he opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


Ron Paul Racist Newsletters Slap Him In The Face Once Again (VIDEO)

If I was to describe libertarianism or even modern conservatism in a single phrase, it would be that it’s about personal responsibility. If someone borrows money, they are responsible for understanding the dozens of pages of legalize. If someone buys a product, they are responsible for knowing that it was made in an unregulated factory, using child labor and lead based paint. If they eat at a restaurant, they are responsible for knowing the conditions of the kitchen. If they take a pharmaceutical, they are responsible for knowing the side effects, even if the doctor and pharmaceutical company refuse to disclose.

So why is it that one of their favorite Presidential candidates, the one who touts personal responsibility as his perennial meme, is not held to the same standards?

By now, pretty much everyone knows that Ron Paul has a newsletter problem. For those who don’t know, back in the 80s and 90s, Paul (or Paul’s staff) published a series of newsletters. Here’s a taste of some of the doozies:

“If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.” – Ron Paul, 1992

“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” – Ron Paul, 1992

"We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.” – Ron Paul, 1992

“What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn’t that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?” – Ron Paul, 1992

His newsletters spoke of a “federal homosexual coverup” of the AIDS epidemic. They called Martin Luther King, Jr., ”the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours” and who “seduced underage girls and boys.”

Recently, Paul has defended the newsletters by claiming that he had nothing to do with the newsletters (blaming them on his staff). Just this week, he walked off the set of a CNN interview saying, “I never read that stuff. I became aware of it probably ten years after it was written, and it has been going on for twenty years that people have been pestering me about this, and CNN does it every single time. So when are you going to wear yourself out? I didn’t write them, I didn’t read them at the time, and I disavow them.” There are really only two problems with that defense.

  1. Blaming it on your staff is a little like refusing to pay your credit card because it was your teenager who charged up the card. Where’s the libertarian personal responsibility?
  2. It’s a lie. In a video that recently surfaced, Paul was talking about the newsletters as early as 1995.


Video surfaces of Ron Paul talking about racist newsletters in 1995, far earlier than he said he knew about them.

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.

Some contained a series of racist statements, including, “We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.”

During the 1992 Los Angeles riots, another read, “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.”

In the resurfaced C-SPAN interview, Paul — then out of office and trying to return to Congress — describes the “educational” newsletters and seems to be knowledgeable of their contents.

"It covered a lot about what was going on in Washington: financial events, especially some of the monetary events, since I had been especially interested in monetary policy, had been on the banking committee and am still very interested in that subject," said the libertarian-leaning lawmaker.

"This newsletter dealt with it. This has to do with the value of the dollar, the pros and cons of the gold standard, and of course the disadvantages of all the high taxes and spending our government seems to continue to do."

The video was posted on YouTube by Alexander Kaczynski, a self-described “political junkie” who has unearthed several old videos of current presidential hopefuls.

The candidate’s spokesman, Jesse Benton, told USA Today that Paul was detailing an investment newsletter and that the incendiary comments were in others he did not write.

But on CNN Wednesday, a testy Paul — who is surging in the polls in Iowa ahead of the caucuses — said he only read them on occasion and did not write them. The normally mild-mannered congressman eventually walked out on the interview.

In 1996, Paul told the Dallas Morning News that the material was accurate but had merely been taken out of context.

Critics say the newsletter flap could hurt him in Iowa, arguing that although the controversial newsletters were reported on before, many voters were unaware of them until now.

The seeming flip-flopping and “controversy makes Paul look like just another politician,” said the Christian Science Monitor’s Peter Grier.

Leon Wolf of the conservative blog Red State said the C-SPAN video was damaging.

For “not having any inkling about what was in it, Paul was remarkably well informed as to its contents,” he said.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/video-surfaces-ron-paul-talking-racist-newsletters-1995-earlier-knew-article-1.995876#ixzz1hPhGHAR8