Why is Ron Paul even considered in the political equation? Freemason will defend Freemason to the death.
Ron Paul, Hate, and the Cult of Straight Talk
Posted on June 10, 2007 by Dan (Fitness)
I posted a pointer to David Neiwert’s take on Ron Paul, The NWO, and his ties to racist and extremist groups. Feedback was swift, largely uncritical, and supportive of Ron Paul. I’d like to go into a bit more detail, and discuss why a candidate like Ron Paul is so attractive, and why some of his actions and positions represent the worst American politics has to offer.
A candidate who speaks eloquently and convincingly about issues that cut to the core of our political identity as Americans is bound to be a hit, especially in a field so populated by the same old professional corporate shills. However this alone is not sufficient reason to support a candidate. The user Seeker1 on the BIll Maher message boards really summed up this problem nicely (emphasis mine):
Straight talk is powerful. Americans are addicted to it — and, too often, addled by it. We’ve seen this before with Ross Perot and John McCain, two other right-wing candidates who charmed us with their apparent penchant for telling us uncomfortable but necessary truths. (And to give the man his due: pointing out that 9/11 was the inevitable outcome of decades of monstrous US foreign policy was a very necessary truth.)
But — as we learned the hard way on both those earlier occasions — just because someone can cut through the political drivel and speak with some clarity now and again, it doesn’t mean they’re someone we should dump our principles and better judgment out the window for, and rush right out and follow. The fact is that Ron Paul has built a political career pandering to the far fringes of the proto-fascist right. There’s twenty-plus years of documentary evidence that he does not believe in democracy as we progressives understand it. No amount of disarming straight talk should blind us to that core fact.
And Ron Paul is eloquent:
As tonight’s Republican presidential debate winds down, I expect to see the diaries humming with praise for Texas Rep. Ron Paul, whose forceful, eloquent anti-war rhetoric sticks out like a sore thumb from the undifferentiated conservative yammerings of the other candidates.
However we cannot pick and choose what we perceive about the man. If he has a great position on the war or religious freedom, that’s awesome. But to blindly ignore his faults and focus on the good is to join in the cult of personality that always seems to follow mavericks. There is a real need in America for a straight talking, straight shooting politician who is actually responsive to both the public and the constitution. We cannot allow this need to let us fall for anyone who appears to fit the bill. We need to remain critical, no matter how outstanding a candidate is. Obama is an excellent example, where a lot of the enthusiasm starts bordering on being a little too “high energy”. Which is one reason I feel he is someone to watch, rather than wholeheartedly support. Saying “well, do you support Hillary then?!!!” is not really a valid counter argument. I would easily vote for Obama over Hillary, but that compels me to hold Obama’s feet to the fire, and see that he lives up to the promise of his uplifting rhetoric.
Ron Paul is no Obama. His primary problem is not one of measuring actions up to words. It is who and what his words support:
it’s important that we dig a bit deeper and learn more about exactly who, and what, he is: a vicious, contemptible racist who comforts the radical right wing like no presidential candidate since David Duke.
We need jump to no conclusion to arrive at this judgment. His own words convict him.
From Jewcy (via Seeker1):
From a 1996 Houston Chronicle article:
Under the headline of “Terrorist Update,” for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, “If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”
From phenry’s diary at dailykos:
The only complete article from the Ron Paul Political Report on the Internet that I am aware of is a 1992 piece titled “LOS ANGELES RACIAL TERRORISM,” on the subject of the so-called Rodney King riots in South Central Los Angeles in 1991. It is available to us today because it was posted to the talk.politics.misc newsgroup on July 30, 1993 by Dan Gannon, a notorious white supremacist and Holocaust denier, and archived by the Nizkor Project, an anti-revisionism organization that was active in cataloging hate speech on the early public Internet. You can read Nizkor’s copy of the article here, and see a reposted version on Google Groups here. Some relevant passages from the article (emphasis mine):
Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists — and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.
Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action…. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.
Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That’s what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn’t ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.
Reading the entire article will show that I have not taken these quotes out of context, though the article is definitely not for everyone: it’s a 3700-word racist tirade that is frankly stomach-turning in its depiction of African-Americans as violent, unevolved savages and even rapists. Without a doubt, it was articles like this one that prompted the Heritage Front, a Toronto-based neo-Nazi organization, to include the Ron Paul Political Report in its list of “Racialist Addresses and Phone Numbers.”
The CCC love this man. They even “occasionally publish” him in their “newsletter, the Citizens Informer (warning: PDF).”. Ron Paul has a history of publishing his works through a range of far right hate organizations:
And then there’s David Duke, who can’t get enough of Ron Paul; you can find his columns on davidduke.com here and here and here and here and here. If you’re more of a dead-tree fan, you can find Paul’s thoughts on foreign policy reprinted in the January 2007 issue of the National Times, a white supremacist newspaper that apparently gets distributed through the time-honored neo-Nazi method of throwing the thing onto unsuspecting people’s porches in the middle of the night and scurrying away.
His associations have run afoul of the ADL and the SPLC.
Pauls position on Gays speaks less of libertarianism, and more of homophobia:
Still, libertarian orthodoxy can’t fully explain Paul’s hostility to gay rights, and indeed to gay people in general. The Libertarian Party, which nominated Paul as its presidential candidate in 1988, has strongly opposed the so-called Defense of Marriage Act from the beginning; Paul supports it. While he opposed the “Federal Marriage Amendment” that would have outlawed gay marriage everywhere, he actually cosponsored the odious “Marriage Protection Act,” which would nonsensically bar federal courts from considering challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, which is a federal law. “The definition of marriage–a union between a man and a woman–can be found in any dictionary,” he writes condescendingly. Despite Paul’s disingenuous claims that he is a “strict constitutionalist,” most legal scholars agree that the so-called Marriage Protection Act would be unconstitutional.
You also will not find Paul listed among the 124 co-sponsors of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2007, which would repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy barring gays and lesbians from serving in the military. Maybe he’s worried that they’ll take their “gay agenda” to far-flung corners of the world. He also doesn’t want gay people adopting children while they’re not serving in the military, either.
On a personal level, we have this 1993 quote wherein Paul equates homosexuality with “sexual deviance.” And let’s not forget his wink-wink characterization of Hillary Clinton as “a far leftist with very close female friends”.
Corporate Hillary Clinton, a far leftist? With the exception of some woman’s issues, Hillary seems more like Lieberman than Kucinich. This should be setting off alarm bells among any liberals who think Ron Paul is a liberal candidate on the issues.
And yet given his positions on gay rights and his support for racist groups, he still draws support from conservatives and liberals alike. Phenry has the pro-Paul argument down (emphasis mine):
“But he’s against the war!” Yes, he is. So is Pat Buchanan. So is David Duke. If either of them were on the stage in New Hampshire today, full of sweet words about the war, would you be as quick to praise their “independence,” to gush about how well of course I wouldn’t vote for him myself but he sure is awesome anyway? Do you truly require nothing from a political candidate other than that he oppose the war?
Think about it.
Ron Paul has a number of good things going for him. Chief among them is his willingness to bring a bold new anti-corporate point of view to the table, and to give a more libertarian take on the Republican party more play in the discussions over the party’s future. However, is this all you require of a candidate? It seems like one single issue like his position on the war or on NAFTA is enough to warrant blind faith in the man. Does his support of the CCC, David Duke, and other white supremacist organizations give you no pause? Or his positions on Jews and Blacks? Do you like a candidate who thinks you can identify terrorists by the color of their skin? Perhaps a man who thinks homosexuality is deviant, and would rather see us lose willing and able military personnel on account of their sexual orientation is right up your alley?