Good grief: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>[L]ong before he was the darling of antiwar activists on the left and right, Paul was in the newsletter business. In the age before blogs, newsletters occupied a prominent place in right-wing political discourse. With the pages of mainstream political magazines typically off-limits to their views (National Review editor William F. Buckley having famously denounced the John Birch Society), hardline conservatives resorted to putting out their own, less glossy publications. These were often paranoid and rambling.... And a few of the most prominent bore the name of Ron Paul.... What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.... Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began," read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with "'civil rights,' quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda." It also denounced "the media" for believing that "America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks."... Such views on race also inflected the newsletters' commentary on foreign affairs. South Africa's transition to multiracial democracy was portrayed as a "destruction of civilization" that was "the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara"; and, in March 1994, a month before Nelson Mandela was elected president, one item warned of an impending "South African Holocaust." Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters.... While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke.... Like blacks, gays earn plenty of animus in Paul's newsletters.... The rhetoric when it came to Jews was little better... Paul's newsletters didn't just contain bigotry. They also contained paranoia--specifically, the brand of anti-government paranoia that festered among right-wing militia groups during the 1980s and '90s.... What's more, Paul's connections to extremism go beyond the newsletters.... Then there is Gary North, who has worked on Paul's congressional staff. North is a central figure in Christian Reconstructionism, which advocates the implementation of Biblical law in modern society...</div> Here's more. Ick.
I don't know where to begin with this, but it's a lot of spin and quotes taken out of context. For example, this is in context: http://www.tnr.com/downloads/November1990.pdf (see page 2) The author of your TNR article says that Paul praises Duke, but he doesn't! See this part: "Duke's platform called for tax cuts, no quotas, no affirmative action, and no busing." These are all Libertarian principles. Other than the fact that Duke proposed them, aren't these policies something you might be in favor of? I am. I've seen enough of race based programs to draw certain conclusions. First, they are used to segregate people. Second, once segregated, the govt. can more easily drive enterprise and things like education funding elsewhere. Third, the quality of life for people who live in deliberately blighted areas is shameful. My preference would be to give vouchers to POOR people (race neutral) to live within all the general communities. I don't favor highlighting the racial differences among us, but rather the common things that bind us together as a people. Paul's take on these things relating to this govt. sponsored racially based programs is stated in that PDF: "Liberals are notoriously blind to the sociological effects of their own programs." His POV on Duke is that part of the message was good (enough to scare the establishment), but the messenger was horribly flawed: "How many more Dukes (messengers) are out there waiting in the wings without such a taint?" And that part of the message (in question) is appealing: "Duke... received 9% of the black vote!" It would be tedious to go through all of this and set things straight, but here's another example. "Instead, they represent a strain of right-wing libertarianism that views the Civil War as a catastrophic turning point in American history--the moment when a tyrannical federal government established its supremacy over the states. As one prominent Washington libertarian told me, "There are too many libertarians in this country ... who, because they are attracted to the great books of Mises, ... find their way to the Mises Institute and then are told that a defense of the Confederacy is part of libertarian thought."" While it's true that Libertarians view the Civil War as the moment when the federal government established itself as dominant over the states, it's not true that Libertarians defend the Confederacy. The Constitution is simply silent on the issue of SECESSION, and Libertarians see it as a state's right to secede. See the difference? Another: "destruction of civilization" that was "the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara" The issue was white flight and the white people taking their wealth out of South Africa. There's more, obviously, and a lot of it isn't directly attributed to Paul. "Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers?" a newsletter asked in 1990.
More, regarding the LA race riots: http://www.tnr.com/downloads/sponraceterrorism.pdf I see him talking about race, but not in a racist fashion. It's more of a screed against the welfare state and what it's done sociologically to black Americans. I do see it as insensitive in places, for sure. The message in this newsletter: "Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murder 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."
Regarding Martin Luther King, Jr. I personally think he was a great man, deserves the holiday named after him, and all that. His civil rights activities far outweighed his human foibles. But to be clear, here's an excerpt of the WikiPedia entry on King: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King%2C_Jr. King had a mutually antagonistic relationship with the FBI, especially its director, J. Edgar Hoover. Under written directives from Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, the FBI began tracking King and the SCLC in 1961. Its investigations were largely superficial until 1962, when it learned that one of King's most trusted advisers was New York City lawyer Stanley Levison. The FBI found that Levison had been involved with the Communist Party USA—to which another key King lieutenant, Hunter Pitts O'Dell, was also linked by sworn testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). The Bureau placed wiretaps on Levison and King's home and office phones, and bugged King's rooms in hotels as he traveled across the country. The Bureau also informed Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and President John F. Kennedy, both of whom unsuccessfully tried to persuade King to dissociate himself from Levison. For his part, King adamantly denied having any connections to Communism, stating in a 1965 Playboy interview[7] that "there are as many Communists in this freedom movement as there are Eskimos in Florida"; to which Hoover responded by calling King "the most notorious liar in the country." The attempt to prove that King was a Communist was in keeping with the feeling of many segregationists that blacks in the South were happy with their lot but had been stirred up by "communists" and "outside agitators." Lawyer-advisor Stanley D. Levinson did have ties with the Communist Party in various business dealings, but the FBI refused to believe its own intelligence bureau reports that Levinson was no longer associated in that capacity. Movement leaders countered that voter disenfranchisement, lack of education and employment opportunities, discrimination and vigilante violence were the reasons for the strength of the Civil Rights Movement, and that blacks had the intelligence and motivation to organize on their own. Later, the focus of the Bureau's investigations shifted to attempting to discredit King through revelations regarding his private life. FBI surveillance of King, some of it since made public, attempted to demonstrate that he also engaged in numerous extramarital affairs. However, much of what was recorded was, as quoted by his attorney, speech-writer and close friend Clarence B. Jones, "midnight" talk or just two close friends joking around about women. Further remarks on King's lifestyle were made by several prominent officials, such as President Johnson who notoriously said that King was a “hypocrite preacher”. However, in 1989, Ralph Abernathy, a close associate of King's in the civil right movement, stated in a book he authored that King was a womanizer. The book was titled And The Walls Came Tumbling Down, and was published by Harper & Row. The book was reviewed in The New York Times on October 29, 1989, and the allegations of King's sexual conduct were discussed in that review, where Abernathy says that he only wrote the term womanizing, and did not specifically say King had extramarital sex.[47] Also, evidence indicating that King possibly engaged in sexual affairs is detailed by history professor David Garrow in his book Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, published in 1986 by William Morrow & Company; though it was not proven whether he agreed to have sex with a woman the night before his assassination. The FBI distributed reports regarding such affairs to the executive branch, friendly reporters, potential coalition partners and funding sources of the SCLC, and King's family. The Bureau also sent anonymous letters to King threatening to reveal information if he did not cease his civil rights work. One anonymous letter sent to King just before he received the Nobel Peace Prize read, in part, "…The American public, the church organizations that have been helping—Protestants, Catholics and Jews will know you for what you are—an evil beast. So will others who have backed you. You are done. King, there, is only one thing left for you to do. You know what it is. You have just 34 days in which to do (this exact number has been selected for a specific reason, it has definite practical significance). You are done. There is but one way out for you. You better take it before your filthy fraudulent self is bared to the nation."[48] This statement is often interpreted as inviting King's suicide,[49] though William Sullivan argued that it may have only been intended to "convince King to resign from the SCLC."[50] Finally, the Bureau's investigation shifted away from King's personal life to intelligence and counterintelligence work on the direction of the SCLC and the Black Power movement. In January 31, 1977, in the cases of Bernard S. Lee v. Clarence M. Kelley, et al. and Southern Christian Leadership Conference v. Clarence M. Kelley, et al. United States District Judge John Lewis Smith, Jr., ordered all known copies of the recorded audiotapes and written transcripts resulting from the FBI's electronic surveillance of King between 1963 and 1968 to be held in the National Archives and sealed from public access until 2027. Across from the Lorraine Motel, next to the rooming house in which James Earl Ray was staying, was a vacant fire station. The FBI was assigned to observe King during the appearance he was planning to make on the Lorraine Motel second-floor balcony later that day, and utilized the fire station as a makeshift base. Using papered-over windows with peepholes cut into them, the agents watched over the scene until Martin Luther King was shot. Immediately following the shooting, all six agents rushed out of the station and were the first people to administer first-aid to King. Their presence nearby has led to speculation that the FBI was involved in the assassination.
Does anyone have links to those original newsletters. I'm interested to see what his newsletter specifically said about MLK, gays, Jews, and Mandela (specifically the "South African Holocaust" thing), without paraphrasing. You can try to defend those articles or put them in context but I don't know if that supports Paul in anyway, because the article says Paul denounced them and tried to dissassociate himself from them.
There were 3 PDF links on this WWW page: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=...c3-de262573a129
Wow. You can defend the general point of some those race-related articles but the tone and language used is so offensive and unnecessary. It totally undermines the point that was trying to be made and I don't know why it'd be included unless they were shooting for a certain type of readership. The gay-bashing is disgusting. The article about self-defense against urban youth was ridiculous. I didn't feel like reading the rest. Paul's either incredibly bigoted for believing some of this stuff or (more likely) stupid for allowing crap to be published under his name unchecked.
It seems to me the writing is meant to be provocative. One thing I never understood about the LA Riots was why people would burn down their own homes and neighborhood when they could easily go a mile or two away and burn down the homes and neighborhoods of their perceived oppressors. Interesting thing about the "Gay Bashing" is that it's from the same time frame as Hucakbee's similar comments. Huckabee says today that AIDS was the only epidemic in history where the infected weren't quarantined, sticking with what he said in 1992. I don't know if you were around in the early 1980s when AIDS first became a big deal, but I can tell you that it could easily have been/become the kind of disease that would wipe out all of humanity. As it is, AIDS is wiping out huge segments of the population, especially in Africa. We don't have a cure for it (polio was cured, it's non-existent, period). We spent huge sums of money to research the disease - more than for heart disease, cancer, and a few other major causes of deaths in the world/USA. There were quite a few people who were concerned we were too focused on AIDS and not on those other things. The blood supply was at real risk, too, until they came up with a way to screen for HIV. The thing about Paul is he's a medical doctor. I'm sure he understood what the medical establishment knew about AIDS at the time. The gist of what I saw in his newsletters was "if you want to be really sure you don't get AIDS, don't do the things people do to get it." From another POV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul Paul opposes all federal efforts to redefine marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well. He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, and not subjected to judicial activism.[158] For this reason, Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004. In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (passed in 1996) which limited the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause by allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states if they so choose. He co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.[158][159] Paul has said that federal officials changing the definition of marriage to allow same-sex marriage is "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty."[160] Paul stated that "Americans understandably fear" the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage.[161] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[162] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[163][164] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[163] In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction" and "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation."[102] If made law, these provisions would allow states to regulate sexual practices and same-sex marriage independently. Don't ask, don't tell In the third Republican debate on June 5, 2007, Paul said about the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy: "I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem."[164] Paul elaborated his position in a 65-minute interview at Google, stating that he would not discharge troops for being homosexual if their behavior was not disruptive.[163] States' rights and sodomy laws Ron Paul has been a critic of the Supreme Court's decision on the Lawrence v. Texas case in which sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. In an essay posted to the Lew Rockwell website he wrote "Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards."[165]
That writing is certainly meant to be provocative and cause a reaction, but not in any sort of productive way, IMO. Devoting so much space to MLK's shady character issues certainly must have drawn a reaction. But what possible reason did they have for so viciously attacking a man who's civil rights activities, as you even said, far outweighed his human foibles? The same can be said for the insults against gays, the broad stereotyping of urban youth, the exaggerated conspiracy theories, etc. While the articles that they are in may hold some sort of argument, those specific things aren't relevant in any way. They only draw angry, negative reactions and, from personal experience, end up discrediting any sort of point that they might have had. The second article is certainly justified and I actually stated in my previous post that I doubted that Paul himself actually wrote those articles. The writing doesn't seem to be a consistently same style and I'll give Paul the benefit of the doubt when he says that he didn't. But, like I said earlier, you have to really question how dumb he'd have to be to not bother to check up on articles being published under his name. And, additionally, I find it a bit iffy that he was affiliated with such people in the first place. He may not have personally knew them or been aware of their views, but he couldn't have been too far removed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/08/r...w-_n_80513.html Ron Paul Responds To New Republic Story Ron Paul Statement on The New Republic Article Regarding Old Newsletters ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA - In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement: "The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. "In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.' "This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary. "When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 9 2008, 03:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>While it's true that Libertarians view the Civil War as the moment when the federal government established itself as dominant over the states, it's not true that Libertarians defend the Confederacy. The Constitution is simply silent on the issue of SECESSION, and Libertarians see it as a state's right to secede. See the difference?</div> The Civil war was about States rights. As a Libertarian, I do not defend the confederacy. Thier rationale for states rights and secession had to do w/ inhumane & unjust treatment of other humans which is wrong at any level of government and morally as well. After all, its all about life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness. Huckabee has touched on topics about how he wants to help the poor get a chance to become rich (if they want to work for it) & not make the rich poor. Further, MH wants to lessen the burden on the working man trying to get by. It amazes me how the current status quo (special interest & parts of the media) like to demonize 'common sense' & 'equality' as radical concepts.
As I see it, the Civil War was about states' rights. You had the balance between the North and South in congress tipped to the North already, and any new states joining the union would be forbidden to be slave states; further tipping that balance. The injustice to the South wasn't specifically about slavery, though they were absolutely concerned about their "property" (what a horrible way to view it) rights. It was as much about the railroads as anything else, if not more. You see, the North was voting itself money from the treasury and land grants to build a nifty coherent railroad system in the northern states, while the South had short lines that would just go between a couple of cities and a couple hundred miles. Follow the money.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 15 2008, 04:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>As I see it, the Civil War was about states' rights. You had the balance between the North and South in congress tipped to the North already, and any new states joining the union would be forbidden to be slave states; further tipping that balance. The injustice to the South wasn't specifically about slavery, though they were absolutely concerned about their "property" (what a horrible way to view it) rights. It was as much about the railroads as anything else, if not more. You see, the North was voting itself money from the treasury and land grants to build a nifty coherent railroad system in the northern states, while the South had short lines that would just go between a couple of cities and a couple hundred miles. Follow the money.</div> I knew about congress tipping the balence in the Union's favor. I did not know about the Railroad tie-in (pun intended ?). The Cui bono? (who benefits i.e follow the $) aspect makes perfect sense especially when one considers the Civil War in the context of the urban/industrial north vs the rural/agrarian south.
The railroads really picked up after the Civil War, though you could make the case that the war brought it to pass. The still-primarily agrarian Southern economy had no chance regardless.
This one shows how much more developed the railroads were in the north: Look at Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois (Chicago) and how the railroad went west to california
And this from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Transcontinental_Railroad The First Transcontinental Railroad in the United States was built across North America in the 1860s, linking the railway network of the Eastern United States with California on the Pacific coast. ... Concerns lingered that snow would make the central route to California impractical. A survey indicated that the best path for a southern route ran through the northernmost part of Mexico. Therefore in 1853 the United States made the Gadsden Purchase, acquiring the southern portions of what is now New Mexico and Arizona, so the southern route would be entirely within the U.S. However, Congress did not then agree to support construction on the southern route (or any route), as the decision became embroiled in the sectional dispute that turned into the American Civil War.
