The Ron Paul for President campaign just crossed the final border into the Republic of Lunacy (or as Newt Gingrich might put it, the United States of Baloney).
A new set of Ron Paul newsletters was discovered and posted by the New Republic. The newsletters include the promotion of a book called Big Sister is Watching You, which Ron Paul promises will disclose “the true and horrifying story of the witch-lesbo-feminists who are running America.”
Witch lesbo feminists are running America? Really, Ron Paul?
I’ve known a few feminist lesbian Wiccans over the years, and I have to say, they were not the types I could imagine secretly running America. They were too busy tracking the moon and making infusions of various obscure herbs.
If a cabal of witch lesbo feminists is really the secret political elite in the United States, then how come there isn’t a single open Wiccan in all of Congress? Why hasn’t there ever been a Wiccan prayer in the National Day of Prayer? How come our coins don’t say “In Goddess We Trust”? How come Christine O’Donnell was so desperate to convince everyone that she was not a witch?
Ron Paul is living in a weird world ruled by conspiracy theories. Americans just can’t trust a politician who really believes that lesbian feminist Wiccans have more power than anyone else in the USA.
If you’re a witch lesbo feminist, well, it’s time to commit to campaign against Ron Paul for President. We’ve made this bumper sticker just for you.
He should have been more involved but here’s the whole story. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95CagSkXZYc&feature=player_embedded
Should have been more INVOLVED? These are newsletters printed in his name, that were sold as written BY HIM, with his signature on the bottom.
There are two possibilities:
1. Ron Paul committed fraud.
2. Ron Paul is raving insane.
How can you apologize for this garbage?
Really, Ron Paul’s story that he just never looked at any of the the newsletters that carried his signature and were sold in his name has become absurd.
Ghostwriting isn’t fraud.
Ghostwriting is a turn-key operation to making money. One person pays another person an amount of money to get revenue from their writings. The ghostwriter gets a fixed sum of money while the buyer gets money variable according to sales.
Lol you’re kidding me with this article, right? The Ron Paul revolution represents truth and individual freedom. This article fails in the truth department. Learn more about the truth if Ron Paul on YouTube and wake up.
The Ron Paul revolution represents half-truths and corporate freedom, combined with harsh intolerance against minorities.
There’s nothing false in this article. Name one false thing, Emily. Show me the lines where the lies are.
Ron Paul said that witch lesbo feminists are the secret rulers of the U.S.A. Ron Paul is off his rocker.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PysCTVVNnZU
http://www.reason.com/news/show/124426.html
http://reason.com/blog/show/124339.html
Actually, with the info above, Ron Paul didn’t write the alleged quotes!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2008
[edit] Ron Paul newsletter controversy
On January 8, the day of the New Hampshire primary, The New Republic published a story by James Kirchick quoting from selected newsletters published under Paul’s name.[67] The publications had various names bannering “Ron Paul” prominently in the title, such as The Ron Paul Survival Report. Kirchick said that the writings showed “an obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry”, and were “saturated in racism”, charges echoed by Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly’s Political Animal blog.[68] Kirchick noted that one article referred to African-American rioters as “barbarians” and suggested that the Los Angeles riots of 1992 only stopped when it came time for “blacks to pick up their welfare checks”. Other issues gave tactical advice to local militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories.[69]
In 1996 the media inquired into these passages, having been brought to light by Paul’s congressional opponent Charles “Lefty” Morris; Paul’s congressional campaign countered the statements were taken out of context, and Paul responded by adding “If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man’s character, what kind of a world do you live in?” [70].[71] The newsletters, attributed to Paul, made statements such as “opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions,” “if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be”, and referring to Martin Luther King as a “pro-communist philanderer” and to Martin Luther King Day as “hate Whitey day.”[72][73] An issue from 1992 refers to carjacking as the “hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos.”[74] In an article title “The Pink House” the newsletter wrote that “Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”[73]
In 2001 Paul gave his own account of the newsletters, stating the documents were authored by ghostwriters, and that while he did not author the challenged passages, he bore “some moral responsibility” for their publication.[75] Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign repeated these assertions when the challenged passages resurfaced again in Kirchick’s January 2008 article.[76] Paul “never uttered such words and denounced such small-minded thoughts,” saying Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rosa Parks were personal heroes because they stood for individual rights, and that he had spoken highly about Parks in a 1999 floor speech in the House of Representatives.[77] Paul took the position that the Kirchick story was a “rehash” of a political attack received during his 1996 campaign.
In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Paul asserted that racism is incompatible with his beliefs and that he sees people as individuals, not as part of collectives. He also dismissed the attack as an attempt to accuse him of racism by proxy, claiming that he has collected more money among African-Americans than any other Republican candidate. Blitzer stated that he was “shocked” by the newsletters, as they did not seem to reflect “the Ron Paul that I’ve come to know, and the viewers have come to know” over the course of several interviews during the campaign.[78]
Nelson Linder, president of the Austin chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), also defended Paul, though not in his official capacity under the NAACP: “Knowing Ron Paul’s intent, I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that….so I think it’s very easy for folks who want to take his position out of context, and that’s what I’m hearing.”[79]
Reason magazine contributing editor Matt Welch found numerous references to the newsletters in news coverage of the 1996 race, many showing a defense of the newsletters by Paul and his campaign.[71] But in 2001 Paul claimed he only said otherwise in 1996 because it was too confusing to explain in the fervor of a campaign.[75]
In 2011 Ron Paul again ran as a GOP presidential candidate, placing third in the Iowa caucuses and 2nd in the New Hampshire primary. Before the Iowa caucuses a variety of government officials, including Bush speech writers Michael Gerson and Marc Thiessen, Clinton advisor Dick Morris, and Bush United Nations ambassador John Bolton all appeared on FOX News or wrote op ed pieces for the Washington Post decrying Ron Paul as dangerous and crazy. James Kirchick, still affilated with The New Republic but now primarily employed by Radio Free Europe and also a fellow at The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which was also affiliated with a competing GOP presidential candidate, Newt Gingrich, revisited the Ron Paul newsletter controversy in articles in The Weekly Standard, The New Republic, and the New York Times. Kirchick’s associate at The New Republic, Jonathan Chait, also wrote articles critical of Paul based on the original newsletter story published in The New Republic and the New York magazine. One of the original contentions was that the newsletters contained no bylines other than the collective mast head of “Ron Paul Newsletter.” In January 2012, a television reporter, Cincinnati FOX19?s Ben Swann, looked into the newsletters in a regular fact checking series called “Reality Check.” Swann discovered that of the 240+ newsletters published, 9 had racially inflected offensive language, most of which was concentrated in one newsletter. That newsletter had been posted online by The New Republic via internet links for readers to peruse, but with half a page cut off. When Swann investigated it turned out that the omitted half page contained a byline by another author, James B. Powell. Attempts by Swann to contact Kirchick were initially ignored. It appears that Kirchick and The New Republic have not contacted or interviewed James B. Powell.[80]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PysCTVVNnZU
A Youtube Reality Check! It gives the names of the real author / authors ie Lew Rockwell, James B. Powell, etc.
http://reason.com/issues
Somewhere in the Reason archive is the cited article from Youtube!
http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d
A reason blog piece!
http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d
The article itself above!
http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter
An even better Reason article!