When Ron Paul is photographed smiling with a well-known white supremacists, when Ron Paul is described as having frequent meetings with neo-Nazis, when Ron Paul refuses to return money sent to him by Aryan Nation lawyers, when Ron Paul speaks before the Robert A. Taft club – a group with ties to white supremacists, and when Ron Paul either supervised or wrote consistently racist political newsletters from which he earned financial profits, Ron Paul supporters have an quick explanation: Ron Paul didn’t actually know anything about any of these activities. They claim that, over the course of several decades, Ron Paul just kept on accidentally hiring people (people whose names he says he cannot remember) who wrote racist articles that then Ron Paul falsely claimed to be his own. They claim that it’s just an accident that Ron Paul has been keeping money sent to him by white supremacists for years. They say that neo-Nazis who say that they have seen Ron Paul at many neo-Nazi meetings over the years are just a bunch of liars.
Ron Paul supporters have no explanation for the fact that no other presidential candidates have such a long and rich history of contact with radical Nazi sympathizers.
Yesterday, The New Republic revealed a new set of documents from Ron Paul that ought to settle the matter among people of open minds. The documents are newsletters, letters, and other documents than span the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, and contain support for crazy conspiracy theories such as the Trilateral Commission, extreme sexism, homophobia and radical racism. The documents gathered by The New Republic also make it clear that Ron Paul talked to people about his newsletters quite often, and that he read the newsletters, in direct contradiction to his recent assertions. It strains credulity for Ron Paul to claim that rogue individuals were inserting bigotry into Paul’s publications, under Paul’s own name, without his knowledge, for such a long period of time.
One particular document among those newly release by The New Republic caught my attention. This document is a letter written by Ron Paul, signed by Ron Paul, on Ron Paul’s official congressional letterhead. The document is no form letter. It is written in direct response to the specific points of a previous correspondence, with Ron Paul expressing personal opinions from his own experience. In the article, Ron Paul thanks a constituent, Amos R. Bruce, for sending him a copy of The American Mercury magazine.
The American Mercury is an extreme right wing publication that has for years included frequent expressions of racism, sexism, and holocaust denial. An article currently featured by The American Mercury calls the idea that six million Jews were killed by the Nazis a “Zionist Fraud”. The publisher of The American Mercury at the time of Ron Paul’s praise of the magazine was Willis Carto, a proponent of anti-Jew conspiracy theories who once declared, “If Satan himself, with all of his super-human genius and diabolical ingenuity at his command, had tried to create a permanent disintegration and force for the destruction of the nations, he could have done no better than to invent the Jews.”
Ron Paul supporters may struggle now to come up with elaborate explanations of this letter, saying that it’s just a coincidence, or that it isn’t genuine, or that Ron Paul didn’t mean to praise antisemitism, but just to praise particular ideas expressed by antisemitic publications. Even if they succeed in these particular efforts to defend Ron Paul, they have failed to grapple with the immense size and scope of the growing pile of evidence that Ron Paul has had consistent ties with racism and other forms of bigotry for almost his entire political career.
“Yesterday, The National Review revealed a new set of documents from Ron Paul that ought to settle the matter among people of open minds. …”
The documents were posted by The New Republic, not National Review.
You are quite correct. My apoligies for the the typo. Once I got the wrong TNR in my head, it stuck.
Ron Paul didn’t praise the American Mercury magazine issue that someone sent to him. All he said was that he found it “interesting.” I think Mein Kampf is interesting but that doesn’t mean I praise it.
Richard,
If someone sends me a copy of Mein Kampf in the mail, I don’t write them back a message saying, “Thank you for your letter, and for the copy of Mein Kampf. I found it very interesting.” I don’t write a letter back, but if I did, I would find a way to tell the person who sent Hitler’s book that he is embracing a very dangerous and violent ideology and should seek peaceful and respectful alternatives instead.
For goodness sakes, can you imagine what Republicans would say if they got hold of a letter written by Barack Obama thanking a fan for sending him a copy of Mein Kampf and saying that the book is “interesting”?
Your comment is very interesting.
My comment does not claim that the Nazi Holocaust killing millions of Jews never took place. The American Mercury magazine did.
My comment doesn’t gleefully predict the coming of a race war in the United States. The American Mercury magazine Ron Paul received did.
Big difference, Richard.
Really, how can you keep on defending Ron Paul, with this latest additional racist material? Other presidential candidates don’t have that on their records.
All your comments are very interesting.
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!
So basically, because Ron Paul says he didn’t write or read his own newsletters, it obviously means he didn’t? Uh huh
Your sarcasm shows you haven’t read or listened to the links.
The links say that Ron Paul had a monthly or weekly newsletter for three decades. Of those hundred of articles, investigators found only nine articles with questionable content. If you see the articles themselves in full with their by-lines, the by-lines say this article was written by Lew Rockwell, Patrick Buchanan, or James Sowell, but mostly Lew Rockwell.
It’s really absurd to suppose Ron Paul has photographic memory of articles he may have not even read. Especially given the fact that mathematically, those articles were less than a tenth of a percent of all articles. If someone asked you to remember who wrote a line from any given article in a magazine out of thirty years worth or magazine would you remember?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2008#Ron_Paul_newsletter_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_newsletters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PysCTVVNnZU
http://www.reason.com/news/show/124426.html
http://reason.com/blog/show/124339.html