New Republic Author Exposes Ron Paul's Past Writings!
Quote:
On the radio this evening John Gibson spoke with James Kirchick of the New Republic, who has examined Ron Paul's writings over the years. He says there is a strain of extremism, racism, and possibly anti-Semitism.
Posted January 14, 2008 | 05:15 PM (EST)
The liberal attacks on Ron Paul, fueled by a recent hit piece in the New Republic, are so transparently cynical that it almost makes me smile.
Almost.
To quote James Ridgeway, liberals can be and often are the meanest sexual intercourse around. Criticize any of their scared beliefs, then watch out. They'll come at you with anything they've got, doesn't matter if it's truthful, accurate, or even sane. American liberals truly feel that they are humanity's Final Word. If you dispute that, you're a bigot, a hater, a piece of slime that deserves only the nastiest treatment. And baby, you'll get it.
At issue is Ron Paul's supposed racism and queer-phobia, reflected in newsletters that bore his name. Paul has distanced himself from the newsletters, saying that others penned the toxic rhetoric, without his direct knowledge or approval. Maybe Paul's telling the truth. Maybe he's not. Maybe he really does despise those of darker hue and same-sexers. Maybe he's like the worst racist you've ever seen. Maybe he eats black children for breakfast.
Whatever Paul actually believes about minorities and queers is not the real concern here. What bothers liberals, TNR's James Kirchik among them, is that Paul is the only presidential candidate who is seriously running against the state. This includes anti-imperialism and calls to end the Drug War. Given that Hillary and Obama are nowhere near this mindset -- quite the opposite -- means that anyone who is must be a bad person. If those newsletters didn't exist, hit men like Kirchik and the libloggers who support him would find something else to smear Paul with. Because, at bottom, they oppose any dismantling of the war state (recall Kos' shitting all over Kucinich). They simply want their preferred candidates to run the machine instead.
For TNR, there's another angle to its anti-Paul attack: Israel. Paul wants to end U.S. military aid to Israel, and is critical of Israeli aggression (he's also critical of Hezbollah and Hamas, but that doesn't count). This simply won't do for Democrats and many liberals, who either support Israeli violence and occupation, or are at best mum on the topic. When Israeli fighter jets were pounding Lebanon in 2006, it took weeks for leading libloggers to type the slightest negative word, which for them was "disproportionate." It was okay to bury Lebanese in rubble, just so long as it wasn't too much rubble. By opposing this and other uses of American tax dollars to kill and maim Arabs, Ron Paul shows that he's probably anti-Semitic as well.
The funny thing about TNR attacking Paul for being racist is that TNR has published plenty of racist musings itself. Martin Peretz alone contributed much of this, his belief that the "primitive" Palestinians are genetically and culturally incapable of achieving peace (for which no one is to blame, added Peretz in a tender moment) merely one of many racist screeds that TNR had no problem pushing. Then there was former editor Andrew Sullivan inviting Charles Murray to explain at length his "Bell Curve" theory in TNR's pages, a decision that Sullivan defended by writing, "The notion that there might be resilient ethnic differences in intelligence is not, we believe, an inherently racist belief." Of course not. Ron Paul, on the other hand . . .
I might be mistaken, but so far as I know, Ron Paul has not left the campaign trail to oversee the killing of a black man. Liberal hero Bill Clinton did in 1992, flying back to Arkansas from New Hampshire to witness Rickey Ray Rector take the lethal needle. (Since Clinton was our first black president, did that constitute black-on-black violence?) Clinton also expanded the police and prison state, in which a large number of African-Americans are trapped, and shredded the safety net for the poor, among whom reside many African-Americans. Does this make Bill Clinton a racist? Hush yo' mouf!
Racism isn't Paul's only sin. According to Kirchik, those newsletters exhibited acute paranoia:
[S]pecifically, the brand of anti-government paranoia that festered among right-wing militia groups during the 1980s and '90s. Indeed, the newsletters seemed to hint that armed revolution against the federal government would be justified. In January 1995, three months before right-wing militants bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, a newsletter listed 'Ten Militia Commandments,' describing 'the 1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty' as 'one of the most encouraging developments in America.' It warned militia members that they were 'possibly under BATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] or other totalitarian federal surveillance' and printed bits of advice from the Sons of Liberty, an anti-government militia based in Alabama--among them, 'You can't kill a Hydra by cutting off its head,' 'Keep the group size down,' 'Keep quiet and you're harder to find,' 'Leave no clues,' 'Avoid the phone as much as possible,' and 'Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.'
Yikes. Scary stuff. Sane people know that there is no American surveillance state -- or there wasn't one during the hallowed Clinton era, when all that crazy militia activity was taking place. According to liberal history, police state measures (torture, too) only occur during Republican presidencies, the past seven years being the most recent example. For Paul's newsletter to say otherwise is simple lunacy.
I'll tell you this: I've studied various strands of American right wing political philosophy and beliefs, and have had many conversations with rightists of different temperaments, and when it comes to seriously defending First and Fourth Amendment rights (what remain, anyway), I'll stand with libertarians like Ron Paul. I may not agree with most of his beliefs, nor that of the anti-statist right overall, but I know that Paul and others like him aren't looking to tap my phone or break down my door in the middle of the night.
Think the Branch Davidians were paranoid? Then vote Hillary or Obama. And sleep tight.
Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:33 pm
madthumbs
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8246 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
'I want to continue peaceful process with Russia': Ron Paul
Quote:
Ron Paul, 2008 U.S. Republican presidential hopeful, is critical of America's current policy towards Russia. He commented to RT on his political views.
Ron Paul wrote:
Some of this, they say, antisemitic would come from the fact that I’m not for foreign aid, and of course Israel gets a lot of foreign aid. But, I wouldn’t give anybody foreign aid. And, for instance the Arab nations get three times as much foreign aid as Israel gets. So it’s really a very pro-Israel position. And, besides I don’t like arming both sides of conflicts. We arm Israel, now we’ve just sent $20 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia. Fifteen of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. So here we are arming them?
A good politician could make a good argument for being against Israel. Instead, most of Ron Paul's actions are very Pro-Israel.
Dobbs Drops Ron Paul
From LIst Of Candidates
From Charlotte Iserbyt
dumbdown00@yahoo.com
1-23-8
How many of you watched LOU DOBBS TONIGHT... this evening, January 22, at 7 pm EST? If you did, you undoubtedly read the QUICK VOTE, but you were unable to vote since Lou Dobbs left Ron Paul out of his QUICK VOTE!
The question was: Which of the following candidates do you believe has the economic knowledge and leadership to guide the USA for the next four years?
The candidates he listed were:
Which of the following candidates do you believe has the economic knowledge and leadership to guide the United States for the next four years?
If I were Ron Paul, considering the treatment or perhaps "non-treatment" he has had by the establishment media, while other candidates have received coverage worth millions of dollars (FREE), I would quit the race for the Republican nomination and go Independent...immediately. He owes as much to his followers, some of whom have mortgaged their houses, maxed out on credit cards to financially support his candidacy. He cannot allow their efforts to be for naught. This is just my personal opinion, and you may feel I am "off the wall". However, I felt I should put my opinion out there.
Are you as angry as I? Please register your views at CNN.com. Go to comments section. Unfortunately, I believe one is unable to register their views at the LOU DOBBS TONIGHT site itself. Please cc your comments to me at: ..dumbdown00@yahoo.com
Be sure to forward this email to all to all your lists.
Thanks,
Charlotte
Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt
Former Senior Policy Advisor
U.S. Department of Education
Former President of the Soviet Union Gorbachev said in 2000, in London: "The European Union is the New European Soviet. " Since the North American Union is modelled on the European Union, what would Gorbachev call the North American Union?
People have actually gone to financial strife supporting this man? I almost feel sorry for them. I wish I was more heartless.
Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:56 am
madthumbs
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8246 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
These Crazy IGNORANT Paul supporters never mention Kucinich or Gravel. Were they on the list? -No. Do they care? -No. They only care when it's about them (like white nationalists).
I think Kucinich may be better off not being on the list.
Ron Paul's supporters have been quite adept at repackaging their anti-semitic candidate's negatives as positives, have tried to spin Ron Paul's repeated criticisms of Israel and foreign aid to Israel as a positive. Some Zionists have fallen for that line and are considering supporting Ron Paul in order to end American intervention in Israel.
The idea of ending foreign aid and intervention in Israel's domestic politics may seem appealing at first glance but a serious look at what would happen gives us a whole other picture.
First of all it's highly debatable whether Ron Paul could even end foreign aid to Israel because it has too much bipartisan support and Ron Paul has no track record for winning legislative brush wars. The Presidential veto is not absolute power.
Secondly, Ron Paul's own statement betray the same pattern of thinking that has driven administration after administration to pressure Israel.
Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, January 29, 2003
And above all, the Arab Muslims are tired of us.
Angry and frustrated by our persistent bullying and disgusted with having their own government bought and controlled by the United States, joining a radical Islamic movement was a natural and predictable consequence for Muslims.
We believe bin Laden when he takes credit for an attack on the West, and we believe him when he warns us of an impending attack. But we refuse to listen to his explanation of why he and his allies are at war with us.
Bin Laden’s claims are straightforward. The U.S. defiles Islam with military bases on holy land in Saudi Arabia, its initiation of war against Iraq, with 12 years of persistent bombing, and its dollars and weapons being used against the Palestinians as the Palestinian territory shrinks and Israel’s occupation expands. There will be no peace in the world for the next 50 years or longer if we refuse to believe why those who are attacking us do it.
Now it's not particularly ambiguous where Ron Paul's sympathies lie here, with the Muslim terrorists. This is par for the course on the far right, but it once again pins the blame on Israel. Now what happens under a Ron Paul presidency when there are no US troops in Iraq or Saudi Arabia and no foreign aid but the terrorism continues?
A man who has structured his entire foreign policy on giving in to terrorist blackmail, will hardly turn back from meeting the final terrorist demand. Israel's existence. After all in Ron Paul's worldview, America helped set up Israel which caused Islamic rage. There can only be one form of acceptable restitution, aiding in the destruction of Israel. It would be a small step to take for a man whose base already rages against Israel, whose closest political friends like Pat Buchanan view Israel as evil.
It would be a small step for the man whose own newsletters suggested Israel was behind the original World Trade Center bombings, called Israel "an aggressive national socialist state" and accused it of muzzling the American media, to contemplate. And even if he didn't, his administration is sure to be packed with those who would.
Thirdly, Ron Paul is backed by a whole constellation of bigots and neo-nazis who don't just want an end to foreign aid to Israel, they want a whole lot of dead Jews. Ron Paul's base of support comes from the far right and from the far left, among his supporters are people like Pat Buchanan, David Duke, Joseph Sobran, Paul Findley, Don Black, Theodore Beale and Bill White whose hatred for Jews verges on the psychotic.
Apologists for Ron Paul claim that he is beholden to no one, but a short look at Ron Paul's appearance on Meet the Press demonstrates that he's quite willing to play political games and pass the pork and the legislative kickbacks so long as he doesn't formally vote for them. Throw the Saudis and criminal white supremacist businessmen like Carl Story and Vincent Bertollini into the mix and things will get ugly fast. As Ron Paul's Meet the Press appearance demonstrates, his incorruptible image is a lie just like everything else about his campaign. The exposure of a criminal botnet operating out of the Ukraine and stolen credit card donations to Ron Paul as well as serious amounts of fraud by Ron Paul supporters not to mention donations from white supremacists like Don White should raise serious questions about where all those millions are really coming from and what they're buying.
But tell you what, let's put all of that aside for a minute. Let's imagine that Ron Paul becomes President and America becomes completely isolationist. No more foreign aid, no more interference. What happens next?
1. For starters, American companies begin boycotting Israel again in order to comply with the Arab boycott. With no legal restraint, the high tech boom in Israel is going to begin running into trouble as American companies are forced to choose between dealing with the Sheiks and dealing with Israel. Some will choose to maintain innovation and civilization, others will choose oil money. Since many companies comply with the boycott anyway and since despite the boycott, Israel's products do continue to be resold and relabeled through the Muslim world, this may not be a worst case scenario but it isn't something to shrug off either.
2. America's departure does not free Israel, it creates a power vacuum and there are at least two players ready to step into that vacuum, the EU and Russia. Russia already has a fleet in the area and a naval base in Syria. It has Gaydamak's party in Israel, nuclear reactors in Iran and a whole raft of new weapons to unload. The EU is funding multiple Israeli groups such as Peace Now while funding the Arab terrorists and pressuring Israel. Getting rid of American pressure will simply substitute EU pressure in its place. And unlike America, the EU genuinely hates Israel and wants to see it gone.
The only real thing keeping the EU in check is America. In 1948 America served as a buffer against the British backing of Egypt and Jordan, a backing so intense that England provided weapons and training and even flew planes over Israeli positions in the Negev to create an international incident. King Hussein of Jordan described the British envoy putting a paper in front of him, telling him it was a request for troops and telling him to sign it. British troops were already landing at Aqba when American pressure and a backlash from the British public over a military adventure put a halt to the plan. Meanwhile during the Six Day War, the USSR fielded a plan to land troops in Hafia and lead an Arab uprising. The plan was well underway before it was aborted.
Despite the absurd statements by some political candidates, American troops will never fight for Israel, but America as a world power helps balance Russian and EU interference in the Middle East. With the Quartet, we've seen Russia and the EU muscle their way in further. Without America, Israel would have to face numerous superpowers on its own.
If Israel had a strong secure government, it could survive the diplomatic standoff and show enough strength to avoid anything nastier. But then again if Israel had a strong secure government, American pressure would never be a problem in the first place. Sharon said "No" to the State Department and meant it. Olmert can't say "No", he can only say "Maybe" and his wife is a member of the EU funded Peace now. As bad as things are with Rice in the driver's seat, would you really like to see the EU calling the shots?
I am personally opposed to foreign aid for Israel. I am also opposed to Ron Paul, not because Ron Paul is bad for Israel, but because Ron Paul is bad for America and the world. His foreign and domestic policy would be catastrophic and that would impact everyone. The struggle against the Jihad is a global one and it needs the remaining free countries of the world working together.
An isolationist order would fall to the Jihad one by one, outnumbered and surrounded because in the end it only takes a single liberal politician a few years to dismantle everything that conservative politicians have done before, Rabin and Clinton are both excellent reminders of that. Israel or America as islands in the Caliphate would not survive for long as free nations, they would fall by violence or treachery or the decay of their morale in the face of a long siege.
And all that is secondary to the fact that Ron Paul cannot be President and will not be President.
He is not a serious candidate, he is a spoiler candidate meant to insure a Republican does not become President. The real consequence of the Ron Paul campaign is to be a spoiler candidate, to have Ron Paul run as a third party candidate and bring Hillary Clinton or Obama to power.
Supporting the Ron Paul campaign for whatever reason insures that you are counted among the ranks of 9/11 Deniers, Holocaust Deniers, Neo-Nazis, Conspiracy Theorists, Anti-Semites who are the real engine behind the Ron Paul grass roots effort and when you join with them, you become their useful idiot. And when Ron Paul is trounced, whatever happens next, the numbers of his supporters will be used to prove that there is widespread support for investigating 9/11 conspiracies, an anti-Israel foreign policy and the various radical agendas of the far left and the far right.
When you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas and the Ron Paul campaign has some big ugly bloodsuckers on it. They don't support Ron Paul because they "love freedom", they support him because they hate freedom. The biggest tragedy in the lives of men like Pat Buchanan, Joseph Sobran, Don White and David Duke is that they were born too late and in the wrong country to join the SS and they've been trying to compensate for it ever since.
The Ron Paul campaign harnesses every dirty trick operation that the Buchanan and Duke campaigns have used, every slimy tactic, for one last go at it. Some in Lehi once thought they could make a devil's bargain with the Nazis, but when you bargain with the devil, the devil always wins. The Ron Paul campaign is willing to co-opt Jews but its heart and its base remains in a very dark place.
The opinions and views articulated by the author do not necessarily reflect those of Israel e News.
What happens when you decide to discard their useless governments?
