Forget President, Bigots Like Ron Paul Shouldn’t Even Be In Congress.

The other day I criticized a tweet by Judge Napalitano who reiterated his support of Congressman Ron Paul's candidacy for President. Whenever I write something negative about Ron Paul (which is  just about every time I write about him), I get the nastiest comments, tweets and emails and this time was no different.  There aren't many "Ronulins" in the world, but those who support him treat him like a cult leader.  Their cultish adoration of Dr. Paul makes them overlook the fact that  Rep. Paul fell out of the bigot tree and hit every branch on the way down.

Forget President, bigots like Ron Paul should not even be in Congress. 

For those of you that can remember life before the internet, you might also remember that people used to publish Newsletters on all topics. Forty years ago, Paul entered the Conservative Newsletter business. The Newsletters contained racist and homophobic writing, written in Paul's name.   When the newsletters were republished by the New Republic in 2008,   Congressman Paul strongly denied authorship, but as you will see he didn't deny them when they first became controversial in the mid-1990 .

What was written in those newsletters was nothing short of disgusting. Here are  some examples sorted by topic:

 

• On Race

“A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” analyzes the Los Angeles riots of 1992: “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. ... What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided.”

In December of 1990 his newsletter described Martin Luther King Jr. as “a world-class adulterer” who “seduced underage girls and boys” and “replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”

The January 1991 edition of the Political Report refers to King as a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours” and a “flagrant plagiarist with a phony doctorate.” A February 1991 newsletter attacks "The X-Rated Martin Luther King." An October 1990 edition of the Political Report ridicules black activists, led by Al Sharpton, for demonstrating at the Statue of Liberty in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" would be better alternatives--and says, "Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house."

In an article entitled “The Coming Race War,” The Ron Paul Political Report refers to the “pro-communist philanderer Martin Luther King” and refers to his “non-violent approach” as “(i.e., state violence).” The newsletter advises that, “if there is any issue the Republicans have in their favor for the next presidential election, it is the question of race. It was all over for Michael Dukakis when Jesse Jackson gave his awful prime-time speech at the last Democratic convention, and the cameras focused on masses of teary-eyed, left-wing blacks.

That proves Paul is crazy, because it wasn't over for Dukakis until that silly tank picture.

• On Gays

In the course of defending homophobic comments by the late Andy Rooney of CBS, a 1990 newsletter notes that a reporter for a gay magazine “certainly had an axe to grind, and that’s not easy with a limp wrist.” Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”

From the August 1990 issue of the Political Report: “Bring Back the Closet!”

The June 1990 issue of the Political Report says: “I miss the closet.

A January 1994 edition of the Survival Report states that "gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense," adding: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."

• On Conspiracies

This 1978 newsletter says the Trilateral Commission is “no longer known only by those who are knowledgeable about international conspiracies, but is routinely mentioned in the daily news.” A 1986 newsletter names Jeane Kirkpatrick and George Will as “two of our enemies” and notes their membership in the Trilateral Commission. In an undated solicitation letter for The Ron Paul Investment Letter and the Ron Paul Political Report, Paul writes: "I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or no threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove--perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress's Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica."

• On The Middle East

The March 1987 issue of The Ron Paul Investment Letter calls Israel “an aggressive, national socialist state.”

In the April 1993 Ron Paul Survival Report, the author--writing in the first person--states, “Whether [the 1993 World Trade Center bombing] was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.” The newsletters also warns readers to “do your very best to keep your family away from inner cities. If you can’t, have a haven remote from the metropolitan areas.”

Was Ron Paul Lying when he said he didn't write the newsletters, or was he lying when he said he did? Whenever I discuss these newsletters with Ron Paul fans, they make the same claim, their fearless leader said he didn't write them nor did he know who wrote them. Indeed that's what the he told CNN in 2008

Paul told CNN's "The Situation Room" Thursday that he didn't write any of the offensive articles and has "no idea" who did. Watch Paul's full interview with CNN "When you bring this question up, you're really saying, 'You're a racist' or 'Are you a racist?' And the answer is, 'No, I'm not a racist,'" he said. Paul said he had never even read the articles with the racist comments. See the newsletter excerpts for yourself "I do repudiate everything that is written along those lines," he said, adding he wanted to "make sure everybody knew where I stood on this position because it's obviously wrong."

It is certainly possible for Paul to be telling the truth but not very likely. To believe him  you have to believe he never looked at the publications  published under his name by a company that he owned. The evidence suggests otherwise, When they were published in the New Republic, James Kerchick said,

Whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views.

The New Republic also provided this evidence:

• The masthead of March 1987 Ron Paul Investment Letter lists “the Hon. Ron Paul” as “Editor and Publisher” and “Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.” as one of several contributing editors.

• The April 1988 Ron Paul Investment Letter lists Paul as Editor

Perhaps the most damning evidence about Paul's denial of authorship is the fact that when the newsletters first became an issue during his congressional race in 1996 Paul did not deny he had knowledge of them, he defended them as his writing and said the racist quotes were taken out of context:

• May 22, 1996 Dallas Morning News reported "Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal." He also wrote that black teenagers can be "unbelievably fleet of foot." [...]

Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas' 14th Congressional District, todat defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context."It's typical political demagoguery" [...] Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]

• May 23, 1996, Houston Chronicle:Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." [...] Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."  A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.

• May 23, 1996, Austin American-Statesman: "Dr. Paul is being quoted out of context," [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said.  "It's like picking up War and Peace and reading the fourth paragraph on Page 481 and thinking you can understand what's going on." [...]

• May 26, 1996 Washington Post: Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context. "Instead of talking about the issues, our opponent has chosen to lie and try to deceive the people of the 14th District," said Paul spokesman Michael Sullivan, who added that the excerpts were written during the Los Angeles riots when "Jesse Jackson was making the same comments."

So the question remains, is Ron Paul a racist who is lying about not writing or even reading the newsletters he defended just a few years earlier? Or was he lying when he defended them as his writing even though he never read them?

Understand if Ron Paul never read the newsletter it means he was so incompetent in running that little newsletter company that he never even bothered to read what was printed in his name.  And when he was first confronted about them, he defended the newsletters he never read, which would make him very foolish. It kind of  reminds me of a certain president who sat in a racist church for 20 year and never once heard the sermon of his bigoted preacher. In the end it doesn't matter whether

Ron Paul is a bigot and liar, or a liar and incompetent fool, either way you go,  this man should never be considered a realistic candidate for President of the United States.