The Republican Jewish Coalition announced this month that congressman Ron Paul would not be among the six guests invited to participate in its Republican Presidential Candidates Forum. “He’s just so far outside of the mainstream of the Republican party and this organization,” said Matt Brooks, executive director of the RJC, adding that the group “rejects his misguided and extreme views.”
Paul’s exclusion caused an uproar, with critics alleging that his stand on Israel had earned the RJC’s ire; an absolutist libertarian, Paul opposes foreign aid to all countries, including the Jewish state. “This seems to me more of an attempt to draw boundaries around acceptable policy discourse than any active concern that President Dr. Ron Paul would be actively anti-Israel or anti-Semitic,” wrote Reason editor Matt Welch. Chris McGreal of the Guardian reported that Paul “was barred because of his views on Israel.” Even Seth Lipsky, editor of the New York Sun and a valiant defender of Israel (and friend and mentor of this writer), opined, “The whole idea of an organization of Jewish Republicans worrying about the mainstream strikes me as a bit contradictory.”
While Paul’s views on Israel certainly place him outside the American, never mind Republican, mainstream, there is an even more elementary reason the RJC was right to exclude him from its event. It is Paul’s lucrative and decades-long promotion of bigotry and conspiracy theories, for which he has yet to account fully, and his continuing espousal of extremist views, that should make him unwelcome at any respectable forum, not only those hosted by Jewish organizations.
In January 2008, the New Republic ran my story reporting the contents of monthly newsletters that Paul published throughout the 1980s and 1990s. While a handful of controversial passages from these bulletins had been quoted previously, I was able to track down nearly the entire archive, scattered between the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society (both of which housed the newsletters in collections of extreme right-wing American political literature). Though particular articles rarely carried a byline, the vast majority were written in the first person, while the title of the newsletter, in its various iterations, always featured Paul’s name: Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Political Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, and the Ron Paul Investment Letter. What I found was unpleasant.
“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks,” read a typical article from the June 1992 “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism,” a supplement to the Ron Paul Political Report. Racial apocalypse was the most persistent theme of the newsletters; a 1990 issue warned of “The Coming Race War,” and an article the following year about disturbances in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C., was entitled “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” Paul alleged that Martin Luther King Jr., “the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” had also “seduced underage girls and boys.” The man who would later proclaim King a “hero” attacked Ronald Reagan for signing legislation creating the federal holiday in his name, complaining, “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”
No conspiracy theory was too outlandish for Paul’s endorsement. One newsletter reported on the heretofore unknown phenomenon of “Needlin’,” in which “gangs of black girls between the ages of 12 and 14” roamed the streets of New York and injected white women with possibly HIV-infected syringes. Another newsletter warned that “the AIDS patient” should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,” a strange claim for a physician to make.
Key point in Mr. Kirchick’s article:
Too true.
But also true is the fact that it is very hard to pin Ron Paul down.
He lies so well.
Hmm. Can you give me two or three examples of lies he has told? If you conclude he’s a great liar then surely there must be evidence out there…
As for the media scrutiny, I think some of them are waiting until after Iowa to lower the boom on Paul. These would be pro-Romney outlets that figure that Paul doing well in Iowa hurts Gingrich’s chances.
@bbartlog:
1. That Israel would LOVE to be hung out to dry.
2. That he opposes PORK.
He places plenty of PORK in popular bills, then, when he knows the bill will pass, votes against it.
Sigh. Those aren’t examples of statements he made, those are your paraphrases of his positions. Anyway, as long as we’re on the topic of how much you can trust what comes out of someone’s mouth… I looked at politifact (which fact-checks statements that all sorts of politicians make), and for each of the Republican candidates I looked at the percentage of statements that were in the ‘true’ half (i.e., true, mostly true, somewhat true). Results in descending order:
Ron Paul 64%
Mitt Romney 61%
Rick Santorum 54%
Rick Perry 50%
Newt Gingrich 42%
Michele Bachmann 28%
Of course, false statements are not always deliberate lies. People misremember and mis-state stuff all the time, or kind of make stuff up and hope it’s true. Still it’s pretty clear that it’s Gingrich and Bachmann, not Paul, who have trouble with the truth.
Oh fer heavens sake, bbartlog. What a bogus generalization.
Here’s Ron Paul’s “politifact record” so people can see what specifically they’ve fact checked, and how many times he’s been fact checked (like who cares…) for anything. Most of the data they checked is so inconsequential as to not be of note. That would be because Ron Paul is largely inconsequential.
You are picking and choosing stats for convenience. My suggestion is that if someone want’s to use St. Pete’s Politifact as their endorsement blessing (somewhat laughable on it’s own), you go to the site and check on each candidate and what they were “checking”.
Basically, few give a flying fart about Ron’s Paul’s statements. Altho his “pants on fire” stuff is pretty amusing. The “last Christians about to leave Iraq” and Rick Perry’s taxes in Texas. So Ron Paul doesn’t even know his own state’s tax structure? Pathetic….
I’d say Ron Paul drones like BBart have a problem with the truth when it comes to Ron Paul.
@MataHarley: Yah, looks bad for him, doesn’t it? Until you compare it to the litany of similar statements by other candidates, and you realize that it’s apparently impossible to try to speak off-the-cuff on political matters day after day without sometimes talking nonsense. But that doesn’t mean that some aren’t more reliable than others.
I should apologize though for not including Huntsman. I left him out because I classified him as an also-ran, but on actually running his numbers I see that he would top the list at 67%.
As for Paul being inconsequential, I would agree that he (still) has no path to the nomination. But there is also a war of ideas to be fought and on that front he seems to be doing all right.
Paul speaks of US “occupation” of foreign countries when all he means is we have bases in those countries.
A country occupies another country if the occupied country doesn’t consent to the presence of the first country’s troops on its soil.
In all countries where American troops are present, they are there because the host countries’ governments want them to be there.
The total US military budget for FY2011 is $688 billion.
But over and over Ron Paul says he can save $1.5 Trillion by closing every foreign base and cutting spending on our military.*
He would have to disband the entire military to even come close.
But still the Paulbots believe his every utterance.
*The 1 minute mark here:
I hear Paul saying ‘we spend 1.5 trillion on wars…’, etc. I would assume that he was referring to the overall cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not the annual military budget. The particulars of what and how much he would cut in order to balance the budget are clearly specified on his website, anyway (more than I can say for anyone else). Defense would take a hit like many other things (spending returned to 2006 levels) but obviously he’s not talking about zeroing it out.
@bbartlog, my point is you need to look at the specific stuff that Politifact actually fact checked. Most of the other candidates had far more scrutiny… i.e.
Bachman was fact checked on 53 items
Romney, 88 items
Newt, 36 items. He only recently started coming up in the polls, so that’s likely to increase if he holds the lead or 2nd position.
Perry? He’s got the most checked statements at 110.
Ron Paul? 26 times… and this with him being a consistent (in polls) 2nd or 3rd tier candidate. As I said, no one takes him seriously because they all know he self destructs on foreign policy. They simply don’t spend a lot of time fact checking anything he says.
That’s why the percentage stats you post are utterly worthless, and not indicative of anything except that he isn’t even viable enough for Politifact to bother with.
Oh yeah…Huntsman? 15 statements…. barely a blip on the radar. Santorum? Even lower on the “who cares” Politifact ladder with 13 statements fact checked.
If you’d like to use your example… and since Ron Paul, Huntsman and Santorum have so few instances of factchecking at all… it’s my guess you’ll be gung ho for Politifact’s “Mr. Honest”, Mittens Romney then?
Really? Would you like to show us this above average page of specifics? I have all the candidates pages archived for regular checking. Paul’s, like many others, is void of those details being “clearly specified”. i.e. his National Defense page, for example:
Yeah, real “clear” there… This from the guy who as recently as 2007 said:
Thanks, but no thanks. Anyone still living under the assumption that two oceans protect the US, or else we fire off a few nukes, is not one I want having control over our military and national security.
But that might give you an idea of how big a US military he thinks we need… a few good subs, and no foreign bases? Lots of unemployed soldiers under a CiC Ron Paul. And in the event we need to go into action overseas… as we did with WWI, WWI and Afghanistan/Irag… no jump off point. Ron Paul gave up foreign bases that serve as both a relay point and intel bases. That includes Gitmo…
…and what to do with those enemy combatants? Guess he hasn’t thought that far ahead about “trying” them. Here, on US soil? Same ol’ can of worms about evidence and different criteria inour federal courts, as well as granting Constitutional rights to non citizens by importing them into the nation.
Brilliant.
Actually Mata, it’s worse than that with Paul’s geopolitics.
The most basic reason for world-wide US force projection is raising the “barrier of entry” for potential aggressors. Contrary to popular belief, the US does not make profit from war…but from global peace, such as it is on the norm.
We have elevated Mahan’s theories to such a point it would likely stun that worthy…and Mr. Paul would erase that hard won positioning of power. Nothing good and very probably lots of bad would come of that…and we would be spending our wealth on serious general wars between states that would require mobilization of more than the relatively paltry volunteer numbers we current operate on. There would be little doubt in the eventual outcome of such conflicts, but the costs are far higher in blood and gold than the current global network that dampens such tendencies.
Isolationism has absolutely no place in the modern, global world.
@MataHarley: The budgetary specifics are under http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/ , not in the defense section.
As for politifact and stats, yes, the stats are moderately useless. Problem being mainly one of selection (they could easily choose to check a bunch of uncontroversial statements from one person for some reason). But as with the military donation stats, it’s not like there’s anything better out there, if you want to put numbers on the topic.
As for Paul’s 2007 statements, I agree with the substance of them. Of course, it is not literally impossible for someone to attack us – but for someone to invade, conquer or destroy us, i.e. to attack us with a meaningful hope of accomplishing anything, is.
@malize: ‘the US does not make profit from war…but from global peace, such as it is on the norm.’
Yes, the US keeps the peace worldwide, more or less (with occasional humanitarian wars like Libya thrown in, apparently). I think I missed the part where we actually profit from the deal, though (seen our budget lately?). If you want to argue that America has a special obligation and a special destiny to maintain world peace, and that the American people should just suck it up when it comes to the costs, then we could just agree to disagree. I would prefer that the government protect the liberty and welfare of US citizens as its first priority.
Ron Paul is a fraud who says exactly what his drones want to hear, yet has no intention of doing what he says. It doesn’t matter, since as we’ve already seen even when caught in blatant contradictions about his actions, they cover for him anyway.
@bbartlog:
America profits through freedom of the seas and airways to start with. It does not take a special kind of genius to realize that peaceful lines of communication are also peaceful lines of commerce, for ourselves and the world.
If your preference is the protection of the liberty and welfare of US citizens, then you should not support Mr. Paul’s isolationist stance. The US does not exist independently of the global economy, inputs and outputs flow across the face of the Earth are dependent on relative peace.
Removing the US protectorate would create a world where there was no longer a “barrier of entry” for potential aggressors…would magnify national insecurities and drive regional rearmament and arms races to ally those fears…those who trust in the deterrent of an American alliance would need to turn elsewhere, states who would never think to honestly champion individual choice.
Ultimately it would in all probability accelerate or magnify wars that are perpetually on the horizon now, such as conflict in the South China Sea and dominance in South Asia. Conflicts that the US would have to be involved in, but would need to pay a price in blood and gold to regain the strategic position to be able to project power and regain allies.
Mr. Paul is more than wrong. His neo-isolationism would, in the end, cost far more than its short sightedness would save.
When known racists make donations to Ron Paul he refuses to return the money.
This photo is of Ron Paul and Stormfront founder, Don Black.
MSNBC reported that:
YUCK!
If you did support Ron Paul before learning this, how can you now?
Racism is a hideous disorder that needs to be stamped out.
All racists should be repudiated by any politician who they attract.
But Ron Paul does not repudiate racists.
He accepts their support.
MATA
ACTUALY, I read some points in RON PAUL COPY, PLAN,
I now understand why some are following his views, on some positives,
just naming one of them, is the ABOLITION OF TSA, among other, 9 good out of 11,
going back to recheck again, the 2 left, because I don’t quite understand, are, revitalize military….. and avoid expansive land war….
bye
Nan G.
yes but they are VOTERS and AMERICANS TOO.
WHY REFUSE THE MONEY,
DOES OBAMA refuse the money from BLACKS known racist?
I don’t think so.
@Nan G: ‘If you did support Ron Paul before learning this, how can you now?’
I’m satisfied by his answer here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrRtZaG63o8 (starts at about 3:20 after relatively uninteresting stuff).
‘Racism is a hideous disorder that needs to be stamped out.’
A disorder, eh? Maybe you can show me the DSM IV entry for that one. You should distinguish between people that are wrong and people that are actually crazy.
@malize: ‘America profits through freedom of the seas and airways to start with.’
No doubt, but to be more clear, I was talking about a net gain after the loss of lives and military expenditures is taken into account. Without being able to see the future alternate universe where the US withdraws (or withdrew) from its role as protector of the world, we can’t know exactly what it would look like and what sort of problems would arise – and specifically whether they would cost us hundreds of billions per year along with thousands of dead and wounded. Obviously, we disagree about the outcome. Likely we also count the cost differently.
BBartlog
what I get is that the MILITARY AND THEIR LOVE ONES, could use a at least 4 years of peaceful life
with their family, and witnessing the children growing under their loving care,
they have been over worked with nonstop war demands since WW11 for sure in these last many years of warzone multiple recalls,
and find out they are being over used, as hired hands, which demand a danger of lost of life not aim at their own COUNTRY but to die or spill their blood for a foreign COUNTRY, BECAUSE the TOP COMMANDER want to help their friend TO win their REVOLUTION, incited by GROUP OF INTEREST
in the UN. is not appealing to MILITARY AT ALL.
they would feel more appreciate by who would take their sides as well as their family, by making a plan
to require those need in decisions making., AND KEEP THEM FOR AMERICA, instead of treating them as hired hand to serve other COUNTRIES HATING THEM
and hating AMERICA
@bbartlog:
You need only take a little walk through history to see what crops arise from the fertile ground that an absent dominant power leaves…this is how World Wars are born. The fact that you live in an era that has had an absence of a General War is the direct result of this Pax Americana, so it is ironic (but understandable) that your point of view (and Mr. Paul’s point of view) is based around the assumption that relative peace is the norm and would continue without the American protectorate.
“Peace” has a price too…as does the cost of protecting the interests of our commerce and that of our allies, that commerce which fuels the economy and your personal consumption, your economic choice and freedom — and by extension your political liberty through that economic freedom.
None of this occurs in a vacuum…and that is exactly what this neo-isolationism demands one believe — that there is no connection between the protectorate and the peace…that the price of that protectorate is therefor an unnecessary burden on the taxpayers who gain no benefit from it.
That is the harsh reality of the very real Hobbesian world.
The harsh reality of the very real Hobbesian world is that you must stand to the defense of you and yours…and in the modern world that defense does not begin at the shores of North America…the effectiveness of the “Two Oceans” physical defense theory ended first with von Braun and Project Amerika and the commercial “self-sufficiency” side of isolationist thought ended a few decades after that.
There is no going back and to make the claim that “you don’t know what will happen” is false…it is entirely clear what will happen because it is exactly what has happened in the past…without a credible enforcement of the status quo…there will be no status quo.
Malize
your comment makes a lot of sense, but In what I read of RON PAUL PLAN COPIED AT MATA, he write of the sentence that the warning would be there for anyone to know, the attack on AMERICAN SOIL, would automaticly be follow by a response which would pulverize their COUNTRY,
that is a notice which would make the hating COUNTRY think twice, and it would be a deterrent to other,
so by the same would keep peace alive in this AMERICA,
IT make sense to me, to know this time the price of lost lives and limbs, would be on the opponent shoulder if he dare, even to threaten,he would have the breaks stopping him, with a reminder of the deal, meaning,
don’t mess with me, as oppose to hesitation and lost times
and words not reaching target,
Malize
again, I want to point out, also a very important fact, that is,the need to be aware that
so many lost lives and so many incapacitate WARRIORS, cause a big dent in AMERICA, and
you cannot be naive to think of who is emigrating here could replace those BRAVES, so we must recognize it will take at least tw0 or 3 generations of braves one from roots in the ground deep,
to refill the big gap made from these years of wars, and this need to have the braves here with their family to rest at least next 4 to many more years coming.
@malize: The past is a different place than the future, though – indeed the present is a very different place than the past history which you are basing your pessimism on. As gains from trade between nations become ever greater, the loss to most nations that would wage war become prohibitive. Nuclear weapons provide a final deterrent that give pause to anyone who might think they can wage a great war of conquest – and the absence of a third world war likely has more to do with the existence of the hydrogen bomb than it does with America’s world-wide force projection. Now, Paul is more extreme than I am – I think there would be value in continuing to contain North Korea, or at least giving the South Koreans a five year lead time to build up a credible deterrent to a North Korean attack. But overall I see no reason why the Europeans, Japanese, Africans and so on can’t manage their own affairs. You’re basically advocating an updated version of the White Man’s Burden, which I reject.
(edit): I see also that you’re arguing against economic isolation, which isn’t Paul’s agenda anyway.
@bbartlog:
You know, there was a generation that once claimed that general wars were a thing of the past…that nations would never war on one another because the impact on their economies would be prohibitive.
Those Edwardians turned right around and murdered each other by the millions.
That is the kind of mistake you make when you dismiss history…or as the quote goes: “He who fails to learn from history, will repeat it.”
What I stated is not an updated version of “white mans burden”…in fact you fail to understand “white mans burden” via the context you attempt to reference it. We do not engage in global power projection to deny anyone else their own capabilities, in fact we encourage them to stand for themselves — knowing that they can rely on our prompt proximate assistance…the simple truth is that a vast majority of states simply *cannot* stand up the kind of force necessary to adequately defend themselves against the stronger and more ambitious states that would do them harm. It is not because they lack will, it is not because they are intrinsically ignorant or below par…most often they lack manpower more than anything else.
As far as economic isolation…did you *NOT READ* what was typed? If you stop protecting the freedom of commerce — that commerce will come under threat and attack *AND THERE WILL BE NO RECOURSE*…the result of which will be a disruption of the global economy.
Once again you fail to realize the overall connectedness of the global system as a whole in your quest to justify dismantling the major bulwark of peace in the world. The point is simple: remove the global presence and all hell is going to break loose in the power vacuum that is left behind…the fact that you cannot seem to grasp this very, very REAL point is beyond disturbing.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Yeah, it’s easy for Mr. Paul to talk that talk about “pulverizing” some country…the reality is different.
You can say you are going to respond to any attack with a massive retaliation — but when the inevitable dead babies and mass devastation show up on television, that tune will change.
Also, during normal operations there are not thousands of dead and maimed soldiers, sailors, and airmen…so put that “need to grow a new generation” line to rest. We’ve got a very deep pool of manpower we can tap if needed.
malize
yes you’re right, but as I said, the uninterrupted wars since WWII, still made a big dent,
irreplaceble as for now for those who died, even if there is many more left,
they must be look at like a precious treasure of the COUNTRY,
THEY DON’T SEEM TO AT THIS TIME, and if they are that many more, how come the same ones get recall back on a and on, surely the dent is wide, we cannot deny it, if you look at the price it represent on many fronts, naming one is the regeneration of the roots of AMERICA cut out forever by those missing,
they where attach to the passion of their love for their COUNTRY GOING BACK TO THEIR FIRST GENERATION, as oppose to those immigrated lately don’t have this dedication to bravery readyness to answer the call of duty. that was my point, saying it take generations to acquire that state of mind,
as you see not merely visible in the young of today,
there are many left yes, but they are not to be view as expandeble, just because they are many, what if some leader think they are, and use them as is.
with a mentality, that you can spend all you want because you have lots of money coming and open credit, lead to ruin also when you discover the money left to spend is not the same value anymore, because you fail to look at the big picture, that is there is an end to be consider on any project,
you got to know when to fight and when to fold
if you have a huge tree deep rooted and proud and tall, if you think ,oh this tree is solid it can take some lost of branches, and you start to cut some, than too much of it weaken the tree which took many years to grow, and all the young trees around are also weak, and come a big storm , you get to loose both.
Ms Bees Did you ever meet Chauncy Gardner?
Richard Wheeler,
hi,
no, who is he?
A wonderful character played by the great Peter Sellers in the movie Being There.
Have a Merry and Blessed Christmas
@malize:
He suggested nukes. Yeah, like any U.S. politician will have the guts to support that. That is also assuming we even know who attacked us.
Richard Wheeler
hi
thank you, and the same for you, and youre loved ones,
I must check that movie
Malize says ‘We’ve got a very deep pool of manpower we can tap as needed” What the hell does that mean?
Have you served?
HArd Right
hi,
who want to know who attack? nuke where you have suspicion and check after,
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU AND LOVED ONE.
I’m just partly kidding on the first line
bye
@Richard Wheeler:
Yeah Dick Wheeler, I’ve served.
As far as “what the hell does that mean”…it means that if there were a general war that required mass conscription, the United States is not hurting for manpower. You dispute this?
Malize Agree
What branch and when?
Semper Fi