[To the tune of "America the Beautiful"]:

Establishment, establishment, you always know what's beeeeeest.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte

Well, there’s this reason http://www.tnr.com/p..., and then those excusing his newsletter stating it was not him, take a look at the end of this http://www.tnr.com/d..., which states “my wife Carol”, hmmm, wonder what RP’s wife name is? Not to mention the associations with nutty Twofers, UFOers, tin foil hats, white supremecists, “blame America” for everything, complete lack of understanding of the war on terrorism and the intestinal fortitude to take it on head first, etc. etc. etc. all rolled up into a flaky, nutty roll. Sultan Knish informs us that our local HAMAS operative, former CAIR national board member and would-be Columbus Public School Board member Anisa Abd El Fattah/Caroline Keeble has a couple of recent posts on the "Muslims for Ron Paul" Yahoo forum coming out in favor of presidential hopeful Ron Paul and wishing neo-Nazi website STORMFRONT the best of luck in their battle against ADL. How nice.
http://ohioagainstte.... There is oh so much more, just don’t have the energy to keep posting the same thing over and over again…..Funny how if he’s so great why people have to keep excusing him and trying to build him up. No, we don’t hate him, we just recognize and asshat when we see it.

"Sorry folks,the park's closed, the moose out front should have told you"

New Republic http://www.tnr.com/p..., and then those excusing his newsletter stating it was not him, take a look at the end of this http://www.tnr.com/d..., which states “my wife Carol”, hmmm, wonder what RP’s wife name is?

In response to the New Republic article (http://www.tnr.com/p...) on the “Ron Paul Political Report,” Ron Paul stated that he did not write the newsletter and was unaware of the content.

But in this December 1990 issue (http://www.littlegre...) of the newsletter, which labels Martin Luther King a child molester, there’s some pretty good evidence that Dr. Paul himself wrote at least this entry: http://www.littlegre...
Ron Paul’s wife is named Carol, and in 1990 he did have grandchildren.

Read the whole PDF document (http://www.littlegre...) Even if this was written by someone else, it’s almost more disturbing that Ron Paul could be so disconnected and dysfunctional that he let freaks like this run his newsletter.

The personal details—especially the mention of grandchildren—show that whoever wrote this had a fairly close relationship with Ron Paul. Any way you cut it, this makes his claim that he “didn’t know” look ridiculous.

The Only Man Who Can Save America tries to save himself from The New Republic’s article: Ron Paul Statement on The New Republic Article Regarding Old Newsletters.
http://www.ronpaul20...

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

The problem for Dr. Paul is that there was a lot of this stuff. It stretches credulity to the breaking point to believe he had absolutely no idea what was being published in his name for that long. Doesn’t pass the sniff test.

And the newsletter isn’t the only source of the odor. There are Dr. Paul’s numerous appearances on the whacked-out conspiracy radio show hosted by 9/11 Troofer Alex Jones—and there are all those Nazis and New World Order types hanging around, who somehow, somewhere got the impression that Ron Paul was their kind of candidate.

Ron Paul Bigotry Revolution
http://pajamasmedia....

Of course, LGF had this story months ago: Ron Paul’s Old Newsletter Revealed.
http://littlegreenfo...

(Pirate’s Cove) The (very liberal) New Republic entitles their article on Ron Paul and his supposed bigotry and racist attitudes, as well as his conspiracy theory paranoia “Angry White Man“

“If you are a critic of the Bush administration, chances are that, at some point over the past six months, Ron Paul has said something that appealed to you. Paul describes himself as a libertarian, but, since his presidential campaign took off earlier this year, the Republican congressman has attracted donations and plaudits from across the ideological spectrum. Antiwar conservatives, disaffected centrists, even young liberal activists have all flocked to Paul, hailing him as a throwback to an earlier age, when politicians were less mealy-mouthed and American government was more modest in its ambitions, both at home and abroad. In The New York Times Magazine, conservative writer Christopher Caldwell gushed that Paul is a “formidable stander on constitutional principle,” while The Nation praised “his full-throated rejection of the imperial project in Iraq.” Former TNR editor Andrew Sullivan endorsed Paul for the GOP nomination, and ABC’s Jake Tapper described the candidate as “the one true straight-talker in this race.” Even The Wall Street Journal, the newspaper of the elite bankers whom Paul detests, recently advised other Republican presidential contenders not to “dismiss the passion he’s tapped.”

But, 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. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing–but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.

Read the whole thing, rather interesting and well researched article, and make your own cognitive determination.

Confederate Yankee (http://confederateya...) asks if it is curtains for Paul. You have to see the accompanying photo.

James Joyner at Outside The Beltway (http://www.outsideth...) has a particularly good breakdown of the article.

Warner Todd Huston at Stop The ACLU (http://stoptheaclu.c...) says that Paul may not believe every racist sentiment in the newsletters, but, they were published with his name on it, and believes Paul should remove himself from the race toot sweet.

Hot Air has some interesting video (http://hotair.com/ar...)

Pajamas Media (http://pajamasmedia....) has lots of quotes (plus lots of Ronulans in the comments)

See much more at Memeorandum (http://www.memeorand...)

Read: Ron Paul Explained (http://www.thepirate...)

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul’s web-bred legions (http://www.newhaveni...) made their own rules as they went on the attack against Fox News and GOP operatives (like pollster Frank Luntz, in video).

“You are ignoring America’s savior!” cried a young Ron Paul supporter in a confrontation topping a day of protests of Paul’s exclusion from a Fox presidential debate Sunday night. Paul, an antiwar and anti-taxation libertarian, has ranked third in some polls of Republican primary contenders in New Hampshire and ranked among the top fund-raisers.

Then the young Ron Paul supporter did a bong hit and caught up with what is going on at Storm Front and Loose Change.

His campaign has caught fire among disaffected outsiders acting as freelance organizers, through Internet chat rooms and meet-ups and list serves rather than through conventional party channels. In the days leading up to New Hampshire’s Jan. 8 primary, they’ve emerged from their laptops onto the streets in a boisterous, colorful and unpredictable swarm itching to battle it out with Fox News and Beltway insiders.

They’re everywhere in New Hampshire.

(AoS)
Disclaimer
—Ace
Ron Paul is claiming that a newsletter called, variously, the Ron Paul Political Report or Ron Paul Freedom Report or Ron Paul Survival Report (!), written in the first-person to suggest it's he himself writing, and published by Ron Paul & Associates, is not necessarily reflective of his views, and, indeed, was ghostwritten by others for several decades before he noticed what was being written in his name.

He admits to, at most, "moral responsibility" for not paying more careful attention to what was written his his name for over 20 years. (http://www.ronpaul20...)

Ron Paul's Newsletters, Revealed
Updated: Goods Not Quite Delivered
Updated: PJM Delivers The Goods TNR Can't?
—Ace

It's from TNR, so some caution is required. Nevertheless, either the newsletters exist or they don't, and I assume they do. TNR's giving them the most uncharitable reading possible, of course, which suits me just fine, because I happen to think the most uncharitable reading possible is probably closest to the actual intended meaning.

Here's John Gibson interview (http://homepage.mac....) with the guy who unearthed them. A preview of the coming article.

Ron Paul lives in a strange, dark, demon-haunted world. If this stuff is true -- and I assume it is -- it's about time for supposedly-sane Ron Paul boosters like the crew at Reason to admit what this man really is and what he represents. If this is "libertarianism," I want no part of it.

I actually don't believe he's a "libertarian," and I'm surprised libertarians have embraced him as such. "Libertarian" seems to be a fairly malleable term, with liberal libertines like Bill Maher and deranged Truthers like Ron Paul claiming the descriptor. What it seems to be for many is a catch-all term meaning "I'm not a real supporter of either party but I'm angry at both."

Sometimes that anger is of a rational kind -- I don't think anyone's liable to call Instapundit, or millions of other "Don't Tread On Me" small-government types nuts. But often that anger seems to be of nearly schizophrenic nature, based on fantasies about Trilateral Commissions, RaceWars, 9/11 conspiracies, and, of course, Jews with their dessicated, greedy hands on all the levers of the world machine. Some have marched under the Ron Paul banner for the first sort of reason, but it's time they took a serious look at all the other people under that banner with them, and why, precisely, that particular hive of scum and villainy have chosen Ron Paul as the vehicle by which to vent their frustrations.

There's a difference, I think -- and an important one -- between arriving at a "libertarian" position due to a belief in the power of freedom, and arriving there as a pragmatic means of keeping the Jews from stealing your gold. Sometimes "libertarianism" is merely a flag of convenience for those with bizarre or outright reprehensible ideologies to steal an air of political respectability from those actually working to make libertarianism such. Sane, honorable libertarians should recognize this parasitic tendency for what it is and flush the parasites out before they further weaken the movement.

Thanks to Hot Air, which calls the interview "devastating," but which is more cautious about the reportage's accuracy than I think necessary.

“Paul's newsletters didn't just contain bigotry. They also contained paranoia--specifically, 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."
The newsletters are chock-full of shopworn conspiracies, reflecting Paul's obsession with the "industrial-banking-political elite" and promoting his distrust of a federally regulated monetary system utilizing paper bills. They contain frequent and bristling references to the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations--organizations that conspiracy theorists have long accused of seeking world domination. In 1978, a newsletter blamed David Rockefeller, the Trilateral Commission, and "fascist-oriented, international banking and business interests" for the Panama Canal Treaty, which it called "one of the saddest events in the history of the United States." A 1988 newsletter cited a doctor who believed that AIDS was created in a World Health Organization laboratory in Fort Detrick, Maryland. In addition, Ron Paul & Associates sold a video about Waco produced by "patriotic Indiana lawyer Linda Thompson"--as one of the newsletters called her--who maintained that Waco was a conspiracy to kill ATF agents who had previously worked for President Clinton as bodyguards. As with many of the more outlandish theories the newsletters cited over the years, the video received a qualified endorsement: "I can't vouch for every single judgment by the narrator, but the film does show the depths of government perfidy, and the national police's tricks and crimes," the newsletter said, adding, "Send your check for $24.95 to our Houston office, or charge the tape to your credit card at 1-800-RON-PAUL."

From the Posts At UnReason...
—Ace

DavidS. writes (http://reason.com/bl...) and quotes this in a comment to yet another attempt by Reason to spin and minimize the sins of their shrieky, freaky Messiah.

This is not from a newsletter, but a letter to supporters (http://www.tnr.com/d...) sent out under the letterhead of 'Congressman Ron Paul' and signed by hand (probably photocopied).

“I have unmasked the plot for world government, world money, and world central banking. Planned exchange controls to hold you hostage…while the dollar drops down a hole…

I revealed the Red debt bomb set to explode in your bank account…The real, financial reasons Bush invaded Panama. The nightmare of a ‘cashless society’ (watch out for it, if they get away with the New Money)…

I’ve been told not to talk, but these stooges don’t scare me. Threats or not 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. And the Soviet-style ‘smartcard’ the Justice Department has in mind for you”.

There are eight pages of this stuff...

Doesn't it rather suggest that, if Paul has some loonies in his ranks, they are there because he asked them to join?

Just slightly, David.

Stay classy, Reason Magazine. You're a joke now.

Let me amend: You already were a joke. Now you're a sad joke that apologizes for racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia and general lunacy so long as it advances your legalize-drugs agenda.

You know when the rest of us wrote Paul off? His unapologetic, unending game of footsie with the Truthers and Alex Jones.

How come all you geniuses didn't catch wise at that point?

And by the way: Seriously, read all eight pages of this lunatic screed. Signed by Paul on his Congressional letterhead.

But it wasn't Paul writing it, of course. It was some other lunatic he paid to capture that certain Paulesque je ne se qua.

He didn't read the schizophrenic letter, with its talk of "chemical taggants" in currency designed to trip off federal sensors and instantaneously inform the government where you were and what you were buying. Nor even the book the letter was designed to sell.

He's just all about limited government. That's all. All this other crap? Someone else.

But really: Read it. It's fun. It's entertaining. It's funtertaining.

Stolen from the Jawa (http://mypetjawa.mu....) scavengers off a tip from Junkyard Blog (http://junkyardblog....).

I really don't get it. I liked George W. Bush quite a bit when I voted for him in 2000 and 2004. I did. Seriously.

I know people hold Ronald Reagan in rather high esteem.

But I have never in my life witnessed the sort of zealotry that attaches some to Ron Paul.

Can anyone explain this to me? Why have so many otherwise sane-seeming people gone completely ****** crazy over this flake?

I wasn't just tossing a cheap joke into the last post. Seriously, honestly: Let us put aside indelicate questions about Ron Paul's possible anti-semitism, racism, etc. Just let's leave that be for a moment.

Can Ron Paul's defenders please justify voting for a man who appears, based on the evidence, to be mentally unstable and haunted by a livable and low-grade, but quite real, case of paranoid schizophrenia?

If Art Bell told you he really had some great ideas about cutting the federal bureaucracy and returning to "constitutional governance," would you guys all flock to him, too?

I don't know about you all, but "not google-eyed bat**** crazy" is one of my higher-priority qualifications for a president. Yes, I realize it's not actually explicitly listed as a qualification in the Constitution, but I'm comfortable unconstitutionally imposing this test on a would-be leader nevertheless.

Blimps and Nazis and maniacs and money that tracks you and a secret cabal of all-controlling international bankers. If this weren't all too real, it might make for a neat pulp fiction story. Maybe Doc Savage and the Trilateralists of Terror.

Money that spies on you. Money. That spies on you.

I realize if someone is capable of caring for themselves, we don't usually call them insane. We call them "eccentric." But honestly, if you guys heard a homeless dude spouting this sort of over-the-moon blather would you say, "Oh yeah, Stinky Ted here makes some good points about fiat money and the fed's plan to track my every movement with their newfangled SpyBacks" or would you just avert your eyes and hope he doesn't eat somebody someday?

Why are such florid hallucinations suddenly sensible when they come from Ron -- ahem, Doctor -- Paul?

Is any of this humbuggery any less crazy than UFOs or Bigfoot or Atlantis? What's the limit here? What level of psychological, ahem, "quirks" are you willing to tolerate?

(AoS) Reason's Anemic Response To The Ron Paul Newsletters

This post is representative. It's all spin, apologetics, feigned credulity, tu quoque, and ipse dixit.

“I think Paul's prone to nutty conspiracy theories, but I don't think he's a racist, at least not today. Perhaps there was a time when he held views that I and many people reading this site would find repugnant. But I certainly don't think that's the case now”.

Oh?

As I wrote previously, there's a big difference between a real libertarian who joins the movement due to a belief in the power of freedom and someone using libertarianism as a flag of convenience to add respectability to retrograde and repugnant views. Ron Paul's positions don't indicate that he's terribly interested in freedom so much as he's interested in keeping the Jews from stealing his gold.

His goldbuggery? He's trying to keep "international bankers" (wink, wink) from "manipulating" currencies to enrich themselves at the expense of normal, patriotic people. Normal, patriotic people who spin no dreidls and do not control the media. Savvy?

His foreign policy? He just wants to keep "the Jewish lobby" -- "the most powerful lobby in America," he says -- from getting the US to fight more wars on behalf of Israel.

Oh, and he wants to stop fighting in the Middle East and stop supporting foreign countries. Let me just postulate, based on Ron Paul's long record on such issues, that he's chiefly interested in ceasing animosity with Israel's enemies and most passionate about ending support of Israel. The other countries are just added for consistency. We can see what's animating this little anti-semitic ****.

He's just "prone to nutty conspiracy theories," eh? Let me paraphrase Umberto Eco by saying There is no conspiracy theory on the planet that does not, at some point, involve the Jews.

This is rather obvious. I can count on one hand the conspiracy theories I've heard that didn't involve Jews, "international bankers," Mossad, or Golda ****** Meir at the center of the web of manipulation.

Who the **** did Reason think Ron Paul had in mind for the ultimate malefactors of the Vast International Banker Conspiracy? The Knights ****** Templar?

At the heart of every conspiracy theory is irrational hatred and scapegoating, boys. Not "Love," not even the backwards kind of love in R3VO_|ution.

Was it really up to me to alert the brain trust at Reason of this fact? You guys didn't sort of figure that out on your own?

No wonder you were so blindsided. Committed conspiracy-nut suspects International Jewry might be up to some malfeasance. Surely no one could have seen that surprise twist coming. It's like the end of The Usual Suspects, except Keyser Sose turns out to be Rabbi Moishe Lefkowitz.

Reason can take its pose of being shocked, shocked to find anti-semitism in the heart of an anti-Israel, anti-AIPAC, anti-"international banker" conspiracy nutter and stick it straight up its wannabe-hipster ***.

Most at Reason -- most; one can detect a bit of disgust in Dave Wiegel's rather brief post -- assert to us that they believe Ron Paul didn't write the newsletters. None of them. Or at least not the objectionable parts.

O RLY?

reason: What do you think of Martin Luther King?
Paul: Martin Luther King is one of my heroes because he believed in nonviolence and that's a libertarian principle. Rosa Parks is the same way. Gandhi, I admire. Because they're willing to take on the government, they were willing to take on bad laws. So I believe in civil disobedience if you understand the consequences. Martin Luther King was a great person because he did that and he changed America for the better because of that.

reason: You didn't write the derogatory things about him in the letter?

Paul: No.

At the very end of that very same newsletter:
http://www.tnr.com/d...
Yes, Paul's wife's name is indeed Carol and he does have grandchildren.

The idea that Ron Paul published this screedy, LaRouchian crap for twenty years and never once inquired into precisely what contents may lie therein is so transparently absurd I'm literally angry to read the supposed smarty-pants Poindexters at Reason attempting to spin this as plausible.

This was Ron Paul's periodic manifesto to his like-minded political brethren.

This was a newsletter that cost money to produce and disseminate, particularly if we are to believe that Lew Rockwell spent so much of his free time writing anti-semitic and racist zingers under the pen name "Ron Paul."

This most likely was the source of some amount of income for Ron Paul, as he claims he had some 100,000 subscribers at one point.

This was Ron Paul's attempt to keep in the mind of possible future voters, and donors (Ron Paul loves him some donors!), should he return to Congress (as he ultimately did).

And you are trying to sell me on the idea that Ron Paul had no idea what published in this piece of **** rag, ever?

He never once read his own newsletter? Never asked Lew Rockwell, his conspiracy-addled, Jew-hating, black-savagery-noting partner in crime (and best bud) what this month's issue might be all about?

Tell me: Did Ron Paul ever issue a missive to his supposed ghostwriter to clean up his act? Can anyone at Reason point to newsletter apologizing for the inflammatory and hateful tone of a previous issue? Is there a date certain at which point this sort of hateful language stops entirely, thus lending at least thin credence to the notion that Ron Paul didn't approve of such sentiments and stopped them the moment he got wind of them?

As no one has yet noted any of the above, I take the answer to be "No."

Here are some more apologetics:

Any time you're a fringe candidate cobbling together support from those who feel disaffected and left behind by the two-party system, you're going to end up bumping elbows with a few weirdos.
True enough, but when you're cobbling such support from Stormfront, Alex Jones' Prison Planet lunatics, Truthers, etc., perhaps you ought to step back and ask if this is the sort of coalition you're comfortable associating yourselves with. I haven't seen such a motley collection of mutants and malcontents since the Cantina sequence in Star Wars.

It wasn't Ron Paul who wrote that stuff. It was Greedo.

Oh, my apologies: Doctor Greedo.

And yeah: What is up with him keeping Don Black's money? Seems to me that, given the racist **** that appeared in his newsletter previously, he's actively courting these people and wishes not to offend them. Gotta dance with the girl that brung ya, after all.

To be fair, several Reason writers express "disappointment" or the like in Paul, and Paul's typical non-response response. And a call for him to answer "questions" about the newsletters.

But most of it is just self-serving nonsense. Reason's folks are likely embarrassed, and I can't blame them for feeling so. They were taken in hook, line and sinker by an oddball hick secessionist and confirmed Jew-hater who brought precious exposure to their quixotic quest to legalize drugs. One can forgive them, perhaps, for the initial attempts to make excuses.

Not just for Ron Paul. But for themselves and their own poor judgment.

But one can forgive them for only so long. This absurd nonsense that Ron Paul didn't approve of his own newsletters, even as he concedes he wrote much of them (just not the embarrassingly racist or anti-semitic parts, mind you!), and thus should be held blameless is embarrassing and simple apologetics for a bitter, twisted old Jew-hatin' reject from the John Birch Society.

You want to keep "the movement" alive? Fine. But reject and renounce Ron Paul himself and stop making absurd claims about his innocence.

Or else continue standing with your venomous, anti-American, conspiracy-mongering Jew-hating twat of "leader." And be counted as one of his disciples, the same sort of disciples who made sure to read The Ron Paul Survival Report back in its dubious heyday, in order to be alerted as to when "the animals" might be moving in on them.

At some point credulity becomes complicity.

PS: Stop telling me that "Doctor Paul" shows his high regard for blacks by seeking to legalize crack.

You know, I've heard some people throw their hands up about the War on Drugs too and say, resignedly, "Oh, what do I care, let them kill themselves if they want."

And when they said "them," they weren't thinking of nice white kids. They weren't thinking of helping blacks. They were thinking of "Let the blacks kill themselves off if they like, what does it have to do with my life?"

I don't mean to say that those who oppose drug laws do so out of antipathy for the most battered victims of drug addiction. But there are a lot of people who do. And based on Ron Paul's, ahem, "ghostwritten" opinions about blacks, I'm thinking he came to his position by a similar route.

Every one of "Doctor Paul's" often-absurd policy positions can be explained by the very same hatreds that the malcontent militiamen and Klansmen feel. And it's no coincidence -- no coincidence I assure you -- that such groups support Paul and also think his policies are pretty cool.

And Tucker Carlson? Your claim that Ron Paul is such a straight-from-the-lip truth-teller that he would simply announce his hatred of Jews and blacks and gays if he harbored such hatred is ****** stupid, you bow-tied buffoon. Even David Duke attempts to spin his racism and anti-semitism not as hatred but simply as "pride in the accomplishments and culture of European-Americans." Even the Ku Klux Klan itself has attempted a similar recasting of its belief.

You stupid ****. You're all so taken with yourselves with being so clever and contrarian and free-thinking you just can't admit you were punked by a half-crazy old bigot of a crank, forever nattering on about Trilateral Commissions and international bankers and Bildersbergers and the CFR and AIPAC and other front-groups for the International Zionist Conspiracy.

Oh, And As For The Convenient Scapegoat of Lew Rockwell... Errr, if Lew Rockwell is such a rotten guy with a head full of bad chemicals, why are he and Ron -- sorry, Doctor -- Paul so tight?

"Oh, I didn't write those nasty passages, of course. It was merely one of my closest and oldest political allies and personal friends. Had nothing at all to do with me, you see."

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

He's a fringe candidate whose isolationist proclivities fly in the face of reason.  Revolutions in transport, trade and communications have made this a very small world.  There is no where to run and no where to hide.  The anti-Western forces competing with us shape the world into their (ant-democratic, anti-individual rights) image will not retreat just because we do.

Reagan was smart enough to remove our troops from being easy targets for terrorists. We have lost more soldiers fighting this quagmire than were lost on 9/11. While I am not opposed to fighting them, I am opposed to destroying nations and hanging out for 10-20 years to rebuild them at a high cost of Amercian lives and trillions of tax dollars. The whole region is now AT LEAST as instable as it was before we went in, probably more considering Iraq is too weak to oppose Iran, and we can't fight Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and potentially Pakistan all at the same time..

 And lets not forget Bush's positions when debating Gore in 2000 (the year I voted for Bush):

If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that.

As far as TNR being used as a source by people here on NB, thats really funny. Next thing you know ya'll will be quoting The Huffington Post as a source.

 While I'm a Ron Paul supporter, I am not disillusioned into thinking he has the ultimate answer for everything. But he brings forth a lot of issues that no one else wants to discuss, like our fiat monetary system that is not doing so well (last time I checked the Euro was trading at roughly >1.45 which is not good. Gas is $3 a gallon in January, this summer we will likely hit $4 per gallon in many areas. We'll be dumping a few billion into ethanol subsidies which is absolutely retarded while we should be busy drilling ANWAR and sticking flags in the Artic Ocean floor like Russia is smart enough to do. We should be cutting spending tremendously so that we can reduce taxes on American citizens trememdously, an issue Republicans used to be stronger in their emphasis for.

The truth is, we have a sad crop of candidates on both sides again, but most would rather spend all their time cheering for their team rather than pointing out the obvious flaws that are harming America.

Right now, if Ron Paul is anywhere on the ballot, I'll be voting for him. If he's not, I would consider Fred Thompson, but I'm unconvinced that he's in this race to win, looks more like he's trying to get a VP or appointment position. Maybe I'm wrong and conservatives will wake up and ditch John McCain, Guiliani, Huckabee and Romney for Fred (if he really wants to be president). He's the only candidate in the race that resembles a true conservative and its sad he's polling so low.

Some more for you to "glaze" over....

A well-known American political figure (David Duke) has some Crisis Management Advice For Ron Paul. (http://perfunction.t...)

“Before I begin my suggestions for the Ron Paul Campaign, let me first say I like Ron Paul’s campaign, and I think it is good for America and the political process. Why do I think so? It is because people such as Ron Paul shake up the system, and Paul takes a lot of correct positions such as opposition to the Iraq War, opposition to foreign aid to Israel and the rest of the world, as well as having unrelenting support for the civil liberties of the American people.

How can anyone run for President of the United States and not mention the overwhelming power of the Israeli-First, Jewish extremists in American politics and media. Everyone in Washington, D.C. and in practically the entire world knows that the political fundraising process, Presidential policy and Congressional process is firmly under the control of the Zionists who are using the United States as its worldwide hitman, a role that is doing us irreparable harm. Jewish extremists are the political fundraisers and power brokers and they also dominate the mass media, the single greatest influence in politics”.

Sultan Knish (http://sultanknish.b...) has found even more of those pesky personal details on the Ronpaulian, by going through more of the documents posted online at The New Republic.

“The January 1991 newsletter (http://www.tnr.com/d...) features the author mentioning another congressman as “my successor” and talking about his experience as “a flight surgeon in the air force” and then afterward launching into another tirade about Martin Luther King. Again this is Ron Paul’s record, not someone else. The author is clearly Ron Paul.

In that same newsletter the author writes about his time running for President in 1988 on the Libertarian Party ticket. Ron Paul ran for President in 1988 on the Libertarian Party ticket. Here it is completely unambiguous that the author is Ron Paul and that he is expressing his own views about Martin Luther King.

In Feb of 1991 (http://www.tnr.com/d...) the author writes that he voted against “an expensive federal holiday for this man” referring to King. Of course Ron Paul famously voted against recognizing MLK day as a holiday”.

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

I guess I'm starting to see why a few here and there embrace this clown...he's the epitome of anti-establishment which is why it makes it so easy for them to glaze over all the other garbage....

(Aos) Ron Paul: A Speedboat Could Never Have Damaged A US Naval Warship
Ah, our good ole’ crazy uncle….guess he missed this http://usinfo.state....

Ron Paul asserted these ships could have taken care of the speedboats in "five minutes," which is odd, because he was also whining we should have jumped to start World War III by "taking care" of these speedboats at all.

Furthermore, the speedboats were allowed to approach pretty closely to our ships -- our commanders showed a lot of restraint. The point is by that point they had, due to their restraint, given up most of that "five minutes" and now had maybe fifteen more seconds to act, tops. The speedboats disengaged at that point. Had they not, our seamen would have had ten seconds to "take care" of them. Not five minutes.

He just doesn't make any sense.

Were our commanders supposed to "take care" of the speedboats in "five minutes," Dr. Paul? Or were they supposed to let them collide with our ships because "little speedboats" couldn't harm US military craft? Which? You claimed both in the span of ten seconds.

Blitzer Softablls Ron Paul; Paul Claims "Witch-Hunt"
Update: Vid Added: The Story Gets Worse

Says he's getting a lot of support from "the blacks."

I just caught the tail end of it, but Blitzer announced that the screeds sounded nothing like the Ron Paul he knew. He did not, as far as I could tell, inquire into how such frequent slurs made it into the Ron Paul Survival Report et al. over a span of decades without Ron, Doctor Ron Paul's notice.

Nor if any letter of complaint had ever been received.

Nor if Ron Paul had fired or had a stern talking to the supposed "ghostwriter."

Nor if Ron Paul ever bothered to scan the contents of a newsletter he was deriving solid income from.

Etc.

CNN has been more critical of the Mormon Church's old bigoted views than words typed on Ron Paul's own newsletter.

The media loves propping up freaks that discredit the Republican Party.

More personal details, apparently coming straight from Ron Paul, pop up in the newsletters he didn't even read, let alone write. (http://littlegreenfo...)

Ron Paul is not only claiming he didn't write the newsletters, but that he 1) doesn't know who did and 2) can't even find out by checking records and checks.
http://hotair.com/ar...

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"