Tag Archives: Andrew Sullivan

The Non-Vindication of Ron Paul on MLK’s Birthday

This is a short follow-up to posts by Messrs. Ta-Nehisi Coates and Andrew Sullivan on Paul’s votes for a federal holiday.

Mr. Coates excellent detective work is here, MLK Day Fact Check, making clear that Paul’s votes for both the 1979 and 1983 bill were nays.

I think Mr. Coates work here is thorough and without need of addendum; there is only one loose thread left dangling which I wish to sew up.

From the linked post:

Paul’s supporters link to his Yea vote on this 1979 bill as evidence that he supported an MLK Holiday:


But this actually isn’t the bill for the holiday. The text doesn’t even claim that. More importantly, the date is wrong. This vote was taken on December 5, 1979. The vote for the King holiday was actually taken on November 13, 1979:

The bill was called up in the House on Tuesday, November 13, 1979…When the final vote was taken, 252 Members voted for the bill and 133 against–five votes short of the two-thirds needed for passage.

Andrew Sullivan follows up this post with Ron Paul, Chuck Todd, And Fact Checking, bringing up the HR 5461 amendment:

There’s this piece of evidence that seems to vindicate Paul. But it’s merely about when to recognize the holiday, not whether to, so far as I can tell.

I cannot emphasize this more strongly: Ron Paul’s vote does not indicate his support for the holiday, or ambivalence about the holiday but his passionate opposition to it.

The amendment was not simply to change the date of the holiday, but to make sure that the national holiday was always, NO MATTER WHAT THE DATE, held on Sunday. It’s this amendment that defeats the MLK birthday measure.

Here are two newspapers on the event at the time. From The Pitsburgh Post-Gazette December 6 1979:

House Rejects King Holiday
New York Times News Service

WASHINGTON – As Martin Luther King’s widow watched glumly from the galleries, the House of Representatives yesterday gutted a bill to make King’s birthday a national holiday.

The bill, which only two weeks ago had come close to receiving a two-thirds vote in the House, was then withdrawn from further consideration, at the behest of the congressional black caucus.

Republicans and Southerners joined forces to support a key amendment that provided that the slain civil rights leader’s birthday be celebrated on a Sunday.

The amendment was approved 207-191. With few exceptions, the 3-hour debate focused on the economics of creating an additional holiday.

The article at the Connecticut Morning Record and Journal, “Blacks Blame Carter For King Holiday Failure”, repeats the same news. An appropriate excerpt:

Instead of a national holiday honoring King, the House passed an amendment to make the holiday always fall on Sunday.

Sponsors considered that unacceptable and withdrew the bill.

I think this should end Paul’s supposed vindication over this.

Tagged , , ,

Five Refutations of Andrew Sullivan And A Puzzling Daily Dish Reader

I gave praise to Mr. Sullivan yesterday for retracting his Ron Paul endorsement. That he did so took courage, for no one wants to admit they may be wrong, and because he shares some key principles with the man, such as an end to extravagant military excursions and prison for drug possession. I do not make these refutations to pick a fight, but because I think any defenses or points in favor of Paul should be responded to. I think there is a dangerous aspect to Paul that is not there in say, Rick Santorum, not because some of the policy ideas he and Mr. Sullivan share are poor or destructive, but because some of them are very good, which causes advocates to ignore all other aspects of the man’s character and policy because of the quality of some proposals.

I see Paul as a sort of strange twin to George W. Bush. While Paul is portrayed as a stark contrast to Bush in foreign policy and domestic spending, the same impulsive, impatient broad statements and ideas, unqualified by in-depth analysis or examination is there in Paul’s writings (with the newsletters, in terms of writing style and ideas, they fit in very well with), the same stubborn, superficial approach is there in Paul as it was in Bush. This is the case in Paul, whether it be his economic ideas, his Trilateralist ravings, or his theory that FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to take place to further his own ambitions. Before, An Epic Grand Overseas Adventure and Faith Based Initiatives were great ideas, a refreshing contrast to the debauched and ambitionless Clinton years, that were to be embraced, never mind the details. Now, A Gold Standard, A Razing of All Programs Home And Abroad, An End To The Fed are great ideas that are to be endorsed, never mind the details.

A small note: a decade ago, Bush also presented himself as a humble, consistent, plain-spoken man from small-town america, a fine contrast to the know-it-all elites.

The following appeared in Mr. Sullivan’s blog over the past week.

Ron Paul, “Bigot”

A video that attempts to present an image of Paul counter to that of the one in the newsletters.

A man arrives at a hospital with his pregnant wife who needs medical care. They do not receive it because of their race. The police are called, but Ron Paul suddenly appears and delivers the baby, though it’s still-born.

I find it strange that Mr. Sullivan, and others, seem to think those who are occasionally malicious, callous, or cruel towards someone because of their race are old-time Hollywood villains who twirl their mustaches while cackling of their evil plans, tossing babies onto railroad tracks and running down women. History is filled with those of one skin color who’ve been very genial with people of another skin color, and who will also be fine with occasionally hurting some by selling them substandard housing or medicine, because they are a lesser kind of people, or maybe just because they have less ability to resort to the law, the police, and power overall, for help.

Let us be clear what Paul, a champion of accountability is being praised for in this commercial: doing his job. To quote Chris Rock, “Do you want a fucking cookie?” Had he not done so, and there was the same accountability expected of doctors for all patients, he would be fired, if not sued for negligence.

Were Paul President, and the ideas he has championed in the past were implemented, I assume we would have entirely private hospitals. Those private hospitals could legally, again, consistent with Paul’s explicitly stated beliefs – not those still under question in his newsletters, but in Freedom Under Siege – refuse treatment for this black couple, on the grounds of their race, or whatever grounds they wanted.

The ad ends with this voice-over:

He’s just an honest man, which is something we need in this day and time. There’s a lot of politics and no honesty. When you have honesty, people will do anything to blot you out. And that’s what people will try to do with him, is blot him out. Because he will be honest.

So, when publications that Paul profited from are brought up, which contain instructions on how to kill a black man and get away with it, which Paul has freely admitted to being involved in, then later denied it, and now refuses to even answer any questions on, those who brought up the material will be chastised for persecuting him for his honesty.

The Gays Are Not So Upset

Weigel wonders why the homophobia in the newsletters hasn’t gotten much attention. Wise words from Dan Savage:

There is no comparing Paul and Santorum, said Savage, because Paul is a leave-us-alone libertarian. “Ron is older than my father, far less toxic than Santorum, and, as he isn’t beloved of religious conservatives, he isn’t out there stoking the hatreds of our social and political enemies,” he explained. “And Ron may not like gay people, and may not want to hang out with us or use our toilets, but he’s content to leave us the fuck alone and recognizes that gay citizens are entitled to the same rights as all other citizens. Santorum, on the other hand, believes that his bigotry must be given the force of law. That’s an important difference.”

Agreed. The attempt by the left and the neocon right to make Paul out to be the real bigot in this race is gob-smacking. Maybe one reason the gays are not so upset is because they have a better idea of what is threatening to them than Dave Weigel. (The exception is Jamie Kirchick, but he is as motivated by Israeli issues as gay ones).

I’ve been busy this year, so I may have missed the election of Dan Savage to the position of President Of All Homosexuals. I don’t think Savage has ever made the claim, nor would he, to speak for all gay men and women, though that appears to be the position given him here. I read Savage stating his opinion, and only his opinion, in the Weigel piece, with no dissenting or supporting opinions of other gay men and women. That they are entirely in accord with Savage is an assumption that Mr. Sullivan makes, and which I do not.

I’m critical of Ron Paul because publishing such things as an article about how to kill a black man and get away with it disgusts me. I do not assign him a role as the real bigot, as if this were a final place in a reality show contest, but rather, think it’s the simple obvious duty of skeptical thinkers to point out such things as this man’s profiting from racial paranoia, his encouragement of the quarantine of those with HIV and AIDS, and his support for the removal of legal protections that might prevent those with HIV or AIDS from being fired simply because they had the disease. I point these things out because of my belief in their inherent importance and a skeptical approach to all politicians, not from some larger goal to select Mitt Romney over Paul, and not because I’m an agent for Mossad.

The Newsletters Issue Bombs In Iowa

In the week since the scandal emerged, Paul’s favorable numbers among Democrats have gone from 59 to 70 percent, and stayed pretty much the same among Republicans and Democrats. So Kirchick’s story and our blogospheric debates seem have had one major impact: bolstering Paul’s support from the center-left.

Mr. Sullivan finds a causality here which escapes me. When two events take place in the same week, I think it remains an open question, absent linking evidence, that one is connected with the other.

Here is a possibility: Iowa is a state that has suffered greatly in the past decade with stagnating or declining wages, and many of their best men and women wounded or dead in poorly led overseas wars. They are looking for someone like them, who feels like they are, an outsider distant from power. The newsletters will be ignored, just as Pat Buchanan’s past vileness was ignored in 1996, because they dealt with people outside of Iowa life and culture. Had the newsletters featured the same vile content about christians as they had about blacks, gays, and jews, Paul’s campaign would be over.

“Dr Paul is consistent and honest, which is very hard to find.”

Quote of the Day

“I voted for Obama in 2008 but we need a change. Dr Paul is consistent and honest, which is very hard to find. He is not just telling us what we have heard before,” – Samantha Dunn, a 28-year-old teacher in Iowa, to the Daily Telegraph.

It would seem Rick Santorum, one of the more loathsome creatures of this earth, is consistent and honest as well. He would also, no doubt, be a change from the current administration. Pat Buchanan, supported by Paul in 1992, and very successful in Iowa in 1996, very much fits the bill as well.

This quote is just that, an excerpt, so there may be fuller thoughts behind it, but what’s striking is that it places agency entirely with the candidate rather than the voter. This song right now is boring, hopefully this next one will be better. This is when the phrase, occasionally used, “the Ron Paul cult” fits because in a cult you are entirely beholden to a leader, freed from having your own thoughts and demands. Mr. Sullivan finds hope in the above statement, I do not.

Engagement in democracy does not mean simply evaluating the personal traits of potential leaders, then blindly following and defending them, but having a set of well-thought out demands, asking that of one’s leaders, and doing everything possible to implement those reforms. The president should be an instrument of the people, of those ideas, rather than one in a series of magicians who’ll entertain until the children get bored. If you do not have such an active population, then I think you have the possibility of a dangerous reactionary, whether Paul or someone else, taking power in these very difficult times.

Sorry, he’s a libertarian.

Dan Savage runs a letter from a reader pushing back against his tolerance of Paul’s record on gays:

Ron Paul does not advocate for leaving gays alone. He simply advocates for the states to be able to oppress them instead of Washington. Take, for example, this 2003 article. Paul decries the Supreme Court’s Lawrence v Texas decision that eliminated state sodomy laws:

“Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment ‘right to privacy.’ Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights—rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.”

Essentially, Paul has no interest in leaving anybody alone. He only wants to get rid of one government scared into submission by oppressive douchebags and replace it with 50 governments scared into submission by oppressive douchebags. That’s not really any better, and I think you may have missed that in your statement to Dave Weigel.

All this is true. Paul really is a federalist in the extreme sense, and he would give states and their courts the power to decide issues such as these. Of course, that also means that those states, like Massachusetts or Iowa or New York, can advance gay equality in a more organic, less top-down way – and Paul, unlike his colleagues, does not back a federal marriage amendment to prevent them. And note that Paul finds anti-sodomy laws “ridiculous”.

Sorry to break the news, but he’s a libertarian.

Lawrence v. Texas involved a group of police entering a house on the grounds that there was a weapons disturbance, who instead came across two men engaged in sex. The two men were arrested for violation of Texas sodomy laws.

The key sentences of Paul’s objection:

The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution.

My bolds. Here is Paul, in his book, Freedom Under Siege:

Privacy is one of the most sacred elements of a free society. It is now common to pass laws which routinely violate the Constitutional guarantee that our homes and persons are not to be invaded by government agents.

Sorry to break the news, but if he’s a libertarian, he’s an awfully inconsistent one.


A Puzzling Daily Dish Reader

A reader writes in to Andrew Sullivan’s blog about the newsletters:

I think Massie’s argument is crap. The reason people are ignoring the 30 year old newsletters written by other people is because they are 30 year old newsletters written by other people.

People don’t care about these things, because they hear Ron Paul talk and they get the message. They get the idea, and they even get that the guy is “just” the carrier of the idea, and not a Newt-aggrandizing ego-maniac. These are very attractive qualities. And his positions – particularly his dedicated anti-war position, in the context of the Obama betrayals – are extremely appealing to huge swathes of the country.

I wouldn’t allow myself to actually think he was a contender until recently. But look at the field.

Here’s the part of the letter that I find puzzling.

Look at the international situation. Look at Iraq. Look at minorities. Look at the economy. If “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” as B.O. suggested in one of his hollowest campaign speeches, then isn’t Paul the one to give us back to ourselves? Who is left?

I really don’t understand how the bolded item fits with the others. The others would all be threats and problems outside of ourselves, which need to be fixed or abandoned. When I think of “minorities” in the current economic climate, I think of certain racial groups that are suffering even more because of crisises in poverty, housing, and education. They are fellow citizens, too many of whom are facing an even greater plight than many of us. I would think of them being part of a list that would include fellow citizens who are all suffering, such as children, students, the elderly, low wage workers, etc., and I think I would try to come up with a less general label than “minorities”.

The only way “Look at minorities” fits the rest of that section is if…I look at them as a threat or a problem outside of myself. Now who might possibly perceive them that way? Just think about that for a minute. I’m curious if Mr. Sullivan noticed that same strange incongruity.

Tagged , ,

A Thank You To Andrew Sullivan

For his brave retraction. I am on-line only a brief period each day, so I am late to this.

If Paul did not write these newsletters, then he has an obligation to say if he knew who did, or conduct an investigation. He has had years to do this, and hasn’t. And here’s what you’ve persuaded me of in the last few days: a person who has that kind of bigotry directly printed under his name without a clear empirical explanation of why he is innocent cannot be an honorable president of the United States. The hatred of groups of people in those letters – however gussied up by shards of legitimate arguments – is too deep and vile to be attached to a leader of the entire country. It is far too divisive. The appearance of things matters; and until Paul explains why this appears so horrible, he cannot shrug off the burden of proof.

Tagged ,

Ron Paul Paper Trail – The Newsletters

(Since its initial posting, this post has been edited for reasons of style and to add additional newsletter links; the edit with regards to the MLK votes is due to information taken from this post by Mr. Ta-Nehisi Coates.)

For a while, I’ve wanted to look in-depth at presidential candidate Ron Paul’s old newsletters. These were a series of newsletters he published on a monthly basis from 1978 on. It was James Kirchick in the New Republic, who did the seminal work on this subject in “Angry White Man” pointing out the often virulent content, with bile tossed at many, including gays, jews, as well as most viciously, black men and women

I am grateful for Mr. Kirchick’s hard work in this area, without which the my next few postings here would not be possible. His efforts are a marked contrast to what appears to be a rather surprising lack of curiousity in this area.

Andrew Sullivan wrote in response to Mr. Kirchick’s article,

It’s up to Ron Paul now to clearly explain and disown these ugly, vile, despicable tracts from the past.

Paul may have eventually disowned what have said; however, in Sullivan’s overview of his reactions to the Paul newsletters, I find no links to anything concerning a Paul explanation. Whether a credible explanation was ever given I am uncertain. Mr. Sullivan endorsed Paul last week as Republican candidate. Dave Weigel, who along with Julian Sanchez, looked into the newsletters in an article for Reason magazine wrote last week:

After Kirchick’s piece came out, Julian Sanchez and I reported a story for Reason about how exactly this stuff appeared under Paul’s name. It’s too long to excerpt, but the gist was that Paul allowed some employees to engage in white populist grunt-speech that, it would later turn out, paleolibertarianism could thrive without. Paul said he had no idea who wrote the letters, which wasn’t very credible, but my sense was that he really didn’t harbor the sorts of thoughts that appeared in the letter.

That what was written only appeared under Paul’s name, and that it cannot be him because it does not sound like him, was made by Mr. Sullivan as well in his initial response to the newsletters: “I’ve listened to him speak a great deal these past few months and either he has had a personality transplant or he didn’t write this.” I find this attitude perhaps a little too trusting of those who cover politics. We all contain multitudes, and a politician gets votes and finances by containing as many plausible multitudes as possible. A constant refrain in domestic life is a father’s “That doesn’t sound like my daughter at all!” This statement is often considered an example of misplaced faith.

In the piece by Weigel and Sanchez, blame appears to fall on Lew Rockwell, a close friend of Paul’s, as well as his ghost-writer, who supposedly wrote much of the copy.

[Lew] Rockwell has denied responsibility for the newsletters’ contents to The New Republic’s Jamie Kirchick. Rockwell twice declined to discuss the matter with reason, maintaining this week that he had “nothing to say.” He has characterized discussion of the newsletters as “hysterical smears aimed at political enemies” of The New Republic. Paul himself called the controversy “old news” and “ancient history” when we reached him last week, and he has not responded to further request for comment.

But a source close to the Paul presidential campaign told reason that Rockwell authored much of the content of the Political Report and Survival Report. “If Rockwell had any honor he’d come out and I say, ‘I wrote this stuff,'” said the source, who asked not to be named because Paul remains friendly with Rockwell and is reluctant to assign responsibility for the letters. “He should have done it 10 years ago.”

An excellent skeptical piece by Matt Welch questions whether the views expressed in the newsletter are as alien to him as later stated. During a 1996 campaign, Paul took full ownership of the comments expressed and defended them, after his rival accused him of race baiting.

Quoted from the Dallas Morning News in the Welch article:

According to a Dallas Morning News review of documents circulating among Texas Democrats, Dr. Paul wrote in a 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report: “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.”

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. […]

“If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man’s character, what kind of a world do you live in?” Dr. Paul asked.

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

“If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.

Paul believes that citizens should be able to make sound decisions based on information available. So do I. When reading the thankfully blunt “Ron Paul Is a Huge Racist” by John Chait, a reader might have the mild frustration of wanting to read the articles in full to make their own judgements.In order that some of the more controversial articles in his newsletter get a fuller dissemination, I’ve transcribed them from the pdfs that Mr. Kirchick has collected. I have done transcripts as thorough as possible, even if that includes articles that cut off during the pdf, so there can be no accusation of selective editing. Mis-spellings are my own; spelling or grammar mistakes I noticed in the text are identified with a [sic].

There is a note about these pieces that I find strange, which neither Mr. Sullivan or Mr. Weigel mentions. Though the articles are unsigned, there are a large number where the article writer gives identifying details that are Paul’s. These details show up even in some of the most noxious articles. In “A Hero Honors Heroes”, the writer praises Pete McCloskey, who he refers to as his “former colleague in the house”. An article in the Ron Paul Political Report November 1992 (the article beginning and title are cut off) describing the writer’s anti-abortion anti-euthanasia has a reference to being invited to speak at a medical center. A mention of “my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas” in “Blast ’em”, which was Paul’s residence at the time. “Dan Rather Explained”, the writer refers to himself as a physician. “Flown the Koop”, has the line “I don’t smoke, and as a doctor, wish no one else would”. “Congressional Courage” has the writer opening with “My old colleague, Congressman Bill Dannemeyer”. In “Private Quayle”, the writer refers to himself as a “former Air Force flight surgeon”. In “The Coming Race War”, the writer speaks of voting as a congressman against the Martin Luther King holiday. “Blackmail or Benevolence?”, the writer refers to himself as a congressman. “Seizing Property at Gunpoint” the writer writes of his congressional opposition to the Comprehensive Crime Control bill. “The Government Temptation”, begins with “My youngest son is starting his fourth year in medical school”; this would match with Robert Paul, Ron Paul’s youngest son, currently a family practice physician. In “AIDSomania”, there is the mention “my former church, the Episcopal”; Paul left the Episcopal church over abortion and other issues. Rockwell, according to his wiki bio is Roman Catholic.

A side note: as previously mentioned, in “The Coming Race War”, the writer brags of his opposition to the Martin Luther King holiday; in this interview with Wolf Blitzer, Paul claims King, along with Rosa Parks and Gandhi as his heroes. The votes on the various King holiday proposals were voice votes, and I’m unsure how I could track down how Paul voted at the time. However, I will point out that he was not a sponsor of H.R.15 (96th Congress), the first, unsuccessful, attempt to have King`s birthday made a holiday, nor was he of H.R.800 (98th Congress), the successful one. The first had 118 co-sponsors, the second 176 co-sponsors, many from Texas, though all the Texan sponsors both times were Democrats. I mention this as I had some curiosity on the issue because of the contrast in sentiments between “The Coming Race War” and the Blitzer interview.

Edited to add: the eventual bill in 1979 that was voted on was H.R.5461; Paul voted no. The eventual bill in 1983 that was voted on was H.R. 3706; Paul voted no. A further footnote on this vote is here.

So, if this not Paul, we have a case of a writer or writers who not only write for Paul’s publication, not only as possible representatives of Paul, but as Paul. If Rockwell is performing the traditional duties of a ghostwriter, he is not coming up with thoughts out of whole cloth, but taking the insights and ideas of another, and transforming it into an article – I don`t see that as an exculpation of Paul.

On a purely subjective level, I do not ever sense a stylistic transition when going from Paul’s political solicitations where it is assumed to be him writing in the first person, his 1984 Senate fundraising letter and his “Join Me For The Battle For America”, a newsletter piece published prior to his 1996 run for Congress – to the unsigned pieces, including the most toxic ones. This, I should emphasize, is entirely subjective – and this may be the type of political writing itself that causes individual stylistic differences to diminish. I sometimes group writers broadly into two categories – those who use exclamation marks, and those who don’t. The writer of almost all the pieces falls into the former category.

I list first possible interesting highlights from the transcripts, then links to the transcripts themselves.

The New York Bombing

Raises the possibility that the 1993 WTC bombing was a Mossad plot.


Gangs of black girls try to infect white women with syringes filled with AIDS.

Congressional Courage

My old colleague, Congressman Bill Dannemeyer (R-CA), speaks out fearlessly despite the organized power of the gay lobby. He has become the target of violent attacks whenever he speaks, and he has even been advised to wear a bulletproof vest. Want to see why? Here are some excerpts from one of his recent speeches:

AIDS was “originally known as GRIDS–gay related immune deficiency syndrome.” For political reasons it was changed to AIDS. “A whole political movement has been created and sustained on a single notion: homosexual sodomy.”

“I can also point to a U.S. Postal Service cancellation celebrating civil disobedience at a homosexual bar back in 1969. Or to the $15 million federal sex study to be interpreted by a homophile who approved of pedophilia. “Or how about the $500,000 used by the National Research Council to instruct the clergy, who believe homosexuality is a sin, to change their views.” Or the Defense Department study that says homosexuals make better soldiers. Or the HHS report that tells us “society is to blame for the (suicides) of kids who have been led into the pit of homosexual despair.”

“It is extremely hard not to be cynical about a government that would sponsor such anti-social proposals,” says Dannemeyer. We are “not taling about a political philosophy. We are talking about sodomy.”

Washington, D.C.: A Black Thing?

The racism faced by whites from blacks in Washington, D.C.

Flown The Koop

Argues against higher spending on AIDS research, the integration of children with AIDS with those without, doctors who refuse to operate on AIDS patients, and the influence of the organized gay movement.

The Coming Race War

A title, like Snakes On A Plane that gives it all away. Refers to Martin Luther King’s birthday as “Hate Whitey Day”.


According to the piece, shouldn’t it be “Sodomy = Death”, instead of “Silence = Death”?

Presidential Politics

Paul endorses Pat Buchanan for president.

The Disappearing White Majority

Snakes On A Plane Part II

The Salman Rushdie Affair

Compares the case of Salman Rushdie with holocaust denier Ernst Zundel.

Radicals as Media Distractions

Compares media treatment of David Duke, skinheads, and Oliver North.

Blast ‘Em?

The threat of urban youth and their hip-hop things, which involve trying to rob and kill the reader. Advice on how the reader can kill in self-defense without it being traced to him.

Spaasky vs. Who?

Negative coverage of Bobby Fischer is blamed on his politically incorrect opinions on jews. At the time that this was written, Fischer had denied the holocaust had taken place.

A Hero Honors Heroes

Controversy over a library dedicated to the USS Liberty, a ship bombed by Israeli planes.

Just Another Day’s Work for David Rockefeller

The Trilateral Commission.


Chicago riot following the Bulls victory.

Sister Souljah

Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton, and the Sister Souljah controversy.

The Racial Racket

The ways in which the financial system is undermined by black men and women with poor credit.

Real Racial Discrimination

A one line piece on the on-going legal harassment of advertising that features only white people.

Avoiding AIDS

Researchers also admitted that they had been lying about the incidence of heterosexual AIDS to increase funding for homosexual programs.

Those who don’t commit sodomy, who don’t get a blood transfusion, and who don’t swap needles, are virtually assured of not getting AIDS unless they are deliberately infected by a malicious gay, as was Kimberly Bergalis.

More Haitians?

If there is one thing we don’t need in this country, its more Haitians immigrants [sic] with AIDS.

You Can’t Fire A Freak

Say you hire a man to work for you, but then he begins dressing like a woman.

AIDS: Something Else We Can Thank Government For?

William Douglass believes that AIDS was produced as part of experiments by the World Health Organization at Fort Detrick.

“I have always said,” notes Dr. Douglass, “and our forefathers told us this, that the greatest threat to the people is always government. Not foreign governments, but our own government.”

Tax Rebels

A recent story tells of how the I.R.S., in capturing a tax rebel, attacked his residence with a U.S. Army tank and finally burned him to death without a serious attempt at capturing him. Government officials shot to death a man who was determined to provide education in his home and not send his children to public school.

Waco, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City, Foster

In light of Ruby Ridge and Waco, it’s hard to take too seriously Clinton’s and Reno’s moral indignation about the deaths of innocent people in the Oklahoma City bombing. At the very best, it represents the height of hypocrisy. It may even mean that they care intensely about the deaths of government employees but not that much about American citizens.

Were there, as some people now say, two bombs that went off in the building? And might the government have the wrong man? Who doubts the possibility that the government – which lied about Waco and Rudy Ridge – may also be covering up true information and planting false information about the Oklahoma bombing?

Indeed, the government’s explanation of the bombing can’t possibly be true. In a courageous cover story, The New American did a complete round-up of the theories we’ve heard for months to the effect one bomb could not have done that much damage in that particular configuration, especially not to a building that was built to be bomb-proof.

Black Helicopters?

Are foreign troops being stationed on American soil? In a manner of speaking. There may not be any black helicopters flying around representing the U.N., but foreign troops have been drilling in various states for more than a year, and many people are rightly up in arms about it.

Even Ted Koppel reported on foreign troops at Fort Polk in Louisiana. This is clearly not run-of-the-mill “reporting.” Koppel’s program dealt in depth with the May Nato and Russian satellite countries training for joint police and “peace keeping” efforts – supposedly in the Middle East or the old Soviet Union.

The intended purpose of the program was to assure the public that this sort of unconstitutional activitiy is “vital for peace” and not an attempt – as it clearly is – to undermine national sovereignty. The Washington Post followed up by ridiculing any criticism of the operation as coming from paranoid militias. The paper said: “Some may have heard rumors that Fort Polk is under U.N. Command or part of some One World Order plot. It’s not true!”

“The Pink House?”

I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any coincidence that the AIDS epidemic developed after they came “out of the closet,” and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy? I don’t believe so, medically or morally.

As I have said before, DO NOT–unless your life literally depends on it–get a transfusion unless you have donated the blood in advance, or it comes from friends and family members you can trust.

King City?

A mob of black demonstrators, led by the “Rev.” Al Sharpton, occupied and closed the Statue of Liberty recently, demanding that New York be renamed Martin Luther King City “to reclaim it for our people.”

Hmmm, I hate to agree with the Rev. Al, but maybe a name change is in order. Welfaria? Zooville? Rapetown? Dirtburg? Lazyopolis?

The Duke’s Victory

An article praising former KKK head David Duke.

David Duke received 44% of the vote in the Senate primary race. In Louisiana, 60% of the white vote, and 9% of the black vote! This totaled 100,000 more votes than the current governor when he won.

Unnamed article on survivalist skills.

Don’t keep all your eggs in one basket. If you have more than one rifle, store it in a hideaway spot.

The ADL Gets Off Scot Free

On the ADL. The last sentence is the most interesting.

Evidence indicated the ADL monitored such groups as the Davidians in Waco, and may have helped instigate the attack.

AIDS Dementia

If you heard a certain behavior of yours caused a deadly disease, wouldn’t you immediately cease and desist? Well, gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense. They have stopped practicing “safe sex.”

Family Values on Pennsylvania Avenue

Doug Weed, assistant to the president for conservative liaison, was fired when he protested the White House invitation to gay leaders–the first in history–to watch the signing of the infamous Hate Crimes bill. Rumor has it that Weed also got in trouble for protesting, according to the Washington Times, an all-powerful “homosexual troika at the White House.”

Join Me For The Battle For America

Welfarism is coming to an end, thanks to the impending American bankruptcy, and we need someone to tell us, in a clear and consistent voice, that the only alternative worth considering is liberty. No more freeloading!

We must also battle the Establishment forces that would use the coming chaos to establish a fascist state and a one-world government. We are Americans first, last, and always. We should get out of the corrupt UN, the World Bank, the IMF, Nafta, and the World Trade Organization. And that’s just the beginning.

So much hangs in the balance. Join with me to stand up for liberty, hard money, the Constitution, and the American people against the foreignists, statists, and corruptionists who have betrayed our republic.

The Ron Paul Strategy Report – How To Protect Yourself From Urban Violence by James B Powell

I include this article because it makes for an interesting contrast with the other pieces in the newsletter. Though it covers many of the same themes – financial collapse, social collapse, self-defense, etc – the writing is very different, making clear that the subject matter does not necessarily create a seamless style – that, for instance, James B Powell, unless through conscious effort to change the writing style shown here, could be one of the writers of the newsletter articles.

Among the differences between this piece and those in the rest of the newsletter – it never uses the first-person “I”, only “we” (“We are convinced that the 1992 riots”). It does not use “you” except in for instructional purpose – “You must begin your preparations…” The other articles employ “you” for the rhetorical purpose of creating a bond between writer and reader, such as “If you live in a major city, you’ve probably already heard…” in “Blast ‘Em?” or “Say you hire a man to work for you…” in “You Can’t Fire A Freak”. No exclamation marks here. There’s a stronger use of physical description, sometimes going in narrative (“Hour after hour, vehicles filled with thugs armed with guns”), than any of the other articles I’ve read. The language goes beyond the functional of the other pieces – arms are “brandished”, a 3/4 ton Chevy Suburban will “serve magnificently”. The piece ends with a reference to America and Exodus, “the land overshadowed with wings”. There is the possibility that the writer here is more widely read than the writer(s) of the other articles, and enjoys the sonority of language. I make these points to show the disjunction of style that might show up, even when writing on such a subject matter, when you have different writers working on the material of a newsletter. Subjectively, I don’t hear this disjunction when I read the articles in the newsletter.

The newsletter transcripts here. All article titles are listed. Some articles cut off. A link to that newsletter’s source pdf can be found at the bottom of each newsletter page.

Ron Paul Freedom Report April 1978 – devoted entirely to the handover of the Panama Canal

Ron Paul Survival Report August 1983 – Big Government Serves the Power Seekers, Not Freedom / Big Government Threatens Our Health and Freedom / Big Government Causes Massive International Debt and War

Senate Fundraising Letter 1984

Ron Paul Report January 1988 – AIDS: Something Else We Can Thank Government For? / Bush or Weed?

Ron Paul Political Report September 1988 – Just Another Day’s Work for David Rockefeller / Private Quayle / The Last Temptation of Christ

Ron Paul Political Report April 1989 – Salman Rushdie Affair / Radicals As Media Distractions

Ron Paul Political Report November 1989 – The Establishment at Play / A Hero Honors Heroes / Sex on George Bush’s Locker

Ron Paul Political Report December 1989 – “Needlin'” / The District of Bogata, Columbia / Schultz Speaks the Truth, for Once / Run, Jesse, Run / Hurrah for Secession! / A Black Eye for Washington? / Congressional Courage / Washington, D.C.: A Black Thing? / Poor Jim Bakker / The Pension Fund Bail-Out / Flown the Koop

Ron Paul Political Report January 1990 – AIDSomania / Dan Rather Explained

Unknown Publication February 1990 – Religion in the Post-Communist Era / The Coming Race War

Ron Paul Political Report June 1990 – Race War? / Black Robed Justice / The Abolition of Private Property / The Pink House? / Private Justice in New York

Ron Paul Political Report October 1990 – King City? / Hate Crime? / Family Values on Pennsylvania Avenue / Caring for the AIDS Patient

Ron Paul Political Report November 1990 – Jews and Christians Against a Mideast War / The Duke’s Victory / More Federal Spying / Kempocrisy / U.N. Tyranny

Ron Paul Political Report January 1992 – Presidential Politics: Patrick Buchanan Endorsement / Six Questions

Ron Paul Political Report June 1992 – A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism / This is America, 1992

Ron Paul Political Report July 1992 – Encore / Sister Souljah / Liberation or Slavery? / The Government Temptation / Panama’s Gratitude / The Racial Racket / Real Racial Discrimination / Foreign Buyout?

Ron Paul Political Report October 1992 – Blast ‘Em? / Weld’s Rise And Fall / Straws in the Wind

Ron Paul Political Report November 1992 – Condoms? / Spaasky vs. Who? / Left-Wing Takeover / Willie Horton’s President / Seizing Property at Gunpoint

Ron Paul Survival Report January 1993 – untitled excerpt where he calls Commerce Secretary Ron Brown a racial victimologist / Gold and South Africa / The Somalian Question / Another Theory on Somalia / Federal Kidnapping Undone / The Norplant “Solution” / A Real Rocky Mountain High / Poor Marge Schott! / The Costs of Equality / Clinton’s School Choice / The Donald Scott Case / People Prefer Their Own / A Cashless Test / Gays and the Military / Equal Opportunity / The Future of Pensions / Economic Notes / The Disappearing White Majority / Ronald Reagan’s Contemptible Speech

Ron Paul Survival Report March 1993 – Clinton’s Illegitimate Children / Clinton’s Sacrificial Altar / Trouble at Treasury / Price Controls / More Haitians? / You Can’t Fire a Freak / Harry Schultz on the Strategy Report

Ron Paul Survival Report April 1993 – The New York Bombing / Rush To Gold / What is Income?

Ron Paul Political Report January 1994 – The ADL Gets Off Scot Free / AIDS Dementia / The CFR

Ron Paul Survival Report September 1994 – Chastity, Not Condoms / Avoiding AIDS / Using Gold During Chaos

Ron Paul Survival Report January 1995 – Ten Militia Commandments / Bearish on the Precious Metals? / A Resurrected Ecu?

Ron Paul Survival Report May 1995 – Join Me in the Battle For America / More Bailouts Ahead

Ron Paul Survival Report September 1995 – Black Helicopters? / No Trespassing / Phony Train Wreck

Ron Paul Survival Report May 1996 – Why He Traveled / Up and Up / Funny Money

POSTSCRIPT (19/08/2014): Originally, the transcripts of these newsletters linked to an archive at the New Republic. That archive no longer appears to be in existence; transcripts now link to various scan archives on the web, such as @RP_Newsletter, a blog devoted entirely to scans of the newsletters, and Et tu, Mr. Destructo?, “Game Over: Scans of Over 50 Ron Paul Newsletters”.

On October 6, 2014, a link was added to new material for the September 1995 newsletter about the allegation that the Oklahoma City bombing was a government conspiracy.

Tagged , , ,