Ron Paul: I voted to be a racist before I voted against it

Ouch! The news that isn’t..

Ron Paul (whom us Zionists already knew hated our guts) has now left an ugly 10 year long trail of bigotry, anti-semitism and hatred in his Presidential wake. Newsletters bearing his name, signature and even holiday well wishes have been splattered over at Drudge via TNR, and the reading is ugly.

LGF & Hotair have been posting for some time about the stinky funding sources the Paulien has benefited from, incl. various Neo-Nazis, David Duke types, plus the conspiro ‘Israel blew up the WTC crowd’ of nutjobs  – But this is the nail in the faux moon landing capsule if you will..

Anyone who supports Paul and was unaware now will have little cover, time to pick another candidate pronto.

All the gory details, plus endless conspiracy defense comments at HOTAIR courtesy of the AllahP. Check out LagunaDave sealing the capsule door shut and whisking out all the air in the comments lol.. Or read em & weep at PJM.

Rage against the machine baby! They’ll be no shelter here. Does this mean I don’t have to listen to more RP nuts whining on c-span call in anymore about how they can’t get no respect? Good lord I hope so. Just remember at the end of the day, the JOOZ did it to him.

The BIG Blue Sea courtesy of the memeo :)

  • Pingback: 2008 Presidential Election » Ron Paul: I voted to be a racist before I voted against it()

  • smoke.stack

    this has been debunked.. this story is simply a smear piece

    here is proof

    Here’s a transcript between David Weigel of and Ron Paul on 1/08/07 regarding the New Republic Article.

    reason: Do you have any response to The New Republic’s article about your newsletters?

    Ron Paul: All it is–it’s old stuff. It’s all been rehashed. It’s all political stuff.

    reason: Why don’t you release all the old letters?

    Paul: I don’t even have copies of them, because it’s ancient history.

    reason: Do you stand by what appears in the letters? Did you write these…?

    Paul: No. I’ve discussed all of that in the past. It’s just old news.

    reason: Did the New Republic talk to you before they ran it?

    Paul: No, I never talked to them.

    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.


    the best part of the new republic article is when it says this:
    “Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself.”

    come on, this is an obvious smear…. don’t buy in to this low level mockery of journalistic integrity!! James Kirchick has none.

  • As long as it is you defending him & not me I have no problem with it, the man is an ignorant pig.

  • Neil

    The Reason transcript only does the following:
    1) Ron Paul states that the accusations and findings levelled against him in the NR report are old news and he has had to deal with them previously.  (Note that there is no specific denial except…)

    2) Ron Paul states he did not write derogatory things about Martin Luther King.

    Not that powerful but I found this passage from the NR report quite compelling:

    "Paul's campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically–or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point–over the course of decades–he would have done something about it."

  • Heh, Neil.. if you trifle with any conspiracy theorists it's like howling at the moon, your message will never get there and the chances of the moon responding coherently in your lifetime are limited to say the least. That's why when they tell me America blew up the WTC, or Israel – I tell them it's not true – "I did it".