Comments on The 'Skeeter Bites Report: Racist Rantings in Old Newsletters Aren't the Only...

First, I agree that it is chicken shit for Ron Pau...

2008-01-24T02:15:00.000-05:00

First, I agree that it is chicken shit for Ron Paul to plead ignorance of what was being published over more than a decade in his newsletter under his name. That kind of management style should disqualify anyone from holding presidential power.

Having said that, let’s take a look at some of the remarks that have upset a number of people.

Skeeter writes that Paul's newsletter described Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as a "pro-Communist philanderer."

Are you claiming that it’s not true? Or are you offended that someone would say such a thing publicly?

According to King's biographer and sympathizer David J. Garrow, "King privately described himself as a Marxist." In his 1981 book, The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr., Garrow quotes King as saying in SCLC staff meetings, "...we have moved into a new era, which must be an era of revolution.... The whole structure of American life must be changed.... We are engaged in the class struggle."

King also surrounded himself with communist advisors such as Bayard Rustin, Jack O'Dell, and Stanley Levison. Birds of a feather.

King’s philandering has been described by Rev. Ralph Abernathy, who was King’s right-hand man in the Southern Christian leadership Conference. See his book And the Walls Came Tumbling Down. King’s sexual affairs are discussed by history professor David Garrow in his book Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. King’s philandering was well-known to the FBI, which had him under surveillance. Unfortunately King’s FBI file was placed under seal until 2027. My prediction is that when the time comes, a new reason will be found to keep those records under wraps to prevent the truth from coming out. Powerful forces in this country have a vested interest maintaining the myth of “Saint Martin.”

King's plagiarism has also been abundantly documented. It will, of course, be a cold day in hell before the PC liberals who run Boston University revoke King's PhD for his academic dishonesty.

In Paul’s newsletter the following statement appeared. “The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day -- are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are…”

Do you disagree with the statement? According to the US Department of Justice, blacks commit 72% of the armed robberies, 51% of the murders, and 35% of the rapes. Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery. Google The Color of Crime, Race, Crime, and Justice in America, Second, Expanded Edition, 2005 by The New Century Foundation.

Skeeter writes that “The controversial newsletters include rants against the Israeli lobby…”
So what’s the problem? Should the power and influence of the Israel Lobby be off-limits in public political discourse? Read The Israel Lobby by Walt and Merscheimer. I for one am sick of our government’s unconditional support for the Israeli apartheid state. I have no interest in helping them oppress the Palestinians, or in fighting their wars.

And finally, liberals and neocons are supposedly upset because Don Black gave Paul’s campaign $500. So what? Freedom is a popular message that appeals to people across the spectrum. By contrast, Hillary’s campaign rakes in millions from the military contractors, and it goes generally unremarked.

Zee - you hit is right on the head!

2008-01-15T18:23:00.000-05:00

Zee - you hit is right on the head!

I guess people aren't intimidated by Ron Paul's ch...

2008-01-15T02:52:00.000-05:00

I guess people aren't intimidated by Ron Paul's chances and thus leave him alone. However, as a recipient of oodles of cash from young no-doubt mostly white male internet idealist-morons we have a responsibility to note there is NO excuse, none, for publishing 12 solid years of racist screed and then weakly, lamely claiming someone else wrote it. RON PAUL'S NAME was on that racist swill for 12 years. All the moRons online who gave money to him need to be on their knees, vomiting, crying, snot running down their shirts sobbing and begging for forgiveness for supporting such a cowardly racist, and I have not even touched on his many sexist stands, as well. And may the moRons never be forgiven no matter how hard they beg. Let them JO and never have the opportunity to reproduce. Their kind need to be confined to barren islands. Libertarians can bugger off and build their own roads and mate...rarely at most... with whatever mentally feeble female they can scrounge up.

In response to: http://www.liberatenow.net/2008/01...

2008-01-14T18:19:00.000-05:00

In response to: http://www.liberatenow.net/2008/01/14/an-open-letter-to-ron-paul/#comment-6

I see this as two issues - both of which I am torn on. Let me attempt to explain why.

Ron Paul has stated that he would take funding from white supremacists because he would much rather put the money to use for his causes than for “bad” causes of the white supremacists. Frankly, this makes me feel uncomfortable. I believe I understand what he is trying to say but the concept of taking the money is not for me.

If we look at Ron Paul as a strict constitutionalist, the format he is running on, the concept of freedom of speech would prevent him from speaking out against white supremacists supporting his campaign. Yes, he can say that his views are not the same and that he has no affiliation with the groups, but he is not going to/cannot tell someone not to support him. It’s their right to support him and if he doesn’t like their view, it is still their view.

This doesn’t bother me frankly. God knows how many people extreme groups are supporting other candidate. If the Black Panthers were supporting Obama it wouldn’t bother me if he didn’t speak out against it.

You raise a very good point on the newsletters. While he did not write them (please note I have not seen them 1st hand, so I cannot confirm the content) they were in his name. As such, he should be responsible for the contents of the letters.

Even if one questionable event took place, and he quickly acted, issued an apology, and ensured that no other editor would allow such remarks I would understand. The problem is this appears to have happened multiple times.

So, bottom line - I don’t see the being supported by white supremacists as an issue. While I do not agree with their views in any way they are still free to support who they want. The news letters as a major problem that raise the credibility question.

Thanks for sending the comments! You bring up some good points and I appreciate the discussion.

Great job, Skeeter! You're doing great. I'm an ind...

2008-01-14T16:41:00.000-05:00

Great job, Skeeter! You're doing great. I'm an independent journalist too and I think we see eye to eye on a lot of things. At least I hope so anyway.

Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has know...

2008-01-14T13:50:00.000-05:00

Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.

Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded "No I don't," adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.