Republican Presidential Candidates

[José]

Aaah, les néocons ne peuvent que venir donner un petit coup de main à leurs copains socialauds, évidemment !

Prévisible…

…comme du Chitah.

[Chitah]

RH a raison, Lucilio, c'est très important de rappeler le positionnement de Little Green Football, savoir d'où quelqu'un parle est d'une grande utilité comme info.

Au passage et blague à part, je ne comprends rien à cette histoire de newsletter de Paul, on l'accuse de quoi concrètement? De racisme?

[Ronnie Hayek]

Prévisible…

…comme du Chitah.

La vérité peut être parfois prévisible. Et puis, rien ne t'obligeait à poster ce torchon bien-pensant (qui, lui, ne surprend pas non plus, malheureusement).

RH a raison, Lucilio, c'est très important de rappeler le positionnement de Little Green Football, savoir d'où quelqu'un parle est d'une grande utilité comme info.

Un spécialiste qui parle.

Cependant, tu as oublié "Eglise catholique", "Bible", "Fraternité Saint-Pie-X" et "Charles Maurras" dans ton message. Tu peux mieux faire.

[Ronnie Hayek]

Tiens, tiens, tiens…

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018446.html

New Republic Liar/Slanderer Funded by Neocon Foundation

Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo at January 9, 2008 08:04 AM

Imagine my surprise to learn from an emailer this morning that the pimply-faced youth James Kirchick, who graduated from college barely a year ago, had his education funded by the neocon Olin Foundation. He apprently majored in warmongering and imperialism, referred to at Yale as "International Security Studies." (Scroll about halfway down the page). I was equally surprised to see on the web that the PFY has also written articles for Frontpagemag.com defending the Iraq war.

Get a load of the "grand strategy" mumbo jumbo on the Yale web site. How pompous must a "Professor of Grand Strategy" be?! Isn't it comforting to know that these neocon foundation-funded eggheads are busy plotting "grand strategies" for the entire planet? (Meanwhile, much of New Haven, CT, is a shambles. Perhaps some of these grand strategists could help out the town planners a bit).

Il semble aussi que J. Kirchick, l'auteur de l'article contre Paul, n'en soit pas à son coup d'essai ( http://www.affbrainwash.com/archives/022336.php ) et roule pour cette taupe de Giuliani : http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid50709.asp

Je m'étonne que ce supporter du politiquement correct le plus rance trouve des relais sur ce forum.

[Apollon]

On a oublié l'info la plus importante : Clinton est repassé devant Obama.

Corrolaire : j'avais raison. Remarquons que comme d'habitude, les journalistes qui s'étaient laissés allé à croire excessivement en Clinton ont par contrecoup cru aussi excessivement à la victoire d'Obama. Pschhiiit.

Clinton puis Obama chez les Républicains

Encore !

[Ronnie Hayek]

On a oublié l'info la plus importante : Clinton est repassé devant Obama.

Corrolaire : j'avais raison.

Nous verrons.

[melodius]

On a oublié l'info la plus importante : Clinton est repassé devant Obama.

Corrolaire : j'avais raison.

L'ours, sa peau, la vente intempestive, tout ça…

[Ash]

On a oublié l'info la plus importante : Clinton est repassé devant Obama.

Corrolaire : j'avais raison. Remarquons que comme d'habitude, les journalistes qui s'étaient laissés allé à croire excessivement en Clinton ont par contrecoup cru aussi excessivement à la victoire d'Obama. Pschhiiit.

Le score d'Obama est très proche du sien, ce qui contredit déjà tous les pronostics et sondages d'avant les primaires.

[Chitah]

On a oublié l'info la plus importante : Clinton est repassé devant Obama.

Corrolaire : j'avais raison. Remarquons que comme d'habitude, les journalistes qui s'étaient laissés allé à croire excessivement en Clinton ont par contrecoup cru aussi excessivement à la victoire d'Obama. Pschhiiit.

Oui, enfin l'écart entre Obama et Clinton n'est pas colossal.

Je viens de lire que Hillary Clinton est à court d'argent, est-ce vrai?

[Apollon]

Le score d'Obama est très proche du sien, ce qui contredit déjà tous les pronostics et sondages d'avant les primaires.

Bof elle était enterrée par tout le monde (tout le monde sauf un).

De toute façon je parie sur elle ne signifie pas que je garantie sa victoire à 100% mais que ça vaut le coup pour moi de parier sur elle. Et même à supposer qu'elle a moins de chance qu'Obama de gagner, c'est plus rigolo d'avoir raison seul contre tous que raison avec tout le monde. Et comme je ne supporte pas l'unanimisme et que j'aime jouer.

Oui, enfin l'écart entre Obama et Clinton n'est pas colossal.

Je viens de lire que Hillary Clinton est à court d'argent, est-ce vrai?

Aucune idée je ne lis pas les journaux depuis un moment. A quoi bon puisqu'une technique purement aprioristique aboutit à de meilleures prévisions que les raisonnements des spécialistes du dimanche.

[Taranne]

L'article de Kirchick:

Angry White Man

The bigoted past of Ron Paul.

James Kirchick, The New Republic Published: Tuesday, January 08, 2008

Congressman Ron Paul.

Getty Images

Congressman Ron Paul.

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."

Most voters had never heard of Paul before he launched his quixotic bid for the Republican nomination. But the Texan has been active in politics for decades. And, long before he was the darling of antiwar activists on the left and right, Paul was in the newsletter business. In the age before blogs, newsletters occupied a prominent place in right-wing political discourse. With the pages of mainstream political magazines typically off-limits to their views (National Review editor William F. Buckley having famously denounced the John Birch Society), hardline conservatives resorted to putting out their own, less glossy publications. These were often paranoid and rambling--dominated by talk of international banking conspiracies, the Trilateral Commission's plans for world government, and warnings about coming Armageddon--but some of them had wide and devoted audiences. And a few of the most prominent bore the name of Ron Paul.

Paul's newsletters have carried different titles over the years--Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report--but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978. (Paul, an OB-GYN and former U.S. Air Force surgeon, was first elected to Congress in 1976.) During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman. The Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984. At one point, Ron Paul & Associates also put out a monthly publication called The Ron Paul Investment Letter.

The Freedom Report's online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul's newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles "Lefty" Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions," that "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be," and that black representative Barbara Jordan is "the archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism." At the time, Paul's campaign said that Morris had quoted the newsletter out of context. Later, in 2001, Paul would claim that someone else had written the controversial passages. (Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines.) Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul's explanation believable, "since the style diverges widely from his own."

Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.

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.

To understand Paul's philosophy, the best place to start is probably the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Auburn, Alabama. The institute is named for a libertarian Austrian economist, but it was founded by a man named Lew Rockwell, who also served as Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982. Paul has had a long and prominent association with the institute, teaching at its seminars and serving as a "distinguished counselor." The institute has also published his books.

The politics of the organization are complicated--its philosophy derives largely from the work of the late Murray Rothbard, a Bronx-born son of Jewish immigrants from Poland and a self-described "anarcho-capitalist" who viewed the state as nothing more than "a criminal gang"--but one aspect of the institute's worldview stands out as particularly disturbing: its attachment to the Confederacy. Thomas E. Woods Jr., a member of the institute's senior faculty, is a founder of the League of the South, a secessionist group, and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, a pro-Confederate, revisionist tract published in 2004. Paul enthusiastically blurbed Woods's book, saying that it "heroically rescues real history from the politically correct memory hole." Thomas DiLorenzo, another senior faculty member and author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, refers to the Civil War as the "War for Southern Independence" and attacks "Lincoln cultists"; Paul endorsed the book on MSNBC last month in a debate over whether the Civil War was necessary (Paul thinks it was not). In April 1995, the institute hosted a conference on secession at which Paul spoke; previewing the event, Rockwell wrote to supporters, "We'll explore what causes [secession] and how to promote it." Paul's newsletters have themselves repeatedly expressed sympathy for the general concept of secession. In 1992, for instance, the Survival Report argued that "the right of secession should be ingrained in a free society" and that "there is nothing wrong with loosely banding together small units of government. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, we too should consider it."

The people surrounding the von Mises Institute--including Paul--may describe themselves as libertarians, but they are nothing like the urbane libertarians who staff the Cato Institute or the libertines at Reason magazine. Instead, they represent a strain of right-wing libertarianism that views the Civil War as a catastrophic turning point in American history--the moment when a tyrannical federal government established its supremacy over the states. As one prominent Washington libertarian told me, "There are too many libertarians in this country … who, because they are attracted to the great books of Mises, … find their way to the Mises Institute and then are told that a defense of the Confederacy is part of libertarian thought."

Paul's alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began," read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with "'civil rights,' quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda." It also denounced "the media" for believing that "America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks." To be fair, the newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were "the only people to act like real Americans," it explained, "mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England."

This "Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" was hardly the first time one of Paul's publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled "What To Expect for the 1990s," predicted that "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.'" Two months later, a newsletter warned of "The Coming Race War," and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, "If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it." In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo." "This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s," the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter's author--presumably Paul--wrote, "I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming." That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which "blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot." The newsletter inveighed against liberals who "want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare," adding, "Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems."

Such views on race also inflected the newsletters' commentary on foreign affairs. South Africa's transition to multiracial democracy was portrayed as a "destruction of civilization" that was "the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara"; and, in March 1994, a month before Nelson Mandela was elected president, one item warned of an impending "South African Holocaust."

Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. ("What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!" one newsletter complained in 1990. "We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.") In the early 1990s, a newsletter attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as "a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."

While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled "The Duke's Victory," a newsletter celebrated Duke's 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Senate primary. "Duke lost the election," it said, "but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment." In 1991, a newsletter asked, "Is David Duke's new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?" The conclusion was that "our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom." Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.

Like blacks, gays earn plenty of animus in Paul's newsletters. They frequently quoted Paul's "old colleague," Representative William Dannemeyer--who advocated quarantining people with AIDS--praising him for "speak[ing] out fearlessly despite the organized power of the gay lobby." In 1990, one newsletter mentioned a reporter from a gay magazine "who certainly had an axe to grind, and that's not easy with a limp wrist." In an item titled, "The Pink House?" the author of a newsletter--again, presumably Paul--complained about President George H.W. Bush's decision to sign a hate crimes bill and invite "the heads of homosexual lobbying groups to the White House for the ceremony," adding, "I miss the closet." "Homosexuals," it said, "not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities." When Marvin Liebman, a founder of the conservative Young Americans for Freedom and a longtime political activist, announced that he was gay in the pages of National Review, a Paul newsletter implored, "Bring Back the Closet!" Surprisingly, one item expressed ambivalence about the contentious issue of gays in the military, but ultimately concluded, "Homosexuals, if admitted, should be put in a special category and not allowed in close physical contact with heterosexuals."

The newsletters were particularly obsessed with AIDS, "a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby," and used it as a rhetorical club to beat gay people in general. In 1990, one newsletter approvingly quoted "a well-known Libertarian editor" as saying, "The ACT-UP slogan, on stickers plastered all over Manhattan, is 'Silence = Death.' But shouldn't it be 'Sodomy = Death'?" Readers were warned to avoid blood transfusions because gays were trying to "poison the blood supply." "Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers?" a newsletter asked in 1990. That same year, citing a Christian-right fringe publication, an item suggested that "the AIDS patient" should not be allowed to eat in restaurants and that "AIDS can be transmitted by saliva," which is false. Paul's newsletters advertised a book, Surviving the AIDS Plague--also based upon the casual-transmission thesis--and defended "parents who worry about sending their healthy kids to school with AIDS victims." Commenting on a rise in AIDS infections, one newsletter said that "gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense," adding: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."

The rhetoric when it came to Jews was little better. The newsletters display an obsession with Israel; no other country is mentioned more often in the editions I saw, or with more vitriol. A 1987 issue of Paul's Investment Letter called Israel "an aggressive, national socialist state," and a 1990 newsletter discussed the "tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of expertise." Of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a newsletter said, "Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little."

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."

When I asked Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign spokesman, about the newsletters, he said that, over the years, Paul had granted "various levels of approval" to what appeared in his publications--ranging from "no approval" to instances where he "actually wrote it himself." After I read Benton some of the more offensive passages, he said, "A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no." He added that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Martin Luther King, because "Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero."

In other words, 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.

What's more, Paul's connections to extremism go beyond the newsletters. He has given extensive interviews to the magazine of the John Birch Society, and has frequently been a guest of Alex Jones, a radio host and perhaps the most famous conspiracy theorist in America. Jones--whose recent documentary, Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, details the plans of George Pataki, David Rockefeller, and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, among others, to exterminate most of humanity and develop themselves into "superhuman" computer hybrids able to "travel throughout the cosmos"--estimates that Paul has appeared on his radio program about 40 times over the past twelve years.

Then there is Gary North, who has worked on Paul's congressional staff. North is a central figure in Christian Reconstructionism, which advocates the implementation of Biblical law in modern society. Christian Reconstructionists share common ground with libertarians, since both groups dislike the central government. North has advocated the execution of women who have abortions and people who curse their parents. In a 1986 book, North argued for stoning as a form of capital punishment--because "the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost." North is perhaps best known for Gary North's Remnant Review, a "Christian and pro free-market" newsletter. In a 1983 letter Paul wrote on behalf of an organization called the Committee to Stop the Bail-Out of Multinational Banks (known by the acronym CSBOMB), he bragged, "Perhaps you already read in Gary North's Remnant Review about my exposes of government abuse."

Ron Paul is not going to be president. But, as his campaign has gathered steam, he has found himself increasingly permitted inside the boundaries of respectable debate. He sat for an extensive interview with Tim Russert recently. He has raised almost $20 million in just three months, much of it online. And he received nearly three times as many votes as erstwhile front-runner Rudy Giuliani in last week's Iowa caucus. All the while he has generally been portrayed by the media as principled and serious, while garnering praise for being a "straight-talker."

From his newsletters, however, a different picture of Paul emerges--that of someone who is either himself deeply embittered or, for a long time, allowed others to write bitterly on his behalf. His adversaries are often described in harsh terms: Barbara Jordan is called "Barbara Morondon," Eleanor Holmes Norton is a "black pinko," Donna Shalala is a "short lesbian," Ron Brown is a "racial victimologist," and Roberta Achtenberg, the first openly gay public official confirmed by the United States Senate, is a "far-left, normal-hating lesbian activist." Maybe such outbursts mean Ron Paul really is a straight-talker. Or maybe they just mean he is a man filled with hate.

Corrections: This article originally misidentified ABC's Jake Tapper as Jack. In addition, Paul was a surgeon in the Air Force, not the Army, as the piece originally stated. It also stated that David Duke competed in the 1990 Louisiana Republican Senate primary. In fact, he was a Republican candidate in an open primary. The article has been corrected.

James Kirchick is an assistant editor at The New Republic.

Et quelques extraits choisis de la newsletter paulienne:

Selections From Ron Paul's Newsletters

The New Republic Published: Tuesday, January 08, 2008

The Newsletters: Since at least 1978, Ron Paul has attached his name to a series of newsletters--Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report, and The Ron Paul Investment Letter--that frequently made outrageous statements:

Race

"A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" analyzes the Los Angeles riots of 1992: "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. … What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided."

The November 1990 issue of the Political Report had kind words for David Duke.

This newsletter describes Martin Luther King Jr. as "a world-class adulterer" who "seduced underage girls and boys" and "replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."

The January 1991 edition of the Political Report refers to King as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and a "flagrant plagiarist with a phony doctorate."

A February 1991 newsletter attacks "The X-Rated Martin Luther King."

An October 1990 edition of the Political Report ridicules black activists, led by Al Sharpton, for demonstrating at the Statue of Liberty in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" would be better alternatives--and says, "Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house."

Gays

In the course of defending homophobic comments by Andy Rooney of CBS, a 1990 newsletter notes that a reporter for a gay magazine "certainly had an axe to grind, and that's not easy with a limp wrist."

The June 1990 issue of the Political Report says: "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."

From the August 1990 issue of the Political Report: "Bring Back the Closet!"

A January 1994 edition of the Survival Report states that "gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense," adding: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."

Survivalism and Militias

The November 1994 issue of the Survival Report celebrates anti-government militias.

The January 1995 issue of the Survival Report--released just three months before the Oklahoma City bombing--cites an anti-government militia's advice to other militias, including, "Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here."

The October 1992 issue of the Political Report paraphrases an "ex-cop" who offers this strategy for protecting against "urban youth": "If you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example)."

Conspiracies

This 1978 newsletter says the Trilateral Commission is "no longer known only by those who are knowledgeable about international conspiracies, but is routinely mentioned in the daily news."

A 1986 newsletter names Jeane Kirkpatrick and George Will as "two of our enemies" and notes their membership in the Trilateral Commission.

In an undated solicitation letter for The Ron Paul Investment Letter and the Ron Paul Political Report, Paul writes: "I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or no 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."

Middle East

A 1989 newsletter compares Salman Rushdie to Ernst Zundel, a Canadian Holocaust-denier.

The March 1987 issue of The Ron Paul Investment Letter calls Israel "an aggressive, national socialist state."

Other Documents: Paul has had a long association with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Auburn, Alabama. The think tank was founded by Lew Rockwell, who served as Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982.

This March 1995 letter from Lew Rockwell advertises the Mises Institute's upcoming conference on secession (at which Paul spoke): "We'll explore what causes [secession] and how to promote it."

An advertisement for the Mises Institute's 1995 secession conference--to be held in Charleston, "hotbed of America's two great secessions, against Britain and D.C."

[John Loque]

Il n'y a pas non plus de quoi en faire un fromage. Cette péripétie est cependant intéressante, dans la mesure où l'on voit que Paul gêne encore suffisamment pour que certains fouille-merde se sentent obligés d'aller exhumer de vieilles histoires.

Faire les poubelles des politiciens collectivistes, c'est vertueux, et faire celles d'un politicien libertarien, c'est être un fouille-merde ? Un peu moins de mauvaise foi stp…

Un argument qu'on peut se voir retourner dans la figure n'en est pas un.

[walter-rebuttand]

Pas de quoi fouetter un chat dans toutes ces vieilleries. C'est comme quand on reprochait à Madelin d'avoir fait partie de groupes d'extrème-droite dans sa jeunesse.

[Ash]

Faire les poubelles des politiciens collectivistes, c'est vertueux, et faire celles d'un politicien libertarien, c'est être un fouille-merde ? Un peu moins de mauvaise foi stp…

Un argument qu'on peut se voir retourner dans la figure n'en est pas un.

Les unes sont pleines, les autres sont vraisemblablement vides.

Et personne ne voit le lien évident entre cette "histoire" et celle d'avant sur ses soit-disant supporters néonazis ? Encore un sale coup des neoscum. Ah mais faudrait pas regarder dans leur passé à eux, c'est certain.

[Ronnie Hayek]

Faire les poubelles des politiciens collectivistes, c'est vertueux, et faire celles d'un politicien libertarien, c'est être un fouille-merde ? Un peu moins de mauvaise foi stp…

Un argument qu'on peut se voir retourner dans la figure n'en est pas un.

L'objectif de toute cette "enquête" n'est pas ici de rechercher la vérité, mais de lancer une cabale contre un électron libre (i.e. R. Paul). En l'occurrence, c'est d'une chasse à l'homme de nature idéologique qu'il s'agit, pas de la révélation d'un scandale genre détournement de fonds publics.

Je pensais que tu aurais compris la différence.

[walter-rebuttand]

L'objectif de toute cette "enquête" n'est pas ici la recherche de la vérité, mais de lancer une cabale contre un électron libre (i.e. R. Paul). En l'occurrence, c'est une chasse à l'homme de nature idéologique qu'il s'agit, pas de révéler au monde un scandale genre détournement de fonds publics. Je pensais que tu aurais compris la différence.

Surtout que Ron Paul a tenu des propos sans ambiguités condamnant le racisme depuis de nombreuses années déjà. Comme l'a dit Melo, le seul truc qu'on peut lui reprocher, c'est d'avoir mal géré son image publique à un moment où il ne faisait plus de politique.

[Ronnie Hayek]

Exactement.

[John Loque]

Surtout que Ron Paul a tenu des propos sans ambiguités condamnant le racisme depuis de nombreuses années déjà. Comme l'a dit Melo, le seul truc qu'on peut lui reprocher, c'est d'avoir mal géré son image publique à un moment où il ne faisait plus de politique.

Oui, on peut lui reprocher ça : c'est pas rien de laisser de vrais racistes se répandre dans un truc appelé "Ron Paul Report". Surtout quand on vient par après expliquer que le racisme est une notion collectiviste et donc étrangère au libéralisme (ce qui est contestable intellectuellement mais qui est une belle manière de faire comprendre les choses).

Je veux simplement faire remarquer à RH qu'il a un peu tendance à faire feu de tout bois lorsqu'il débat et que ce n'est pas un bon moyen de convaincre ses adversaires. Il faut prendre de la hauteur et éviter d'utiliser des arguments que l'adversaire pourrait tout aussi valablement nous opposer.

[Ronnie Hayek]

Oui, on peut lui reprocher ça : c'est pas rien de laisser de vrais racistes se répandre dans un truc appelé "Ron Paul Report". Surtout quand on vient par après expliquer que le racisme est une notion collectiviste et donc étrangère au libéralisme (ce qui est contestable intellectuellement mais qui est une belle manière de faire comprendre les choses).

Je te trouve soudainement très délicat sur cette question.

Je veux simplement faire remarquer à RH qu'il a un peu tendance à faire feu de tout bois lorsqu'il débat et que ce n'est pas un bon moyen de convaincre ses adversaires. Il faut prendre de la hauteur et éviter d'utiliser des arguments que l'adversaire pourrait tout aussi valablement nous opposer.

En l'occurrence, ton raisonnement était infondé.

De surcroît, je ne suis pas naïf au point d'essayer de faire changer les gens d'avis - je cherche à faire entendre un autre son de cloche quand cela me paraît nécessaire, ni plus ni moins.

[John Loque]

L'objectif de toute cette "enquête" n'est pas ici de rechercher la vérité, mais de lancer une cabale contre un électron libre. En l'occurrence, c'est d'une chasse à l'homme de nature idéologique qu'il s'agit, pas de la révélation d'un scandale genre détournement de fonds publics cautionnement de propos ouvertement racistes.

Voilà, comme ça on peut mettre ça dans la bouche de Van Cau ou de Rachid Madrane.

[Ronnie Hayek]

Voilà, comme ça on peut mettre ça dans la bouche de Van Cau ou de Rachid Madrane.

Tiens, j'ignorais que Rincevent était ton autre pseudonyme. Ce n'est pas en changeant les mots d'une phrase ou en les barrant que tu en percevras mieux le sens - mais je dis cela sans espoir de te convaincre, bien entendu.

[John Loque]

Je te trouve soudainement très délicat sur cette question.

Je n'hésite pas à railler le politiquement correct ou l'anti-racisme qui sert d'alibi. De là à laisser des racistes s'exprimer dans un truc qui porte mon nom…

[Ronnie Hayek]

Je n'hésite pas à railler le politiquement correct ou l'anti-racisme qui sert d'alibi.

Souvent mal à propos, surtout.

[John Loque]

De surcroît, je ne suis pas naïf au point d'essayer de faire changer les gens d'avis - je cherche à faire entendre un autre son de cloche quand cela me paraît nécessaire, ni plus ni moins.

Evidemment, j'oubliais le "tous des méchants, sauf nous". Avec une telle prémisse, la discussion devient de fait plus difficile.

[Ronnie Hayek]

Evidemment, j'oubliais le "tous des méchants, sauf nous". Avec une telle prémisse, la discussion devient de fait plus difficile.

Ce n'est précisément pas mon propos, jeune homme. Ne me prête pas ton fanatisme bien aprioristo-hoppéo-flamingant.

Au risque de passer pour un fat, je me cite :

http://www.liberaux.org/index.php?s=&s…st&p=385666

On peut être antilibéral sans être bête. Il faudrait cesser de croire que nous serions par définition plus malins que les autres et que nous aurions la vérité révélée. Il s'agit de politique, donc de quelque chose de relatif, pas de quelque chose de religieux. Je crois que beaucoup de libéraux souffrent d'un manque de transcendance et ne peuvent s'empêcher d'immanentiser celle-ci au service de leurs idées. D'où un certain ton millénariste (et que l'on ne trouve pas uniquement chez les anarcaps, je le précise).

Au vu de notre progéniture idéologique, nous devrions nous montrer un peu plus modestes.

Autrement dit, je nous inclus dans ma critique anti-constructiviste. Et c'est ce que beaucoup ici ne me pardonnent évidemment pas. Mais bon, ce n'est pas trop le sujet.

[John Loque]

ton fanatisme bien aprioristo-hoppéo-flamingant.

On peut être antilibéral sans être bête.

Evidemment. Et on peut être ignorant sans être bête ou être crapuleux sans être bête. Les deux existent et je crois que tu te trompes en imaginant que la deuxième catégorie est majoritaire (si je comprends bien…).

[Ronnie Hayek]

Evidemment. Et on peut être ignorant sans être bête ou être crapuleux sans être bête. Les deux existent et je crois que tu te trompes en imaginant que la deuxième catégorie est majoritaire (si je comprends bien…).

A ta différence, sans doute, je crois qu'il y a plus de canailles que d'honnêtes gens. Y compris chez les libéraux. Ainsi est faite la nature humaine.

[John Loque]

Le mouvement anti-prog infiltre les meetings de la pleurnicheuse :

[Sous-Commandant Marco]

CNN propose des sondages de sortie des urnes très détaillés:

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/prima…ndex.html#NHREP

Lorsque j'ai vu que Ron Paul n'avait fait que 8%, j'ai été déçu mais en fait, il est juste derrière Giuliani et devant Thompson. Vu les changements dans les votes d'un état à l'autre, la course à l'investiture républicaine est très ouverte.

[Brock]