Thursday, December 22, 2011
Yesterday Congressman Ron Paul, fearless Emperor of the Planet Ronulin and Candidate for the GOP Nomination for President of the United States, cut short an interview with Gloria Borger, of CNN because she pressed him on the publishing of his newsletters. Before he walked away, he offered, “I never read that stuff. I was probably aware of it ten years after it was written.” That would be somewhere between 2003-2005.
Duane Patterson (Hugh Hewitt's Producer) pointed another nugget about this video on the Ed Morrissey Show today....Pay close attention to what Paul says when Borger says to him, "you must admit that the content is pretty incendiary" Paul answers "incendiary to you." It sounds as if he is saying they weren't incendiary to him.
Back in 2005 Cspan did a series of interviews with former Congressmen, one of them was Ron Paul (who was out of office between 1985 and 1997) During the interview Paul did gave a great explanation of his newsletters, if he hadn't denied it in 2008 you would think that he actually read them.
So, I was always very active in both politics and my profession. When I came back, I resumed my medical practice, and I’ve been doing that ever since, but I’ve also stayed active in education. Long term, I don’t think political action is worth very much if you don’t have education, and so I’ve continued with my economic education foundation, Free Foundation, which I started in 1976. So that’s been very active. Actually, in the last several years, we’ve been doing some video work, in an educational manner. We did 14 different 30-minute programs on video.
But along with that, I also put out a political type of business investment newsletter that sort of covered all these areas. And it covered a lot about what was going on in Washington, and financial events, and especially some of the monetary events. Since I had been especially interested in monetary policy, had been on the banking committee, and still very interested in, in that subject, that this newsletter dealt with it. This had to do with the value of the dollar, the pros and cons of the gold standard, and of course the disadvantages of all the high taxes and spending that our government seems to continue to do. (H/T Breitbart TV)
Now combine that with the evidence that came out during his 1996 Campaign to reenter congress (still with in that 10 year I didn't read it period). Back then he defended the racist statement as being taken out of contexts.
On May 22, 1996 Dallas Morning News reported "Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal." He also wrote that black teenagers can be "unbelievably fleet of foot." [...]
Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas' 14th Congressional District, today defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context."It's typical political demagoguery" [...] 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. [...]
May 23, 1996, Houston Chronicle:Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." [...] Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers." A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.
May 23, 1996, Austin American-Statesman: "Dr. Paul is being quoted out of context," [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said. "It's like picking up War and Peace and reading the fourth paragraph on Page 481 and thinking you can understand what's going on." [...]
May 26, 1996 Washington Post: Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context. "Instead of talking about the issues, our opponent has chosen to lie and try to deceive the people of the 14th District," said Paul spokesman Michael Sullivan, who added that the excerpts were written during the Los Angeles riots when "Jesse Jackson was making the same comments."
So the question remains, is Ron Paul a racist who is lying about not writing or even reading the newsletters he defended just a few years earlier? Or was he lying when he defended them as his writing even though he never read them? The only other possibility is that the poor guy is suffering from dementia and simply doesn't remember. Either way he is unfit to be president.
Here's the challenge to the Ronulins, instead of leaving comments calling me a progressive, or part of the Jewish control of government (which I have been getting), and don't explain away the comments like a government employee who goes by DCThrowback did, saying the bigotry in Pauls newsletters were "simply hatefacts: stuff that's true that you can't say in polite company anymore."
Lets go Paul fans! Time To Put Up or Shut Up--Tell me how do you explain away your leader's words on video, or his interviews with newspapers 15 years ago, or those horrible bigoted newsletters. Put them together and try to explain them away---if you can't-- admit the man is unqualified to be POTUS or simply shut the hell up.
No comments:
Post a Comment