Comments on: Many Libertarians Shocked By Exposure of Paul’s Relationship To Extremist Right

By: Bobb Bar Repudiates Racist Endorsement Showing Contrast with Ron Paul - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought

Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:12:45 +0000

[...] at least he knows where to draw the line. While Ron Paul received considerable criticism, including from libertarians, for his associations with right wing extremists, Barr most likely realizes associating with the [...]

By: McCain Latest Politician to Face Questions of Responding to Extremist Supporter - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought

Sun, 02 Mar 2008 00:55:50 +0000

[...] Ron Paul refused to separate his campaign from extremist support, initially promoting a number of excuses as to why he should not denounce their support or return their contributions. While he never had much of a chance of receiving significant support, initially Paul did build a bizarre coalition of paeloconservatives, white supremacists, neo-Nazis, opponents of the war, and libertarians. As Paul’s ties to extremists groups were exposed he was ultimately condemned by many libertarians, leaving his support limited to racists, anti-Semites, the uninformed, and a handful of deluded libertarians. [...]

By: Russert and Clinton Unsuccessfully Try To Use Farrakhan Smears Against Obama - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:50:58 +0000

[...] The manner in which Obama has dispensed with these smears provides a stark contrast to Ron Paul, whose campaign was derailed due to actually soliciting support from extremists, refusing to return a contribution from Don Black, and whose writings echoed some of the same extremist views. [...]

By: Ron Paul As Conservative, Not Defender of Freedom - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought

Sun, 13 Jan 2008 00:43:52 +0000

[...] To bring those up to speed who might not have followed the events of past week, The New Republic’s exposure of racist writings in Ron Paul’s newsletter was the final straw after which many libertarians who had previously ignored Paul’s past realized they must disassociate themselves from Paul if they wished to retain any credibility. I have quoted the responses of several libertarians here and here. Paul’s defense was that the articles were ghost written by others and that he had not read the articles. He also claimed that he disagreed with the views expressed. [...]

By: Old News Accounts Contradict Paul’s Defense - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought

Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:46:50 +0000

[...] Back in November I discussed how libertarians were beginning to dissociate themselves from Ron Paul, and even half jokingly suggested that Reason would eventually do so on its cover to differentiate themselves from Paul’s markedly non-libertarian views. For a while many libertarians hid their heads in the sand, ignoring what long time libertarians know about Paul, and deceived themselves into thinking they had a true libertarian candidate achieving national attention. The recent article in The New Republic was the last straw, with even many of the writers at Reason realizing that it was time to drop the pretense. I’ve noted some of the responses to the quotations from Paul’s newsletter from libertarians here and here. [...]

By: David Drissel

David Drissel — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:45:34 +0000

Ron Paul has become the darling of the Internet it seems as of late, especially when it comes to alienated young men who are searching for something or someone to believe in. It’s understandable that they are looking for an alternative to the jingoistic bellicosity of the neo-conservatism of Bush, Romney, Giuliani, McCain, et al.

I certainly appreciate the passion of Ron Paul on the Iraq War issue, but I believe that many of Paul’s supporters seem to discount his radical far-right stances on numerous other issues.

It’s important to note that Ron Paul is certainly not the only anti-war candidate. For example, I support Barack Obama who was an early outspoken opponent of the invasion of Iraq. Barack also has voted against further funding of the Iraq War and has opposed the Administration’s rush to war in Iran.

But unlike Paul, Obama would work to find a political solution in Iraq and elsewhere. He would not simply exit the region in typical isolationist fashion. The U.S. must stay engaged in the Middle East – but with diplomacy, not bombs. I don’t think that Paul fully understands American national interests in the Middle East and elsewhere. Paul even seems to be an apologist at times for Jihadism, making it sound as though America is somehow at fault for 9-11. This type of rhetoric is particularly disturbing.

Most importantly, Paul is a radical far-right libertarian extremist who wants to dismantle most of the federal government. If Paul is elected and has his way, say goodbye to environmental protection, student loans and grants, anti-trust laws, food stamps, public schools, minimum wage laws, national parks, social security, gun control laws, Medicaid (with even more millions of people uninsured), etc.

I ask Ron Paul supporters: Is that really want you want? Do you really want to completely demolish our federal government and let people fend for themselves – living at the mercy of big corporations as our jobs are outsourced and our backyards are polluted? Do you really want Paul to take your student loans away, as he has pledged to do?

Paul has also published some very disturbing comments in the past about African Americans, Jews and other minorities. For example, the following was included in his 1992 newsletter:

“The criminals who terrorize our cities — in riots and on every non-riot day–are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to ‘fight the power,’ and to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible.”

I do indeed appreciate the fact that Paul has stood up to the Republican establishment on the war. But that’s not the only issue. On virtually every other issue, Paul would abdicate America’s moral responsibility to her citizens and return our country to the bad old days of laissez (isn’t) faire. He’s not even an authentic civil libertarian, since he is anti-choice on the abortion issue and is opposed to gays serving openly in the military.

For those of you who have been flirting with supporting Paul’s candidacy, please take a second look. I hope that you will reconsider your support of Paul (who is bound to fall in the Republican caucuses and primaries) and instead support the viable candidacy of Barack Obama!

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 07:46:26 +0000

Typical Paul conspiracy theorist.

Bush didn’t write the racist articles in Ron Paul’s newsletter.

Bush isn’t responsible for Paul keeping the contribution from Don Black.

Bush isn’t responsible for all the right wing extremists who have been on Paul’s staff.

Bush didn’t turn Paul into a conspiracy theorist.

Bush isn’t even responsible for a the Paul supporters who post racist and anti-Semitic comments around the blogosphere.

Ron Paul is responsible for these problems. He is responsible for his own newsletter, for his association with extremists, and for his views.

By: Raphael

Raphael — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 07:25:25 +0000

Is the whole story a Bush psy-op?
Think about it. The only republican anti-war candidate is certainly troublesome for the current administration. All the other candidates are Bush cheerleaders, and if Bush wants the GOP to win desperately enough, he can arrange fear or rather fear so the public will vote another republican war president.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXOkVTJWnI4