Reply With Quote
I'm Jewish and I completely agree with Paul Israel is way more trouble than it's worth for us to be their allies and supporters.
He is, however, still an idiot.
He should also, in my opinion, be kept as far away from the presidency as possible. The surest way I can think of to do that is probably for him to win the nomination for the Republican party once and for all. Let the man have his day, and lose in what I can only imagine would be the largest landslide in modern election history.
Enough of my blathering, here is the news bit, from Rightwingnews.net, a decidedly unliberal website,
http://rightwingnews.com/election-20...anti-semitism/Fmr. Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997 – 2003
Campaign Coordinator, Ron Paul for Congress, 1995/96
National Organizer, Draft Ron Paul for President, 1991/92
Travel Aide/Personal Asst. Ron Paul, Libertarian for President
1987/88
I have been asked by various media the last few days for my comments, view of the current situation regarding my former boss Ron Paul, as he runs for the presidency on the Republican ticket.
I’ve noticed in some media that my words have been twisted and used for an agenda from both sides. And I wish to set the record straight with media that I trust and know will get the story right: conservative/libertarian-conservative bloggers.
[sure, whatever, I'll roll with it anyway--RG]
Is Ron Paul a “racist.” In short, No. I worked for the man for 12 years, pretty consistently. I never heard a racist word expressed towards Blacks or Jews come out of his mouth. Not once. And understand, I was his close personal assistant. It’s safe to say that I was with him on the campaign trail more than any other individual, whether it be traveling to Fairbanks, Alaska or Boston, Massachusetts in the presidential race, or across the congressional district to San Antonio or Corpus Christi, Texas.
He has frequently hired blacks for his office staff, starting as early as 1988 for the Libertarian campaign. He has also hired many Hispanics, including his current District staffer Dianna Gilbert-Kile.
One caveat: He is what I would describe as “out of touch,” with both Hispanic and Black culture. Ron is far from being the hippest guy around. He is completely clueless when it comes to Hispanic and Black culture, particularly Mexican-American culture. And he is most certainly intolerant of Spanish and those who speak strictly Spanish in his presence, (as are a number of Americans, nothing out of the ordinary here.)
Is Ron Paul an Anti-Semite? Absolutely No. As a Jew, (half on my mother’s side), I can categorically say that I never heard anything out of his mouth, in hundreds of speeches I listened too over the years, or in my personal presence that could be called, “Anti-Semite.” No slurs. No derogatory remarks.
He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.
Again, American Jews, Ron Paul has no problem with. In fact, there were a few Jews in our congressional district, and Ron befriended them with the specific intent of winning their support for our campaign. (One synagogue in Victoria, and tiny one in Wharton headed by a well-known Jewish lawyer).
On the incident that’s being talked about in some blog media about the campaign manager directing me to a press conference of our opponent Lefty Morris in Victoria to push back on Anti-Jewish charges from the Morris campaign, yes, that did happen. The Victoria Advocate described the press conference very accurately. Yes, I was asked (not forced), to attend the conference dressed in a Jewish yarlmuke, and other Jewish adornments.
There was another incident when Ron finally agreed to a meeting with Houston Jewish Young Republicans at the Freeport office. He berated them, and even shouted at one point, over their un-flinching support for Israel. So, much so, that the 6 of them walked out of the office. I was left chasing them down the hallway apologizing for my boss.
Is Ron Paul a -phobe? Well, yes and no. He is not all bigoted towards sexuals. He supports their rights to do whatever they please in their private lives. He is however, personally uncomfortable around sexuals, no different from a lot of older folks of his era.
There were two incidents that I will cite, for the record. One that involved me directly, and another that involved another congressional staffer or two.
(I am revealing this for the very first time, and I’m sure Jim Peron will be quite surprised to learn this.)
In 1988, Ron had a hardcore Libertarian supporter, Jim Peron, Owner of Laissez Faire Books in San Francisco. Jim set up a magnificent 3-day campaign swing for us in the SF Bay Area. Jim was what you would call very openly Gay. But Ron thought the world of him. For 3 days we had a great time trouncing from one campaign event to another with Jim’s Gay lover. The atmosphere was simply jovial between the four of us. (As an aside we also met former Cong. Pete McCloskey during this campaign trip.) We used Jim’s home/office as a “base.” Ron pulled me aside the first time we went there, and specifically instructed me to find an excuse to excuse him to a local fast food restaurant so that he could use the bathroom. He told me very clearly, that although he liked Jim, he did not wish to use his bathroom facilities. I chided him a bit, but he sternly reacted, as he often did to me, Eric, just do what I say. Perhaps “sternly” is an understatement. Ron looked at me directly, and with a very angry look in his eye, and shouted under his breath: “Just do what I say NOW.”
The second incident involved one or two other staffers many years later at the BBQ in Surfside Beach. I was not in direct presence of the incident. But another top staffer, and I believe one of our secretaries, was witnessed to it. This top staffer adores Ron, but was extremely insulted by his behavior, I would even say flabbergasted to the point of considering resigning from his staff over it.
“Bobby,” a well-known and rather flamboyant and well-liked gay man in Freeport came to the BBQ. Let me stress Ron likes Bobby personally, and Bobby was a hardcore campaign supporter. But after his speech, at the Surfside pavilion Bobby came up to Ron with his hand extended, and according to my fellow staffer, Ron literally swatted his hand away.
Again, let me stress. I would not categorize that as “ -phobic,” but rather just unsettled by being around gays personally. Ron, like many folks his age, very much supports toleration, but chooses not to be around gays on a personal level. It’s a personal choice. And though, it may seem offensive to some, he has every right in my mind to feel and act that way.
Finally, let me make a couple observations. The liberal media is ferociously attacking Ron this morning, on everything from the Newsletters to his various PACs. I’m amused at how off-base they all are. If they are looking for something that went un-explained after many years, it’s the Nadia Hayes incident from the end of the presidential campaign in 1988. I personally am still a little ticked off by this, and surprised that nobody has ever followed up on it. In brief, Nadia was Ron’s longtime business/campaign manager in the 1980s. On the very last day of the presidential campaign, attorneys, accountants, and even Nassau Bay police dept. investigation officials stormed into our campaign office, sealed everything off, rushed us campaign staffers into the storeroom (literally), and for hours on end ruffled through the entire campaign records, file cabinets, and other papers.
Lew Rockwell and Burton Blumert were there too. We were greatly surprised by this. Nadia was eventually convicted of embezzlement and went to jail for 6 months, plus had to pay $140,000 in res ution to Ron.
There were rumors at the time, and long thereafter, that Lew and Burt had pinned it all on Nadia, and that they had their own reasons for the “coup.” For years afterwards, Rockwell, and Blumert had complete control of Ron’s enterprises through Jean McIver and (former JBS/Jesse Helms fundraiser) David “James” Mertz of northern Virginia.
It was easy to pin it all on Nadia. She lived extravagantly, and her husband who owned a boat repair business in Clear Lake, had recently had some serious financial problems.
Nadia never resurfaced, and was never heard from again.
I will attest, that when campaign consultant Tony Payton died of heart failure, in 2002 I believe, I specifically asked Ron if I could look Nadia up, and contact her to let her know that her longtime friend had died, and he reacted sternly to me, expressing that he did not want me to do that, and if I did, there would be serious consequences. I was shocked. And this was one of the reasons I eventually left his staff.
On one other matter, I’d like to express in the strongest terms possible, that the liberal media are focusing in on entirely the wrong aspects regarding controversies on Ron Paul.
It’s his foreign policy that’s the problem; not so much some stupid and whacky things on race and gays he may have said or written in the past.
Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.
I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.
There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. Let me just concentrate on one in specific. And I will state this with absolute certainty:
Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.
He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.
On the eve of the vote, Ron Paul was still telling us staffers that he was planning to vote “No,” on the resolution, and to be prepared for a seriously negative reaction in the District. Jackie Gloor and I, along with quiet nods of agreement from the other staffers in the District, declared our intentions to Tom Lizardo, our Chief of Staff, and to each other, that if Ron voted No, we would immediately resign.
Ron was “under the spell” of left-anarchist and Lew Rockwell associate Joe Becker at the time, who was our legislative director. Norm Singleton, another Lew Rockwell fanatic agreed with Joe. All other staffers were against Ron, Joe and Norm on this, including Lizardo. At the very last minute Ron switched his stance and voted “Yay,” much to the great relief of Jackie and I. He never explained why, but I strongly suspected that he realized it would have been political suicide; that staunchly conservative Victoria would revolt, and the Republicans there would ensure that he would not receive the nomination for the seat in 2002. Also, as much as I like to think that it was my yelling and screaming at Ron, that I would publicly resign if he voted “No,” I suspect it had a lot more to do with Jackie’s threat, for she WAS Victoria. And if Jackie bolted, all of the Victoria conservatives would immediately turn on Ron, and it wouldn’t be pretty.
If you take anything from this lengthy statement, I would hope that it is this final story about the Afghanistan vote, that the liberal media chooses to completely ignore, because it doesn’t fit their template, is what you will report.
If Ron Paul should be slammed for anything, it’s not some silly remarks he’s made in the past in his Newsletters. It’s over his simply outrageously horrendous views on foreign policy, Israel, and national security for the United States. His near No vote on Afghanistan. That is the big scandal. And that is what should be given 100 times more attention from the liberal media, than this Newsletter deal.
Eric Dondero, Publisher
LibertarianRepublican.net
There you have it.
RP = Not a racist.
I think the author, if he is truly who he says he is/was, can be believed.
The author feels you should worry about: lack of support for israel, given to conspiracy theories, and would not have gone into Afghanistan to root out AQ, relying, one can only assume, on the Clinton-style lobbing of cruise missiles.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 12-27-2011 at 01:23 PM. Reason: had to add link
I'm Jewish and I completely agree with Paul Israel is way more trouble than it's worth for us to be their allies and supporters.
I thnk Paul is, overall, a nutter, but would concur with that as well.
idiot, not racist
(nice d!)
Eric Dondero
he's the genius that wrote this piece:
Bush was right
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/...2005-03-03.htm
While all Anti-War libertarians are incredibly big losers in the recent successes of the Bush Doctrine (
Just think about this for a second. Rockwell and Raimondo have been saying for years that Bush was going to be a huge failure. That the entire Middle East was going to explode over our invasion of Iraq. That it would NEVER cause democracy and freedom to flourish in other Nations in the Region. (Some would say that it even has had coat- tails outside of the Region, witness Ukraine).
...
What could be more of a monumental dissaster of judgement than their constant criticisms of Bush’s foreign policy, which now even the most hardcore of Leftist Liberal critics (even Jon Stewart and Nancy Saudenburg on last night’s Comedy Central), are admitting "seems to be working."
*Note — Eric Dondero is a former top staffer for US Congressman Ron Paul and the founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He is also one of the Co-Founders of the Neo-libertarian movement, which supports free market economics, civil liberties, but a hawkish/pro- military foreign policy, ala P.J. O’Rourke.
"mission accomplished"
let's dig in a little deeper into this Dondero fella
http://wredlich.com/ny/2011/01/eric-...e-libertarian/
Before I knew what a completely sociopathic, scheming jerk Dondero was...
Anyway, back to Dondero. Dondero had just quit/been fired (controversy) by TX congressman Ron Paul. Ron Paul was a hero to the libertarian movement, and Dondero had angrily quit when Paul angrily said to him “You work for me!” (Which happened right after Dondero had issued a bunch of pro-war statements on Paul’s behalf.) As best I can discern, at this point, Paul chose to get rid of Dondero, and that “getting rid of” was done in some way that was “off the books” to avoid embarrassing either of them. So, Dondero was so dedicated to militarism that he quit a job as the Sr. aide to the most respected and best-known libertarian in the United States of America. Interesting.
In 2008, Dondero was a supporter of Rudy Guiliani, after Ron Paul famously decried the waste and insanity of US foreign policy. He formed a group called “libertarians for Guiliani” that was a total and complete joke, and never did much of anything, when Guiliani rapidly sank in the polls, following his debate with Paul. Dondero became a McCain supporter when McCain won the Republican nomination.
While I was staying with Dondero in 2004, several things became completely clear:
1) Dondero supports militarism above all else. He has stated this clearly, emphatically, and precisely to me, in person. When asked if he supports the US military above the libertarian cause, he said “Yes. …Absolutely.”
2) Dondero believes that the ends justify the means. He is 100% OK with lying to serve his range-of-the moment (usually a few weeks) goal. He sees absolutely nothing wrong with this. (If he served the cause of liberty, I might agree with him, in order to avoid democide in the USA, but since he serves the cause of militarism and empire, I strongly disagree.)
3) Dondero has a crude grasp of libertarian principles, and all of them are able to be jettisoned at a moment’s notice for the sake of winning whatever argument he’s currently engaged in. This makes him a costly and time-wasting debate opponent, and it further forces one to rely on the audience’s intelligence to identify fallacies in Dondero’s argument. (Dondero cares nothing about this –in any debate, he is there to score points using any and all fallacious argument, and leave). As an example of Dondero’s crude grasp of libertarian principles, when I said “The US would be immune from invasion and occupation if the 2nd amendment was respected and private arms carrying was encouraged.” He incredulously replied: “You want ‘gun guys’ to protect the US? (laughter) You’re crazy! Only the military can do that!” He then tried to drown me out with laughter when I cited the example of Switzerland in WWII, and the gun confiscations from Tutsis before the Rwanda massacres, etc…
4) Dondero’s goals continually shift. He views this as “playing politics.” If he were vastly more intelligent, he’d be a Henry Kissinger type of sociopath. As it stands, he is a lower-level tool that our government appears to occasionally use against the Libertarian Party. For instance, he ended his friendship with me in an interesting manner. Although I had noticed his politics were inconsistent for some time, I had placed him in the camp of “wannabe objectivist” or “pro-war libertarian” and thought something to the effect of: “Well, he’s not a consistent libertarian, but he occasionally does some good things for the cause of liberty, even if it’s only making connections between actual libertarians.” Then, after the Paul v. Guiliani exchange, I talked with him on the phone, because he called me up wanting me to shill on internet message boards in favor of drug warrior, pro-war, anti-free speech, anti-libertarian Guiliani. I said: “You must be crazy. Guiliani is basically a nazi, and no libertarian would ever support him. This doesn’t mean that we can’t still be friends, but…” to which he cut me off, and said “Actually, Jake, it does” …and hung up. I thought to myself “Wow, Eric is really a sociopath. Oh well, good riddance to bad rubbish.”
5) Eric is a collectivist. He didn’t support Bush on principle in 2004, and he didn’t later support Guiliani, McCain (and still later Bob Barr) on principle in 2008. In each case, he was throwing himself into politics based on what the collective had done, in debates and in their conventions. When he became a ballot access pe ioner for Bob Barr (hired by Bill Redpath to disseminate the message that Libertarians are pro-war to thousands and thousands of people), he justified his immediate shift to being a Barr supporter in this way: “Bob Barr’s a great candidate! He’s pro-defense!” All of Barr’s ideas meant nothing to Dondero except one: does he mindlessly support enlarging and growing the size, power, and scope of the U.S. Military. YES. Ding! …Eric’s a supporter!
6) Eric’s entire goal is to make the LP a mindlessly pro-military organization. This has nothing to do with “defense.” This has nothing to do with protecting the U.S. from undue theocratic influence (as it does for say, Leonard Peikoff), Islamic or otherwise. This has nothing to do with protecting the individual rights of gays or women, gun rights, free speech, etc… It has everything to do with defense of Eric’s tribe, his collective: the US military. The US Military paid and continues to pay Eric, and for that, he is their faithful servant. (Since this goal directly conflicts with the goals of the libertarian movement, and Libertarian Party, Eric should never ever be a paid representative of our party, ever again. He should never be a paid pe ioner, ever again, because that amounts to him being a paid representative of the LP. Everyone who interacts with Dondero about the LP is told that the LP is basically a more militaristic version of the Republican Party that wants less government intervention on domestic soil.)
Recently, Eric was running short of money. Pe ioner Jane Harwell has several interesting stories about meeting him on a pe ioning job in Texas, and befriending him.
First, Eric asked her to come to lunch with him. She agreed, and thought they’d talk about the job, pe ioning, etc… Instead, when Eric got to the restaurant, he said “Actually, Rush Limbaugh is on, so I can’t talk right now.” She ate in silence, amazed at how rude someone could be, just to listen to a crappy radio program designed to brainwash already mindless “dittoheads.”
Second, Eric showed up one day at the pe ioning location she had met him at, dressed as a firefighter. He put a boot out on the table, and put a sign under it that said something to the effect of “donations” or “help the cause.” All of the donations went directly into Eric’s pocket.
Dondero’s reasoning goes like this: Those Texans who contributed to him WERE furthering the cause of liberty. …Because they were furthering the survival of Eric Dondero, the great libertarian crusader! By allowing Dondero to eat another day, those Texans were furthering the cause of liberty, by making the Libertarian Party more “politically viable” by making it more unquestioningly militaristic. (After all, a nation that doesn’t mindlessly support everything its military does is weaker than a nation that does!)
These tortured mental gymnastics are truly worthy of the “South Park” character Eric Cartman.
In Donderoland, the ends ALWAYS justify the means, and ALWAYS simultaneously result in serving Eric Dondero (by making him money, by making him seem important, by making him seem credible, etc…).
These are characteristics of narcissism, and sociopathy.
Last edited by cheguevara; 12-27-2011 at 02:30 PM.
As did Paul with his newsletter.Dondero believes that the ends justify the means.
Another Dondero masterpiece:
“My fellow Jews need to buck up,” says Eric Dondero, editor of Libertarian Republican.net, over the phone from Houston. “The big problem right now is Islam and Islamism invading our country. And if they want to continue to move in, we need to fight back. Their culture is coming here.”
Dondero, a former staffer for Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, has blogged extensively about what he calls “creeping Sharia Law” over the past several years. He says if you want to know what Sharia looks like in the United States, all you have to do is look at Europe, where he claims Muslim Europeans have “invaded” the countryside.
“They’re invading Switzerland and a Swedish island called Malmo, where the Muslims are raping all the European and Swedish women,” he says, recalling that city’s reports of lawlessness between the Jewish, Muslim and Neo-Nazi populations. And he fears that if Sharia Law isn’t banned in all states the way it was banned in his, the U.S. is next.
That's probably how most of the GOP candidates feel, but they support it to pander for the Jewish vote and because it's an excuse to beef up the military.
Dondero is definitely a giant bag.
That doesn't make his accounts incorrect however.
The things that strike me most:
RP, being a doctor, seemed to be almost pathologically afraid of getting AIDS in the late 1980's. That is what I take his actions in not wanting to use the bathroom of a gay man as.
You may be a bit young, but there was quite the hysteria over AIDS when it first entered the world stage. By about '88 we knew how it was transmitted, and Mr. Paul would certainly be more familiar with the specifics of viral transmission than anyone.
The other was the fact that he appeared to roll over on Afghanistan, seemingly to get re-elected. That is indicative to me of someone who is not quite the maverick die-hard that he or most of his supporters make him out to be.
I think the same way....those people are ing nuts and not worth protecting.
Yeah it's not worth it when it also gives terrorists a reason to hate us (and contrary to what neo-conservative idiots claim, terrorists don't just hate us forour freedom
Mr. Paul's Discredited Campaign
Ron Paul long ago disqualified himself for the presidency by peddling claptrap proposals like abolishing the Federal Reserve, returning to the gold standard, cutting a third of the federal budget and all foreign aid and opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Now, making things worse, he has failed to convincingly repudiate racist remarks that were published under his name for years - or the enthusiastic support he is getting from racist groups.
Mr. Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas who is doing particularly well in Iowa's precaucus polls, published several newsletters in the '80s and '90s with names like the Ron Paul Survival Report and the Ron Paul Political Report.
\The newsletters interspersed libertarian political and investment commentary with racial bigotry, anti-Semitism and far-right paranoia. Among other offensive statements, the newsletters said that 95 percent of Washington's black males were criminals, and they described the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday as "Hate Whitey Day."
One 1993 article appeared under a headline lamenting the country's "disappearing white majority." Other articles suggested that the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, was responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, praised the Louisiana racist David Duke and accused some gay men with AIDS of deliberately spreading the disease, "perhaps out of a pathological hatred." A direct-mail ad for the newsletters from around 1993 warned of a "coming race war in our big cities" and said there was a "federal- sexual cover-up" to suppress the impact of AIDS.
Mr. Paul, who, beginning in 2008, has disavowed the articles and their ideas, now says that most of them were written by others and that he was unaware of their content. Even if that were the case, it suggests a stupendous level of negligence that should force a reconsideration by anyone considering entrusting him with the White House.
When the newsletters first became an issue during his Congressional campaigns in the 1990s, however, he did not deny writing some of them or knowing about them. Mr. Paul has never given a full and detailed accounting of who wrote the newsletters and what his role was in overseeing their publication. It's especially important that he do so immediately.
Those writings have certainly not been forgotten by white supremacist and militia groups that are promoting his candidacy in Iowa and in New Hampshire.The Times reported on Sunday that dozens of members of the white nationalist Web site Stormfront are volunteering for the Paul campaign, along with far-right militias, survivalists and anti-Zionist groups.
Don Black, the Stormfront director, said his members were drawn to Mr. Paul by the newsletters and his positions against immigration and the Fed (run by Jews, Mr. Black said), even if Mr. Paul were not himself a white nationalist.Mr. Paul, saying he still hopes to "convert" these supporters to his views, has refused to disavow them or to chase them out of his campaign.
If he does not do so, he will leave a lasting stain on his candidacy, on the libertarian movement and, very possibly, on the Iowa caucuses.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/art/886549/28?sub=Editorial
http://mobile.nytimes.com/acomm;jses...?a=886549&f=28
RP, just another right-wing clown in the current troupe of right-wing clowns.
This is what happens when you poll close to #1 in Iowa so close to the caucus.
He will either come out smelling like roses or he will crumble under the pressure.
Either way, I am interested.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
