10. "Of the 620 measures that Paul has sponsored [since 1976], just four have made it to a vote on the House floor. Only one has been signed into law."

9. Ron Paul is 76 years old and would be 80 at the end of a hypothetical first term.

8. In 2007, Ron Paul criticized Abraham Lincoln for using military force to end slavery during the Civil War: "He shouldn’t have gone to war… Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world and the way I’m advising that it should have been done is do like the British Empire did; you buy the slaves and release them."

7. In 2009, Ron Paul said even the Nazi Holocaust was not sufficient cause for interventionism. He said, among other things, "No, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t risk American lives to [end the Holocaust]."

6. The Washington Post's Charles Lane -- hardly a "neocon" -- says that "Paul actually comes closest to the foreign policy views of Obama’s longtime religious leader, Jeremiah Wright."

5. Just days after the horrific 9/11 attacks that killed 3,000 Americans, Ron Paul blamed America for the attacks: "It is clear that protecting certain oil interests and our presence in the Persian Gulf help drive the holy war. Muslims see this as an invasion and domination by a foreign enemy, which inspires radicalism."

4. In a television interview he gave in 1995, Ron Paul explicitly and personally endorsed the views of his newsletter: "I also do an investment letter. It’s called the Ron Paul Survival Report, and I put that out on a monthly basis ... which is a gold-oriented newsletter, but it’s also, uh, convening — expressing concern about surviving in this age of big government, where there’s a lot of taxes and regulations, and attacks on our personal liberties."

3. Ron Paul refuses to disavow support from "the racists, anti-Semites and neo-Nazis in his coalition (sorry, but whatever you think of Lew Rockwell, Stormfront and David Duke certainly deserve such labels)."

2. In an interview he gave just last month, Ron Paul also refuses to disclaim the despicable 9/11 Truther movement and, in fact, actively encourages it. When asked "why won’t you come out about the truth about 9/11?", he responded: "Because I can’t handle the controversy, I have the IMF the Federal Reserve to deal with, the IRS to deal with because no because I just have more-too many things on my plate. Because I just have too much to do."

1. Ron Paul believes in pretty much every discredited, crackpot conspiracy theory you've ever heard of. To wit:

He knows how crazy his conspiracy theories about The Illuminatis are, so he initially deflects the question ("What do you think the Bildersbergers are doing?") with an empty demurral. Then the questioner asks it a second and third time, and he can no longer counterfeit his beliefs; he offers up the Illuminatis conspiracy.

Remember, we're fighting a "phony war" against Al Qaeda, and it's all ginned-up neocon nonsense that Iran is cooking up a nuclear bomb, and Hamas was created by Israel.

But the thing we've got to really keep our eyes on is the Bildersbergers and Trilateral Commissioners.
Presidential!

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/12/10-fun-facts-you-may-not-have-known.html

9,7,and 2 concern me


the others seem logical and/or reasonable

#8 was not ever a possibility.

The American Civil War was one of my two concentrations as a history major.

First, the South would never have allowed the Federal government to purchase their slaves. That's the kind of government intrusion that Libertarians and Ron Paul are against (what happened Mr. Paul?). The Southern states were the same way back in the mid-19th century. To them, slavery was a Constitutional right. They advocated States' Rights as a counter to Federal power, and saw abolition as an un-Constitutional attempt by the North to expand Federal power. This was an argument that had been going on since the founding of the nation.

The entire economy of the South was built around agriculture. Plantations were the "big business" of the South. Take away the slave labor, and the Southern economy would collapse - which it did during and following the war. Share-cropping was an attempt to resuscitate the agricultural economy in the wake of abolition. Most of us realize just how lop-sided that system was as landowners sought to regain the profits they were accustomed to. So the South merely shifted from slave labor to what was effectively indentured servitude. Even in defeat, the landed gentry were still trying to cling to slavery.


Secondly, Lincoln was given no choice. The firing upon Fort Sumter was in direct response to Lincoln's election, following close on the heels of the Inauguration. In short order, several Southern states had rallied together for secession. Short of removing Lincoln from office, the only compromise the South would have accepted was to be allowed to exit the Union peacefully. Technically, the South began the war by firing upon a Federal fort rather than peacefully ratifying secession. This act was done specifically to send the message that compromise was no longer possible.

Even then, war was likely to ensue anyway because the South had an eye toward expansion by capturing Cuba and Mexico through purchase or even military force. The extent of Northern intervention in such a war is an unknown, but based on the Monroe Doctrine, any European aid would have drawn the Union into the conflict. One might even argue that Confederate expansion could have resulted in the first World War, involving the USA, the CSA, England, France, and Spain. In any event, plans for Southern expansion were no secret since it had been not only long rumored, but actually brought before Congress during debates over the admission of territories as states. Fears of Southern expansion were one of the issues considered when Lincoln responded to the attack on Fort Sumter.


So, if Ron Paul really believes that Lincoln should have taken such a route in avoiding war, then Mr. Paul better brush up on his American history. He is sadly misinformed to think a Federal buyout was ever even a remote possibility. Even a gradual phase-out, as it was believed at the time, would require least 100 years given Southern political resistance. Mr. Paul might want to refrain from commenting on history in the future.

More "spin".....

Research anything posted on RP, good or bad, and somewhere under all the bias the media prints, shows, blogs, and spews, you will find the truth.

Since this poster is biased beyond belief, and considers Faux Noise news, I would question anything posted.

just sayin....

This is pretty laughable!!! Why would you even embarrass yourself by copying, pasting and posting some drivel written on a blog . . . are you that desperate to try and make RP look bad? You know what they say about a person who spreads rumors? You probably actually adamantly believe anything negative about the man. Didn't I see you in a cartoon episode with Foghorn Leghorn?

Many of the others seem reasonable to me also. Thats especially interesting when reading a set of quotes is carefully assembled for the express purpose of making someone look bad. RP must do an amazing job of speaking well and intelligently, and of arriving at reasonable positions, if this is the best they can come up with.

BTW, I'm not sure that '2' is really true. I've heard him talk about the truther movement, and he's addressed it (in terms of his own beliefs) clearly and directly many times. He says he is not responsible for what other people believe - and he isn't.



That isn't 'blaming america' - thats making a correct and important observation about cause and effect. IIRC, this is basically what the US intelligence agencies were telling Bush as the time, too.

You should read DiLorenzo's literature on the Civil War. Especially "The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War". Another good one is "The Politically Incorrect Guide To The Civil War" by Crocker. RP's assessments are correct.

btw, the author of the OP is dead wrong about Lew Rockwell, too. His archive of literature is readily available at lewrockwell.com and all his books are free at mises.org.

I've read a number of Lew Rockwell's writings from his own website. I don't trust the guy worth a fig.

DiLorenzo is a member of the von Mises Institute. I'm going to place the opinion of an economics expert linked to Lew Rockwell above and beyond the vast majority of historians, years worth of classes, and my own research?

First rule of research: Check your sources. Are they qualified and credible?

DiLorenzo is a radical Libertarian economist playing at being a historian - and at being a revisionist historian at that.



Crocker's book is a pro-Confederacy piece charging that the American Civil War is remembered and recounted from a biased Northern angle. It attempts to mask itself as an even-handed viewing of history, but there is no masking the intent. After 150 years, apparently many Southerners still feel indignation over the war. It's time to just get over it. One of Crocker's big focuses is trying to dissociate Nazism from the Confederate and post-Confederate ideals. That alone says it all.

Anyone who has seriously studied the Civil War studies the period from both sides' points of view - not one or the other. One cannot accurately view history without objectivity, hence why history majors often are required to take courses whose sole focus is critical thinking and research techniques. Crocker's book is nothing more than pulp history.


Taken together, both books have the smell of a hidden agenda.

These facts are what make me research "the man" more than any one or more articles about them.

30 years of articles, speeches, posts and blogs on RP. Senate notes, votes, speeches.... these are telling AND compelling.

It is easy for me to dismiss the charges of racism and anti-semitism against RP because I have research him by his many deeds, not what has been said about him.

Libratarian principles have been "fringe" for a long while. At the time of the news letters there was a lot of racial tension still in the states. It was playing to one side of this or the other that gave politics a voice and following.

RP had returned to private practice, and Lew was in charge of the newsletters with ghost writers given the freedom of the press and opinion in the agreement. Paul simply contributed with hard money/sound money articles to the newsletters...FACT! Even from MSM.

While he agrees he is responsible for not being a good publisher, he takes NO claim to the views or their writing. There was an anonimity agreement in the ghost writer clause, so RP CAN"T name names or it would go against all he believes in....the law!

He has done what he can, to many it is enough knowing him, NOT to the press or those who would...NEED...to see him fail.

This of course is just my summation from what I have read (multiple sources) so it is open to debate.