I don’t know the answers to these questions, but they don’t have anything to do with Ron Paul. It is funny that you should change the subject like this.

I deleted your post because 1) My daughter reads this blog; 2) Two of your accusations framed as questions (to your credit, your venom is bipartisan) are serious and outrageous enough that I can’t let them stay here. The Ninth Commandment is still in effect, and is particularly necessary in the Internet Age.

You may try re-posting with the appropriate edits if you wish.

I know these subjects reasonably well, but a blog post is not the best medium to write about them. It is enough for me to say that I am not embarrassed about anything that the Bible says about slavery, if it is not taken out of context.

A presidential campaign, where you generally get to speak in 30 second sound bites, is a realm that makes it impossible to discuss these issues with any clarity. So naturally Ron Paul is getting in trouble for some of the things that either he or his associates have said.

If instead you had focused on slavery, rather that form of government, you would have opened all kinds of opportunities.

For example, you could have titled your post “The Two Pauls; Why I object to Ron, and the Holy Apostle”.

Pax

Perhaps I should have written “pro-slavery” instead of “pro-confederate.” That would have been clearer.

A man’s good name is very precious, and if someone puts his name on the masthead of a newsletter, he should be ready to take responsibility for what is written under his name. If not, he is engaging in risky behavior, and it may come back to bite him.

I used to subscribe to some of Gary North’s newsletters. To his credit, he did always make it clear who was writing.

BTW, despite what I wrote about Ron Paul, I hope he wins some state such as Nevada or Idaho (Utah, alas, will not be in play), just to keep the frontrunners from getting too confident. I think it would be great if the Republicans had a brokered convention. If they had fistfights and broke chairs over each others’ heads, and finally settled things in a smoke filled room with real cigar smoke, that would be even better.

That was odd.

BTW the newsletters were not written by “ghost writers”. That suggests that they were constituent letters sent out by Rep. Ron Paul. They weren’t.

They were a business venture in the pre internet days. Back in the ‘ol days people used to buy subscriptions to newsletters to get the “inside track”. There were many publishers of “conservative” newsletters. One of the most common methods of developing a “new product” was for the publisher to pay a fee to a well known person with the “right profile” to use their name as the Banner for a new newsletter.

There were hundreds of these newsletters on both the left and the right “back in the day”. In most cases the connection of the “banner name” to the actual letter was nil. The publisher normaly would pay a fee + a comission to the person whose name was used & the publisher was responsible for the writing and editing.

And trust me from some of the ones I knew first hand, there was very little editing. In most cases the contract would say that the letter was to “provide a conservative, libertarian, austrian, whatever” view on the news of the day.

Many of the “names” were embarased by the content that would go out from time to time under their name, but what were you going to do?

BTW one of the few exceptions to this rule was “scary” Gary himself. He always wrote his own copy, or at least told you who the guest writer was.

Is an “agictator” a cross between an agitator and a dictator? I.e., someone who rules by annoying everyone else until they give in?

If he acts like that, like for example if he always gets the last comment on all of my posts, can I borrow your dawgs and chase him off? Or maybe we can just distract him by setting him up with your cousin?

I always take the NAACP’s word for who is a racist. Don’t you?

Actually, I never said RP is a racist, but some of his ghost writers appear to be. And since he is not capable of controlling his ghostwriters, he shouldn’t be president. That doesn’t mean his ideas are bad, but he is not the purest vessel to carry them.

I know that many of RPs supporters are perfectly normal. Some are even outstanding, as your list shows. That still does not falsify my statement above.

By going to http://www.ronpaul2008.com you can see a partial list of all the scientists, professors, business leaders, actors, politicians, and many more “nuts and crackpots”.

Besides, Paul is probably the only one who is NOT a member of the CFR. When the candidates are mostly all members of the same think-tank organization, do you think that any of them would make any changes? No, I don’t. It would be business as usual, regardless who the republicrat is.

nh4ronpaul, I already posted about Barack Obama. It is in my Archives from long ago. I believe the title of the post was “Is This Candidte Racist?” Before you tell me what I should write about, you should look at what I have already written.

I know that Ron Paul followers don’t give a hoot about those newsletters, but potential Ron Paul voters in the future will. It will prevent him from getting beyond a base of something like 10% of the Republican primary voters.

And D. Stewart, I never said that all Ron Paul voters are strange. But a few people who have been quite close to him are strange, and their strangeness is of a type that I am able to recognize and point out.

Sean, you should read the New Republic article before you decide that the quotes were taken out of context. Incidentally, John Robbins, a Ron Paul supporter who cannot be accused of political correctness, thought many of the writings were abhorrent. (He blamed Lew Rockwell for them.) So the line for Ron Paul supporters is not that the offensive material was taken out of context, but rather that Ron Paul did not write it.