Re: POLITICS: Yet More Ron

[Guest guest]

>

There is just so much. The salient point is that this stuff went on for

decades ­ is it really plausible that he had a hand in none of it, and

didn¹t know about any of it for all of that time?

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84

ca

You may have to copy and paste the text of the link after my formatting gets

screwed up

Some excerpts (not in order)

³When I asked Benton, 's campaign spokesman, about the

newsletters, he said that, over the years, had granted " various levels

of approval " to what appeared in his publications--ranging from " no

approval " to instances where he " actually wrote it himself. " After I read

Benton some of the more offensive passages, he said, " A lot of [the

newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no. " He added

that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Luther

King, because " Ron thinks Luther King is a hero. "

In other words, 's campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve,

absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing

on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views

had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically--or if the newsletters

had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how

could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia,

anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so

long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not

personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If

he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think

that at some point--over the course of decades--he would have done something

about it.²

³But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing

in common: They were published under a banner containing 's name, and

the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained

the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that

they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are

decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing

militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In

short, they suggest that Ron is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist

his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good

standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.²

³This " Special Issue on Racial Terrorism " was hardly the first time one of

's publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a

section of his Investment Letter, titled " What To Expect for the 1990s, "

predicted that " Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities " because " mostly black

welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white

'haves.' " Two months later, a newsletter warned of " The Coming Race War, "

and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, " If you live in a major

city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for

investment and refuge, buy it. " In June 1991, an entry on racial

disturbances in Washington, DC's neighborhood was titled,

" Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo. " " This is only the first skirmish in the

race war of the 1990s, " the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item

about urban crime, the newsletter's author--presumably --wrote, " I've

urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For

the animals are coming. " That same year, a newsletter described the

aftermath of a basketball game in which " blacks poured into the streets of

Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows

of stores to loot. " The newsletter inveighed against liberals who " want to

keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare, "

adding, " Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set

off black rage, it seems. "

³ Luther King Jr. earned special ire from 's newsletters, which

attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to

the federal holiday named after him. ( " What an infamy Reagan approved

it! " one newsletter complained in 1990. " We can thank him for our annual

Hate Whitey Day. " ) In the early 1990s, newsletters attacked the " X-Rated

Luther King " as a " world-class philanderer who beat up his

paramours, " " seduced underage girls and boys, " and " made a pass at " fellow

civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black

activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that

" Welfaria, " " Zooville, " " Rapetown, " " Dirtburg, " and " Lazyopolis " were better

alternatives. The same year, King was described as " a comsymp, if not an

actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation

with the evil of forced integration. "

While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial

Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, Duke. In a passage titled " The Duke's

Victory, " a newsletter celebrated Duke's 44 percent showing in the 1990

Louisiana Senate primary. " Duke lost the election, " it said, " but he scared

the blazes out of the Establishment. " In 1991, a newsletter asked, " Is

Duke's new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good

for anti-big government forces? " The conclusion was that " our priority

should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare

loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and

enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom. " Duke is now returning

the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any

candidate, he has made information about Ron available on his website.²

³Like blacks, gays earn plenty of animus in 's newsletters. They

frequently quoted 's " old colleague, " Representative

Dannemeyer--who advocated quarantining people with AIDS--praising him for

" speak[ing] out fearlessly despite the organized power of the gay lobby. " In

1990, one newsletter mentioned a reporter from a gay magazine " who certainly

had an axe to grind, and that's not easy with a limp wrist. " In an item

titled, " The Pink House? " the author of a newsletter--again, presumably

--complained about President H.W. Bush's decision to sign a hate

crimes bill and invite " the heads of homosexual lobbying groups to the White

House for the ceremony, " adding, " I miss the closet. " " Homosexuals, " it

said, " not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social

pressure forced them to hide their activities. " When Marvin Liebman, a

founder of the conservative Young Americans for Freedom and a longtime

political activist, announced that he was gay in the pages of National

Review, a newsletter implored, " Bring Back the Closet! " Surprisingly,

one item expressed ambivalence about the contentious issue of gays in the

military, but ultimately concluded, " Homosexuals, if admitted, should be put

in a special category and not allowed in close physical contact with

heterosexuals. "

³Then there is North, who has worked on 's congressional staff.

North is a central figure in Christian Reconstructionism, which advocates

the implementation of Biblical law in modern society. Christian

Reconstructionists share common ground with libertarians, since both groups

dislike the central government. North has advocated the execution of women

who have abortions and people who curse their parents. In a 1986 book, North

argued for stoning as a form of capital punishment--because " the implements

of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost. " North is

perhaps best known for North's Remnant Review, a " Christian and pro

free-market " newsletter. In a 1983 letter wrote on behalf of an

organization called the Committee to Stop the Bail-Out of Multinational

Banks (known by the acronym CSBOMB), he bragged, " Perhaps you already read

in North's Remnant Review about my exposes of government abuse. "

[Guest guest]

Can we survive another 4 years with any President that advocates secrecy,

irresponsibility and unaccountability for their actions? For example has

publicly regretted his Iraq vote and called on Hillary to do the same. No state,

nation or planet can survive BS leadership.

Wanita

implode7@... wrote:

>There is just so much. The salient point is that this stuff went on for

>decades ­ is it really plausible that he had a hand in none of it, and

>didn¹t know about any of it for all of that time?

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ