Equal parts Betty Crocker and Ayn Rand, recipes include Easy Oreo Truffles (made of cream cheese and crushed Oreos, natch), Golfer’s Chicken (don’t forget the powdered onion soup mix, salad dressing and apricot jam) and Zippy Olive Beef Spread (leftover wine, cream cheese, mayonnaise, cocktail olives, shredded beef and a little bit of puking in your own mouth). Mrs. Paul prepares these family favorites in an apron embroidered with “End the Fed”.
Like so much of the Paul’s very special brand of libertarianism, it’s really just an excuse to ignore common sense and prop up corporations at the expense of your own well-being.
Via @RP_Newsletter. I know I’ve written about this before, but reading these in this context, at least in my opinion, makes the hatred really shine. Like I said before, if Ron Paul isn’t a racist, he is incompetent enough to let this happen for years on his watch, or worse, tolerant of people’s vile opinions.
From Angry White Man, written almost four years ago for the New Republic about Ron Paul and the racist newsletters published under his name:
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 Adams Morgan 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 Paul—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.”
I am over people declaring that Ron Paul is a racist and citing his old newsletters as proof, only to have Paul and his supporters deny it. The case is, they are unsigned, and thus easy to write off as someone else’s views. Which Paul has. Repeatedly. And that’s fine.
Let’s assume he didn’t author these newsletters. If he didn’t, we have to take into consideration that these were written over a long enough period of time that the only conclusions that should be drawn don’t bode all that well for the candidate.
We are talking years here. If they were written by one individual, to me that means Paul was never intelligent enough to read over newsletters that people might assume had been written by him. In that case, he doesn’t deserve to be labeled a racist, but he doesn’t deserve to keep his job, either.
Or, he did read them over, and routinely fired writers for their racist remarks and replaced them with other racist writers. Who does he choose to surround himself with? Does he consistently work with such vile, paranoid individuals?
If the latter is the case, eventually would he not, given his stature and place in politics, start looking them over before they went to print (why he didn’t do this to begin with is beyond me) or even take the task of writing them into his own hands?
Ron Paul might not be a racist, but he also clearly lacks good judgement.
Can we talk about something else?
Ron Paul: “The selection of a reality television personality to host a presidential debate that voters nationwide will be watching is beneath the office of the Presidency and flies in the face of that office’s history and dignity.”
What a smug bastard. He’s right, but still.
It is not too often I am pleased by the foreign policy announcements from this administration, but last week’s announcement that the war in Iraq was in its final stage and all the troops may be home for Christmas did sound promising. I have long said that we should simply declare victory and come home. It should not have taken us nearly a decade to do so, and it was supposed to be a priority for the new administration. Instead, it will be one of the last things done before the critical re-election campaign gets into full swing. Better late than never, but, examining the fine print, is there really much here to get excited about? Are all of our men and women really coming home, and is Iraq now to regain its sovereignty? And in this time of economic crisis, are we going to stop hemorrhaging money in Iraq? Sadly, it doesn’t look that way.
First and foremost, any form of withdrawal that is happening is not simply because the administration realized it was the right thing to do. This is not the fulfillment of a campaign promise, or because suddenly the training of their police and military is complete and Iraq is now safe and secure, but because of disagreements with the new government over a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). The current agreement was set up by the previous administration to expire at the end of 2011. Apparently the Iraqis refused to allow continued immunity from prosecution for our forces for any crimes our soldiers might commit on Iraqi soil. Can you imagine having foreign soldiers here, with immunity from our laws and Constitution, with access to your neighborhood?
Some 39,000 American troops will supposedly be headed home by the end of the year. However, the US embassy in Iraq, which is the largest and most expensive in the world, is not being abandoned. Upwards of 17,000 military personnel and private security contractors will remain in Iraq to guard diplomatic personnel, continue training Iraqi forces, maintain “situational awareness” and other functions. This is still a significant American footprint in the country. And considering that a private security contractor costs the US taxpayer about three times as much as a soldier, we’re not going to see any real cost savings. Sadly, these contractors are covered under diplomatic immunity, meaning the Iraqi people will not get the accountability that they were hoping for.
While I applaud the spirit of this announcement – since all our troops should come home from overseas – I have strong reservations about any actual improvements in the situation in Iraq, since plans are already being made to increase the number of troops in surrounding regions. What we really need is a new foreign policy and there is no indication that that is what we have gotten. On the contrary, the administration fully intends to keep troops in Iraq, indefinitely, under a new agreement, while the Iraqis are doing their best to assert their sovereignty and kick us out. Neither are we going to be saving any significant amount of money. My greatest fear, however, is that this troop withdrawal from Iraq will simply pave the way for more endless, wasteful, needless wars.
New polling data shows Mitt Romney cruising in New Hampshire, with nearly quadruple the support of Jon Huntsman, the candidate in third place. Wait, why’d you skip to the third place guy? Who’s in second?
Ron Paul, of course.
To be fair, Paul also dropped a few truth bombs that were met with boos.
The CNN/Tea Party Express debate has its own “234 executions moment” as crowd members respond approvingly to the notion of letting an uninsured America in need of long-term intensive care die rather than be allowed to receive government aid.
What do the various bases of the top Republican contenders look like? A look at the financials of the top finishers in Iowa’s straw poll from Patchwork Nation.
Source: Analysis of Federal Election Commission data