Ron Paul and his followers have accused almost every liberal politician, the Freemasons, and many others of "conspiring" to kill off people....and not being honest...of robbing us of our rights. They have helped to spread slander against Obama, Al Gore, environmentalists, and others. WHY HAS RON PAUL NOT TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT HIS CONNECTIONS WITH CONFEDERATES.

This is horrible...outrageous and RP should be ashamed of his lies--particularly since he sits in judgment of other people.

John Ehrenfeld Exposed..............

NAACP President:

Considering that RP doesn't think that Shrub and company(the democrats) have attacked our constitutional rights in a serious and criminal way, then maybe he is just full of hot air.

And John makes the good points that all conquerring nations must grapple with:
1.) Imitate the Swiss and be non-conquering(higher minded), which means that you have to earn your money.

2.) Or conquer and steal from others.

I suppose we embody enough of both to make a clear statement that we are colonializing the Iraqis and ruling the U.S. Colony for the British and Dutch.

Then maybe the clown Democrats that need to do number two all of the time, due to their large consumption,and the Repube-lichens who consume more can both admit that we are tools for other nations to conquer for them, and getting stiffed with the bills.

At least Ron Paul gets that much. His medical plan deprives us of his free medical training he received from hard working Americans; something he knows and cares nothing about. (pseudo-liberatarians and neo-liberatarians have dilluted the party to: ["What more can we do politically as a nation to cheapen labor, then call it market driven economics."] Small businessmen like it because they despise having to pay Americans for the work they do. His constitutionally sound health plan does nothing to curb the expenses of a society run by sell-outs and buffoons. These people would rather ruin the nation so they can keep their overpaid jobs and planned to fail, do nothing agendas for social reform.

Ron paul is a Republican that appeals to some people who have been re-defined as Liberatarians settleing for less. His district is full of health care users of medicare and medicaid, and they have enough money to pay for their own health care, but chose to be on welfare medical insurance instead. Like the foriegn investors into the U.S. government, they are more than willing to pay for cosmetic work that benefits a few. Go figure.

Vote outside of the Two pary system or suffer further consequences from the two party buffoons.

Ron Paul believes in the principles this country was founded on? Oh you mean like slaughtering Native Americans? Taking land by force? Enslaving and killing millions of African-Americans? Denying women the right to vote? Intolerance of religions other than Christianity?

You mean Ron Paul's despotic Constitutional constructionism? That if it doesn't say it in an antiquated document written hundreds of years ago it shouldn't be allowed? I am surprised Ron Paul doesn't want to outlaw flying on airplanes.

Ron Paul is the only candidate running who actually believes in the principles this country was founded on. Fuck socialism. Fuck fascism. Ron Paul 2008. He is not racist. Do your homework.

I'm only wrote one of the previous Anonymous messages. I am simply to lazy to fill out the other boxes.

What a surprise that you are "anonymous". Ron Paul campaign? 9-11 Conspiracy guy? I know the article is well researched because the sources are all quoted, I have looked them up now and previously . . . and yes I have read the newsletters. Why would I call the Paul campaign for an explanation? I have been researching Ron Paul for a long time now, I am well aware of the truth as many are. The article is truthful; I defy you to show me one newsletter "Ron Paul's newsletters" that don't say what they are quoted as saying.

The more salient question is why you are an apologist for a racist?

Everything in that hit piece is old news. I heard it months ago and it doesn't align with Ron Paul's actions or what he says. Further more Ron Paul denies that he is a racist.
50 years ago if someone wanted to defame you they called you a Communist, how they call you a racist.
John you should be ashamed for promoting such an obvious hit piece.
You are a partasan hack.

How scholarly to refer to the writer as "pimply faced", that's so typical of bigots like Ron Paul who are exposed to attack the messenger. Me thinks he protesteth to much. It always amuses me to see fringe nuts go to such lengths to try and defend the indefensible. The bottom line is that Ron Paul is a racist with a long, long history of vile reprehensible statements to that effect. Years and years of statements in his newsletter. It is an insult to our collective intelligence to deny that he knew about what a "staffer" was writing. Oh, right, he never, ever read his own newsletter. What a crock of shit.

Ron Paul is a nothing, a fringe candidate who is a laughing stock who will soon be forgotten.

John said; "An absolutely brilliantly researched and written article"

How do you know?

Did you read the 30 years of newsletters to find out?

Did you call the Paul campaign for an explanation or comment?

Did you even go to Ron Paul's website?

What did you do John to verify the articles research?

Or did you just read it and pass it along like a good lemming?

To be fair;

From the Paul campaign:

January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

On TNR

The New Republic was founded by Herbert Croly, a "Progressive" who believed that the Constitution should be abolished in favor of the will of governing elites. Here is what Virginia Postrel wrote about him several years ago:

Crolyism overturned the ideal of limited government in favor of a combination of elite power — commissions to regulate and plan — and mass democracy.... Frustrated with constitutional limits, Croly wrote, “It remains ... true ... that every popular government should in the end, and after a necessarily prolonged deliberation, possess the power of taking any action, which, in the opinion of a decisive majority of the people, is demanded by the public welfare.” This statement, while extreme, pretty much sums up today’s governing philosophy.

So, keep in mind that this is the philosophy behind TNR. It is a view that the political elite need to tell everyone else what to do, and use lethal force against people who resist.

On the slander by Kirchick

An emailer informed me this morning that a young kid whom he called a "grossly uneducated, pimply-faced youth" slandered both Ron Paul and myself on the Tucker Carlson show last night. The pimply-faced youth (PFY) is one Jamie Kirchick, who writes for the left-wing, pro-war New Republic magazine. In the YouTube video of the conversation the PFY asserts over and over that Ron Paul is a "racist." When Carlson asks him if he ever heard Ron make a racist remark he says "No." But then, with a Gotcha! look on his face, the PFY announces: "BUT," he DID attend a conference on secession in 1995!! Aha! Gotcha!

This ignorant little kid posing as a "journalist" then informed everyone that the conference was sponsored by a "neo-Confederate" group and that Ron Paul speaks to "the neo-Confederate community," whatever that is, "in code language. (I knew that Ron was in touch with the Martian community, and with the residents of the planet Remulak, home of the supposedly "fictional" Coneheads of Saturday Night Live fame, but not the "Neo-Confederate Community" as well).

Well, I was at that secession conference and presented a paper there. It was sponsored by the Mises Institute, which has nothing to do with Confederates, neo or otherwise, as anyone who surveyed the Institute's programs on its web site (www.mises.org) would know. The PFY did not bother because he is only interested in slandering Ron Paul, not in being a serious journalist.

My paper was about the Northern secessionist tradition prior to the War between the States, including the Hartford, Ct. secession convention of 1814, and the secession movements of the mid-Atlantic states that existed prior to the war (see the book, The Secession Movement in the Middle States by William Wright). The famous abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison was a Northern secessionist whose credo was "No Covenant with Death," the "covenant" being the U.S. Constitition, and "death" being slavery. Other papers had to do with the Quebec secession movement, European secession movements, federalism in general, how the U.S. was created by a war of secession from the British empire, and even "How to Secede in Business" by substituting arbitration for litigation.

But don't take my word for it. The proceedings of the conference, which the PFY is obviously ignorant of, were published as a book: Secession, State and Liberty, edited by Dr. David Gordon, whose Ph.D. from UCLA is in the field of intellectual history. It includes essays by scholars and professors from Emory University, Florida State University, UNLV, University of Montreal, University of South Carolina, and even a lawyer from Buffalo, New York. It was published a few years after the Soviet empire imploded as the result of eleven separate acts of peaceful secession, which made it especially relevant to social scientists.

In fact, secession remains a lively topic of academic discourse, something that the PFY is obviously unfamiliar with. A few weeks ago a secession conference sponsored by the National Endowment for the Humanities was held in Chrleston, South Carolina, featuring some thirty historians and legal scholars. In little Jamie Kirchick's empty mind, the NEH must necessarily be a hotbed of pro-slavery sentiment. (A friend in academe tells me that the participants in this conference spanned the ideological spectrum from left/liberal to Marxist).

Only an ignorant conspiracy theorist like Jamie Kirchick would assume that anyone who studies secession in a scholarly way is necessarily some kind of KKK-sympathizing kook. He knows that Ron Paul will not sue him for defamation because he is a public figure. I, however, am not a public figure.

A Bonus.

Download this one, wouldn't be surprised if it is pulled and disappears soon.

Fuck Iraq

This one is better.....Fuck Iraq.... Fuck JohnE

When a respected and professional journalist like James Kirchick (who is owned by no one) spends countless hours researching and printing the truth, we all benefit. It's so revealing that I have yet to see one Ron Paul kool-aid drinker defend his many racist comments and other assorted fringe beliefs. Attack the messenger, nothing could be more obvious.

Over 11,000 views in 1 day..................

(truth about Iraq)

Ron Paul 2008

I view the republican candiates as such:

McCain, War mongering NeoCon, unfit to have any role in American politics.
Romney, Says what ever will get him elected. Who knows how he stand on anything because he just says what his audience wants to hear. Unfit to lead.
Guliani, Doesn't understand forging relations, a NeoCon trying to ride 911 into the white house. Marred by ties to corruption. Very possibly a criminal. Unfit to be walking around with out handcuffs on.
Thompson, doesn't seem to even understand how our own government works. Likes to state he has the "only plan" to fix something, no details ever given. I think its telling that Nixon called him stupid.
Huckabee, religions nut with a past marred by incompetence. Also annoys the hell out of me with this "I'm the only one who can X and let me tell you why". like where all some kind of idiot. (Which Iowa demonstrated that they are).
Ron Pual, not perfect, but honest understand how the ending the Fed will free us from the IRS and immoral wars like the Iraq war.

That new republic article was a very carefully timed hit piece.
To call him a dangerous zealot is idiotic and demonstrates your ignorance.

First of all, bloggers on Brave New Films are individuals free to express their individual opinions. There are no mandates or directives as to what points-of-views to express and these views are mine and no one elses. However I think it is very much in Brave New Films progressive tradition to expose racism wherever it rears it's ugly head.

Secondly, there are is plenty of empirical, factual evidence in my and many other people's opinion that Ron Paul is most definitely a "very dangerous zealot". Perhaps you might want to address the specific beliefs that Ron Paul espouses such as those detailed in the James Kirchick article. Or attempt to defend his rejection of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, etc.

Your comments on Romney and Giuliani are right-on and they certainly do not escape scrutiny and condemnation here. But that has nothing to do with evaluating Ron Paul and what he believes.

I'm a big fan of the work of Brave New Films, but this is out of line and unbecoming. Please try to seperate the "right" and "left" from the analysis.

Ron Paul is certainly not a "very dangerous zealot". That's hyperbole to say the least. As far as candidates who should have no credibility (on the Republican side), perhaps you should start with Romney who is part of a religious cult, or Giuliani who knows less about foreign policy than a 5th grader, or McCain who endorses another 50 years in Iraq.

For those of us not interested in two-party political squabling and just getting this country back on the right track, Paul is easily the most desirable candidate on the Republican side.