Tel-Chai Nation

Eric Dondero of Libertarian Republican, who used to work for Ron Paul between 1987-2003, has written a special post for Right Wing News about his former boss' extremism (via Commentary). There are some shortcomings, but overall, Dondero does give some very eyebrow raising insight into just how demented Paul really is. For example:

He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.

Again, American Jews, Ron Paul has no problem with. In fact, there were a few Jews in our congressional district, and Ron befriended them with the specific intent of winning their support for our campaign. (One synagogue in Victoria, and tiny one in Wharton headed by a well-known Jewish lawyer).

There's just one little question: what kind of political leanings did they have for the most part? Liberal? And if we were to ask if they were religiously minded, just what sects would they be part of? Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or Satmar? What if they turned out to be the latter 2?

There was another incident when Ron finally agreed to a meeting with Houston Jewish Young Republicans at the Freeport office. He berated them, and even shouted at one point, over their un-flinching support for Israel. So, much so, that the 6 of them walked out of the office. I was left chasing them down the hallway apologizing for my boss.

Martin Luther King Jr. once said that when you speak against Israel and/or the Jews, it's anti-semitism. So what's the point of arguing that he's not an anti-semite, for example?

Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.

I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.

There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. Let me just concentrate on one in specific. And I will state this with absolute certainty:

Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.

He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.

On the eve of the vote, Ron Paul was still telling us staffers that he was planning to vote “No,” on the resolution, and to be prepared for a seriously negative reaction in the District. Jackie Gloor and I, along with quiet nods of agreement from the other staffers in the District, declared our intentions to Tom Lizardo, our Chief of Staff, and to each other, that if Ron voted No, we would immediately resign.

Ron was “under the spell” of left-anarchist and Lew Rockwell associate Joe Becker at the time, who was our legislative director. Norm Singleton, another Lew Rockwell fanatic agreed with Joe. All other staffers were against Ron, Joe and Norm on this, including Lizardo. At the very last minute Ron switched his stance and voted “Yay,” much to the great relief of Jackie and I. He never explained why, but I strongly suspected that he realized it would have been political suicide; that staunchly conservative Victoria would revolt, and the Republicans there would ensure that he would not receive the nomination for the seat in 2002. Also, as much as I like to think that it was my yelling and screaming at Ron, that I would publicly resign if he voted “No,” I suspect it had a lot more to do with Jackie’s threat, for she WAS Victoria. And if Jackie bolted, all of the Victoria conservatives would immediately turn on Ron, and it wouldn’t be pretty.

If you take anything from this lengthy statement, I would hope that it is this final story about the Afghanistan vote, that the liberal media chooses to completely ignore, because it doesn’t fit their template, is what you will report.

The parts about his opposition to America fighting in WW2 and also his complete insensitivity to the victims of 9-11 are something to pay careful attention to. That he would even forbid the staffers from holding memorials to the victims is absolutely abominable, and anyone who votes for him in the coming week is only giving legitimacy to his vicious mindset.

I will have to disagree with him on something he says in the last paragraph though:

If Ron Paul should be slammed for anything, it’s not some silly remarks he’s made in the past in his Newsletters. It’s over his simply outrageously horrendous views on foreign policy, Israel, and national security for the United States. His near No vote on Afghanistan. That is the big scandal. And that is what should be given 100 times more attention from the liberal media, than this Newsletter deal.

While his initial opposition to raiding Afghanistan and his cold stance on the victims of 9-11 are definitely abominable, I disagree that the newsletters aren't something serious. They most definitely are. All those years, even if he didn't write the opinions himself, he still edited and published some of the most racist drivel against blacks and Jews/Israel, and it's a good question who suffers worse in his bigoted, obnoxious rants. Paul referenced blacks as "animals" and claimed that 95% of DC's residents were "criminal" or "semi-criminal", and even his financial newsletters contained weird, offensive junk. Let us be clear here, to make the kind of racist statements Paul did against blacks is wrong, and for all we know, he could very easily have been one of the reasons why for many years, the Republicans had difficulty in convincing many blacks and Jews to vote for them when vile inciters like Paul were in the vicinity.

The GOP needs to purge themselves of rock-bottom monsters like Paul once and for all if they're to regain full confidence of the African-American and Jewish-American public. While I'm not happy that Dondero holds back from completely slamming Paul, I do appreciate that he's spoken out and related some of the most chilling details about just what kind of demonic mindset Paul adheres to. Paul's horrific approach to 9-11 is definitely something every self-respecting person needs to know about.

Update: here's an op-ed by Ron Jager making clear that Paul is unfit to hold office. And here's one by Hugh Hewitt where he and Mark Steyn tell that Paul's squad of "truthers" will include everyone who votes for him in Iowa.

Update 2: I'm glad to see that Erick Erickson comprehends that Paul is simply bad news, and in doing so, Erickson regains some credibility with me. Plus, here's another posting about this case from Leon Wolf.

Update 3: the Wash. Examiner has an interesting revelation (via Hot Air): Paul's biggest supporters aren't even Republicans:

In an analysis accompanying his most recent survey in Iowa, pollster Scott Rasmussen noted, “Romney leads, with Gingrich in second, among those who consider themselves Republicans. Paul has a wide lead among non-Republicans who are likely to participate in the caucus.”

The same is true in New Hampshire. A poll released Monday by the Boston Globe and the University of New Hampshire shows Paul leading among Democrats and independents who plan to vote in the January 10 primary. But among Republicans, Paul is a distant third — 33 points behind leader Mitt Romney.

In South Carolina, “Paul’s support is higher among those who usually don’t vote in GOP primary elections,” notes David Woodard, who runs the Palmetto Poll at Clemson University.

In a hotly-contested Republican race, it appears that only about half of Paul’s supporters are Republicans. In Iowa, according to Rasmussen, just 51 percent of Paul supporters consider themselves Republicans. In New Hampshire, the number is 56 percent, according to Andrew Smith, head of the University of New Hampshire poll.

This is certainly concerning, and shows why the GOP may have to maintain stricter rules for voting if they're to prevent "mischief voters" from influencing the elections.

Labels: Afghanistan, anti-americanism, anti-semitism, islam, Israel, jihad, political corruption, racism, terrorism, United States, war on terror