Skip to main content

Thoroughout the Ron Paul Campaign there have been questions regarding allegations of racism and anti-Semitism. Now, more information regarding Ron Paul, darling of the "You Kids, Get off my Lawn" and the "I Plan to Blow Up the U.S. Government" Party in the U.S. (/snark) and those who are blind one issue voters has just been further exposed for the serious nuttiness that encompasses his isolationist leanings.

First and foremost with Ron Paul, there is his utterly insane domestic policy which promises to destroy the economy (Cut $ 1 trillion from the U.S. Budget in Year One), cut out the Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, Interior and Commerce.

Then there is his past association with racist drivel written in the Ron Paul Report and other places. Though he says he disavow's that did not happen until he was called on it. Of course this is thoroughly debunked in the WaPo who herein did a nice job calling out Paul's racist associations.  

Paul offers implausible explanations for why so many derogatory statements made it into his publications, insisting he knew nothing about them. It’s hard to believe that a man who wants to oversee the entire U.S. government — albeit a smaller version — would provide zero oversight of his publications, or even bother to read them from time to time.

The Texas congressman has to take responsibility for the newsletters that bear his name, or at least acknowledge negligence as the former head of the company that produced them. He earns three Pinocchios for failing to do so.

THREE PINOCCHIOS - Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.

So now what comes to light... 'I wouldn't send US troops to fight Nazis'

Oh yeah... the one thing that most current Democrats, Republicans, and Independents can agree on was how important it was to defeat the Third Reich. Now, given that we have history to tell us what actually happened Ron Paul still says:

Following a controversial revelation by a former aide to the congressman, saying that Paul "wishes Israel didn't exist," another blogger said Tuesday that in 2009 Paul went on the record as saying that if he were the president of the United States during WWII he "wouldn't have risked American lives to end the Holocaust."

Journalist Jeffrey Shapiro posted a 2009 interview he held with the GPO's leading candidate, in which Paul clearly states that if it were up to him at the time, saving the Jews from annihilation in Europe would not have been a "moral imperative."  

"I asked Congressman Paul: If he were president of the United States during World War II would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany to save the Jews? And the Congressman answered: No, I wouldn't."

All I can say is WOW! saving the Jews of Europe would NOT have been a moral imperative? REALLY?

This is the guy leading the Republican field in Iowa. A guy that would have turned a blind eye to the Third Reich.

How anyone who claims to support Paul can call themselves "progressive" is ridiculous. Holy Moly...


Ron Paul

2%28 votes
0%7 votes
1%22 votes
82%982 votes
1%14 votes
11%141 votes

| 1194 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm reluctant to trash him for this. (8+ / 0-)

    FDR didn't send American troops to save the Jews.  He only declared war on Germany because Germany declared war on the US; diplomatic historians aren't at all sure that FDR would ever have been in a position to declare war on Germany had Hitler not honored the Axis treaty.  And even once the US declared war on Germany and was actively fighting in Europe, Roosevelt placed very little importance on bombing the Holocaust infrastructure even after the Polish resistance and other sources laid it all out for him.  It wasn't until way, way into the war that the US made clear that the extermination of the Jews would receive special punishment, and even then it was in the context of an unconditional-surrender demand that weakened the position of whatever opponents of Hitler remained in the military after July 20, 1944.

    And let's not forget that we have in our own progressive ranks a lot of extreme pacifists who wouldn't do anything military to stop a new Holocaust.

    But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

    by Rich in PA on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 05:05:34 PM PST

    •  No We Do Not. (4+ / 0-)

      There don't exist "a lot" of extreme pacifists in the US to begin with.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 05:11:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not really true. (11+ / 0-)

      go here


      Rosen takes on each of the chief accusations frequently leveled at Roosevelt with regard to his handling of the Holocaust, and demonstrates why these charges are unfair and unfounded. These include:

      • The SS St. Louis Incident -- Here, a shipload of German Jewish refugees was turned away from Cuba and not permitted to dock in the United States. Rosen explains the behind-the-scenes attempts the Roosevelt administration made to convince Cuba to permit these Jews to enter; why making an exception in U.S. immigration policy was impossible; and how FDR's camp arranged for the ship's passengers  (the majority of whom survived the war) to be taken in by other European countries and avoid being returned to Germany.

      • Failure to denounce the Holocaust -- Although FDR has been described as being part of a conspiracy of silence with regard to the Holocaust, Rosen shows that there was no such conspiracy, and that FDR was not silent. He points, for example, to a published and widely disseminated 1942 declaration condemning the German policy of extermination of the Jews on which Roosevelt joined with Churchill, Stalin, and ten Allied governments in exile.

      • The Allies' decision not to bomb Auschwitz -- Rosen points out that even Roosevelt's critics agree that the window of opportunity to bomb Auschwitz was both small and late in the war. He also explains that World War II's aerial bombardment capabilities were not very precise, and that Jewish leaders and the U.S. government were unwilling to take the risk that bombing would kill Jewish inmates, but fail to halt the extermination process.

      "Say little; do much." (Pirkei Avot: 1:15)

      by hester on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 05:11:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's all pretty small beer. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        crankyinNYC, Quequeg

        And that last item is especially weird.  The proposal wasn't to bomb Auschwitz, which of course would have killed the people the proposers wanted to save.  Rather, it was to hit the rail lines leading to Auschwitz.  Since the US and British bombed rail lines all the time, and Germany's air defenses were substantially degraded as the war went on, I think the conventional wisdom stands.

        But this is all a distraction, and shame on me for letting it happen in the latter part of my original comment.  My main point is that FDR didn't go to war with Germany because of what it was doing to the Jews, so it's silly to condemn Paul for saying he wouldn't do something that FDR himself didn't do.

        But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

        by Rich in PA on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 05:18:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  This shows how grueful the situation was (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hester, Quequeg
        1942 declaration condemning the German policy of extermination of the Jews on which Roosevelt joined with Churchill, Stalin

        Until 1941 Stalin had killed and exterminated more innocent civilians than had Hitler at that point. Until 1939 Stalin had even killed more people because of their ethncities than Hitler (Poles, Ukrainians etc.). And more Jews had been killed in the Soviet Union than in Germany.

        It was first some time after 1941 that the horror of the Nazi regime became clearly greater than the horror of the Stalin regime, and in that hindsight  the US ended up doing the right thing figthing with Stalin against Hitler.

        "Walking into someone's diary is like walking into someone's home. You are a guest. Act accordingly." Kos

        by Mariken on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 06:53:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Rich... see my response to Marie (11+ / 0-)

      I think FDR would have intervened in full knowing what was happening if Germany had not declared War on us in 1941.

      BUT... it is not a comparable situation as Ron Paul knows in full what happened. It's not a real good comparison.

    •  But Ron Paul has the advantage of hindsight (11+ / 0-)

      which FDR obviously lacked.

      Consider adopting a homeless pet at (Progressive Animal Welfare Society)

      by hikerbiker on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 05:49:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Paul is an isolationist (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        His position is par for the course in that regard and does not in itself consitute any proof he is an anti-Semite. I presume he would have been against US entry into WWII under any circumstances, except a direct German attack on the US. Nor do his anti-Israel views mean he is an anti-Semite Many Jews have been and are anti-Zionist and while the right-wing Jewish organizations try to blur the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism (and even anti-Semitism and opposition to the policies of Israeli government vis a vis Palestinians) there is no reason we should follow their lead.

        Paul is like a lot of extreme libertarians in his opposiiton to
        government and foreign intervention. He may be anti-Semitic or not. He does seem to be anti-gay from anecdotal reports (not to mention his cameo in Sascha Baron Cohen's "Bruno" film). There is good reason to believe he is a racist, based on the newsletters.

        There is enough objectionable material about him out there already. No need to charge him with something he can deny with some plausibility.

    •  really? but let me ask you this: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hester, volleyboy1, jts327

      of someone in 2009 asked you whether you'd have sent in US forces to take out the Nazi's and end the jewish pograms in Europe, what would you say?

      Here's the thing: while the US acted way too slowing, IMO, about it, we're some 70 years from when it happened today. There's pretty general worldwide concensus that intervention in the Nazi regime was a good thing. With the exception of a few holocaust deniers and neo-nazis, pretty much everyone agrees taht what happened in Europe under Hilter was reprehensible, dangerous and worthy of intervention.

      So what kind of a person articulates that, "No, I wouldn't have risked US troops for that?"


      And what does it say about a person who is purportedly running for office, who, if elected, is supported to be looking our for the USA, including those who don't share his views?

      What type of a person responds the way he did to that question? It's like saying slavery was OK and we shouldn't have gone to war over it (which I bet he'd say as well). What kind of a person SAYS THIS STUFF?

      I've become re-radicalized. Thanks a lot you bunch of oligarchical fascist sons-of-bitches. But once again, I have no choice. Bring it the fuck on.

      by mdmslle on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 06:54:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  We had not been even pretending to be neutral (0+ / 0-)

      before 12/7/1941.  We weren't actually entering combat, but we had occupied Iceland to relieve British troops that had been there before and convoys were supplying the Allies in Europe.

      We had even taken casualties.

      Quidquid id est, timeo Republicanos et securitatem ferentes.

      by Sura 109 on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 09:13:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  American troops weren't sent (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BigAlinWashSt, Quequeg

    into Europe to save the Jews.  So, it's not as if he is espousing anything different than what was done.    

    And as much as I loathe anti-social political positions of libertarians, have to agree with Dave Lindorff in Why the Establishment is Terrified of Ron Paul wrt to the charges of racism.

    The racist bit is funny. After all, if we’re honest, the whole political infrastructure of the US is riven with racism. Just check out the public schools in any urban area, where you’ll find most of the students are non-white, or check out the schools in rural parts of the southeast in areas where most of the students are black — compare the condition of those schools and the class sizes to schools in the white neighborhoods. Check out the wildly different jobless figures for whites and for blacks. Check out the (very pale) complexion of the student bodies at just about any state university, check out the skin tones of the judges on the US Supreme Court, or for that matter, the whole federal bench. Check out the racial breakdown of the nation’s jails, and especially on the country’s many death rows, where you’ll find a wildly outsized percentage of people with black or brown skin waiting to be killed by the state.
    •  LOL Marie - We know this (4+ / 0-)

      But the nature of the Holocaust while known was not quite believed. Now with hindsight to say that One would not do that is morally reprehensible.

      Second, No one is terrified to call out Ron Paul's racism and racist associations. Sorry. The U.S. has a problem with racism but we are trying to fix it (at least Democrats are), Ron Paul would just make it worse.

      The difference between Paul's position and FDR who did want to intervene is that it hadn't happened in full yet when the U.S. intervened in WWII. Paul knows what happened 70 years later and still wouldn't have done it.

      That's a pretty big difference.

    •  And this is what makes Ron Paul's response (3+ / 0-)

      so appalling.  He has the benefit of 20-20 hindsight and still would let X million people be slaughtered????  FDR's intentions in 1940 are not an excuse  to give Ron Paul a free pass on this.

      Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

      by Miggles on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 09:17:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't know of any progressives who support (6+ / 0-)

    Paul.  They might agree with some of his stances on some issues, such as U.S. imperialism and the war on drugs, but certainly not in total and certainly not enough to vote for him.  I think progressives understand his positions on domestic issues are enough to disqualify him up front.  

    •  Exactly. I would be willing to vote for him (0+ / 0-)

      in the Republic Party primary though (Illinois lets you choose which primary you want when you go in) since he seems the least insane of the Republic candidates and we already know who the Democratic candidate will be.  There is no way in hell I would vote for him in the general election, of course.  

      There is no saving throw against stupid.

      by Throw The Bums Out on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 09:49:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  the least insane???? (0+ / 0-)

        The man wants to end the Depts. of Education, Energy, Commerce, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development and you say he is the most sane??? Not too mention cutting $ 1 TRILLION from the Budget in YEAR ONE (which would destroy our economy and social safety net).

        NO... Neither Mitt nor Huntsman is that insane. Paul may be plain spoken and relatively honest, but he is also batshit insane.

  •  survival of the fittest! (0+ / 0-)

    I changed by not changing at all, small town predicts my fate, perhaps that's what no one wants to see. -6.38, -4.15

    by James Allen on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 05:14:56 PM PST

  •  The Whole Nation Was Resistant to Joining the War (4+ / 0-)

    because as the history-tician channels no longer tell us, of the mass slaughter of WW1 everyone remembered that was only 22 years earlier that pretty obviously solved nothing. There were shell-shocked and gas-choked combats vets all over the country, and we'd had it far far easier than the European combatants did.

    We certainly didn't get into the war over treatment of the Jews, and remember a shipful of Jewish refugees came to the US and other countries but everyone turned them away.

    I don't think this is an issue that can go very far in rationality, and I'm sure his general antisemitism is already all the issue it can be with the Jewish population.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 05:18:10 PM PST

    •  Not everyone turned them away (0+ / 0-)
      and remember a shipful of Jewish refugees came to the US and other countries but everyone turned them away.

      Not everyone turned them away...


      "Corruptio Optimi Pessima" (Corruption of the best is the worst)

      by zenox on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 06:10:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  We're Lucky (0+ / 0-)

    The only people who are more terrified of Ron Paul than the Daily Kos community is the GOP establishment. They won't let him be the candidate.

    "I'll believe that corporations are people when I see Rick Perry execute one."

    by bink on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 05:37:18 PM PST

  •  not that I have any love for Rep. Paul (11+ / 0-)

    but this position is consistent with his isolationist doctrine and does not, of itself, bespeak anti-Semitism.

    The reason Ron Paul wouldn't have gone to war with Nazi Germany (and remember, FDR didn't--Hitler declared war on America shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor) is because he does not believe in interfering in the affairs of foreign nations in any way.

    That rigid adherence to isolationism is the source of many of his crazy ideas. As to his anti-Semitism, that's certainly well-known enough from other evidence. But, in my opinion, this has nothing to do with it.

    "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

    by limpidglass on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 05:37:42 PM PST

    •  Sounds right but anti-semites dig Ron Paul (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Not saying he has supporters who don't dislike bigotry too and it doesn't mean he himself is anti-semitic but it is sort of creepy how kind of indifferent he seems to be about the strong appeal he has toward bigots of all kinds.  And to the fact that he profited off of racism, even if he himself didn't write it.

  •  Saving Jews was not a US moral imperative in WWII (5+ / 0-)

    Winning the war was. Roosevelt, Stalin, Churchill and others turned a "blind eye" to the Holocaust.

    In this sense Paul is correct. Roosevelt also didn't send troops to Europe to save European Jewry - he sent them to defeat fascism and win WWII.

    "The two pioneering forces of modern sensibility are Jewish moral seriousness and homosexual aestheticism and irony." Susan Sontag

    by Shane Hensinger on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 06:06:11 PM PST

    •  Never said was Shane (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mariken, Miggles, MBNYC

      But remember the Final Solution didn't fully kick in until 1942. By that time the U.S. was engaged. HOWEVER, I believe that if we hadn't been engaged and FDR knew of it in full we would have engaged.

      In any case, that is not the point of this diary. The point of this is that for Ron Paul to say this with 70 years of hindsight is repugnant. Comparing Paul to FDR is apples and Fish. It just doesn't work.

      •  actually (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shane Hensinger, Quequeg

        I'd say raising the issue with 70 years of hindsight is bad history; what people would do today is moot, since the conditions that existed 70 years ago DO NOT exist today, and even though most people in the world are horrified by the Holocaust that horror came about AFTER the fact, it was never a causus belli.

        To expect it to be one today is entering into an entirely different world of geo-political relations, social justice, international law, etc.

        So while I'm no fan of Ron Paul, his xenophobic isolationism or the undercurrents of both racism and anti-semitism that accompany it, I find the premise of this diary more than a bit of a stretch.

        Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

        by a gilas girl on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 06:36:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Paul is an isolationist (0+ / 0-)

        So in that sense I find his statement entirely unsurprising.

        "The two pioneering forces of modern sensibility are Jewish moral seriousness and homosexual aestheticism and irony." Susan Sontag

        by Shane Hensinger on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 06:38:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Ron Paul & Ben Stein on Larry King (0+ / 0-)

    Gasoline made from the tar sands gives a Toyota Prius the same impact on climate as a Hummer using gasoline made from oil. ~ Al Gore

    by Lefty Coaster on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 06:29:09 PM PST

  •  It's all about context (0+ / 0-)

    Paulbots even here.  Yes, the United States did not enter World War II to save Jews, or anyone else, from the Nazis.  So Ron Paul, 40 years later, says he wouldn't do anything FDR didn't do.  It's like we forgive a five year old child for saying things a 45 year old would be castigated for.

    The question is what would Ron Paul do in the case of another Rwanda or Bosnia.  The answer, by extrapolation, is "NO" there too.  Still think that's appropriate?

    All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

    by Dave in Northridge on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 06:34:33 PM PST

  •  Ron Paul is an anti Semitic asshole (3+ / 0-)

    Isolationism is nothing but a racist form of pacifism.

    Fuck Ron Paul.

    •  As an libertarian socialist, I might chime in (0+ / 0-)

      that might be why he so easily spotted Israel's racist form of apartheid.

      Takes one to know one, and Ron Paul even put it in his book.

      Texas is Texas, you know. The second you think you got it figured out, it will switch on you. Just ask Rick Perry in 2012.

      by Patience John on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 09:38:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Don't need ahistorical hypotheticals to know Ron (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Paul isn't fit to be president.

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 07:11:55 PM PST

  •  Regarding this (0+ / 0-)
    How anyone who claims to support Paul can call themselves "progressive" is ridiculous. Holy Moly...

    I'm not sure anyone who claims to support Paul can  call themselves a "conservative" (as in liking George Bush, Dick Cheney et al).

    He just isn't warmongery enough.

    The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy;the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness

    by CTMET on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 07:44:46 PM PST

  •  I would like to think that the US would, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    at least in hindsight, risk lives to stop the Holocaust. But don't forget that tge US has not engaged in preventing  other genocides, whether it being the Cambodian auto-genocide committed by the Khymer Rouge or the current war in the Republic of the Congo where upwards of 2.5 million civilians have died.

    Is it possible that Paul was using this extreme case to emphasize the extent of his isolationism?

  •  Ron P@ul is not a Progressive (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    volleyboy1, Tonedevil

    and he's most certainly not fit to be President. All he represents, and what his supporters either ignore or even choose to embrace because they're on the fringe themselves, is a particularly rancid streak of American politics that brought us the Know-Nothings, the KKK, the John Birch Society and the militia movement.

  •  anticommie CTs lifted straight from "Protocols" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Don't know if this is the best place, but I learned something very interesting. Supposedly, during the First Red Scare of the early 1900s, right wingers in the US and Western Europe developed what I had always thought were original CTs that had always been about economic leftism by cribbing from "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and simply replacing every reference to Jews with references to socialists.  These beliefs continued into the anticommunist frenzy of the Cold War era and were adopted wholesale by the John Birchers among many others.

    Another originally antisemitic tract, this time with racist CT - "A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century" - was subject to the same treatment and twisted to implicate communists, and the same allegations floated there were and still are used against the Civil Rights movement, black activism, and liberalism in general.

    There definitely could be a lot of room for cross-pollination between antisemitism and Bircherism; both groups are using the same basic sources and believe the same things about what are only nominally different groups of people: liberal boogeymen versus Jewish boogeymen.

    Do you know why they call it the American Dream? Because it only happens when you're asleep.

    by Visceral on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 12:09:33 PM PST

  •  An amoral hypocrite who is all too happy... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    to take the money and support of bigots and extremists. I guess he cynically rationalizes it in his head by saying to himself "A vote's a vote isn't it? Those Stormfront guys are citizen too!", and you got to fill those campaign coffers somehow. The crazy people are looser with their cash, something Paul evidently found out when putting out those newsletters, from what I gather.

    Those days and tactics have certainly not past.

    Dr. Paul is a man whose campaign recently issued a press release lauding the endorsement of a pastor who advocates that gay people should be executed.

    This guy has no shame.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site