He Didn’t Write The Newsletters? And His Book?

Are we to believe Ron Paul's 1987 book was also ghost-written as his defenders claim the Survival Report was?

If either of them were ghost-written, it must have been done by the same person, because the same themes are repeated over and over and over. Could it be that person was --gasp-- Ron Paul?

In his 1987 book “Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution After 200 Years,” ominously flanked on its front cover by police in SWAT gear, Paul attempts to outline what has happened to the enforcement of the nation’s core laws and principles, and, in his view, where it has gone off track. But among the passages found in his 157-page tome, Paul takes issue with people suffering from AIDS, workers targeted by sexual harassment and the very basis of the Civil Rights Act, suggesting that using government to protect these individuals runs counter to the nation’s founding document. [...]

“The concept of equal pay for equal work is not only an impossible task, it can only be accomplished with the total rejection of the idea it’s of the voluntary contract,” he opined. “By what right does the government assume low power to tell an airline it must hire unattractive women if it does not want to?”

On the same page, Paul takes issue with laws protecting employees from sexual harassment, suggesting that requiring a measure of respect in the workplace also violates the nation’s core principles.

“Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity,” Paul wrote. “Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem?”

If these quotes seem familiar, it's because each of these subjects were also demagogued in the Ron Paul Survival Report which he supposedly didn't write or have anything to do with.

You can read more of the highlights, which include jabs at the Civil Rights Act and an ardent defense of insurance company's right to deny claims based on pre-existing conditions, here.

If you're looking for more recent material however, observe Ron Paul speaking to an Iowa crowd yesterday.

If you want to use your property, you have to get a lot of permits. If you’re in the development business, from the low-level all the way to the top, you have to get permission from the federal government…I’m fearful because some people would like us to go all the way to the UN and have the UN controlling our lands, too.

And if this seems familiar, it's because UN conspiracies were also a recurring theme in the Survival Report newsletter and his 1987 book, Freedom Under Siege.

  • Jimmy Abraham

    Once this run is over by him I will be happy…certain family members, hopefully, will stop only talking about him,every chance they get. And stop posting articles like “Foreign Policy Experts Agree with Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy” thinking it means he has awesome FP thoughts, but in reality it is 2 guys thinking some of his thoughts (Iraq was bad. like no one ever thought that?)

  • villemar

    By the way, in other Fucking Retarded News, I had the misfortune to read this today:

    ““I’m just here to listen,” Dvorsky said as a small crowd of occupiers gathered around and volleyed anti-corporate grievances at her for 20 minutes. “I just don’t know what you want from us.” We want to talk to Obama on the phone, the occupiers said, and ask him to take corporate money out of politics. “We do not have the ability to get the President on the phone and to get him to do the things that you want to do,” Dvorsky replied.”

    /facepalm x1000000.

    And if that wasn’t enough Derp for you, here’s some choice comments from some anarcho-nihilist Greenbeck cultists that contaminate Salon now:

    “Why doesn’t Obama just veto the Citizens’ United ruling? We just need a president with the balls to do something!”

    /headdesk x1000000.

    Add a little dollop of racism: “Obama is Bush’s third term, the ‘Black Bush’.”

    • muselet

      I made the mistake of reading the article and the first page of comments.



  • Teresa McCarthy-Greene

    Hah, I am not surprised, but I don’t expect the Paul hordes to give a rats ass about it either. They are a strange and fabulous group. They have hard core beliefs in the old ways of the Greeks, as if returning to nation-states will bring us closer to Utopia Libertarian Style, i.e, inviolate property rights, individual initiative, the profit motive, free markets, protection against governmental monopoly and associated and similar objectives.

  • muselet

    But but but … Ron Paul has principles! Principles that he follows! Rigorously! You’re a sheeple!

    Or so will say our resident Paulbot troll.

    Ed Kilgore yesterday:

    Now that we’re all being forced, at least for a bit, to take Ron Paul somewhat seriously as a presidential candidate, the Doctor is rapidly discovering the downside of a long career marching through the fever swamps of extremist politics.

    Paul’s lunacies would be no more than embarrassing coming from Uncle Oscar (you know, the one who gets drunk and starts denouncing those people in a very loud voice) at Christmas dinner, but coming from an actual, living, breathing politician who’s running for president, they should be disqualifying.

    I look forward to the day when we can go back to ignoring Ron Paul and his acolytes, minions and zanies.


    • mrbrink

      These so-called liberals who have stepped up to defend Ron Paul to continue their no-mercy attacks on the president have lost their fucking minds.

      They need some mental rehab. A break for a few months. Maybe go to Tibet, or find a hobby that confuses and depresses fewer voters. Something that doesn’t destroy their own professional-slacker credibility in the process of destroying the last line of defense against right wing terrorists trying to fuck the country for good.

      They have the greatest champion for progressive policies this country has ever known in the White house, had a majority in the House of Representatives prior to the last election and all they want to do is give the president and the country more republicans to work with.

      You can’t call yourself liberal or progressive or a Democrat and pretend to know what is best for the country, or the office of the presidency, if you don’t know the difference between a bat shit right wing conservative spouting theories and paranoid delusions and the guy whose signature has actually made great progress and change over and over again for real people.

      Let’s compare signatures and then let us laugh heartily– And then cry because It’s too bad they couldn’t spend a little more time revisiting and rewriting their bullshit narrative of the president’s over all record before they throw it all away and deliver us to Mitt Romney.

      What’s with these fucking people, anyway? It’s a hell of a lot easier to defend a one-of-kind president like Barack Obama who has actual accomplishments to point to and defend than it is to defend a right wing states’ rights extremist, like Ron Paul.

      They’re going way out of the way and expending far too much energy trying to make a case and apologize for a right wing nut who will never entertain their pleas to take the family car out this weekend, despite having a date with the zero who was turned into a hero by the cool kids in the middle of a cynical social experiment.

      Talk about denial and projection, though. We’ve been told all along, mocked and ridiculed(O-bots!) by these very same so-called progressives that we’re the ones in denial about president Obama’s record– told over and over again how he’s destroying the Democratic party! This is the sum of arrogance + ignorance on its face, but when it’s coming from someone who is pivoting to make a case for Ron Paul under the trust and protection of the Liberal/Progressive flag, we’re gonna need A LOT of drinks tonight.

      • muselet

        I said months ago that the Professional Left and the emoprogs are jealous of social conservatives and their influence over the Republican Party. The ProLeft and emoprogs think they and they alone won Barack Obama the presidency and they should therefore have at least as much influence over the Democratic Party.

        Too many people allowed themselves to be misinformed—or should that be “disinformed”?—in 2008 by Fox News and the rest of the Right Wing Noise Machine. All that blather about Obama being some dangerously Left-wing socialistical communist convinced the loons at both ends of the political spectrum: the Right still believes that Obama is a radical socialist and the ProLeft and the emoprogs are mopey because he’s not.

        I see some casual and unreflective racism in this, as well. The Right is afraid that Obama is the stereotypical Angry Black Man; the ProLeft and the emoprogs are disappointed that he’s not.

        That the ProLeft has embraced Ron Paul as if he weren’t advocating a return to the Articles of Confederation with all the unpleasantness that implies shows that they aren’t serious. Or smart. Or, perhaps, they’re just ratfuckers. The emoprogs who have decided to raise a middle finger at “The System” are simply throwing a tantrum and need to be sent to their rooms without dinner.

        Middle schoolers are more mature.

        (Jeez, where did all that come from?)


        • JMAshby

          Good point. After 2010, a lot on the left said “we need our own Tea Party!”

          The problem is, they adopted all the worst elements of the Tea Party.

          • ranger11

            We need our own Tea Party? I guess our own Klan wasn’t hipsterish enough.

        • nicole

          They’re just ratfuckers and closet racists.

          Anyone who calls himself a prog and promotes Ron Paul while hating on the Pres is nothing better than that.

      • nicole

        I wish to hell you’d tell Glenn Greenwald, brink. He now has a piece up on salon talking about how we don’t know what the hell we’re talking about when it comes to RP. grrr…..

        sorry, i won’t give the jerk a link.

        • JMAshby

          Greenwald would call him a cultist and block him within 5 minutes.

          • nicole

            oh yeah. Greenwald blocked me last night, which really is no big deal as I told him today. I can still see and respond to his tweets.

            adding………Ashby, I feel like he is a traitor, in a sense. it really bothers me.

            adding again…..greenwald’s rape joke, which he has since deleted.

          • JMAshby

            Check your Direct Messages on Twitter.

  • nicole

    He didn’t deny writing the newsletters in the 1990’s. Stephen Taylor pretty much put the kibosh on Paul’s current denials on Dec 26: