A statement from former Ron Paul staffer on newsletters, Anti-Semitism...
Written By : Eric Dondero
Fmr. Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997 – 2003
Campaign Coordinator, Ron Paul for Congress, 1995/96
National Organizer, Draft Ron Paul for President, 1991/92
Travel Aide/Personal Asst. Ron Paul, Libertarian for President
1987/88
Campaign Coordinator, Ron Paul for Congress, 1995/96
National Organizer, Draft Ron Paul for President, 1991/92
Travel Aide/Personal Asst. Ron Paul, Libertarian for President
1987/88
I have been asked by various media the last few days for my comments,
view of the current situation regarding my former boss Ron Paul, as he
runs for the presidency on the Republican ticket.
I’ve noticed in some media that my words have been twisted and used
for an agenda from both sides. And I wish to set the record straight
with media that I trust and know will get the story right:
conservative/libertarian-conservative bloggers.
Is Ron Paul a “racist.” In short, No. I worked for the man for 12
years, pretty consistently. I never heard a racist word expressed
towards Blacks or Jews come out of his mouth. Not once. And
understand, I was his close personal assistant. It’s safe to say that I
was with him on the campaign trail more than any other individual,
whether it be traveling to Fairbanks, Alaska or Boston, Massachusetts in
the presidential race, or across the congressional district to San
Antonio or Corpus Christi, Texas.
He has frequently hired blacks for his office staff, starting as
early as 1988 for the Libertarian campaign. He has also hired many
Hispanics, including his current District staffer Dianna Gilbert-Kile.
One caveat: He is what I would describe as “out of touch,” with both
Hispanic and Black culture. Ron is far from being the hippest guy
around. He is completely clueless when it comes to Hispanic and Black
culture, particularly Mexican-American culture. And he is most
certainly intolerant of Spanish and those who speak strictly Spanish in
his presence, (as are a number of Americans, nothing out of the ordinary
here.)
Is Ron Paul an Anti-Semite? Absolutely No. As a Jew, (half on my
mother’s side), I can categorically say that I never heard anything out
of his mouth, in hundreds of speeches I listened too over the years, or
in my personal presence that could be called, “Anti-Semite.” No slurs.
No derogatory remarks.
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).
On the incident that’s being talked about in some blog media about
the campaign manager directing me to a press conference of our opponent
Lefty Morris in Victoria to push back on Anti-Jewish charges from the
Morris campaign, yes, that did happen. The Victoria Advocate described
the press conference very accurately. Yes, I was asked (not forced), to
attend the conference dressed in a Jewish yarlmuke, and other Jewish
adornments.
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.
Is Ron Paul a homo-phobe? Well, yes and no. He is not all bigoted
towards homosexuals. He supports their rights to do whatever they
please in their private lives. He is however, personally uncomfortable
around homosexuals, no different from a lot of older folks of his era.
There were two incidents that I will cite, for the record. One that
involved me directly, and another that involved another congressional
staffer or two.
(I am revealing this for the very first time, and I’m sure Jim Peron will be quite surprised to learn this.)
In 1988, Ron had a hardcore Libertarian supporter, Jim Peron, Owner
of Laissez Faire Books in San Francisco. Jim set up a magnificent 3-day
campaign swing for us in the SF Bay Area. Jim was what you would call
very openly Gay. But Ron thought the world of him. For 3 days we had a
great time trouncing from one campaign event to another with Jim’s Gay
lover. The atmosphere was simply jovial between the four of us. (As an
aside we also met former Cong. Pete McCloskey during this campaign
trip.) We used Jim’s home/office as a “base.” Ron pulled me aside the
first time we went there, and specifically instructed me to find an
excuse to excuse him to a local fast food restaurant so that he could
use the bathroom. He told me very clearly, that although he liked Jim,
he did not wish to use his bathroom facilities. I chided him a bit, but
he sternly reacted, as he often did to me, Eric, just do what I say.
Perhaps “sternly” is an understatement. Ron looked at me directly, and
with a very angry look in his eye, and shouted under his breath: “Just
do what I say NOW.”
The second incident involved one or two other staffers many years
later at the BBQ in Surfside Beach. I was not in direct presence of the
incident. But another top staffer, and I believe one of our
secretaries, was witnessed to it. This top staffer adores Ron, but was
extremely insulted by his behavior, I would even say flabbergasted to
the point of considering resigning from his staff over it.
“Bobby,” a well-known and rather flamboyant and well-liked gay man in
Freeport came to the BBQ. Let me stress Ron likes Bobby personally,
and Bobby was a hardcore campaign supporter. But after his speech, at
the Surfside pavilion Bobby came up to Ron with his hand extended, and
according to my fellow staffer, Ron literally swatted his hand away.
Again, let me stress. I would not categorize that as “homo-phobic,”
but rather just unsettled by being around gays personally. Ron, like
many folks his age, very much supports toleration, but chooses not to be
around gays on a personal level. It’s a personal choice. And though,
it may seem offensive to some, he has every right in my mind to feel and
act that way.
Finally, let me make a couple observations. The liberal media is
ferociously attacking Ron this morning, on everything from the
Newsletters to his various PACs. I’m amused at how off-base they all
are. If they are looking for something that went un-explained after
many years, it’s the Nadia Hayes incident from the end of the
presidential campaign in 1988. I personally am still a little ticked
off by this, and surprised that nobody has ever followed up on it. In
brief, Nadia was Ron’s longtime business/campaign manager in the 1980s.
On the very last day of the presidential campaign, attorneys,
accountants, and even Nassau Bay police dept. investigation officials
stormed into our campaign office, sealed everything off, rushed us
campaign staffers into the storeroom (literally), and for hours on end
ruffled through the entire campaign records, file cabinets, and other
papers.
Lew Rockwell and Burton Blumert were there too. We were greatly
surprised by this. Nadia was eventually convicted of embezzlement and
went to jail for 6 months, plus had to pay $140,000 in restitution to
Ron.
There were rumors at the time, and long thereafter, that Lew and Burt
had pinned it all on Nadia, and that they had their own reasons for the
“coup.” For years afterwards, Rockwell, and Blumert had complete
control of Ron’s enterprises through Jean McIver and (former JBS/Jesse
Helms fundraiser) David “James” Mertz of northern Virginia.
It was easy to pin it all on Nadia. She lived extravagantly, and her
husband who owned a boat repair business in Clear Lake, had recently
had some serious financial problems.
Nadia never resurfaced, and was never heard from again.
I will attest, that when campaign consultant Tony Payton died of
heart failure, in 2002 I believe, I specifically asked Ron if I could
look Nadia up, and contact her to let her know that her longtime friend
had died, and he reacted sternly to me, expressing that he did not want
me to do that, and if I did, there would be serious consequences. I was
shocked. And this was one of the reasons I eventually left his staff.
On one other matter, I’d like to express in the strongest terms
possible, that the liberal media are focusing in on entirely the wrong
aspects regarding controversies on Ron Paul.
It’s his foreign policy that’s the problem; not so much some stupid
and whacky things on race and gays he may have said or written in the
past.
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.
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.
Eric Dondero, Publisher
RELATED READING:
2 comments:
Hard for me to see how Ron Paul's foreign policy views qualify as "scandalous." The Constitution declares only that the federal government provide for the common defense, and "Israel" is not our 51st state. Keeping the sea lanes open is not our job, nor is an elective war intended to secure the mineral wealth of Afghanistan.
Ron Paul's foreign policy views are for the most part defensible. While it is true that WWII was in large part an entirely predictable outcome of foreign policy blunders and truth be told, so was 9/11. If we were honest about Israel, we'd have walked away from her a long time ago, but religion is a form of institutionalized insanity.
That having been said, he raises a point which returned to center stage during the Libyan situation: What is the moral responsibility of the world community in the face of genocide (or threats of same)? What would we say to the next Elie Wiesel?
We need to have this discussion on the front end; pity that Ron Paul won't be around long enough for us to have it.
"Hard for me to see how Ron Paul's foreign policy views qualify as "scandalous."
That is the opinion of Mr Dondero, his former staffer. I would also say that it is likely the opinion of many Republicans and Americans, if the Gallup poll results that I have cited elsewhere on this blog are any indication.
"The Constitution declares only that the federal government provide for the common defense, and "Israel" is not our 51st state."
I am on the record as saying that the US probably played a proper role in only one ground war in the last 97 years. Netanyahu has said that Israel can take care of herself. I haven't said that Israel is the 51st or 58th state.
"Keeping the sea lanes open is not our job"
So, you disagree with what Thomas Jefferson did?
"While it is true that WWII was in large part an entirely predictable outcome of foreign policy blunders and truth be told, so was 9/11."
I have often written that WWII was not a separate war, at least in the ETO, but the continuation of WWI. Woodrow Wilson's intervention and Fourteen Points (and campaign lies in 1916), the Versailles Treaty, and reparations were the proximate causes of the hyperinflation of the Weimar Republic and the rise of Adolf Hitler; however, Paul is absolutely incorrect when he says that Germany was not the enemy of the US in WWII. Hitler had declared war on the US before America declared war on Germany. What should we call a country that declares war on us? A friend? An ally? A fuzzy bunny?
"That having been said, he raises a point which returned to center stage during the Libyan situation: What is the moral responsibility of the world community in the face of genocide (or threats of same)?"
Well, I was 100% opposed to the Libyan adventure and I remain so today despite the fact that the despotic Lypsynka of Libya has been royally sodomised and is pushing up Sodom's Apples somewhere in the Libyan desert. The KMA violated The Mo Doctrine. Furthermore, many human rights organisations on the left and right claim that the allegations of genocide or threats of genocide were greatly exaggerated. Considering that 96% of Libyans now believe that no religion other than Islam should be tolerated, I am not going to go along with the idea that the place is any better off than it was when Joycelyn Wilderstein's long-lost twin was in power.
Post a Comment