I was thinking out loud this morning about Ron Paul. We hear he’s an extreme-to-the-right Constitutionalist who believes many things that resonate with the younger crowd, with neo-conservatives who think guns and no-taxes will make our country great again. He preaches a return to the Gold Standard and a policy of isolationist practice that keeps our country and our military out of other countries’ business. He also thinks there’s a coming race war; that we should abolish Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and many other government programs, along with most – if not all – the regulatory bodies in place today.
I can see how these ideas gain traction. Honestly, some of it sounds good to me. I don’t think we should be messing about in other countries like we do. I think having guns is important. I don’t like the government sticking it’s nose in my business, telling me what to do and how to do it at every opportunity.
When you hear those portions of his position, you could easily “tune out” the rest of what Congressman Paul has been equally vocal and consistent about that doesn’t sound very good. People tend to be walking conundrums. They carry with them and espouse openly, things that are in direct conflict with other things they believe and espouse. Why should Ron Paul be any different?
Ron Paul has been a prolific pamphleteer over time. I know many of you out there are my age or thereabouts. I remember reading the Ron Paul Freedom Report back in the late 1980’s. There’s been something in print from Ron Paul since around 1976. If you’ve ever come across those newsletters in their fresh hey day, they made quite an impact in four to eight pages of printed paper.
Like I said, there’s a lot to like in Ron Paul’s messages, especially with people who are somewhat libertarian in their beliefs of small government, free markets, Constitutional liberties and relatively strict interpretations of those documents. I admit, as a younger man of my mid twenties, idealistic, full of piss and vinegar, wanting to take on the world, a lot of what Ron Paul had to say sparked my earnest desire to start a revolution and get this country back on track.
Then I read a little more carefully. I started to read more critically, because there were things in what he had to say that caused me to frown as well. It was obvious there was anger there. This was anger that wasn’t the simple fire-in-the-belly distrust of governmental authority. No, it was the kind of anger that breeds nothing more than simple hate. Hate of others who are different.
There are some things you can’t excuse. In this country, you are allowed to believe what you wish, but that doesn’t mean you should advocate things that are destructive of the intent of our Constitutional documents; especially if you campaign on the strict adherence and love of that Constitution. Like Ron Paul says he does.
I’ve done some research on Mr. Paul. I also remember reading his newsletters in their day. I read four of them in one sitting once at a dentist’s office in 1988. I continued to run across them from time to time up until around 1994. By that time, I could no longer bring myself to the task. There was just too much of an undercurrent of scorn, hate and bigotry – and it showed in some of the screed that passed for argument in the form of “The Ron Paul Freedom Report” and later, “The Ron Paul Security Report.”
You can believe, if you like, that Ron Paul wrote none of that. You can believe it was ghost written by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard then inserted into the Ron Paul Reports if you wish. You can even believe that Congressman Paul had no idea what was printed in the Ron Paul Freedom Report or the Ron Paul Security Report, or any of the other names Ron Paul published his newsletter under. It might all even be true.
I don’t buy it. Here’s a guy, campaigning on ethics, honesty and integrity; a guy who talks about being responsible for yourself and what does he do? He sounds like a Peter Gabriel fan, “I don’t remember, I don’t recall, I got no memory of anything at all,” in that newsletter. Then his story changes. “I recall there were about eight or ten sentences of ‘bad stuff’ in there. I admit, I should have paid more attention, I take responsibility for that.” Are you shitting me? That’s the best you can do?
For a guy who stands on personal ethics and responsibility for one’s actions, there’s a lot of ‘gray’ area in his responses in this regard – including getting all pissy and walking out of a CNN interview when pressed on it. The word hypocrisy means you tell people they should act a certain way and then fail to do it yourself. Ron Paul is a hypocrite in this matter, and that should color everything else you read or hear from him.
Let me change tracks a bit. There is a CNN report written by one David Frum. In it, he mentions that one of the “answers” given for the anti-semitic, bigoted and homophobic screed in his newsletters (which he didn’t write they are quick to claim) is that it was only a strategic gambit to ‘capture’ a bloc of voters and capitalize on the middle class white man’s fear by inciting his nascent hatred of the Other. It isn’t stated exactly like that, but hey, we’re talking truth and honesty, integrity and responsibility here, let’s call a spade a spade – and I’m not talking some bigoted ethnic epithet here, I’m sticking with a cards metaphor. I’ll leave the screed to those who believe in it.
At the end of this, I’ll provide a list of the links I perused to get here from there. Rest assured, I am not asking you to take my word for it. You should know by now that I expect you to check up on me and find out for yourself. Moving on…
There are plenty of issues with all the information being sold here. We have a candidate who has managed over the DECADES to acquire a very loyal and dedicated following, slowly growing his base a little more each year. It is based on these newsletters. It has His Name on them and they actively solicit in them, as well in direct solicitations for donations, for supporting Ron Paul and his efforts on “our” behalf.
There are strong and clear indications that most of this loyal following does not give any credence to the claims against Congressman Paul. They simply aren’t interested in hearing anything that casts Mr. Paul negatively. Calling him on his shit does nothing more than make them extremely angry, jumping to defense without thinking if there might be some truth to the accusations leveled against Congressman Paul.
As importantly, the majority of his staunch followers have never had the privilege to read these newsletters in their entirety. If they do, they act as apologists: He didn’t write those things; he’s got integrity; he’s consistently fought for his beliefs; he’s principled and he’s not a racist. He doesn’t talk like that on videos and in person. Period.
You know, he is consistent. He does appear to act in a principled manner, according to his beliefs and his views of the world. Why else would he staunchly defend the gold standard, isolationism, gun rights, no taxes, smaller government, opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the right of the South to Secede for over thirty years?
I add to this list: he staunchly engaged in a consistent campaign of bigoted, anti-semitic and homophobic rhetoric in this same period of time. It’s in his newsletter. It’s reported by folks that have had dealings with him over long periods of time. You can read his newsletters since 1999 – most of which are floating around the Internet in their entirety – for yourself to see if that undercurrent I saw is still there.
I’m betting it is. It might not be as direct and obvious as before, but I’m willing to bet you won’t have to look too hard – if you’re willing to read critically. I’m willing to be wrong on this, because, I believe people can change. I don’t think I can put any faith in Mr. Paul’s capacity to change his views. We’re talking about a guy who’s consistently and repeatedly acted in the same manner for over thirty years.
If the claim is: Mr. Paul is principled and consistent in his approach, then the whole package of consistent behavior and view would have to back that up, right? I believe it does. This includes the stuff that belies his claim of integrity, honesty and principle when it comes to strict interpretation of the Constitution and supporting documents.
That’s the conundrum I was talking about earlier. People will say things that they believe in, and then defend something else they believe, even when it contradicts their own beliefs and opinion on an issue. In this case, Mr. Paul, in defending his integrity and consistently principled behavior, opts out of taking responsibility for his own remarks, or for his rubber stamp of approval of them by appelling his name to the newsletter in which they appeared. These things also put a tarnish on his claim to defend a strict interpretation of the Constitution, because that document is predicated on the precept that All Men Are Created Equal. That’s, to put it simply, hypocrisy of a sort that should make all Paul supporters who truly believe in integrity and personal responsibility run for the door. But I’m betting they won’t.
I have said this before and I stand by it: I like some of what Ron Paul promotes – not the way he promotes it and not where he wants to actually go with it. I like some of what he has to say. I also note that I cannot vote for only a part of a man; only the things I like to hear. I have to understand – and so does everyone else – that when I vote for the man, I vote for the whole package. For this reason, the peccadilloes, the foibles, flaws and failings are just as important – if not more so – than the things of which I approve.
If you look at a candidate and like one or two planks in his or her campaign, but the rest of them are rotten to the core, then no matter how carefully you tread, that whole platform will come crashing down when the weight of scrutiny is placed upon it. It’s not just slick metaphor as political punditry. It’s simple truth.
I mean, we’re talking about a guy who talks about the Skull and Bones as a cabal; believes that the Oklahoma City Bombing was an “inside job;” believes that if we go back to the gold standard, cut taxes to zero on businesses and make people provide their own health insurance and retirement plans, we can restore this nation back to greatness in the best of libertarian ideals. Ignore the dead, dying and squandered lives of the disenfranchised along the way, they should have worked hard, saved their money and spent what they did more wisely.
In the end and at the end of the day, it’s about a certain level of balance. I appreciate consistent behavior and I appreciate and respect people that act in accordance with their principles. I also recognize that there are some really bad people out there and in history that were consistent and acted in accordance with their principles. Just because a person is principled, stands on them and is consistent in their defense doesn’t mean they’re a good candidate for President.
I’ll offer that if Ron Paul didn’t write that crap, didn’t really read his own newsletter before publishing and only found out about it after 10 years history down the road, then why in the HELL would we want someone this lazy, lacking in personal integrity and unethically motivated to engage racism as nothing more than political demagoguery in the Office of the President of the United States? Is that better than if he is a closet bigot? It speaks to a level of gross negligence and incompetence that is belied by his education, passion and consistent behavior on all other accounts
No matter which way you wish to view it, either conclusion is a de facto Vote No for Paul. He’s either an ethnic and sexual bigot or he’s plain incompetent as a publisher, guilty of gross malfeasance in the conductance of his duties as the Man who’s Name is on the Newsletter. Neither conclusion from the evidence is satisfactory; I encourage you to examine it from any point of view and draw another conclusion that paints him in a positive light – if you can. I couldn’t figure out how to do it.
In closing, it is my honest opinion, which I will not contradict and will consistently defend in lieu of convincing evidence otherwise, that Congressman Ron Paul is not a good candidate for President. Check out the links and find out on your own – or you’ll just have to take my word for it. Hey, it works for the Ron Paul supporters.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/26/opinion/frum-ron-paul-newsletters/index.html
This is the only link I specifically mention.
http://www.ronpaultoday.com/ron-paul-touts-newsletters-in-1987-interview-video-huffington-post.pdf
A video interview from “way back” in the time I was talking about in my readings. Worth watching for either side of this discussion.
http://www.criticalreactor.com/ronpaul/newsletters/1996_Dallas_Morning_News.html
Typical political demagoguery? He indicates he wrote these things. It could be implied, he’s also had his purse stolen. That’s how he knows how “fleet” a black robber is, apparently.
http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/greenspan-gold.html
Gold protects the citizen – at least those who can afford to own it…
http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/why-people-should-not-vote-for-ron-paul
Straight into the “lion’s den” and if you’re going to do research on lions, you should get as close as possible – but avoid being eaten. As a former zookeeper, I felt qualified to enter.
http://www.free-nefl.com/html/freedomreports.html
Another pro Paul site. You have to be Joni Mitchell and look at both sides.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-21/ron-paul-racist-newsletters/52147878/1
Asking for answers from Paul and Paul’s responses over time from two perspectives.
http://www.thegrio.com/politics/ron-paul-racist-newsletters-cause-uproar-in-iowa-2012-race.php
Another take on Paul’s “apologetics” regarding the now notorious ‘racist’ comments.
A list of videos. Supportive (?) of Ron Paul. I guess it depends on what you take from them.
http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/game-over-scans-of-over-50-ron-paul.html
I think this pretty much sums up my conclusions as well. It also allows you to see for yourself – which I think is important.
http://rpnewsletter.wordpress.com/
In his own words? A collection of photos of letters/pages from Ron Paul (allegedly.)
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/ron-paul-newsletter.php
I didn’t write that stuff. I didn’t even know it was in there. Who’s signature is that at the bottom Mr. Paul?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-22/ron-paul-newsletters-youtube/52163920/1
Is it just me, or is there corroboration of someone who can’t keep the story straight over time?
More stuff he considers political demagoguery, didn’t write and knows nothing about…
http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/325051.php
A lot of times things stick, because they’re true. If it were isolated and a one time thing, maybe we could ignore it. Those of us who do value honesty and integrity don’t waffle when called on it.
http://www.realchange.org/ronpaul.htm
It’s not a few isolated thinkers and reviewers that see Mr. Paul’s strengths – and weaknesses.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/29/ron-paul-2012-newsletters_n_1175301.html
Those who support, won’t read, don’t care to and won’t compare differing views with theirs – at least that’s the message I got here. I can’t offer any more than that I’ve had several very passionate discussions with Paul supporters and they aren’t much better at dialogue than what I see in other argumentative types who think getting louder is winning.
A history of “political demagoguery?” Or could that whole consistent behavior thing he touts as a strength also be his weakness?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
No good research should ignore the Wikipedia if available. Now I’m pretty sure Ron Paul didn’t write this and I’m willing to be he doesn’t know what’s in here, either. This deserves noting:
“In 1996, Paul told The Dallas Morning News that the newsletters were accurate but needed to be taken in context. In 2001, he told the Texas Monthly that his campaign staff told him not to say others had written what was in the newsletters because it was "too confusing". In December 2011, on CNN, Paul, who was a practicing obstetrician/gynecologist when not in political office or running for office, said that he only read the newsletters "on occasion", did not write them, and disavowed the racist comments in them.[37]”Normally, most of us web literate tend to expect good research should be placed in the wiki or quickly corrected – if not hotly contested – when factual errors occur. Now please note that, Paul is consistent in his refusal to accept Congressional perks, benefits and has vowed not to receive his congressional pension. I did say he has loyal supporters and this is part of the reason why. He is consistent and does have principles, some of which are quite laudable.
Another interesting point of view that considers, “What if the writers weren’t Paul and weren’t really racist?”
This one also indicates: Either he’s lying or he’s completely incompetent. I ask: Which of the two do you want for President?
http://www.ronpaularchive.com/1997/05/principled-writings-from-the-brazosport-facts/
You have to admit, he can argue pretty well. This argument is how the minority also have rights and is being used to protect the wealthy “minority.” In so doing, it voids the argument of the responsibility of the government to ensure the minorities are in possession of the same rights as the majority. I guess it all depends on how you view it, doesn’t it?
http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/11/12/Solicitation2.pdf
This letter is approved by Congressman Ron Paul, integrity and ethics and selling FEAR oh my!
http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/May1995.pdf
This is more Ron Paul’s style. Though it lacks the racially charged and bigoted screed, it is still emotively evocative and is designed to “charge” up his supporters – you know, good, honest, hardworking Americans who don’t freeload, aren’t power mongers or government apparatchiks devoted to the OWG (One World Government.) It’s admittedly somewhat appealing to many Middle Class Americans (and I’m sure the Upper Middle Class as well) who are taught to scorn the poor freeloaders and the even richer power mongers in corporate fascistic seats of government, finance and policy. It’s what attracted me in the first place.
Again, you make your own conclusions. I only present to you what I feel is salient information, opinion and analysis of Mr. Paul’s history of publication, his responses to thorny questions, and ask that you form your own opinion based on that.
Occupy Your Mind
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Steven J. Gulitti
sagemerlin
Petitioner person
beauty1947
Jeanette DeMain
Poor Woman
Salon.com
Comments
And this from a guy who "hates research." Does that make me a hyopcrite, that I hate research and then do it anyway? Or is that a measure of personal integrity?
You decide. I want you to make up your own mind and find out on your own.
Occupy Your Mind
Rated♥
Long ago, I knew several of the Aryan Nations guys with shaved heads and plenty of guns and ammo. Way back when. One of them handed me one of his pamphlets and I read it. It was all about the coming of a race war and how to prepare. I was shaken after reading it and pondered long about how such complete nut case raising was published and why it was being passed to me from an avowed racist to begin with.
To me that alone was enough of a red flag to remember about Ron Paul. I don't remember the date but it had to be in the early 80's.
I have often looked at the Libertarian Party since part of their platform is against wars and to legalize drugs. I do certainly support legalizing marijuana after all.
I don't know why he has so much support among so many of the white supremacy. But I sure know it's there. And since I find them all a bunch of nut cases, any candidate they support makes me wonder why.
I do love the hard work and research you obviously put into this post Owl. I will check out at least some of this wealth of information you have provided.
Thank you so much...
His statements on the newsletters have been woeful. His mantra is taking personal responsibility for one's actions, yet he has shirked responsibility for many of the things that have been published under his own name.
While I agree wholeheartedly with Paul that we should end the war on drugs and that it should be treated as a medical, not a law enforcement, problem, it should be noted that he also doesn't want tax money spent on the medical facilities that would help addicts, nor does he care if the addict has medical insurance to pay for said treatment. If you told him that legalizing all drugs would result in addicts lying on the street in every American city, he would just shrug his shoulders. That's frightening thinking for a man who wants to govern over 300 million people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXZpuIXEzWk
And I am for legalization of marijuana -- or conversely, we criminalize tobacco and alcohol. After all, marijuana is considered a Schedule One controlled substance. The primary criterion are:
1) Is addictive
2) Known to cause health problems
3) Can cause death if misused or overdosed
Marijuana doesn't fit any of these criterion. Tobacco and alcohol both fit at least two of the three, though and they're legal sale at the cash register. Hypocrisy much in that situation? I think so.
I re-read your comment and I guess you agree that Paul is not a good fit.
FusunA, as always, I am glad that anything I might have said could clear anything up for anyone. Even more glad it's you. :)
Yes, Mission. While Paul apologists will vehemently deny that Paul is affiliated with those bigoted "organizations" and that they support his candidacy, it's clear that, no matter what Paul has to say about his responsibility for those writings in his newsletters, he has not disavowed their support. To me, this is a hypocritical pandering mentality that subverts any concept of personal integrity. No he won't take campaign lobbying funds (and that's a nice thing, I must say,) but he won't say No to campaign donations from Aryan Nation. I don't think the Aryan Brotherhood has the same appreciation regarding liberty as Paul might. But he still happily accepts their donations and support. It's a free country, right?
Sad.
Cranky, I know that, too. Paul is an Ob/Gyn. What kind of medical practice would he have had if women could control their own bodies and opt not to have babies? If you read his information, he takes his Oath of Office as a sacred trust to his God. He also indicates in some of his writings that he believes our Founders had based the Constitution on their Christian beliefs (which flies in the face of the fact that Adams, Washington and Jefferson were all Deists. They believed in a Creator, but didn't bend their knees to a Christian God -- at all. They simply respected that others might and that was why they included separation of churc and state and established freedom of religion (which, in my view, constitutes an equal right to be free of religion) )
All that to opine that it was my understanding, even without having seen some of his opinions (which includes his opposition to Roe v. Wade) regarding his anti-abortion stance.
My personal belief is that we are all biased, possibly even all bigoted to some degree. Most of the time it's not an issue and it doesn't really come up against any other points in our decision trees. That said, we must be willing to look at our own beliefs and challenge ourselves to admit that some of our belief systems, no matter how enlightened we might think we are, may lead us blindly down the road of unconscious bigotry. If we can look at that, admit it's possible, then we can gird our loins against it, even in ourselves.
If nothing else, if we can recognize our own potential blind spots and mitigate them -- with, if nothing else, open disclosure that we might have them -- we can at least move forward with more integrity and principle than I think Mr. Paul has yet displayed in the course of dealing with the bugaboo of his old newsletters, which I am sure he had hoped ended up in local landfills where ever they may have landed, pre-1995.
In that spirit of disclosure, I will say that I have not once referred to Ron Paul as Dr. This is purposeful, but not disrespectful. I use Mr. in reference to the accepted honorific attributed to his Public Office, which I think holds higher overall esteem than the title of Dr. Additionally, I didn't use Dr. to avoid the possibility that some who don't realize he's a medical professional, might confuse his title with that of someone bearing a PhD in some other field of study.
As he spends the majority of his time talking economics and history, I didn't think that was too far a stretch.
As usual, thanks all for reading and commenting!
So my stance is, keep stuff legal, and like legalize the drugs that make me happy!!! And just give them to me for free!! :D
Ron Paul is one of them people where, like Owl, I can nod my head one minute and be like, "Did he just say.....oh my gawd, EEK!" the next.
His son scares me too.
So I'm going to vote for the wet sock that I found on the street today. It's been very rainy!!!
:D
(I'd vote for you Owl, but last time I voted for an owl, she turned into a witch who then ruined the PTA in Harvard County!!! :D)
He scares me. So does his son.
People vote for these people that scare me
Rated.
I see that somebody from his past is now claiming that he was an involved writer and editor, and the whole gee-I-didn't-know gambit is a lie. I'm inclined to believe that.
While some of what he says about international 'adventures' is appealling, his domestic ideas would be disastrous.
With regard to his anti-abortion stance, he's also said he's against same-sex marriage. These freedom guys do pick and choose, don't they.
Also I have read that some of his associates are involved in the Christian Reconstructionists movement, and the idea is that government would be dismantled so The Patriarchs could have local theocratic power. Is this one in your list of references? -
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/02/ron-paul-s-christian-reconstructionist-roots.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_morning&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_morning&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet
Except that we know you're lying -- that's usually sufficient disqualification of crediblility right there.
Tinkertink: Yeah, that's why I mentioned the whole, "when I was in my 20's..." bit. When I was that young, I was no less smart, but a whole lot less wise and experienced in the skills of critical thinking. Not that I couldn't, but I had to expend some effort to get my bullshit meter purposely working. Today, it's on automatic.
I offer that that age, when it's easy to get galvanized over issues, it's due to our idealism and a strong sense of what we think is right and wrong. In this state, it's easy to gloss over and ignore the things that don't resonate. It's like listening to rock music of the headbanger variety. As a younger kid, the chorus is easy to shout while rocking your head up and down, even though the majority will just be bopping their heads most of the time and they don't even know the lyrics. It's got a good beat and it ROCKS!
As you get older, though -- or if you're one of the strange ones -- you recognize the angry undercurrent and you start listening to the words, because you know there's supposed to be a message there, not just a heavy beat to get your heart in tempo.
It's kind of scary to think that, with the right pacing, the right phrases in the right places, you can essentially mesmerize a large audience, getting them all nodding and thumping in time to the beat and, after a certain point, the masses become a beast that can be pointed in a direction and let loose. Even the ones opposed to the general premise will have to go along or be trampled underfoot.
(Holy shit, where'd all that come from?)
Myriad, no I didn't use that particular bit. I avoided the whole side issue of religion simply because I didn't even need it to make my case. I wasn't aware of this particular bit, either, honestly. The one thing that does leap off the article to my eye is this: R. J. Rushdoony.
In your article, he's called a Christian Reconstructionist. In the other articles I perused (and I threw a lot of them out, not adding them to my list, because they mention Paul or his policies and ideology only in passing) Rushdoony is listed as one of Paul's "ghost writers" to which I cannot say anything other than, "It's not that surprising to me that he might have written some of that claptrap," though still won't credit Paul with the theft of Peter Gabriel's song, "I can't remember..."
In any case, your link does open up a whole 'nother set of potentials that shape and mold Paul's point of view. A scary one in some ways. It speaks to a sort of conglomeration of "fringe" elements in a sea of ultra-conservative thought. And I only say the word "conservative" in the sense that such is what they consider themselves to be.
It's funny how the original meaning of the word conservative has changed. Originally, a conservative didn't like change, didn't want large monied interests playing an unfair role in politics through heavy monetary inlfuence, wanted to keep the Church separate from the State and felt we had a duty to preserve equality. Now it means a rich, landed artistocracy controlling a theocratic fascist state with corporate interests at the helm. Go figure.
What does surprise me is that Paul, an avowed Libertarian (ignore the Republican stripes, it's just one more sign of his principled stand on his beliefs) comes at us from a "deeply" seated faith in God. Most of the libertarians I know and read of are pretty much avowed non-theists. I'm not saying being a libertarian means you can't believe in God, but I do have say, considering the libertarian's general credo, it is a bit of a stretch.
Christian thosophic principles, last I checked, place a high priority on taking care of others, not just yourself. This doesn't mesh well with -- well -- all of the libertarian philosophy of self reliance, self care and self liberty. Just seems a bit -- hmm -- out of context, if you know what I mean.
As far as Mr. Paul knowing about what's in his newsletter, I stand by my conclusions. If he didn't know, then he's incompetent as a "publisher" and deserves no great consideration in being elected to the Office of the President of the United States of America, or he's lying through his teeth, and has no business being considered for that same Lofty Position.
Considering that the story keeps changing and more flakes keep spalling off the granite facade of his consistent stand on principles, I have to also maintain, I'm not buying the whole song and dance of "I don't know what's in my own Newsletter."
Thanks again, all, for reading and commenting!