One of the most difficult problems faced by Newt Gingrich in appealing to religious voters is his record of adultery and three marriages. His campaign insists that it was his first wife, Jackie, not Gingrich, who wanted the first divorce. However, recently released papers contradict that claim and indicate it was Newt Gingrich who wanted the divorce.
The campaign previously insisted that “it was (Jackie Gingrich) that requested the divorce, not Newt.”
That first divorce was particularly because Jackie was reportedly dying of cancer and rumors suggested that Newt actually served the divorce papers the day after her cancer surgery — Gingrich denies the claims as does their daughter.
CNN was told the divorce papers were sealed but it later found the documents.
Friends of both Gingrich and his first wife contradicted Gingrich’s claims about who wanted the divorce.
The papers show that Newt Gingrich filed a divorce complaint on July 14, 1980, in Carroll County, saying that “the marriage of the parties is irretrievably (sic) broken.” Even more interesting is that Jackie filed opposing the filing — a curious response if she wanted the divorce or, as the campaign claimed today, she asked him to file the papers. She added that “[a]lthough defendant does not admit that this marriage is irretrievably broken, defendant has been hopeful that an arrangement for temporary support of defendant and the two minor daughters of the parties could be mutually agreed upon without the intervention of this court . . . All efforts to date have been unsuccessful.”
Jackie Gingrich has never spoken to the media on the allegations. However, in 1985, she stated”He can say that we had been talking about it for 10 years, but the truth is that it came as a complete surprise.”
The bigger concern for evangelical voters is that Gingrich was already in a relationship with a 28-year-old congressional aide at the time. He later married the aide, Marianne Ginther Gingrich, and then divorced her 19 years later for another, and younger, congressional aide whom he married soon after his divorce. The third wife, Callista Bisek Gingrich, is now campaigning for him.
I have previously written how candidates like Gingrich who are running on faith should not complain when asked about their own commitment to faith. In this case, Gingrich clearly violated (repeatedly) an oath to God in a different ceremony. With the declining separation of church and state, such questions are likely to increase.
How relevant should that be to voters? Would it be equally relevant if he was not campaigning for religious voters?
Source: CNN
FLOG THE BLOG: Have you voted yet for the top legal opinion blog? WE NEED YOUR VOTE! You can vote at HERE by clicking on the “opinion” category. Voting ends December 30, 2011.
@1zb1: Your free speech rights have been explicitly found to include calling for the violent overthrow of the American Government.
You do not have the right to shout “Fire” in a theatre when there is no fire, in that case the shout is a lie told with the intent of tricking people into a stampede, which would endanger those people for the shouter’s private entertainment.
Calling for the violent overthrow of the American Government because you disagree with its policies is not a lie, it is a belief.
Awlaki was not shouting fire, because he was not lying with the intent of tricking people. He was stating his belief that the US Government’s slaughter of innocent Muslims was the result of a corrupt government beholden to Israel and corporate oil interests. I do not agree with Awlaki, but I do not believe there is any evidence he was lying about his beliefs or saying what he said to trick people for his own ends.
I do not care how “carefully analyzed” you believe the decision was, in the end you simply have blind trust in authoritarian rule, and I do not. Do you have access to the evidence that was “carefully analyzed?” Of course not, the government itself has said there isn’t any.
I think it is time for you to face the fact that if the government says it, you believe it, and the rest of us can only conclude you are impervious to logic and a simple-minded monarchist.
TONY, time to grow up and join reality. First, you are are wrong as a matter of law. Speech is generally protected but not under every circumstance see 18 USC Sec. 2101.
The problem, I can assure is not my lack of a healthy distrust of government, but your complete lack of all trust in government, not to mention that your complete lack of trust has magically materialized with the election of Obama. (not to mention that little lie of yours about voting for Obama). And as always your rather selective notion of rights and pluck false and half truths out of the air like the disconnect dribble you spout.
Face the facts. Admit it. your god Regan said “Government is the problem”. But even that isn’t good enough for you. You’re actually an anarchist. Have it your way and there is no government, no rules, no civilization.
You are also wrong on the facts: Awalki was indeed shouting fire in the theatre. Read any and every public account of his statements and actions.
But lets look at it this way:
Suppose I Awalki was a computer wiz and traveled to a distant land where he can not be easily arrested, and from there he tells his followers to destroy the city you and your whole family live in and he gives them the instructions over the internet how they can do it.
And there you are sitting in the White House, president of the US knowing if you don’t take this guy out a lot of people are going to die including your entire family.
You going to make the call?
Oh I forgot, according to you we can’t do anything until you find him and arrest him.
Yeah right. sure, that’s exactly what you would do.
FAce the facts: you are a liar, a hypocrit, a simpleton, and really when you come down to it a coward because you can rant but in the end thats about all you got and it ain’t much.
18 USC Sec. 2101
(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any
facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not
limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television,
with intent –
(1) to incite a riot; or
(2) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry
on a riot; or
(3) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or
(4) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in
or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in
furtherance of a riot;
and who either during the course of any such travel or use or
thereafter performs or attempts to perform any other overt act for
any purpose specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of this
paragraph – (!1)
Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five
years, or both.
(b) In any prosecution under this section, proof that a defendant
engaged or attempted to engage in one or more of the overt acts
described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of paragraph (1) of
subsection (a) (!2) and (1) has traveled in interstate or foreign
commerce, or (2) has use of or used any facility of interstate or
foreign commerce, including but not limited to, mail, telegraph,
telephone, radio, or television, to communicate with or broadcast
to any person or group of persons prior to such overt acts, such
travel or use shall be admissible proof to establish that such
defendant traveled in or used such facility of interstate or
foreign commerce.
(c) A judgment of conviction or acquittal on the merits under the
laws of any State shall be a bar to any prosecution hereunder for
the same act or acts.
(d) Whenever, in the opinion of the Attorney General or of the
appropriate officer of the Department of Justice charged by law or
under the instructions of the Attorney General with authority to
act, any person shall have violated this chapter, the Department
shall proceed as speedily as possible with a prosecution of such
person hereunder and with any appeal which may lie from any
decision adverse to the Government resulting from such prosecution.
(e) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to make
it unlawful for any person to travel in, or use any facility of,
interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of pursuing the
legitimate objectives of organized labor, through orderly and
lawful means.
(f) Nothing in this section shall be construed as indicating an
intent on the part of Congress to prevent any State, any possession
or Commonwealth of the United States, or the District of Columbia,
from exercising jurisdiction over any offense over which it would
have jurisdiction in the absence of this section; nor shall
anything in this section be construed as depriving State and local
law enforcement authorities of responsibility for prosecuting acts
that may be violations of this section and that are violations of
State and local law.
2102
(a) As used in this chapter, the term “riot” means a public
disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of violence by one or more
persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act
or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall
result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or
to the person of any other individual or (2) a threat or threats of
the commission of an act or acts of violence by one or more persons
part of an assemblage of three or more persons having, individually
or collectively, the ability of immediate execution of such threat
or threats, where the performance of the threatened act or acts of
violence would constitute a clear and present danger of, or would
result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or
to the person of any other individual.
(b) As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to
organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”,
includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other
persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or
written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not
involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of
the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.
@1zb1: Those excuses prove too much, they essentially justify killing anybody that does not voluntarily surrender. They still do not prove Awlaki committed any crime, and Awlaki was not “fleeing a police officer.” As I said, the government has admitted it had no evidence Awlaki committed any crime, including the emails they were in possession of regarding the Fort Hood attack. They have no evidence that Awlaki did anything except act as a religious advisor and condemn the USA and call for the violent overthrow of the US Government, all of which have been held by The Supreme Court to be within our Constitutional Rights and Freedom of Speech. To be proven a traitor, he must be found on a battlefield, or must have been shown to participate in violent action against the USA, neither of which were done, not even to any of the many judges we have with top clearances to hear such evidence.
Make all the excuses you want, you are too blind and stupid to make a coherent point.
Now I know you are with the Republican/Tparty. You are still living in an age before telephones, telegraphs, nukes, and the internet. In your 17th century world its “don’t shoot until you see the whites of their eyes”. Unfortunately for you the world we live in is such that I can wipe out a countries’ entire economy and defenses without every having to fire a single shot.
Ever hear of “conspiracy to commit…” You don’t have to actually pull the trigger to be guilty of killing someone.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/the-us-case-against-awlaki/
However, the point of all this is not to say we don’t need to be very careful when we are at acting at the boundaries of our civil rights (or in the case of Ron Paul, inciting acts as a result of our words and actions). It is especially important that when it comes to those who seem the most guilty, or speak the language we find most offensive, that we go the extra mile to protect their rights as the best means to protect all our rights.
Yet, rights are rarely open ended. Your free speech rights don’t give you the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre.
The real point is that this Awalaki was not an easy case, but a lot of thought clearly went into how to deal with it. On the one hand was a guy, by his own public recorded statements was at the very least shouting fire in a crowded theatre, and on the other side was the potential risk to the people in the theatre – us. Where do you draw the line?
Apparently, you think that is an easy call. No doubt you would have been happy to cut the baby in half. You have taken a unique and specialized situation – well established by law and moral principle – that was carefully analyzed, and now you are hyperventilating over it while on the other hand blithely saying inciting bigotry is quite alright.
I think it is time for you to do a little reality check and realize the world is not quite so simple unless of course when it comes to the Republican/tparty telling people what they should do in the privacy of their own home, or inside your own body, or who you marry.
Time to wake up and smell the reality
Terrorist watch list chart for TSA and Homeland Security:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7171/6532589963_064366eb78_b.jpg
@1zb1: Funny, because the first part of the 14th says no person shall be deprived of LIFE, liberty or property without DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
And the 14th Amendment does not prohibit bigotry or racism at all, you fool, it prohibits the government from enacting laws based on bigotry or racism, or in general discrimination. There is a difference, your bigotry and prejudice are entirely legal, even if they are reprehensible.
As for you being too stupid, that is a valid inference from somebody that thinks it is fine for the President to unilaterally declare somebody a danger and have them killed without any proof whatsoever. Even the government admits they had no evidence with which to charge Awlaki with a crime. If you cannot see the Unconstitutionality of THAT act, then you are too stupid or blind to contribute anything worth considering.
As for blowing up planes: The great sentiment of the chickenshits that believe anything they are told by an authority, they will give up everything to be told they are safe and daddy is protecting them, whether the danger was real or not, whether the safety is real or not.
Tony: Apparently you have a reading AND comprehension disorder:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Can you say: “NO STATE” AND “DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS”
I’m guessing from your comments that you also beleive 911 was a government conspiricy.
You are absolutely right, in America we get to think as bigots, speak as bigots, and be ignorant, we just don’t get to act against others based on it. But just because we have the right to be a bigot and ignorant like doesn’t mean we have to exercise that right all the time the way you do (and your savior Ron Paul).
Like, i said you have a terminal case of selective rants. You are also a liar when you say you voted for Obama. You are a shill so at least have the courage to admit it and stand up for your hate like a man.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?pagewanted=all
“Then there was the Bill of Rights: the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee that a “person” cannot be seized by the government unreasonably, and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that the government may not deprive a person of life “without due process of law.”
The memo concluded that what was reasonable, and the process that was due, was different for Mr. Awlaki than for an ordinary criminal. It cited court cases allowing American citizens who had joined an enemy’s forces to be detained or prosecuted in a military court just like noncitizen enemies.
It also cited several other Supreme Court precedents, like a 2007 case involving a high-speed chase and a 1985 case involving the shooting of a fleeing suspect, finding that it was constitutional for the police to take actions that put a suspect in serious risk of death in order to curtail an imminent risk to innocent people.
The document’s authors argued that “imminent” risks could include those by an enemy leader who is in the business of attacking the United States whenever possible, even if he is not in the midst of launching an attack at the precise moment he is located.
There remained, however, the question of whether — when the target is known to be a citizen — it was permissible to kill him if capturing him instead were a feasible way of suppressing the threat.
Killed in the strike alongside Mr. Awlaki was another American citizen, Samir Khan, who had produced a magazine for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula promoting terrorism. He was apparently not on the targeting list, making his death collateral damage. His family has issued a statement citing the Fifth Amendment and asking whether it was necessary for the government to have “assassinated two of its citizens.”
“Was this style of execution the only solution?” the Khan family asked in its statement. “Why couldn’t there have been a capture and trial?”
Last month, President Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, John O. Brennan, delivered a speech in which he strongly denied the accusation that the administration had sometimes chosen to kill militants when capturing them was possible, saying the policy preference is to interrogate them for intelligence.
The memorandum is said to declare that in the case of a citizen, it is legally required to capture the militant if feasible — raising a question: was capturing Mr. Awlaki in fact feasible?
It is possible that officials decided last month that it was not feasible to attempt to capture him because of factors like the risk it could pose to American commandos and the diplomatic problems that could arise from putting ground forces on Yemeni soil. Still, the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan demonstrates that officials have deemed such operations feasible at times.
Last year, Yemeni commandos surrounded a village in which Mr. Awlaki was believed to be hiding, but he managed to slip away.
The administration had already expressed in public some of the arguments about issues of international law addressed by the memo, in a speech delivered in March 2010 by Harold Hongju Koh, the top State Department lawyer.
The memorandum examined whether it was relevant that Mr. Awlaki was in Yemen, far from Afghanistan. It concluded that Mr. Awlaki’s geographical distance from the so-called hot battlefield did not preclude him from the armed conflict; given his presumed circumstances, the United States still had a right to use force to defend itself against him.
@1zb1: Of course, in your view, the police have a right to shoot a person who looks at them the wrong way,
Obviously you are not talking about me, I believe the police have overstepped their bounds and joined the authoritarian police state, so has the military, so has the congress, so has the president.
And NO, the president does not have the right to shoot anybody on his own declaration, hiding out or not. What he can do is bring charges, have a trial, and get a conviction and permission from the court to use deadly force to apprehend a criminal. Period.
How do you know the guy hiding was guilty of anything? Because Obama told you so? Because other government officials told you so? Did they prove it? Did they have evidence? Did anybody see it? Did they charge him with a crime? Did a judge or jury assent to his punishment? NO.
You are too stupid to discuss anything, just another frightened child that believes whatever authority tells him to believe, no matter how inconsistent, implausible, or baseless the lie.
Ah, the great words of the brilliant – others are too stupid…. got to go but to be continued… meanwhile lets hear your response to when they blow up the plane your family is on. Oh, and you seemed to have missed the part about the 14th amendment…. sounds to me like you have a terminal case of selective ranting. but don’t worry, its a common trait among the simple minded, ron paul followers, and the rest of the republican/tparty.
Still want to claim you voted for Obama.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/ron-paul-campaign-scrubs-radical-anti-gay-pastor-from-website.php?ref=fpa
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ron-pauls-campaign-touts-endorsement-of-pastor-who-advocates-killing-gay-people/
@1zb1: Obama did not clean up the mess, he expanded and reinforced the mess, he created more mess. Clearly you are ill-informed. Bigotry is the least of our problems when the President has ordered the murder of an American citizen without any proof of wrong-doing whatsoever, without charges, trial, or any sort of due process, in direct violation of the Constitutional rights of a citizen born on American soil. That murder was carried out, and Obama claims ordering such murders at his sole discretion is a Presidential power. Now he claims the right to also imprison American citizens on American soil indefinitely, without trial, simply by him declaring them “enemy combatants.” Both of these claims are in direct violation of the Constitution.
Neither of those things were done by or claimed as powers by the Republicans, and if you believe Obama has done this as part of cleaning up a Republican mess, you are delusional.
Read the history of writ of habeas corpus. Here’s the short version Lincoln, Confederates, Post Civil War, FDR, Clinton, Bush all suspended it to one degree or another because of significant threats. Of course in your simplistic view of reality (or non reality, I should say) after 911 there was no reason to start searching people before they got on a plane because that would be an “unreasonable search and seizure”.
And, of course “Bigotry”, a violation of the 14th amendment is okay but habeas corpus is not in time of national emergency. Oh, I forgot, after 911 we didn’t really have an emergency because Bush told us all to go out and shop, and while we are at lets give a tax cut to the richest people as we send our troops off to an unfunded war based on a lie.
Of course, in your view, the police have a right to shoot a person who looks at them the wrong way, but the president does not have the right to do it with a guy who is hiding out from arrest in a foreign country.
Must be nice to live in your world where reality doesn’t exist so you go right ahead and vote for Ron Paul. And btw, I don’t believe for a minute you ever voted for Obama, so what does that make you?
Just wondering what you would say if Obama did everything exactly your way and somebody blew up a plane as a result? I seem to recall Republicans blamed Clinton for 911 because he didn’t kill bin Laden which just demonstrates another common trait among the Republican/Tparty called hypocrisy.
@Mike: I donated several hundred dollars to Obama’s campaign, and voted for him in the primary and in the general. As it turns out, Obama is a lying war criminal getting kids killed for nothing. He is destroying the Constitution and advancing the corpocracy at every turn. The fact that he still has you in thrall astounds me.
Ron Paul is not Grossman, at least Ron Paul makes a coherent argument from the Constitution and understands the mechanisms of law and at every turn reaffirms he will obey the law as it is written until Congress overturns it, and at every turn reaffirms his belief that the President has limited power, and that both Bush and now Obama have acted unconstitutionally.
Arguments for Obama are simply ludicrous given the number of times he has stabbed us in the back, done the direct opposite of his campaign promises, and actively circumvented the rule of law. He is a liar, not just once, but on dozens of points, and important points that have cost us money, lives, and justice for wrongdoers. He has actively violated every civil right that makes us American. Believing he will do anything he claims is delusional, especially if it is progressive or favors citizens over corporations.
Is Ron Paul a racist homophobic? If he is, I see absolutely nothing in his legislative career that reflects that, and some that refutes it, so he would be a racist homophobic that has enough self-control to still act only on libertarian principle. Is he pro-life? Yes, but why would anybody think they can trust Obama to veto anything on any topic?
At this point, on the edge of the cliff, that is good enough for me. I’ll take it, just on the chance that he will follow the rules: obey the law and Constitution, and perhaps find a way to use the Presidency to again limit the power of the Presidency, and the military, and extract us from the endless wars and the war on drugs, and bring the criminals to justice.
I do not want to elect Ron Paul for life, I just want a chance, any chance, to reverse the trend to monarchical police state I see already underway.
That is a chance that does not exist with Obama, Romney, Newt, or any other candidate still on the national stage.
Jill,
Sure, let’s not vote it’s meaningless anyway. There’s noun difference between any of them. Put in your terms why bother even discussing it. We’re screwed so let’s keep bitching about it, until they lock us up and throw away the key. How does a message of hopelessness change anything? How does one begin organizing around such a message?
Tony C.,
Ron Paul is Stephen Grossman without the integrity.
Santorum soaring? After Googling his name, I had come to the conclusion he sort of squished.
Great link anon nurse.
O.S. and Santorum is soaring
In the latest episode of silly season, Michelle Bachmann’s Iowa state campaign co-chair has endorsed………Ron Paul.
You cannot make this stuff up. Really.
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/28/sen-sorenson-leaves-bachmann-campaign-endorses-ron-paul/
A bit of good news that others, too, may have missed in the holiday shuffle:
Senate Approves Intelligence Bill, But Extension Of Secret Law Allowing Spying On Americans Cut Back
by Mike Masnick
Tue, Dec 20th 201
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111219/00494117120/senate-approves-intelligence-bill-extension-secret-la
Senate Approves Intelligence Bill, But Extension Of Secret Law Allowing Spying On Americans Cut Back
Excerpt:
While there’s been plenty of (quite important) focus on the National Defense Authorization Act and its ability to detain Americans indefinitely, the Senate also recently passed the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2012, which (as the name implies) authorizes various intelligence activities. One important thing was missing from this bill: a multi-year extension of the FISA Amendments Act.
As you may recall, earlier this year, the Senate tried to rush through a multi-year renewal of the FISA Amendments Act. The FAA, originally approved in 2008, retroactively made warrantless wiretapping efforts by the US government legal. The supposed intention of the bill was to make it easier to tap foreigners outside the US. However, it appears that the government has interpreted parts of it in ways that go beyond what people might expect, leading to significant surveillance of Americans inside the country. Senator Ron Wyden had sought information on just how many Americans had their communications intercepted under this law and was told it was “not reasonably possible” to answer that question. In response, he put a hold on the bill, and the Senate chose not to fight him on it, choosing not to put such a multi-year extension into the bill — meaning that the issue will have to be voted on again in 2012. According to Wyden:
“I’m pleased that the final version of the 2012 Intelligence Authorization Act does not include the multi-year extension of the FISA Amendments Act that was included in the Senate version of the bill. I opposed the Senate version of the bill, and I announced a public hold on it, because I believe Congress has an obligation to get more information about the effects of this law before extending it for several more years.
The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 was intended to give the government new authorities to conduct surveillance of foreigners outside the United States, but right now nobody in government knows how many people inside the United States have had their communications collected and reviewed as a result of this law. Congress will inevitably need to debate the reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act at some point during 2012, and when this debate occurs I plan to continue to press for more information about the impact that this law has had on the privacy of law-abiding American citizens.”
Unfortunately, if the past few years have been any indication of how this all works, there will be no significant debate until the deadline is close, and then Senators will demand that everyone quickly reauthorize things or we’re all going to die (or some equally horrible scenario).
It’s the “give us all sorts of extra powers immediately with no real oversight or we’re all going to die” form of government that has been so in vogue lately.
Erick Erickson of “Red State” is a Perry supporter. I would not call him dumb. I don’t know that he is evil either.
Why worry about the SC when the judicial system has been made irrelevant? That doesn’t make sense.
What does make sense is for the people of this nation to start caring about the welfare of others and the earth. That would preclude voting for Obama or any of the other major Republican candidates. It would mean being courageous enough to stand up for others and not sell them out for the blue or the red team. It would mean an absolute refusal to let others be unjustly imprisoned or killed or starved in one’s name.
It means joining as citizens to oppose injustice, not voting for injustice because it’s your “team”.
Since when did a “liberal” vote for a person who imprisons others without trial? That alone is so heinous, so cruel that I would be ashamed to say I even considered voting for a person who would do such a thing. If you are willing to vote for someone who claims he may imprison others without trial then I would say you need to do some serious thinking about what kind of person you are. If that’s who you are, then vote that way but please don’t criticize Rick Perry voters for being evil and stupid. They aren’t any worse than you.
@Elaine: Fair enough. Nevertheless, I think in the context of choices we may have, Ron Paul’s potential racism, pro-life stance and unexercised homophobia are very small potatoes compared to the civil-liberty and economic shitstorm any other candidate will unleash upon us.
http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2011/12/old-issue-causing-new-problem-for-ron-paul/ Paul said it was wrong to force insurance companies to pay for aids patients.
Tony C.,
I was unaware we were having an “either/or” discussion about who to vote for. I’ve mentioned nothing about President Obama. I was only expressing my opinion about Ron Paul.
*****
“On the one hand I have Ron Paul, who lied about an embarrassing newsletter. On the other hand I have Obama, who has lied endlessly to get elected about important national policy and is responsible for thousands of deaths and the destruction of our Constitutional rights, to the point that the Constitution is becoming increasingly irrelevant.”
I doubt Ron Paul disagreed with the the content of those racist newsletters. That gives me pause for thought.