Ron Paul: ‘I’m Not Pro-Russian. I’m Pro-Facts’

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.
Ron Paul

Ron Paul

Ron Paul defended his controversial stance Friday that the United States should stay out of the crisis between Ukraine and Russia, and joked that he’s “considering” supporting his son, Rand Paul, if the senator from Kentucky runs for President.

The former Texas congressman, who’s considered by many to be the face of the libertarian movement, spoke at the International Students for Liberty Conference in Washington, immediately following a video address to the young crowd by National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden.

Paul’s remarks contained his usual non-interventionism rhetoric, even when he was challenged by a student from Kiev who asked why Paul hadn’t denounced Russian aggression against Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea.

“Crimea is not exactly a foreign country, according to the Russians. But I’m neutral on that,” the former presidential candidate argued.

“I don’t take a pro-Russian stand. I don’t defend what they do,” he continued, adding that he thinks all foreign entities, including the United States, NATO and Europeans, should not be involved. “And get the Russians out.”

“I’m not pro-Putin, I’m not pro-Russian,” he also said, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin. “I’m pro-facts”

Paul blasted other foreign entanglements by the U.S. government, including the fight against ISIS. But, remaining ideologically pure, he argued individuals should have the freedom to go fight for what they believe in.

“Does that mean we shouldn’t have a moral concern? No. I would make sure that it’s legal for anybody here who wants to go and fight on either side in any war, go to it,” he said.

While Paul’s stances are largely cheered at gatherings like the one he spoke at Friday night, they’re otherwise lampooned by wider audiences and stray from positions from his own son, who’s long made clear that he and his father don’t agree on everything.

But as Rand Paul, who’s scheduled to speak at the same conference Saturday night via video, moves closer to a potential presidential bid, his father’s comments attract further scrutiny and get attention in the media.

In a light-hearted moment, the moderator at the event asked Ron Paul if his son was among his top three favorites for the Republican presidential nomination.

“I’m seriously thinking about it,” he said. “I’m studying his record.”

Ron Paul was also challenged by an attendee about controversial newsletters that were published under his name in the 1980s and 1990s and contained rants against the Israeli lobby, gay people, AIDS victims and Martin Luther King Jr.

Paul, as he has said before, said he “personally did not write this stuff” but argued that the request to condemn the newsletters was “too broad.”

“For me to disavow everything I ever wrote in a newsletter, I mean, that’s foolishness,” he said.

7 comments

  • John Smith

    Yes, as we’ve all heard before, Ron Paul is not responsible for the contents of the Ron Paul Newsletter. Ron Paul says so.
    Say, in his, what, three decades of working for the government he hated, did he ever actually propose any legislation? That was made into actual law?

  • Matt Richardson

    Ive read Ron newsletters and found them neither innacurate or controversial, especially after the Ferguson tragedy. Besides, the bits that get the most attention were written by Lew Rockwell, not Ron Paul. Anyone who brings up the news letters hasnt read them in context nor has any inclination towards hearing Paul no matter what he stands for.

    • John Smith

      Or, perhaps they just take exception to Ron Paul’s blatant bigotry, and cowardly refusal to take responsibility for the contents of the publication which bears his name.

      But, maybe you can tell us: What, exactly, were Ron Paul’s legislative accomplishments in his DECADES in the US House of Representatives?

    • John Smith

      Or, if that assignment is too tough for you, perhaps you can explain for us Ron Paul’s complete disregard for the Budapest Memorandum, to which the US is a signatory?

      You know, since Ron Paul wants to single-handedly renege on US promises to Ukraine? And, pretend in his rantings that they don’t exist?

    • John Smith

      Gee, I guess we shouldn’t have signed that memorandum with Russia and Great Britain, then. Of course, without that memo, Ukraine would have kept hold of a lot of Soviet nukes. Then, the world would be ever so much better off today, right?

      Hint: ANY idiot can say some stupid stuff for attention; sadly, the actual world is not nearly so simple(ton) as Ron Paul would have you believe.

Comments are closed.

Notice: you are using an outdated browser. Microsoft does not recommend using IE as your default browser. Some features on this website, like video and images, might not work properly. For the best experience, please upgrade your browser.