I want to see these "racist" newsletters! Produce them or be silent!

I've answered that before....more than once, yet you keep trolling with that dead bait.

How about talking about the things he said that were right? Housing bubble? Expanding militarism? Loss of domestic liberty?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5nGCpzel6o"]The amazingly accurate predictions of Ron Paul..listen 'till the end and you'll be shocked! - YouTube[/ame]

 

My problem with Ron Paul is the clear fact that he is a blame and hate America loon, jus' EXACTLY like Jeremiah "GD America Wright. In fact the squeaky voiced skinny little grump blames n' hates almost anyone he can see from his orbit around Neptune.

Ever see or hear him make a positive statement about anybody or any non enemy of America? (I know he luvs Iran).

If the impossible happened and he became the next POTUS of the USA how could he possibly govern this great Country? RONPAULbots think that one person can get 'er done, they are very wrong.

If Paul were to win the Repubican nomination I would vote fer him in the general, and I would actually want him to win, as he would likely be impeached in a very short time, and if Republicans corntrolled the house: we would get another non Obamaprompter POTUS capable of governing.

When ya back bite everyone else, do ya actually think anybody not in orbit with ya will support anything ya do?

Me overpriced $.02.

 

Have you not seen the unemployment stats that say we are worse off than the great dpression? Have you not seen the housing market is worse than the great depression? Do you not see the welfare and food stamp lines that resemble the great depressions bread lines? The market falling more than it did in the 30's. Yeah, seems like Ron was WAY off on that prediction huh?

 

excuses are poor answers

he's like a broken clock, except that the clock is right more often

i haven't lost any domestic liberty, in fact i have much more than i did in the 1960's and 1970's

you have to be completely ignorant of economics to think there has been a depression in the last 70 years



unemployment during the depression was more than 25%, if things today were like the 1930's, there wouldn't be fat people nearly everywhere you look, there would be throngs of skinny, hungry people

 

People are unemployed LONGER today than they ever have been. As for your skinny/slim comparison, we didn't have that lovely propaganda food chart the government put out that actually makes us fatter. And also the poor didn't have the government subsidies back then as they do now.

 

again with your lame excuses and false propaganda?

really, you have to be completely divorced from reality and totally ignorant of economics to think we're in a depression now

no wonder you like ron paul, he reinforces your delusions

 

That is a rock solid argument that I guess you don't need to show any proof that I was wrong.

They certainly not calling it a depression due to the fiat currency manipulation and saying our GDP isn't dipping for how ever long the time table needs to be. But all the other signs of a depression are there.

 

you just ignore the evidence i produce, but here it is again

oh please, your assertions are ridiculous

 

Great post. What Ron Paul has done is make it cool to hate America while avoiding that nasty liberal label by insisting hating America is conservative. The biggest delusion of the Branch Paulinians is that they think they're conservative. They also think they're the most persecuted bunch by the major media who is always misquoting Paul (even when the words come right out of his piehole) and attacking him unfairly when they ask the same public policy questions they do of any candidate.

 

December 24, 2011
The Racist Newsletter Author Exposed

As Newt Gingrich plummets and the single-digit candidates languish, the presidential race is shaping up to be a two-man race: Ron Paul (the Iowa frontrunner) and Mitt Romney (the New Hampshire frontrunner).

Romney has faced his fair share of attacks for his records and statements, but the heat is just beginning to turn up on Paul. At one time, it was thought that Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy and laissez-faire social policy were his biggest liabilities. As voters everywhere, from the right to the left, grow tired of the endless wars and nation building, and as a majority of Americans now support full legalization for hemp and legal equality for gays, the country has found Paul to be more mainstream and tuned in to the average American household than previously assumed. The conventionally estimated “ceiling” of Paul’s support seems to be shattered anew each week, as Paul’s support rises with no end in sight.

The one hurdle that threatens to cause the most trouble for Congressman Paul consists of a series of newsletters that were published under his name during the early 1990’s. While the bulk of the newsletters consisted of sermons on economics, lessons in constitutional interpretation, and financial advice, there are a good handful of quotes that are, to say the least, despicable. Everything from calling Martin Luther King, Jr. a communist philanderer, to saying that only “5% of blacks have sensible political opinions,” to referring to blacks as “animals,” to salivating over a coming “race war.”

While these quotes would be (*)(*)(*)(*)ing for Paul’s campaign had they actually been written by Ron Paul himself as the header on the newsletter implied they were, there is no corroborating evidence that Ron Paul ever used this kind of language or espoused these kinds of opinions elsewhere at any time. Even Austin, Texas’s NAACP President Nelson Linder, a 20-year friend of Paul’s, has come to the Congressman’s defense on this issue. There is evidence that Paul occasionally read content in the newsletters during this time, and was aware that there were some controversial statements being made, but it appears Paul was not aware at the time of the full extent of the problem. Faulting him for not taking a more controlling attitude over the newsletter that bore his namesake is a legitimate criticism, but making Paul out to be an actual racist is quite a challenge.

Paul was one of the congressmen who voted for the establishment of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day as a federal holiday in November, 1979, possibly a rare exception to his lifelong strict constitutionalism (seeing as the Constitution does not authorize Congress to declare holidays for the entire nation, and seeing as giving federal bureaucrats paid holidays is not entirely fiscally conservative). Rep. Paul voted for the holiday at a time when Rep. Newt Gingrich opposed the idea. Ron Paul has time and again held up King as a personal hero to emulate, has always referred to all people as valuable individuals, and has never savored the thought of any “race wars” or aggressive violence of any sort (even garnering some criticism for expressing concern about the unsober way in which many reacted to the violent deaths of enemies like bin Laden or Qaddafi).

But if the grotesque utterings that pockmark those newsletters did not come from the pen of Congressman Paul, then whose are they? The answer has been a poorly kept secret among libertarian circles for years: self-professed “paleolibertarian” writer Lew Rockwell, of LewRockwell.com. A 2008 Reason article received word from a half dozen libertarian activists close to Paul who confirmed that Rockwell was the chief writer of the racist newsletter articles. Paul’s opponents have been reluctant to pin the racist remarks on Rockwell because they’d rather try to pin it on Paul, and Paul himself has been reluctant to shove the blame off on Rockwell because that’s not Paul’s style. As a libertarian who does not worship at the altar of demigods like Rockwell, however, I have no qualms about pointing out the emperor’s nakedness.

The evidence is plain enough for anyone to find.

Take the 1992 quotes about the “communist philanderer” Martin Luther King Jr. and his alleged “Hate Whitey Day”. Where have we heard this garbage before? Just months prior, in 1991, Lew Rockwell wrote an article in his own “Free Market” newsletter entitled “The Economics of Martin Luther King, Jr.”, which starts off with the sentence: “We’re supposed to venerate Martin Luther King, Jr., but that’s not easy for a believer in economic liberty.” The article goes on to excoriate King’s political beliefs, calling King a “Marxist,” saying King disliked the idea of entrepreneurship, and accusing King of intentionally pushing policies he knew would “create social conflict”.

In a May 1992 article in Rockwell’s “Free Market,” entitled “A New View of Civil Rights,” Rockwell continues this kind of language, saying that civil rights “have made us poorer and angrier,” and “must be junked.” During this time period, Rockwell also penned a pro-discrimination manifesto called “Repeal ‘64” (as in, the Civil Rights Act of 1964), in which Rockwell uses the kind of “black”-“white”, “us vs. them” collectivist thinking that Rep. Paul insists on avoiding. “White males,” says Rockwell, “are no longer fooled by the euphemisms.” Civil rights legislation, claims Rockwell, is about “denying economic opportunity to [white males] in order to benefit others.” Rockwell sounds positively David Duke-ian near the end of the article, when he proclaims “we also need to give up the notion of a ‘color-blind society’ – a goal as absurdly utopian as socialism itself.”

In a January 1992 article in Rockwell’s personal publication, in which Rockwell describes what he would do each day on his first 30 days as President, Rockwell gives curiously high priority to dismantling civil rights legislation, doing so on Days Eight and Nine.

In one of Rockwell’s more warped, pro-segregation rants in March, 1994, he fulminates over the small, Texan town of Vidor where four blacks had recently been chased out of town by hostile racists, and a new black family moving into town had to be escorted in by police. Rockwell was, of course, angry about the police escort for the blacks, not about the racist threat in the town.

Rockwell’s racist, twisted sense of justice was on display following the Rodney King beating, when he published in the Los Angeles Times an article with the title, “It’s Safe Streets Versus Urban Terror”, along with the repulsive, un-libertarian byline: “In the ‘50s, rampant crime didn’t exist because offenders feared what the police would do”. For any street criminal, Rockwell prescribes a police beating immediately after arrest, and another beating at the station. He also muses that perhaps video cameras should be banned in public, so that police can carry on these beatings undisturbed and without accountability. Rockwell’s comparisons of inner city troublemakers as “depraved infants” and “terrorists” would be perfectly valid, if the piece wasn’t in direct response to the Rodney King incident, with its obvious racial overtones. Rockwell does admit that the Rodney King beating was a tad excessive, but claims “that’s not the issue.” He writes that police beatings are “not a pleasant sight,” but equates such actions with “surgery” to remove “cancer.”

The style of writing and subject matter are undeniably similar to the racist articles peppering the newsletter that used Ron Paul’s name. Even if, by some unlikely coincidence, Rockwell was not actually the guilty ghostwriter for the Ron Paul newsletter, Rockwell has enough other unsavory work under his belt that deserves a full-throated apology.

Lew Rockwell needs to organize a televised press conference as soon as possible, take full responsibility for the racist, anti-libertarian content in the newsletters, apologize for, and fully repudiate them, and then completely disassociate and distance himself from venerable enterprises like the Ludwig von Mises Institute and the Ron Paul 2012 campaign, so as not to further tarnish these innocent parties. Rockwell, while claiming to be a fan of Ron Paul (though not a Ron Paul voter, because he considers voting to be “immoral”), has done more damage to Ron Paul’s presidential efforts than any other single person. Ron Paul has taken the heat and the responsibility for Mr. Rockwell long enough. Paul has apologized for and repudiated the newsletters, so why can’t Rockwell? I join countless other Paul supporters and lovers of the free market and individual liberty, in demanding that Rockwell come clean now and end his cowardly charade that threatens to damage the reputation of the congressman he claims to admire.

http://race42012.com/2011/12/24/the-racist-newsletter-author-exposed/

 

You just don't get it. Ron Paul was chief editor of those newsletters. A chief editor doesn't allow his magazine to be published with articles that go against what he believes. The newletter I posted on page 4 was from Ron Paul himself, with naked bigotry and racism. The problem with the Branch Paulinians is that you willingly blind yourself, not allowing yourself to be persuaded by the facts. Ron Paul is something more to you than just a candidate, he's your lord and savior! He can do no wrong. No other Republican candidate has such a cult like following. We real conservatives assess the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate and realize they're all human and none of them perfect. Not the Paulinians, oh no! Ron Paul is a cause, a true religion, and infallible in all he says and does. Though Paul doesn't use religion, his following is very similar to the cultist mindset of suspending all critical thought and giving oneself over unreservedly to a leader.

Wake up!

 

Honestly, I can't see the image. Hopefully I have some free time tonight when I get home and can read what you put.

Another rock solid argument from Mr. No Proof.

 

could your comments be any more ridiculous?

 

Perhaps it's time for voters/potential supporters to realize that Paul put himself in this situation, at the very least, via association by allowing his name to be used. No one else is responsible for his poor judgement.

Not to even mentioning his financial gain from it.

It is time for Paul to feel the heat, and it is appropriately deserved.

 

As of the time that I went to sleep last night none of the race-baiters could show anything that was racist after a week of calling him a racist without -I now have to assume- having ever actually read any of the newsletters.

In the past I have been let down or irritated with the apathy and ignorance of my countrymen but it wasn't until this invented story that I realized how corrupt elements of the Republican voting base are that they would join in the chorus with the vile media class to slander a man for no reason other than a difference of opinion.

I remember reading the book Democracy in America by the Frenchman, Alexis de Tocqueville's, about ten years ago. What I took away from that was that he believed America was a great nation and would remain so so long as the American people remained good people. We aren't good people. We're corrupted partisans of the lowliest order. You should have stuck to arguing against the issues you disagree with, like foreign policy and your love of armchair imperialism. Taking part in this attempt to destroy him as a diabolical racist because a newsletter in his name refereed to MLK as an adulterer is sickening behavior I would expect from left-wing think tanks, not American citizens and not people who are among the Republican voting base.
These are unjust slanders that could only be encouraged by a corrupted soul.

Now that i've read over many of these newsletters I am absolutely convinced they are nothing more than a completely invented hatchet story that have no place in intelligent discussion nor among principled men.

 

Oops! You didn't look hard enough. Page 4. I provided a pdf photocopy link as well as a transcript link. You're guy is a bigot. Sorry.

 

Out of a newsletter you needed to use two posts to put on this thread, the only thing you could highlight is this?

"I’ve been told not to talk, but these stooges don’t scare me. Threats or no threats, I’ve laid bare the coming race war in big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove — perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress’s Mr. New Honey. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica. And the Soviet-style “smartcard” the Justice Department has in mind for you."

The coming race ware in our cities? This during a time that there was a RACE WAR taking place in the cities? How many times have we heard in the last two years that were welfare or other entitlements to go bankrupt or run dry the inner cities would riot? This isn't racism and it isn't newsworthy. This is pathetic.

This is what you're clinging to and wanting to destroy a man over? This?

What's wrong with you?

 

There's a reason I posted the whole newletter. You would suck as a psychologist because even a nonprofessional would say the whole newletter came from an insane mind. Conspiracies. Looming apocolyptic crisises as far as the eye can see. This man is not well, and you're intentionally blind not to see it. You're a bad judge of character.

 

Obviously most here are only having knee-jerk reactions to the smear campaign now going on in the MSM against Ron Paul. It's really pathetic how ignorant these posts are and the conclusions that are drawn from them. Just goes to show that a *little* knowledge is a dangerous thing.

No one here has mentioned the NYT piece that was published over the weekend. It is a 'hit' piece, but at least rises to the level of actual journalism and is fair enough to give RP the chance to comment.

Here's the link for it. It's a 3 page article so some of you may have to take a break as I know your brain will get tired.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/u...pport.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=jimrutenberg

Knock yourself out.

 

If somebody comes across a picture of Paul in a KKK outfit, the Branch Paulinians would scream persecution, whine about the biased media, and demand to know who took the picture and what his agenda is. These people can't be proven wrong because they're protected by invincible ignorance.

 

That's quite the stretch. Warning of racial violence in cities at a time when racially motivated riots were taking place in cities now makes him a candidate for KKK robes? Are you serious? And you're calling us delusional?

 

Another thing not mentioned here is the anti gay things in the newsletters. Maybe it's because most of you are closet homophobes or you just think the racist angle has more punch. Or maybe (likely) you're just parroting what you've heard.

Anyway, on the 'gay' angle, this is from an article from an openly gay man that ran for Virginia's House of Delegates and received support from Ron Paul.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nearly fifteen years ago, I was running for the Virginia House of Delegates (in the 49th District, then completely within Arlington County, one of the most heavily Democratic and liberal districts in the state).

The campaign took place during the period that, according to Kirchick, "Ron Paul" was making derogatory, anti-gay remarks in "his" newsletters. As it happens, I was running as an openly-gay candidate for the Virginia General Assembly. (It was my second run for that office after a previous attempt in a special election in January 1991. The same district currently has an openly-gay Democrat representing it in Richmond.)

During that 1993 campaign, Ron Paul issued a letter on my behalf, soliciting funds from libertarians and votes from constituents. (We sent the letter to both groups.) Dr. Paul (then a former Congressman) was aware I was running as an openly-gay candidate and he raised no questions, concerns, or objections. I hardly think a homophobic bigot would have sent out a fundraising letter over his own signature, endorsing (as the Washington Times stylebook would have it) an "avowed homosexual" for public office.

Did Ron Paul exercise poor judgment in allowing others to publish badly-written newsletter articles under his name? Yes -- and that is something that he acknowledged more than a decade ago, and quite explicitly in that 2001 Texas Monthly article. He has taken responsibility for his error, owned up to it, and did not even beg for forgiveness. In fact, he has reacted to this smear attempt in a cool, evenhanded, and direct manner.

If people want to dredge up the past of politicians, how about paying attention to the way Mike Huckabee has consorted with Christian Reconstructionists, who want to institute a sort of sharia law in the United States that would include the death penalty for adulterers and homosexuals?

http://ricksincerethoughts.blogspot.com/2008/01/question-was-answered-six-years-ago.html

 

First you were calling these newsletters "racist" and now that i've pretty much shined the light of truth on those pathetic and dishonest allegations you've revised your criticism from "racist" to "post apocalyptic."

It's you who is delusional. If we posted a picture of him marching for Civil Rights you would claim it was a stunt to hide his racism.

Pot meet kettle.

 

Um.....duh?

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A57M7moDZTg"]Is Ron Paul Racist? HIS OWN WORDS on racism blacks.flv - YouTube[/ame]