Posted on 12/16/2011 2:04:51 PM PST by Southnsoul
***I grant permission to anyone to take the content in this entry and redistribute it. The truth needs to get out.***
People wonder who wrote the Ron Paul newsletters.
First, if you’re new to this topic, it’s important because for around two decades, he had newsletters written that contained much racist content. He financially profited off of the newsletters.
The purpose of this entry is to answer a simple question.
Who wrote the Ron Paul newsletters?
In a 1996 interview with the Dallas Morning News, Ron Paul was asked about his newsletters. In that interview he defended them.
In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.
“If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.
He also said the comment about black men in the nation’s capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.
Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: `Given the inef! ficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
“These aren’t my figures,” Dr. Paul said Tuesday. “That is the assumption you can gather from” the report.
From this interview we gather Ron Paul knew about the content, defended the content and wrote the content.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativesnetwork.com ...
On ‘The Five’ on Fox, Gutfield (sp?) in discussion of the debaters last night, said Ron Paul, as usual, continued to say something brilliant followed with something stupid- like ordering steak topped witn neccos. LOL
Should read ‘WITH’.
So Paul is both an Anti Semite and a racist...
Gee I’ll act shocked if it will help...
The Occupy Mom’s Basement crowd should be so proud of their man...
This guy is a dishonest “something”. He is getting his source materials from tnr.com, tnr.com posted it online after they did their own (might I add, real and proper yellow) investigative journalism on the subject of Paul’s newsletters, tnr.com already found the ghostwriter, back during the 2008 primary season. So... the guy is just another partisan hack, repeating already repudiated story, as posted here on FR extensively, for the lulz or trolling Freepers.
Why?
Then again, why not create another civil war on FR before the Iowa and NH primaries? Sounds like a plan, meet you in the trenches.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletters
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man
http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter
The site is a joke. If what’s there is intended to prove that Ron Paul is a racist, it fails. You may disagree with his foreign policy views but the racism charge, so overworked these days, won’t stick.
I love his PS to the Paul supporters:
Saying NU-UH, doesn’t make the facts above go away.
Shouting, “LIAR!” – doesn’t make the facts above go away.
Giving a link to a Ron Paul denial doesn’t make the facts go away.
Shouting neocon, shill, warmonger, hit piece, or any other word in your vocabulary, doesn’t make the above facts go away.
Saying this is old news, doesn’t make the above truth go away. If a candidate for president built wealth for two decades off of being racist, voters deserve to know.
Saying this was debunked years ago, doesn’t make the truth above go away. The above facts debunk any supposed debunking from Ron Paul.
Sitting there and spouting off any other rhetoric while you ignore the evidence, does not make the evidence go away.
Calling this a joke or an act of desperation does not make the above facts go away.
Spewing a quote about how racism is about collectivism doesn’t make the above facts untrue.
Calling the evidence bogus doesn’t make the newsletters go away. Plus if you say these are all bogus, then you’re calling Ron Paul’s denial bogus too! How could he blame a ghost writer for writing something that never happened?
Saying the first person language and the presence of Ron Paul’s name doesn’t prove a thing, shows you’re clearly biased. Ron Paul defended his newsletters in 1996. Showing that he was involved and did know about them. Combine that with his actual name and first person language in them, pretty much shows he did write them. Making the presence of his name and first person references inconsequential, is laughable at the least.
Paul supporters may ask, “How is this any different than someone going off and publishing a newsletter in your name?” It is very different. First, Ron Paul started a company called Ron Paul and Associates. The newsletters were printed under the umbrella of that organization. Ron Paul profited from the newsletters. Ron Paul defended the newsletters. Ron Paul’s name, signature and first person references are found in the newsletters he defended. This is much different than some random person somewhere just starting a newsletter in someone’s name without their consent or permission.
Sitting there asking for evidence, when the evidence is right there and is all over the place, makes you look very insincere in your demands for evidence. Oh and that doesn’t make the above evidence go away either.
Saying Ron Paul forcefully denied the racist newsletters, followed by a link to a Youtube video, does not negate the facts above. Politicians lie all the time. Look at the evidence, not his words. Yes Ron Paul can lie. He’s not the messiah. He’s not perfect. He’s not pure. The evidence shows he is clearly lying. I don’t care how forcefully he denies it. Nixon forcefully said he wasn’t a crook. Clinton forcefully said he didn’t have sexual relations with that woman. Politicians lie.
Referencing African Americans supporting Paul, does not negate the facts above. Ron Paul said in his newsletter that 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions. Those backing him would be viewed as the 5%. Well what about the other 95%?
You can’t negate the above evidence, facts and truth by demanding we find a video or tape of Ron Paul using such language. We see how Ron communicates when he thinks no one else is looking. First of all, it’s laughable for a Paul supporter to act like they take evidence in to consideration. Paul supporters are putting on a guise when they demand video or audio proof. The guise is that they actually care about evidence in the first place. The evidence provided in the newsletters is enough. To ignore this evidence, shows us you would ignore any video or audio evidence if it were presented. Once again, any demand for evidence from a Paul supporter is merely a guise. They don’t care about proof in the first place.
P M
bttt. :)
It may be true. Many black men are fast.
But you can’t go fast and far.
Over multiple decades, the vile racist Ron Paul newsletters were published under his name, buy his people, for over thousands of readers, and soliciting campaign contributions for him.
Can anyone really believe that Ron Paul can be so incompetent that he ignored that trash published under his name year after year after year after year......?
Can people really still be supporting this nut?
All he says is that he did not write them, yet I have not heard him condemn them either.
If your argument is true, wouldn’t we know who the true writer of this vile stuff is by now? Hannity has been hammering Paul on this pretty hard and his defense is very weak.
Bingo...
With that said however, the culprit who wrote the controversial articles was a Ron Paul staffer named Eric Dondero, who was fired by Paul after the newsletter incidents. If the blogger had bothered to do his/her research with an open mind, the real story about the newsletters is out there from credible sites.
This has been hashed, rehashed and triple-hashed. It's utter bull and was debunked years ago. Yet every time Paul runs for his seat or for POTUS, this crap resurfaces again and again.
Paul will never win the GOP nomination. His positions, especially on foreign policy are quite easy to ridicule without the need to drag up old rumors.
Beck is too busy attacking Newt... He can’t be bothered...
The desire to be able to smoke dope easily and legally is strong enough for the paulbots to ignore and even defend all his other nutty ideas.
Ping for later, thank you.
Perhaps you can explain why Stormfront had a banner soliciting contributions for the RP campaign in 2008?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.