My respect for Ron Paul has gone up. Anyone who actually puts up with this style of "news reporting" can't be trusted.

Wow, CNN real scared. Love it. This is what change looks like, a VERY scared mainstream media. Tea Parties, OWS, Paul Fanatics...the time draws near...

Paul has every right not to answer the question, and to sanction the press for pressing him on it; but it's a legitimate question and Paul's answers have been inconsistent and full of holes.

I've never had a newsletter named after me; but if I did, I'd be damn sure noone was posting bigoted shit in my name.

Heh, they're trying to pin all the bad things on him now. Who posted a blog or talk post about this earlier?

I'm no Ron Paul fan, but good on him for his response here. Need more people walking out on this kind of stupidity.

Well played Mr Paul

This is the original swiftboating... ronpauling...

We begin with two simple questions:

Why would he put out publications under his name without the slightest idea what was in them?
And if he didn't write the stuff, why hasn't he identified the author and revealed his name?



Based on comparing the writings and positions of Dr. Paul and several other people involved, it would appear the people responsible would be:

Murray Rothbard,
http://murrayrothbard.com/category/rothbard-rockwell-report/


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My google quest began with this article and the comments in it, i have compiled my results:
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/22/about-those-racist-ron-paul-newsletters-that-he-didnt-read-and-completely-disavowed

------------------------------------------------ RESEARCH

HERE'S RON PAULS RESPONSE:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

-------------------------------

OK, fair enough. Now for a 1995 interview, go to 1:54, here is transcription with his interview proving that he knew newsletters existed, not all the content. In fact, he seems more concerned with finance:

“Along with that I also put out a political, uh, type of business investment newsletter, sort of covered all these areas. And it covered, uh, a lot about what was going on in Washington and financial events, especially some of the monetary events since I had been especially interested in monetary policy, had been on the banking committee, and still very interested in, in that subject.. that, uh, this newsletter dealt with that… has to do with the value of the dollar [snip] and of course the disadvantages of all the high taxes and spending that our government seems to continue to do.”

Watch video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW755u5460A

A constant theme in Paul’s rhetoric, dating back to his first years as a congressman in the late 1970s, is that the United States is on the edge of a precipice. The centerpiece of this argument is that the abandonment of the gold standard has put the United States on the path to financial collapse.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98811/ron-paul-libertarian-bigotry

------------------------------------------------------

So what about that, he did have a newsletter? Did it talk about more than money, and did he author those writings? Well it gets more interesting..

this is from a comment here:
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/22/the-ron-paul-newsletter-and-his-jeremiah-wright-moment/#comment-152657

"Wish I had saved the links. This Dondero guy was supposedly part of a group of people that wrote the content of the newsletters (maybe seven different people), and that Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard were the main brains behind the content. Ron Paul wrote some of the content too (probably about sound money, lol). They have also hinted (maybe Rockwell did), that the writer of some of the extreme articles was now dead. It seems that multiple people from that time have died, but the most relevant is Murray Rothbard. He’s like a messiah to this sub-culture, and Rockwell would probably never spill the beans on Rothbard. The tone of the racially offensive parts does seem like it would be written by Rothbard. If you are unlucky enough to attempt to listen through one of his lectures on YouTube, you will notice his attempts at sarcastic humor, if you don’t fall asleep first.

Dondero: “Neither Rockwell or Rothbard are/were “libertarians.” In his later yers Rothbard called himself a “Paleo” aligning with the conservative southern successionists. Rockwell, today calls himself an Anarchist, and has distanced himself greatly from any part of the libertarian movement.”

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2011/02/1970s80s-libertarian-party-stalwart.html

“The newsletters’ obsession with blacks and gays was of a piece with a conscious political strategy adopted at that same time by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard. After breaking with the Libertarian Party following the 1988 presidential election, Rockwell and Rothbard formed a schismatic “paleolibertarian” movement, which rejected what they saw as the social libertinism and leftist tendencies of mainstream libertarians. In 1990, they launched the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, where they crafted a plan they hoped would midwife a broad new “paleo” coalition.”

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter"

---------------------------

Ok now we're getting somewhere.. so what about Dondero, Rockwell, and Rothbard?

Reason: Your former staffer Eric Dondero is challenging you for your House seat in 2008.
Paul: He's a disgruntled former employee who was fired.
http://reason.com/blog/2007/05/22/ron-paul-on-9-11-and-eric-dond

-----------------------------------
What about these mid 1990's interviews like this one from the Dallas Morning News:

In 1996, Paul told The Dallas Morning News that his comment about black men in Washington came while writing about a 1992 study by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank in Virginia. The comment about black males being fleet of foot came from a 1992 newsletter, disavowed by Paul.

Paul cited the study and wrote (NOT SAID): “Given the inefficiencies 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,” Paul told the Morning News. “That is the assumption you can gather from the report.”

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]

"If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?" Dr. Paul asked.

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

Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the congressman was practicing medicine at the time the newsletters were published and “did not write or approve the incendiary passages and does not agree with them.”

“He has, however, taken moral responsibility because they appeared under his name and slipped through under his watch,” Benton said. “They do not reflect what he believes in: liberty and dignity for all mankind. … Dr. Paul, renowned as a straight shooter who speaks his mind, has given literally thousands of speeches over the past 35 years, and he has never spoken such things.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context
http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d

"Instead of talking about the issues, our opponent has chosen to lie and try to deceive the people of the 14th District," said Paul spokesman Michael Sullivan, who added that the excerpts were written during the Los Angeles riots when "Jesse Jackson was making the same comments."

-----------------

And all the confusion because he wanted to take responsibility. .. and the real issue? Not with what he may have said, or how consistent he has been denying this lie, but merely:

"Would he even check in to see if his ideas are being implemented? Who would he appoint to Cabinet positions?"

it comes down to an EITHER/OR false choice:

Either Paul is so oblivious to what was being done in his name that this obliviousness alone disqualifies him for a job like the presidency
— or -
he knew very well that horrific arguments were being published his name and he lent his name to a cynical racist strategy anyway.

Is there not any other choice?

There is your answer. The GOP is trying to sow any and all doubt at any and all cost. The content of the newsletters is just convenient; they would have done this anyway.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/the-story-behind-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250338/
-------------------------------------

So Why Smear Ron Paul? Here is why... and the answer may NOT surprise you:

http://www.infowars.com/cnn-poll-ron-paul-most-popular-republican-amongst-non-whites/

yet we're supposed to believe this man, a physician and politician, has actually uttered words like, ""Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers?"

Please. It is VERY unlikely.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/165290/why-do-gop-bosses-fear-ron-paul

Thank you for your time.

communist "News" Network.

Not sure I've seen the media this freaked out for a long time. Wow.

Welcome to mainstream politics, Mr. Paul, you will now have to endure a higher level of scrutiny, just like all of your opponents.

Ron Paul has a large body of racist literature in his name. I think it is troubling and a fair point to bring this up. It's also a lot more significant than some of the bad press for the other candidates, like Bachmann's gay husband and Newt and Cain's affairs. Read the volumes of racist literature for yourself here: http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/game-over-scans-of-over-50-ron-paul.html

Did Lew Rockwell write all of this without the editorial consent or attention of Ron Paul? Were they pandering to a racist base? Or is Ron Paul lying? Not good anyway you slice it.

Of much worse concern than old newsletters is Ron Paul's problematic Austrian economic platform, which is a more hardcore version of the free market economics that have bankrupted this country, decimated the middle class and sent our jobs to third world slaves. Ron Paul will not stand up to corporations. On the contrary, he is going to give them the gift of deregulation and tax cuts.

I'm sick of Ron Paul hype. Enough of this blind hero worship. Ron Paul is capable of doing wrong. He is not a deity.

yet we're supposed to believe this man, a physician and politician, has actually uttered words like, ""Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers?" Please. It is VERY unlikely.




Considering some of his statements about health insurance? Yes. I totally do believe he would say something that stupid, because he is a fucking turd.

Of course, for instance, he's religious, but the pros outweigh the cons.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Ron Paul is capable of doing wrong.

Here is an excerpt from a Ron Paul newsletter that instructs you how to cover up the evidence after you murder a black person. This is despicable.

Blast ‘Em?
(From the Ron Paul Political Report October 1992 newsletter. [source])

If you live in a major city, you’ve probably already heard about the newest threat to your life and limb, and your family: carjacking.

It is the hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos. The youth simply walk up to a car they like, pull a gun, tell their family to get out, steal their jewelry and wallets, and take the car to wreck. Such actions have ballooned in the recent months.

In the old days, average people could avoid such youth by staying out of bad neighborhoods. Empowered by the media, police, and political complicity, however, the youth now roam everywhere looking for cars to steal and people to rob.

What can you do? More and more Americans are carrying a gun in the car. An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example).

I frankly don’t know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.

http://conspiratard.net/2011/12/17/ron-paul-newsletter-excerpt-of-the-day-121711-ron-pauls-newsletter-tells-readers-how-to-cover-up-a-murder/

@gwiz665
That was me that wrote this Sift Talk post.

I managed to track down the source of the 95% quote.

make up your own mind if it's as racist as David Duke or not.

***edit
the think is, it really is pretty hateful against blacks. pretty much, it's a rant against the blacks who were rioting in L.A. at the time, written for an audience that was used to hearing that blacks are indulging in some kind of Black Panther type struggle against ordinary white people.

Jump to 1:50 to hear Dr. Paul brag about his writings and newsletters. He made a million in one year from the newsletters; do you doubters really believe he would ignore the content of such a lucrative venture?

I don't think Ron Paul is a racist (not much, anyway); he is an incredible cynic who tried to build his fringe movement in part on that segment of whites who are angry- and anti-PC. That may not bother you guys much; maybe it would concern you if it were your groups he was targeting.

Smear campaign in full bore? Go americans, kill your one reasonable* candidate.

(*more reasonable that the rest, at least)

Welcome to mainstream politics, Mr. Paul, you will now have to endure a higher level of scrutiny, just like all of your opponents*

* does not include left-wing candidates



Anyone-But-His-Royal-Earness '12

Yeah, if he was writing nasty newsletters against atheists and europeans, I'm sure you'd feel the same way. >> ^gwiz665:

Smear campaign in full bore? Go americans, kill your one reasonable candidate.
( more reasonable that the rest, at least)

He's done HWHAT!? Lemme just grab my pitchfork, you get some tar and feathers!
>> ^longde:

Yeah, if he was writing nasty newsletters against atheists and europeans, I'm sure you'd feel the same say. >> ^gwiz665:
Smear campaign in full bore? Go americans, kill your one reasonable candidate.
( more reasonable that the rest, at least)

How is it that all this is written evidence that is beyond all reasonable doubt, yet the man NEVER has been recorded saying anything of the kind? His articles and works in the newsletters are about finance and the economy. He IS on direct record denying these things directly.

----


Now, between Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard, who sounds more like the man who wrote the newsletters:

"Neither Rockwell or Rothbard are/were “libertarians.” In his later yers Rothbard called himself a “Paleo” aligning with the conservative southern successionists. Rockwell, today calls himself an Anarchist, and has distanced himself greatly from any part of the libertarian movement."


http://murrayrothbard.com/ethnic-politics-in-new-york/
http://murrayrothbard.com/category/rothbard-rockwell-report/

*election

Adding video to channels (Election) - requested by xxovercastxx.

@dystopianfuturetoday

I am curious to hear why you think holding RP responsible for this newsletter is different than putting Obama's feet to the fire over, say, Reverend Wright or Bill Ayers.

I dunno, maybe because it said horrible things and bore his name? Or the fact that he has changed his story from the quotes were "taken out of context" to "I didn't know they existed"? If Obama had a racist news letter that gave tips on killing white people, I would not defend him.

I'm not sure if the media will scrutinize Ron Paul as much as they did Obama, but if they do, expect Ron Paul's ties to white supremacist groups become an issue. That is a better comparison to Ayres/Wright. Is it fair? Debatable. Is it fair game? Isn't everything in an American election cycle?

@xxovercastxx

His name and signature (or a facsimile of it) were on the newsletters. I've never seen RP as flustered as when he's trying to answer questions about these newsletters. Oh, and he's a conspiracy nut, too. The messiah has fallen, which now leaves exactly as many viable Republican candidates as there were before all of this newsletter business... zero.

Watching the Republican candidates self-destruct and eat their own is like watching D-listers go at it on Survivor: DC. You tune in for the entertainment value. You may even have a favorite, but it's chaos and bloodshed you're really hoping to see.

The unedited version of the CNN interview.
http://videosift.com/video/Uncut-Ron-Paul-Interview-Ron-Paul-Didnt-Storm-Off

Ron Paul excuse list:
1. He never wrote them.
2. Look what that OTHER GUY did!
3. He owned up to and aplogized for them.
4. He didn't know what was in them.
5. Call folks 'sheeple.'
6. You are a bigger racist than he is7.
7. Mostly involves talking about how Ron Paul wants to end the war
8. It's impossible that he's a racist because he delivered black babies for free
9. Libertarians can't be racists because they see people as people, and not collectives unless of course it involves ending the drug war would help blacks collectively.
10. Legalize it!
11. Claim or imply that people are stupid.
12. Scream that you did something that you never did.
13. It happened 20 years ago!
14. The [blacks][Mexicans][Asians] are the real racists!
15. I didn’t read or write the ads for the racist newsletter!
16. You’re being paid to trash Ron Paul!
17. There are more important things to talk about..
18. Hey, it’s not all THAT racist!