It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

IRS targets Ron Paul's nonprofit by demanding donor lists. Ron Paul will NOT comply.

page: 2
35
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 





lol, let's stop with the white supremacy thing. Ron Paul advocates a "leave me a alone, and I'll leave you alone policy" so it is obvious groups that wish to be left alone (ie prostitutes, marijuana users, and yes even white supremacists and *GASP* online poker players) support Ron Paul. No there aren't any "established" links to white supremacy groups for a couple of years now, bring up your proof and I will gladly spend my time to help you better be informed of the facts.

And yes, Peter Thiel is a well known gay libertarian, gays and libertarians are another group of people that wish to be left alone to be free Americans. Libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, you'd think a sillicon valley business owner would be fiscally conservative and socially...oh...right. To assume that Peter Thiel donates to Ron Paul to somehow benefit from data mining for the CIA and DoD is rather ludicrous as Ron Paul believes in the smallest form of government intervention and has almost no room in his policy positions for any data mining (especially unconstitutional) on behalf of the federal government.


First off. Ron Paul, like his slimy offspring, is a liar. 20+ years of newsletters full of insane, vile blabbering that he wouldn't deny authorship of throughout the 90's and (in fact, he ardently supported the opinions on numerous occasions) and then starting in the 2000's, he began distancing himself from his own newsletters claiming that not only didn't he write them, he barely read them. Sounds like Rand took a page out of daddy's book when he got busted for plagiarism. I'm sure you're familiar with some of these gems:

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be"
"We can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal"
"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions"
"our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race-privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom"
"What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day"

He's known to be in favor of repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In 1999 he was the only member of congress to vote against authorizing the President to award Rosa Parks a Gold Medal on behalf of Congress in recognition for her contribution to the nation source.

In 2007 he said, "We quadrupled the TSA, you know, and hired more people who look more suspicious to me than most Americans who are getting checked... Most of them are, well, you know, they just don’t look very American to me."

The don't look very American? Why would anyone think that he's a racist? What was it he said about gays? That people should avoid transfusions because the AIDS infected gays were purposefully trying to poison the blood supply? Of course, he was completely oblivious to words published in his name from the late 70's through the 90's, he's either a blithely ignorant fool or a liar.

He's all about live and let live right? Of course he's vehemently anti-abortion, signing the "Personhood Pledge," the Stupak amendment, etc. What was it he said about Lawrence v. Texas (2003)? "there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution ... the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex." So he believes the government (as long as it's at the state level) should be able to regulate sex because there's no right to privacy in our bedrooms? Or how about what he said the same year about making flag burning illegal, because he doesn't care about people being free to express themselves either, "I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Instead, my colleagues should work to restore the rights of the individual states to ban flag burning, free from unconstitutional interference by the Supreme Court."

Spare me the simplistic (and relatively recent) definition of American Libertarianism, I'm quite familiar with the mantra. "Fiscally conservative and socially liberal" are just words. Case in point, Peter Thiel, "well known gay libertarian" owns a large portion of a company that is dedicated to facilitating the destruction of an individual's right to privacy, for a billion dollar profit. No matter how you choose to define "Libertarian," the principle philosophical tenet is upholding individual liberty. Anyone can claim any affiliation they desire, but it's what they are in practice that counts. Seems like a lot of self-professed lovers of liberty are only concerned with their own freedom to do as they wish and are quick to disregard the liberty of others.
edit on 2014-4-16 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by theantediluvian
 


*Lincoln was racist but also abolished slavery.
*Truman was racist but he desegregated the military.
*Johnson was racist but he was a proponent of affirmative action.
*Roosevelt was racist but he also managed to give blacks a voice to begin expressing grievances.
*Our founding fathers were racist yet their documentation made it possible for all to be treated equally one day - even if inadvertently.

Also - Clinton and Reagan were racialist - or had made racist remarks.

Etc...

I think racialism is abhorrent but it's also not as if other leaders of this Country haven't been guilty of it.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 05:05 PM
link   

theantediluvian
reply to post by eLPresidente
 





lol, let's stop with the white supremacy thing. Ron Paul advocates a "leave me a alone, and I'll leave you alone policy" so it is obvious groups that wish to be left alone (ie prostitutes, marijuana users, and yes even white supremacists and *GASP* online poker players) support Ron Paul. No there aren't any "established" links to white supremacy groups for a couple of years now, bring up your proof and I will gladly spend my time to help you better be informed of the facts.

And yes, Peter Thiel is a well known gay libertarian, gays and libertarians are another group of people that wish to be left alone to be free Americans. Libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, you'd think a sillicon valley business owner would be fiscally conservative and socially...oh...right. To assume that Peter Thiel donates to Ron Paul to somehow benefit from data mining for the CIA and DoD is rather ludicrous as Ron Paul believes in the smallest form of government intervention and has almost no room in his policy positions for any data mining (especially unconstitutional) on behalf of the federal government.


First off. Ron Paul, like his slimy offspring, is a liar. 20+ years of newsletters full of insane, vile blabbering that he wouldn't deny authorship of throughout the 90's and (in fact, he ardently supported the opinions on numerous occasions) and then starting in the 2000's, he began distancing himself from his own newsletters claiming that not only didn't he write them, he barely read them. Sounds like Rand took a page out of daddy's book when he got busted for plagiarism. I'm sure you're familiar with some of these gems:

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be"
"We can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal"
"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions"
"our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race-privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom"
"What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day"

He's known to be in favor of repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In 1999 he was the only member of congress to vote against authorizing the President to award Rosa Parks a Gold Medal on behalf of Congress in recognition for her contribution to the nation source.

edit on 2014-4-16 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



Yes, I actually hoped you would bring these up and before I address you I have a few questions to ask you:
(Oh and please don't ignore this post, I invite you to come back and participate some more with your half-truths)

- Would a racist person praise MLK Jr. for his entire adult life?
- Would a racist congressman endorse a black woman for congress? (Cynthia Mckinney)
- Would a racist doctor treat black people for free?
- Would a racist spend his entire political career fighting the drug war? The number 1 group of people affected by the drug war are blacks, why would a racist go through so much trouble if he were indeed helping the people you claim he dislikes/hates????
- In the 35 years of his political career, speaking to hundreds of thousands and his words reaching millions of people, can you find ONE instance of him actually saying something racist? Please, I ask you to find this and bring it to ATS to prove your claim.

Now before I address you, you need to see this thread:
Wonder if Ron Paul is really a racist?

1. Ron Paul has officially stated that he did not write those racial comments and admitted his fault in negligence. The proof is in the fact that throughout the entire lifetime of the newsletter series, the racial comments were written for a couple months then stopped. Now ask yourself, could it have been a newly hired writer and/or editor who got fired after writing such comments? Oh wait, why don't you just watch this video and find out?


2. Yes, Ron Paul believes in property rights, for e-v-e-r-y-o-n-e. A private business should be able to serve who they want to serve no matter WHO they are. When Ron Paul talks about property rights, he doesn't talk about color, he talks about the liberty. Do you know who makes it about the color of your skin? THE MEDIA, in assuming Ron Paul means whites against blacks, his version of liberty is bound by no color, as it should be.

3. YES, I really wanted you to bring up the Rosa Parks medal. He did in fact vote no to use tax payer money to fund paying for a medal but he also got up in the House Chamber and offered to pitch in HIS OWN MONEY to fund the medal and asked if other members of congress would do the same, did you know that he was the only one to offer his money for a congressional pool to give her the medal??????

Ron Paul regarding Rosa Parks, "I think she's is a real hero because I believe in civil disobedience"



You see, Ron Paul DOES IN FACT believe in liberty and freedom. It is only when you regurgitate liberal propaganda about Ron Paul without actually looking at all of the facts is when his version of liberty comes into conflict with what he claims to believe. In REALITY, Ron Paul has been consistent, which is why he fights to protect property rights, for EVERYONE, and votes against taking money away from the people to give to heroic figures. He offered his own money for goodness sakes. So if you want to continue to keep your head in the dirt, sitting there typing away at how Ron Paul is racist-you can do that, or you can look at the facts.

Putting an END to the 'Ron Paul is racist' claims


You'd think black people could tell when they see a racist, why the hell would they go through all this trouble to tell you otherwise?



It is sad that people like you get to come to sites like these and post half-truths like you do, just so that you can advance an agenda.
edit on 16-4-2014 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Since we are now in a time when our government openly picks and chooses what laws it wants to enforce, sure. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. They have set a fine example for We the People. It's only a matter of time before more people start deciding what laws they want to follow and which ones they find onerous. I think this one is onerous.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by theantediluvian
 


Don't feed the troll.

Misdirection is the name of the game. Don't play it.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 

The IRS is the Federal reserve's collection agency .



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 03:35 AM
link   
It doesn't really matter if he's racist or not, his whole thing is live and let live...



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


It wasn't just "a couple of months" as you've tried to minimize it, the statements span years. In 1989 there were predictions of a race war: "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities ... mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.' " In 1992, there were indeed quite a few statements like this one: "The criminals who terrorized our cities — in riots and on every non-riot day — are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are." but as your own source points out, the James B. Powell story appears in 1993.

It's not a new thing in politics for people to say one thing in public and something different to their supporters. Maybe you're right, maybe Ron Paul isn't a racist, maybe he's just a liar who is guilty of pandering to racists to sell subscriptions? Or maybe he's not a racist, he wasn't pandering and he was just incapable of overseeing an operation that was printing words in his name and sending them out to the masses — but he'd do so much better as President?


“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman’s.



A person involved in Paul’s businesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer, said Paul and his associates decided in the late 1980s to try to increase sales by making the newsletters more provocative. They discussed adding controversial material, including racial statements, to help the business, the person said.

“It was playing on a growing racial tension, economic tension, fear of government,’’ said the person, who supports Paul’s economic policies but is not backing him for president. “I’m not saying Ron believed this stuff. It was good copy. Ron Paul is a shrewd businessman.’



Ed Crane, the longtime president of the libertarian Cato Institute, said he met Paul for lunch during this period and the two discussed direct-mail solicitations, which Paul was sending out to interest people in his newsletters. They agreed that “people who have extreme views” were more likely than others to respond.

Crane said Paul reported getting his best response when he used a mailing list from the now-defunct newspaper Spotlight, which was widely considered anti-Semitic and racist.



Paul “had to walk a very fine line,’’ said Eric Dondero Rittberg, a former longtime Paul aide who says Paul allowed the controversial material in his newsletter as a way to make money. Dondero Rittberg said he witnessed Paul proofing, editing and signing off on his newsletters in the mid-1990s.

“The real big money came from some of that racially tinged stuff, but he also had to keep his libertarian supporters, and they weren’t at all comfortable with that,’’ he said.


As I said before, words are just that, words. I don't care how many times since 2001 he's disavowed this crap, that doesn't make it *poof* go away. Neither one of us can really know what goes on in Ron Paul's head, whether he's actually a bigot or not, but he's there's really only two conclusions to be drawn from the newsletter debacle — he's either lying or he was incompetent.


source
source
source
source



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: eLPresidente

So I guess the 12 people who contribute to Ron paul can breathe a little easier now, eh?



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Leave it to a Canadian to see USA as it is. I find it comical how many believe Obama is the guy in charge. He's nothing more than an elected spokesman in charge of public relations. a reply to: bobs_uruncle



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: eLPresidente

If Ron Paul is the real deal, he should have no problem opening his donor list. Secrecy in politics is worse than transparency and if Paul is violating the LAW, I think he stop pretending that he is being victimized. He has to take personal responsibility.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: humanityrising
It doesn't really matter if he's racist or not, his whole thing is live and let live...


And hiding the money that is creating big government in the first place...



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Granite
reply to post by eLPresidente
 

Obama's donor list:
1. Saudi Arabia monarchy
2. Muslim Brotherhood
3. Lesbian, Gays


Dear god, not the gays!!! The horror!!!



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: spurgeonatorsrevenge
a reply to: eLPresidente

If Ron Paul is the real deal, he should have no problem opening his donor list. Secrecy in politics is worse than transparency and if Paul is violating the LAW, I think he stop pretending that he is being victimized. He has to take personal responsibility.



If Ron Paul is sincere in his desire to reduce government, he will comply with any and all unnecessary requirements imposed by the government...makes sense...



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


Propagandize much? A 5 paragraph article and you quote only the first four? Here's the rest of the article:


Stiles accused the IRS of trying to silence her organization. "The IRS technically requires donor information from 501(c)(4) organizations and is forbidden by law from releasing it to the public, yet despite this they have 'mistakenly' released the information repeatedly over the years," she wrote. "Often these leaks have been made to political opponents of the conservative groups whose information was leaked. Leaking the donor information is intended to harass and to intimidate those donors from donating to political causes. Campaign for Liberty has refused to provide donor information to the IRS to protect the privacy of our members. Now the IRS has demanded the information and fined Campaign for Liberty for protecting its members’ privacy."


So Stiles begrudgingly admits that the IRS requires the information and is forbidden, by the same laws that authorize them to require the lists, not to release the information. So they're not picking on Ron Paul's group, they require this information from everyone? Ms. Stiles also states that there have been repeated leaks but doesn't take the time to cite even one.

I'm no fan of the IRS. Personally, I think we should burn the voluminous books of tax code and replace them with something simple like the Fair Tax, save billions on tax preparation and scale down the IRS to something like a pre-16th amendment size. Do I believe the IRS coordinates with the administration to harass conservative groups? I suppose at some level it could be possible, but it seems unlikely. Everyone knows that Shulman was appointed by Bush and he was the chief from 2008 until his resignation in 2012.

Here's a bigger question. Why aren't you more concerned with the fact that wealthy corporations and individuals funnel money through non-profits to corrupt our political system and inundate us with propaganda? That since Citizen's United, the "will of the people" is being manufactured, augmented and when all else fails, simply supplanted by organizations primarily funded by the wealthiest few and in many cases, foreigners? This isn't everyday Americans "donating" to a cause, this is those with the means to do so, buying a service.

The icing on the cake is that this woman even made sure to use the word "embolden," the current favorite of conservative brainwashers.





So...a federal agency comes to your neighbor's home and demands a list of his friends. They proceed to arrest the man and then go to his friends that he divulged. They do the same and demand a list of each of their friends and then do the same...arrest the individual and then visit their friends. So they come to one man and demand a list of his friends but this man says no. They scream, threaten and bitch that he MUST do as they say. He still says no. He protects his friends and stops the abuse of power this agency is committing to target people based upon association.

In that example...that last man is a hero. In Ron's case...a hero and a Patriot against the evil of this government wielded by Obama. Personally...I believe YOU know that. But YOU don't care because YOU support this type of attack on law abiding people for the "greater glory" of YOUR leader. This is your "final solution". Round them up and...hmmm.

Thank God there are people like Ron Paul to show the weaker of us Americans how to have a revolution without the bloodshed. But personally...I think the bloodshed will have to come. And I will embrace it.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: ownbestenemy

Granite
reply to post by eLPresidente
 

Ron Paul list of donors:
1. Hundreds of American businesses.
2. Thousands of Patriotic American citizens.


You missed:
Google -- 42,000
Boeing -- 30,000
Microsoft -- 30,000

That are numbers for the 2012 election cycle -- not saying that the man isn't corrupted, but trying to paint him as some savior of politics doesn't help when you exclude where his contributions are arriving from.


Obama's donor list:
1. Saudi Arabia monarchy
2. Muslim Brotherhood
3. Lesbian, Gays

How can the new IRS director not be aware of massive illegality in Obama's campaign filings?


Bah...come on. I despise the politics of the man. I don't think it is the right direction but you are just spewing nonsense.

So what if his money came from "lesbian, gays" and can you confirm or supply evidence that his donor's are number 1 and 2?

Probably not, as you are just perpetuating nonsense. Stick to the issues -- or rather, stick to what can be confirmed.

What should be questioned is...the University of California -- the same system in which a former head of the Homeland Security took a plush job -- gave 1.2 million dollars. Either students are flush with money or faculty is.


OK...who supports Obama, with their vote. Union workers who are forced to vote the way they do. Teachers (also union) who must vote the way they do. People on welfare who must vote the way the do to continue receiving money without scrutiny. Federal employees who rely on the government for a paycheck while strengthening the administration. Illegal individuals who have been told they get a free ride if they vote this way. Must I go on???

This administration and the libs BUY votes and COMMAND votes under threats. The only ones they get that aren't about maintaining the hand-outs and aren't required for "employee's" paychecks are from the blind. Yes...most every action by this administration is to get and keep control. It has nothing to do with what is in the people's interest.

If liberals, and especially this administration had their way...everyone would be a government employee. People are much easier to control when they rely on you for your food, money, water...healthcare.
edit on 4/17/2014 by WeAreAWAKE because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 01:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


s I said before, words are just that, words. I don't care how many times since 2001 he's disavowed this crap, that doesn't make it *poof* go away. Neither one of us can really know what goes on in Ron Paul's head, whether he's actually a bigot or not, but he's there's really only two conclusions to be drawn from the newsletter debacle — he's either lying or he was incompetent.



FIRST, what happened to your Rosa Parks argument? You tried to paint Ron Paul as a racist and one of your arguments was that he voted against giving Rosa Parks a medal. After the revelation that he actually for a FACT thought she was a hero and was the only congressman to offer to pay for her medal from his own pockets and not the taxpayers, where is your rebuttal, I wonder??

SECOND, you don't care how many times Ron Paul has made a statement on something only he would know? You don't care about a statement of fact? Didn't you just try to make the case that Ron Paul was a racist? What with the "established connections to white supremacists" that you tried to sell in page one of this thread? Then on the top of page two, quoting all of the "racist content" that emerged from his newsletters in an attempt to lead other reads to think that Ron Paul wrote them?

I find it very interesting that you would backtrack from your tone of painting Ron Paul as a racist after my post in response to yours. Why are you backtracking? was your original information not good enough?

I also find it very interesting that you quoted a report by Ben Swann, you seemed to only find the small part of his article that was relevant to your now "new backtracked argument" but you did not bother to use any other information provided by Ben Swann, especially since he was the reporter that broke the story about the mystery writer. Don't worry, I'm going to post the two news clips below so it is convenient for you to watch them. Don't worry the source is solid, you used it.

Keep backtracking.


Oh and by the way, you need to recheck your source on Eric Dondero, I find it hilarious that you quoted him considering his major conflict of interest as a disgruntled employee of Ron Paul. Good job!!







edit on 18-4-2014 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: humanityrising
It doesn't really matter if he's racist or not, his whole thing is live and let live...


Dunno about you, but I'm struggling to see how a group that calls themselves "white supremacists" are capable of living by the mantra of live and let live.

Just sayin!



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 02:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlphaHawk

originally posted by: humanityrising
It doesn't really matter if he's racist or not, his whole thing is live and let live...


Dunno about you, but I'm struggling to see how a group that calls themselves "white supremacists" are capable of living by the mantra of live and let live.

Just sayin!


Hmmm, almost makes you think a man whose mantra is live and let live, and non-collectivism, isn't a white supremacist...hmmm







 
35
<< 1   >>

log in

join