It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Ron Paul Newsletter - Anti-gay, Pro-Klan and 9/11 was Mossad!

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 04:08 PM
And LookingIn - yes it was a computer issue on my end. The mods were kind enough to help me move and lock one.
As for Mr. Rockwell, from his policies and website, it would seem that he would support Ron Paul. So his statements are biased (he was Ron Paul's Chief of Staff).

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 05:28 PM

January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“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.”


That's the last two lines of the response he posted today. Click the link if you want to read all of it, it's not very long.

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 07:16 PM
Well that was a good link. Since he has handled this before, shutting this down now should be easy for him.

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 09:25 PM
I find it bizarre that there was a newsletter with his name on it, and yet he never knew what was being printed in it. If Bush or Clinton had a newsletter with their name on it, and it had racist stuff in it, we would all be attributing it to them. And rightly so. So I don't see how it is any different here. Either 1) he knew exactly what was being printed and didn't care or agreed or 2) he was allowing people to print things in his name without reviewing them. Ironically, the latter is much more disturbing than the former. What else would he allow people to do in his name if he were given real power?

I think this is indefensible.

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 09:34 PM
reply to post by Togetic

Yes, if it was any other politician we would be all over them. Those are 2 good points. I just can't believe option 2 because, as a politician, he would know that anything with his name on it would come back and get him. As you pointed out option 1 seems the most plausible. There is an Option 3. He wrote the whole thing from the beginning with a pen name - though this is really really unlikely.

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 09:50 PM
What kind of reputation this source or reporter has? Why this isnt being reported by the major news outlets? I smell BS a political hit to dwindle his support prior to the vote.

And by no means Im a RP supporter.

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 10:49 PM
I don't buy Ron Paul's response. To me it's worthless. The fact that such hate speech was published over the course of decades under his name definitely qualifies as guilty by association. I don't understand how someone who has allegedly stood for all Americans over his entire career could allow such garbage to be published under his name or be associated with his name for DECADES. Paul's response does not ring true. It's like the late and former CEO Kenneth Lay saying, "I didn't know." That he wasn't aware of any of the illegal activities the executives of his company were involved with. How could a person of Lay's talent and shrewd ability not know anything? Not much is going to get by someone of Kenneth Lay's stature. His was the quintessential rags to riches story. Anyway, Ron Paul operates in the public arena where one's image and reputation are everything. Because of that, it is impossible for me to believe, “In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’ Those sentiments do not jibe with the content of his newsletters at all. In fact, why have sentiments such as those not been brought forth yet, that have been published in Ron Paul's newsletters? It would be the perfect rebuttal by his campaign to produce such an article written by Ron Paul's hand during the time period those newsletters were published. Preferably and article that appears alongside the garbage in question.

Paul consistently denies having wrote those article, yet he doesn't go as far to furnish proof that he did not write them. Yes, it was years ago, but I do not see any other candidate that is not also suffering the actions of there past. Words written and published constitute actions taken. They are not just words, they are meaning and communication, and whether Ron Paul wrote them or not the fact is that they are associated with his name, and as far as I am concerned, he has not done enough to dispel the stench.

For some reason the Ron Paul Campaign will not take the easy way out bury this issue for once and for all. If one wants the full scoop one has to have access to the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society in order to research Paul's newsletters. Any attempt to bring the content of the newsletters to light results attacks against the writers who make an attempt to do so. Maybe the records of who wrote what no longer exist. Who knows? I cannot imagine any other candidate having a ghost of a chance at party nomination, never mind as POTUS, with having their name associated with such material. Would Barack Obama be in the position that he is in if such newsletters were attributed and associated with him? No. If those articles were associated with any politician on the current ticket, you could bet the value of your home that those candidates would not be on the current ticket. No one would believe that Hillary Clinton wouldn't have been aware that such newsletters had been published under her name without her consent or approval, anymore than they believed her when she denied having withheld billing records for legal work she had done at the Rose Law Firm for Madison Guaranty in connection with Whitewater Development Corporation. It is clear to me that the Ron Paul Campaign has not been completely forthcoming.

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 12:32 AM
There's an unconfirmed rumor going around that the person who wrote this, and the person Ron Paul's trying to protect is Lew Rockwell. Lew Rockwell did use to work for Ron Paul, and according to some people, the style of writing matches. I don't how how credible this is, and I'm not an expert on Lew Rockwell or his relationship with Ron Paul. I just wanted to throw this out there though, since this is ATS (or to be exact, abovepolitics) after all.

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 12:44 AM
reply to post by AlienS

Now that doesn't sit well - Lew was RP's chief of staff and Lew has a website of his own. Wouldn't that newsletter be the Lew Rockwell Chronicles (or Report or Freedom Report, etc)? Why would he put his boss's political career at risk?
Just doesn't fit.

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 07:02 AM
Keep in mind, this stuff was almost 30yrs ago. There has been nothing from Ron Paul that is remotely consistent withe these claims since. You can be sure that if there were it would have been dredged-up months ago.

And we need to vet the source:


A Personal Agenda?

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 07:06 AM
Total political hit.
Politics is dirty. This is some of the dirtiest.

Think about it.
20 year old documents, written by someone else, using Paul as a masthead.

Paul didn't say, or write any of it.
When he heard of it, he denounced it..What more did you want him to do?
Should he throw himself off a bridge?

All of his years in public service, never heard uttering anything similar.
Consistent to a tee, in his beliefs, and his actions.

Wonder why Drudge pulled it so fast? He knew it had no legs. And he's a sensationalist.

Wait until the next primary, this will come up again.
You know why? Thats all there is. Thats the closest thing to dirt they've found.

I look forward to your repeat of this post, come super-tuesday.

Actually this WAS posted before. Go find something more "sticky"
I dare you..

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 07:28 AM
reply to post by spacedoubt

but it's not too much of a political hit when you realize just how believable it is... especially coming from the guy who said that the civil rights act is unconstitutional...
and how he's parroted that same "change the hearts and minds" stuff on racial issues that someone like strom thurmond would say.

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 09:27 AM
reply to post by AlienS

Can you substantiate that rumor to any extent?

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 09:57 AM
reply to post by spacedoubt

My point, I think worthy of being iterated, is that even if he didn't write the words, and even if he didn't agree with the words, how could he allow himself to be so passive when other people were writing in his name?

It, to me, makes me wonder what else he isn't paying attention to.... And could we trust him with executive power? Would people be running around behind his back acting in his name in that situation? How absolutely frightening is that prospect?

[edit on 1/9/2008 by Togetic]

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 10:06 AM
I have a thought. Shouldn't Ron Paul sue for Defamation of Character if those writings are not true? Someone has used his name and put out some horrible statements. I would think this would be a slamdunk right?


posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 10:12 AM
I believe statute of limitations for libel is just a year or two in almost all jurisdictions.

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 10:29 AM
reply to post by apc

Ah, well nevermind then. It looks like it varies from 1 to 5 years depending on state (example Massachusetts is 3 years). But this newsletter has been online and ongoing.

Here is the link to the site and a snippet from the sidebar :

Congressman Ron Paul is no longer affiliated with or associated in any way with The Liberty Committee of Falls Church, Virginia.
If you receive a solicitation from The Liberty Committee and/or its chairman,
Mr. David James, bearing Congressman Paul's name, please be advised that the solicitation was in no way approved or endorsed by Congressman Paul.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

So my only question is when did the affiliation end?

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 01:44 PM
Some people don't like Obama because of his name, or because as a child he accompanied his stepfather to a mosque, or because he belongs to a christian church that seeks to empower black people (so that they can get off welfare that is such a thorn is the side to Ron Paul). Where are the anti-white writings of Obama? Where are his anti-gay statements? Better yet, where are his anti-American rhetoric? Yet we have here someone like Ron Paul who allowed his name to be associated with some of the most blatant racist trash to be exposed in a long time and his only defense is that it's old news?
Where is his outrage that his philosophy has been distorted? The newsletters referenced in the post ( are there for anyone to confirm. How is this political lynching? If Ron Paul aspires to be President of this country he must be shown in his entirety! I am quite dissappointed that this has come about because I thought he was a true Libertarian, someone who I would love to see in the race for the White House instead of the Bush clones that represent the present batch of Republican candidates.


posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 01:56 PM
Maybe he doesn't flip out over it because the only people going nuts are the ones who are desperately hunting for a single speck of anything to use against him? Everyone else doesn't really care as it is ultimately irrelevant.

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:28 PM
reply to post by Togetic

Especially since he did write several articles for said newsletter. I find it hard to believe that he never picked up a copy and went "hey wait a gosh-danged minute...!" and tried to get the writer's ass kicked.

It's Occam's razor. Either...
A) He never wrote those articles, only other articles, for a newsletter printed in his name that he never read and had no editing power over, that ran for thirty years without a shred of input from him (even though he wrote for it...)
B) He either wrote those articles or supported them.

Either Paul is a clueless bastard who makes his life WAY too complicated for anyone's good, or he's your typical racist-ass libertarian.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in