Ron Paul '90s newsletter rant against blacks, gays

This whole thing seems quite absurd to me.

I think Ron Paul is a smart guy. I'm sure his followers and nay-sayers would have to agree on this.

Let's assume Springer or SO decides to issue a monthly newsletter from ATS. The logo is clear and their names appear on the document. Well it's a busy month for these two so they let some of the members write the newsletter.

A couple of members write that ATS is not real fond of Blacks, Gays and Jews. Now do you think Springer and SO are going to let this document make it's way to the public. Perhaps if they endorsed the views put forth they would. I for one know they would never allow this to happen.

So along comes the good Doctor. He's in the public sector while this newsletter is being distributed. Now being a bright guy wouldn't you think the Doctor might be a little more dilligent with his own namesake?

I find it very difficult to believe he was taken by suprise. Imagine, this must have been the very first time the Doctor ever heard of this publication being distributed.

uuuhhhhmmmm.....Nope.

Becker

Well a better example would be, if the three amigos took a 13 year vacation from running this forum and went back to their day jobs, would they know everything that was written here under their business name?

Ron Paul went back to being a doctor from 1984 to 1997, and I believe these newsletters were dated around 1993?

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe


If they or the Doctor have any interest in the value of their respective namesakes my answer would be yes.

Smart people are very aware of anything their name or likeness endorses.

Becker

None of the newsletters CNN found says who wrote them, but each was published under Paul's name between his stints as a U.S. congressman from Texas.

I'm still not seeing anywhere where the comments reflect Ron Paul's views. Anyone could have wrote the comments on the newsletters.

Originally posted by Navieko
I'd hope you aren't that gullible and atleast look into the defense that Ron Paul had to offer. He certainly does not condone the racist material published in the newsletter 20 years ago.

I saw the defense, and he cited the standard buzz names to try to distance himself from the items published under his name.

For years his paper was published under his name with dozens of racist comments. If he didn't read it himself, his friends and advisers did and let him know what was going on. If he was in any way misrepresented for years he would have likely stood up and made a statement long before being pressured by the public.

Hell, even Oprah keeps better tabs on her magazine than RP did in that case.

Now, if you're going to argue that he had no idea what was being done in his name for 4 years, why would I look forward what could be done in his name for the 4 years of his presidency if he's that oblivious?

Oh. Well I guess he's not very smart then.

This is just political smearing, it's come up in his previous campaigns for election to congress and was never taken very seriously. I think it's a sign that he's being seen as a threat finally.

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe


Yeah, before he was being elected in Texas. I'm sure this level of racism isn't as big a deal down there as it is in most other states.

reply to post by Rasobasi420


Have you actually read the newsletters, or just going on what you've been told about them?

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe


Statements such as

“I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

and

“Korean-Americans, hated by blacks, never riot, and in fact are some of the most productive people in America (the reason for black hatred).”

and

“Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country.”

and

“The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to terrorism.”

are enough for me.

And you'd better believe that anyone ANYONE who defames my character by printing such garbage in my name would not only suffer my wrath, but be sure I'd give a hand written retraction immediately!

Not doing so says as much about his character as writing these quotes himself.

[edit on 11-1-2008 by Rasobasi420]

In some excerpts, the reader may be led to believe the words are indeed from Paul, a resident of Lake Jackson, Texas. In the "Ron Paul Political Report" from October 1992, the writer describes carjacking as the "hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos."

The author then offers advice from others on how to avoid being carjacked, including "an ex-cop I know," and says, "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."

I have to say, that is pretty compelling. If he really didn't know that these things were really being written, he's a major-league idiot. How could he publish these letters for so many years and no know what was in them. No one came up to him over that long period of time and said "Hey, Dr. Paul, I love what you said about X," whereupon he would have said "WTF?" I find it incredibly hard to believe, and I think the reasonable person does, too.

Finally some people get it around here. Furthermore, anyone who continues to support him after this knowledge is tieing themselves to this racist trash and becomes a part of their history also.

Here is a thread someone else started that has video of Paul explaining this smear attempt.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thank you for the link to the videos.

Ron Paul does make an interesting point about Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King..... It would upset the 'powers that be' if the voters didn't let all the mud slinging stop them from voting for Dr. Paul. But they have probably already won

This has all been in vain. Go ahead and vote for Hillary or Guiliani.

Well, regardless of the fact that it's been said over and over on this site and others that Paul did not write these articles it should be fairly obvious to anyone who's done a little research that the writing doesn't even sound like Paul. Paul had little to nothing to do with that news letter and it was written at a time when Paul probably had little intention of going back into the political arena, probably because of stuff like this.

If you don't think this is a political smear campaign perpetrated by powerful people afraid of Ron Paul gaining too much support then think about this for a second. If Paul had legitimately won only about 10% in the past Iowa and NH elections then why would they need to publish this fact at all. If there wasn't any funny business going on during the elections then why would Ron Paul's competitors be worried?

What with the allegations of electoral fraud, the mass media blackout on Ron Paul's campaign and now this obvious smear campaign something is definitely afoot. Mr. Paul is the only one in politics I've seen that is willing to speak the truth in regards to the constitution and our rights. I think the truth is what the powers that be are really afraid of.

Well, the "la la la, we can't hear you" approach from the Ron Paul supporters doesn't work anymore. In case any of you don't want to bother watching the videos, here's a short summary for you. It's a fine example of racism.

Originally posted by dbates
Well, the "la la la, we can't hear you" approach from the Ron Paul supporters doesn't work anymore. In case any of you don't want to bother watching the videos, here's a short summary for you. It's a fine example of racism.

dbates, spot on.
The newsletter is racist to the core. And, as many have pointed out, Ron Paul explanation of it is far from sounding. He didn't help himself by accepting money from White nationalists either.

(especially since they now believe Paul is singing from the same hymn sheet as them)

Ron Paul , who may be many things but as a presidential candidate is ultimately a proponent of the US constitution.

He cannot be elected president based on the writings that appear in his newsletter? WTF ?

Funny thing is that when you are supporting the constitution its hard to miss that FREEDOM OF SPEECH part ya know right there at the top

So, while "racism" can be rather ugly, it is impossible to both support the constitutional right to free speech and at the same time censor the opinion of people who have unpopular opinions

Duplicity may be acceptable for the other candidates but apparently RON PAUL has the INTEGRITY to stand by his belief in the US Constitution to provide freedom of speech, even for people we despise

The 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT has been the wedge between dividing the USA for 43 year

It was a complete NWO scam funded by corporate money via the communist party masquerading as big brothers helping hand

The Declaration of Independence specifically provides for all "civil rights" for all people www.ushistory.org...


The US Constitution specifically outlays what the government cannot do to its citizens www.law.cornell.edu...

The Civil Rights Act specifically separates people according to race, which of course is the definition of RACISM
www.ourdocuments.gov...

There was no need for this legislation , which was basically about voters rights(which have been suppressed anyhow) and forcing black kids to be bused to white schools and white kids to be bused to black schools( which helped no one but bus companies)

timesonline.typepad.com...

"Is Ron Paul really the hip candidate he appears to be?

James Kirchick has been trawling through years of back issues of the Ron Paul newsletter and thinks he knows the answer:

What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays".

Who doesn't find these pathetic attempts at smear within the MSM quite laughable?

[edit on 11-1-2008 by Spreadthetruth]

What is the evidence that Ron Paul wrote these? Besides the fact that his name is printed on the top of a piece of paper?

Ron Paul didn't write those articles, he wasn't in politics when those issues were published, and apparently no one had a problem with him when he was elected into his current position.

The Anti-Paulites are pouncing on this because it's the first piece of meat they can sink their teeth into. I suppose we'll be safe from all forms of speech when they see their candidate Hillary voted into office.

How can ANYONE on ATS condemn him for having an interest in conspiracy theories????

The idea that Ron Paul accepted donations from white nationalists is skewed and spun at best. He received a $500 donation from the head of Stormfront. $500 wouldn't even buy him new clothes for a debate. Paul takes contributions from anyone who wishes to send him money, thanks to internet donations there's a good chance he received money from drug addicts, pedophiles, criminals who knows.

We know who is filling Hillary's pockets, it's the same evil corporate goons that funded her husband's run for office.

If these newsletters are the best weapon Anti-Paulites have against Mr. Paul then I find that very pathetic and rather disgusting