Who Actually Wrote The Racist Ron Paul Newsletters? Find Out Inside

Well well well.

It turns out that the “most racist” newsletter issued under Ron Paul’s name has a byline that has someone else’s name on it.

The New Republic magazine that issued the original attack against Paul has apparently kept this fact hidden and initially refused to talk to other media outlets about who exactly penned the newsletter. When they originally released PDF scans of the news letter in question, they left off half of the last page which contained the byline of another author. They attributed the article to Paul, knowing full well that he didn’t write it.

Out of the 240 newsletters in question, only about 9 contain objectionable material. Of those 9, they appeared in sequence, which lends credence to the claim that the racist commentary did indeed come from an editor other than Paul and that Paul didn’t keep that author around for any great deal of time.



Fox News reports:

(FOX19) - I told you Wednesday night that in 2007 the New Republic magazine published copies of the Ron Paul Report, Ron Paul Strategy Guide, etc.

In those newsletters were some passages that could be deemed racist and certainly inappropriate.

I also pointed out that the author of those articles, James Kirchick, mentions that none of the racist newsletters have a byline, except for one.

The only problem, back in 2007, he did not disclose the name of that writer or which edition he or she wrote, until today.

For the first time, I am going to share with you the name of that writer in connection with the article he authored.

It is a 1993 edition of the Ron Paul Strategy Guide. The article is titled “How to Protect Against Urban Violence.” The author is James B. Powell.

The full eight pages of his article match so closely to some of those other so-called “racist newsletters” it is stunning.

The author of the racist letters is not Ron Paul, it is not Lew Rockwell, it is James Powell, proven by his own byline that was kept hidden by the New Republic.

Back in the 1980s, news letters were like blogs today. For example, do you think Arianna Huffington reads every single article that appears in the Huffington Post? The blog bears her name, should she be personally responsible for all the content that appears on her site, even if she didn't write it?

Already Posted Here

I don't think Paul wrote the Newsletters. But he has handled it very badly.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Already Posted Here

I don't think Paul wrote the Newsletters. But he has handled it very badly.

The author of that thread does not include commentary which is in violation of the forum rules.

It's a couple of links with nothing added. The OP doesn't even disclose who wrote the letters.

Further, Paul handled the smears the only way he could. There is nothing different he could have done.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


how would you have handled it?

saying umpteen times he didnt write them and disavows them isnt enough?

im not trying to flame or stuff..but when i thought about it- i think id done exactly the same thing? what else is there to do?

reply to post by Acetradamus


Not much.

He's mad because he expected Paul to immediately throw someone under the bus like very other politician typically does. Most politicians would have tried to find out who the author was and then throw them under the bus while disavowing any personal responsibility for the matter at all.

Instead Paul took personal responsibility for the matter and didn't throw anyone under the bus. This infuriates socialists who have a strong distaste for anything resembling personal responsibility.

reply to post by mnemeth1


lol..yeah pretty obvious move ...seen it a houndred times and yet i didnt think of it when trying to place myself in that role..i guess thats a good thing..

i did think about the top arguement when it comes to the newsletter,like you mentioned, why he didnnt put any effort into finding out whos responsible..

well...why would you?(on the first glance it might be a relevant arguement but if you think it to the end it becomes vacant) ...it is just a waste of resources anyho

reply to post by mnemeth1


Oh no you d'nt... how did you work 'socialist' into this thread? You stereotyping label-spewers make me sick. here you are on one hand defending RP from being labelled a racist and you go ahead and do the very same thing. So the idea is just attack a different group? You clearly don't know crap about Ron Paul and the principles he espouses. Shame on you.

Originally posted by jtma508
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Oh no you d'nt... how did you work 'socialist' into this thread? You stereotyping label-spewers make me sick. here you are on one hand defending RP from being labelled a racist and you go ahead and do the very same thing. So the idea is just attack a different group? You clearly don't know crap about Ron Paul and the principles he espouses. Shame on you.

Yeah, I did.

The fact that socialists abhor personal responsibility is plainly evident by their philosophy of violent wealth redistribution and bureaucratic control of resources. Under a socialist regime, not only is personal responsibility an anathema, it is ILLEGAL to be personally responsible.

Attempting to compete against State enterprise is verboten, just as trying to compete against the US Post Office's monopoly on first class mail is illegal.

Originally posted by Acetradamus
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

how would you have handled it?

saying umpteen times he didnt write them and disavows them isnt enough?

im not trying to flame or stuff..but when i thought about it- i think id done exactly the same thing? what else is there to do?

how many times is umpteen, huh???
how about this, read it, it is very enlightening on the subject...

1996 Dallas Morning Sun

so in 1996, not only did he write them, but he defended them... saying they were being taken out of context...

so the more he denies everything now, the more he lies...

reply to post by mnemeth1


So....why hasn't Ron Paul named him the author???


Until Ron Paul himself comes clean...his name is on the newsletters and he is ultimately responsible for what goes out under his name.


It is just one of many things that points to the racism of Ron Paul...so even if he did hire this racist guy to write for him and he didn't write it himself...why would that be any better???

Originally posted by baphomet420

Originally posted by Acetradamus
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

how would you have handled it?

saying umpteen times he didnt write them and disavows them isnt enough?

im not trying to flame or stuff..but when i thought about it- i think id done exactly the same thing? what else is there to do?

how many times is umpteen, huh???
how about this, read it, it is very enlightening on the subject...

1996 Dallas Morning Sun

so in 1996, not only did he write them, but he defended them... saying they were being taken out of context...

so the more he denies everything now, the more he lies...

Did you even read the article you linked?

The paper cites Paul as being the author of the news letters and attributes their quotes to him. We know now that Paul never wrote those articles and didn't even know what they contained at the time the Dallas Morning News interviewed him about them.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

So....why hasn't Ron Paul named him the author???


Until Ron Paul himself comes clean...his name is on the newsletters and he is ultimately responsible for what goes out under his name.


It is just one of many things that points to the racism of Ron Paul...so even if he did hire this racist guy to write for him and he didn't write it himself...why would that be any better???

He didn't know who wrote the letters. Only a few hard copies remained in circulation and Paul didn't have any of them to reference at the time he was questioned about them. Again, this is like questioning Arianna Huffington about an article that appeared on her blog decades ago that she didn't even write.

reply to post by mnemeth1

He didn't know who wrote the letters. Only a few hard copies remained in circulation and Paul didn't have any of them to reference at the time he was questioned about them. Again, this is like questioning Arianna Huffington about an article that appeared on her blog decades ago that she didn't even write.

If he didn't know who was ghost writing for him...then he is incompetent. If he knew and didnt' reveal it...then he is hiding it for some reason. Either way...it's not good for him.

It's nothing like bloggers on the Huffington Post....none of them write pretending to be Arianna...these Newsletters were distributed claiming it was Ron Paul who was writing them. It is not at all the same thing.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

He didn't know who wrote the letters. Only a few hard copies remained in circulation and Paul didn't have any of them to reference at the time he was questioned about them. Again, this is like questioning Arianna Huffington about an article that appeared on her blog decades ago that she didn't even write.

If he didn't know who was ghost writing for him...then he is incompetent. If he knew and didnt' reveal it...then he is hiding it for some reason. Either way...it's not good for him.

It's nothing like bloggers on the Huffington Post....none of them write pretending to be Arianna...these Newsletters were distributed claiming it was Ron Paul who was writing them. It is not at all the same thing.

The guy was not pretending to be Paul, he included his own byline. And in news letters, such as those produced during the 1980s, ghost authoring was common. It still is common today. Emails and publications sent out by politicians are almost never penned by the politician themselves. Hell, politicians don't even write their own speeches.

reply to post by mnemeth1

The guy was not pretending to be Paul, he included his own byline. And in news letters, such as those produced during the 1980s, ghost authoring was common. It still is common today. Emails and publications sent out by politicians are almost never penned by the politician themselves. Hell, politicians don't even write their own speeches.

Yes, but they are held responsible for what is in those official communications from them.

Just as Ron Paul is responsible for what was in his official newsletters...and yes...he was writting as if he was Ron Paul (if there even was a ghost writter).

"Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day."

Was James Powell a Congressman???? Nope...so either this is Ron Paul writting this...or a ghost writer making people believe it was Ron Paul.

Bottom line...he is responsible for his own newsletter...and I hold him to that responsibility and judge him by what he is responsible for.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


That's fine. You are free to hold him responsible for objectionable material that he didn't write that went out under his name some two decades ago. Paul has taken responsibility for those letters and understands if you personally don't believe he is not a racist, even though he has a track record of repeatedly supporting liberty and freedom for all people.

reply to post by Acetradamus


If I published a newsletter and my name was on it, and I was making money from it? I wouldn't have been in this situation, because I would have been PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for what was in them.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Originally posted by mnemeth1
This infuriates socialists who have a strong distaste for anything resembling personal responsibility.

Taking personal responsibility sounds like, "I didn't write those"... ??

Just like Arianna Huffington is personally responsible for everything that appears on the Huffington Post.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by baphomet420

Originally posted by Acetradamus
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

how would you have handled it?

saying umpteen times he didnt write them and disavows them isnt enough?

im not trying to flame or stuff..but when i thought about it- i think id done exactly the same thing? what else is there to do?

how many times is umpteen, huh???
how about this, read it, it is very enlightening on the subject...

1996 Dallas Morning Sun

so in 1996, not only did he write them, but he defended them... saying they were being taken out of context...

so the more he denies everything now, the more he lies...

Did you even read the article you linked?

The paper cites Paul as being the author of the news letters and attributes their quotes to him. We know now that Paul never wrote those articles and didn't even know what they contained at the time the Dallas Morning News interviewed him about them.

why are you misrepresenting the facts???
did you read the article???

it has some damning direct quotes in it...
should i start posting old you tube videos of him in person saying he writes the newsletters as well???

let assume he did have a ghost writer, and never read them...
he is the editor... if he didn't know what was in them, it shows incompetence...

its worse if he did not write them you see... it shows incompetence... if he were to say, i got mugged three times in a week, all by black males, and was a little bitter, I am past that now though. I for one could respect that... i cannot and will not respect incompetence...

he did profit from them...
18,000 subscriptions in 1992 times $50 a subscription... you do the math...

It is a well-known smear tactic to quote something out of context, or not in its entirety.
The way this accusation was published - when RP was already doing a successful campaing - makes me question the morality of the person or group that published it - failing to quote Page Two in its entirety - so as to deliberately put words into his mouth.

RP is not a saint, nor is anyone else. At least, unlike other poiticians, he took responsibility for a brief text that was made to appear by his enemies as if he himself had written them - because they appeared in his newsletter. He also made it clear that he broke his association with the writer shortly thereafter. Which is expected if that guy was a racist.

The point is, even though he did take the odium, his detractors are far from correct - they made someone else sound as if it was himself.

They generalized from an issue that was not directly related to the man or his message. They said he was a racist - which he is not - because some other guy said something in his newsletter twenty years ago.

The important thing is whether any of the candidates are really clear from racism and not whether they can be falsely accused of racism.

Seems to me that the man is attacked because they cannot respond to his message.