Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Author of Ron Paul Newsletters Revealed: "Talk of Racism has become the lowest form of Political Discourse."

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 7, 2012, 2:33 p.m. EST by jaktober (279)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Investigative Reporter Ben Swann has uncovered the author of the controversial newsletters:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W28Ni042dhw

It is important to watch this entire news segment, as it covers the dirty game of name-calling that has lowered this current election cycle. Every candidate has been called racist and it needs to stop. It does nothing to better our country or help elect better representatives. Those who result to name calling display the insecurity of their beliefs, as they are unable to stand on issues and their knowledge of them.

http://freeindependentsun.com/zen/actions-speak-louder-than-words-racism-homophobia-bigotry-and-superficiality-in-american-politics/

Now, can we put this behind us and talk about the issues?

50 Comments

50 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by shooz (26707) 2 years ago

Can you find something not affiliated with FLAKESnews, in any way shape of form?

[-] 0 points by jaktober (279) 2 years ago

A quick web search to help you out:

Current TV (Al Gore owned): http://current.com/community/93606834_ron-paul-racist-newsletter-author-revealed.htm

That's all I could find. This was only reported yesterday. Let's see how long it takes CNN or MSNBC, or even FOX News to report on it (the segment was ran by a local FOX affiliate).

[-] 1 points by shooz (26707) 2 years ago

One newsletter?

This absolves Mr. P. from what?

If he was so busy "practicing medicine", why was this crap even printed?

Under his name no less.

The body of evidence, still shows him to be an unrepentant bigot.

PS. I actually read a couple when they were published.

[-] 2 points by GreedKills (1119) 2 years ago

Keep up the good fight shooz!!! This OP article refers to a 2008 article not the racists ones in the 80s, 90s and in the year 2000 when Ron slithered under a rock.

[-] 0 points by jaktober (279) 2 years ago

As the report said, you can read the newsletters and see the similarity in writing. As people have said, analyzing the newsletters versus Ron Paul's writings and speech shows inconsistency. This was just reported yesterday. This is the first actual attempt to investigate it, and it came from a local news reporter.

Oh well, sounds like you have your mind set. Even if the guy came out and confessed to writing all of the newsletters someone could say, "Ron Paul paid him too." Or, "This still shows this-or-that."

Question; do you support our current Foreign Policy?

[-] 3 points by shooz (26707) 2 years ago

As usual for his fans. No response to what was said.

Followed by misdirection.

How did you get from bigotry, to foreign policy?

To that end, isolationism, will fail.

[-] 0 points by jaktober (279) 2 years ago

"One Newsletter?" - The other newsletters had no by-line. Thus, to start the investigation, you go to the one that did, then compare writing styles, or at least say, hey, look, this one newsletter has an author name, let's see where this leads us...

"This absolves Mr. P from what?" - At least from having written that newsletter, and from the accusation that he wrote them all and is lying about not having written them.

"If he was [practicing medicine why was this] even written?" - I don't know. He was trying to get out some words on Gold and other concepts, and someone slipped some other stuff in there knowing he probably wouldn't get a chance to check them....just a theory.

"Under his name no less." - He was a prominent figure, using his name was good for the publication. Those using his name took advantage of it.

"The body of evidence stills shows him as a..." - This is actually not true at all. If you look at his voting record, speeches, and books, he is very much supportive of individual liberties, and has challenged the judicial system as being racist for years. I'm sorry, but you are definitely wrong on that call.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26707) 2 years ago

I'm sorry, I can't deny what I've heard him say and other things I've learned about him.

As far as the news letters taking advantage of him??

He should have tested his own libe(R)tarian ethic and sued the hell out of all involved in the publication. He didn't.

He was well aware of those publications the whole time. As well as what was written in them.

A kind of de facto endorsement, if you ask me.

In the end, he's a career politician.

A (R)epelican at that.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

He made over a million dollars off of these newsletters that he now claims to disavow. before they became controversial, he bragged about them and took full credit for them.

He was the publisher and the editor. he was responsible for their content.

He has made other statements, on tape in front of cameras that show an equally racist perspective. No pamphlets required. As I write, he has yet to distance himself from White power groups like StormFront, actually outrightly refusing to do so.

If it looks like a racist duck, sounds like a racist duck, and walks like a racist duck, chances are its R Paul.

[-] -2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

RonPaul has done more positive things for minorities than you ever will.

[-] 3 points by shooz (26707) 2 years ago

That may be so, but I've done less harm.

I also enjoy no backing from confirmed bigots.

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Paul happens to be right on the money about an issue of grave importance- the oncoming conflict with Iran. It's too bad we can't see throngs of Occupiers, progressives and Paul supporters on the streets right now. (I'm not pointing fingers here, these are the circumstances as they are).

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/29/news/la-pn-ron-paul-sanctions-act-of-war20111229

Ron Paul: Sanctions against Iran are 'acts of war'

December 29, 2011|By Paul West Reporting from Perry, Iowa — Defending himself against charges of isolationism, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul told voters in Iowa on Thursday that western sanctions against Iran are "acts of war" that are likely to lead to an actual war in the Middle East.

Paul, one of the leading contenders to win next week's Iowa caucuses, said Iran would be justified in responding to the sanctions by blocking the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. He compared the western sanctions to a hypothetical move by China to block the Gulf of Mexico, which Americans would consider an act of war.

He compared the western sanctions to a hypothetical move by China to block the Gulf of Mexico, which Americans would consider an act of war.

He also said he would not respond militarily to keep the strait open—because he would not consider it an act of war against the U.S. But if he were president, he would report to Congress on the issue, leaving it up to lawmakers to declare war if they wanted.

"I think we're looking for trouble because we put these horrendous sanctions on Iran," Paul told a midday audience at the Hotel Pattee in Perry, Iowa. He said the Iranians are "planning to be bombed" and understandably would like to have a nuclear weapon, even though there is "no evidence whatsoever" that they have "enriched" uranium.

Apparently alluding to Israel and its nuclear-weapons arsenal, Paul said that "if I were an Iranian, I'd like to have a nuclear weapon, too, because you gain respect from them."

To approving applause from a crowd of about 125, the Texas congressman said that "we always seem to have to have a country to bash," linking the current saber-rattling against Iran to previous hawkish rhetoric that led to conflicts in Iraq, Libya and elsewhere.

"If you want to quiet things down," he said, referring to Iran, "don't put sanctions on them" because it's "just going to cause more trouble."

He said an Iranian blockade would be the most likely response to tighter sanctions because Iran has "no weapons of mass destruction" and shutting down the strait is "the most" it could do.

"I think the solution" to current tensions with Iran "is to do a lot less a lot sooner and mind our own business and then we would not have this threat of another war," he said to applause.

[-] 3 points by GreedKills (1119) 2 years ago

http://ronpaultruthsquad.yolasite.com/

2008

PAUL ENDORSES

NEO-CONFEDERATE

WHITE SUPREMACIST

FOR PRESIDENT

In 2008, Ron Paul did not endorse Republican nominee John McCain, but rather Paul Endorsed Constitutional Party Candidate Chuck Baldwin. Baldwin is a neo-Confederate New World Order conspiracy theorist who praises the confederacy and its leaders, Robert E. Lee andStonewall Jackson, and calls the Civil War the “War of Northern Aggression.” Baldwin writes a weekly column on the white supremacist site Vdare and is a proud supporter of American militia movements.

As reported by Reason magazine, Baldwin believes that "i America wishes to remain a free and independent republic, if this nation truly desires future peace and prosperity, and if we genuinely aspire to remain a blessed and protected land, we must quickly throw off this foolish infatuation with multiculturalism, which is nothing more than an attempt to de- Christianize our country, and humbly return to the God of our fathers!"

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Another good reason not to go with Paul,

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 2 years ago

There are many other reasons also.

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I think the whole electoral system we have here is not only corrupt, but decides little of importance. Paul is poison as far as people who depend on social programs. He opposes any intervention by government or the Fed to alleviate the effects of the economic/financial crisis. I was pointing out or agreeing though that some aspects of his proclaimed program would have good effects. Were he by some bizarre chain of events to actually be elected, we would not see any of those positives like non intervention overseas and an end to the drug war actually enacted.

[-] 2 points by GreedKills (1119) 2 years ago

Exactly!!! He won't stop the wars but if he has a GOP House and Senate to work with by the end of his first term there will many many more people begging at the doors of churches for food and shelter.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I expect that this scenario will apply no matter who gets elected. The leaders in Europe are in total panic and it's a matter of time before the Euro crumbles. The catastrophe that is likely to follow will not spare us here.

[-] -1 points by jaktober (279) 2 years ago

After voting for Paul in the Primary I voted for Cynthia McKinney (Green) in the General Election. Paul tried to give an open endorsement to all the third-party candidates (Barr, Baldwin, McKinney and Nader), but Bob Barr (Libertarian) pressed on him, so he supported the Constitution Party candidate (Baldwin).

I don't support Baldwin. I support Paul though. Out of the candidates running for the GOP Nomination he is the best. Between him and Obama, he is the best. Those are the options, and that is my choice (I do like Anderson, Johnson, and Stein too, they will get my support and one of them will get my vote if Paul is not the nominee).

I don't want Paul to be King. Even if he is President, I will be voting Green in 2016.

[-] 2 points by GreedKills (1119) 2 years ago

Why would Barr press him to vote for Baldwin when Barr himself was still in the race? I thought Ron was a maverick and NO ONE could corrupt him??? Must not have any balls if he can be forced to back candidates he does not want to.

[-] 0 points by jaktober (279) 2 years ago

Barr pressed him to make a single endorsement, hoping it would force Paul to endorse him (Barr). He backed Baldwin, both on issues, but also, to show that Barr was not a solid Libertarian Candidate. He was not forced, but decided to "shut" Barr up. Luckily, this also solidified Barr as bad for the Libertarian Party, and now it is likely Gary Johnson will get the nomination this year, which is much better for the Party, and movement.

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 2 years ago

Just like said Ron Paul is a fraud and will bow to pressure from others. Thanks for the confirmation of my original beliefs.

[-] 1 points by blackbloc (-19) 2 years ago

the republicans are racist and sexist and greedy this is not news this is fact.

[-] -2 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

care to cite examples of your "facts"?

[-] 3 points by blackbloc (-19) 2 years ago

how many republicans supported civil rights? how many republicans supported the equal rights amendment? what about the recent equal pay act??? are you kidding me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUZGkNAUSvY

[-] -2 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

the democrats were AGAINST integration. wallace ,faubus, maddox, all dem govenors opposed to integration. hugo black ( former kkk member appointed to the supreme court by fdr) senator earnest hollings, senator fullbright ( clinton's mentor), ervin, russell, they filibustered the civil rights act of 1964 as did gore (sr) and byrd ( former kkk member), long , stennis ,talmadge, ellender, holland , smathers,hill, sparkman,eastland, jordan,johnston, thurmond,walters, robertson and h. byrd.

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 2 years ago

southern dixicrats that switched party affiliations after civil rights legislation was enacted and before. democrats in the north and west at that time did not support those views.

[-] -2 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

life long democrats,....................and racists. julian bond ( head of the naacp) race hustlers sharpton (ny), jackson, mfume and berry. andrew cuomo, lee brown, billy mckinney. Democrats and racists.

[-] 1 points by blackbloc (-19) 2 years ago

wtf are you prattling about. did you eat some toothpaste?

[-] -1 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

If you have any reading comprehension you would know that the people I listed are life long democrat racists.

[-] 1 points by blackbloc (-19) 2 years ago

jesse jackson andrew cuomo al sharpton??? prove it.

[-] -1 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

jesse jackson who called NYC " hymietown", a slur against the jews who live there. al sharpton , a central figure who fanned the 1991 crown heights riot. al sharpton who incited a 1995 protest of a jewish owned store in harlem,called the store owner a "bloodsucker " and declared an intent to "loot the jews". a member of the mob set the store on fire which resulted in the deaths of 7 people. andrew cuomo, who stated during on of his runs to be govenor, that voting for his rival carl mccall ( who is black) would create a " racial contract" between black and hispanic democrats, "and that can't happen. cuomo denied saying it but a tape of him saying it surfaced and he dropped out of the race.

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 2 years ago

http://ronpaultruthsquad.yolasite.com/

Ron Paul's economic Rx: a Southern secessionist

February 9, 2011

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/09/AR2011020905879.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

The Republican takeover of the House put a chairman's gavel in the hands of Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, the gadflyGOP presidential candidate with a cult following. On Wednesday, he used that gavel for the first time - to remarkable effect.

The hearing itself was lively - based on Paul's desire to abolish the Federal Reserve and bring back the gold standard - but what really stood out was Chairman Paul's leadoff witness: a Southern secessionist.

The "short bio" the witness provided with his testimony omitted salient pieces of his resume, including his 2006 book, "Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe."

But the subcommittee's ranking Democrat, William Lacy Clay(Mo.) did some homework and learned more about the witness, Thomas DiLorenzo of Loyola University Maryland.DiLorenzo, the congressman told the committee, had called Lincoln "the first dictator"and a "mass murderer" and decreed that "Hitler was a Lincolnite." Worse, Clay charged, "you worked for a Southern nationalist organization." "The League of the South is a neo-Confederate group that advocates for a second southern secession and a society dominated by European Americans."

. . . . As it turns out, "this thing" called the League of the South Institute was listing DiLorenzo on its Web site as recently as 2008 as an "affiliated scholar." A secessionist Web site, DumpDC, identified DiLorenzo the same way last year when it published an interview with DiLorenzo in which he is quoted as saying "secession is not only possible but necessary if any part of America is ever to be considered 'the land of the free' in any meaningful sense."

DiLorenzo, a self-proclaimed historical revisionist, is entitled to say whatever he likes. But it raises doubts about Ron Paul and his causes if this is the best he can come up with for his first act as chairman of the Financial Services Committee's monetary policy subcommittee.

See Southern Poverty Law Center's Discussion of DiLorenzo and the League of the South

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"Every candidate has been called racist and it needs to stop. " No racists and racism need to be called out. (edit) The newsletters went out under Ron Paul's name, no? They were his publications.

[-] 0 points by jaktober (279) 2 years ago

Did you watch the video and listen to the end? I think he sums it up better than I can.

Racism is ugly, I mentioned that in my article. But it is way to easy to call anyone a racist, and in politics, these type of arguments only distract us from the issues.

So, then, will you now call out the actually author of the newsletters? Make sure everyone know who the real racist is? As you've said, they need to be called out...

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Sure, but there is a guy running for president and these newsletters had his seal of approval. That's not good.

[-] 0 points by jaktober (279) 2 years ago

And there is a President that attend a church for 20 years (and even quoted the Reverend in his book) where a lot of racist things were said. Should we focus on that or on how he actually handles the job as President?

Check out my article. See the quote from Lyndon Johnson who actually passed the Civil Rights Act. He was incredibly racist, yet he ended institutional racism.

I'm not saying this is an easy issue, or that we should ignore racism. It is vile. But we need to understand reality and what we can do to effect it. We have a chance to seriously end the Military Industrial Complexes hold on our government and foreign policy. Will our next chance be too late? Should the Civil Rights movement had waited for Carter to end the Jim Crow laws? How many more would have suffered over words, or a belief, that has nothing to do with the job at hand?

[-] 3 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Reverend Write wasn't publishing under Obama's name. Ron Paul knew these letters were being published under his name; he even mentioned these newsletters and advocated people subscribe to them in a broadcast interview.

It's all irrelevant anyway. Ron Paul is done. He never had a chance.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/geog.php?cycle=2012&id=N00005906 shows his contributions are not coming from the states that will help him win the nomination.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00005906 shows his largest base of support is in the armed forces.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/donordemCID.php?cycle=2012&id=N00005906 shows 83.6% of his donors are male. He can't win without women.

Ron Paul's supporters appear to be primarily males in the military, and about half his support is in Texas, California, Florida, and New York. In Texas, he will face the governor, Rick Perry. California simply doesn't matter to the Republicans and their primary doesn't happen until June. Florida and New York both have significant Jewish and minority votes, and they won't be voting for Paul. These are the states where he has support. The others are worse.

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012 , the next primaries are New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida. Romney will take New Hampshire, especially given the endorsement from McCain (who won in 2008). South Carolina has too many minorities for a Paul win and Gingrich, possibly Santorum, will be strong there. Florida has too many Jews and minorities for Paul. It will go Romney.

The Republican National Committee knew full well that the far right of the party would jeopardize their chances against Obama. They have done a very good job of diluting the right wing vote across multiple candidates. I believe they asked Perry to run specifically to counter Paul in Texas and further the fragmentation of the right wing so Romney could win. He's really the only one of the bunch that stands a chance against Obama, but they had to silence their right wing. They have been quite effective.

[-] 0 points by jaktober (279) 2 years ago

I've been looking at the new PPP Poll which put a number of "third-candidates" against Obama and Romney. In every case Obama wins. The most important one is Gary Johnson, who is going to actually be on the ballot in all 50 states. He is polling at 9%. If Ron Paul is not the Nominee the Republicans most likely will not win. I'm working on an article to elaborate, I'll link it here when I'm done.

Oh, and so far, as far as delegates are concerned, it is a tie in Iowa, with Romney, Paul and Santorum each with 7 pledges delegates. Ron Paul will get at least 2nd in NH, and could finish 3rd in SC and Florida. After that it is likely there will only be 3 candidates left in the race (Romney, Paul and Santorum/Gingrich - which ever does best in the South).

From there Paul only has to win half the States and California to win the Nomination. (He is polling 1st in a couple states already).

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

I see now new poll at Public Policy Polling ( http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/ ), all I see are the polls showing Romney is much stronger than Paul. Do you have a link to a poll I'm not seeing, or did I simply go to the wrong site ?

No delegates have been award in Iowa. There are still two more steps to clear, and the delegates do go to the national convention are allowed to switch their votes there. They'll stick to the state results unless that would be a "wasted" vote in which case they'll use their votes to get some power and try to play king-maker.

[-] 0 points by jaktober (279) 2 years ago

http://freeindependentsun.com/republic/what-the-new-ppp-3-way-race-poll-shows-only-a-ron-paul-led-republican-ticket-can-beat-obama/

Here is my article. There is a link to the Poll I was talking about (I couldn't find it on their front-page either, but I have the .pdf...).

Usually the delegates only switch if a candidate has dropped out, Paul is unlikely to drop out.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

OK, I'm not surprised by your conclusions. All you're saying is that Ron Paul could feasibly make a win by the Republicans impossible if he were to run as a third party candidate... just as Ross Perot gave the election to Clinton. What your analysis leaves out is the possibility of a similar problem on the left; from what I see here, there are a lot of folks who feel betrayed by Obama, so he could lose votes to the greens or some other party as well. Have you ever heard anyone mention that ?

[-] 0 points by jaktober (279) 2 years ago

No, I'm saying that the third-party candidates that are already running will make a GOP victory impossible unless Ron Paul is their nominee.

I did mention that in my article actually, about the left. Polls show that a left candidate will pull half from Obama that a right candidate will from Romney. The truth is, that the GOP will be hurt most by third-party candidates than the DNC, unless Paul is their nominee, then the GOP will most likely keep those that pull away and defeat Obama.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Well, I suppose we'll just have to see. I personally think Paul will stay in the party, Romney will get the nomination, and Obama will win.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright told many truths. LBJ for sure was a racist but the politics of the day demanded passage of civil rights legislation. Are you saying that Ron Paul has something so great in store that he just must be elected, for the good of racial minorities? If so, of course his personal biases would not be very significant. The newsletters were not personal and private musings.

[-] 0 points by jaktober (279) 2 years ago

I know it is hard to see this, but don't you see how you just defend racism from people you support (just like the news report was saying).

Is it less vile to be racist in private than in public? Again, don't you see how that is defending one and not the other?

And yes, I think Ron Paul has 3 major policy issues that effect minorities: The War on Drugs, the Death Penalty, and the Wars over Seas. Ending those three policies (that are defended by Obama and Romney) will end a lot of suffering. It will save thousands, if not millions, of lives (Blacks, Hispanics and Arabs), free hundreds if not thousands on non-violent drug offenders from prison, end the temptation to join gangs in minority communities (were black and hispanic kids - and white kids - are brought into drug dealing at a very young age), and help minorities re-establish their communities and families that have been destroyed by the War on Drugs.

In addition, states like California, will be able to generate tax revenue off drugs like Marijuana and use to to fund education in poor and minority communities. As well as even put it towards health-care. If anything, States can start taxing drugs to help balance their budgets and save the programs that are currently in jeopardy.

In my article I even quote gay-activists that easily dismiss Ron Paul alleged personal bias because his policies are far better for Gays than Santorum or even Romney (and even better than Obama to some). He wants the government to leave them alone. Which means if their church and/or state is cool with it, they can get married and have equal protection under the law. This sounds less than perfect (I'm a strong support of Marriage Equality), but compared to the current law it is leagues better. Even in California conservatives are able to keep our state laws from allowing Gay Marriage, with President Paul's lead we could get the State out of it and "Gay-Friendly Churches" will emerge instantly to start marrying (and cities throughout the State).

Freedom is better, even if that means people are free to be jerks.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I do not agree that Wright is or was a racist.

You make some good points. The war on drugs, death penalty and "war on terror" are grave threats to minority communities as well as to the population at large. The US has the largest prison population in the world and this is so disproportionately consisting of Blacks, Indians and people of Latino heritage it's breathtaking. How a man of God who is infuriated by this sort of thing can be equated withe a Klan-nazi white supremacist is beyond me.

[-] 0 points by jaktober (279) 2 years ago

You may be correct about Wright. I'll look more into his sermons if I find time. At the moment I'm fine giving him the benefit of the doubt, hopefully people on this forum will do the same for the Doc.

Yes, our Judicial System is stacked heavily against minorities. That is the trend of power, to push down those you can.

[-] 0 points by sayNO2demm (1) 2 years ago

You don't need to explain anything to these OWS posers. Here they claim to be against Wall Street and Corporations and yet they support Obumer and Democrats who are being finance and heavily backed by Wall Street and Corporations.

OWS members are Hypocrites and Posers.

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 2 years ago

Deregulations will really put a damper on all those rich big shots fer sure.