More bad news for presidential hopeful Ron Paul (R-TX). The newsletter scandal that has plagued the Congressman since his 2008 presidential bid has boiled over into 2012. The issue was brought up in the press weeks ago and explained by Paul's camp. However, more newsletters surfaced yesterday along with accusations of homophobia and more.
In December, The Weekly Standard rehashed the controversy of 2008 by discussing several stories from the newsletters. The stories were regarding blacks, Israel, militias and more. Back in 2008, the Congressman told CNN "I do repudiate everything that is written along those lines." He stated that he had "no idea" who wrote them. The general consensus from the Paul camp was that freelance writers did the stories. Does that hold water?
Yesterday, The New Republic published samples of newsletters dating as far back as 1978. One such sample, under what TNR calls "Apocalyptic Rhetoric" reads that new Federal Reserve regulations "should prompt us not only to protect ourselves from the coming inflation, but to guard against the approaching tyranny." Is that seriously "Apocalyptic Rhetoric" or real concern over possible repercussions of a "borrow and spend" government?
Under "Tax Evasion," they cite a 1987 comment written in the Political Report newsletter on defending a Congressman who was found guilty of owing back taxes. "I don't know anything about the details of his case," it conceded, "but I'm sure the IRS is abusing him (like everyone else)." It seems to be quite a stretch to suggest that by supporting the Congressman, Paul is pro-tax evasion.
In a section called "Militias, Cults, and Anti-Government Militancy," TNR attempts to make an opinion into something sinister. Writing about the Branch Davidian murders at Waco, the 1993 Survival Report refers to a 911 call made by David Koresh. It says, "Far from revealing a crazy madman, the tapes show him to be a reasonable person, despite his alleged religious views, with a traditional American request: to be left alone."
There are several things in the newsletters that are questionable and a few things that are downright disturbing. One such statement is from the November 1989 newsletter, Political Report. It claims that the Israel deliberately attacked the U.S.S. Liberty, when it was actually a mistake. Another defends former Cincinnati Reds owner, Marge Schott, saying she was "being crucified" when she called her players "million dollar n*ggers," said "sneaky goddamn Jews are all alike," and more.
Talking Points Memo claims that many stories are homophobic. It seems that at least some of those statements are probably based on misinformation about HIV and AIDS due to the dates that they were written and the science available at that time. Other comments demonize dental patients with HIV or AIDS seeking care calling them "deadly customers." Perhaps the most glaring comment is about gays and lesbians in the military: "Homosexuals, if admitted, should be put in a special category and not allowed in close physical contact with heterosexuals."
It appears that the Republican Party and other political forces want to demonize Ron Paul in any way possible. Even so, it seems that many of the comments are simply truths that aren't politically correct or facts that make some people or groups uncomfortable. As it stands, Paul is already on a slippery slope and unlikely to gain the nomination. While it's impossible to ignore the good things Paul has done for the nation, clearly questions need to be answered.
by
Margie Wilson-Mars
Member since:
November 3, 2011 Ron Paul: More contentious newsletters published
January 18, 2012 02:00 AM UTC
3 people recommend this
|
comments: 57
Find Gather groups:
Gather Politics News Channel
3 people recommend this post
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
|
|
|
|||||||
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
About Gather |
Engagement Marketing |
Gather Points |
Advertise on Gather |
Gather Press |
Privacy |
Terms of Service |
Community Guidelines
Books | Business | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Giveaways | Health | Money | Moms | News | Politics | Sports | Style | Technology | Travel | Writing
Books | Business | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Giveaways | Health | Money | Moms | News | Politics | Sports | Style | Technology | Travel | Writing
Version 18247, "Zach"; Copyright © 2013 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.
Comments: 57
Paul just isn't very popular with Republican voters, and there are a lot of different reasons for that. Some don't like his views on foreign policy. Others see him as anti-Israel. Many don't like his ideas about legalizing drugs. Essentially, while they may all identify as Republicans, many (most?) of them don't buy into Ron Paul's guiding philosophy, anarcho-capitalist libertarianism.
And if they're not happy with Paul's call to end all government-funded foreign aid (including all aid to Israel), I think they might really freak if Ron Paul was asked to discuss some anarcho-capitalist libertarian ideas (including some expressed by people very close to Paul) about things like whether or not government should have any power to stop parents from letting their children die of neglect, whether there should be any legal age of consent making it illegal for adults to have sex with children, etc.
I think it would be interesting to hear Ron Paul's personal views on issues like those, and how they fit in with his own interpretations of anarcho-capitalist libertarianism. And even more interesting to see how they come across in a 15-second sound-bite.
ron paul, his record and his knowledge stands up against ANYTHING in the political field today.
SO for anyone else encountering this kind of junk "journalism" - for now you have an open internet -- the truth is out there if you are willing to look . . .
jj Myles, I never thought I would ever say this, but I completely agree with you. I only hope that Ron Paul wins the South Carolina primary or come in a close second.
I can't believe how many people, in general, and young people, in particular, that he has hoodwinked.
ron paul is not perfect by any measure but compared to what is on offer and what must needs recognition and attention - he is the ONLY candidate willing to face the facts regarding a nation DIRECTLY responsible for the unnecessary oppression and deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of human beings.
Check your facts, man. First of all, his RCP average is 4.6 points behind President Obama, which recent individual poll results ranging not between 2 and 4 as you've insisted, but between 1 and 7.
Now, I can understand that the notion of Ron Paul losing to President Obama by 3 or 4 percent points might be very exciting to many Paul supporters, but if you're going to talk about the numbers, it helps if you use real ones instead of just making them up.
Secondly, and much more importantly, Paul's numbers in an imaginary election between him and President Obama don't mean much at this point, since at the moment he's competing against other Republicans for the nomination. And in that contest, he's in a pretty poor position (but not last, as I said earlier - Perry hasn't officially quit yet), with a RCP average (as of now) of 14.1%, compared to 14.6% for Santorum, 18.3% for Gingrich, and 33.1% for Romney.
If you think being half as popular as the front-runner is "doing quite well", that's up to you. As I said, I think his support among Republicans would plummet if other aspects of anarcho-capitalist libertarian philosophy were raised and questions directed at Mr. Paul.
For a lot of Republican voters, racism, misogyny, and homophobia can help more than they hurt. Even beating your kids (a la Texas Judge William Adams) doesn't necessarily damage your electability. But killing them through deliberate neglect? Having sex with 10-year-olds? Abolishing laws against child pornography? Now those are issues a lot of Republican "family values" voters are likely to have issues with.
Ron Paul had gone back to his medical practice full time and entrusted his newsletter to Rockwell without due oversight. Rothbard was happy to serve as editor since the newsletter had a substantial mailing list, pure gold in the hands of anyone who depends on direct mail advertising. Ron Paul has many times blamed himself for not exercising control over the newsletter bearing his name but it is inconceivable to me that he wrote the objectionable passages. There is considerable written material by Paul: several bestselling books, published opinion pieces, articles, speech transcripts, and columns. None of it bears the least resemblance to the noted passages in his newsletter, so his claim that he did not write them is almost certainly true.
Of course any politician can be justly suspected of adopting a new tune but the Internet has given us a ready means of determining what the old tune was and in Paul's case the record is voluminous.
Some of Paul's actions in Congress have been taken as anti-minority, such as his "no" vote on giving a congressional medal to civil rights figure Rosa Parks. Paul said it was not an action authorized under the Constitution but he offered to contribute $100 to the design and striking of the gold medallion if his fellow house members would do likewise. He has often said he considers Parks and Martin Luther King as personal heroes.
In Paul's 1988 campaign there was an accusation against him that he was an anti-Semite and Paul expressed concern about it to his campaign manager. His campaign manager pointed out that the charge was easily refutable since both his campaign treasurer and his financial adviser were Jews. That Paul had been unaware underscores his frequent assertion that he sees people not as members of some group but as individuals.
jj the thing I dont get, looking at the quotes out of the magazine that you say and I agree are dispicable, is when are they ever appropriate IN CONTEXT?
Seriously.
And yes he said he wrote them back in that 96 interview.
Some of the best athletes in the world are black, fleet-footed athletes. So if you've been robbed by one so endowed, you'll also know how fleet-footed they can be.
Another letter said "I think we can assume that 95 percent of the black men in that city [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
Ok so put the above in context.
In a Dallas Morning News interview, Paul said the comment about black men in the District of Columbia arose from his study of a report by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank in Virginia.
"Another letter said "I think we can assume that 95 percent of the black men in that city [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.""
Look, I agree that a lot of what he said (or they claim he said when it was another writer) isn't racist, etc. Like I said in the article, I believe much of it is just stuff people feel uncomfortable with, yet true. However, unlike rabid "fans" of Paul's, I can like the guy but not agree with everything he said. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. I'm Mormon, that doesn't mean I have to vote for Mitt Romney.
I won't tell you what that sounds like to me, but it does let me know that this statement is obviously news to you, and since your eureka you've made a snap judgment without any other information just because 'it sounds bad to you, really bad.' Thanks for letting me know up front that you've got the mind of a National Enquirer reader so I won't waste any time here with you, though.
The conspiracy theory stuff is just nonsense.. ( as if 99.9 % of americans do not believe in some type of conspiracy theory or other..), and the racist stuff has been shown to be written by Powell ( his byline was attached, and while it was not attached to all the articles, Lew Rockwell who was Editor at the time stated that Powell was a contributing editor during the period the articles in question were written.
watch both videos and decide..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PysCTVVNnZU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SwKixWPz4Q
Shall we somehow give Representative Paul a pass--because he did not properly vet his own Literature?
I don't think so.
As I wrote before,
What does it say about the state of a country that allows a public servant--with such printed material for public scrutiny--to have the same stage as other presidential candidates, two election cycles in a row?
What does it say?
a cursory treatment of paul, his past, his congressional record, his current policy stance and what WE americans face as a moral imperative, is at best disingenuous and at worst criminal. do some real homework and find out for yourself.
ron paul is not perfect by any measure but compared to what is on offer and what must needs recognition and attention - he is the ONLY candidate willing to face the facts regarding a nation DIRECTLY responsible for the unnecessary oppression and deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of human beings.
If you believe that, my friend, then you are welcome to revise the history of mankind to witness how all nations have been involved in one gigantic love fest....
You think Paul, or one politician, can actually save us from nuclear proliferation, a chronic downturn in the global economy, a depletion of world energy reserves and resources and hostile aggression by many nations?
If you think that, my friend, then you are not simply naive--but, instead, you are destructively naive.....
we the people
Why is it those same people CANNOT see the national security implications of a 16 trillion dollar debt and 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities? There are at least three countries now that could, if they desired sell off enough T-Bills, Mortgage backed securities and other cash equivalents to cause a crash in the dollar – thereby effectively cutting off imports like oil and gas, without which our transportation infrastructure will crash.
Did you know supermarkets only keep about 3 days worth of food on hand? Imagine there’s no diesel available and all the trucks are idled for a few weeks. Can you spell national emergency and martial law?
Did you know the loss of manufacturing in the US has left us dependent upon foreign powers for vital raw and finished materials? It takes YEARS to open a mine or a factory due to federal regulations.
You need to vote for Ron Paul, but if you can’t do that then for heaven’s sake store a couple of months of dry food.
Vote Vertebrate – Ron Paul is the only choice consistent with the principles of self preservation. Think of your family.
A simple EMP (a very real possibility) would throw everything into chaos. Think ahead!
As well-acquainted with myself as you are, is there someone that you believe that I believe is a part of my "electable fantasy?" (after all, I've felt that my pillow-talk was sufficiently-discreet, and that I've been careful not to reveal the name of the candidate of my choice ;)
I was merely pointing out what I believed to be the flaw in his statement, and you'd have to agree with me there, if you are also to agree that Paul is un-electable. Therefore, my only point was not to cast aspersions, but that casting a vote for an un-electable candidate would do nothing for anyone with a view toward self-preservation...because the un-elected candidate would have no avenue for facilitating it :) (unless, of course, I could convince Ron to stand sentinel at my home, armed with a Scalpel:)
There, you see, you do know me; you are quite correct, that I rely on my very limited self, and mostly on my very Unlimited Saviour!
I felt that the more succinct message would be more impactful.
(by the bye...Paul had yet another endearing performance tonight, and had me laughing and smiling. I wished that he was my Uncle ;)
If you like Santorum or any other candidate on principle, go for it, but not because you think he's electable because he isn't.
Not necessarily; you are; I won't.
But there's a real problem this time 'round.
If people are merely basing votes on whom they think will beat Obama, the very reasons they want him to lose so badly that are supposedly based on principles are reduced to nothing but a vote based on fear. They are willing to overlook what they would not normally overlook because as long as they think the candidate can beat Obama, they'll vote for him. Not only have they relinquished their principles to fear, but they can't achieve a principled goal with an unprincipled appoach. So Obama will win.