Ron Paul Newsletters One More Time

[Mike Renzulli]

If there is one thing libertarians should be concerned about it is what Ron Paul hasn't said about the Ron Paul Newsletters. I know to many of you this maybe old news but a recent article I read has given me a fresh and new perspective on them:

http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2011/05/unanswered-questions-why-ron-pauls.html

The author, Adam Holland, makes some very good points. For example, he found out that the newsletters originally came to light in 1996 when Paul ran for Congress. Paul's staff not only confirmed their content but even went so far as to defend them to the Houston Chronicle and the Austin American Statesman claiming they were insignificant.

Furthermore, Holland goes on to point out:

n 2008, Paul claimed that the columns, which he had said that he had written, which were written in the first person and which included references to his family life and other personal touches, had been ghost-written by someone of whose identity he was somehow uncertain. He claimed that it was completely plausible that he would allow people he did not know to author such columns for him, and that he would go on to publish them without prior review to his supporters in newsletters bearing his name in their titles. Such defenses by Dr. Paul insult those who legitimately want information about this troubling side of his record. Paul's answers to these legitimate question do not treat with appropriate gravity a very serious matter. They are not only inconsistent, they are self-contradictory. They are not only implausible, they are impossible.

The questions that need to be answered by Paul is who was the author of the newsletters? If they were (as previously speculated by Reason magazine in 2008) authored by Lew Rockwell why does Paul still associate with him? Why, as Holland points out, didn't Paul not only disavow the newsletters but also conduct a complete investigation and go public with his findings? Why didn't Paul make efforts to halt their publication or if they were in his name and why didn't he make an effort to review what was being published and spike questionable content if, in fact, he reviles racism?

Also, there is the conspiracy crowd too. For example, despite Paul's denial that he felt that there was a government conspiracy behind 9/11 why does he appear and even go so far as to court the audiences of such people like Alex Jones? I was at a conference here in Phoenix during 2009 in which almost the entire line up of speakers and the overall tone of it was a sewer of conspiratorialism. Ron Paul came and gave a speech at the Freedom Summit in which he was one of the keynote speakers.

I agree with Adam Holland that Paul's defenses regarding the newsletters raise more questions than they answer. Until such time that Paul does answer specific points on this controversy I think it best that libertarians reconsider their support of Paul and (if the GOP is the party of their choice) look elsewhere in the Republican camp for a candidate to support.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[Mike Renzulli]

It gets worse, everyone. I came across another recent blog post on this same subject that was published earlier this month. This is not coming from some off the wall critic with an axe to grind, but a former subscriber to Paul's newsletter: http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2011/08/charming-reminder-of-ugly-side-of-dr-no.html

The kind of statements the Classically Liberal blog author cites are venomous, if not outright outrageous, to say the least. Paul has a lot more explaining to do regarding this issue and I think it is imcumbent upon him to come clean about the content of the news letters in question. Until and unless he does, as libertarians or liberty lovers we should not tolerate a racist, homophobe, xenophobe, and anti-Semite within our ranks.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[BaalChatzaf]

It gets worse, everyone. I came across another recent blog post on this same subject that was published earlier this month. This is not coming from some off the wall critic with an axe to grind, but a former subscriber to Paul's newsletter: http://freestudents....e-of-dr-no.html

The kind of statements the Classically Liberal blog author cites are venomous, if not outright outrageous, to say the least. Paul has a lot more explaining to do regarding this issue and I think it is imcumbent upon him to come clean about the content of the news letters in question. Until and unless he does, as libertarians or liberty lovers we should not tolerate a racist, homophobe, xenophobe, and anti-Semite within our ranks.

When I attended that gathering to which Ron Paul spoke the week before last, I did not hear him utter a single racist, homophobic, xenophobic or anti-Semitic statement. It was a white-bread crowd and (judging from appearances) a Gentile crowd, just the kind of gathering where such nasty remarks would have gone over well.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

It gets worse, everyone. I came across another recent blog post on this same subject that was published earlier this month. This is not coming from some off the wall critic with an axe to grind, but a former subscriber to Paul's newsletter: http://freestudents....e-of-dr-no.html

The kind of statements the Classically Liberal blog author cites are venomous, if not outright outrageous, to say the least. Paul has a lot more explaining to do regarding this issue and I think it is imcumbent upon him to come clean about the content of the news letters in question. Until and unless he does, as libertarians or liberty lovers we should not tolerate a racist, homophobe, xenophobe, and anti-Semite within our ranks.

When I attended that gathering to which Ron Paul spoke the week before last, I did not hear him utter a single racist, homophobic, xenophobic or anti-Semitic statement. It was a white-bread crowd and (judging from appearances) a Gentile crowd, just the kind of gathering where such nasty remarks would have gone over well.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Gentile's are bigots, homophobes and anti-Semites? hmmm Oh well I like being the exception to the rule. It is a good thing that all Jewish persons are vessels of tolerance and fairness.

[sjw]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/14/dominionism-michele-bachmann-and-rick-perry-s-dangerous-religious-bond.html?om_rid=NGcdOd&om_mid=_BOSQ7zB8ctRRHD

So Mike, what fine upstanding person did you want as president? Rick Santorum no doubt.

The problem isn't with the political candidates, it's with the populace. It doesn't matter much who is president.

Shayne

[basimpson22]

Mike, I believe you are spreading propaganda.

Edit: Not that propaganda doesn't have its uses.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Aristocrates

[caroljane]

Mike, I believe you are spreading propaganda.

Edit: Not that propaganda doesn't have its uses.

Surely it's those newsletters of Paul's that were the propaganda. I'm really shocked that a candidate who allowed such things to be published under his name is being seriously considered as president material.

[BaalChatzaf]

Gentile's are bigots, homophobes and anti-Semites? hmmm Oh well I like being the exception to the rule. It is a good thing that all Jewish persons are vessels of tolerance and fairness.

I'll bet you think it is easy being Chosen.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[basimpson22]

Mike, I believe you are spreading propaganda.

Edit: Not that propaganda doesn't have its uses.

Surely it's those newsletters of Paul's that were the propaganda. I'm really shocked that a candidate who allowed such things to be published under his name is being seriously considered as president material.

Wow, you're buying it too.

[caroljane]

Mike, I believe you are spreading propaganda.

Edit: Not that propaganda doesn't have its uses.

Surely it's those newsletters of Paul's that were the propaganda. I'm really shocked that a candidate who allowed such things to be published under his name is being seriously considered as president material.

Wow, you're buying it too.

Buying what? Are the newsletters fake? Sorry, I just read this thread and don't know any of the background.

[Kantora]

seems Ron Paul is "yesterday's news" and for the lack of better candidate GOP is running with him for now... i sure hope they find someone fresh and we will all have more to talk about then Ron's 5 year old statements...

[Selene]

Here is the new Ron Paul TV ad:

It is tight and effective.

[basimpson22]

Mike, I believe you are spreading propaganda.

Edit: Not that propaganda doesn't have its uses.

Surely it's those newsletters of Paul's that were the propaganda. I'm really shocked that a candidate who allowed such things to be published under his name is being seriously considered as president material.

Wow, you're buying it too.

Buying what? Are the newsletters fake? Sorry, I just read this thread and don't know any of the background.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ItmcIxe5Fs&feature=related

I believe allowing this would imply that he either gave his personal approval or had prior knowledge of the newsletter being printed and distributed. It would seem from Paul's response that neither of these conditions were true. I posted a video above. What he's saying is that it's a non-issue to him. I believe he sees right through the allegations made about Ron Paul.

One could argue that he was negligent in failing to review the newsletters. One could also debate the authenticity of the newsletters. Sure, they had his name printed on top but how easy would that be to fabricate. Any name could be inserted.

Paul wants to legalize marijuana and give amnesty to non-violent drug offenders. This no doubt will be a relief to black communities and has been acknowledged by blacks.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Aristocrates

[caroljane]

I believe allowing this would imply that he either gave his personal approval or had prior knowledge of the newsletter being printed and distributed. It would seem from Paul's response that neither of these conditions were true.

One could argue that he was negligent in failing to review the newsletters. One could also debate the authenticity of the newsletters. Sure, they had his name printed on top but how easy would that be to fabricate.

One could use the passive voice until the cows come home, but since his own family put out the newsletters under his name, if he was too inattentive to notice them, who knows what other little details he might miss, however fine his libertarian principles ?

[basimpson22]

One could use the passive voice until the cows come home, but since his own family put out the newsletters under his name, if he was too inattentive to notice them, who knows what other little details he might miss, however fine his libertarian principles ?

Lol, I kind of overdid that huh? I don't remember hearing or reading anything about his family putting out the newsletters?

Edit: One could put any person under the microscope and find a blemish. One may have prior political biases as well.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Aristocrates

[Selene]

One could use the passive voice until the cows come home, but since his own family put out the newsletters under his name, if he was too inattentive to notice them, who knows what other little details he might miss, however fine his libertarian principles ?

Lol, I kind of overdid that huh? I don't remember hearing or reading anything about his family putting out the newsletters?

Edit: One could put any person under the microscope and find a blemish. One may have prior politcal biases as well.

Agreed.

He is firmly pro life and anti abortion which is a lot more than a blemish. His 15 minute speech in the Iowa straw poll made a direct linkage between life and liberty.

Dr. Paul's speech was excellent:

http://youtu.be/7-HLUGVGKQE

Edited August 17, 2011 by Selene