Ron Paul, False Charges of Racism and the State as an Equal Opportunity Oppressor

[chloe]

People who understand Ron Paul, how he came to his positions and the intellectuals who guided him, know he is guided by reason alone. His second greatest mentor, Murrary Rothbard, advanced the work of Ron Paul's greatest mentor, Ludwig Von Mises. Both Mises and Rothbard were Jewish and anti-statists. Rothbard was a student of Mises in the very concrete meaning of the term. Ron Paul constantly mentions both Mises and Rothbard and never once deviated or differed from the postions of these intellectual giants.

The anti-Sematic smears by Jewish voters used against Ron Paul who has criticized our Middle East foreign policy are absurd charges and are given no credibility by those who know him. So it is with African-Americans who charge Ron Paul with racism. Ron Paul correctly identifies African-Americans as the intentional targets of a drug war in which racism places millions in prisons to be raped, maimed, brutalized and marginalized by society via a corrupt justice system that sells justice by the pound.
Ron Paul has stated he would IMMEDIATELY release all non-violent marijuana offenders, a group that contains hundreds of thousands of African-Americans, and work to correct a criminal justice system that thrives on racism. You will not hear such talk from even Obama or witness any greater indictment of the system by even the most liberal democrat or conservative Republican.

While a caucasian rarely sees a prison for minor marijuana offenses, African-Americans are used as a new form of slave labor that is exploited by a new corporatist prison-industrial complex where incarceration-for-profit has so perverted justice that it needs to be immediately smashed. This word will get out and Ron Paul will benefit from those whose eyes will be opened once his positions are made known.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/11299058-ron-paul-false-charges-of-racism-and-the-state-as-an-equal-opportunity-oppressor

Now we can put it to rest, he doesn't hate jews or blacks.

[logroller]

Great piece. Though, Chloe posting in the politics forum??? Has Chloe's account been hacked?:unsure:

[chloe]

Great piece. Though, Chloe posting in the politics forum??? Has Chloe's account been hacked?:unsure:

I am mostly social and I don't like debating.

But it is a good article and since I am a Ron Paul fan......:salute:

[jimnyc]

Ron Paul signed his name at the bottom of newsletters that were racist in content. They were on his letterhead. He refuses to state specifically who wrote them. He refuses to acknowledge how much money he made off of these racist letters.

That's about all I need to know about the man, his racist views & his honesty.

[chloe]

Ron Paul signed his name at the bottom of newsletters that were racist in content. They were on his letterhead. He refuses to state specifically who wrote them. He refuses to acknowledge how much money he made off of these racist letters.

That's about all I need to know about the man, his racist views & his honesty.


You own this board and you harbored stormfront transplants like Hogtrash for a year, and I remember people accusing you falsely of being a racist too.

I mean to me the newsletters means nothing he didn't write it.

Politicians are busy people just like Doctors they can sign things and rely on personal assistants to have there back that everything they sign is cool.

I just am not convinced he is a racist.:salute:

[jimnyc]

You own this board and you harbored stormfront transplants like Hogtrash for a year, and I remember people accusing you falsely of being a racist too.

I mean to me the newsletters means nothing he didn't write it.

Politicians are busy people just like Doctors they can sign things and rely on personal assistants to have there back that everything they sign is cool.

I just am not convinced he is a racist.:salute:

That's fine, but I'm not running for president. And for what it's worth, I also didn't "harbor" anyone here. LOL

And I'm not convinced he didn't write it, otherwise he should have no problem telling is who did in fact write them and the rest of the story.

[chloe]

That's fine, but I'm not running for president. And for what it's worth, I also didn't "harbor" anyone here. LOL

And I'm not convinced he didn't write it, otherwise he should have no problem telling is who did in fact write them and the rest of the story.

I know you didn't but I just remember people accusing you falsely about being a racist.

I understand that busy people often are given things to sign especially politicians and doctors and so it is totally believeable to me that he didn't know.

[jimnyc]

I know you didn't but I just remember people accusing you falsely about being a racist.

I understand that busy people often are given things to sign especially politicians and doctors and so it is totally believeable to me that he didn't know.

Believable that he knew about signing them, in 2005, but then later claiming he didn't even know about these newsletters until as late as 2001?

Think about it, why not just simply tell everyone WHO wrote them? Why not explain the over $1 million dollars he made from advertising those racist newsletters? He avoids the tough questions and just disavows and blames it on others. That's the last thing we need, a president who will sit back and blame all of his mistakes on others.

[chloe]

Believable that he knew about signing them, in 2005, but then later claiming he didn't even know about these newsletters until as late as 2001?

Think about it, why not just simply tell everyone WHO wrote them? Why not explain the over $1 million dollars he made from advertising those racist newsletters? He avoids the tough questions and just disavows and blames it on others. That's the last thing we need, a president who will sit back and blame all of his mistakes on others.


because he is a politician and had a bad racist advisor?

I just know that people make false accusations and it can happen to anyone even people who aren't politicians.

He didn't write the newsletter and that's enough for me, and not enough for you.

;)

[jimnyc]

because he is a politician and had a bad racist advisor?

I just know that people make false accusations and it can happen to anyone even people who aren't politicians.

He didn't write the newsletter and that's enough for me, and not enough for you.

;)

I meant 1995 above, not 2005...

Anyway, how do you know that he didn't write them, when he refuses to state who did, other than a denial? You believe him, as do others, simply by him saying so. I'd rather believe him when he tells the full story, and tells us WHO did, if it weren't in fact him. Follow the trail of facts is what I would do, and then ask who he claims wrote them additional questions. But for whatever reason, he doesn't want us to know, which usually means someone is hiding something. When someone makes well over $1 million dollars off of these racist works, and is now running for President, I believe he owes us answers that would put this to rest.

[chloe]

I meant 1995 above, not 2005...

Anyway, how do you know that he didn't write them, when he refuses to state who did, other than a denial? You believe him, as do others, simply by him saying so. I'd rather believe him when he tells the full story, and tells us WHO did, if it weren't in fact him. Follow the trail of facts is what I would do, and then ask who he claims wrote them additional questions. But for whatever reason, he doesn't want us to know, which usually means someone is hiding something. When someone makes well over $1 million dollars off of these racist works, and is now running for President, I believe he owes us answers that would put this to rest.

HELP!

where's rev and -cp ?

Just kidden......:laugh:

Yes I believe him, and his mentor was a jew so what about that?

[jimnyc]

Yes I believe him, and his mentor was a jew so what about that?

What about that? I'm confused, what does that have to do with what we were discussing? Unless it's a ploy, like "I'm not racist, I even work with a black guy who is a dear friend". <--- just made that up of course, but it's something we all hear too often. And it does nothing to change what WAS said elsewhere in his name. He can run his entire campaign on assisting the black community, but it still doesn't tell the story of what he is avoiding. People avoid things for a reason, otherwise they come clean. Anyone who thinks he has fully come clean on this issue is extremely naive.

[chloe]

What about that? I'm confused, what does that have to do with what we were discussing? Unless it's a ploy, like "I'm not racist, I even work with a black guy who is a dear friend". <--- just made that up of course, but it's something we all hear too often. And it does nothing to change what WAS said elsewhere in his name. He can run his entire campaign on assisting the black community, but it still doesn't tell the story of what he is avoiding. People avoid things for a reason, otherwise they come clean. Anyone who thinks he has fully come clean on this issue is extremely naive.


well he has also been accused of being against jews going along with his prejudice theme.


we will just disagree Jim I don't think he is a racist.

[jimnyc]

well he has also been accused of being against jews going along with his prejudice theme.


we will just disagree Jim I don't think he is a racist.

I'm not trying to convince anyone, just spreading the truth and facts around. He has no chance in hell of even coming close to the Presidency anyway. Just makes for good discussions.

[chloe]

I'm not trying to convince anyone, just spreading the truth and facts around. He has no chance in hell of even coming close to the Presidency anyway. Just makes for good discussions.

The fact is he didn't write the newlsetter he only signed off a paper for the newsletter.

That doesn't bother me.

Herman Cain was an admitted bigot against muslims and no one has a problem with that except probably muslims.

[jimnyc]

The fact is he didn't write the newlsetter he only signed off a paper for the newsletter.

That doesn't bother me.

Herman Cain was an admitted bigot against muslims and no one has a problem with that except probably muslims.

The ONLY fact we know is that he signed off on them. There are no "facts" to show who actually wrote them. You choose to believe he didn't and that's all that matters. I think he either wrote them himself, or is covering about his knowledge of them. Either way, without him discussing the entire story, the only facts we know is that they came out, on his newsletter, he signed them, he has denied knowledge of them years later. But neither you thinking he didn't write them, or me believing he is complicit, is a "fact".

[chloe]

The ONLY fact we know is that he signed off on them. There are no "facts" to show who actually wrote them. You choose to believe he didn't and that's all that matters. I think he either wrote them himself, or is covering about his knowledge of them. Either way, without him discussing the entire story, the only facts we know is that they came out, on his newsletter, he signed them, he has denied knowledge of them years later. But neither you thinking he didn't write them, or me believing he is complicit, is a "fact".

Right so there is no proof he is racist in my mind.

[jimnyc]

Right so there is no proof he is racist in my mind.

Then at the very least, if not a racist, someone who avoids the difficult topics. He would do just fine with that in the White House! LOL

[chloe]

Then at the very least, if not a racist, someone who avoids the difficult topics. He would do just fine with that in the White House! LOL

Indeed.

[ConHog]

Jim, as you know I'm not a RP fan, I think he's a kook. That being said, who cares if he's a racist? Congress has a BLACK CUACAS how fucking racist is that, yet them niggers get to keep it and are continually reelected. So why if he is a racist against jews or blacks is THAT such a big deal?

And as Chloe pointed out, Cain was right up front about his hatred of Muslims (which isn't a race btw) and the only people who made a big deal of that, are a few kooks on the left.


Everyone is a bit of a racist in some form or fashion, so what does it matter? Certainly Obama shows racists tendencies.

[jimnyc]

It's obviously an issue if someone running for president has racist issues in his/her past. And for me, it's not just the specific issues, but also goes towards the overall character of the person. I think it's an integrity issue too. Has he been 100% honest and forthcoming. I don't think so.

[ConHog]

It's obviously an issue if someone running for president has racist issues in his/her past. And for me, it's not just the specific issues, but also goes towards the overall character of the person. I think it's an integrity issue too. Has he been 100% honest and forthcoming. I don't think so.

I would agree, if he was you know in the KKK or something, but just having and even talking about racist feelings is no big deal IMO. As to your questions about his character, I gotta agree, if it were me, I'd be honest about my feelings and go on, not pretend like they were all lies.

But we both know that finding a politician with integrity is gonna be awful hard.

[chloe]

Yes everyone has a bias whether it is religion race or ethnicity.

[jimnyc]

Yes everyone has a bias whether it is religion race or ethnicity.

Well, and no offense, this no longer is going to matter anyway. RP is getting hammered and sits in "last place" where he belongs and is sinking faster than a rock in a pond. He's all but done now and is even basically ignoring Florida. He's an afterthought already.

[ConHog]

Well, and no offense, this no longer is going to matter anyway. RP is getting hammered and sits in "last place" where he belongs and is sinking faster than a rock in a pond. He's all but done now and is even basically ignoring Florida. He's an afterthought already.

Waste of resources for him to have even ran IMO. No chance he'd get elected.

[chloe]

Well, and no offense, this no longer is going to matter anyway. RP is getting hammered and sits in "last place" where he belongs and is sinking faster than a rock in a pond. He's all but done now and is even basically ignoring Florida. He's an afterthought already.well I am voting for him

[Gunny]

Well, and no offense, this no longer is going to matter anyway. RP is getting hammered and sits in "last place" where he belongs and is sinking faster than a rock in a pond. He's all but done now and is even basically ignoring Florida. He's an afterthought already.

I wonder if RP supportes know he represents the 14th District in Texas? That's pretty-much the inbred hillbilly area of Texas. The family I knew from that area I wasn't sure, and would not bet, that any one of them had not screwed the other. Not hard to find out. They brag about it.

[jimnyc]

well I am voting for him

Most likely as a write in then, because he sure as hell ain't getting the nomination.

[chloe]

Most likely as a write in then, because he sure as hell ain't getting the nomination.

Well I am not voting for Obama Jim and you can't make me !!!! :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

Well I am not voting for Obama Jim and you can't make me !!!! :laugh2:

If you end up voting for someone other than the republican nominee, you will in fact be voting for Obama!

[chloe]

If you end up voting for someone other than the republican nominee, you will in fact be voting for Obama!

I don't like Romney :(

[Gunny]

If you end up voting for someone other than the republican nominee, you will in fact be voting for Obama!

I'm voting for whoever is running against Obama. Period. HE is the bigger evil.

Ask Jess. I'm all registered to vote in this haven of leftwingnuts and can even walk to the Baptist church where we vote.:laugh:

Truth is, if it wasn't for the State of Chicago, Illinois would be staunchly conservative.

[jimnyc]

I don't like Romney :(

It may be Gingrich...

But in the general election you may not have a choice on a "perfect candidate" for your liking, and your vote may be best utilized to get Obama out of the office, rather then voting with your heart and leaving Obama there for another 4 years.

[ConHog]

If you end up voting for someone other than the republican nominee, you will in fact be voting for Obama!

I used to feel that way to. But I've changed my opinion. A person shouldn't feel that a vote for someone other than the two big parties candidates is a vote for either candidate. It isn't, it's actually a vote AGAINST both parties. Just imagine if enough people could actually be brought together and voted no to both major parties and an independent actually DID get elected.

I certainly wouldn't want it to be RP, but anything that broke the 2 party monopoly might actually be good for the country.

[Gunny]

It may be Gingrich...

But in the general election you may not have a choice on a "perfect candidate" for your liking, and your vote may be best utilized to get Obama out of the office, rather then voting with your heart and leaving Obama there for another 4 years.

Agreed. Actually, I think Gingrich is the best conservative politician for the job. Any conservative who isn't desperate enough to vote for a Mormon or a geeked in the head libertarian just to get Obama out of office, clearly doesn't have a real eye on what's at stake.

[chloe]

It may be Gingrich...

But in the general election you may not have a choice on a "perfect candidate" for your liking, and your vote may be best utilized to get Obama out of the office, rather then voting with your heart and leaving Obama there for another 4 years.

I'll think about it Boss, my friend said Ron Paul has a real chance though.

But I don't mind Newt Gingrich, I would rather him then Romney.

[ConHog]

I'll think about it Boss, my friend said Ron Paul has a real chance though.

But I don't mind Newt Gingrich, I would rather him then Romney.

I'm completely the opposite, I prefer Mitt, I will probably hold my nose and vote for Newt though if he's the nominee.

[Gunny]

I'll think about it Boss, my friend said Ron Paul has a real chance though.

But I don't mind Newt Gingrich, I would rather him then Romney.

Ron Paul has the same chance he's always had. 2nd runner up.

[Gunny]

I'm completely the opposite, I prefer Mitt, I will probably hold my nose and vote for Newt though if he's the nominee.

And I don't care. The imperative is to get Tsar O-blah-blah out of office. NO ONE currently vying for the GOP is worse than der Kommisar.

[jimnyc]

I'll think about it Boss, my friend said Ron Paul has a real chance though.

But I don't mind Newt Gingrich, I would rather him then Romney.

Look at the numbers, polls, feedback... anything you want to compare him or get a feeling for his "chances". They will all tell you the same thing - he's unelectable, done, cooked, stick a fork in him.

[chloe]

Look at the numbers, polls, feedback... anything you want to compare him or get a feeling for his "chances". They will all tell you the same thing - he's unelectable, done, cooked, stick a fork in him.

It hurts when you say it like that, I like ron paul.

I will consider Gingrich but not Romney.

[Abbey Marie]

You own this board and you harbored stormfront transplants like Hogtrash for a year, and I remember people accusing you falsely of being a racist too.

I mean to me the newsletters means nothing he didn't write it.

Politicians are busy people just like Doctors they can sign things and rely on personal assistants to have there back that everything they sign is cool.

I just am not convinced he is a racist.:salute:

In order to make this comparison logically, Jim would have had to acknowledge by signing or in this case, at least publicly agreeing with, posts by Hog that you consider racist. He did not. What Jim did do, was run a political message board, and allow all types of people the freedom to express themselves, however awful their POV. By your logic, anyone who has a newspaper or radio show and lets someone express their racist views on it is also a racist.

I would also suggest that if Ron Paul is careless enough to sign his name to garbage he doesn't agree with, he will make a scary negligent President.

[ConHog]

Ron Paul has the same chance he's always had. 2nd runner up.


And if you're not first, you're last.


And I don't care. The imperative is to get Tsar O-blah-blah out of office. NO ONE currently vying for the GOP is worse than der Kommisar.

What does that mean you don't care? LOL whatever dude. As for being worse, things could ALWAYS be worse my friend.

[Gunny]

Look at the numbers, polls, feedback... anything you want to compare him or get a feeling for his "chances". They will all tell you the same thing - he's unelectable, done, cooked, stick a fork in him.

He's not even a Republican. He's a libertarian. He'll NEVER carry the true conservative nor even the neo-con vote. They'll just stay home like last time.

[ConHog]

In order to make this comparison logically, Jim would have had to acknowledge by signing or in this case, at least publicly agreeing with, posts by Hog that you consider racist. He did not. What Jim did do, was run a political message board, and allow all types of people the freedom to express themselves, however awful their POV. By your logic, anyone who has a newspaper or radio show and lets someone express their racist views on it is also a racist.

I would also suggest that if Ron Paul is careless enough to sign his name to garbage he doesn't agree with, he will make a scary negligent President.

You bring up; an interesting point, and one I wonder about. Does Jim have a statement somewhere that the views expressed by this board don't necessarily, and in fact usually don't, reflect his own opinions? Did RP have one on his newsletter? I'd bet Jim doesn't because most message boards don't and don't need one, and I'd bet RP did, because that is generally what newsletters , tv shows, etc etc do when they allow editorializing, as a way of protecting themselves from any lawsuits which might arise from said editorials.


If he didn't have one, at best it shows bad business sense, at worst it shows he agreed. Either way dumb not to have such a statement printed SOMEWHERE inf you're going to allow editorials.

[chloe]

In order to make this comparison logically, Jim would have had to acknowledge by signing or in this case, at least publicly agreeing with, posts by Hog that you consider racist. He did not. What Jim did do, was run a political message board, and allow all types of people the freedom to express themselves, however awful their POV. By your logic, anyone who has a newspaper or radio show and lets someone express their racist views on it is also a racist.

I would also suggest that if Ron Paul is careless enough to sign his name to garbage he doesn't agree with, he will make a scary negligent President.

well he did have that race argument with agnapostate and he was accused of being a racist and sticking up for hogtrash.

Being a Politician is different then a Board owner which I did acknowledge in fact it makes more sense that a busy politician wouldn't always know what is going on in things handled under his name and so he counts on advisors,

A board owner knows what's happening to his board and who is posting there and what ideals they are promoting.

When Jim was falsely accused of being racist by agnapostate and gabby I stuck up for him.

I knew Jim just believes in freedom of speech and is not a racist.

[jimnyc]

I would also suggest that if Ron Paul is careless enough to sign his name to garbage he doesn't agree with, he will make a scary negligent President.

And he wasn't even a politician when he did this!! Can you imagine what he would be expected to sign if he were president! LOL "Ron, don't worry about it, just sign your name here"

Him saying he signed something that he didn't know what it was about is a piss poor excuse.

[jimnyc]

You bring up; an interesting point, and one I wonder about. Does Jim have a statement somewhere that the views expressed by this board don't necessarily, and in fact usually don't, reflect his own opinions? Did RP have one on his newsletter? I'd bet Jim doesn't because most message boards don't and don't need one, and I'd bet RP did, because that is generally what newsletters , tv shows, etc etc do when they allow editorializing, as a way of protecting themselves from any lawsuits which might arise from said editorials.


If he didn't have one, at best it shows bad business sense, at worst it shows he agreed. Either way dumb not to have such a statement printed SOMEWHERE inf you're going to allow editorials.

Ron Paul's newsletters DID NOT state anything about them not being his views.

And you're also wrong about this site, and most boards on vB which carry this disclaimer:


All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of Debate Policy - Political Forum for Debates & Discussion, nor vBulletin Solutions, Inc. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.

[chloe]

And he wasn't even a politician when he did this!! Can you imagine what he would be expected to sign if he were president! LOL "Ron, don't worry about it, just sign your name here"

Him saying he signed something that he didn't know what it was about is a piss poor excuse.


I don't see it that way at all, just like a busy doctor's office often they rely on staff to handle the paperwork and sign things too that may come into question later that is how medical procedures sometimes get messed up.

[jimnyc]

I don't see it that way at all, just like a busy doctor's office often they rely on staff to handle the paperwork and sign things too that may come uinto question later that is how medical procedures sometimes get messed up.

But this wasn't everyday paperwork, or monotonous crap - this was a newsletter that had nothing to do with daily paperwork, went out on his letterhead and was signed by him. A normal busy doctor's office won't have racists newsletters being shoved into the doctors face for a signature.

And EVEN IF, as they say, then why hide the details from the public? Why not come right out with the entire truth about who actually wrote them and how much he profited?

Sorry, not knowing what he was signing is a piss poor excuse. What would you say if Obama came out today and reversed course on something he did, and claimed it was only that way because a secretary shoved something under his face, and since he was so busy he just signed it without knowledge of what he was signing?

[chloe]

And he wasn't even a politician when he did this!! Can you imagine what he would be expected to sign if he were president! LOL "Ron, don't worry about it, just sign your name here"

Him saying he signed something that he didn't know what it was about is a piss poor excuse.


He has served in Congress three different periods: first from 1976 to 1977, after he won a special election, then from 1979 to 1985 and finally since 1997. On July 12, 2011, Paul announced that he would not seek re-election to the House in order to pursue the 2012 presidential election

what year was the newsletter written?

[jimnyc]

He has served in Congress three different periods: first from 1976 to 1977, after he won a special election, then from 1979 to 1985 and finally since 1997. On July 12, 2011, Paul announced that he would not seek re-election to the House in order to pursue the 2012 presidential election

what year was the newsletter written?

1994

[chloe]

But this wasn't everyday paperwork, or monotonous crap - this was a newsletter that had nothing to do with daily paperwork, went out on his letterhead and was signed by him. A normal busy doctor's office won't have racists newsletters being shoved into the doctors face for a signature.

And EVEN IF, as they say, then why hide the details from the public? Why not come right out with the entire truth about who actually wrote them and how much he profited?

Sorry, not knowing what he was signing is a piss poor excuse. What would you say if Obama came out today and reversed course on something he did, and claimed it was only that way because a secretary shoved something under his face, and since he was so busy he just signed it without knowledge of what he was signing?

I don't think one person on that platform is flawless or has never had something they hid.

Do you?

[chloe]

1994


can u post a link to the newsletter if it not much trouble?

[jimnyc]

can u post a link to the newsletter if it not much trouble?

Let me a gather a little... It appears the shitty newsletters, with controversial content, went out more than just 1994

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/05/19/trutheriness-and-ron-paul/
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ron_paul_racist/
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html

http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/2011/12/16/who-wrote-the-ron-paul-newsletters-ron-paul-wrote-them-clear-proof/
I think this may be the same - http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/12/bombshell-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters.html
http://nationalmemo.com/article/copies-pauls-newsletters-leak-online
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/the-racist-newsletters-return-to-haunt-ron-paul.php

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/company-ron-paul-keeps_613474.html?nopager=1

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-10/politics/paul.newsletters_1_newsletters-blacks-whites?_s=PM:POLITICS

[ConHog]

Let me a gather a little... It appears the shitty newsletters, with controversial content, went out more than just 1994

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/05/19/trutheriness-and-ron-paul/
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ron_paul_racist/
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html

http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/2011/12/16/who-wrote-the-ron-paul-newsletters-ron-paul-wrote-them-clear-proof/
I think this may be the same - http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/12/bombshell-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters.html
http://nationalmemo.com/article/copies-pauls-newsletters-leak-online
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/the-racist-newsletters-return-to-haunt-ron-paul.php

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/company-ron-paul-keeps_613474.html?nopager=1

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-10/politics/paul.newsletters_1_newsletters-blacks-whites?_s=PM:POLITICS



Those aren't links to the actual newsletters.

But from what I can gather, Ron Paul's name was in the title of the publication's but he wasn't the managing editor, and there is no proof that he even read the damn articles. He never signed anything.

The guy is an out and out kook, but you have not one single shred of evidence to show that he wrote anything in those newsletters or even was asked to approve of them.

You've got Chloe trying to defend signing them, when he didn't sign them. he didn't sign anything. His name was on the masthead , that is all.


This is akin to wasting time trying to say Obama isn't a natural born citizen. Sheesh how about focusing on the real issues?

[jimnyc]

Those aren't links to the actual newsletters.

But from what I can gather, Ron Paul's name was in the title of the publication's but he wasn't the managing editor, and there is no proof that he even read the damn articles. He never signed anything.

The guy is an out and out kook, but you have not one single shred of evidence to show that he wrote anything in those newsletters or even was asked to approve of them.

You've got Chloe trying to defend signing them, when he didn't sign them. he didn't sign anything. His name was on the masthead , that is all.


This is akin to wasting time trying to say Obama isn't a natural born citizen. Sheesh how about focusing on the real issues?

Try reading the actual links... of COURSE they aren't the originals.. But there are screenshots of the letters in a few of them. He is also listed as the editor at the bottom of the newsletters. Look at the bottom of this link:

http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/2011/12/16/who-wrote-the-ron-paul-newsletters-ron-paul-wrote-them-clear-proof/

It's on HIS letterhead, with HIS signature, with HIM listed as editor - and you say there's no proof? LOL

Why do you bother replying without reading? His signature is clear as day, as is the portion showing him to be editor.

[jimnyc]

http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/letters5.jpg

[jimnyc]

http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/letters4.jpg

So now you have his signature, along with him being editor. Maybe this is why RP supporters don't believe it, maybe they don't read either?

[jimnyc]

Read some excerpts of various newsletters of his - over a period of YEARS. Am I seriously supposed to believe that THIS MANY controversial things were stated on his newsletters and he was unaware of all of them? for what did I read, 33 years or so? Someone has been publishing this stuff to get him in hot water, for a LOT of years! LOL

http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/game-over-scans-of-over-50-ron-paul.html

[ConHog]

Read some excerpts of various newsletters of his - over a period of YEARS. Am I seriously supposed to believe that THIS MANY controversial things were stated on his newsletters and he was unaware of all of them? for what did I read, 33 years or so? Someone has been publishing this stuff to get him in hot water, for a LOT of years! LOL

http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/game-over-scans-of-over-50-ron-paul.html

No, you're supposed to believe that it isn't important AND it is conjecture.

Be that as it may, you're entitled to your opinion.

[jimnyc]

No, you're supposed to believe that it isn't important AND it is conjecture.

Be that as it may, you're entitled to your opinion.

You just said a few minutes back that he didn't actually sign anything, and that he wasn't the editor. I showed you outright proof that both were incorrect. Sorry, that's not an opinion, that's FACTS.

And the last link shows that he has been delivering extremely controversial content for a MINUMUM of 10 years. Who in their right mind would believe he didn't know anything about them?

His name, his letterhead, his signature, him being listed as editor. Controversey for YEARS. But we're supposed to believe he didn't know about all this shit, FOR YEARS!!! LOL Sorry, he's either EXTREMELY incompetent, and therefore should never see the Presidency, or he's outright racist and anti-israel and anti-aids and anti homos... and still shouldn't ever see the presidency.

There are FAR too many who think we should ignore this stuff now. He was a part of these reports, in various names, FOR YEARS. If someone says they get it, but like him anyway, so be it. But there are a LOT who claim ignorance or claim it wasn't him... or come up with excuse after excuse to disregard them. I think they define him.

[ConHog]

You just said a few minutes back that he didn't actually sign anything, and that he wasn't the editor. I showed you outright proof that both were incorrect. Sorry, that's not an opinion, that's FACTS.

And the last link shows that he has been delivering extremely controversial content for a MINUMUM of 10 years. Who in their right mind would believe he didn't know anything about them?

His name, his letterhead, his signature, him being listed as editor. Controversey for YEARS. But we're supposed to believe he didn't know about all this shit, FOR YEARS!!! LOL Sorry, he's either EXTREMELY incompetent, and therefore should never see the Presidency, or he's outright racist and anti-israel and anti-aids and anti homos... and still shouldn't ever see the presidency.

There are FAR too many who think we should ignore this stuff now. He was a part of these reports, in various names, FOR YEARS. If someone says they get it, but like him anyway, so be it. But there are a LOT who claim ignorance or claim it wasn't him... or come up with excuse after excuse to disregard them. I think they define him.

Editor seems to be a honorary position rather than an actual editorial job. I would imagine he had an actual trained editor doing that.

As for the signature, have you had it authenticated? Could be, and probably is, a machined signature.


Oh, AND editorials don't require the editor to approve of the content anyway, only to edit them to whatever standards the newsletter had, admittedly their content standards were pretty low.

[jimnyc]

Editor seems to be a honorary position rather than an actual editorial job. I would imagine he had an actual trained editor doing that.

As for the signature, have you had it authenticated? Could be, and probably is, a machined signature.


Oh, AND editorials don't require the editor to approve of the content anyway, only to edit them to whatever standards the newsletter had, admittedly their content standards were pretty low.

Yeap, no doubt that these things were swindled into his newsletters, for over 10 years, and he didn't know about it. Over 50 newsletters with controversy since 1978. He's got a bad editor AND he is blind AND he is much too incompetent to be in office. Only an idiot would believe one's simple 8-10 page newsletter could go out for years and years, and the person who's on the publication never knew about the contents. Welcome to an elite group!

[ConHog]

Yeap, no doubt that these things were swindled into his newsletters, for over 10 years, and he didn't know about it. Over 50 newsletters with controversy since 1978. He's got a bad editor AND he is blind AND he is much too incompetent to be in office. Only an idiot would believe one's simple 8-10 page newsletter could go out for years and years, and the person who's on the publication never knew about the contents. Welcome to an elite group!

I didn't say I believed shit.

I said that

A) you have no proof
B) It is irrelevant


But hey, if calling me an idiot for pointing those things out makes you feel better, have at it.

[jimnyc]

I didn't say I believed shit.

I said that

A) you have no proof
B) It is irrelevant


But hey, if calling me an idiot for pointing those things out makes you feel better, have at it.

Proof is there for anyone with their eyes open. To think this shit was sent out behind his back, without his knowledge, FOR YEARS, is very, very, very naive at the very least.

[ConHog]

Proof is there for anyone with their eyes open. To think this shit was sent out behind his back, without his knowledge, FOR YEARS, is very, very, very naive at the very least.

Funny that you require ABSOLUTE proof in some threads and infer proof in others.

Tell you what. You acknowledge that a college football coach can probably bar people from the football facilites for whatever reason and on his own authority, and I will acknowledge that a man's name on the title of a publication probably means he's probably at least somewhat familiar with what that publication says.

[fj1200]

http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/letters4.jpg


Ron Paul signs like an 8-year old?

[jimnyc]

Funny that you require ABSOLUTE proof in some threads and infer proof in others.

Tell you what. You acknowledge that a college football coach can probably bar people from the football facilites for whatever reason and on his own authority, and I will acknowledge that a man's name on the title of a publication probably means he's probably at least somewhat familiar with what that publication says.

Sure, I can see the similarities between the 2 :rolleyes:

"I" am the one who asked for further proof in the other thread. I never received a single piece of "proof". "YOU" stated there was no signature and he wasn't the editor in this thread. I gave you both of those. Then those aren't acceptable for you. If you want to believe someone else sent out controversial newsletters for Ron Paul for 15-30 years without his knowledge, so be it. It only proves that much more how incomptent a man would have to be to allow something so bad to happen, in his name, for over a decade. Like I said from the get go - at worst he's a racist homophobe, anti-Israel, anti-aids, 9/11 truther - or at the very least much, much too incompetent to hold office.

[jimnyc]

Ron Paul signs like an 8-year old?

I've seen worse... Are you saying that is not his signature?

[ConHog]

Funny that you require ABSOLUTE proof in some threads and infer proof in others.

Tell you what. You acknowledge that a college football coach can probably bar people from the football facilites for whatever reason and on his own authority, and I will acknowledge that a man's name on the title of a publication probably means he's probably at least somewhat familiar with what that publication says.

LOL Jim's response to this post of mine was to throw a tantrum and neg rep me with a remark of "fuck off"

[jimnyc]

LOL Jim's response to this post of mine was to throw a tantrum and neg rep me with a remark of "fuck off"

Yep, sure did, after I wrote an appropriate reply. I thought it was stupid to bring in a completely unrelated topic here to make your lame point. One has absolutely nothing to do with another. One is proven with actual images of the letters in question - the other cannot be proven. It was lame to bring up and I repped you appropriately.

I thought we weren't supposed to discuss rep comments and display them in public? Additionally, reputation comments should be treated as private, and therefore comments left should not be discussed on the board.

[ConHog]

Yep, sure did, after I wrote an appropriate reply. I thought it was stupid to bring in a completely unrelated topic here to make your lame point. One has absolutely nothing to do with another. One is proven with actual images of the letters in question - the other cannot be proven. It was lame to bring up and I repped you appropriately.

I thought we weren't supposed to discuss rep comments and display them in public? Additionally, reputation comments should be treated as private, and therefore comments left should not be discussed on the board.

I'll apologize for that no problem. I didn't see that written ANYWHERE and every other board I've been on rep comments aren't considered private messages.

Do what you have to do if you think that I intentionally broke any rules.

[Abbey Marie]

http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/letters4.jpg

So now you have his signature, along with him being editor. Maybe this is why RP supporters don't believe it, maybe they don't read either?

It's obviously all a world-wide conspiracy, dreamed up in a ski lodge in Switzerland by the Jewish Puppeteers, oops, I mean Bankers. :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

I'll apologize for that no problem. I didn't see that written ANYWHERE and every other board I've been on rep comments aren't considered private messages.

Do what you have to do if you think that I intentionally broke any rules.

You have thousands of posts here, and you're telling me you haven't read the few rules we do have here? No wonder you can't "read" what I'm writing here and see it for what it is, you just don't bother.

[Abbey Marie]

I don't think one person on that platform is flawless or has never had something they hid.

Do you?

I don't think anyone is saying that, but you seem to be saying that we should all believe that Ron Paul is a great, non-racist guy, despite lots of evidence that Jim is showing to the contrary. Don't you think it's time to admit the guy has a big problem?

[jimnyc]

I don't think anyone is saying that, but you seem to be saying that we should all believe that Ron Paul is a great, non-racist guy, despite lots of evidence that Jim is showing to the contrary. Don't you think it's time to admit the guy has a big problem?

Some people think everything I have posted is smoke and mirrors, and that perhaps RP himself knoew nothing of these letters for years.

[Abbey Marie]

Funny that you require ABSOLUTE proof in some threads and infer proof in others.

Tell you what. You acknowledge that a college football coach can probably bar people from the football facilites for whatever reason and on his own authority, and I will acknowledge that a man's name on the title of a publication probably means he's probably at least somewhat familiar with what that publication says.

Will you admit that if we ignore all logic and squeeze our eyes shut and click our heels together and *believe* that Paul didn't outright know what was going out under his own letterhead, and above his own editorial signature, then he is at best a negligent fool?

[ConHog]

Will you admit that if we ignore all logic and squeeze our eyes shut and click our heels together and *believe* that Paul didn't outright know what was going out under his own letterhead, and above his own editorial signature, then he is at best a negligent fool?

Abbey that is EXACTLY what I said, we have no proof but at best he is negligent UNLESS there is somewhere in that newsletter a statement that the opinions expressed are not those of the editor. I suspect that there was.

And even that doesn't mean that I personally don't believe he agreed with the writings. I DO think he agreed with them, just as much as Obama believed in what Wright was teaching, but that's just opinion, not proof. and that was the only point I was making.

[Abbey Marie]

Editor seems to be a honorary position rather than an actual editorial job. I would imagine he had an actual trained editor doing that.

As for the signature, have you had it authenticated? Could be, and probably is, a machined signature.


Oh, AND editorials don't require the editor to approve of the content anyway, only to edit them to whatever standards the newsletter had, admittedly their content standards were pretty low.

I wrote for publication for years, and did a little editing too. Anyone with an editor title makes it their business to know what the boss man wants and doesn't want in his publication, or they aren't employable. When something is this controversial, you can bet the editor knew that it was within Paul's "standards" or it would not have gone out.

Paul's signature says it all. You are straining to come up with another less realistic explanation; that should be your clue that you are wrong about this.

Paul should man-up and admit what he has done. Oh wait, manning-up might seem too war-like for him.

[ConHog]

I wrote for publication for years, and did a little editing too. Anyone with an editor title makes it their business to know what the boss man wants and doesn't want in his publication, or they aren't employable. When something is this controversial, you can bet the editor knew that it was within Paul's "standards" or it would not have gone out.

Paul's signature says it all. You are straining to come up with another less realistic explanation; that should be your clue that you are wrong about this.

Paul should man-up and admit what he has done. Oh wait, manning-up might seem too war-like for him.

Unless that editor's ruling is " open content" You keep forgetting that RP is an anarchist errr libertarian, so anything goes with his dumb ass. Why would it seem hard to believe he'd run his newsletter the same way?

And ultimately I come back to... who cares if he's a racist or not? The question is could he uphold the COTUS when it comes to race. I think he's a nut, but can't make a case that so far he hasn't done so.

[Abbey Marie]

Abbey that is EXACTLY what I said, we have no proof but at best he is negligent UNLESS there is somewhere in that newsletter a statement that the opinions expressed are not those of the editor. I suspect that there was.

And even that doesn't mean that I personally don't believe he agreed with the writings. I DO think he agreed with them, just as much as Obama believed in what Wright was teaching, but that's just opinion, not proof. and that was the only point I was making.

Honestly, I didn't look at "negligent fool" as a better description of a man who runs for President. The fact that he signed it tells me all I need to know.

Btw, I think negligent fool and President should never be in the same sentence.

[Abbey Marie]

Unless that editor's ruling is " open content" You keep forgetting that RP is an anarchist errr libertarian, so anything goes with his dumb ass. Why would it seem hard to believe he'd run his newsletter the same way?

And ultimately I come back to... who cares if he's a racist or not? The question is could he uphold the COTUS when it comes to race. I think he's a nut, but can't make a case that so far he hasn't done so.

Again, straining for an explanation.
I care.
If this is the way the country is thinking, we are in deep, deep, trouble.

[Abbey Marie]

Some people think everything I have posted is smoke and mirrors, and that perhaps RP himself knoew nothing of these letters for years.

It's not for lack of great evidence on your part.
Paulians are cultists, and they are by definition, Kool-Aid drinkers. It is no accident that he attracts Truthers, and all sorts of crackpots. Unfortunately, some decent but malcontent-type people are falling for it too.

[ConHog]

It's not for lack of great evidence on your part.
Paulians are cultists, and they are by definition, Kool-Aid drinkers. It is no accident that he attracts Truthers, and all sorts of crackpots. Unfortunately, some decent but malcontent-type people are falling for it too.

well at least you called me decent. LOL

[jimnyc]

Ron Paul signs like an 8-year old?


http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/letters4.jpg

http://i43.tinypic.com/cpz0z.jpg

Here's his signature as of 2008. Considering the difference in the age of the signatures, they look awfully, awfully similar to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ron_Paul_signature.svg

[jimnyc]

Here is the best proof that can be offered that RP is out of his mind. A letter RP sent out himself soliciting his newsletters. This is on his CONGRESSMEN LETTERHEAD - AND HE ALSO SIGNED THE BOTTOM. A few tidbits:

IRS Agents will be coming with AK-47's
Talks of "new money"
They are "totalitarian bills"
They have chemical detection on them
....
....
There is a coming race war in big cities
There is a federal homosexual cover up on AIDS
Speaks of the demonic, pagan playground "Skull and Bones"

Of course he can help you if you simply subscribe to his newsletters! LOL

http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/11/12/Solicitation2.pdf

[jimnyc]

Here is the best proof that can be offered that RP is out of his mind. A letter RP sent out himself soliciting his newsletters. This is on his CONGRESSMEN LETTERHEAD - AND HE ALSO SIGNED THE BOTTOM. A few tidbits:

IRS Agents will be coming with AK-47's
Talks of "new money"
They are "totalitarian bills"
They have chemical detection on them
....
....
There is a coming race war in big cities
There is a federal homosexual cover up on AIDS
Speaks of the demonic, pagan playground "Skull and Bones"

Of course he can help you if you simply subscribe to his newsletters! LOL

http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/11/12/Solicitation2.pdf

If you don't want to open a .PDF document, but want to see truly how nutty this man is, here is the text of his solicitation letter, that went out from the congressman:


Congressman Ron Paul

Monday morning

Dear Fellow American:

You may not have much time left.

Next year, or next month, the New Money could wipe you out — destroy everything you’ve worked and saved for — and leave your family destitute.

It could happen any time. And I don’t mind telling you I’m scared. For myself, for my family, for my friends, for my country.

We’ve seen a lot of financial tyrannies from Washington in this century. This one could take the cake. And popping out of the cake, with a big Surprise!, will be an IRS agent with an AK-47.

Picture this: your feet are aching, your back is sore, and your patience ran out about two hours ago. How dare these bureaucrats treat you like this? How dare they make you wait in this line, this incredibly tedious line, to turn in your greenbacks? Then, when it’s finally your turn, it’s not so tedious after all.

An IRS agent with the dead eyes of a mako shark, asks — with that chilling police politeness — for your name, address, Social Security number, and “explanation.” From his tone and body language, you expect the Miranda warning next.

While muggers, robbers, and rapists run free on the streets, the power of the state is focused on you.

And no wonder. You’re a suspicious character. You’ve always kept some emergency cash. And now you’re in trouble. . . because you tried to take care of yourself and your family, because you saved and planned ahead.

When President Bush announced the New Money during a War-on-Drugs speech, few realized what it meant, or just how bad it would be — for innocent Americans, not drug dealers. Turning in all your old money for a new currency wasn’t so bad. They’d done it often enough in Latin America, after all.

But as someone with more cash than the secret federal ceiling allows, you’re treated like a possible drug dealer or a tax evader. Who else deals in cash?

You’re not arrested, though the tax man would obviously love to clap the cuffs on you right now. No, he just marks you down for the most horrifying ordeal at his disposal: the new SCA — Suspicious Cash Audit — and moves on to the next victim.

Months later, after the tax police have put you and every aspect of your life through the wringer, you’ll wish you’d used your old Federal Reserve Notes for wallpaper, or flushed them down the toilet.

It will be that bad. And it will only be the beginning.

But you don’t need to be a mark in this federal scam. You don’t have to be ripped-off. Won’t you let me send you my brand-new report, Surviving the New Money? It normally costs $50, but I want to hurry it to you, at absolutely no charge.

First the feds claimed the New Money was an anti-counterfeiting measure. But that lame excuse, in a time of dwindling counterfeiting (non-Fed, of course), went down the memory hole.

Now — when not pretending it doesn’t exist — they claim the New Money will nab money launderers and drug dealers. But just as before, they’re lying.

Not that they don’t pursue criminals, but we’re their real targets. The politicians and bureaucrats want to tax and control us to their hearts’ content — if they can he said to have hearts — and the New Money will make this possible.

Remember that money laundering — despite its evil ring — has nothing to do with taxation or drugs. It is the crime of using your own after-tax, honestly earned cash without filling out a government form. And tine banks are ordered by the Controller of the Currency to report customers who display the Orwellian infraction of “reluctance” at filling out a Treasury CTR (currency transaction report).

The feds see us as rats in a maze. And they want to own the maze. And the New Money is a key part of this scheme.

I uncovered the New Money plans during my last term in the U.S. Congress, and I held the ugly new bills in my hands. I can tell you — they made my skin crawl.

These totalitarian bills were tinted pink and blue and brown, and blighted with holograms, diffraction gratings, metal and plastic threads, and chemical alarms. It wasn’t money for a free people. It was a portable inquisition, a paper “third-degree,” to allow the feds to keep track of American cash, and American citizens.

As one federal scientist confirmed to me, these bills can be computer imprinted and read, to lay a paper trail hundreds of transactions long. Who uses them, when, and where. The taggents — chemical alarms — will set off federal cash-detection machines at airports and anyplace else they choose. And there are other swindles involved as well.

Thank goodness, a patriotic American within the Federal Reserve told me about this financial Manhattan Project. But this time, the government wants to drop the bomb on us.

To manufacture the New Money, the feds have built a colossal blockhouse in Ft. Worth, Texas, as ugly as it is evil. Designed in Stalin-style, guarded by KGB-level security, and full of three-color printing presses and spy device embedders, it belongs in Moscow, not Texas.

Stage One of the New Money — microprinting and a polyester thread — was meant to lull us to sleep, before the knife fell. But the bureaucrats’ scheme went awry when the old Bureau of Engraving and Printing plant in Washington, D.C., couldn’t handle the new technology.

They’ve fixed that now, and Stage Two will chill your blood.

The New Money will steal our freedom and our prosperity; it will accelerate the transfer wealth and power from the people to the government and its friends.

No wonder the Establishment is cheering. And ex-Treasury Secretary Don Regan is the head cheerleader. Regan, who was also White House chief of staff and president of Merrill Lynch, is the personification of special-interest government. When I fought him on the U.S. Gold Commission, he was as nasty a statist as I encountered in Washington. A man who hates hard money and our Constitution, and lusts after power.

How appropriate that they chose Regan as the front man for the most vicious currency switch possible, including a “National Finance Guard” to enforce the New Money and destroy our privacy. The Romanians get rid of Ceaucescu’s Securitate, and we get the cash police.

The government loves war because it can commandeer more power over the people, and the War on Drugs is no exception. The feds want to eliminate our privacy and our independence, so they can track and tax every dime we earn, save, and spend.

Drug Czar William Bennett says we have no right to privacy. Drug Hitlerite malarkey.

Justice Brandeis said the most important Constitutional right the founding Fathers gave us was the “right to be left alone.” He said it was the right most cherished by “civilized’ men and women.

You and I have the right to keep our intimate financial affairs private from a snoopy but harmless brother-in-law. How much more right do we have when it’s a power-mad bureaucrat who seeks to do us harm?

Americans have the right to be free. We are born free. And we must live free.

We have a duty to our country, to our families, and ourselves to preserve our liberty and our assets from the government wolves, and to bequeath our freedom and prosperity to generations yet to come.

Washington, D.C. — HUD, Barney Frank, the IRS, the whole bunch — is our declared enemy in this. But we have a model to follow.

The founding Fathers didn’t hesitate to pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to battle tyranny.

We don’t want to have to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice, and have a revolution every once in awhile to toss out despotic government. And thanks to the remnants of the system he and the government of 1776 established, we don’t have to. We can battle for our freedom, and protect our savings, within the law.

Politicians and their big bank pals don’t like it. But when did free Americans ever let the pique of moral pygmies stop them?

Let me show you how to do all of this. Let me rush you my new $50 report on Surviving the New Money — absolutely free of charge — and each month mail you my Ron Paul Investment Letter and Ron Paul Political Report.

Dollars are held and used by people all over the world. It is the defacto currency in many hyperinflationary countries. What will happen to these dollars when the greenback is declared defunct? When I confronted a startled Treasury official about a world dollar panic brought on by the New Money, he said: “So what? People who hold large amounts of cash are drug dealers or tax evaders. Let them suffer!”

But we’ll suffer too. Such a panic could cause a depression here. But you can protect yourself, and those you love, from all of this.

In Surviving the New Money, I tell you all I have learned. What the feds plan to do and how. The effect on your investments, especially gold and silver. The chances for a ten-to-one revaluation or currency inflation. The trial-run in Hawaii. The holocaust of the underground economy. And how to protect yourself.

We can’t let those swindlers destroy our country. Please join with me in fighting them, for the sake of your finances and your freedom.

Thanks to Americans like you, I was able to work for our ideals for four terms as a U.S. Congressman. Inside the belly of the beast, I saw what these devils plan.

In office, I never joined the federal mafia. Out of office, I didn’t become a bandit lobbyist. Unlike most public officials, I never had one of those For-Sale-to-the-Special-Interests signs on my forehead.

I swore to uphold the Constitution and I took that oath seriously. That’s why I am free to share with you the knowledge, insights, and sources I developed.

While on Capitol Hill, I developed extraordinary sources in House and Senate committees, the White House, the Treasury, the Fed, the Justice Department, and even the IRS. These patriotic Americans won’t talk to the liberal media, but they do trust me. And they want you to know what’s really happening.

No matter what’s in the Constitution, Washington runs our economy. You can ignore that ugly fact. Or you can seek to neutralize it. What you do will determine the fate of the nest egg you have built — or hope to build.

The powerbrokers don’t want you to know about their plans, of course. It’s so much easier to shear the sheep if they don’t recognize the barber.

But you and I aren’t sheep, and we won’t stand still to be fleeced. That’s why I wrote Surviving the New Money. That’s why I publish the Ron Paul Investment Letter and the Ron Paul Political Report. To protect middle-class Americans and their savings from the federal shears.

Large investor or small, my newsletters will armor you against the politicians and the big banks. Each month I give you the facts and analysis — and specific recommendations — that you need to protect yourself, and dramatically increase your wealth, in the spastic economy of the 1990s.

Every American who has worked hard and saved — or who wants to — needs this guidance. And as the only former high official to publish a financial letter supply facts and analysis available nowhere else.

I have exposed the war on cash, and what it means for honest Americans. The little-known law, rushed through Congress, that lets the feds declare bank holidays nationwide, or just in your town, and freeze your accounts indefinitely. The “money laundering” laws that can wash away our freedoms. And the international bankers’ pipeline into your wallet.

I have unmasked the plot for world government, world money, and world central banking. Planned exchange controls to hold you hostage…while the dollar drops down a hole. High officials who are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations. The FEMA plan to suspend the Constitution in a “national emergency.”

I revealed the Red debt bomb set to explode in your bank account. Schemes to force pension plans to “invest” in federal debt, with coerced rollovers and more debt in lieu of interest. The real, financial reasons Bush invaded Panama. The nightmare of a “cashless society” (watch out for it, if they get away with the New Money). And the Establishment assault on hard assets that will make us nostalgic for FDR.

I’ve been told not to talk, but these stooges don’t scare me. Threats or no threats, I’ve laid bare the coming race war in big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove — perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress’s Mr. New Honey. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica. And the Soviet-style “smartcard” the Justice Department has in mind for you.

Most important, I tell you how you can save yourself and your family, and help our country.

The politicians — and their Establishment buddies — won’t be happy until they own you lock, stock, and barrel. And you’ll be wearing the barrel. You must act now, or watch helplessly as they strip you bare.

The feds have taken all the old investment rules and thrown them out the window. We have to forget the old-fashioned methods. Or we’re sunk.

Those who act decisively — and have the right information to act on — will survive the New Money and big government’s other economic calamities. In fact, history shows that bad times offer the greatest profit opportunities.

A liberal clergyman sneered: “Isn’t it immoral to benefit from catastrophe?” I told him, “No, not if you didn’t cause it.” In fact, the few who preserve and even increase their wealth in the coming chaos will be needed to rebuild America.

That’s why I must send you Surviving the New Money, the Ron Paul Investment Letter, and the Ron Paul Political Report. I want to show you how to preserve — and enhance — your money, your privacy, and your freedom.

These remarkable publications armor you against the government and the Establishment. Each month I give you the trustworthy information, analysis, and recommendations you need to protect yourself, and increase your wealth, in the 1990s.

To the unthinking, everything may seem OK. But you and I know it isn’t. What’s a middle-class American to do?

Gold? Silver? Platinum? Rare coins? Real estate? Gemstones? Farm land? Penny stocks? A small business? Collectibles? T-bill? Mutual funds? CDs? Corporate bonds? Municipal bonds? Gold stocks? Common stocks? The futures market? Overseas banking? Foreign investments? Privacy and tax strategies?

Some investments will protect you. Others are like walking into the IRS and saying, “Take me; I’m yours.”

The bureaucracy is massive and powerful. But like a big, ugly dog, it is also slow and stupid. Our job: to avoid its lumbering paws and slobbering teeth. And I can help you do exactly that.

I fear there will be welfare riots in the big cities. Massive unemployment. The destruction of wealth. The erosion of personal liberties. Vicious economic controls. The exaltation of envy. The suppression of privacy. Authoritarian clamp-downs. Bank and S&L closings on a massive scale. A world dollar crisis as the greenback (or “pinkback”) is rejected for almost any non-paper alternative.

Maybe the “recovery,” which the politicians are always trumpeting, is permanent. Maybe Bush and company will give us the balanced budget, sound money, and drastic spending and tax cuts we need. Maybe they’ll curb the IRS and the Fed. Maybe lasting prosperity is around the corner. Maybe there’s a tooth fairy. But i don’t believe it.

Trouble is coming, and you must be prepared.

Surviving the New Money, the Ron Paul Investment Letter and the Ron Paul Political Report will be your survival kit, and if you act now, you can get this $224 value for just $99 — 55% off!

(Or increase your savings and protect yourself against price increases with a two-year subscription for $189 or a three-year subscription for $279.)

For just $99, get all this wealth-saving intelligence: 1) Surviving the New Money ($50); 2) The monthly Ron Paul Investment Letter ($99); 3) The monthly Ron Paul Political Report ($50); 4) The unlisted phone number of my Financial Hotline for fast-breaking news ($25); and 5) My manual for investors, The Ron Paul Primer. A $224 value for just $99!

And there is absolutely no risk.

If you ever feel the Ron Paul Investment Letter and the Ron Paul Political Report are not indispensable, let me know and I’ll send you a full pro-rata refund. And you can keep Surviving the New Money, my Hotline number, and my investors’ Primer with my compliments. You can’t lose.

Please, help me help you survive the New Money and other financial debacles. You must conic through not only unscathed, but richer.

Send your check today, or charge your order to American Express, Visa, or Mastercard (by mail or on my toll-free 800 number: 1-800-RON-PAUL). Let me welcome you as a subscriber.

Sincerely,

Congressman Ron Paul

P.S. Your subscription may be tax-deductible. See the enclosed subscription form for details.

P.P.S. There’s no time to waste. The New Money may not come until next year. Or it may be imposed tomorrow. You should subscribe today.

Sent out by a congressmen, but sounds like a cheap infomercial

[chloe]

I don't think anyone is saying that, but you seem to be saying that we should all believe that Ron Paul is a great, non-racist guy, despite lots of evidence that Jim is showing to the contrary. Don't you think it's time to admit the guy has a big problem?

where did I say that?

I said I am voting for him and I don't think he is racist and I don't.

shrug.

[chloe]

Newt Gingrich had problems in 1998 and got in trouble with the ethics commitee, I forgive him too:laugh2:

[chloe]

Let me a gather a little... It appears the shitty newsletters, with controversial content, went out more than just 1994

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/05/19/trutheriness-and-ron-paul/
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ron_paul_racist/
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html

http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/2011/12/16/who-wrote-the-ron-paul-newsletters-ron-paul-wrote-them-clear-proof/
I think this may be the same - http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/12/bombshell-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters.html
http://nationalmemo.com/article/copies-pauls-newsletters-leak-online
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/the-racist-newsletters-return-to-haunt-ron-paul.php

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/company-ron-paul-keeps_613474.html?nopager=1

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-10/politics/paul.newsletters_1_newsletters-blacks-whites?_s=PM:POLITICS

I juat clicked the firs t 2 links and didn;t see the actual article that was racist that he signed. which link is the actual article?

[jimnyc]

I juat clicked the firs t 2 links and didn;t see the actual article that was racist that he signed. which link is the actual article?

This wasn't something that was online, they were newsletters in print. TONS of what was written is in the links I provided. For a "reproduction" and summary of years of what went out in his name, this is perhaps the best that covers it all:

http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/game-over-scans-of-over-50-ron-paul.html

[jimnyc]

And CNN makes it short and sweet:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html

[chloe]

And CNN makes it short and sweet:http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.htmlThanksso this is the big deal?






"The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day -- are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."

[OCA]

And CNN makes it short and sweet:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html

Wow! Jimmy that about sums it up. I kinda respect Paul for his telling of the truth about American foriegn policy but this over the top racism shit and the drug crap is out of line.


And when you put your name on something you own it, end of story.

[jimnyc]

Thanksso this is the big deal?"The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day -- are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."

That's ONE sentence out of years of crap. But JUST from the CNN article you got that from:


GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul contain several racist remarks -- including one that says order was restored to Los Angeles after the 1992 riots when blacks went "to pick up their welfare checks."

The controversial newsletters include rants against the Israeli lobby, gays, AIDS victims and Martin Luther King Jr. -- described as a "pro-Communist philanderer." One newsletter, from June 1992, right after the LA riots, says "order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

"The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day -- are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."

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."

[jimnyc]

Wow! Jimmy that about sums it up. I kinda respect Paul for his telling of the truth about American foriegn policy but this over the top racism shit and the drug crap is out of line.


And when you put your name on something you own it, end of story.

We have a winner!

RP wants to "own up to it" and claim he knew nothing about these letters all in the same sentence.

[chloe]

That's ONE sentence out of years of crap. But JUST from the CNN article you got that from:

I'm not outraged shrug.

when I move I might need advice on how to avoid getting car jacked too:laugh2:

[chloe]

We have a winner!

RP wants to "own up to it" and claim he knew nothing about these letters all in the same sentence.

Like ALL Politicians should but don't........98 ethics committee on Newt ......

at any rate I was expecting it to say something about lynching and kkk meetings and it didn't.

Those things are pointed out in sociology classes and WEB Dubois's the problem of the color line.

[OCA]

Like ALL Politicians should but don't........98 ethics committee on Newt ......

at any rate I was expecting it to say something about lynching and kkk meetings and it didn't.

Those things are pointed out in sociology classes and WEB Dubois's the problem of the color line.

So Chloe.........bottom line, his racism doesn't matter to you?

[chloe]

So Chloe.........bottom line, his racism doesn't matter to you?

I don't see it as racist.

Plus his mentor was a jew.

I just don't believe it.

[OCA]

I don't see it as racist.

Plus his mentor was a jew.

I just don't believe it.

What does it take for you to believe? A white sheet and hood or a little, black half moustache?

I mean for the love of God its all in print, kind of hard to misinterpret.

[jimnyc]

Like ALL Politicians should but don't........98 ethics committee on Newt ......

at any rate I was expecting it to say something about lynching and kkk meetings and it didn't.

Those things are pointed out in sociology classes and WEB Dubois's the problem of the color line.

There's no way in hell you read through all 50 of the entries I sent you on that page! LOL Gonna take a lot longer than that to read through the years of rubbish he has penned, unless of course one doesn't care what he may have written to begin with. So I wouldn't downplay all he has said if you haven't read it!

[OCA]

There's no way in hell you read through all 50 of the entries I sent you on that page! LOL Gonna take a lot longer than that to read through the years of rubbish he has penned, unless of course one doesn't care what he may have written to begin with. So I wouldn't downplay all he has said if you haven't read it!

Lets clarify, Paul has some good points and the balls to say the truth about some things when it will probably get him in the pc crosshairs but.............this overt racist shit then the crap on legalizing hard drugs is just bad....bad taste and bad policy and a guy like that you don't want at the controls.

Not that he has a chance in hell of ever being nominated, this cycle or any other.

[jimnyc]

What does it take for you to believe? A white sheet and hood or a little, black half moustache?

I mean for the love of God its all in print, kind of hard to misinterpret.

:lol: :laugh2:

[chloe]

There's no way in hell you read through all 50 of the entries I sent you on that page! LOL Gonna take a lot longer than that to read through the years of rubbish he has penned, unless of course one doesn't care what he may have written to begin with. So I wouldn't downplay all he has said if you haven't read it!


Well you overwhelmed me with all those links to sift through.

If there was a direct real racist view from him it would be easier to find.

Instead its articles someone else wrote.

[jimnyc]

Well you overwhelmed me with all those links to sift through.

If there was a direct real racist view from him it would be easier to find.

Instead its articles someone else wrote.

There's a shitload of links in this one thread alone that outlines years and years of racist writings, anti-homo, anti-aids and involved in conspiracy crap. He even used his congressmen letterhead to "help" people that were being fleeced by the government, so long as they ponied up the $$$ to buy his newsletters - the newsletters he doesn't know about!! :laugh2:

[OCA]

There's a shitload of links in this one thread alone that outlines years and years of racist writings, anti-homo, anti-aids and involved in conspiracy crap. He even used his congressmen letterhead to "help" people that were being fleeced by the government, so long as they ponied up the $$$ to buy his newsletters - the newsletters he doesn't know about!! :laugh2:

Anti-homo you say? We may have to reconsider supporting him!

[jimnyc]

Anti-homo you say? We may have to reconsider supporting him!

LOL - but sorry to inform you, he claims to never have written any of that stuff, for about 30 years - and I guess his former aide lied about a similar story and RP being "afraid" of using the facilities in the home of a homosexual.

[chloe]

There's a shitload of links in this one thread alone that outlines years and years of racist writings, anti-homo, anti-aids and involved in conspiracy crap. He even used his congressmen letterhead to "help" people that were being fleeced by the government, so long as they ponied up the $$$ to buy his newsletters - the newsletters he doesn't know about!!

:laugh2:

His son is named after a Jew and I honestly don't believe him racist.

If any weakness about him concerns me it is his stance on war.

[OCA]

LOL - but sorry to inform you, he claims to never have written any of that stuff, for about 30 years - and I guess his former aide lied about a similar story and RP being "afraid" of using the facilities in the home of a homosexual.

Tha man now has my vote!:laugh2:

[OCA]

His son is named after a Jew and I honestly don't believe him racist.

If any weakness about him concerns me it is his stance on war.

Chloe, its all in black and white, I really don't see where you see any ambiguities?

Whats wrong with his stance on war?

[chloe]

Chloe, its all in black and white, I really don't see where you see any ambiguities?




Whats wrong with his stance on war?

well he doesn't want to protect weak countries and what I worried about was that if those countries got invaded and taken over by enemies who hate America it would leave us vulnerable maybe they would eventually attack us.

But then some guy told me that we are such a powerful country with most powerful bomb that our enemies already know we can blow up the whole planet if they try and come at us and nobody wants us all to die.

[fj1200]

I've seen worse... Are you saying that is not his signature?

After looking this version up I have my doubts.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Ron_Paul_signature.svg/128px-Ron_Paul_signature.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ron_Paul_signature.svg)


http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/letters4.jpg

[jimnyc]

After looking this version up I have my doubts.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Ron_Paul_signature.svg/128px-Ron_Paul_signature.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ron_Paul_signature.svg)

15 years apart in them signatures. They all look different over the years. Excuse the BG music, turn your speakers down:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/t-UsY1L6v4M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[OCA]

After looking this version up I have my doubts.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Ron_Paul_signature.svg/128px-Ron_Paul_signature.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ron_Paul_signature.svg)

Those are absolutely the same sigs.

[OCA]

well he doesn't want to protect weak countries and what I worried about was that if those countries got invaded and taken over by enemies who hate America it would leave us vulnerable maybe they would eventually attack us.

But then some guy told me that we are such a powerful country with most powerful bomb that our enemies already know we can blow up the whole planet if they try and come at us and nobody wants us all to die.

We do not have the resources to protect "weak" countries any longer. The wolf is at the door at home.

What constitutes weak anyway?

[chloe]

We do not have the resources to protect "weak" countries any longer. The wolf is at the door at home.

What constitutes weak anyway?

Well I guess Israel is weak and wants our help.

[OCA]

Well I guess Israel is weak and wants our help.

Here is a thought: let the Israelis stand on their own. They want to be a country, let them take care of their own business.

Do they not already have enough military hardware, technology, money etc. etc. etc. from us? You realize that the only reason we send this aid to Israel is so whichever party is in charge can secure the Jew vote, right?

[Abbey Marie]

well at least you called me decent. LOL

I wasn't referring to you at all, as I didn't think you were a Paul supporter. :dunno:

[chloe]

Here is a thought: let the Israelis stand on their own. They want to be a country, let them take care of their own business.


Do they not already have enough military hardware, technology, money etc. etc. etc. from us? You realize that the only reason we send this aid to Israel is so whichever party is in charge can secure the Jew vote, right?

I don't know what they have OCA.

I am not well read about war stuff.

Well Ron Paul named his son after that Jew Ayn Rand and he also had a mentor jew economist, but those jews still hate him.

[OCA]

I don't know what they have OCA.

I am not well read about war stuff.

Well Ron Paul named his son after that Jew Ayn Rand and he also had a mentor jew economist, but those jews still hate him.

We send them every time a new budget is announced between 10 and 20 billion and tons of military stuff.

[chloe]

We send them every time a new budget is announced between 10 and 20 billion and tons of military stuff.

Ok.

So the war thing is something we shouldn't worry about?

[OCA]

Ok.

So the war thing is something we shouldn't worry about?

Haven't we worried enough the last 10 years or so? Aren't you tired?

We have massive problems here at home that take precedence unless our direct national interests are threatened.

[fj1200]

If you don't want to open a .PDF document, but want to see truly how nutty this man is, here is the text of his solicitation letter, that went out from the congressman:

Sent out by a congressmen, but sounds like a cheap infomercial

I hope there is another way to track that back to RP because it's utterly laughable and so far I've seen three different RP signatures in this thread and I'll put my Associates Degree in Handwriting Analysis from Dekalb Tech Community College on the line and say that those weren't signed by the same people.

[chloe]

Haven't we worried enough the last 10 years or so? Aren't you tired?

We have massive problems here at home that take precedence unless our direct national interests are threatened.

Yeah well I have thought that but then Military people have said we need to be involved in that stuff and it seemed scary if we weren't.

Thanks for the replies:salute:

[OCA]

Yeah well I have thought that but then Military people have said we need to be involved in that stuff and it seemed scary if we weren't.

Thanks for the replies:salute:

Because when the military is involved in an action they receive a bigger piece of the budget pie. If they had it their way we'd be somewhere involved in something continually.

[fj1200]

Those are absolutely the same sigs.

Insofar as they both say Ron Paul, yes. Other than that doubtful unless you say his signature gets worse as you go back in time.

[Gaffer]

Here is a thought: let the Israelis stand on their own. They want to be a country, let them take care of their own business.

Do they not already have enough military hardware, technology, money etc. etc. etc. from us? You realize that the only reason we send this aid to Israel is so whichever party is in charge can secure the Jew vote, right?

It also obligates Israel to us. We can then restrain them from doing things they want to do that we don't agree with. It works that way with the other countries we give aid to as well. We also keep forward operating bases throughout the world. Ron Paul wants to eliminate these bases and the aid which obligates the other nations to us, which would then allow all the big bad guys in the regions to do as they please.

The quickest way to the next world war is Ron Paul's foreign policies.

[Gaffer]

Haven't we worried enough the last 10 years or so? Aren't you tired?


We have massive problems here at home that take precedence unless our direct national interests are threatened.

Does this mean you agree with Paul's foreign policies?

I'm not tired. We have massive problems here at home because of the dark one. And our national interests are threatened by a number of enemies.

[fj1200]

15 years apart in them signatures. They all look different over the years. Excuse the BG music, turn your speakers down:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/t-UsY1L6v4M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

A Youtube video? The F' you say! :poke: I am surprised a doctor's signature is even legible.

[ConHog]

It also obligates Israel to us. We can then restrain them from doing things they want to do that we don't agree with. It works that way with the other countries we give aid to as well. We also keep forward operating bases throughout the world. Ron Paul wants to eliminate these bases and the aid which obligates the other nations to us, which would then allow all the big bad guys in the regions to do as they please.

The quickest way to the next world war is Ron Paul's foreign policies.

In this day and age I don't think we need quite so many forward bases. Not to say we can just bring our entire military home the way RP suggests. But why do we still have any troops in Korea? Just as an example.

And we have aircraft carriers to project power. One of those pulling up to your shoreline is more than scary enough.

[chloe]

the military thing seems complicated we are in so many places and have all these relationships with other countries and I don't know what would happen if we stopped doing all that.

[fj1200]

This seems to cover the issues more in depth than anything else I've seen (which, granted, hasn't been much). It's from 2008 but I'm not sure what's new from then.

Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters? (http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter)Libertarian movement veterans, and a Paul campaign staffer, say it was "paleolibertarian" strategist Lew Rockwell
Ron Paul doesn't seem to know much about his own newsletters. The libertarian-leaning presidential candidate says he was unaware, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, of the bigoted rhetoric about African Americans and gays that was appearing under his name. He told CNN last week (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6rxts0-f9w)that he still has "no idea" who might have written inflammatory comments such as "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks"—statements he now repudiates. Yet in interviews with reason, a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul—all named the same man as Paul's chief ghostwriter: Ludwig von Mises Institute founder Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr.

...

The tenor of Paul's newsletters changed over the years. The ones published between Paul's return to private life after three full terms in congress (1985) and his Libertarian presidential bid (1988) notably lack inflammatory racial or anti-gay comments. The letters published between Paul's first run for president and his return to Congress in 1996 are another story—replete with claims that Martin Luther King "seduced underage girls and boys," that black protesters should gather "at a food stamp bureau or a crack house" rather than the Statue of Liberty, and that AIDS sufferers "enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."

...

Yet those new supporters, many of whom are first encountering libertarian ideas through the Ron Paul Revolution, deserve a far more frank explanation than the campaign has as yet provided of how their candidate's name ended up atop so many ugly words. Ron Paul may not be a racist, but he became complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists—and taking "moral responsibility" for that now means more than just uttering the phrase. It means openly grappling with his own past—acknowledging who said what, and why. Otherwise he risks damaging not only his own reputation, but that of the philosophy to which he has committed his life.
http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter

[Gaffer]

In this day and age I don't think we need quite so many forward bases. Not to say we can just bring our entire military home the way RP suggests. But why do we still have any troops in Korea? Just as an example.

And we have aircraft carriers to project power. One of those pulling up to your shoreline is more than scary enough.

In response to your Korea question. We have troops there because there was never a treaty signed following that war. It was just a cease fire. Either side could start it up again any time they want. The north has a million troops massed along their border with SK. The US, SK and even the UN is still technically at war with NK.

The forces there are set up in much the way Europe was defended during the cold war. A number of troops are set to be a blocking and delaying force until reenforcements are brought in to begin the counter attack. Carrier groups and assault ships are always drifting around the area too. We also have bases in Japan from which to operate from in case of a NK attack or Chinese aggression, say against Taiwan.

Our presence there also keeps China in check. They're not going to allow NK to do anything that will bring them into a confrontation with us. At least not yet.

[ConHog]

In response to your Korea question. We have troops there because there was never a treaty signed following that war. It was just a cease fire. Either side could start it up again any time they want. The north has a million troops massed along their border with SK. The US, SK and even the UN is still technically at war with NK.

The forces there are set up in much the way Europe was defended during the cold war. A number of troops are set to be a blocking and delaying force until reenforcements are brought in to begin the counter attack. Carrier groups and assault ships are always drifting around the area too. We also have bases in Japan from which to operate from in case of a NK attack or Chinese aggression, say against Taiwan.

Our presence there also keeps China in check. They're not going to allow NK to do anything that will bring them into a confrontation with us. At least not yet.

I understand that, that's kinda my point on Korea, why haven't we brokered a peace after 60 years. I gotta believe China would put pressure on Korea to do so. Of course with a new regime in Pyongyang there really is no telling what he might do, so right now definite is NOT the time to make such a drastic change in policy, even one that should have been done years ago.

[Gaffer]

I understand that, that's kinda my point on Korea, why haven't we brokered a peace after 60 years. I gotta believe China would put pressure on Korea to do so. Of course with a new regime in Pyongyang there really is no telling what he might do, so right now definite is NOT the time to make such a drastic change in policy, even one that should have been done years ago.

I think one of the problems is that NK cannot be trusted. They have reneged on every agreement they have ever made. The new dear leader seems to be even more militant and crazy than his father, from the reports I've read.

[ConHog]

I think one of the problems is that NK cannot be trusted. They have reneged on every agreement they have ever made. The new dear leader seems to be even more militant and crazy than his father, from the reports I've read.

I've read the same thing, Even China is looking at the guy as a nut, that can't be good news for anyone in the world.

So, yes at THIS time Paul's idea of closing bases in that part of the world doesn't seem sensible to me.

[logroller]

Not trying to make excuses for the POTUS; but so often they say one thing when campaigning, then once they assume position, with all the information they are privy to, they change their position. Obama::GITMO for example. Not accusing him of flip-flopping; its just that there is information which few are made aware-- need to know kinda stuff. Hey, sounds great if our country could be isolationist-- hasn't been all hunky dory when done in the past. Its seem rather likely there is more to the decision than the general public is aware, nor can be without compromising national security. Seems insincere to pass judgment on a situation without knowing all the info; so I take campaign promises with pinch of political pepper and dollop of doubt. But at RP's core is a belief in liberty for all; and this is a moral standard which I support. Now, when faced with detractors in a nationwide campaign for one of the highest political positions in the world, he plays the game, dodging/denying etc. Find me someone who doesn't play this game. Romney was above it all until he lost a few primaries; now he's in attack mode. Truth is, if I waited for the candidate I supported 100%, I'd have to run myself. I pick the one who approximates the core foundation of our beliefs, not who stands the best chance of winning.

I have to admit his newsletters are racist, but we live in a prejudiced world, no more blatant than in racism. But, isn't the advancement of colored people racist? 'Oh but its for good' they say; but I would contend, and RP seems to agree, that any policy which considers race, regardless of rather it caters to it, is racist. Indeed; when looking at such policies, in function, we see oppression along racial lines-- which is hardly 'good.' So if believing that, and speaking to the facts which support it make him racist, then so was MLK. He has friends of color who've spoke to the content of his character; that's gotta be worth something.

What I see RP talking about in these newsletters are double-standards; which, when made into policy, provide a disservice to the American people and promulgate racial oppression. My personal fave was the one on black rioters stopping when welfare checks went out-- coincidence??? perhaps, but poignant; and worthy of commentary. Maybe RP is a racist; but it takes one to know one.