Free Markets, Free People

Ron Paul’s past catches up with him — again

This is really old news, however it has surfaced again because Ron Paul is among the top three in polls in Iowa (and in some the top pick).

A direct-mail solicitation for Ron Paul’s political and investment newsletters two decades ago warned of a "coming race war in our big cities" and of a "federal-homosexual cover-up" to play down the impact of AIDS.

The eight-page letter, which appears to carry Paul’s signature at the end, also warns that the U.S. government’s redesign of currency to include different colors – a move aimed at thwarting counterfeiters – actually was part of a plot to allow the government to track Americans using the "new money."

The letter urges readers to subscribe to Paul’s newsletters so that he could "tell you how you can save yourself and your family" from an overbearing government.

The letter’s details emerge at a time when Paul, now a contender for the Republican nomination for president, is under fire over reports that his newsletters contained racist, anti-homosexual and anti-Israel rants.

Reports of the newsletters’ contents have Paul’s campaign scrambling to deny that he wrote the inflammatory articles.

Among other things, the articles called the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. a "world-class philanderer," criticized the U.S. holiday bearing King’s name as "Hate Whitey Day," and said that AIDS sufferers "enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."

As Paul made a campaign stop in Manchester, Iowa, on Thursday, his Iowa chairman, Drew Ivers, repeated Paul’s assertions that he did not write the articles that resurfaced this week in a report in the Weekly Standard magazine.

I have no idea whether or not Paul wrote any of what is in the newsletter or even believes it, however he lent his name to it and, if you believe him, didn’t read that which he gave them permission to use his name on.

Really?  Is that denial supposed to make it okay, even if true? 

Paul, who constantly accuses the other candidates of flip-flopping claims now that he believes none of the above or exactly the opposite of what is said in the newsletters.

I know someone who writes newspaper articles for a politician that are printed under the politician’s name.  I also know that not a single one of them go to press without the politician reading and okaying (and making some edits) to the piece.  Paul wants us to believe he never did that, never took any hand whatsoever in what was basically a solicitation for his business venture.

I’m sorry.  I just don’t buy it.


Twitter: @McQandO

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

26 Responses to Ron Paul’s past catches up with him — again

  • I don’t buy it either. It looks like negligence.

    I also, though, don’t buy Obama’s ludicrous, lame take on why he sat in a church with a racist, leftist pastor for over ten years. And the media seems singularly uninterested in bringing that episode up – in fact, they worked hard to excuse it as “no big deal” back when it happened, and to the best of my knowledge have never revisited it. If Paul is responsible for something that’s probably negligence and lasted a short period, Obama should be raked over the coals in every press event for something in which he actively chose to participate for ten years.

    So I have a bit of disappointment with Paul, but a lot more disgust with our self-appointed “objective” media.

    • @Billy Hollis

      “Obama should be raked over the coals in every press event for something in which he actively chose to participate for ten years.”

      AND which clearly animates his personal philosophy and that of his wife, Shellie, Vicountess of Vacay…

      • @Ragspierre @Billy
        Yet, more importantly, Obama should be raked over the coals for his ‘health care’ reform, crony capitalism, and horrific economic policies.

        • @tkc882 @Ragspierre @Billy It’s hard to criticize Obama when you share Jeremiah Wright’s view that the 9/11 is the fault of US “chickens coming home to roost” foreign policy. Just sayin’.

    • @Billy Hollis “So I have a bit of disappointment with Paul, but a lot more disgust with our self-appointed “objective” media.”

      RE the disparity between the treatment of Obama/Wright & Paul/Rockwell–True, that.

  • I agree. No matter what Paul’s bright spots, it is just crazy to believe that he isn’t responsible (whether knowingly or negligently) for what was printed under his name, which no one is disputing was used with his permission. I think we want our President to be in total control of his image and not permit its use lightly…

  • The point still remains that when it comes to Ron Paul no one, Democrats or Republicans, want to talk about the issues he brings up. So we get this crap instead.

    • @tkc882 No. The guy is a false-flag flying fruitcake. Let him leave his little drive for power, and bring up his ideas…SOME of which have merit…in the larger market-place.

      • @Ragspierre
        Let’s talk about whether or not the US should be the world’s policeman.
        Let’s talk about whether or not the Fed is an enabler of crony capitalism.
        Let’s talk about whether or not the enumerated powers are a limit on federal government.
        Let’s talk about whether or not the debt is sustainable.
        Is this the stuff of fruitcakes?

        Or let’s talk about some news letter from 20 years ago. Was it wrong to lend his name to such inflammatory newsletters. Yes. He has said so and he disavows those views. Yet it is brought up again as a distraction from real issues.

        • @tkc882 It isn’t the dialog, and please don’t pretend it is. That is just disingenuous. (Or didn’t you notice that…? ‘Cause everybody else did.)

          Saying that M. Bachmann hates Muslims is the stuff of fruitcakes.

          Saying the Bush admin collectively chortled as the Twin Towers fell is the stuff of fruitcakes.

          I mean, being VERY charitable…

        • @Ragspierre
          I disagree with Paul on Iraq. As for Bachmann, I won’t be troubled to care about her.

        • @tkc882 Wow. Logical disjunction, Batman!

  • Now, yet again, Paul has pointedly refused to commit to endorsing the eventual GOP nominee and to completely rule out a third party run. Here he is helpfully explaining that after working for months to get the GOP vote, trying to hijack GOP conventions, and using the GOP brand to get himself on national television over a dozen times in debates, there’s really no difference between Republicans and Democrats:

    (video of Paul follows)

    It’s not like he has no pattern here. Good grief, people!, this is who the guy IS…!!!

    • @Ragspierre What can you expect from the guy who quit the Republican Party in 1987 ?
      Yeah. The guy is the political version of the Kardashian sisters.
      About as genuine a Republican as a $3 bill.

      • @Neo_ Mmmmmm…. Kardashian sisters… (spoken like Homer Simpson thinking about bacon-wrapped sticks of butter).

        Merry Christmas!

  • “Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to hold states “accountable” for their education performance…In the free society envisioned by the founders, schools are held accountable to parents, not federal bureaucrats.”
    “Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to hold states “accountable” for their education performance…In the free society envisioned by the founders, schools are held accountable to parents, not federal bureaucrats.”
    “When the federal government spends more each year than it collects in tax revenues, it has three choices: It can raise taxes, print money, or borrow money. While these actions may benefit politicians, all three options are bad for average Americans.”
    Wanna guess who?

  • This is Paul’s last hoorah. He will be retiring soon and that is for the best. I think people are getting bent out of shape for nothing. He was never a serious candidate. He only ran for president to make money, promote books, and to a lesser extent, promote his ideas.

    I will be looking forward to the day when a more stable, and balanced person can promote libertarian ideas on the national scale.

    Even if he does well in Iowa, this is going nowhere.

  • And Holder didn’t know about Fast and Furious.

    Oh well, I always thought Paul was nutz.


    Well. That really does say a great deal.

  • Well, hell…

    Looks like Da Donald may beat old Crazy Ron to third party bid. How ’bout we have a dozen parties and really screw the Republic…!!!

  • I don’t intend to ever vote again and have abstained for over a decade. And, Ron Paul is just another politician, so he is, ultimately, a scumbag.

    But all this name calling, portraying him as crazy, is upside-down and backwards. He is out of step with Republicans on foreign policy, the War on Drugs, monetary policy, and a few other things. But on each one of those, I’d say the establishment is either insane (expecting to get different results for the same idiocy) or evil (collaborating with the Democrat statists to maintain their power). As such, even given his newsletter embarrassments and the like, he’s far more sane and principled than any other candidate or Republican leader.

    Sure, libertarians could find a cleaner candidate (putting aside the whole problem of these elections being anathema to individual rights), but until they do, taking pot shots at Paul while giving Gingrich, Romney, and the other clowns the credit of considering them anything but crazy/evil is just absurd.

  • “Among Republicans and conservatives, there simply aren’t enough people who care whether he’s a racist or not.”

    Frankly, I haven’t taken Paul seriously from the beginning, but let’s get a grip on this. This guy has been running for President so long (only Harold Stassen and Pat Paulsen ran more) and only now our esteemed media have bothered to look at this guys record. It’s better than what they did with Obama, but .. please.