E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
Paul has said that he didn't write part of the bigoted newsletters sent out under his name, but he hasn't said which parts, or who wrote them.
Ron Paul's history of publishing racist, homophobic and conspiratorial newsletters didn't seem to hurt him in the Iowa caucuses, where he surged from the back of the polls to finish in the top three among Republican candidates for president.
Have you read the Paul newsletters? The singer Kelly Clarkson hadn't read them until after she endorsed Paul and some of her fans on Twitter pointed them out to her. Perhaps that's one sign that that public awareness remains low even while some may consider the newsletters "old news."
The largest news organizations arrived late on this story, mostly ignoring it when the newsletters were described in detail in 2008. The story was "rediscovered" around the Christmas holiday as Paul rose in the Iowa opinion polls.
Slate reporter Dave Weigel, who has covered the story for years, summarized this phenomenon derisively as "Ron Paul and extremism: Discover it again, for the first time."
Below are links to the available newsletters and the main coverage, principally in the libertarian magazine Reason, the liberal magazine The New Republic, and Slate. Others have chimed in recently, but these are the essential reading if you want to know what's in the newsletters and how the story has developed.
A few questions for discussion: Have you taken the time to read the newsletter issues that are available? Do they affect your views of Paul? If you're a Paul supporter, how do you factor them into your thinking? Is it sufficient to say, I disavow the parts that you don't like, without explaining why they were sent out under his name, which parts he wrote, and who wrote the rest?
Add your comment below.
Stories by Jamie Kirchick
Jamie Kirchick has led the coverage. Although some of the newsletters had been quoted previously by a Democratic congressional candidate opposing Paul in Texas, he tracked down nearly a full set in archives of extremist literature at the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Not all of those have been published still. Here are links to his coverage, from oldest to newest:
Angry White Man: The bigoted past of Ron Paul, James Kirchick, The New Republic, Jan. 8, 2008
"Whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul’s name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics."
Copies of the Ron Paul newsletters, via The New Republic, Jan. 8, 2008
Selections from Ron Paul newsletters, The New Republic, Jan. 8, 2008
More selections from Ron Paul newsletters, The New Republic, Jan. 14, 2008
A collection of Ron Paul's most incendiary newsletters, The New Republic, Dec. 23, 2011
Examples:
A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” analyzes the Los Angeles riots of 1992: “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. ... What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided.
The June 1990 issue of the Political Report says: “I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”
In an undated solicitation letter for The Ron Paul Investment Letter and the Ron Paul Political Report, Paul writes: "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 our 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 Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica."
Why don't Libertarians care about Paul's bigoted newsletters?, James Kirchick, The New Republic, Dec. 22, 2011
It’s not simply that Paul’s supporters are ignoring the manifest evidence of his moral failings. More fundamentally, their very awareness of such failings is crowded out by the atmosphere of outright fervor that pervades Paul’s candidacy. This is not the fervor of a healthy body politic—this is a less savory type of political devotion, one that escapes the bounds of sober reasoning. Indeed, Paul’s absolutist notion of libertarian rigor has always been coupled with an attraction to fantasies of political apocalypse.
The company Ron Paul keeps, James Kirchick, The Weekly Standard, Dec. 26, 2011
This sordid history would not bear repeating but for the fact that the media love to portray Paul as a truth-telling, antiwar Republican standing up to the “hawkish” conservative establishment. Otherwise, the newsletters, and Paul’s continued failure to name their author, would be mentioned in every story about him, and he would be relegated to the fringe where he belongs. But Paul has escaped the sort of media scrutiny that would bury other political figures
Ron Paul's world, James Kirchick, op-ed piece, The New York Times, Dec. 29, 2011
Of course, it is impossible to know what Ron Paul truly thinks about black or gay people or the other groups so viciously disparaged in his newsletters. What we do know with absolute certainty, however, is that Ron Paul is a paranoid conspiracy theorist who regularly imputes the worst possible motives to the very government he wants to lead.
Stories by Dave Weigel
Dave Weigel has advanced the story repeatedly, first in the libertarian magazine Reason in 2008, and then in articles on Slate.
Who wrote Ron Paul's newsletters?, Julian Sanchez and David Weigel, Reason.com, Jan. 16, 2008
The most detailed description of the strategy came in an essay Rothbard wrote for the January 1992 Rothbard-Rockwell Report, titled "Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement." Lamenting that mainstream intellectuals and opinion leaders were too invested in the status quo to be brought around to a libertarian view, Rothbard pointed to David Duke and Joseph McCarthy as models for an "Outreach to the Rednecks," which would fashion a broad libertarian/paleoconservative coalition by targeting the disaffected working and middle classes.
What if he wins? Imagining a Ron Paul victory in Iowa, Dave Weigel, Slate, Dec. 19, 2011
If Paul wins Iowa, that stops. The conservative press, which has been bored but hostile to Paul all year (just see the National Review’s cover story), will remind its readers that Paul wants to legalize prostitution and narcotics, end aid to Israel (as part of a general no-aid-for-anyone policy), and end unconstitutional programs like Medicare and social security. The liberal press will discover that he’s a John Birch Society supporter who for years published lucrative newsletters studded with racist gunk. In 2008, when the media didn’t take him seriously, Paul was able to get past the newsletter story with a soft-gummed Wolf Blitzer interview. (“Certainly didn't sound like the Ron Paul that I've come to know and our viewers have come to know all this time,” said Blitzer.) This was when Paul was on track to lose every primary. It’ll be different if the man wins Iowa.
The secret origin of Ron Paul's newsletters, Dave Weigel, Slate, Dec. 20, 2011
The political press has rediscovered Ron Paul's wilderness years as a former congressman selling investment and political newsletters. (Classic NYT hed: "Bias in Ron Paul's Newsletters Draws New Attention." From you, guys!) No one has dug for anything new since James Kirchick first investigated the old newsletters, pulling gems -- ostensibly written by Paul -- along the lines of "if you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be," and "opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions." Instead, we're getting some low-heat follow up stories. Calls to Paul's campaign are not returned.
Ron Paul is done talking about the newsletters, Dave Weigel, Slate, Dec. 21, 2011
Video of Paul ending a CNN interview when asked about the newsletters.
Ron Paul is blowing it on the newsletter story, Dave Weigel, Slate, Dec. 22, 2011
News flash: The media doesn't just want to run fun pieces about how great your best ideas are. No one, in any kind of public life, could get away with publishing content under his own name then saying he had no idea who wrote it. He obviously has some idea. Will he have to admit that he's still friends with the people who wrote it? Will he have a story about how he ostracized those people? Either one of those admissions would answer the questions.
Ron Paul on the Trilateral Commission, Dave Weigel, Slate, Dec. 23, 2011
Video from a C-SPAN interview with Ron Paul, when he responds to a caller's question about the Trilateral Commission, riffing on the Federal Reserve, the World Bank, the Rockefeller trilateralists and the oil companies.
Fifteen years ago, Ron Paul wasn't claiming somebody else wrote his newsletters, Dave Weigel, Slate, Dec. 26, 2011
Videos of Paul discussing the newsletter business in 1995.
Ron Paul: I wrote parts of the newsletters, just not those parts, Dave Weigel, Slate, Dec. 29, 2011
This is the most detail Paul's ever provided about the composition of the newsletters. He benefits from the format, and a host not very interested in following up; he savvily argues that the only offensive pieces of the newsletters were the ones that TV hosts et al keep talking about. The less-discussed survivalist talk? He doesn't back off that at all. And he doesn't say who's to blame for any of it, if not him.
Major papers
Larger news organizations recently started to cover the newsletter story as Paul has risen in the polls. One example:
Paul disowns extremists' veiws but doesn't disavow the support, Jim Rutenberg and Serge F. Kovaleski, The New York Times, Dec. 26, 2011
Mr. Paul’s calls for the end of the Federal Reserve system, a cessation of aid to Israel and all other nations and an overall diminishment of government power have natural appeal among far-right, niche political groups. Aides say that much of the support is unsolicited and that it is unfair to overlook the larger number of mainstream voters now backing him.
But a look at the trajectory of Mr. Paul’s career shows that he and his closest political allies either wittingly or unwittingly courted disaffected white voters with extreme views as they sought to forge a movement from the nether region of American politics, where the far right and the far left sometimes converge.
Your thoughts? What role do Paul's newsletters play in the way you view him? Have you read the newsletters? What do you think?
Leave a Comment:
After listening to so-called democrats standing by Ron Paul these last few months, I have to say that it was a real eye opener. These are people who stood up strong for civil rights legislation, for DADT, for DOMA, for women's rights, they were pro-choice, they detested voter suppression, they were pro-The DREAM Act.
Now they are willing to see all these gains and near gains go down the drain because of a smooth talking 76 year old nut. President Obama has made great gains in Afghanistan. There are stories all over the news about the Taliban and how al-Qaeda is just about defeated. How the money is now going to more uprisings across the Middle East instead of being sent to the terrorists. Something I thought would be impossible. I think most of us did.
It's really funny how these so-called progressives could make a million excuses for Ron Paul, but never gave President Obama, a decent honorable man, the time of day. They stood by a racist instead.
Well, Organizing For America will be working hard for President Obama's re-election campaign. The PL can sulk. We don't need them. We don't want them. They have called Obama supporters every name in the book. And that's fine. They're arrogant, they're snobs, they're condescending.
But to stand by Ron Paul and not President Obama is inexcusable.
Its not decent to sign a controversial bill late on new years eve from Hawaii as if you're trying to push it under the rug without anyone seeing. Ron Paul wouldn't do that, and if he had his own corporate media fan club I bet he could put together a better hit piece than this.
Talk about beating a dead horse. He didn't write the newsletters. He wasn't the editor of the newsletters. Case closed.
Give - then he has to publicly disavow them, and say they used his name without approval, etc. It's the same as Rick Perry with the pastor, and similar example after example.
You can wallow in obscurity, and then pretty much anything is fine. But raise your profile enough and then you can't have things both ways anymore. You can try, but usually get crushed doing so.
He has disavowed them and taken "moral" responsibilty for them.
I bet the African Americans in Prison as well as the Latinos are thinking " I wish Sharpton would shut the F@##$k up" because Paul said he would pardon non violent drug offenders!!!! so keep on bashing and Iam sure the Muslim community in America would like them to shut the f@#%k up to
Something else to think about even tho Obama signed the NDAA, it might not take effect now but when Rick or Mitt or some body with a hate for Muslims gets into office the first ones going to Gitmo will be the Black Muslims!!! then Some white and some Latinos as well but going by Obama's record he just wacked the one man who helped the African race in Africa and that was done in Lybia
the greatest invention from the Fascist Media and the Neo Cons and the FED or IMF is the word Political correctness, if you cant get over free thought or free speech you will always be ruled by the IMF and the Fed Iam sorry but you will accept the Christ they give ya, because if you are looking for a spotless lamb from the American public, well iam sorry you are F@#$%ked and they know it!!!
He disavowed and took moral responsibility... ???
So, in other words, he gets to say, "wasn't me" while benefitting from whoever might approve of such messages still seeing them under his name?
Not good enough by a long shot. Libertarians are so familiar with no one paying attention to what they say and do, they sometimes get the false impression they can say and do anything they want without repercussions. Yet that stuff is just lies out there, and whenever one of their smaller race candidates seems to actually threaten either major party, it just gets turned around on the candidate, who in many cases was truly innocent of the things he was just hit with.
Ron Paul can't have this both ways. It went out under his name. Either he approved of it or his name was used without his permission. To say he didn't know what was actually being written, again, under his name, is to make him sound like a boob - which may be worse than being a racist.
Right, Paul, just like Obama disavowed Rev. Wright.
If Ron Paul denies that he wrote some of these, then he probably didn't write some of these. I am sure that all of us change as we mature too. I was raised with an Archie Bunker father and it affected me. However, the more time I had away from my father and as an adult, I changed. People change. It shouldn't be a sin to admit you are wrong and go on. Also, not getting caught does not make you not guilty...
@max&--these are not the youthful indiscretions of an immature young man from a troubled home. Paul's newletters were written when he was in his 40's and 50's--well into middle age. And he is very well-educated and wealthy. You, along with his other supporters and apologists, truly need to understand how you are misinformed--he has NOT admitted he was wrong about anything. He has not apologized. ANd if he does either of thoise things, it will be irrelevant. Have you read the originals? I have. They are full of sickening, inflammatory, and outrageous statements. They are disgustingly homophobic, wildly racist, sexist, xenophobic, paranoid, and stupidly apocolyptic. It is also irrelevant whether or not he personally wrote every word. The "buck stops" with him. He ran the company that wrote them, he distributed them, and he took in money from their sale. What will it take for you to see that he is solely responsible for them? Paul is NOT a Republican, he is not even a true libertarian. He is a filthy, vicious, hate-mongering lunatic. Read the newsletters now. Right now.
The newsletters are minor compared to his Manifesto.
A book WRITTEN by Paul in which he says sexual harassment at work should not be illegal. If you are harassed it is your fault if you don't quit. If you stick around and reject the advances of your boss it is his right to fire you.
From Page 25 of:
Freedom Under Siege
The U.S. Constitution After 200 Years
by Ron Paul
Paul also believes Monopolies are acceptable to accomplish a free market.
From Page 13
Both acts were designed to stop growth crushing monopolies.
He also tries to claim America's Porn industry is involved in Child Porn. Obviously as a ploy to get you revved up.
Page 17
I'm angry now. Because America has a porn industry pumping out child porn our economy is falling apart. Those foreigners are taking our jobs. (end sarcasm)
Problem is child porn doesn't come from the American Porn industry it is either foreign (those guys taking our jobs) or it is done by domestic sicko's that trade and sell images among themselves.
Paul wants to end Government oversights, how would that affect such an industry?
There is so much more in this Manifesto that HE WROTE than is in the newsletters that he can say he didn't write.
The most in-depth investigation into the newsletters I have found so far. It's obvious that Ron Paul is not a racist and we need to stop painting him as such and let America pick a president on issues.
Seriously with this newsletter crap.... They are scared so now they must paint a picture for the 50+ yr old people that just stare at MainStream Media all day and eat it like it's the last oatmeal they will ever get.....
Ron Paul is not a Dictator .. he has stated "Obama care is not my top priority" he is glad we got rid of the jim crow laws and isn't going to even try to mess with the CRA .. Ron Paul wants to go back to having a Bill of Rights.. what is so alarming about that? people think you elect ron paul and education stops existing.. you media zombies are making yourself Nazis while ron paul supporters are Jews.. the amount of Smearing and half truths and just out right lies.. is alarming.. i actually heard an MSM bobble head say Ron Paul supports should be put in camps.. how freaking thick do you have to be.. no one is attacking but OBama ,Mccain,Levin, everyone else that is for the Patriot Act,NDAA.. what good is healthcare if you're rounded up thrown in prison and not a damn thing you can do about it.. get a clue and stop being a "propagandist" tell the TRUTH. remeber the Holocaust happened to people like us.
Iowa was a win for Ron Pauls Cause.
Ron Paul 2012!
Join in our forums and live chat room!
Join in the R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution
These newsletters are quite disturbing, and reflect very negatively on Ron Paul. The Comgressman should not be a top tier candidate. The truth is, he gets many of his votes from Libertarians and Independents, not Republicans.
(Wont hold my breath waiting for MSNBC First Read to say, "Maybe It Is Time to Read Those Racist Hateful Sermons of Rev Wright")
What kind of votes do you need in a general election? Just Republicans? Or do you need mostly Libertarians and Independents? Think it out a little.
Bob, which of Reverend Wright's sermons did Barack Obama write, publish, or endorse?
Poor Bob, you're grasping at straws, when has Rev. Wright run for President? Please tell me what does Rev. Wright have to do with Ron Paul's newsletters or book? Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul are racists and more than likely their immediate families are racists. I would bet that you are probably a little bit racist yourself.
Which parts did you find "disturbing". I'm quite interested to hear your opinion?
I have spent a good amount of time scouring through the alleged rants in these ancient newsletters, and am hard pressed to find an overall message of rascism. The scum media (I was a journalist for years) loves to lead the charge on good men by attacking weak spots in order to bring them down to their pathetic level. Mr. Kirkchick is a homosexual himself, and it is hard to be objective as a crusader.
Sadly, while these are just hurtful yet meaningless opinions aimed at a hillbilly audience, they were not written by the man. Not a single word in Obamas speeches are written by him either. The error is in their company, so I don't take full stock in these statements being straight from the horse's mouth. He should have scrutinized these items or fired his publisher - but Mr Paul has more straight talk and fresh ideas than any of these other corporate-minded goons. He is a supporter of civil rights and individual liberty, so get over yourselves.
First, the President doesn't have time to write all his speeches, however, he does stand behind them. So far, I have yet to hear him disavow his speeches,claim that "it was me- and if it was me, I didn't read it before sending it out and if I did send it out before reading it, its still not my fault since I was just repeating what everyone was thinking at the time.
Ron Paul sez...
(i.e. - Kids and cookie jars) .... It wasn't me. All I did was take the money.... I want to be "your" President now, can't we all just forget about the past? I've already explained it, its not my fault it sounds contrived, convenient, fake - supercilious. I have nothing to apologize for ... it wasn't me.
Bob, we hear all about the Rev. Wright sermons all the time from right wingnut radio. Sean Hannity plays them with alarming regularity. The president in no way has ever done anything that could be construed as racist, or hateful. It has become apparent that president Obama in no way esposes the veiws of Rev. Wright. It is neccessary now for Mr. Paul to convince the American people that he too in no way esposes the kind of bigotry professed in these news letters published in his name. I would hold that he should not be guilty be association, if he can show by his actions and words that he harbors none of the hatred or predjudice contained in these earlier writings.
Ron Paul did not write these statements. If you know anything about Ron Paul or his views, you can see that there is not a racist bone in the man's body. The establishment is running scared right now, and the attack is on. I'd like to see more facts and less distortion of them. Although, I wouldn't expect a lot from the MSM.
Thanks for your comment, Kevin, but facts matter. If you follow the links you'll see that Paul has said he wrote some of the newsletters, and didn't write other parts, but won't say which is which. So for now we have only your word saying that Paul didn't write those statements. It's easy to blame the messenger, but let's stick to what's known here.
The other point, obvious perhaps, is that the newsletters bore his name, he published them, and he profited from them. Even if he didn't write the most inflammatory statements, would you be giving the same pass to your political opponents (Obama? Romney?) if the tables were turned?
Kevin,
Just this week Ron Paul reiterated his argument that we should repeal anti-discrimination laws because through them "it's the government that causes so much of the racial tensions". I'm sorry, but whether or not Paul himself is a racist, that's the same argument that racists have been using to oppose civil rights in this country for the last half century, probably longer.
Maybe Paul really does just take that stance because he is such a staunch champion of personal property rights, but his actual position on this issue is utterly indistinguishable from the racist position, and that's a problem no matter how he justifies it. When you combine that with an apparent history of deliberately pandering for the support of racists, it's even worse.
I work in a virology lab with predominantly Chinese and Indian colleagues and work retail part-time on the weekend with customers being mostly Russian, Mexican, and of middle-eastern descent. We constantly hear about "trade-war" with China, outsourcing to India, illegal immigration from Mexico, and how threatening basically every Muslim country is to our national security. The whole national mentality is that its their fault and we must fix them with a fence, sanctions, covert activity, or with bombs. Our current policies and considerations promote racism among us and I can feel it more among my peers every day. To say Ron Paul "deliberately panders" to racists is a strong statement that contradicts the most anti-racist platform of all the candidates in my view.
Politics aside; actions speak louder than words (on twenty year-old typed newsletters) any day in my book.
Kevin==Even if Paul did not write these newsletters, they are under his name. Why didn't Ron Paul at least read them? I don't think Paul is stupid, but something is wrong if he did not read them. I feel Paul is a racist and his son is a racist also.
Sorry Sue, Dr. Paul was busy being a DOCTOR when those newsletters were written. Was he careless? Yes. He should have read what was going out in those letters.
The man who would be King (President?)....
Correction: Ron Paul claims he did notwrite the letters, although they were publised under his letterhead and found it unecessary to identify the author.
It has been suggested that through analysis of text, writings, vocabulary that it is highly unlikely that anyone other than Ron Paul was the author. These are the same scholars and academics who are brought in when unsigned, unattributed or works written under alias/pen name are resolved to their proper sources.
Unless unequivocal proof is provided; documented evidence the attributed author was physically unable to write, not physically in the vicinity or dead... its difficult to believe Ron Paul was NOT author.
Hand writing analysis is just as effective in discovering who is the author (of text writings).The can tell likely eduction level, geographic birth location, areas which influenced speech patterns and writing styles - to determine profile of the author. Just like they did with the Uni bomber - a few years back.
Another Doctor of the times... Dr. Shockley, Nobel laureate was similarly "Un - Fair and un - Balanced". His views were also very similar based on Eugenic theories.
Its funny - when you supress people based on race, its because they don't deserve better and don't appreciate the finer things. But when you take things from them without fear of consequences - its for the good of the Nation.
Beowolf
After analysis of the text in questioned it was found that it was highly unlikely that he was the author. You had it backwards in your post.
Don't be lazy...I 've read some of your comments, you have potential... you can do better that this? People seem to have faith you.
Be all you can be!
I'm tired. I'll try harder tomorrow.
RON PAUL 2012
You didn't mention the head of the NAACP supporting Paul, or any substantial opposing argument for that matter.
This isn't news.
Also you mentioned the walking away from the interview...but he didn't. This was a made up story caused by editing out part of the video. The media is trying to smear Ron Paul and this was one of the best examples.
(Uncut) www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLonnC_ZWQ0
If that is true, then it should e fairly obvious that not all black people are the same. You wrongly assume that "Blacks" are a monolithic entity.
Isn 't that what racism, bias are based on - that you can categorize an entire race based on a few individuals? The crack-head you see on the street, the shopping cart crazy are no more a Representative of "Blacks" as is that same individual or welfare mom with 10 kids, each a different father - if they were of "Whites", "Indians" or "Mexicans" persuasion. Not all politicians are corrupt - it just seems like they are when lump "government politicians" in one box... regardless whether they are state, city, county, National. As a group - it seems like they are all bad, except when you stop to realize the - someone voted for them.
Why does Ron Paul, in your view of reality, get a free pass? At some point he was "IN" the Federal government and he sure is fighting hard to get back on the gravy train, right?
@Beoweolf - And it seems most people assume that all white people are racist. Most wrongly assume that "Whites" are a monolithic entity.
And really, it is not so much that Paul gets a free pass. I think there are several factors involved here and it is quite complicated. It is perfectly legitimate to not like Paul because of his oversight (or active involvement and profit from - profited from paranoid bigots mind you, not that that would be right either, right?) It is perfectly acceptable for people to jump the gun ready to assist in the distortions and misrepresentation of Dr. Paul. Granted, what was written was not politically correct; some could be seen as taken out of context, but others yeah, bad.
Not to go on twenty hours about this, but compared to the sheer numbers of problems our nation has, and the world for that matter; compared to the two-party duopoly that divides and tries to conquer us all physically, morally, and mentally; compared to the billions spent on bailouts (to banks and corporations to pay for their gambling problem), trillions on wars; compared to the money John Corzine has taken, the money Halliburton charges our troops for meals, the money and power Goldman Sachs has over this administration, over Romney, and over Europe, Compared to the Patriot Act, NDAA, SOPA (Obamanoids and Bu@!$%#es both love those Civil Liberty crushing legislations, RIGHT?); compared to the lip service and voting track record of every other person running (including the President); compared to the New Age Prohibition creates crimes and criminals where they would not exist, which causes racial inequalities (Ron Paul points out, this was done intentionally, most of his comments are “Stewart” like in their sarcasm – i.e. “BECAUSE of the Justice System… we can assume most Blacks are criminals.” Not an insult to Blacks, it was condemnation of the system. You DID read the newsletters, right?); compared to the rancor, current low moral, and cynicism in politics; compared to the Doctor’s stanch stance for civil liberties (for everyone) verses what the Establishment Republicans or Establishment Democrats want you to think your rights are and where they come from; compared to all these issues and the problems that we have in this time and history, AND because Ron Paul has vast knowledge and experience with financial, health, and military service… that is why a few newsletters do not matter as much.
So will Romney, Gingrich, Obama, or Clinton strike down the Patriot Act, NDAA, and SOPA? Will Romney, Gingrich, Obama, or Clinton close Gitmo? Will Romney, Gingrich, Obama, or Clinton balance the budget? Will Romney, Gingrich, Obama, or Clinton keep Americans safe without breaking the bank like a Soviet going out of style? Will Romney, Gingrich, Obama, or Clinton protect your civil liberties… the last one I will tell you the answer is NO. And even though Obama said that he “won’t detain Americans without trial” (has already killed Americans without trial) means everything will be okay as long as he stays President forever, right?
The thing I think is not so much “Why do you stupid people support a racist like Ron Paul?” (Which is much like saying to Obama supporters “Why do you support criminals like Obama, Corzine, Holder, ect.?” It’s a Legitimate question.) The sticky wicket here is will a few slurs prevent you from shaking off the shackles the establishment puts on us all? (Perhaps the worst thing is he used words, freedom of speech under fire? Stop Gansta Rap then? Rock and Roll music? Burn Books? Offensive speech and those that use it must be destroyed, right? Much like a non-violent drug user busted and put into prison for a few years, gets out and can’t get a job because of his “past”, right? May be a good person, but HE DOES DRUUUUUGZZZ!!)
Okay, my point, and I think most Paul supporters do make the case, maybe from different perspectives and outlooks on life (not monolithic), that is destroying Paul, even by a few words that really have no effect on your life other than what you allow it to have verses all the issues we have going on, are you willing to give up on America just to satisfy some macabre modern witch-hunt? The modern scarlet letter “R”!! Do you think for one moment that Dr. Paul would approve the NDAA like Obama (and most of congress and all but 7 in the Senate – Rand Paul being one who voted against it… the ONLY Republican on the Senate BTW) betrayed America with (and lied about, “I won’t sign it” NOW “I won’t use it”)? Do you think Paul would go to war (and bomb brown, black, white, ect…) under the “suspicion” of whatever danger is needed to menace the American people into going the way the establishment wants? Do you really think Dr. Paul will allow the Fed to steal money from the American people and give it to the international Banks who were the creators of the debt? Really? If you know his record and why he is called Dr. No, then you might understand. Personally I think so many people have internalized the status quo so much that real chace is too scary, so they pretend there is change (from POTUS to POTUS) with no real substance behind the fact that they will. The system does not like Paul, and if he was a Racist they might be a little more forthcoming with him on his ideas. The fact is, Paul has been one of the few people actually fighting to set ALL of use free since we have become all slaves “equally”.
Maybe that isn’t enough for some, and we do have some freedoms as of now to express ourselves in any way we choose, his supporters do want to know more, the problem is time is short and we don’t have time to mess with something that is so minor compared to the breath of problems we have with the system itself and the Republicans and Democrats.
One more thing to all this; many people who some call “Conspiracy Theorists” are much like the article was talking about with the newsletters. Some people it is old hat, some people just haven’t done their research. Stuff like Skull and Bones, Bohemian Grove, and a plan for a global government are all real, researchable and to “Conspiracy Theorists”, old hat. Get caught up. Not everyone has it right, most people want to blame a single group or race. Understandable when people are trying to put together pieces that are intentionally hidden in plain sight. I don’t believe in a “Catholic Conspiracy” or a “Jewish Conspiracy” or anything like that, but it isn’t like we have has a Republican NAACP Debate or a LULAC Republican Debate (both of which I would just LOVE to see) but we did have a Jewish Coalition Debate, right? And the establishment (both left and right) have a fetish for Israel while most of our “leaders” (suppose to be servants) sound just like the radicals that hate “us”.
Please excuse me if I do not make the case and that I may be all over the map here. The point is how do you weight this all? Trust the people who have lied over and over and over and over and over… or try a new message, although from an imperfect messenger, but it is a perfect message. That the individual (that is you and me) are sovereign (not the State, not the Nation – we allow those entities to represent our sovereignty). Freedom is dangerous, freedom can be offensive, but freedom is liberty and liberty (and the constant striving for) is our destiny and our legacy.
It makes me think of Malcolm X, early on he was a quite the racist, although fought for liberty, towards the end of his life he realized the
...manipulation of the system and how racism is destructive no matter the reasons for it or how justified you may be in feeling that way. But the moment he started being more inclusive and breaking though the barriers of race (that the system love to exploit *hint hint*) what happened to him? He was killed. MLK fought for liberty for all (not just blacks) and he tried to be inclusive for all and was demonized and then killed when they could not control him (the bad stuff about MLK in the newsletters were the same as the FBI reports used to slander MLK at the time, the system hated him – see how LBJ thought about blacks but what did he do? Think about it..). Once you realize what side Ron Paul really is on, after seeing what HE has actually said and done in the cause for liberty for all, then maybe you might understand that he is not the threat. In fact, considering Ron Paul a threat to liberty is the biggest conspiracy I have ever heard.
We do not choose Ron Paul out of ignorance, or even our of blind devotion, we choose Ron Paul because he has been the only one in our modern times working to preserve our constitutional rights (regardless of sex, creed, color, ect…) , he does what he says and who else does that. He is humble and does not want to rule our lives. I won’t make excuses for his lack of oversight in the newsletter issue although it is not the full story of Paul. That in no way means he is not the man we need at this time to defeat the “Man”. The irony for some is just too much when put into contrast with the newsletters, without the newsletters what does the media have on him?…. Nothing.
You missed the whole message which Malcolm X died in trying to teach, embrace. in his early years he was a criminal, before he became an activist. It often takes life altering situations to plant the seed for an epiphany of the spirit to be revealed and received.
You don't get out much - do you?
Read more of how Malcolm X was introduced to the times in which he lived, before using the common blanket racist term on his time spent with the home grown Muslim movement in the USA. Though it was a bit fanatical, I never heard of them going out of their way to wage war against anyone. their goals were self sufficiency, honesty in dealing with even their enemies. they held their membership to a much higher standard than they expected from "whites" in general or the Authorities in specific. Historically there is document proof that the FBI and local, state authorities attempted to infiltrate their ranks and ferment militancy... and failed.
At worse, Malcolm X was an early advocate of blacks taking responsibility for their own destiny. For that he was labelled as a racist. Not having blacks understand and accept their "Place" in American society was dangerous, rebellious and surely would lead to the disintegration of America, or so it was thought.
The reality was, as pointed out by Malcolm X - the United states was NOT and never had been integrated in the first place. during his time in the limelight ... lynching and mob actions were still an acceptable practice in the North as well as the south.
His hajji, pilgrimage to Mecca showed that it was possible to not so much overcome racism as to move past reacting to it with violence against violence. His message, upon returning from hajji was universal in allowing the fear of black enfranchisement, in the USA, to be developed without looking for acceptance... rather to build a base starting from Now with as little reliance on the generosity of the same forces who had participated in the systematic abuse as possible. For that - he was killed. Violence was a tools which has a place in any movement which changes or challenges the status quo... but long term it cuts the wielder of the sword as much as it does his enemies.
You really need to understand the man before assigning him the label of racist, fanatic or violent. At his best, if you read his writings - he used wit, humor and deadly observation to point out the foibles of those who insisted that he was causing problems by inciting violence when in fact he was merely pointing out the policies and laws of the authorities were unfair and applied unevenly.... that was the root cause.
Today, we see he fruition of his prophacy. The occupy movement shows that once every one is abused in in the same was as blacks of the 50's , 60's and 70's were ... the house of cards would start to fall.
In my opinion - that is the begining of a Universal message, not racism. Reactionary groups - like the teabaggers ... agree - they want their country back, back like it was - in the 50's, 60's and 70's. A chicken in every pot a car in every garage and everything in its proper place.
There wasn't much difference between Rev. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X... (in the bigger picture)... other than Dr. King was safe, non-confrontational - willing too allow the system to work at its own pace.
But in the end - he was killed too. So the issue isn't the message or how it is delivered. Its the fact that idea is dangerous to those who want consumers. Quiet, docile - accommodating consumers who will buy what is being sold and like it.
Bottom line: Ron Paul has a lot to explain and he refuses to even acknowledge he should be questioned on it.
This, despite the camoflage and misdirection is not about gays, females, asians, whites, latinos, blacks, workers, managers, borrowers, lenders or religion ... its about the quality of the mind of a man running for (slim) chance to become the President of the United States Of America (not just his chosen Parts of the United States) and whether he is willing to respect the diversity of those who occupy this country (legally).
The reason these didn't effect his votes or support in Iowa is simply OLD NEWS! He has given all the answers he needs to give and has given them over and over for ten years. Dr Paul is correct and this is all you have to hit him with and he isn't playing, which is pissin you media types off.
Come up with something new, all this does is pander to the people that already do not like Dr Paul, Kelley Clarkson said she was told of them, read about them, and that his explanations and the support that he gets from Black people is good enough proof for her.
Why don't you talk about the fact that when a couple of thousand of her "Liberal" fans slammed her on twitter and a few other places, her current album which was residing at #41 on Amazon, went #1 OVERNIGHT! 1500% increase in sales, again OVERNIGHT!
Selective reporting to express an opinion or slant a discussion is not going to be accepted by the intelligent citizens of this country any more. MSM needs to get a clue.
Mr Dedman,
You make a little statement that Dr Paul should disavow the support that some organizations give him. Organizations in which he has no control of what they say or do? Correct?
Let me respond this way, when all the other candidates disavow the support they get from "Fringe" elements in society, then you just might have something to express a valid opinion on, until such times it's is not a valid argument unless you expect the president to publically renounce and give up the support he gets from organizations like this...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPzZ2hHewIE
sandrarose.com/2010/07/obama-protects-black-panther-who-said-you-gonna-have-to-kill-some-crackers/
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/13/kill-the-crackers/
www.breitbart.tv/panther-leader-shabazz-on-whether-he-supports-killing-white-babies-not-in-that-context/
You want to continue with the renouncing support argument? Lets see Obama do it first, hey that is an opportunity to LEAD BY EXAMPLE! (but it is also political suicide and you know it is)
Google "Handbook of Human Ownership"
He stands by his 1987 remarks about sexual harrassment in the workplace (the woman should quit, not discourage/discipline the harassing person). He allowed the newsletters in the same time frame as that statement to be distributed with all of those inflammatory remarks under his name.
He can't wave it away as immaterial or irrelevant.
Mr. Dedman,
You and your Dinosaur "Whore" mainstream MSNBC Rag, have lost all credibility with the majority of the American People. Your article mainly consists of rubbish and propaganda. I am however at a loss, as to why an educated person such as yourself, would write such nonsensical garbage. Many of us are aware of MSNBC's close relationship to the NWO, and your psy-op, of smoke and mirrors to the American People. Please keep in mind, many of us are AWAKE and fully understand your twisted NWO Agenda. Ciao
"Many of us are aware of MSNBC's close relationship to the NWO". Another Teabagging Republican heard from.
Cue the theme music from The Twilight Zone.
Iowans seem to LIKE racist bigots. Look at Rick Santorum's showing.
The newsletters were "rediscovered" by John Lord of the American Spectator and Sean Hannity after Paul shot to the top of the polls because fake, neo-conservatives hate peace and truth.
Even if one were to hold these newsletters against Paul, doesn't Paul earn back some credit for not hating Muslims by calling everyone in the Middle East a potential terrorist?
Is publishing a few stupid words in newsletters which nobody read a worse sin than authorizing assassinations and indefinite detentions of American citizens without a trial? I don't think so.
Ron Paul NOT Presidential at all, and his newsletters are not what a true American would say. His intolerance has NO place in our culture, our society, and in our political system. He has just earned his new nickname. "Ronny The Rascist." Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! The Party Of NO has got to go!
Whoever wrote em, evidence and comman sense indicates they are either true or a legitimate opinon. I am sooo F-ing sick of the idiot retort of "racist bigot" to anything that makes the weak minded feel butthurt. I have more confidence in Aljazzera and Russia Today for news that MSNBC , Foxnews or any other US network news.
Yeah unthinking people like you make me ill. You're programed ,garbage in garbage out.
One more thought,
I bet you cant guess what Ron Paul has done for the African American community that has not been done by any American Congressional figure in years since JFK or MLK.
RON PAUL recognizes the African American as a Citizen of the UNITED STATES, a Sovereign Citizen not a FED 14th Amendment Citizen but A Sovereign American Citizen!, if you think Iam wrong check out his views on States Rights etc. (Ron Paul is not a collectivist, therefore he is Anti Federal and anti Lincoln, who never acknowledge the right of Africans as a Citizen!!!)
See that is what Ron Paul is trying to tell the African Community!! States Rights is for the African as well, African American Sovereignty as an Individual should be worth more than a collective whole govern by the Federal Government!!! Liberty is not Just for the Whites Iam sure African Americans would love it to!! Do not be played by the FED and IMF, or the NEO Cons!!! The Federalist loved the Central Government because it collected the whole!! anybody speaking of the The Bill of Rights or Individual Liberty is an Enemy to the FED
The sense I get from the rainbow of ideologies and front men for the Right Wing is, if the Left one don't getcha then the Right one will...That is, since this entire primary is a farce, as there's nothing left to steal and the problems wrought by Dubya are too profound to entertain the paper thin deep intellects of any of them, save perhaps Huntsman,( and he doesn't seem to have got the "take a dive" notice, possibly some 3G problem); what they are displaying is a full retinue of conceivable deviations among possible Republican voters, covering all their bases from the ersatz rebelliousness of Paul, recently denuded of its grandeur through the above reflections on his past, and the quasi intellectual Huntsman, l through the various forms of bigotry represented by Bachmann, (gays, with the exception of her well-closeted husband) Perry (Atheists), Cain (the token Black, for what it's been worth, who detests the Poor) to the bully Gingrich( who just hates Democrats or anyone who gets in his way), and finally the Tall enough to stand eye to eye with Obama in a debate (we have a winner!) even though he's a milk toast, Romney....who doesn't hate anything in particular, unless you want him to. They are hoping whoever gets the nomination will drag the other's fans reluctantly into whatever fold prevails, 'falling in line' as I've heard quoted. Unfortunately enough are 'in love' with Obama to thwart this connivance, but they knew that. They don't expect, don't really want, to win. They're just raking in bucks and a very motley constituency for the future, and God help us all, they will be back...you see, they've got all that money...they can wait.
But of course it was OK for our new Supreme Court Justice to say, 5 or 6 times, that a wise latina woman would make better decisions as a judge than a white male. No problem there.
well people you can A. believe something that the Media says and take their side on the issue B. Believe what they say and still take his side
Hey he might not even be responsible and even if he is he knows that he can't have his way and even the most modest and tolerant people in the world will look at somebody differently for physical appearance or other traits.
As for this effecting him if he is president i doubt it the only thing to worry about is the corporate pay offs goverment scandels and the billions maybe over a trillion dollars being pretty much being stolen from the lower and middle class. now as for the wefare situation how it was stated was bad but everyone knows it is a good thing that someone is going to address the problem of the welfare system for those of all backgrounds. as for ending backing of Israel and other places thats another great thing but the thing that needs to be stated is his veiws on business because well its ingrown into the the brain of our govt. and that needs to be fixed if you want to fix the issue of our economy,poverty, the wealth slope....well make it so it is a viable wealth slope again and a cliff dive.
-Theron
I hope I'm not simply repeating myself but I'm not sure I was correctly registered for my previous comments.
When can we have someone at least mildly normal run for President? I'd like to see a politician refrain from demonizing his opponents. Why can't we have a Republican recognize that Obama has done some things right? Bin Ladin is dead;Libya went pretty well.
Why won't the Democrats recognize that Obama's use of conventional wisdom to rejuvenate the economy is not working? His social engineering beliefs are simply wrong. To say that the rich don't pay enough is one thing but to endear himself to voters that don't pay any income tax by saying the rich need to pay their fair share is inflammatory. Does the word fair mean nothing?
It seems everyone likes some of the things Ron Paul says but then he acts as though a wall between the U.S. and Mexico will be used to keep Americans from fleeing into the failing state of Mexico? He is out of touch with reality because you can't take every thread of logic and follow it to an inappropriate conclusion.
Romney must have business skills but can he navigate our complicated federal system? We have to face the fact that if he is a devout Mormon his belief system is definitely odd, mystical and hard to take seriously. We all know some fantastic Mormon people, don't get me wrong, but wow they have some wierd beliefs.
Santorum has some good points but he is very dogmatic and hyper-religious. And let's bow out of the right to life arguments at the Presidential level. I believe in the sanctity of life but I also can never need an abortion and I can't get behind legislating against young single women faced with that choice. Isn't having to live with that punishment enough? Not that I think right-to-lifers should have to pay for the abortion but the issue is way out of line for Presidential politics.
Gingrich comes off like an intelligent guy with a working knowledge of thefederal government but can he remove his emotional responses well enough to be pragmatic?
Perry seems like an overly simple outsider that would likely find himself blocked by more savy politicians in Congress. We don't expect a governor to know immediately how to be President but he seems to think he's past the test for the challenges ahead.
When will we let them be honest and say "I don't know" when they don't know? The President has thousands of appointees and candidates are simply citizens with very limited access to the knowledge they need to make Presidential decisions.
When can we expect more from our system than mob rule voting "what's in it for me?"?
AMEN... in my opinion all candidates should be federally funded at some point, in which anyone can "afford to run for President".... and they all get the same $$$, the same air time on TV, and the same media coverage...
Then take and eliminate the electoral college, and for gosh darn sake find a way to make voting more often (so that major issues) can be voted on by the people.. (then we wouldn't have to trust all the rich politicians are going to do what their constituents want them to do... lord knows lots of politicians have no clue what their average constituent wants looking at some of the dumb things they allow to slide through).. Just picture Joe Plumber as president, and congress filled with mechanics, school teachers, and other average walk of life people..... C-SPAN would get entertaining really quickly..
"Libya went pretty well"
Really? Undeclared, lead from the rear war? Supporting Al Quada in Libya is "doing pretty well?" More black Africans died in the aftermath beacuse of the "rebels" that hated them. This is the problem, people don't look at all sides of any issue. Remember "weeks not months". I mean, if everything is about WORDS people say then Obama AND Bush are two of the worst presidents in history as far as lies, distortions, and deceptions. Sorry, it is true. Patrtiot Act, NDAA, ect...
And no, I will not give Obama any credit, I won't give Bush any credit. Both parties have eaten away at our rights. I would have liked Obama if he was who he sold us he was, but he is not. He has violated the constitution more than Bush ever could. At least Bush went to Congress BEFORE he went to an international body BEFORE he invaded Iraq.
At least Ron Paul TRIES to vote on the side of the Constitution. Really, that is all I care about in a President. If they follow the constitution then we prosper, when we go against it we get into these muddled conversations and nothing gets done.
Lybia went pretty well is definitely in the context of our recent history. The loss of American lives and the cost of nation building is not on my tax bill as of yet.
I'm as ticked off and disappointed as much as the next guy. I wish Reagan would have sent another bomb after that Jackass. I couldn't care less if the Commander in Chief sends in troups when necessary. It's not like we can trust our Senators and Representatives to make timely and sound decisions; I don't feel they give the slightest regard to national matters. It seems to me that they spend thier terms looking for ways to enrich themselves. Why else would they spend so much money to take an office that can not pay back the cost of thier campaigns without the corrupt actions they take?
Thanks for responding, I was out of the state for a few days. Like I said before, Ron Paul says a lot of things everyone likes to hear but his Libertarian point of view is too far off to achieve and if we were going to attempt to transform our country to the world he envisions, we'd have to have someone a lot more grounded than him.
Geesh people.... I don't know if he wrote the letters or not, but he says (for the majority of them and parts of others) that he didn't do it. If I know one thing about Ron Paul he is NOT afraid to speak the truth as he sees it (even if it offends the heck out of others).... That being said if he wrote all those letters I have little doubt he would own up to it and state still today that he has those beliefs.
Now as for the topics they cover about racism etc... Our country has tried so hard NOT to be racist (etc..) that in the process has created a set of laws that encourage and support racism... How... just READ THEM... racism (etc... which is really specific and I'd suggest the term favoritism is more accurate, and will use that term going forward as these things apply not just based on race, but on religion, sexual orientation, and gender as well)...
What do you honestly think our founders would think of laws that specifically state YOU HAVE to give people of another gender, religion, or skin color better odds (perfect example of favoritism) a better chance at getting that job, grant, or college acceptance... The law should be rewritten.. in MUCH simpler and EQUAL terms... It should be that people of ALL gender, religion, skin color etc should have an equal chance... not SLEW things the other way (which assumes that one group of people are the majority).
It's 2012 people.... I'm running business I'm going to hire the BEST person... PERIOD... not based on what the color of their skin is, their religion, or any other category... and ANY business that does that, especially in this economy will NOT be able to be competitive... this is COMMON SENSE (which just doesn't seem very common today)...
VAWA is another PERFECT example... the law is even entitiled to be SPECIFICALLY "Violence against women"... How would the community react to a violence against black people, or violence against christians law.... (Again totally favoritism).... should this not be rewritten into a VIOLENCE AGAINST ANYONE act...
Ron Paul believes all people are equally capable, equally citizens, and should have EQUAL rights.. (without favoritism)... He just isn't afraid to call out the politicians and others who use these (favortism groups) (including race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, wealth etc..) to advance their careers and ideals in an attempt to keep that favoritism alive and well in our nation (which is a sad state of affairs)...
Dan,
I think you are totally correct in recognizing the injustice of affirmative action and I have had that experience in my own life. A chinese friend of mine that mirrored me in school was accepted in the UC system with lower grades and lower SAT scores while I was rejected.
I live in one of the most diverse cities in our country and the idea that we (Americans) have worked hard against racism is just not true. Pakistanis here believe in honor killings for marrying outside of race. Blacks largely have no problems berating white americans (look at the President's preacher). How many Asian or Mexican resturaunts have you been to and seen no other race working there? Native Americans seem to feel justified in hatred for the treatment of their ancestors.
Yes, white americans in my part of the country do recognize the sins of our past but go to rural Louisianna and see what happens to a white girl showing affection to a black boy.
Ron Paul may or may not believe all people are equally capable. I don't believe that non-english speaking say for instance (eastern european) immigrants can do anything a naturally born english speaking american can. They may have equal legal rights but that does not translate to equal abilities.
Also, Ron Paul has a bad habit of taking logical idealogy and following it to an illogical end. I wish many of the things he's for could and would be championed today. He however, doesn't seem to have the wisdom to surround himself with soemone willing to talk him off the ledge so to speak. He often does come off as out of touch with reality. I like a lot of what he says but no way can he be a President.
I appreciate your point of view, I really do, but the way I feel about how hard I've worked to be non-racist is not modeled by minorities I live and work and play with here in Sacramento, CA.
I'm more afraid that the Federal Government will label what we preach in church as "Hate Speech" and put us in jail. I don't care who you are, everyone's racist to some extent. Do you really think Mr. $10,000 bet Mitt Romney doesn't talk like that on the golf course? They all do. Yes, he should have paid more attention to what went out under his name, but other than that, this is old news. Anyhow, how many American Africans would be freed from jail by ending the war on drugs? And how many homosexuals could get married in California? The Federal Government should be out of regulating marriage and social behavior, that's why I voted for Ron Paul.
Nancy,
We are governed by the consent of the governed. Here's a good example: If a hiway patrolman on a motorcycle wearing a sidearm pulls over a woman in front of my house I would not react; If a Hells Angel carrying a gun tries to pull over the same woman in front of my house I would come to my door armed and call the police.
Ron Paul does appeal to the paranoid side of our collective reasoning with his habit of taking idealogy to an unrealistic conclusion. Our world may be a lot better with the Federal Government out of our lives in social decisions but then again, the same rules may just then be enforced by local government.
What of the States that are willing to allow detrimental behavior at the expense of other states? We've seen it before. States that make call centers activity legal as a source of revenue that clearly break the nuisance laws of other states. What's to keep the nation from falling into hurray for me and screw you on the state level. In either camp marriage has to be respected nationally to work so people are free to move from state to state. I'm not weighing in on gay marriage, just recognizing that there needs to be national continuity.
I don't want to seem argumentative but I would like to hear differing opinions to my earlier posts; I'm new at this.
One more thing that I will respond to and wish I would have earlier is another person's post about the $10,000 bet proposed by Mitt Romney.
I don't see Mitt Romney as trying to enrich himself by $10,000 at the expense of Rick Perry. I see him as saying "put up or shut up". Sure they could have reached a less offensive outcome by requiring charitable donations for example; if you're wrong you'll donate to my charity and if I'm wrong I'll donate to yours.
It did show me that Rick Perry was willing to shoot his mouth off as long as he had no consequences provided he was wrong. Putting the dollar amount in perspective; how much did all that air time on national TV cost?
I don't trust Perry. I don't agree with what the nation is currently calling tort reform and Perry acts as though it's the answer.
If corporations and maltreating physicians aren't actually punished by punitive damages they just continue to wrong others with impunity. I believe that if they are held accountable for their wrongs and have to make reparation as decided by a jury; the bad ones will be replaced by more responsible ones.
I was 180 degrees opposed to my current opinion because of my disdain for frivilous lawsuits until I watched a documentary called Hot Coffee on HBO.
As it turns out, when we let offenders off the hook and average people are hit with unaffordable solutions, they simply rely on our governmental safety nets to make up the difference after wiping them out.
I know my opinion is a tangent but this is something of a social experiment for me. Any opinions or education I might afford from another person on this site?
Thanks, Joe
Sounds like the writer was right there when Dr. Paul wrote and signed his drafts and handed them to the pressman for printing.
It seems well known, that Mr. Rockwell authored much of the content in newsletters along with 8-9 other ghost-writers contributing. Dr. Paul only read them occasionally.
The good doctor, at the time of these letters, had returned to his medical practice, on his way, to delivering 4000 babies,was publisher of RP&A, had speaking engagements, co-owned a serious coin-business for 12 years, had other ventures and also was an adviser to Pat Buchanan's campaign.
Dr. Paul could have taken the easy way out and blamed someone at the time, but didn't, probably because as said best by Robin Koerner,"Dr. Paul oozes with integrity".
Most people believe Dr. Paul and some well knowns, such as, CNN's Wolf Blitzer said,"Didn't sound like the Ron Paul I've come to know", or Nelson Linder, president of the Austin, Tx. chapter of the NAACP, who said recently, "Dr. Paul isn't a racist and is being smeared because he's a political threat to the establishment....'TOUCHE'..........
The democratic establishment is going to great lengths to smear Ron Paul. The democratic establishment is very scared of Ron Paul.