I watched the video and I am very impressed with Ron Paul. It is obvious that because he is gaining support that some people are getting very nervous and grasping at straws. I can see an elaborate conspiracy afoot to discredit Ron Paul.

The thing is, people who support him, aren't going to buy into that B.S.

People who support Ron Paul are enlightened and wise enough to ignore the nasty machine that is propaganda.

10 Mind-blowing quotes from Ron Paul as found in his POLITICAL newsletters...You can google them if you like....


Paul's suggestions for renaming New York...Welfaria...Zooville...Rapetown...Dirtburg...Lazyopolis

Paul on former KKK Imperial Wizard David Duke..."Our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom."

Paul on Washington DC..."I think we can assume 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

Paul on the LA riots "Order was only restored in LA when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began."

Paul on homosexuals "Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide."

Paul on aids..."A politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of homosexual lobby that will poison the blood supply."

Paul on Jews..."There are tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to work for the Mossad in their area of expertise."

Paul on the END of Apartheid in South Africa..."It is the destruction of civilization."

Paul on Martin Luther King..."A world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours and seduced underage girls and boys."

Paul on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day..."What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate whitey Day."

Even though Paul insists he did not say these things, they appeared in his POLITICAL newsletters as direct quotes from him...He owned the company who published these newsletters...He had a 20 year working relationship with his chief ghostwriter Lewellyn Rockwell, Jr....He paid himself nearly $1 million dollars a year from his company...In nearly 20 years, Paul never retracted or disputed one word written in newsletters that were published by his company for nearly two decades...He claims he has no idea who wrote these things even though there were only 11 employees (4 of them family members) in his company....He says it doesn't matter because it was so long ago...He says he is not a racist....I wonder, did Paul suddenly have a spiritual awakening?...Or, is he just another politician incapable of truth speak?...

RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT!!

I'm not worried. The guy is a loon and wont win.

I don't care whether he wins or not. But you never know. I am still voting for him!!!

As for him being a "loon" that is not what he looks like to me. He sounds extremely lucid, intelligent and determined.

Go Ron!!

the relevant and political truth should lie in the bills he has sponsored,,,, to be objective,,,

Rick Sincere's take on the issue:
http://ricksincerethoughts.blogspot.com/2008/01/question-was-answered-six-years-ago.html

Why is Jamie Kirchick's story in The New Republic about distasteful passages in newsletters published under Ron Paul's name nearly two decades ago getting so much attention?

Those passages were raised by Dr. Paul's opponent in the congressional election of 1996 and discussed widely at that time. The voters in the 14th District of Texas did not seem perturbed by the revelations.

And in an October 2001 profile in Texas Monthly (not a right-wing publication by any stretch of the imagination), Dr. Paul discussed the newsletters in a straightforward manner with reporter S.C. Gwynne:

Paul's return to congressional politics.... happened in 1996. With Nolan Ryan as his honorary campaign chairman, he entered a bruising Republican primary against incumbent Greg Laughlin, who had switched parties the year before. Paul was now running in a new district, the 14th (he had moved his residence from Lake Jackson to his beach house in Surfside). It was a demographic oddity that connected the Gulf Coast and Central Texas and included the Brazos, Colorado, and Guadalupe lower river basins and the small cities of Victoria, San Marcos, and Freeport. Paul immediately discovered that the electoral ground rules had changed: With the Democrats trying to regain control of the House, which they had lost two [ ] years earlier, and Speaker Newt Gingrich backing Laughlin, whom GOP regulars viewed as the stronger candidate, someone who had run for president on the Libertarian ticket—and who had advocated things like the repeal of federal drug laws and an end to the "so-called drug war"—was now a much bigger and more visible target. "My image was completely different in 1996 than in 1976," Paul says. "You can't just get passed off as an average Republican having done what I did. We got hit hard."

Most of the hitting was on the drug issue, first by Laughlin, whom Paul beat convincingly in a runoff, then by Charles "Lefty" Morris, Paul's opponent in the general election. Morris was certain that Paul's radical views would discredit him with voters. "We just have to get his ideas out, and people will know what he really stands for," Morris said at the time. He ran ads saying that Paul advocated the legalization of illegal drugs, which was not entirely accurate. Though some of Paul's public remarks had suggested that he supported full drug legalization, his official position was (and is) that federal drug laws ought to be repealed: Let the states handle all drug laws. Then Morris' subalterns dug up something even more damaging to Paul: copies of a 1992 newsletter he had published that contained racially tinted remarks.

They caused a minor sensation. In one issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report, which he had published since 1985, he called former U.S. representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist." In another issue, he cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point: "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." And under the headline "Terrorist Update," he wrote: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."

His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.

That controversy ought to have destroyed him. Lefty Morris certainly thought it would, and things looked even bleaker for Paul when the AFL-CIO kicked in with a heavy rotation of anti-Paul ads. That may explain why, even after midnight on Election Day, when the newspapers were all giving the election to Paul, Morris still refused to concede. He simply couldn't believe it.
I would like to highlight something that Gwynne wrote in that article, quoted above:
What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.
This has been the most common reaction in the past few days from people who have known Ron Paul, who have followed his career, and who are familiar with the issues that motivate him and the way he expresses himself.

Let me speak from my own experience as someone who has met Dr. Paul on several occasions, all of which were characterized by civility, politesse, and good humor. I have never seen any evidence from Ron Paul the man that he has a hateful thought or possesses an animus against any group or individual. He, like most libertarians, is focused on ideas, ideas principally aimed at promoting human dignity, individual liberty, and personal responsibility.

Nearly fifteen years ago, I was running for the Virginia House of Delegates (in the 49th District, then completely within Arlington County, one of the most heavily Democratic and liberal districts in the state).

The campaign took place during the period that, according to Kirchick, "Ron Paul" was making derogatory, anti-gay remarks in "his" newsletters. As it happens, I was running as an openly-gay candidate for the Virginia General Assembly. (It was my second run for that office after a previous attempt in a special election in January 1991. The same district currently has an openly-gay Democrat representing it in Richmond.)

During that 1993 campaign, Ron Paul issued a letter on my behalf, soliciting funds from libertarians and votes from constituents. (We sent the letter to both groups.) Dr. Paul (then a former Congressman) was aware I was running as an openly-gay candidate and he raised no questions, concerns, or objections. I hardly think a homophobic bigot would have sent out a fundraising letter over his own signature, endorsing (as the Washington Times stylebook would have it) an "avowed homosexual" for public office.

Did Ron Paul exercise poor judgment in allowing others to publish badly-written newsletter articles under his name? Yes -- and that is something that he acknowledged more than a decade ago, and quite explicitly in that 2001 Texas Monthly article. He has taken responsibility for his error, owned up to it, and did not even beg for forgiveness. In fact, he has reacted to this smear attempt in a cool, evenhanded, and direct manner.

If people want to dredge up the past of politicians, how about paying attention to the way Mike Huckabee has consorted with Christian Reconstructionists, who want to institute a sort of sharia law in the United States that would include the death penalty for adulterers and homosexuals?

I think you'd like his books and articles. Extremely well thought out and articulate. (It's unfortunate that is not as good a speaker as he is a writer)

I actually did some research.

The credits in the newsletters list just 10 people as staff. One is Ron Paul. Two more are his wife and his daughter. Lew Rockwell, Jean McIver, and Mark Elam are three others named. All three either still work for Paul's campaign or were part of the 2008 campaign.

Mark Elam owned the company which printed the newsletter. He was Paul's Texas State Coordinator for the 2008 campaign. He also served as Paul's Congressional Campaign Manager for 11 years.

Lew Rockwell is one of Paul's idea men, and has heavily influenced Paul's economic policy. He served as Paul's Congressional Chief of Staff, a contributing editor to Paul's newsletter, consultant during the 1988 campaign, and vice-chair of Paul's 1992 exploratory committee. Sources close to Ron Paul have claimed he was the chief ghostwriter for Paul's newsletter. He is the founder and former President of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Rockwell, the newsletter's VP, has stated that the newsletter was primarily written by 7 or 8 freelance writers. This would seem contradictory to the staff credits in the newsletters themselves.

(I managed to glean the credits from a partial scan I found online, but I had to magnify the image just to read it.)

Jean McIver has served as an Assistant Congressional Campaign Manager, and was his Texas Field Coordinator in 2008.

This accounts for more than half of the entire listed staff of the newsletter - 6 staffers out of 10.

Ron Paul has never allowed the newsletter archives to be publicly released. This is why it is so difficult to find genuine unaltered copies. However, James Kirchick claims that several copies of the newsletters are publicly available at the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society.

Paul claimed in a 1996 interview for The Dallas Morning News that Charles Morris, his Congressional opponent, had taken quotes from the newsletters out of context. However, Ron Paul has done himself no favors by withholding the newsletter archives from the public. If Ron Paul's assertions are correct, then public release of these archives back in 1996 could have forever cleared him of these allegations. He failed to do so then, and continues to do so today.

Even after the 1996 scandal, the newsletter continued to be published up until 2001 when Ron Paul & Associates was dismantled.

He has never expressed shock or remorse for the statements published, nor did he ever promise to punish those responsible. He has never denied that the remarks appeared in his newsletter. Instead, he has defended the remarks in interviews, making attempts to justify them. When that did not work, he has drawn attention away from the articles, citing his actions and works of his own in an attempt to discredit the newsletter statements which he had previously defended during the interview for The Dallas Morning News.

According to Reason.com, a Libertarian blogging site, Ron Paul was always viewed to have extreme political views which sometimes were at odd with Libertarian values.

Sounds to me as if the Libertarians are trying to distance themselves from Ron Paul at a time when one might think they would rather ride upon the coattails of his recent success. Why would they think his views will drag them down at a time when Ron Paul's star is rising?

Maybe it's because some the articles in question contain allegorical stories - written in the first person - from Ron Paul's personal experiences in Texas, the Air Force, and Congress.

Or maybe it is because allegations that Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul's long time friend, ghostwrote the articles are true.

Either way, the Libertarians must feel that there is some credence in allegations of racism. Otherwise, they shouldn't be so quick to cut ties with their former poster boy. Instead, some of the articles on Reason.com blasting Ron Paul have been written by people who have long known Ron Paul personally, working with him during the 1988 campaign and within the Republican Party. Ron Paul's campaign has responded by attacking writers at Reason.com rather than ignoring their comments, indicating he feels threatened by what Libertarian "insiders" might say.

In conclusion, how can a candidate who asks for full government disclosure refuse to give full disclosure over these articles? It's the pot calling the kettle black.

Ron Paul for president...racist or otherwise he's still not obama, Romney, Perry, Bachman, Gingrich, Palin or any other go with the big business flow politician.

Actually, one of the assertions regarding the articles is that it was a scam to raise money. The more outrageous the articles, the more subscriptions were sold. To the point that subscription sales totaled $940,000 in 1993 alone.

Without disclosure, we won't know whether this is true. Even so, it's a double-edged sword nearly as bad as the statements in the articles.

actionlynx-"Reason" is not a libertarian magazine or website. It is an objectivist mag. They have many thoroughly un-libertarian views, such as pro-war (including aggressive, unconstitutional war). Reason has been denounced by almost every major libertarian scholar, writer, and organization.

"In conclusion, how can a candidate who asks for full government disclosure refuse to give full disclosure over these articles? It's the pot calling the kettle black."

As you see in the article I posted above-

"His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time."

Every person alive is a bit racist in one way or another. We all have our prejudices and we have all made remarks or wrote things that could be criticized for whatever reasons.

If you would compare all of Ron Paul's so-called remarks with some of the things President Bush has actually said in public, I think Bush would win the prize for being the most ridiculous and absurd and racist. But as Ron Paul said, no one has ever heard him say anything of the sort.

Any time a smear campaign is launched against anyone, it is not hard to come up with something. To dig through 15 years of newsletters is totally grasping at straws.

Ron Paul is a force! The powers that control the media have been trying to ignore him. I guess the telephone polls are finding his name pop up more than they would like cause they are sure finding it hard to ignore him lately.

I read that quote long ago. I also read the original news articles from 1996. I also read whatever partial scans of the newsletters I could find. I would like to be able to go to the source rather than read a partial scan, but I can't afford to go to Kansas or Wisconsin to do so.

Mind you, some of those "campaign aides" were amongst the 10 staff credited within the newsletter. In fact, those credits list staff members who had previously worked on the newsletter, giving the dates, but who were no longer part of the staff. So that reduces the number of "active" staff credited since only a total of 10 names were listed.

The more I dig, the more it appears the situation was set up for plausible deniability, including the lack of by-lines within the newsletter.

I am not racist at all.

Ron Paul actually reminds me of Archie Bunker a lot!

Really? Like what? I NEVER have talked about ANYONE negativly because of their skin color. I don't ever judge someone on that.