# Start Here > Ron Paul Forum >  Update from Ben Swann regarding Newsletter-Part II of "Reality Check"

## Tyler_Durden

Not long ago, he tweeted:

"Heard from the TNR reporter James Kirchick this morning. he sent me the name and byline of the writer and the edition. I will share tonight."

----------


## tribute_13

Awesome.

----------


## Austin

So if it isn't Paul.. then why was James sitting on the information the whole time?

I'm expecting it to be Paul's name, but if it isn't... several outlets owe Ron an apology. Still, they will turn it into "So Ron, now that we know who wrote the newsletters, will you continue to associate yourself with [author], or will you disavow him and his views?"

----------


## robertwerden

How come James Kirchick is the only person who has the newsletter? Did he write it? There should be hundreds of copies floating around not to mention the originals that the copies came from. I can't understand how on the whole planet the only person who has this letter is one man with the sole intent on smearing Ron.

----------


## sailingaway

Not necessarily awesome, it feeds the story and now they will keep it in the news cycle more disecting this person's relationship to Ron and to whatever other groups this person might have been connected with.  Right on the eve of New Hampshire.  You don't want to feed media trolls.

----------


## specsaregood

> How come James Kirchick is the only person who has the newsletter? Did he write it? There should be hundreds of copies floating around not to mention the originals that the copies came from. I can't understand how on the whole planet the only person who has this letter is one man with the sole intent on smearing Ron.


IIRC, he went and got the copies from some university library in Kansas? back in 08.

----------


## Tyler_Durden

> Not necessarily awesome, it feeds the story and now they will keep it in the news cycle more disecting this person's relationship to Ron and to whatever other groups this person might have been connected with.  Right on the eve of New Hampshire.  You don't want to feed media trolls.


I'm trying to learn the lay of the land in the forum. Is this thread something I should not post?

----------


## Jester6193

You are right to post it.  Then again, look at MY post count! Don't listen to me .... lol

----------


## Philadelphia76

> I'm trying to learn the lay of the land in the forum. Is this thread something I should not post?


Fine with me. This is something Swann has undertaken on his own and he will report on no matter what- so it's hardly your fault IMHO. I won't speak for Sailingaway- but I think the point is that we shouldn't all automatically assume this is great news for the campaign though. Dr. Paul may be vindicated for direct personal authorship- but if it ends up being someone who continues to be in his inner circle in any way whatsoever- we may well have a "Jeremiah Wright" situation or worse on our hands (of course always good to remember Obama still won nonetheless)...

Frankly, Kirchick remaining silent might well have been the better result here. If he's offering up the name- it's most likely b/c it's potentially damaging to the campaign... and not helpful.

----------


## Apparition

Truth is a double edged sword... a good majority of the draw to Ron Paul is that he speaks truth, and not only when it's convenient.
If the information is out there of who wrote the remarks in question, and it vindicates Ron Paul from authorship, then frankly I want to know.

----------


## Ekrub

Let this story die.

----------


## BLS

If Ron wrote it, or knows who wrote it, then he's the not the guy we all think he is.

This can't hurt; regardless.  Truth is treason in the empire of lies.

----------


## Plague-of-Locutus

I'd rather the issue be resolved to completion.  Sooner rather than later I say, even if it is slightly damaging.   After this blows over it will be a completely non-issue issue.

----------


## sailingaway

> I'm trying to learn the lay of the land in the forum. Is this thread something I should not post?


No, the thread is fine, although I don't know if we actually want to spread this for tactical reason (that is different than raising a hit piece).  I'm just expressing my opinion.  He's a friend, kinda, but he obviously wants to advance his career and finding 'new' info on the 22 year old newsletters will do that because other media will swarm in like screaming carrion birds.  I'm just saying I don't know if we want to push the information when it comes out.

----------


## sailingaway

> Let this story die.


this is how I feel about it too.

----------


## sailingaway

> I'd rather the issue be resolved to completion.  Sooner rather than later I say, even if it is slightly damaging.   After this blows over it will be a completely non-issue issue.


We can do that after Ron's primaries. It isn't about Ron and that is what makes it a story  -- fakely spinning it against Ron.  That is not a story we want.

----------


## ghengis86

Then why didn't James reveal the info and get the media attention Ben will get tonight?  If it would do more damage, wouldn't James want to vindicate himself and say, "ha, look I was right!" rather than someone steal his thunder?  

My guess, there won't be a bombshell name or it is immaterial. The question of true authorship will not be resolved tonight, IMHO. I just wish we could put it to rest already (hers hoping Ben has the info to do that)

----------


## eok321

Well it had to come out at some point.

If its bad news for us we're screwed in NH.

----------


## Dsylexic

agree.kirchik is too much of a media attention hog to let any 'damning evidence' pass.

----------


## sailingaway

> If Ron wrote it, or knows who wrote it, then he's the not the guy we all think he is.
> 
> This can't hurt; regardless.  Truth is treason in the empire of lies.


if he knew who wrote it? I don't think he knows, but I also think he isn't interested in knowing given 10 years had passed by the time he learned of the bad ones.  'Truth' only is interesting to people in tearing Ron down. That kind of 'truth' can come out after the election.

----------


## sailingaway

> Well it had to come out at some point.
> 
> If its bad news for us we're screwed in NH.


I don't think it will be 'bad', I think it will just be NEW and an excuse for new media cycles on it when the story had largely passed.

----------


## jay_dub

> agree.kirchik is too much of a media attention hog to let any 'damning evidence' pass.


I don't think Kirchik is the only one with this info. Other media sources have said they had hard copies and never mentioned RP writing them. If he had, they would have said so. 

The storm is over about this and the consensus is that RP is guilty of lax oversight, if anything. It serves no good purpose to put this back in the spotlight.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I don't think it will be 'bad', I think it will just be NEW and an excuse for new media cycles on it when the story had largely passed.


Yep. That and the timing is important. The media loves to do their smears in the days before an election for maximum effect.

----------


## rp713

i dont think ron's the author. they would have exposed that a long time ago. the fact that they hid the author name in the pdf file proves to me that ron didnt write it. they only wanted everyone to see ron paul's name on the first page. and conveniently cut off the real authors name on the last page at the end of it. the truth shall set you free.

----------


## sailingaway

> i dont think ron's the author. they would have exposed that a long time ago. the fact that they hid the author name in the pdf file proves to me that ron didnt write it. they only wanted everyone to see ron paul's name on the first page. and conveniently cut off the real authors name on the last page at the end of it. the truth shall set you free.


truth just before an election will create a media cycle.

----------


## rp713

> truth just before an election will create a media cycle.


all i can hope for is that this person is in no way connected with ron or isnt currently campaigning with him in some way. if he's not, then ron is innocent completely from this and it will die for good.

----------


## Todd

Good grief you people....

If Ron Paul wrote this himself, then he's just pulled one of the greatest political conjobs on around 30 thousand grassroots supporters on these forums who in my belief are some of the most critically thinking people about our civic duty in the country.

If that's the case, then we are all screwed.

Ron did not write this.

----------


## affa

Lol at the very thought he penned those words.

----------


## LiveForHonortune

They already tried this newsletter garbage four years ago. Why the hell are we still even on this? I hate the media...

----------


## randomname

The Swann/Kirchick exchange is on twitter already... no new news will be reported tonight. The only newsletter with a byline was a Ron Paul Strategy Report which was not the "racist" newsletter about the LA Riots (which does not have a byline), it was just one of 8 newsletters with some un-PC passages. TNR already published it in 2008: hxxp://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/UrbanViolence.pdf

It's old news. Not worth giving any attention to really. Please update the OP with this info.

----------


## Publicani

If Swann is a friend, I question his judgement. Of all possible helpful things to investigate about all candidates he chooses this? Some help. The same way Hannity was "helping." According to him, he was doing it so that later on the democrats wouldn't bring it up.

Also, similar to Hannity, the excuse here is that we are looking at a different angle. "Byline." There are infinite different angles. "Management style" is another example. The last one pulled by Hannity: "I want to run the interview about newsletters, so that you can see that I treated Ron with respect." Aha. That's why you are running it the last hour before caucuses. 

All these angles are excuses to keep this non-story in the news.

----------


## randomname

To summarize, Swann made a mistake in his reporting. He said that only one newsletter had a byline, which is true. He also said the "racist" newsletter had a missing byline, which is untrue. The one "racist" newsletter did not have a byline. The newsletter TNR had already published in 2008 (in post #30) did have a byline, it was some guy called Powell which I doubt Paul was even really associated with.

So no new info, I don't really think this has legs.

----------


## LibertyIn08

> If Swann is a friend, I question his judgement. Of all possible helpful things to investigate about all candidates he chooses this? Some help. The same way Hannity was "helping." According to him, he was doing it so that later on the democrats wouldn't bring it up.
> 
> Also, similar to Hannity, the excuse here is that we are looking at a different angle. "Byline." There are infinite different angles. "Management style" is another example. The last one pulled by Hannity: "I want to run the interview about newsletters, so that you can see that I treated Ron with respect." Aha. That's why you are running it the last hour before caucuses. 
> 
> All these angles are excuses to keep this non-story in the news.


When Ben started research on this it was very much in the news. If he messed up, it is only that it took him too long to get it on the air.

He's been a great ally. Looking at his facebook news feed should confirm that for any doubters.

----------


## ChrisDixon

> When Ben started research on this it was very much in the news. If he messed up, it is only that it took him too long to get it on the air.
> 
> He's been a great ally. Looking at his facebook news feed should confirm that for any doubters.


This.

----------


## nedomedo

> If Swann is a friend, I question his judgement. Of all possible helpful things to investigate about all candidates he chooses this? Some help. The same way Hannity was "helping." According to him, he was doing it so that later on the democrats wouldn't bring it up.
> 
> Also, similar to Hannity, the excuse here is that we are looking at a different angle. "Byline." There are infinite different angles. "Management style" is another example. The last one pulled by Hannity: "I want to run the interview about newsletters, so that you can see that I treated Ron with respect." Aha. That's why you are running it the last hour before caucuses. 
> 
> All these angles are excuses to keep this non-story in the news.


He started working on the report like 2 weeks ago when the issue was hot.

----------


## sailingaway

> If Swann is a friend, I question his judgement. Of all possible helpful things to investigate about all candidates he chooses this? Some help. The same way Hannity was "helping." According to him, he was doing it so that later on the democrats wouldn't bring it up.
> 
> Also, similar to Hannity, the excuse here is that we are looking at a different angle. "Byline." There are infinite different angles. "Management style" is another example. The last one pulled by Hannity: "I want to run the interview about newsletters, so that you can see that I treated Ron with respect." Aha. That's why you are running it the last hour before caucuses. 
> 
> All these angles are excuses to keep this non-story in the news.


He's not THAT much of a friend. I mean, he isn't biased, but he seems objective.  So to him if this is something new, it is a story.  It is just, from our point of view, that the reason it is a story is ONLY because they will keep tying it to Ron. If it was some no one, no one would care.

----------


## agorist ninja

Anyone dissing Ben Swann in this thread is clueless.  Just stop posting.

He's gone above and beyond to fairly report issues pertaining to Ron Paul.  Like it, or not, the newsletters will be a story until the campaign ends.  Ben is doing great, great work by presenting the facts, so people can see that the claims against Dr. Paul are largely baloney.

----------


## Muwahid

> If Swann is a friend, I question his judgement. Of all possible helpful things to investigate about all candidates he chooses this? Some help. The same way Hannity was "helping." According to him, he was doing it so that later on the democrats wouldn't bring it up.
> 
> Also, similar to Hannity, the excuse here is that we are looking at a different angle. "Byline." There are infinite different angles. "Management style" is another example. The last one pulled by Hannity: "I want to run the interview about newsletters, so that you can see that I treated Ron with respect." Aha. That's why you are running it the last hour before caucuses. 
> 
> All these angles are excuses to keep this non-story in the news.


He started this weeks ago when Ron was being slammed for the newsletters on CNN. This is just more ammo to upload to youtube to counter claims, from a credible journalist.

----------


## agorist ninja

> He's not THAT much of a friend. I mean, he isn't biased, but he seems objective.  So to him if this is something new, it is a story.  It is just, from our point of view, that the reason it is a story is ONLY because they will keep tying it to Ron. If it was some no one, no one would care.


I agree that his reporting is objective, not showing favor.  Although the facts tend to be on Ron's side.

But if you look at Ben Swann's personal history, how he was raised, schooled, etc.  It's hard not to think that he doesn't accept the principles of liberty as true.  That sort of upbringing tends to steer a person towards Dr. Paul.

----------


## matt0611

Ben Swann is an ally. He's not biased but you can just tell from his views and the stories that he does that he agrees with Paul on most things. I would be very surprised if he isn't voting for Paul.

----------


## RPit

Anyone dissing Swann is my view is a hypocrite..

You are the one that says media is treating Ron badly. They are bad and they aren't even journalists.

Swann does ACTUAL Journalism. And that is supposed to be bad. For some reason people here just want to hear good things, anything bad turns into immediate 'slander'. 

Why are you concerned if Swann is a friend or not. I personally don't want JOURNALISM to be from the perspective of being a friend. Journalism should be about facts.

Newsletters ARE in the news, have been in the news, and will remain in the news. If a journalist does research on it and presents real journalism without much bias, then you should be happy. It doesn't matter if the matter is about Ron Paul or not.

Instead of being a 'follower' of Ron Paul, you have to step back from and realize this movement about liberty ISN'T about a man.

Real Journalism SHOULD be appreciated. And we do appreciate it. But for some reason when the content is to our disliking we shun it. Get a grip. So long as his piece is in all honesty real journalism, you need to appreciate it. That is way better than what the MSM does.

If you think everything MSM says about Ron should be positive, then I question your wish for 'fair news' 'fair shake'. Seems to be 'fair' in your view means 'pro-Paul'.

News anchors shouldn't base their stories off of 'I'm a friend', it should be about 'this is what is factual'.

Swann is doing a great job as a journalist, and I wished he was on national news channels. Whether the piece is pro or anti-Paul is irrelevant because real journalism is pro-FACT which is what I believe Swann TRIES to accomplish.

----------


## lasenorita

> Swann is doing a great job as a journalist, and I wished he was on national news channels. Whether the piece is pro or anti-Paul is irrelevant because real journalism is pro-FACT which is what I believe Swann TRIES to accomplish.


I agree. I would *love* to watch his segment on my TV. There should definitely be more fact-checking than the news regurgitating that we're being spoon-fed right now. Someone on this forum mentioned before that a real journalist would actually try to figure _who_ wrote the newsletters  rather than lazily attribute them to Paul. Well, this is what Ben Swann is trying to do now.

We need real journalists like Swann to do their jobs accurately and effectively. Journalists are not supposed to be pro-Paul (or anti-Paul or ignore-as-if-he-doesn't-exist-Paul), they're supposed to be pro-Truth and pro-Facts. It just so happens that more often than not, Paul, Truth, and Facts overlap.

----------


## Tyler_Durden

> Anyone dissing Ben Swann in this thread is clueless.  Just stop posting.
> 
> He's gone above and beyond to fairly report issues pertaining to Ron Paul.  Like it, or not, the newsletters will be a story until the campaign ends.  Ben is doing great, great work by presenting the facts, so people can see that the claims against Dr. Paul are largely baloney.


Ben Swann is definitely an ally:

"I consume an enormous amount of news on a daily basis and began to notice how few of the national media would even mention Congressman Pauls name. Regardless of how he was doing in the polls, he was largely ignored by commentators. After the CBS debate where Rep. Paul was only given 89 seconds of time to speak despite polling between 12 and 15 percent at the time compared to Rick Santorum who was polling between 1 and 3 percent nationally but given 5:45 seconds of time, I felt it was time to call out the media on their treatment of the candidate." -- Ben Swann

http://www.examiner.com/independent-...rman-ben-swann 

I even created a FB Fanpage for him: "Ben Swann for Press Secretary 2012" 

I think he has tries to self promote at times, but who cares. It creates a larger audience for his stories....and that's good for Ron Paul.

----------


## torchbearer

the truth will set us free. if only we could get the truth out about the system we live in.

----------


## jmdrake

> So if it isn't Paul.. then why was James sitting on the information the whole time?


You just answered your own question.  It isn't Paul, James wanted to smear Paul, so he sat on the information.  The only question left is why would he release it now?  Maybe he grew a conscience.




> I'm expecting it to be Paul's name, but if it isn't... several outlets owe Ron an apology. Still, they will turn it into "So Ron, now that we know who wrote the newsletters, will you continue to associate yourself with [author], or will you disavow him and his views?"


And Ron Paul's answer to that hypothetical question should be "I already disavowed myself from those particular views many times over.  As for the person, I believe in the Christian principle of forgiveness."

----------


## jmdrake

> No, the thread is fine, although I don't know if we actually want to spread this for tactical reason (that is different than raising a hit piece).  I'm just expressing my opinion.  He's a friend, kinda, but he obviously wants to advance his career and finding 'new' info on the 22 year old newsletters will do that because other media will swarm in like screaming carrion birds.  I'm just saying I don't know if we want to push the information when it comes out.


Well from my perspective *I need this story badly*.  I get asked the newsletter question at least once a week.  Being able to say definitively that Ron Paul definitely did *not* write the newsletters will be very helpful in getting dems in open primary states to consider voting for Paul.  Prior to the latest newsletter scandal I was at about 40% definitely saying yes, 40% saying maybe and 20% saying definitely no.  I haven't tried since then, but sensed it wasn't a good time when I was just playing "defense" on the newsletter issue.  Plus the initial report that < 5% of the newsletters had any racist content at all is *hugely* important for backing up the claim that Dr. Paul likely didn't even know about that particular content.  Hoping this story will just "go away" won't solve the problem.

----------


## brandon

Why is everyone so concerned with what some nobody local news reporter in Ohio is doing? I don't see the significance here.

----------


## Harald

> Ron Paul definitely did not write the newsletters will be very helpful in getting dems in open


But Ron Paul definitely have written articles (on monetary issues) for his newsletters as he himself confirmed. There are very few people arguing that he has written them.

There are two lines of attack:

1. He does not care what is done in his name (did not know, doesn't care, etc)
2. He willfully participated in race baiting and allowed this stuff to be written in his name

#1 needs to be admitted to a degree to be true, thouhg we don't know all the details. Ron Paul did not monitor newsletter himself, his editor was negligent, or complacent and never brough the issue to Ron Paul until it was raised in the election of 1996.

#2 is hard to imagine and probably should be dismissed the same way as the claims that he have written it himself

----------


## Scott_in_PA

It has probably already been said but it needs repeated.

*Ben Swann for press secretary.*

----------


## blamx8

Ben Swann - "After many hours of hard work and sleuthing, I must announce that there were two contributing authors that the writings in question can be attributed to... Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich."

----------


## Immortal Technique

what time does this air, when should it hit their site?

----------


## LibertasPraesidium

poking around on their site and they have news airing at 6pm to 7pm and 10pm to 11pm.  Not sure which show Ben appears on.

----------


## pilby

I don't think we have to wait for Swann to get the answer. It looks to me like Kirchick basically gave the answer on his own Twitter feed hours ago:
https://twitter.com/#!/jkirchick

In reply to Swann's tweet about his report, Kirchick says, "@Fox19BenSwann Wrong. Only newsletter w/byline is tinyurl.com/723jr2s. Special Issue on Race Terrorism had no byline, in 1st person."

Am I missing something?

----------


## QuickZ06

In for truth.

----------


## coffeewithgames

> I don't think we have to wait for Swann to get the answer. It looks to me like Kirchick basically gave the answer on his own Twitter feed hours ago:
> https://twitter.com/#!/jkirchick
> 
> In reply to Swann's tweet about his report, Kirchick says, "@Fox19BenSwann Wrong. Only newsletter w/byline is tinyurl.com/723jr2s. Special Issue on Race Terrorism had no byline, in 1st person."
> 
> Am I missing something?


Unless the real reporter here, Mr. Swann, has more information that we don't know about yet.

----------


## rprprs

> Ben Swann - "After many hours of hard work and sleuthing, I must announce that there were two contributing authors that the writings in question can be attributed to... Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich."


After reading thru this thread, I needed that.  Props and + rep just for wiping the frown off my face.

----------


## ChrisDixon

Maybe this is old news, I don't follow this issue too closely. Just passing it along:

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-726839

----------


## jmdrake

> Why is everyone so concerned with what some nobody local news reporter in Ohio is doing? I don't see the significance here.


Ummm...*because he's helping us!*  I thought that was obvious.

----------


## jmdrake

> It has probably already been said but it needs repeated.
> 
> *Ben Swann for press secretary.*


+rep.  I was about to say that myself.

----------


## lasenorita

> Maybe this is old news, I don't follow this issue too closely. Just passing it along:


_Please_ don't pass it along. It's pure speculation  and more than likely *wrong*.

----------


## jmdrake

> But Ron Paul definitely have written articles (on monetary issues) for his newsletters as he himself confirmed. There are very few people arguing that he has written them.


Yes.  But what is also confirmed is that he didn't write *all* of the content of the newsletters.  That's what's important.




> There are two lines of attack:
> 
> 1. He does not care what is done in his name (did not know, doesn't care, etc)
> 2. He willfully participated in race baiting and allowed this stuff to be written in his name
> 
> #1 needs to be admitted to a degree to be true, thouhg we don't know all the details. Ron Paul did not monitor newsletter himself, his editor was negligent, or complacent and never brough the issue to Ron Paul until it was raised in the election of 1996.
> 
> #2 is hard to imagine and probably should be dismissed the same way as the claims that he have written it himself


On point #1 Ben Swann's analysis is most helpful.  In over 200 newsletters only 9 had any offensive content.  Maybe Ron cared, then grew to trust the people he had writing the newsletters after the first 100 or so were published.

----------


## dbill27

Well this is hitting fb hard now, even tho it's unconfirmed

----------


## Maverick

This dude does actual *investigative* journalism, and I commend him for that. It's a long-lost art that so many so-called journalists seem to have forgotten. These people should look to Swann as an example for how to conduct _real_ journalism.

----------


## sailingaway

> I don't think we have to wait for Swann to get the answer. It looks to me like Kirchick basically gave the answer on his own Twitter feed hours ago:
> https://twitter.com/#!/jkirchick
> 
> In reply to Swann's tweet about his report, Kirchick says, "@Fox19BenSwann Wrong. Only newsletter w/byline is tinyurl.com/723jr2s. Special Issue on Race Terrorism had no byline, in 1st person."
> 
> Am I missing something?


huh.  I don't know. All the more reason to not go off half cocked.

----------


## louisiana4liberty

Anyone heard of this Jim Powell? related?

http://www.powellreport.com/

----------


## nobody's_hero

I urge caution. We need to be 100% certain of who the author is before this thing blows up all over the internet. I really hope Ben Swann verified the sources he was given by Kerchik. 

Some are even saying that the newsletter Ben was given was NOT one with racist remarks. We can't have someone who is innocent getting blamed for the comments (after all, that's what the MSM has been trying to do to Ron Paul, and we have higher standards than that).

----------


## FreeTraveler

Somebody posted the link to that newsletter in one thread or another. It was at TNR, if I remember correctly. I read all 8 pages, no racism, no homophobia, that's not the edition that has the quotes in it. This could backfire if people go off half-cocked.

----------


## pipewerKz

> huh.  I don't know. All the more reason to not go off half cocked.


I think Kirchick means - The only news letter with the byline naming John Powell is the Strategy Guide. The special issue on race and terrorism did not have a byline, hence the author is still unknown. Kirchick is pointing out that it was written in 1st person, which means nothing.

----------


## ChrisDixon

> _Please_ don't pass it along. It's pure speculation  and more than likely *wrong*.


Didn't plan on it. I don't bring up the newsletter issue if I can help it, whether the coverage is positive or not. It's always something better left untouched.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Ben Swann - "After many hours of hard work and sleuthing, I must announce that there were two contributing authors that the writings in question can be attributed to... Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich."


lol, and Barack Obama.

----------


## wgadget

Ron Paul shoulda just had the ghost writer write about blah people. 

 Damn.

----------


## ItsTime

From Ben's twitter right now. Seems like the IReport may have been right.




> CNN ireport, a name and some info about the mystery writer... they pulled it from my twitter page, its all good, full story around 11:30 est

----------


## Tyler_Durden

> From Ben's twitter right now. Seems like the IReport may have been right.


Effing Ben "Swagga" Swann. He shook the tree and it bore fruit!!!!!

----------


## Okie RP fan

So, I am confused. 

What is the official status of all this as of right now? I read part I last night. What's going on and what's it look like is going to be said about the writer?

----------


## sailingaway

I saw that. I'm still waiting until his report, though.

----------


## sailingaway

> So, I am confused. 
> 
> What is the official status of all this as of right now? I read part I last night. What's going on and what's it look like is going to be said about the writer?


We will find out at 11:30 on 'Reality Report'.

----------


## agorist ninja

Confusion abounds.

Still need more info.

----------


## Okie RP fan

Ah, I see. 

I thought there had been some leaked information that wasn't in our favor.

----------


## sailingaway

> Ah, I see. 
> 
> I thought there had been some leaked information that wasn't in our favor.


no we just don't want to start some mad witch hunt on someone when we don't know what the situation is.  The only thing 'not in our favor' is that the topic is going to be raised again.

----------


## Okie RP fan

> no we just don't want to start some mad witch hunt on someone when we don't know what the situation is.  The only thing 'not in our favor' is that the topic is going to be raised again.


True, however, if we finally find out who the author is, then we can successfully put this to rest. People may raise a stink about it and continue to critic Ron for not being more vigilant (which, in all honesty, he should have been), but this is hopefully a break we need.

----------


## angelatc

> It has probably already been said but it needs repeated.
> 
> *Ben Swann for press secretary.*


The Facebook group already exists: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ben-S...42807579112438

----------


## SamuraisWisdom

It's great that they found the author.  But why release the info at 1130pm on a thursday night??

----------


## Okie RP fan

> It's great that they found the author.  But why release the info at 1130pm on a thursday night??


I don't know. And what's up with this ireport and CNN stuff all of the sudden?

----------


## FreeTraveler

Ron may have needed more vigilance, but let's remember there was probably a contract, and ghostwriters generally aren't to be disclosed. There may have been an NDA preventing RP from saying what he knew.

----------


## dbill27

> The Facebook group already exists: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ben-S...42807579112438


Swans cool, but Tom woods is press secretary.

----------


## sailingaway

> True, however, if we finally find out who the author is, then we can successfully put this to rest. People may raise a stink about it and continue to critic Ron for not being more vigilant (which, in all honesty, he should have been), but this is hopefully a break we need.


I'm on the side that says more information just gives the story legs at a bad time. Before a state we have no hope of doing well in, maybe.  Not now.  It is 22 years cold.

----------


## angelatc

> I saw that. I'm still waiting until his report, though.


 You could check the Twitter

----------


## FreeTraveler

> It's great that they found the author. But why release the info at 1130pm on a thursday night??


Because the guy who found it out has a job, and that's when he does his public presentations. Pretty simple, really.

----------


## ghengis86

> It's great that they found the author.  But why release the info at 1130pm on a thursday night??


Not the author of the newsletters in question.

----------


## sailingaway

> Ron may have needed more vigilance, but let's remember there was probably a contract, and ghostwriters generally aren't to be disclosed. There may have been an NDA preventing RP from saying what he knew.


Ron said he didn't know. Someone asked could he find out and he kind of hesitated and said 'maybe', not like he was avoiding it but like he was thinking over whether that might be possible to recreate.  He wasn't closely involved with the management and it was a long time ago.

----------


## Okie RP fan

> I'm on the side that says more information just gives the story legs at a bad time. Before a state we have no hope of doing well in, maybe.  Not now.  It is 22 years cold.


Let's just hope for the best at this point. 

New Hampshire is Tuesday, we need to bust our tails this entire weekend and do what we can in New Hampshire.

----------


## Aden

There has to be other hard copies of these newsletters.  Surely they will tell us who the author is.  I find it hard to believe that only 1 copy exist that some Paul hater has.

----------


## rprprs

The headlines on some of those sites that have already run with this story are almost as bad as the newsletters themselves.

----------


## MaxPower

Now, I would be perfectly happy to see the author(s) of the offensive content outed, but:
1. The fact that Powell wrote some perfectly respectable content for a different Ron Paul-associated newsletter does not demonstrate that he was the author of the _offending_ newsletter-material.
2. The people who go around saying that identifying the ghostwriter(s) in question will "put this to rest for good" are not being realistic at all; the newsletter smear will survive whether or not we confirm the true authorship. There is no way out of it, because the words still appeared in a publication officially affiliated with Ron Paul, and there is no way to provide hard proof Ron Paul did not monitor and approve of the content.

----------


## itsnobody

I'm interested in knowing the truth.

----------


## Korey Kaczynski

================================
CAREFUL WITH THIS INFORMATION PLEASE READ
================================

I don't know how many of you remember Jamie Kirchick from '07, but he's the one who "broke" the newsletter nonsense back then on Reason, I think. He is against Ron Paul and he's also the one who provided this name. He's not our friend. He went asking around communist and neo-nazi websites --  trying to dig up dirt on Ron Paul. Of course the only thing he could find was the newsletters so he went with that.

I hate to say it but I think Ben Swann is being used here.

----------


## xFiFtyOnE

The author is James B Powell.  People have been talkin about it all day.

----------


## xFiFtyOnE

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-726839

----------


## voteliberty

> Now, I would be perfectly happy to see the author(s) of the offensive content outed, but:
> 1. The fact that Powell wrote some perfectly respectable content for a different Ron Paul-associated newsletter does not demonstrate that he was the author of the _offending_ newsletter-material.
> 2. The people who go around saying that identifying the ghostwriter(s) in question will "put this to rest for good" are not being realistic at all; the newsletter smear will survive whether or not we confirm the true authorship. There is no way out of it, because the words still appeared in a publication officially affiliated with Ron Paul, and there is no way to provide hard proof Ron Paul did not monitor and approve of the content.


And?? It's there, it will be talked about, so why not know the truth behind the situation? I want to know the truth. At least this way, those on the fence about the issue can make a more informed opinion about the matter.

----------


## Aden

> http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-726839


  Why not upload the entire newsletter?  How do we know the racist content is inside this letter?  And again, why are we not getting our hands on physical newsletters so we can check for ourselves?  There has to be copies out there.

----------


## svf

http://www.fox19.com/story/16458700/...st-newsletters



> For the first time, I am going to share with you the name of that writer in connection with the article he authored.
> 
> It is a 1993 edition of the Ron Paul Strategy Guide.   The article, is titled "How to Protect Against Urban Violence."  The author, James B. Powell.
> 
> The full 8 pages of his article, match so closely to some of those other so-called "racist newsletters" it is stunning.
> 
> Powell writes about the 1992 riots in L.A., as well as the "holocaust coming to America's urban areas".  He calls California Congresswoman Maxine Waters a militant leader.  The article goes on to talk about how to be self-reliant when well armed gangs move in threaten your home.
> 
> Like the other newsletters, it is not racist per se but certainly could be deemed questionable or insensitive.
> ...

----------


## nobody's_hero

I'd rather disarm this now than have it resurface before an event like super-tuesday. 

But stop spreading that ireport CNN link. We can't jump to conclusions here.

EDIT Well cat's out of the bag.

----------


## sailingaway

The last thing I want is a 'bigger issue' that derails Ron's campaigning right before New Hampshire.....

----------


## ghengis86

> The author is James B Powell.  People have been talkin about it all day.


Not the author of the newsletters in question

----------


## joshnorris14

So is it time to burn Reason to the ground?

----------


## AlexG

Ben Swann deserves a local Emmy or somthing!

----------


## sailingaway

> ================================
> CAREFUL WITH THIS INFORMATION PLEASE READ
> ================================
> 
> I don't know how many of you remember Jamie Kirchick from '07, but he's the one who "broke" the newsletter nonsense back then on Reason, I think. He is against Ron Paul and he's also the one who provided this name. He's not our friend. He went asking around communist and neo-nazi websites --  trying to dig up dirt on Ron Paul. Of course the only thing he could find was the newsletters so he went with that.
> 
> I hate to say it but I think Ben Swann is being used here.


Could be.

----------


## sailingaway

> The author is James B Powell.  People have been talkin about it all day.


all kinds of people 'talk about' Ron in ways that aren't true.  That people are talking isn't sufficient for me to lay this on someone.

----------


## wgadget

Excellent. They're all "racists," and in the scheme of things it doesn't matter.

----------


## xFiFtyOnE

> all kinds of people 'talk about' Ron in ways that aren't true.  That people are talking isn't sufficient for me to lay this on someone.


All the evidence points to Powell.  If it wasn't him then we are back to square one.

----------


## KingNothing

I hope this doesnt end in tears and a lawsuit.

----------


## KingNothing

> All the evidence points to Powell.  If it wasn't him then we are back to square one.


Have you even read the newly discovered nl?

People, wait for information.  Dont force a dead story out.

----------


## xFiFtyOnE

> Have you even read the newly discovered nl?
> 
> People, wait for information.  Dont force a dead story out.


I haven't said anything besides in this forum.

----------


## KingNothing

This could definitely just be a way for Kirchick to stay in the news.

----------


## Publicani

> Anyone dissing Swann is my view is a hypocrite..
> 
> You are the one that says media is treating Ron badly. They are bad and they aren't even journalists.
> 
> Swann does ACTUAL Journalism. And that is supposed to be bad. For some reason people here just want to hear good things, anything bad turns into immediate 'slander'. 
> 
> Why are you concerned if Swann is a friend or not. I personally don't want JOURNALISM to be from the perspective of being a friend. Journalism should be about facts.
> 
> Newsletters ARE in the news, have been in the news, and will remain in the news. If a journalist does research on it and presents real journalism without much bias, then you should be happy. It doesn't matter if the matter is about Ron Paul or not.
> ...


You are right and I was wrong. You convinced me.

----------


## virginiakid

> I'd rather disarm this now than have it resurface before an event like super-tuesday. 
> 
> But stop spreading that ireport CNN link. We can't jump to conclusions here.
> 
> EDIT Well cat's out of the bag.


Just get it over with. That way it's a non issue come general election time.

----------


## virginiakid

> You are right and I was wrong. You convinced me.


I thought Swann did a really good job.

----------


## Brick-in-the-Wall

Personally, Ron Paul $#@!ed up on this. I know it, he knows it, and it's a black spot for the campaign. 

With that said, I want this out in the open. I just want to know who wrote this stuff.

_"B-b-b-but they can bring it back on Paul!"_

You mean like they're already doing? The best thing we can do is show Paul's voting record, personal associations (president Austin NAACP, jews in campaign staff, etc.), and people saying how they've never heard such a thing from him.

I've heard from people like Glenn Beck and others just the past couple of days that he either personally wrote the stories or was editor of the newsletter the time this came out. You can say it's just Glenn Beck but until this is all cleared up, him and others will have ammunition to continue. 

If all of this gets put out into the light, it'll all be known, can be looked at, and can't be twisted around. Right now lies are being spread and it's a "he said, she said" type of deal. The worst that can happen is we find out Ron Paul wrote those things and he has been lying this entire time. If, not saying it's true or it's the case, but if it were true, wouldn't you want to know?

I know some are scared, I am too, but I just want to know the truth of it all. 

If we know the author(s) then we can start moving forward.

Yes, Ron Paul messed up with his newsletters with the racial language. The thing is we know, and have evidence to support, that he doesn't feel that way.

We have direct quotes from Rick Santorum that show him demeaning blacks and homosexuals in very negative ways. We should start digging all of those up and putting them together.

----------


## libertyfan101

This only helps Paul. It proves what he's been saying all along. Not to mention a good case for defamation of character.

----------


## undergroundrr

This guy?

http://www.amazon.com/FDRs-Folly-Roo.../dp/0761501657

----------


## MaxPower

> And?? It's there, it will be talked about, so why not know the truth behind the situation? I want to know the truth. At least this way, those on the fence about the issue can make a more informed opinion about the matter.


"And" I want to calm down people who are anxious to jump the gun and rain down condemnation on this guy, thinking that the "Ron Paul newsletter" attack will disappear forever if only we can pin it on him; we should be cautious before we go around spreading pretty serious allegations that may or may not be true.

----------


## sailingaway

It is here: http://www.fox19.com/story/16458700/...st-newsletters

----------


## FreeTraveler

> http://www.fox19.com/story/16458700/...st-newsletters


So he's got nothing. I'm disappointed in Ben Swann. The newsletter he found the author of contains none of the racist or homophobic quotes from Kirchick.

THIS. PROVES. NOTHING. ZERO. NADA. ZILCH.

----------


## Okie RP fan

I must say, that I've come to this conclusion after some thought: 

Do NOT run away with this like Charlie holding his golden ticket. Let's thank Mr. Swann and quietly move along. He did a great job, but this Kirchik guy is VERY sketchy. Let's all wait and let this play out. When someone brings up the newsletter issue again, calmly suggest that it was this Powell guy, and leave a source, such as Ben Swann's articles he wrote over this stuff. 

But, let's not make any more of an issue of this if it's possible. Just calmly walk away and keep it on the down low unless it's brought up by some people. 

I'm still not 100% convinced that we have nailed this down, in fact, I know we haven't.

----------


## sailingaway

Powell wrote something, Swann thinks the type of language is very like some of the others.  But we know that just writing something in A newsletter doesn't mean you wrote in another.

----------


## zyphex

Let's quit dragging James B. Powell through the mud with no actual evidence because we are mad that the media dragged Ron Paul through the mud without actual evidence. It's sick. Let's not be as twisted as the media, please.

----------


## EBounding

I'm fine with Swann doing this investigation, but the media already accepts that he didn't write them.  The charge now is that he might as well have wrote them because he was the Publisher.  That's not going to change no matter what names come out.

----------


## FreeTraveler

I would not name Powell for any amount of money. The one newsletter with his name on it contains none of the quotes from the Kirchick article. ZERO.

Ben Swann's article tonight does nothing but confuse the issue and possibly tar an innocent man with the same brush that got Dr. Paul.

----------


## Bruno

> It is here: http://www.fox19.com/story/16458700/...st-newsletters


Must read for perspective.

----------


## sailingaway

> Let's quit dragging James B. Powell through the mud with no actual evidence because we are mad that the media dragged Ron Paul through the mud without actual evidence. It's sick. Let's not be as twisted as the media, please.


this^^

----------


## Okie RP fan

> Let's quit dragging James B. Powell through the mud with no actual evidence because we are mad that the media dragged Ron Paul through the mud without actual evidence. It's sick. Let's not be as twisted as the media, please.


Yes, this is probably the safest measure to adopt.

----------


## KingNothing

> I'm fine with Swann doing this investigation, but the media already accepts that he didn't write them.  The charge now is that he might as well have wrote them because he was the Publisher.  That's not going to change no matter what names come out.


Yep!

----------


## FreeTraveler

I don't see any difference between Kirchick and Swann at this point. I am sorely disappointed.

----------


## rprprs

> This guy?
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/FDRs-Folly-Roo.../dp/0761501657


*If* so, then THIS review of the book is of particular note...



> Jim Powell is one tough-minded historian, *willing to let the chips fall where they may*. Thats a rare quality these days, hence more valuable than ever. He lets the history do the talking.
> David Landes, Professor of History Emeritus, Harvard University


I wonder if he'll be so willing now?

----------


## KingNothing

> I would not name Powell for any amount of money. The one newsletter with his name on it contains none of the quotes from the Kirchick article. ZERO.
> 
> Ben Swann's article tonight does nothing but confuse the issue and possibly tar an innocent man with the same brush that got Dr. Paul.


Bingo.  Its sloppy.  Its something a blogger would do.

----------


## sailingaway

there are a LOT of James Powells.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

Wow, Swann ran with this on info from Kirchick?

Do not want

----------


## happyphilter

I hope this guy has more information about the newsletter than we do...

----------


## ghengis86

> Let's quit dragging James B. Powell through the mud with no actual evidence because we are mad that the media dragged Ron Paul through the mud without actual evidence. It's sick. Let's not be as twisted as the media, please.


Yep

----------


## wgadget

I honestly don't see how the newsletters written by someone else 30 years ago are any worse than Gingrich saying Spanish is ghetto language or Santorum talking about Blah people getting white people's money NOW.

----------


## angrydragon

It's just like being the CEO of Pepsi or bestbuy, you're not going to know every single thing that everyone is doing. Ron Paul did take resposibilty though and disavowed the remarks.

----------


## Brick-in-the-Wall

I like how he talked about things from all the other candidates that, I think, are as bad as this issue. 

Ron Paul didn't write or believes in what these newsletters said.

A ghostwriter for Ron Paul's newsletter says most blacks in D.C. are thugs 20 years ago. Santorum makes a remark about most blacks are on welfare and jobless, then denies he said it when there's proof that he did just days ago.

How can anybody look me in the eye with a straight face and say Paul's story is more important than Santorums?

If the media tries to make it that way, we need to be louder than the media.

----------


## EBounding

I don't get why Ben tried to run with this story.  I guess enough people on facebook wanted him to do it so he felt he had to follow through and come up with something.  Just because the Powell wrote something that reads similarly to the unidentified letters isn't evidence at all.  And it's not going to "kill the issue" because the media has Ron guilty for not knowing this was published.

----------


## sailingaway

The Weekly Standard just today was busted on a homophobic email that 'they' sent out.  They said their vetting process broke down, and we are just supposed to be fine with that....

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I honestly don't see how the newsletters written by someone else 30 years ago are any worse than Gingrich saying Spanish is ghetto language or Santorum talking about Blah people getting white people's money NOW.


People are conditioned like Pavlov's dogs to react when the media tells them to react. The media rings the bell, and people react. The conditioning to create the desired reaction has taken place your whole life. They don't ring the bell when it's Gingrich, Santorum or Andrea Mitchell.

----------


## Sublyminal

> I don't get why Ben tried to run with this story.  I guess enough people on facebook wanted him to do it so he felt he had to follow through and come up with something.  Just because the Powell wrote something that reads similarly to the unidentified letters isn't evidence at all.  And it's not going to "kill the issue" because the media has Ron guilty for not knowing this was published.


Yea and Ron Paul can say, I wasn't even the goddamned editor then. Which he wasn't, so it falls on Lew Rockwell.

----------


## Voluntary Man

> True, however, if we finally find out who the author is, then we can successfully put this to rest. People may raise a stink about it and continue to critic Ron for not being more vigilant (which, in all honesty, he should have been), but this is hopefully a break we need.


I'm not 100% sure I agree. 

Ron was Running a medical practice (an obgyn's life isn't exactly 9-5 and golf on Wednesdays...unless you're in the habit of scheduling, inducing, and cutting). He probably allowed someone he trusted (LR) to run the operation -- and acting as proofreader would've defeated the purpose of having someone else run things. 

In retrospect, of course, he got screwed over by someone he trusted. One could argue that, from a business perspective, his editor did a bang up job, but in so doing the Ron Paul franchise was tainted and potentially marginalized. I suspect the first time he realized this was when it was brought up by an opponent, during a congressional campaign. Instead of pointing fingers at any one, though, he took responsibility, if not for the content, at least for not overseeing the content. 

The lesson from this, of course, is "pay close attention to what goes out under your name." The reality, though, is that anyone with a name worth licensing has thousands of things go out under his name that he neither wrote nor read. 

When I was interning for my congressman, I discovered that staffers not only wrote, but also signed, almost all congressional correspondence (and my congressman was no where near as famous as Ron Paul).

----------


## undergroundrr

Well, I think it's nice that SOME name has been put to some of the writing in the newsletters.  And I think that Swann has gotten farther with the story than anybody else.  But this naming of Powell doesn't really indicate anything certain about the authorship of the naughty bits.  Until there's more solid attribution about those, it's as appropriate to praise Powell for his support of Dr. Paul as it would be to condemn him for something we don't know he wrote.

Regardless, why did Kirchick withhold this name?  How many other names are on letters he has/d in his possession?

I honestly think it would help if someone would post an extensive archive of complete letters instead of the paltry few pages from an assortment we've been hand-fed by neocons with an agenda.  The Wordpress collection is frustrating.

----------


## MaxPower

Reading the Powell newsletter, I think it does sound a lot like the writer of the inflammatory newsletter articles, albeit "cleaned up" a bit- the somewhat-paranoid worldview, the fixation on inner-city crime, and the focus on riots, _particularly_ the L.A. riots, are certainly reminiscent of the "Ron Paul Survival Report" articles the media so loves to cite, and much more so than anything Ron Paul has ever written.

----------


## FreeTraveler

> Reading the Powell newsletter, I think it does sound a lot like the writer of the inflammatory newsletter articles, albeit "cleaned up" a bit- the somewhat-paranoid worldview, the fixation on inner-city crime, and the focus on riots, _particularly_ the L.A. riots, are certainly reminiscent of the "Ron Paul Survival Report" articles the media so loves to cite, and much more so than anything Ron Paul has ever written.


None of which is proof. People are running with this because they want it to be true, not because there's any proof it is.

----------


## FreeTraveler

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/fil...anViolence.pdf

There's the link to the newsletter Powell wrote. Read it yourself. All eight pages. None of the racist or homophobic passages Kirchick quoted appear in this newsletter. No proof he wrote the racist or homophobic passages in other newsletters. None.

----------


## J_White

MSM has nearly dropped this story line, and we should too !
focus on the main issues.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

//

----------


## Ranger29860

> http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/fil...anViolence.pdf
> 
> There's the link to the newsletter Powell wrote. Read it yourself. All eight pages. None of the racist or homophobic passages Kirchick quoted appear in this newsletter. No proof he wrote the racist or homophobic passages in other newsletters. None.


This is the special report he is talking about. Notice the last page. http://rpnewsletter.wordpress.com/20...ial-terrorism/

----------


## Paulistinian

That is bull$#@! kid hick cut off the authors name

----------


## FreeTraveler

> This is the special report he is talking about. Notice the last page. http://rpnewsletter.wordpress.com/20...ial-terrorism/





> That is bull$#@! kid hick cut off the authors name


Yes, and it's apparent that it was done deliberately. Wish we could find another copy of that newsletter, it might tell us something. But the one Swann linked to today is of zero value when it comes to finding out who wrote the racist and homophobic passages in other newsletters.

----------


## Ranger29860

> Yes, and it's apparent that it was done deliberately. Wish we could find another copy of that newsletter, it might tell us something. But the one Swann linked to today is of zero value when it comes to finding out who wrote the racist and homophobic passages in other newsletters.



Is the report out yet? cause he said something about the report tonight explaining in detail and in the correct context what this all means.

----------


## FreeTraveler

Yes, see the thread "Reality Check." Swann's report proved nothing, although it did try to slur the author of another of the newsletters by claiming similarities in writing style. Similar to what Kirchick did to Paul. I was extremely disappointed.

----------


## cdc482

I hate to say this, but why does this matter now?
I was all for the guy being revealed a month ago, but the media attacks have ended. What is the value of this now?  None. We're just reopening the issue.
Drop it.

----------


## guyjohn59

The people who are critical of this report haven't been following it. The issue here is that page eight of the June 1992 Special Issue is cut-off at the bottom, where a byline could be. I was hoping Kirchick would provide the rest of that page but instead referred to another newsletter, which he says is the only one with a byline. Then prove it, and show the rest of the other newsletter. There's nothing wrong with saying that the writing style of the two newsletters are similar. They are. That doesn't mean I think Powell wrote the June 1992 Special Issue, but there is a chance. Either way it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that page eight doesn't have a byline. Because if it does, then Kirchick based this whole thing on a newsletter he knew Ron Paul didn't write.

----------


## MaxPower

> None of which is proof. People are running with this because they want it to be true, not because there's any proof it is.


Nowhere did I say there was proof; I said it "sounds a lot like" the writer of the inflammatory newsletter articles, and "much more so than anything Ron Paul has ever written." I can see you seem to be very agitated about this issue, but if you'll look at my earlier posts in this thread, you'll see that I myself was cautioning people about jumping to conclusions. I think it is reasonable to speculate that this fellow, who was writing for the Ron Paul & Associates newsletter enterprise at the correct time, and who had an obvious interest in the same sorts of subject matter the offensive newsletter articles focus on, with similar emphases and rhetorical ticks (albeit, as I say, "cleaner" in the by-lined article), was likely the author of said controversial material. We shouldn't jump the gun and start proclaiming this as fact, but I do think, based on what I've seen, that it is more likely than not that this is the author.

----------


## Xenophage

> The people who are critical of this report haven't been following it. The issue here is that page eight of the June 1992 Special Issue is cut-off at the bottom, where a byline could be. I was hoping Kirchick would provide the rest of that page but instead referred to another newsletter, which he says is the only one with a byline. Then prove it, and show the rest of the other newsletter. There's nothing wrong with saying that the writing style of the two newsletters are similar. They are. That doesn't mean I think Powell wrote the June 1992 Special Issue, but there is a chance. Either way it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that page eight doesn't have a byline. Because if it does, then Kirchick based this whole thing on a newsletter he knew Ron Paul didn't write.


You might be right, and it DOES look suspicious, but without getting your hands on a copy the issue is irrelevant because you have no evidence.  If this issue is to be pursued at all, you need to secure that hard evidence first.  Many of these were printed and mailed... someone has a copy, somewhere.

----------


## MaxPower

> I hate to say this, but why does this matter now?
> I was all for the guy being revealed a month ago, but the media attacks have ended. What is the value of this now?  None. We're just reopening the issue.
> Drop it.


Now, the attacks have stopped for the moment, but they will _very much_ come back further down the line if Ron Paul keeps contending and/or wins the Republican nomination. The media has rehashed this story two or three times already. Did you follow the Rand Paul Senate campaign? The "Aqua Buddha" silliness first broke out in the summer and died off within a couple weeks, but they dug it up again in the last few weeks before the election and even came out with an idiotic TV ad attacking him for it.

Anyway, no matter what we do, the newsletter attacks will never be altogether defeated- indeed, it is likely that decades from now, when Ron Paul is dead and gone and we are debating his legacy to history, the detractors will still be bringing up these newsletters to discredit him. We'll go on either way, but I do think it would be reasonably worthwhile if we could pinpoint who actually wrote the controversial content. It is important that we do not jump the gun and go around claiming as fact that this Powell fellow was behind it all, but it does look _most likely_ to me that he was the author in question.

----------


## Naraku

I think this is the guy's site:

http://www.powellreport.com/section/aboutjim

He seems to be involved with financial newsletters so it would be a logical fit for him, though he would have probably been quite a young guy at the time. Notably, he has apparently since provided articles to several major news outlets like Time Magazine and USA Today so the media will have a hard time covering their asses if they went after him.

----------


## RipperNT

> The people who are critical of this report haven't been following it. The issue here is that page eight of the June 1992 Special Issue is cut-off at the bottom, where a byline could be. I was hoping Kirchick would provide the rest of that page but instead referred to another newsletter, which he says is the only one with a byline. Then prove it, and show the rest of the other newsletter. There's nothing wrong with saying that the writing style of the two newsletters are similar. They are. That doesn't mean I think Powell wrote the June 1992 Special Issue, but there is a chance. Either way it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that page eight doesn't have a byline. Because if it does, then Kirchick based this whole thing on a newsletter he knew Ron Paul didn't write.


Exactly. That's what I got out of it and Ben has stated that he thinks that Media is making itself obsolete by sensationalizing everything. Think people think that he is pro Ron Paul, I think he is more anti gotcha journalism. Think that he thought Kirtchick was blatantly withholding the name on that page because he knew Ron Paul didn't write it and I think Swann was checking him on it! Once again if people think that this story is dead then I have to tell you your wrong. Many people anytime I put anything on facebook were calling me a racist, etc. Just people don't get into it like us and I think that Ben did a great thing by doing this piece. When I respond back they never listen so hopefully if they think a new source checked it out and verified it then reported it also. Plus, he made a pretty strong statement also about all candidates being labeled racists. Think that is the more important shot that he took at the MSM then divulging the name of the writer. JMO though.

----------


## remaxjon

bump

----------


## klamath

Will this ever be dead, NO! Will truthers, birthers, etc. EVER be convinced other than what they WANT to believe?

----------


## Travlyr

> People are conditioned like Pavlov's dogs to react when the media tells them to react. The media rings the bell, and people react. The conditioning to create the desired reaction has taken place your whole life. They don't ring the bell when it's Gingrich, Santorum or Andrea Mitchell.


Main stream media thinks people are just a bunch of animals waiting for the bell to ring to be told what to believe and when to believe it. A lot of people react every time the bell rings just like they are taught in government school.

Ron Paul tells the truth ... he always does. The only people who believe the BS lies the media tells about him are illiterate people. Read what Ron writes. The books and articles that Ron has written clearly portray the truth. The truth about money and how sound money is honest, the truth about peace, and the truth about justice is what Ron Paul writes about; it is all about liberty because that is his passion.

The media successfully made the newsletter scandal out of nothing by lying and withholding important information. If Ron Paul is guilty of mishandling the smears, then everybody is guilty. You cannot be held responsible for actions outside of your control. Are you responsible for everything your spouse, your children, your friend, your enemy, or your subordinate does? No.

They are doing again. Glen Beck went on the attack the other day connecting Ron Paul to - of all people - George Soros. Now George Soros and Ron Paul are exact opposites on monetary policy, but if you don't read what Ron has written about economic policy and foreign policy, then when the bell rings ... react! Glen Beck says, don't vote for the good guy telling the truth, so what are you going to do? 

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3963431

----------


## btwilli1

Thank you Ben Swann, I especially enjoyed the racist piece at the end.

----------


## Joseph

There might be multiple authors to these newsletters.

http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1076.html

First paragraph: 

"In June of 1976, I was Ron Paul's speechwriter. Shortly after I joined his staff as his newsletter writer and economic analyst, I recommended that he do what I had been doing for a year: buy a Code-A-Phone telephone answering machine and make a weekly 3-minute recording for people in his districts to call. He could send the tape to his office in the district, where the machine would be set up at a local phone number. Residents could call it for free. He thought this was a good idea. So began his weekly speeches." (Gary North)

Now those people who claim that the newsletter which has James Powell's name on it might not be connected to the racist ones could have a point because there maybe multiple authors. James Powell could certainly have written them (I wouldn't be surprised) I do however think that accusing him as the one and only writer is not a good idea. Gary North is another possibility.

----------


## Korey Kaczynski

Wow, Ben Swann knew not to trust Kirchick. He's the man.

----------


## QuickZ06

A bit confused, can anyone speed me up on things?

----------


## roc_rob

> A bit confused, can anyone speed me up on things?


Ben Swann travels back in time 5 years from now to write the newsletters under the name James B. Powell. He does this in order to make a point about sensationalized journalism. Unwittingly, however, he mistakenly frames an innocent man from Nebraska sharing the same name. 10 years from now that same man seeking revenge uncovers Swann's time travel device and uses it to travel back to the earlier years of our nation, in order to assassinate Mr. Swann's ancestors. Powell, however, meets a beautiful young woman who softens his rage, wins his heart, and convinces him to settle down and start a family. He changes his last name to Paul and the rest is history.

*Edit:* seriously though, little has changed. Ben Swann published a follow-up article naming _an_ author of the newsletters: James B. Powell. He believes his writing style is a match for the racist content, but does not have proof. He uses the latter half of the second report to make a general criticism of accusations of racism being used in political discourse.

----------


## moonshine5757

BUMP more people need to see this keep retweeting these videos. I was just in a battle against @ThePlaylist for promoting a twitter page devoted to spreading the newletters filth.

----------

