Everyone Read - Signature Faked

[Grimsatire]

For those concerned about the 'racist' letter and the signature on it: It is a fake. For those that are curious, REAL RON PAUL SIGNATURES exist on the internet in multiple places. Ron Paul also has a measured style in how he writes.

Proof. http://www.iahf.com/codex/letter1.gif

Compare: http://www.tnr.com/downloads/solicitation.pdf

His real signature is entirely different than the one on the TPR document. This was known for years, and is one of the reasons Ron Paul was excused of the behaviour, which he took moral responsibility for, Two real people involved in this were FIRED. This was YEARS ago.

Remember, Ron Paul has fought for the rights for gays to marry in Congress. He proudly spoke about Rosa Parks as a hero in congress (saved/documented) when it did not benefit him to do so. He has delivered tons of hispanic children, for free, in Texas. He worked in an inner city in Detroit. He is close friends with some left wing people like Kucinich. And most importantly, not one prominent media person has even come up with any of this stuff without dismissing it knowing what really happened (the ghost writer story - big news in Brazoria years ago). The person writing this TPR story (Jamie Kirchick) recently wrote an article blaming liberals about why he can't have a satisfying gay relationship!!! (yes, that is true)

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/...=2007&base_name=shorter_james_kirchick_i_cant

 

[DaronWestbrooke]

For those concerned about the 'racist' letter and the signature on it: It is a fake. For those that are curious, REAL RON PAUL SIGNATURES exist on the internet in multiple places. Ron Paul also has a measured style in how he writes.

Proof. http://www.iahf.com/codex/letter1.gif

Compare: http://www.tnr.com/downloads/solicitation.pdf

His real signature is entirely different than the one on the TPR document. This was known for years, and is one of the reasons Ron Paul was excused of the behaviour, which he took moral responsibility for, Two real people involved in this were FIRED. This was YEARS ago.

Remember, Ron Paul has fought for the rights for gays to marry in Congress. He proudly spoke about Rosa Parks as a hero in congress (saved/documented) when it did not benefit him to do so. He has delivered tons of hispanic children, for free, in Texas. He worked in an inner city in Detroit. He is close friends with some left wing people like Kucinich. And most importantly, not one prominent media person has even come up with any of this stuff without dismissing it knowing what really happened (the ghost writer story - big news in Brazoria years ago). The person writing this TPR story (Jamie Kirchick) recently wrote an article blaming liberals about why he can't have a satisfying gay relationship!!! (yes, that is true)

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/...=2007&base_name=shorter_james_kirchick_i_cant

Hey newbie, how do we know you aren't setting us up like TNR set us up? The signatures look very similar.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Cool out and let some experts look at it. Why does that sound so bad to you?

 

[DaronWestbrooke]

It doesn't sound bad, I am just tired of people telling me to relax and to trust them.

 

[PaultheSaint]

What's with the calling of newbie mentality on this board. Get over yourselves.

 

[Grimsatire]

Arghh...one of the problems with being a huge long time lurker and first time poster.

For the record, I'm a Canadian, a health professional, and an ethnic minority. I have followed Ron Paul for years (since 2000) and have found him to speak a certain refreshing truth. I was concerned that white racists did support him though (Stormfront seems to have LOTS of stuff about him - but even there no one could really find evidence for him being 'one of them'; a racist - it seems they rather liked his stance on Israel).

I was concerned when the initial allegations came out a while back and tried to do some research on it. The information I read was that it was debunked years ago as being written by a few overly keen radical right wing writers. Some locals were pissed that a congressman could be openly racist - but these small weird conspiracy filled newsletters had his name on it (no bylines or anything). However even people against Paul (Dondero included) said that they were not written by him - and that the people involved were canned. The newsletter served as a money making enterprise run independently of Ron Paul (read the solicitation letter!!). The writing style was completely different, and even local anti-racists let the matter rest. In this day an age, where the slightest politically incorrect statement can end a career (Macaca comes to mind), how could a congressman running for president honestly make it this far without someone taking a real newsletter to the media and presenting it with proof? Think about that!

Anyways, simply reading the two things has convinced me

And honestly, the TWO signatures look nothing alike. The R and the P are TOTALLY DIFFERENT to a point of being comical. The real signature has a curl on the P, while the faked one has a straight edge . The two R's look nothing alike - almost like different letters, with different loops and edges. LOOK!!!

 

[Falcon]

Thank you. Honestly, I could tell by the composition that it was totally amateur whoever wrote it and it couldn't be Ron Paul. But you are right, those signatures aren't even close, which pretty much nails the coffin in it for me. It's complete BS, I'm moving on.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

And honestly, the TWO signatures look nothing alike. The R and the P are TOTALLY DIFFERENT to a point of being comical. The real signature has a curl on the P, while the faked one has a straight edge . The two R's look nothing alike - almost like different letters, with different loops and edges. LOOK!!!

Ahhh... crap. Since I demanded that DaronWestbrooke give some credentials as a document examiner, I need to ask the same of you. Anyway, this deserves a lot of attention, from a lot of people.

There's no reason to assume it's as bad as it looks. It sucks that it's there at all, but it still deserves critical attention from all of us. I don't think the whole presentation from New Republic is the smoking gun it's being made out to be.

Those of you who disagree with that, prove it. Don't just get all mad and not talk about it. Prove it. If it's so easy to prove, that you're willing to abandon ship immediately, then I'll be easy to convince. I don't want to be on that ship. But, you also shouldn't be jumping unless you're sure enough that it is what you think it is.

 

[Quick]

Grimsatire, glad you lurked here all this time.

How I look at it is how you do. If Ron Paul was this big racist and such, he would have been eaten alive before he even had a chance to run for president. In 1996, the odds were stacked against him and these newsletters come out then. Why wouldn't they have used these ones as well? Why when he ran over and over, no one brought these up?

Because they aren't true. They were debunked, and if we had access to local historical news in that area, we might be able to find out more. The problem we have is that it is hard finding sources that discredit all of this. I know they are out there, and they have slowly but surely leaked out. You saying that they knew the signatures were fake and thats why they never brought it up is news to me (and happy news to hear). I only wish we had a source to cite.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Grimsatire, glad you lurked here all this time.

How I look at it is how you do. If Ron Paul was this big racist and such, he would have been eaten alive before he even had a chance to run for president. In 1996, the odds were stacked against him and these newsletters come out then. Why wouldn't they have used these ones as well? Why when he ran over and over, no one brought these up?

He wasn't a threat then. He's a threat now. They see the fundraising. They see the people. They see the support.

 

[Grimsatire]

To Moneywhereyourmouthis.

NO ONE can be elected into congress with a racist history that is documented. Heck, even supporting the palestinians on minor issues will probably destroy you in the primaries on either side. It is not just a matter of big politics. Even at local levels, the media hates racists. As do I. (though people should be allowed to have their personal beliefs, as toxic as they might be).

Ron Paul has never been directly associated with any well known racist EVER. EVER. He has been associated with libertarians and gold standard lovers though for a long time. Sadly he also attracts alot of nuts. This includes Truthers (who seem to openly claim to represent Paul in marches - even though Paul does not think 9/11 was an inside job) Remember the accusations against Buchanan in 1992? He was called anti-semitic, racist, and so forth. Even though, he has never explicitly been racist or anti-jewish in his entire life (though he may not like Israel's policies, and he doesn't like illegal immigration). People bought it as fact - and it killed his chances at winning the nomination post New Hampshire.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

To Moneywhereyourmouthis.

NO ONE can be elected into congress with a racist history that is documented. Heck, even supporting the palestinians on minor issues will probably destroy you in the primaries on either side. It is not just a matter of big politics. Even at local levels, the media hates racists. As do I. (though people should be allowed to have their personal beliefs, as toxic as they might be).

Ron Paul has never been directly associated with any well known racist EVER. EVER. He has been associated with libertarians and gold standard lovers though for a long time. Sadly he also attracts alot of nuts. This includes Truthers (who seem to openly claim to represent Paul in marches - even though Paul does not think 9/11 was an inside job) Remember the accusations against Buchanan in 1992? He was called anti-semitic, racist, and so forth. Even though, he has never explicitly been racist or anti-jewish in his entire life (though he may not like Israel's policies, and he doesn't like illegal immigration). People bought it as fact - and it killed his chances at winning the nomination post New Hampshire.

You're trying to prove I'm right about this. I was asking people to prove me wrong.

 

[zr4]

First off I'm not a spamer. I've been signed up for a while. I have the following observations about the "letter listed in the first post.
1) No date.

2) If these papers were stapled together only the top paper should have a deep yellow stain, the following pages stain should be only on the edges. Edit: I see no staple holes.

3) There are alot of fragments used in the letter.

4) LOOK CLOSELY AT THE SIDE OF PAGE 6. You can clearly read the "copied from" the rest of the words are not readable.

 

[Quick]

He wasn't a threat then. He's a threat now. They see the fundraising. They see the people. They see the support.

That's not true at all. No reporter would have held back all these documents "just in case" Ron Paul became popular and had lots of money. No way that could have been predicted. The GOP establishment in Texas didn't want Ron Paul to run and/or win. Hell, they had a democrat flip-flop to be a republican and tried to get him to run against Paul. This was George W. Bush, Tom Delay, and others behind this. It was no secret.

The simple fact is that they were never brought out because they had no merit. Calling someone a racist goes both ways on the negative scale. If you accuse someone of being a racist, and it turns out you were wrong, it will backfire horribly on the reporter/news company. You will be fired, lose your job, and be publicly humiliated for not fact checking (anyone remember Dan Rather and the CBS Evening News?).

The Houston Chronicle (or whoever originally found the documents in the late 90's) knew that after the initial documents they presented were proven to not have any merit, they knew the rest were just as phony and not at all Ron Paul's material or work. The publisher of the newsletters has said Ron Paul had no idea, and several other people. ( http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41721 )

No matter how much money you have, how powerful you are in politics, being a racist and saying this type of stuff, if proven to be true, would bring you to your knees.

Hell, Trent Lott, who was a powerful GOP member made a comment about how the country would have been better if Strom Thurmond won in '48 (or whenever). He had to step down from his position.

If any of this had any merit and if any of it was true, these forums wouldn't even exist because Ron Paul wouldn't have made it this far. You can wish and hope any/all of it is true so you can say "I told you so!" but like they say.. you can shit in one hand and wish in the other and wait to see which one fills up first. You know just as well as I do as soon as any real research is done on this that it all will be debunked. But in the heads of those who have been coming here and pushing all this stuff, they believe that all of a sudden we will all stop supporting him. You under estimate the grassroots movement. The media reporting incorrectly on Ron Paul in an attempt to smear him? We've seen it time and time again.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

The simple fact is that they were never brought out because they had no merit.

That's fine, but they're getting some merit from RP supporters or plants. So, they need to be put to rest with more evidence than what your offering. I think that evidence is there. Don't you?

 

[Quick]

That's fine, but they're getting some merit from RP supporters or plants. So, they need to be put to rest with more evidence than what your offering. I think that evidence is there. Don't you?

I think Ron Paul made several poor decisions in regards to his newsletter. I think it showed a lack of responsibility. But, he apologized for that. That is what taking "moral responsibility" is. He has nothing more to apologize for. The person(s) who wrote it were fired right away. For all the stupid mistakes we let politicians get away with, why is Ron Paul the exception? The reason he is the exception because he actually does have an almost spotless record.

If you want to go smear Ron Paul, you need to go back 15 years to find some things not even written by him, so you need to make it guilt by association. I'm sure if any of the other candidates had clean records they'd be scrapping the bottom of the barrel for dirt on them too.

Nothing in all my years of following Ron Paul quietly, and more "aggressively" in the last year or so, has given me any indication that he has a mean bone in his body.

You want to convince me Ron Paul is a racist? Show me some hard proof. Audio? Video? Statements from actual people who knew him in the past speaking up saying that they know about this. Statements from people who worked on the newsletter saying he was involved. You know, real proof. Not some randomly scanned documents and unverifiable far-fetched theories. Allegations on something as damaging as being a racist need a little more than some photo scanned newsletters from who knows where written by who knows who and a signature on a paper that looks nothing like his real signature (I have a few from various rallies on signs and brochures).

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I think Ron Paul made several poor decisions in regards to his newsletter. I think it showed a lack of responsibility. But, he apologized for that. That is what taking "moral responsibility" is. He has nothing more to apologize for. The person(s) who wrote it were fired right away. For all the stupid mistakes we let politicians get away with, why is Ron Paul the exception? The reason he is the exception because he actually does have an almost spotless record.

If you want to go smear Ron Paul, you need to go back 15 years to find some things not even written by him, so you need to make it guilt by association. I'm sure if any of the other candidates had clean records they'd be scrapping the bottom of the barrel for dirt on them too.

Nothing in all my years of following Ron Paul quietly, and more "aggressively" in the last year or so, has given me any indication that he has a mean bone in his body.

You want to convince me Ron Paul is a racist? Show me some hard proof. Audio? Video? Statements from actual people who knew him in the past speaking up saying that they know about this. Statements from people who worked on the newsletter saying he was involved. You know, real proof. Not some randomly scanned documents and unverifiable far-fetched theories. Allegations on something as damaging as being a racist need a little more than some photo scanned newsletters from who knows where written by who knows who and a signature on a paper that looks nothing like his real signature (I have a few from various rallies on signs and brochures).

No offense, but I wish you'd address someone who disagrees with you. I've spent the last hour trying to get people to think rationally, and it would help if I don't have the rational questioning my rationality. People are jumping off the boat, and I'm just telling them that they deserve answers before jumping off the boat. The boat aint on fire. Help me convince people to look and actually see if the boat is on fire. I accept your version, but everyone doesn't. The people who don't still deserve better answers, and they'll probably get them if they can wait... say a day or so for people to look at things and offer better than what you or I are offering right now, at this moment.

 

[Quick]

No offense, but I wish you'd address someone who disagrees with you. I've spent the last hour trying to get people to think rationally, and it would help if I don't have the rational questioning my rationality. People are jumping off the boat, and I'm just telling them that they deserve answers before jumping off the boat. The boat aint on fire. Help me convince people to look and actually see if the boat is on fire. I accept your version, but everyone doesn't. The people who don't still deserve better answers, and they'll probably get them if they can wait... say a day or so for people to look at things and offer better than what you or I are offering right now, at this moment.

I just hope that people will take a few moments and read the logic behind this all. I wasn't responding to you personally, just using a statement to setup my post.

I understand how a Ron Paul supporter might be hurt/shocked by seeing this initially. But after those emotions settle, any rational person can look at the "evidence" and come to the same conclusions that myself any so many others have come to.

 

[Ricochet]

That's fine, but they're getting some merit from RP supporters or plants. So, they need to be put to rest with more evidence than what your offering. I think that evidence is there. Don't you?

 

[Shavenyak]

No one who signs their name as much as Dr. Paul would vary their signature to that extent. Especially the shape and stroke pattern of just the first letter: the "R"