I want the truth.

not unwarranted or unfair? so exactly how many times does it have to be brought up, repudiated and put to bed? BTW, nice dodge on avoiding talking about the clear double standard in regard to Obama's drug use. You're being disingenuous and I'm not buying you're BS. You've been going on and on about it. Paul's appeared on national tv and spoken about. Now you can accept it and move on, or disbelief it and move on. In any case, why not just summarize how you feel and leave it at that? You could do it like this:

"I just don't believe him, and i'm going to leave this forum and support huckabee or some other approved candidate"

"I'm not entirely comfortable with the whole situation, but i trust him and he's the only one right on most of my issues so I'm staying with him." In either case stop flogging the horse. Make a decision and stick with it.
 
My husband is Mexican American, used to work for Ron Paul, and here is what he has to say about this.


I am a Mexican-American, I worked for Ron Paul in the 1990’s, and I Know that Ron Paul is No Racist!


http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2008/01/i-am-mexican-american-i-worked-for-ron.html

By Stewart Rhodes

There is now underway a full-blown smear campaign to paint Ron Paul as a racist. First, there was the lame attempt at guilt by association, with a mere campaign contribution by some red neck racist being touted as “proof” that Ron Paul is racist. And then there were equally stupid Kevin Baconesque degrees of separation attempts to connect Ron with various so-called “hate groups.”

Now the muckrakers are dredging up ancient, obscure newsletters written by some equally obscure ghost writing employee(s) of Dr. Paul’s way back in the early 1990’s. This only tells me that Ron Paul is a real threat to the political establishment, and they are pulling out all the stops in an attempt to stop the Ron Paul Revolution.

I worked for Ron Paul, in his Washington D.C. office, in 1998-99, seeing him almost every day, and saw absolutely no indication of him being racist, and in fact, I saw many reasons to know he is not racist. I am of Hispanic decent, and quite proud of it. My family on my mother’s side were migrant farm workers and my Great-Grandfather even rode with Pancho Villa. I am also part American-Indian. That heritage not only makes it rather difficult for anyone to smear me as somehow being a white racist (which is good for me if I am ever foolish enough to run for office), but also cuts against Ron Paul's supposed "ties" with white supremacists and this latest smear campaign based on what some employee of his wrote fifteen years ago.

Not only am I outspoken about my heritage, I don’t work for racists and I would never have worked on Ron Paul’s staff if I had any suspicion whatsoever that he was "racist." And I wasn't the only staff member of "mixed race." There were several others and he never gave it a second thought. One of them was a young woman who is half Panamanian, with an obvious dark complexion. If Ron Paul were some kind of racist, who thinks non-whites are inferior, why would he hire her, or me? Was it some kind of elaborate, clever cover? No. The reason he did not care about our race is because he is a libertarian who sees people as individuals, not members of groups, racial or otherwise.

There are many different segments of society who are drawn to a man like Ron Paul. People of a wide variety of backgrounds support him because people of a wide variety of backgrounds support liberty and have a fundamental distrust of excessive government power.

During my time in his office, as now in the grassroots movement, there were fundamentalist Christians (and I mean really fundamentalist), working right next to proud and opinionated atheists. There were budhists, anarcho-capitalists, Big L Libertarians, objectivists, old school "Reagan" conservatives, and people of all manner of ethnic background, all working side-by-side. I have even seen gay people in those circles. They did not agree on many things, or even like each other, to be blunt, but whatever their personal background or orientation, they all saw value in working for a strict constitutionalist and a man of deep principle and courage.

They were and are all part of the broader Freedom Movement – which contains a very eclectic mix of people who all share a desire for liberty. But as eclectic and diverse as his staff was in other ways, I never knew anyone on his staff to be racist, and I think it is because racists are so directly at odds with Ron Paul's philosophy of individual rights - such people just would not have fit in. Racists are collectivists, who see people as members of groups only, rather than as individuals. Such a viewpoint is fundamentally incompatible with libertarianism. As Ron Paul himself notes:

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups.


You can read the rest of his statement about racism at http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/


White Power Nazis are no exception to the rule that racists are collectivists, being, after-all, national SOCIALISTS. Such people are not only my permanent enemies because I am not pure white, as they have sworn me their enemy, they are also my ideological enemies - as much as any Marxist - because their beliefs are entirely incompatible with the concepts of individual liberty, personal self determination, and reason that is the heart of libertarianism. That makes them Ron Paul's ideological enemies as well because Ron Paul is a libertarian’s libertarian.

But some of these collectivist racists now at least claim to support Ron Paul. Why? I suspect for the same reason the far left collectivist anti war protester does. There is something they fear or detest so much in the current Federal government that they are willing to support a man who clearly does not agree with them on fundamental philosophical principles. I'll bet the far lefty anti war protester and the White Power skin head consider each other mortal enemies, but they both support the same man for very similar reasons. Fear of excessive government power, and a desire to return to more limited government under the Constitution makes for strange political combinations sometimes.

If Ron Paul is somehow racist because some racists support him, does that make him a socialist lefty hippy because some far left anti war hippy supports him? Does it make the lefty hippy a racist too, because he supports Ron right along with the skin-head? There are also gay people who support Ron Paul. Does that make Ron gay? Does that make the Nazi guy gay too, or a "gay lover" because he also supports Ron? No, of course not.

People from all of those backgrounds support Ron Paul because they all have a desire to return to Constitutional government. Though they don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, they fear what comes from unconstitutional government.

It would be absurd to say that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are racist, gay, atheist, socialist, or whatever because people of those persuasions value and support those documents. The same is true for Dr. Paul because he is the Champion of the Constitution. What all those people really support is not a man, as much as it is the Constitution itself.

It seems that even racist dumb asses prefer the Constitution, at least for now (that is how dangerous the federal government has become!). I have my suspicions about their professed devotion to the Constitution, since their world view really is so collectivist, but I'm not going to reject the Constitution or Ron Paul just because the racist idiots don't realize that a restoration of the Constitution will not get them to their mythical "White America" like they may hope. What it will do is get us all to a place of liberty and justice for all, and the racists can then whither away like the outdated fools they are.

The latest smear against Ron Paul stemming from the old newsletters written by some employee.

Despite the fact that racism is incompatible with libertarianism, I have in fact known some people (thankfully few) who like to call themselves libertarians who are racist - there are stupid bigots in any movement –and just as we have seen that there are even some self-professed racists who express support for Ron Paul, it would not surprise me if at some point in Ron Paul’s long career in the Freedom Movement such a closet, collectivist racist was able to worm his way into working for Ron.

Ron Paul does not interrogate all of his new hires on their view on race. In hindsight we can say that he should have been more careful in monitoring what his employees wrote long ago, and no doubt he has since become far more careful about watching what goes out with his name on it. But Ron Paul, being a sincere libertarian, is a very hands-off kind of guy, as Tucker Carlson noted in his recent article, and perhaps a bit too trusting by assuming that the people who work for him will be consistent, principled libertarians just as he is.

As I noted above, that is usually a fair and accurate assumption, and I never heard one racist comment from any staff. But it is certainly possible that one or two racist jerks slipped through the cracks. As I said, every movement has its idiots. As a case in point, look at Eric Dondero who used to work for Ron but after 9-11 transformed into a raving Kool-Aid drinking, Bush cheerleading, torture loving, warmongering neocon when it comes to the war on terror. Who would have known he was such a raving maniac? No doubt about it, that idiot had to have said, written, or done something that was embarrassing to Ron while working for him.

I have seen nothing, in all my interactions with Ron Paul, to ever suggest to me that he himself is racist. To the contrary, I have every reason to know he is not. And the same goes for his supposed hatred of gays. That is also total hogwash. Ron Paul does not care what someone is. He sees us all as individuals with God given rights. If you value liberty and the Constitution, then you are Ron Paul’s brother or sister in liberty, whatever your color, creed, or sexual preference.

This smear campaign reminds me of how the whole militia movement of the 1990’s was smeared as racist, even when some of the leadership in that movement was non-white. It also reminds me of how the Branch Davidians were portrayed by the media as being a bunch of religious extremist white people with guns (with the not-so-subtle implication that they too were racist) when there were in fact many blacks, Hispanics, and Asians among them, and many mixed-race marriages and children. But the facts never stop the media or the wanna-be media in the blogosphere. Racism in general, and especially antisemitism, has always been the smear of choice against the Freedom Movement.

This is just a desperate attempt by a desperate establishment to silence this resurgent freedom movement by smearing Ron Paul with the same old smear of choice, racism.

Stewart Rhodes

Yale Law graduate, veteran, Mexican-American, and proud former Ron Paul staffer
 
Last edited:
My husband is Mexican American, used to work for Ron Paul, and here is what he has to say about this.

Nice post.. Thanks for sharing that.. Hopefully it will help calm some of the people still excited about the whole situation.
 
Can see you would make a good supporter for Ron Paul out there. [/sarcasm] Is this the kind of attitude and eloquence you show to others who are sitting on the fence or have concerns about Paul?

Anyone who has had Stormfront-like rants on their newsletters deserves close scrutiny. The treatment he has received from the media has not been unwarranted or really unfair.

Every single candidate, republican and democrat, have skeletons in their closets, that media hounds could expose, if they so chose. But media hounds are selective, as we all know.

Obama belongs to an openly black racist church he's never condemned for their anti-white racism. Hillary's husband made a speech at a major university in which he stated he'd be glad when whites are a minority (which in effect, promotes racial genocide). Just imagine the media hell raising if he'd said he'd be glad when blacks or hispanics become fewer in number.

As for the so-called racist remarks contained in the anonymous news-letters, they're all true. Are truths now racist ?? List one here that is not true. I dare anybody.

Our enemy, and the enemy of all American patriots regardless of race, is the controlled anti-Paul main stream media. So who controls the main stream media??

http://www.realnews247.com/who_rules_america_updated_2004.htm
 
You don't know the mainstream media doesn't like Paul?

Well, tell me how many times exactly do you think is 'fair' then?

I'm surprised it wasn't brought up in the recent debate.

No dodge. We're not here to talk about Obama and for the record I don't approve of his drug use but in case you haven't noticed I'm not in charge of the media.

The racist stuff in Paul's newsletters is fair game as well as anything questionable that is found in other candidates' past. Satisfied?

I'm not talking about the media, i'm talking about you. You received a definitive statement from Ron on the issue. Do you believe him or not? If not, roll, don't troll! ;)
 
The truth is, he didn't do it, he has never said anything even remotely similar. He has never acted that way either, his message is the same as it was 20 years ago before any of that ever came out.

If you could print money for free and charge the american people interest on it, to what extreme would you go to protect that printing press?

You want the truth?

OK your government gave away it's right to create money, they gave it to 5 private banks who also meet to determine how much they will charge this country to use the money. The constitution says it belongs to congress, and congress alone.

30% of revenue collected this year, by the IRS, will go to service that debt ( be paid to 5 private banks who cost was zero, as a matter of fact they don't even print the money anymore, it all electronic digits). You think one little smear job would not be done to protect trillions of dollars being stolen from the american people?

America you want the truth?

You can't fuckin handle the truth, the truth is you are lied to every day, the media plays right along, if you say anything about it you are a nutjob. This information is public records but no one want to do the homework. The bankers that brought you 1929 are about to bring you the Great Depression 2, the attack of inflation. America is too retarded to even understand how this works, retarded or lazy the result is the same.

they should ask any of these bozo's, do you know what the open market committee is and how money is created?

We will get what we deserve, economic ruin at the hands of greedy bankers who help keep the corruption in america in power, and that's the god's honest truth.....
 
I love Ron Paul and what he stands for but the simple truth is that he is lying, covering up, or not telling the full story about what happened. And the media caught him. Plain and simple.

He is still the best candidate in my eyes but until he addresses this honestly, it's hard for the mainstream to take him seriously.
 
The thing about him not writing it is only part of the story. There is the other part of him claiming not to know who did write those articles. Rumors are flying around that it was Lew. Lew is one of Paul's confidantes. We're not meaning to go on a witchhunt or demanding this and that - that he denounce Lew or whatever, we just want the truth and some things don't add up.

And we've heard all sorts of things in this thread so far: that the specified newsletters weren't racist but full of truth ... then the defense switches to "So what? Other candidates are racist, why can't Ron be? Let's give him a free pass on this ..."

... If you are satisfied, why are you here in this thread?

Ok, Yuiop, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I believe that Ron Paul's long public history and writings demonstrate his character. I think he's an honorable guy and perhaps the last great hope to save the republic. I checked out some of your previous posts, and we probably agree on more than disagree. If this is a crucial issue for you, I will respect that. Besides I saw your post about the USS Liberty and how you tied it in with a slam of McCain and anyone who can do that can't be all bad in my book :D I retract my troll comment, apologize and ask you respectfully to figure out a way to move on positively.
 
I believe that Ron Paul's long public history and writings demonstrate his character. I think he's an honorable guy...
I have no doubt about that. The problem is that he has always been such a straight talker and so transparent about EVERYTHING that the one time he chose not to be transparent stuck out like a sore thumb. And at the worst possible time.

But then you could argue that had he been transparent about this in 1996, this wouldn't be the issue now because it would have been dealt with. Instead, they bought their time on credit and now it's time to pay the interest.
 
Why don't we just contact lew rockwell and ask exactly what is up, if the allegations that he wrote the letters are true, and other stuff that might help clear this up. Don't harass him or be an ass about it, just ask politely and see if he responds. Don't flood him, either. A few people doing this will be enough.
 
Why don't we just contact lew rockwell and ask exactly what is up, if the allegations that he wrote the letters are true, and other stuff that might help clear this up. Don't harass him or be an ass about it, just ask politely and see if he responds. Don't flood him, either. A few people doing this will be enough.
+1

I agree. However it troubles me that all he has on his website is articles about defending Ron about this and as well is not being the least bit transparent. I've lost a lot of respect for Lew because of this. He needs to be honest and speak up about what he knows and we should ask him to do that.
 
I love Ron Paul and what he stands for but the simple truth is that he is lying, covering up, or not telling the full story about what happened.

No. That is NOT the simple truth. It is your opinion.

I do not believe he is lying.

I do not believe he is covering up.

As for it being the full story - well of course we are not being provided with every single detail - if we were the story would fill a book - but I am confident that the details that are missing are totally irrelevant.
 
No. That is NOT the simple truth. It is your opinion.

I do not believe he is lying.

I do not believe he is covering up.

As for it being the full story - well of course we are not being provided with every single detail - if we were the story would fill a book - but I am confident that the details that are missing are totally irrelevant.

Saying the story would fill a book is just your opinion as well. All this requires is being straight with his supporters and with all Americans. What he said yesterday contradicts what he said in 1996 about the letters. How do you know which response is the true one. It's just an opinion again. But the fact that he changed his story now has made me suspicious of the whole thing. He's obviously not telling the whole truth about this. That doesn't make him a complete liar, but at the same time you can no longer call him a completely honest man, because he is trying to weasel his way out of this like any other politician would. And I thought he was unlike any other politician. O well.
 
Problem is that we haven't been provided with any details. He says he doesn't know who wrote the articles. Fair enough. But then he mentions the editor? Who is the editor?

The longer they wait to tell some details, the bigger this blows up.

The company that produced these is Ron Paul & Associates, Inc.. I would really like to know who was on the board of directors and who ran that "company." It's probably public record if one of you in Texas could be kind enough to go look it up.
 
Saying the story would fill a book is just your opinion as well. All this requires is being straight with his supporters and with all Americans. What he said yesterday contradicts what he said in 1996 about the letters. How do you know which response is the true one. It's just an opinion again. But the fact that he changed his story now has made me suspicious of the whole thing. He's obviously not telling the whole truth about this. That doesn't make him a complete liar, but at the same time you can no longer call him a completely honest man, because he is trying to weasel his way out of this like any other politician would. And I thought he was unlike any other politician. O well.

Please provide sources for your allegation that his story had changed.
 
Please provide sources for your allegation that his story had changed.

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1343749

This is the Houston Chronicle article from 1996. Here are all quotes from the article:

"Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of 'current events and statistical reports of the time.'"

"Paul said allegations about his writings amounted to name-calling by the Democrats and that his opponents should focus instead on how to shrink government spending and reform welfare."

"A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.

Paul continues to write the newsletter for an undisclosed number of subscribers, the spokesman said. "

The spokesman says HE WRITES THE NEWSLETTER! I don't think he wrote the racist stuff, but at the same time what he said to the Chronicle shows he read it and was trying to defend it. Now he has COMPLETELY changed his story on this.
 
I don't believe a word of this mess. I mean... come on! He wants to end the drug war because he thinks prosecutions are carried out in a racist manner! How can he be a racist? Arg! :mad:
 
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1343749

This is the Houston Chronicle article from 1996. Here are all quotes from the article:

"Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of 'current events and statistical reports of the time.'"

"Paul said allegations about his writings amounted to name-calling by the Democrats and that his opponents should focus instead on how to shrink government spending and reform welfare."

"A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.

Paul continues to write the newsletter for an undisclosed number of subscribers, the spokesman said. "

The spokesman says HE WRITES THE NEWSLETTER! I don't think he wrote the racist stuff, but at the same time what he said to the Chronicle shows he read it and was trying to defend it. Now he has COMPLETELY changed his story on this.

It didn't clarify. Perhaps it's an incompetent journalist. It certainly doesn't sound like the writer interviewed Dr. Paul on this subject. good find tho. ;)
 
Back
Top