"Racist Newsletters" Debunked Once And For All

anaconda said:
I'm jumping in late here and haven't read the thread, but apparently Ron said, with respect to some of the comments, that they were correct but taken out of context. So he appears at some point to have attempted to stand up for some of them to some extent (1996?). What about this?
Click to expand...

That was based on some bogus race/crime stats. Ron is smarter than that now.

 
there is a youtube video that has RP stating how he wasn't in Congress, and was practicing medicine during the time of the newsletters. I can't find it. Can anyone help? There is some guy in another forum asking for an article, but I want to go further and show him RP's own words. There is already someone in the forum that has changed their vote against RP. So I'm just trying to help sway that person back, and put the other naysayer in his place by showing the video.

Some may say drop it, but there are so many out there that may get swayed. I think putting the truth out may hold them.
 
Actually I think Section 10, to be consistent with the general tenor of the headings should be worded more like "The newsletters are still packed full of the worst racist bigotry imaginable!"
 
YOU wrote this? I just got done bookmarking it a couple of hours ago. :)

With some modest tweaks, this could be a real work of art.
 
Great job making this tunk999. It really helps to have all this stuff in one place. I'll be sending anyone who questions RP based on the smear campaign there.
 
Last edited:
liberty2013 said:
On the MLK holiday

Why did Paul vote Yes here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-624

and No here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1983-289

I thought the latter was the final version of the bill? Some people are telling me it was actually the former but I doubt it.
Click to expand...

I cover that in the FAQ.

Many have criticized Paul's vote against a national holiday for Martin Luther King. It's true that congressional records show that Paul voted “nay” in 1983 to making MLK's birthday, January 15, a national holiday. But they also show that Paul voted “aye” in 1979 to designating the 3rd Monday in January, rather than January 15, the legal holiday. Why the discrepancy? Giving a federal holiday a “floating date” in terms of its distance from the start of the month, as opposed to a specific, numerical calendar date, guarantees a three-day weekend for public employees (in accordance with the Uniform Monday Holiday Act of 1968). In other words, Paul only voted “against” the MLK holiday in 1983 because the relevant bill didn't actually establish a holiday. (The law was probably changed later, when Paul wasn't in Congress.) He voted for it in 1979, when it did.
Click to expand...

I think that's the most likely explanation, or at least better than the other ones I've come across that posit some kind of elaborate conspiracy theory were Paul somehow knew in advance the bill wouldn't pass in 1979.

And thanks, Expatriate.
 
Last edited:
Tunk999 your FAQ says that the 1983 bill did not establish a holiday. What does this mean? I thought it did establish a holiday because it added MLK holiday to the US code.
 
liberty2013 said:
Tunk999 your FAQ says that the 1983 bill did not establish a holiday. What does this mean? I thought it did establish a holiday because it added MLK holiday to the US code.
Click to expand...

What I meant by that is that January 15 in some years could be a Saturday or a Sunday. And if a Federal Holiday falls on a weekend then for the most part it's not really a complete holiday. I was being partly ironic. I'm going to update the FAQ to make that clear.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Tunk999 but the final version was fixed wasn't it? I mean why would they vote to fix the date in 1979 and then vote to pass an old bill? It doesn't make sense to me.
 
Last edited:
As far as I know, MLK day is observed on the third Monday of January. I'm not American so I don't know for sure. It could be that you're supposed to celebrate it on January 15 by law but people do it the other way by custom.
 
Last edited:
tunk999 said:
I've typed up a very long and meticulously cited FAQ in response to this very old charge, available here.
http://regulatetheregulators.blogspot.com/2011/12/in-defense-of-ron-paul-newsletters-faq.html
I think I've now read every blog post there is on the subject, and hopefully I covered just about everything. I would appreciate comments, criticisms, etc.

Basically, what happened was that for perhaps 3 decades, several newsletters ran under Paul's name containing some fairly conventional right-wing commentary. Many have attested that Paul personally distanced himself from production and various people with gigs as ghostwriters came and went.

For a brief period from about 1990-1994, a very small number of newsletters were released sporadically which contained racial hateful and "homophobic" remarks.

This was during a time when Paul had relinquished responsibility for the newsletters' operation, retired from Congress and an exhausting presidential campaign, and consigned himself to working full-time as a medical doctor and public speaker, in addition to raising five children.

A few objectionable issues managed to leak out under Paul's nose, quite understandably. Paul did not then and does not now possess superhuman powers. Believe it or not, there were other things that were occupying him at the time. He didn't have the ease of mind, the way some people apparently do, to devote his days to scanning the newsletters for the occasional rant against gays. Blaming him for this is ultimately like blaming him for comments on his Facebook wall.

The racist comments fly in the face of everything Paul has ever written and said, as many people who know him personally have attested. (Among whom include Rick Sincere, an openly gay libertarian whose run for Congress in 1993 Paul supported and helped solicit funds for, at the same time the most hysterical of the newsletters were being churned out.)

Paul was quite angry when he learned of the whole thing. He didn't issue a full denial in 1996 when it was first brought up only on the extremely stupid advice of his campaign staff. (Paul is far too trusting and has never been great at picking advisors.) He has in the past decade addressed the issue several times publically, explicitly denying authorship, and there is every reason to believe it and move on.
Click to expand...
Won't he have to pick a few if he's president? That's not a ringing endorsement of the man.
 
I agree with hdmf. In my opinion, saying that "Paul is far too trusting" seems like a really good excuse that people can use to discredit him on his foreign policy, particularly when it comes to Iran.

Here's what I can picture:

"Ron Paul's foreign policy is very dangerous and will leave the United States open to attacks. He doesn't want to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and even Paul's supporters say that he is, "far too trusting"". (MSM)

See my point?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jmdrake
Musk vows to rehire deputy who apparently joked about annihilation of Israel and Gaza
Replies
3
Views
254
TheTexan
TheTexan
jct74
[Updated] UFO community is pissed at Rand for supposedly blocking transparency legislation
Replies
2
Views
3K
dannno
dannno
Occam's Banana
Judge resigns after admitting he thinks all defendants are guilty
Replies
1
Views
229
TheTexan
TheTexan
Swordsmyth
Ensuring accountability for all agencies
Replies
5
Views
319
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
PAF
FreedomWorks Is Closing — And Blaming Trump
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
Back
Top