Update from Ben Swann regarding Newsletter-Part II of "Reality Check"

Reality Check: The name of a 'Mystery Writer' of one of Ron Paul's 'Racist' newsletters

http://www.fox19.com/story/16458700...writer-of-one-of-ron-pauls-racist-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.

But there is a bigger issue than just Ron Paul here.
 
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.
 
The last thing I want is a 'bigger issue' that derails Ron's campaigning right before New Hampshire.....
 
================================
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.
 
Excellent. They're all "racists," and in the scheme of things it doesn't matter.
 
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.

You are right and I was wrong. You convinced me.
 
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.
 
Personally, Ron Paul fucked 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.
 
This only helps Paul. It proves what he's been saying all along. Not to mention a good case for defamation of character.
 
Back
Top