PDA

View Full Version : PROOF Ron had nothing to do with the newsletter




MCockerill08
06-28-2008, 04:15 PM
The newsletters were published for decades. As a monthly publication that went on for at least 30 years, we can estimate that there were NEARLY 400 newsletters in total.

James Kirchick even concedes that nothing racist/homophobic appeared from the 1970's until the late 1980's. In this youtube clip, he asserts that the racist stuff occurred "when paul was out of congress." (incidentally, he proves himself a liar with this statement, that contradicts his '20 years of invective' accusation made minutes earlier)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EURO1djA_jA

Likewise, nothing racist appeared in any issues after 1994.

Most issues even in the bad time (when ron had nothing to do with the newsletter) were not racist. Ones regarding David Duke criticized his past, but expressed support for his views on free markets.

It also should be noted that David Duke ran for office in 1992 DENOUNCING racism and his past. Yes, Duke has subsequently proved to be a racist and a fraud, but this is the context of the time period.

For more exposition on Duke, see this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClduCE2yXzA&feature=related

Here is proof that the good Dr. was NOT involved in any way shape or form after April of 1988:

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/InvestmentLetterApril1988.pdf (The Dr. was the editor of the newsletter at this time, as Kirchick points out)

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/InvestmentLetterMay1988.pdf (but a month later, Paul is not listed as having ANY ROLE in the newsletter; Lew Rockwell is now editor.)

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129 (the newsletters, out of hundreds, that kirchick published)

When you put it all together, there are exactly TWO racist newsletters. The other ones merely point out politically incorrect truths about MLK. Divisive, un-Pauline, and unnecessary, (considering the great things MLK did accomplish) but hardly racist, and say good things about David Duke's campaign. (see above.)

There are a number of homophobic newsletters, to be sure. Four in total, which makes it harder to totally debunk charges of homophobia. (unlike charges of racism,of which there is no case at all) But the defense of Paul's does pass certain scrutiny.

In this interview, for example, Paul doesn't buy into this interviewer's homophobia. He claims that what makes him more tolerant of gays is his medical training.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE

But in the newsletters the ghostwriter blatantly contradicts this, saying that "Ron's" medical training makes him see through the lies of the gay agenda." In other words, this guy is directly contradicting Paul.

This isn't an anamoly. One of the anti-MLK newsletters, the author, (presumably Paul) brags about voting for a Federal Holiday for that "fraud." (1)

Yet congressional records show Ron Paul TWICE voted for the MLK holiday! (2)

So there you have it. Out of hundreds of newsletters, Kirchick cherry-picked two racist and four homophobic ones, in a time period where Paul had nothing to do with the newsletters publication.

In my view, it was Lew Rockwell who wrote the newsletters. It certainly looks like his writing style, and hardcore "paleo," ideology of the time. Today, Lew is no longer a racist or homophobe, and is a friend of Ron's and all of us. People change, and who here doesn't have flawed friends?

Ron believes in laissez-faire management, whether it is in government or personal life. People do make mistakes, (as was proven in a few of these hundreds of newsletters) but far more often, people are to be trusted and individualism and independence are to be cherished.

1- http://www.tnr.com/downloads/February1991.pdf

2- http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/71/

EDIT-

Finally, the icing on the cake:

Kirchick, who throughly researched Ron Paul INTENT on smearing him, admitted in a casual exchange with a fellow gay man that even HE doesn't believe the good doctor to be a racist, anti-semite, or homophobe.

http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kirchick-i-dont-think-ron-paul-is.html

And this was AFTER he had obtained the newsletters.

http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/kirchicking-of-berin-szoka.html

I consider myself a supporter of gay rights, but the author of that site hits the nail on the head:

James Kirchick is a liar, charlatan, and hypocrite.

mkeller
06-28-2008, 10:11 PM
Good research! I'd often worried and wondered about those newsletters myself. And Amen to that last paragraph!

countrykidz4freedom
06-28-2008, 10:15 PM
Thanks so much for researching this out-I never believed he was racist anyway, but nice to have the info to tell others.

Libertarian Ideals
06-29-2008, 05:28 PM
Glad the newsletter issue isn't being ignored and you got to the bottom of it.

What James Kirchick says (linked in the second to last link of your post) is especially illuminating:

"Anyways, I donít think Ron Paul is a homophobe; Iím just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy Iíd have called him a fascist. But I must say, the Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic of the bunch!" - J.K.

MCockerill08
06-29-2008, 07:58 PM
This guy is such a liar. He lies that the racist newsletters went on for 20 years (1:31-1:37) and then literally, less than a minute later, says that the reason this was never exposed was that "the actual racist contents of the newsletter were published when Paul was out of congress." (2:09-226)

In my view, the evidence indicates Kirchick is a proven liar with no integrity, merely out for his own ambition. We can't let him derail our movement!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EURO1djA_jA

As for his secession garbage, again Kirchick shows his pathetic lack of journalistic integrity. He is somehow calling the event 'neo-confederate,' when in fact it was a purely academic event in the LVMI that wasn't even about the confederacy, but the Jefferson-promoted right to secession in general. (with an emphasize, i believe, on Russia)

BuddyRey
07-02-2008, 12:34 AM
YOU RULE!!!!

I only wish this research could have leaked during the crucial moments of the scandal's prolific exposure on the blogosphere.