Bombshell: Who Wrote the Controversial Ron Paul Newsletters?

Telling the Truth?

Ron Paul had denied authorship and editorial control of his newsletters, particularly those things that have been questioned as seemingly racist in nature.  Now, as it seems to be turning out, it looks like the newsletters had been authored by Ron Paul himself.  This conflicts with his statements, and claims that he hadn’t written them, and that he wasn’t responsible for all of the comments or content.  As Conservatives Network is now reporting, it seems that the author had been Congressman Paul all along. H/T to Mark Levin for “tweeting” the story with a link on American Spectator’s website.  This controversy first arose in 2008 because of comments in newsletters that seem to be tinged with overt racism.  The explosive disclosure by CN seems to put the matter of editorial control to rest.  Whether Ron Paul is a racist is another matter entirely, but it’s clear that he was responsible for editing the newsletter and authoring much of its content.

Ron Paul has some explaining to do, and this is one more instance in which a politician attempted to side-step his past, but was finally caught.  I expect Ron Paul’s supporters to be initially aghast at the truth of the matter, but then to quickly return to denial.  Ron Paul is not suited to be President, and his lack of candor about his newsletters is one more reason to dismiss him. It’s actually a matter of some sadness, in my view, because Dr. Paul had brought more focus to the issue of the Federal Reserve’s fatal flaws, and to some of the budgetary issues confronting the nation, but the truth is that he was never a genuine conservative, but instead a libertarian who has made his career subservient to pandering to libertarian views on various issues.

Here’s video of Ron Paul’s denial in 2008(He also insists on his libertarianism, rather than conservatism.):


The editor of ConservativesNetwork has a response ready for Ron Paul’s supporters.  Here’s a sample:

Saying NU-UH, doesn’t make the facts above go away.
Shouting, “LIAR!” – doesn’t make the facts above go away.
Giving a link to a Ron Paul denial doesn’t make the facts go away.

Shouting neocon, shill, warmonger, hit piece, or any other word in your vocabulary, doesn’t make the above facts go away.

Saying this is old news, doesn’t make the above truth go away. If a candidate for president built wealth for two decades off of being racist, voters deserve to know.

Saying this was debunked years ago, doesn’t make the truth above go away. The above facts debunk any supposed debunking from Ron Paul.

What this suggests to me is that the editor has had his run-ins with with Paul supporters a time or two.  Believe me, I know the feeling, but I also think it’s fair to say that this has been one of the recurring problems with Ron Paul: He doesn’t do well when criticized, and his supporters seem incapable of accepting any criticism of Paul, on virtually any issue.  I was willing to allow that Ron Paul might have been to far removed from editorial control of his newsletter, but now it seems as though he was trying to trick people with that statement.  He was the editor.  What else can one say about that?

Leave a comment ?

39 Responses to Bombshell: Who Wrote the Controversial Ron Paul Newsletters?

  1. Gail says:

    I don't think Ron Paul is racist…He just tells it like it is. That does not make one racist

    • MarkAmerica says:

      Telling things like they are does not make one a racist. Telling things like one assumes them to be, based on stereotypes, does.

      • mburns12 says:

        Do you have a source or any evidence to support your article?

      • Dave says:

        I followed the links and read the material. No racism I could find. The fact that a white man mentions something about blacks is now considered racism. Couldn't find any mistresses to trot out? Please.

      • mburns12 says:

        I read the scanned newsletters and while they appear to be authored by Ron Paul, I did not see any racial references contained in those articles??? The links included are not actual newsletters but articles written by other reporters on the same 20 yr. old subject. Do people really think this is any more relevant than adultery, ethics violations, sex scandals, insider trading, natural born citizenship and warmongering?

        • MarkAmerica says:

          I think you need to read more carefully. When one says "blacks and hispanics vote for their interests but whites do not,"(paraphrased, but that's close if not verbatim) that's a racially loaded statement. This is akin to saying "all blacks are…" or "all hispanics are…" or "all whites are…" and any of those are to identify a group by its race and predict the behavior of its members on the basis of a stereotype. Some would call it "soft racism" or "covert racism," but others would call it "racism, pure and simple."

      • Dave says:

        I think if you look at who stil supports Obama you'll find that the majority of blacks still support him. Is that racist? No, it is a verifiable statistic.

      • mburns12 says:

        Okay, apparently you are referring to the term "racist" literally. Everyone in this country as become a little too PC. This man is from a different generation, one that says what he means and means what he says. If you want to see that as being racist then so be it, but really look at his competition. Current POTUS, may or may not even be eligible to be President, various scandals within his administration. Newt Gingrich, the Democrats have sooo much dirt on him, and that's not including the adultery scandals. Mitt Romney, may or may not be eligible to be President (for the same reason as Obama) and the left would definitely have a field day with this one….. Rick Santorum, would put us in a war with Iran even though both China and Russia have warned the US against an attack. Michele Bachmann, media portrays her as crazy. Rick Perry, portrays himself as crazy!!! I've been wondering what they slip him before these debates?

        • MarkAmerica says:

          I don't think that's being PC, although I think I understand your larger point. The problem is that I don't think the electorate would see it that way particularly in a campaign against a sitting president who has played the race card repeatedly. You know very well how that will be portrayed, fairly or not.

          As for the rest, yes, I am well aware of the dilemma. This election cycle is going to be difficult, for all of us. Now, I don't think Bachmann is crazy as the media portrays her, and I don't think Santorum would arrive in office and march us off to war against Iran. Rick Perry certainly hasn't helped himself in these debates. Mitt and Newt have lots of warts. It's difficult to imagine that we have any perfect choices.

      • paul f says:

        We all have developed a sense of stereotypes some maybe right or somewhat right some wrong but that doesn't make one racist. I don't believe Ron Paul made the remarks quoted except the few he admitted that I believe were taken out of context. I would agree they were things probably best unsaid and for those he didn't write I believe he should have handled the situation better. But this doesn't make him a racist and with hundreds of speeches, interviews, etc over many years if he was racist you know there would be more than a few lines in an article. But of course when you have an honest man, espousing sound policies contrary to those of the other establishment candidates you have to dig deep to drudge up whatever you can, and this is all they have on Ron Paul. Its Ok to point this problem out, and he shoud aceept the criticism but to go to lengths of calling him a racist is obsurd.

  2. SeanStLouis says:

    The best you can do, Mark?

    I'm taking my ball and going home.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      The best I can do? I reported, now you decide. You can play the "I'm taking my ball and going home" card if you like, that's your choice, but the problem is that this is the reaction of every Ron Paul supporter to any negative information about Ron Paul. Seriously, I'd ask you to go over to the Conservatives Network site and take it up with the editor there if you have a rebuttal. Really. That's why I provide links in stories: So you can follow them up.

      • dlquinnbonsall says:

        Seriously, "GOOGLE" (ron paul is a racist) and see all of the support he has within the African American community. Not much of a BOMBSHELL without any facts or evidence within the article! Sad commentary on reporting…..

      • Dave says:

        I'm sorry, but it appears you are a Ron Paul hater. I supported Herman Cain when all of the ladies started coming out with unsupported caims against him. I find it sad that supposed conservatives are playing the same game the liberals play.

        • MarkAmerica says:

          That's absurd. I suppose in the view of Romney supporters, I'm a Romney-hater, and to Newt supporters, I'm a Gingrich-hater, and to Cain supporters, I'm a Cain-hater. This is garbage. Go back and read the scans of the newsletters. I did not type them. I didn't think up the things said there. I didn't do it, but Ron Paul apparently did. Why does that make me a Ron Paul hater? Sorry, but that's just garbage. It's the same kind of emo-babble I expect from 17yo lefties. Really. You're entitled to your view, but not your own facts.

      • Dave says:

        Sorry, but you have yet to prove they are facts. Like I said before, show me some video or audio to back it up. Ron Paul has been in the public arena for 30 years. There must be something that coincides with the supposed racist views in these newsletters. I've seen too much faked documents (like Obummer's birth cert) to believe anything that has not been verified by multiple sources. And, by the way, just because a site calls itself conservative doesn't make it so.

  3. SeanStLouis says:

    Sorry, that was kind of rude.

    Seriously, though, if this is the best they can do to try to smear Paul's campaign then I say that's great news.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      Sean, it's no problem. I'm not entirely convinced it is a smear. I don't know Paul's mind any better than I can read yours, but the problem is that he did disclaim editorial control and authorship, and what this article points out is that his credibility on that aspect is in serious jeopardy. Now, whether Ron Paul is a racist guy, I have serious doubts, but that's not the only thing in this story. What was it they said of Nixon? Oh, yeah: "It's the cover-up" I think Ron Paul should have taken full responsibility for this in 2008, and he'd have put it to rest, but by continuing to obfuscate, it now makes it a bigger issue because you know the question will be asked: "What's he hiding?"

  4. mark says:

    You are absolutely correct. Ron Paul has a long history of promoting liberty, freedom, individual responsiblilty and limited government. BUT ONLY FOR WHITES! He has continuously reinforced negative stereotypes of minorities. Just google it! There are too many video clips to count of him bashing minorities. I see you included many of them in your nifty little hack piece here.

    Do you feel the cold reality of irrelevance sinking in?

  5. bigmamas52 says:

    I first heard about this the other day on Sean Hannity's show. I came home and looked it up. I did so because I've wondered for some time why every day, and I mean every day, I see some of the most vitriolic, hateful, anti-Semetic, anti-black comments on a variety of websites. When others try to engage these folks using intelligent thought and questioning where RP stands on certain issues, these supporters come back with more hateful writings.

    It has bothered me because I couldn't believe that RP would really want these people supporting him, and I assumed he would denounce anyone that spoke that way. Now having done my own research, reading Ron Paul's own quotes, I cannot come to any other conclusion than Paul holds these same beliefs. It's too bad as he has many good economic ideas, but we cannot elect someone that feels this way about our fellow Americans.

    I, for one, hate the use of the word racist, as it is way over used today and rarely is it truly applicable. If he authored the newsletters, and you have provided the links that appear to show he did, than he either needs to own it and apologize or explain his true feelings about Jews and Blacks. I suspect he won't because so many of his supporters hold the same views and he does not want to lose them.

    That makes him no different than any other politician, willing to pander to his base and then speaking out of the other side of his mouth to the general public, just to get elected. Isn't that how we have got into the situation we're in now, by believing everything we're told by a person and not looking into, or be willing to believe, what is in their background?

    • Dave says:

      I looked into the same stuff. Idid the research, just as I did with Herman Cain. I guess you belive everything the media came up with on him too. I remember the Bush letters that Dan Rather manufactured and put forth as truth. Too many instances of phony docs and allegations for me to believe anything the media says without quite a bit of evidence to back it up.

      • MarkAmerica says:

        So now the documents were manufactured??????? Are you suggesting Dan Rather works for ConservativesNetwork? Seriously, please take it up with the author of the piece on that site. The truth is that your anger with me and other posters her is misplaced. Take it up with the author of the newsletters now under scrutiny: Ron Paul

      • Dave says:

        I am not angry. Not in the least. If you can show me that Bachmann or Santorum will abide by the constitution and actually cut government spending, I will get behind them. I just haven't seen it from them. So you're saying we should go with a big government progressive like Newt or Romney? We are down to only a few choices from my perspective. I don't want to just settle for the lesser of two evils like usual. We need someone who wil actually support and defend the constitution of the U.S. and not just give it lip service. Which one of the viable candidates left in the running satisfies that requirement? Ron Paul is the only one I can see that still fits the bill, since Herman Cain was Borked out of the running.

    • Dave says:

      If Ron Paul realy is a racist and there is audio or video to back it up, then I completely agree he needs to go. But, if there was it would have come out by now. Remember Pelosi and her cohorts claiming they were spit on and called the N word as they walked through the Tea Party crowd protesting the passing of Obamacare? $100K reward for video or audio was offered. Nothing, despite all of the reports and video capable phones. I'm not saying it isn't true. It just doesn't fit with al of the rest of his record.

      • MarkAmerica says:

        Dave, I don't have a problem with your argument that he's not the sort of virulent racist some would pretend. I don't think that's true either, but the question in this matter is one of candor, frankly, because Paul denied writing or exercising editorial control over this material, but it's now become clear he did indeed do both in many instances. That's the real problem I have in all of this: Ron Paul is playing fast and loose with the facts here. I've got no problem with the argument that he's not a racist, or that his intentions when he wrote these things weren't truly racist. I just want him to own up to having written them.

      • Dave says:

        Mark, can you provide a link to a video or audio of Ron Paul denying he wrote the articles. This would actualy clear this issue up for me and you too, I'm assuming.

        • MarkAmerica says:

          In the video in the article I posted, in an interview with Wolf Blitzed, Ron Paul discussed the issue of authorship and editorial control. He excused himself in part by saying that he travels a good deal, and can't look at everything in the articles. This is an implicit denial of authorship, and a clear denial of editorial control. He goes on to say he is morally responsible, but then seems to minimize that. Watch for yourself. It is fascinating, to say the least.

      • Dave says:

        I looked at the CNN interview you posted. He did not implicitly deny he wrote the articles. He stated very clearly that he did not write the articles. He also said he had a moral responsability and didn't live up to it in that instance. So he is not saying he is not responsible for the articles in the newsletter. He clearly is. He is saying that he did not write the articles in question and that those articles did not reflect his views.

  6. IMHO says:

    Thank you for posting the information. Paul-ites are going to believe what they want to, to the point that I often wonder who is more delusional, them or Ron Paul. I agree that Ron Paul brings a lot to the table, but his foreign policy (or lack thereof) would destroy this country in nothing flat. His foreign policy SCARES me! Between that and his sanctimonious way of attacking every other candidate, I think it is a good thing that some of his darker issues get brought into the sunlight!

    • Dave says:

      If that is a dark issue than give me dark issue candidates. He is not attacking Newt only stating the truth. If Newt, Romney, Bachmann, or Santorum could find anythingon RP like what exists on Newt in audio and video, they'd put it out there right away. Because nothing like that exists, the only tactic left is to cal him a kook.

  7. John Scotus says:

    Thanks for posting this. Paul and his supporters should actually defend his comments and his record. Instead, all they can do is distort the records of others (such as Reagan) and hurl accusations at people. I'm sick of it.

  8. Kirk Van Allen says:

    wow , you're stretching to find some fault with Ron Paul.

  9. Martin Kral says:

    Everyone is a racist or a liar. Most of us just keep it to ourselves. What is more important is the national debt and Paul has to only solution to it starting with his foreign policy. You only have to take a serious look at our foreign policy since the 1900's to see that it is not working. As a Viet Nam (drafted) veteran please tell me where that conflict improved humanity? I say make commerce, not war.

  10. mimsborne says:

    Ron Paul is not a racist. However, he is too tolerant when it comes to allowing views other than his own to carry the weight of his name. This can easily be seen on the web site. It has links to the John Birch Society. Ron Paul has no control over this site (it is run by people who support him), but he hasn't sued to take down the site. His campaign has to use Tolerance is great if practiced by our government, but defending one's brand is an imperative when living in a capitalist society.

    Still, I'm supporting Ron Paul with money. I'd much rather have a principled anti-statist (whose foreign poiicy I disagree with) than another big-government Republican like Gingrich or Romney. Actually reducing the size of government takes a huge amount of willpower and principle.

  11. Ernest says:

    It is not a question of racism, it is a question of integrity. A newsletter was published under his name for twenty years and he did not know its content? I have too many brain cells to buy that one. He has been given a free ride by the Republicans who do not want to tick him off, scared of a third party run. In the general election should he win the Republican nomination the Democrats would not be so inclined.

Trackbacks and Pingbacks: