Text

Reality Check on the Ron Paul Newsletters

Ben Swann just did a two part report on the Ron Paul newsletters. Very well researched and very fair.

The Story Behind the Ron Paul Newsletters

The Name of a “Mystery Writer” of One of Ron Paul’s “Racist” Newsletters

Here’s where he absolutely killed it (emphasis mine):

But there is a bigger issue than just Ron Paul here.

What you may not know is that in this presidential election cycle, every single candidate for president, including President Obama, has been called a racist.

Herman Cain was called a racist because he said blacks had been brainwashed into voting for the democratic party.

Mitt Romney was called a racist by Bill Maher because he is a Mormon, and called racist by MSNBC for continually calling the President by his first and last names instead saying President Obama.

Newt Gingrich was called a racist just a few months ago for calling Palestinians an invented people.

Michelle Bachmann was called a racist a few months ago after saying African American children and black families were better off during slavery presumably because they had both parents living with them. She says she was clearly taken out of context.

Rick Perry was called a racist for a name spray painted on a rock at a hunting camp rented by his family.

Also saying he was taken out of context, one of the latest claims against Rick Santorum, is saying he is a racist for a supposed statement he made that blacks shouldn’t receive welfare.  He says he didn’t say that.

President Obama himself has been called a racist by many people, including Glenn Beck, who triggered a fire-storm after saying he believes President Obama doesn’t like white people.

President Obama also called a racist for attending the Reverend Wright’s church for 20 years.

Here’s what you need to know.

The talk of racism has become the lowest form of political discourse.

Even as I just went down that list, some of you at home thought to yourselves how the candidates you don’t like, probably are racist.

And when you heard the name of a candidate you support, you thought “No”, that’s ridiculous.

See how it works?

Anything that can be deemed insensitive is called racist.  Anyone who stands too close to those who say those things, are racist.

Under the examples I just gave you, are they all racists?  Maybe none of them are?

How about this year, we try to have an election based on substance, on ideas, and on political record, rather than on name calling.

And that is Reality Check.

Tags: Ron Paul Ben Swann newsletters racism racist Reality Check
January 06, 2012
21 notes
Photo
kennethto: For the Ron Paul supporters out there, the graph above (taken from Google Trends) shows a promising trend line (which relates to search index volume on 2012 candidates for the past year).  Yet despite: Ron Paul leading leading in all measures of online support Ron Paul leading all other GOP candidates combined in military support Ron Paul being in the top three of fund-raising among the GOP candidates Ron Paul and Mitt Romney being the only two GOP candidates on the Virginia ballot in 2012 (which speaks to organizational strength) …  Ron Paul is portrayed as being unelectable.  Meanwhile Gingrich is portrayed by the MSM as a contender, despite the fact that he is behind Ron Paul in fund-raising, organization and voter support.  I think it speaks poorly of Newt Gingrich’s campaign organization that he wasn’t able to get on the Virginia ballot (where Mr. Gingrich resides).  It speaks worse about the U.S. mainstream media that they are trying to portray Gingrich as a serious contender over Ron Paul when all the evidence points to the contrary. The one thing hurting Ron Paul’s campaign is poor reporting.  Examples of poor journalism can be found at the Christian Science Monitor: Most opinion polls for South Carolina, the third state to hold a 2012 Republican nominating contest, give a resounding “no” to Paul. The Texan has been polling in single digits in the state, home to many active and retired military personal who may not take kindly to Paul’s non-interventionist military doctrine. http://bit.ly/rGkKXL There are reasons why Ron Paul may do poorly in South Carolina.  Support from military personnel isn’t one of them though: This year, Paul has 10 times the individual donations - totaling $113,739 - from the military as does Mitt Romney.  And he has a hundred times more than Newt Gingrich, who sat out the Vietnam War with college deferments and now promises he would strike foes at the slightest provocation. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/soldiers-choice/?hp There seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance among the mainstream media.  It seems as though these professional reporters can’t wrap their heads around the idea that U.S. military personnel actually prefer Ron Paul.  I wonder what the majority of the U.S. population would think if reporters actually noted Ron Paul’s support among the U.S. armed forces instead of attempting to portray his foreign policy perspectives as some kind of crutch.  Or what if the media played up the fact that Ron Paul served in the military as a flight surgeon? There was a time when bloggers were seen as amateur reporters.  Heading into 2012 though, I’d say that the reporters that are now the amateur bloggers. There’s no other way I can imagine reporters could actually believe Ron Paul is a racist. Below is a video of Ron Paul talking about race: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VR9YbBquRY&feature=player_embedded So Ron Paul: Wants to free thousands of minorities from prison who are unfairly prosecuted (and is also the only candidate who cares about the effects of the War on Drugs on minorities) Is the only candidate of either major party who wants to stop the bombing and killing thousands of innocent Arabs and Africans … and yet somehow he is the racist.  This is where the media would say Ron Paul is a racist because voted against spending federal money against a Rosa Parks medal.  What they’ll probably ignore is the background checking about how Ron Paul offered to pay $100 himself for the medal and how Paul asked other members of congress to put up the money themselves, instead of callously spending tax payers money.  In fact, here’s a video of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VR9YbBquRY&feature=player_embedded Keep up the misinformation campaign MSM, Ron Paul’s supporters will keep finding the factual evidence to shut down the smear campaign.

kennethto:

For the Ron Paul supporters out there, the graph above (taken from Google Trends) shows a promising trend line (which relates to search index volume on 2012 candidates for the past year).  Yet despite:

  • Ron Paul leading leading in all measures of online support
  • Ron Paul leading all other GOP candidates combined in military support
  • Ron Paul being in the top three of fund-raising among the GOP candidates
  • Ron Paul and Mitt Romney being the only two GOP candidates on the Virginia ballot in 2012 (which speaks to organizational strength)

…  Ron Paul is portrayed as being unelectable. 

Meanwhile Gingrich is portrayed by the MSM as a contender, despite the fact that he is behind Ron Paul in fund-raising, organization and voter support.  I think it speaks poorly of Newt Gingrich’s campaign organization that he wasn’t able to get on the Virginia ballot (where Mr. Gingrich resides).  It speaks worse about the U.S. mainstream media that they are trying to portray Gingrich as a serious contender over Ron Paul when all the evidence points to the contrary.

The one thing hurting Ron Paul’s campaign is poor reporting.  Examples of poor journalism can be found at the Christian Science Monitor:

Most opinion polls for South Carolina, the third state to hold a 2012 Republican nominating contest, give a resounding “no” to Paul. The Texan has been polling in single digits in the state, home to many active and retired military personal who may not take kindly to Paul’s non-interventionist military doctrine.

http://bit.ly/rGkKXL

There are reasons why Ron Paul may do poorly in South Carolina.  Support from military personnel isn’t one of them though:

This year, Paul has 10 times the individual donations - totaling $113,739 - from the military as does Mitt Romney.  And he has a hundred times more than Newt Gingrich, who sat out the Vietnam War with college deferments and now promises he would strike foes at the slightest provocation.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/soldiers-choice/?hp

There seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance among the mainstream media.  It seems as though these professional reporters can’t wrap their heads around the idea that U.S. military personnel actually prefer Ron Paul.  I wonder what the majority of the U.S. population would think if reporters actually noted Ron Paul’s support among the U.S. armed forces instead of attempting to portray his foreign policy perspectives as some kind of crutch.  Or what if the media played up the fact that Ron Paul served in the military as a flight surgeon?

There was a time when bloggers were seen as amateur reporters.  Heading into 2012 though, I’d say that the reporters that are now the amateur bloggers. There’s no other way I can imagine reporters could actually believe Ron Paul is a racist. Below is a video of Ron Paul talking about race:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VR9YbBquRY&feature=player_embedded

So Ron Paul:

  • Wants to free thousands of minorities from prison who are unfairly prosecuted (and is also the only candidate who cares about the effects of the War on Drugs on minorities)
  • Is the only candidate of either major party who wants to stop the bombing and killing thousands of innocent Arabs and Africans

… and yet somehow he is the racist.  This is where the media would say Ron Paul is a racist because voted against spending federal money against a Rosa Parks medal.  What they’ll probably ignore is the background checking about how Ron Paul offered to pay $100 himself for the medal and how Paul asked other members of congress to put up the money themselves, instead of callously spending tax payers money.  In fact, here’s a video of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VR9YbBquRY&feature=player_embedded

Keep up the misinformation campaign MSM, Ron Paul’s supporters will keep finding the factual evidence to shut down the smear campaign.

Tags: Ron Paul 2012 racism newsletters military Mitt Romney newt gingrich
December 26, 2011
20 notes
Video

The full Ron Paul CNN interview, showing he didn’t storm off. From the video description:

CNN finally released the full interview. It shows that Ron Paul didn’t “storm off” - the interview was over. 

All parts of the interview that make Gloria Borger look ridiculous and provocative were cut out of the heavily edited and misleading version that aired on CNN: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5LtbXG62es

As you can see CNN aired the final segment (starting at 6:00) first, trying to create the false impression that Ron Paul terminated the interview just minutes after it had started. In reality the interview had already lasted a full 8 minutes and was effectively over, with no further questions being asked.

Propagandist Borger ended the interview with an outrageous insinuation and lie: “Some of this stuff was very incendiary, you know… saying that in 1993 the Israelis were responsible for the bombing of the World Trade Center”.

The newsletters, politically incorrect as they might have been, NEVER made such a claim. That’s pure propaganda.

The corporate media will stop at nothing to discredit Ron Paul, but thanks to a growing understanding on part of the public of “how the system works”, the media’s efforts aren’t just not working, they are backfiring.

Ron Paul remains the undisputed frontrunner in Iowa (as documented by five consecutive polls by various organizations). Nationally, Ron Paul gained 5% on both Gingrich and Romney among Republican voters over the past 5 days during the worst phase of the media onslaught.

http://www.theendrun.com/ron-paul-gains-5-on-gingrich-and-romney-in-5-days-de…

Tags: cnn Ron Paul newsletters 2012
December 25, 2011
3 notes
Link

If you want to know the TRUTH about Ron Paul's newsletters read this article

uniteordie:

Entire sections of these newsletters are being taken entirely out of context. Sentences are completely cut off to make statements appear racist with no context to them. 

It may be hard to believe that the passages you’ve seen over and over could be taken out of context, but when you read them the way they were originally written it’s pretty clear that they were. 

I have known about the newsletters for a while but have always accepted Ron’s explanation. I will admit that recently as this stuff started to come up I found myself asking tough questions but this amazing piece (by a gay man no less) puts to bed any doubts or lingering questions. 

This is long, because it needs to be. There were thousands of newsletters published and it’s hard to do this topic justice otherwise. 

If you want to be honest with yourself and fair to the situation you need to read this article and understand THE TRUTH. 

Tags: Ron Paul 2012 racism libertarian newsletters
December 23, 2011
24 notes