A new fifty-dollar bill
Frightening Fifty!

At a rally yesterday I asked Ron Paul, “How confident were you at the time, that the Ron Paul newsletters from the mid 1980s to the mid 1990s accurately portrayed your views on monetary policy, the 2nd Amendment, the 10th Amendment, personal liberty, limited government, lower taxes, and staying out of needless wars?”

He refused to answer. He cannot answer. He has painted himself into a corner. If he answers that he was confident, then it contradicts his statements that he neither authored nor approved the content in the newsletters. If he claims that he trusted the writers, it shows that he is a very bad judge of character. Either way this would be a bad answer.

He would appear silly if he claims, however, that he had no more knowledge of the content about taxes than he knew about the race-baiting (One newsletter called the proposed Martin Luther King. Jr. holiday “Hate Whitey Day”). What kind of person allows a newsletter to go out in his name for 10 years and doesn’t give a hoot if it shares his viewpoint or not. Can you imagine a talk show host like Jan Mickelson of WHO-Radio in Des Moines, Iowa having a show in his name for that long and not knowing the contents.  Paul’s view is beyond belief.  I don’t believe him. He seems to be making it up as he goes.

A second question is relevant: “Did you ever get any complaints about the content in the newsletters?”.  If he did not, it certainly shows that the followers of Ron Paul have come to expect the crazy, conspiracy theories he is apt to serve up, usually in the context of selling more newsletters for big bucks.  Maybe he never really believed that the government was conspiring to gain total surveillance of us by forcing us to turn in our old money and use “traceable” pink money. But that is the kind of spooky stuff that filled his newsletters.

The old newsletter even has the current Ron Paul toll-free number (1-800-766-7285). You might want to call and ask for archived copies of the newsletter, but you can find the one about pink money, here.

Lastly, Ron Paul could clear this up today.  He should be asked to name the authors of his newsletter. Let them defend what they wrote, if it wasn’t Paul himself. If he hired “ghost writers” he is responsible for what they wrote, and knows their names. Come on Dr. Paul, show that political courage we keep hearing about.  NAME NAMES.

Many supporters of Paul suggest that the contents of controversial newsletters that contain Paul’s letterhead and which he used to raise huge sums of money were not racist or anti-Semitic, but simply politically incorrect satire or commentary on the welfare state or the economy in general. If this is true, and the judgment of charity might lend one to believe some of that, then that begs the question: Why does Ron Paul deny writing or approving newsletters that sound just like his voice and his stump speeches today?

I am much more concerned about his fear-mongering about the government and conspiracy theories about AIDS and apparently 9/11. What is too bad, is that many of his actual policies would be right and good. I support slashing the size of government by a trillion a year.  It would be great to abolish 80% of what the government does which is unconstitutional. I think we could bring many of the troops home.  But please don’t vote to put a paranoid nut in the White House.

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Sign up to receive stimulating conservative Christian commentary in your inbox.

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Thanks for subscribing!
  1. Maybe if A question were asked, rather than a series of baited half-questions, you’d get an answer …

  2. Who do you recommend everyone vote for, David?  I’ll be happy to provide you with much more serious reasons not to support that person than some old, already-addressed-ad nauseum newsletters that simply don’t hold water when you look at Dr. Paul’s ACTUAL VOTING RECORD. 

  3. I’m sorry.  “What” has been debunked?  Obviously, you’ve been sent on a mission with a message – that all of the nonsense that Ron Paul has spouted for over two decades has been ‘debunked.”  It doesn’t matter what it is – you just need to say that it’s been ‘debunked.’  Ron Paul’s character is either than he was willing to profit by giving his name, image and signature (but no oversight) to those who would spent twenty years writing advice to militias, information on the government’s creation of AIDs, how the Massad may have been involved in the first World Trade Center bombing, warnings about government Trilateralist conspiracies, racial taunts, taunts at gays, taunts at Hispanics, warnings about trackable money, and every other type of ‘paleo-Libertarian’ hoo-haw . . . or else Paul wrote it himself.  What about the first-person stuff about his wife, his son, his Congressional colleagues, his medical advice?  Yeah, it’s debunked. Because somebody else was sleeping with Mrs. Paul, voting in his place, and seeing patients?

    Which is it?  Was he just incompetent and greedy for twenty years, or the nutcase that’s painted in the newsletters?  And did those who followed him think he was the nut writing this stuff, or just want the photo of him from the masthead?

    I love the fact that the ‘pink money’ letter from him, on his letterhead, above his signature, goes to the point of saying that he “doesn’t need the money,” but then mentions the $99 price of the newsletter *eight* times.

    So how was he involved in the content for twenty years?  Because the only thing sold for $99 were ideas.  Didn’t he have any ideas to sell?  He had to get somebody else to fill in for him because he wasn’t capable of coming up with something worth $99 a year?  All of this about his financial knowledge and foreign policy knowledge – which came from and is repeated in his newsletters with all of the nutcase stuff – are somebody else’s ideas?  

    Well, who, then?  Nominate them!

    Because Paul either is or he isn’t.

    Is he the fraud who didn’t have ideas and took the money for somebody else’s?

    Or is he the spineless old man who no longer will take credit for his ideas once the bleach of public light has been shined on them?

  4. Here is Ron speaking on this issue today in reference to his new ad.

    The new ad

  5. If your concern is with 20 year old newsletters that don’t have any resemblance to other remarks he’s made, actions he’s taken, or articles he’s written in the last 40 years, what is your real concern when you say you agree with so many of his policies? No one (other than yourself) has asserted that the newsletters sound like anything Ron Paul says, so are you here to make baseless assertions about “paranoid nuts” or are you trying to make a substantive point?

    Besides, you’ve intimated that you may even support Rick Santorum, whose rants about the danger to America from the gays and the Muslims are even more baseless and paranoid than what you attribute to Ron Paul’s newsletters. Shouldn’t you demand the same sort of mental constitution from the candidates you support as you expect to find in others?

    1. Drew, thanks for your comments. Like a true Paulite you are willing to slander Santorum for believing that homosexuality is a sin, and marriage between a man and a woman, and also believing that SHOCK! some in Islam are out to destroy us.

      The newsletters are full of conspiracy code words such as the CFR, the Rockefellers, trilateralists, a cashless society, etc.  These are ths same kinds of things he talks about now, n’est pas?

  6. Your questions are excellent–I’m glad you got the chance to ask Paul that first one.  “Gotcha!!!”  🙂 

    In your previous article about him, a day or so ago I posted two links that give more pertinent information about the newsletter matter.  My comments may still be awaiting moderation, though–I hope that doesn’t mean they’re just in endless purgatory.  😉

    Another thing to ask here is, “How long would it have taken Paul to read a newsletter each month?”  Let’s say they were 10 pages long.  So, if you like to read slowly, at most 2 hours.  He couldn’t find 2 hours a month to read his own newsletter?  

    Frankly, I think the truth has become so obvious at this point that it’s almost not even worth the effort to discuss it.  Kind of like when Ginger White gave her testimony about Cain.  By that point, I’d say that anyone who still believed Cain was innocent a) completely lacked discernment b) completely lacked principles and/or c) was a Cain fanboi or fangurl.  I think those choices apply to this situation as well. 

    I’ll just make two more brief points:

    1) I think the principle of Occam’s razor applies here–i.e., that explanations shouldn’t be any more complicated than necessary.

    2) What would Judge Judy say about Paul’s “explanations”?  🙂

  7. Heard the latest?  Ron Paul’s story is, um, “evolving” again.  😉

    From the Newsmax article “Paul Admits ‘Some Responsibility’ for Racist Newsletters”:

    Ron Paul now says he accepts “some responsibility” for controversial newsletters, published in the 1980s and 1990s under Paul’s name, that spoke of coming race wars in the United States.

    “These were sentences that were put in, I think it was a total of eight or 10 sentences and it was bad stuff — it, it wasn’t a reflection of my views at all,” said Paul in response to a caller’s question on WHO’s Jan Mickelson radio show in Iowa. “I think it was terrible. It was tragic and I had some responsibility because the [letter went out under my name]….”

    “If you think about publishers of newspapers every once an a while they get some pretty chunky stuff in their newspapers and they have to say ‘this is not the sentiment and position of that newspaper’ and this is certainly the case … this is probably 10 sentences out for 10,000 pages for all I know,” Paul said.

    That’s right–someone just got “copy-and-paste happy” and started randomly inserting 10 racist remarks here and there.  Gotta give the guy major points for creativity, though. LOL.

  8. I’ll be so glad when this election is all over and we don’t have to talk about–or think about–Ron Paul and his ilk any longer. We should be focusing on the nut in the White House, rather than this nut running around Iowa.

Comments are closed.

You May Also Like

Iowa U.S. Senate Candidate Profile: Q&A with Mark Jacobs

1. What’s the most rewarding job you’ve held? Mark Jacobs: “Husband and father.…

Paul McKinley: Recovery Begins with People – Not Government

By State Senator Paul McKinley – Iowa Senate Republican Leader Question: What’s…

A Real Plan to Clean Up State Government

By Senator Paul McKinley – Iowa Senate Republican Leader State government is…

Four U.S. Senate Candidates Say No to Syria; One Says No to Voluntary Term Limits

Four U.S. Senate candidates attending the Polk County GOP picnic opposed military action in Syria. Only three pledged to term-limit themselves if elected.