Ron Paul Takes Credit For Most Notorious Of Newsletters In 1995

Rep. Ron Paul’s chief defense against criticism over what he himself concedes is objectionable material in his newsletters is that he didn’t know the content was being published. This has always been a hard claim for me believe – at the very least, presuming Paul was letting content be published to his newsletters that he didn’t know about, it shows a rather astounding level of poor judgment – but it becomes harder when videos emerge of Ron Paul touting these newsletters as he prepares for re-election in the mid-1990’s.

First there was a video last week of Paul promoting his newsletters, while recalling specific content from them, now here’s video of Paul endorsing his Survial Report newsletter, which contained most of the controversial content, and citing it as evidence of his qualification to be elected to return to Congress.

It strains belief that Paul didn’t know what was being written in these newsletters. It’s also unbelievable that a man who has made a career on his transparency and consistency would try to sell the public on such blatant mistruths like the idea that he wasn’t aware of the content. Or that he didn’t know who wrote it.

I’d have a lot easier time dismissing this if Paul weren’t so clearly lying about the provenance of the newsletters.

Of course, on the flip side, the New York Times wants Paul to answer for the fact that racists support his campaign:

Mr. Paul’s surprising surge in polls is creating excitement within a part of his political base that has been behind him for decades but overshadowed by his newer fans on college campuses and in some liberal precincts who are taken with his antiwar, anti-drug-laws messages.

The white supremacists, survivalists and anti-Zionists who have rallied behind his candidacy have not exactly been warmly welcomed. “I wouldn’t be happy with that,” Mr. Paul said in an interview Friday when asked about getting help from volunteers with anti-Jewish or antiblack views.

But he did not disavow their support. “If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what I do or say — it has nothing to do with endorsing what they say,” said Mr. Paul, who is now running strong in Iowa for the Republican nomination.

I think that’s a logical position for Paul to have. He can’t control who supports him. If the endorsement of a white supremacist group were, on its own, enough to undo Paul the endorsement of Barack Obama by the Communist Party USA should have been enough to undo him.

That being said, Paul’s disavowal of these groups happens in the context of his having accepted a $500 contribution from Stormfront leader Don Black during the 2008 presidential cycle and then refusing to return it once it was disclosed. Paul claims that he was standing on principle, that he’d gladly take the money of racists and use it for non-racist causes, but this stuff adds up. The newsletters. The flirtations with conspiracy mongers.

Politics, for better or worse, is about perception. And Paul has got to understand how these things make him perceived.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

    Ron Paul is not taking credit for a specific news letter, but rather informing that news letters are going out.

    [1:10] So, I was always very active in both politics and my profession.  When I came back, I resumed my medical practice, and I’ve been doing that ever since, but I’ve also stayed active in education. Long term, I don’t think political action is worth very much if you don’t have education, and so I’ve continued with my economic education foundation, Free Foundation, which I started in 1976.  So that’s been very active. 

    Actually, in the last several years, we’ve been doing some video work, in an educational manner.  We did 14 different 30-minute programs on video.But along with that, I also put out a political type of business investment newsletter that sort of covered all these areas.  And it covered a lot about what was going on in Washington, and financial events, and especially some of the monetary events.  Since I had been especially interested in monetary policy, had been on the banking committee, and still very interested in, in that subject, that this newsletter dealt with it.  This had to do with the value of the dollar, the pros and cons of the gold standard, and of course the disadvantages of all the high taxes and spending that our government seems to continue to do.

    You would have to be an idiot to believe the tripe you are pushing, Rob, and I suspect many of your stupid audience will lap it up, despite reading or listening to what Paul actually said.Context is everything and nothing spoken here takes away from Pauls logical explanation.Hell, Bush has flatly said things that aren’t true and which cause many to believe he is responsible for planning 9/11.  But I am sure you can bend your mind enough to understand that sometimes people say things that mean one thing, but sound another, right? You are a propagandist and a cheap copy cat.

    • Guest

      If Bush planned 9/11, then Clinton was in on it. Bubba let Bin Laden go, twice. But you already knew that.

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        Bush didn’t plan 9/11 any more than Paul wrote or knew about the content of the racist letters.

        • suitepotato

          Either he knew in which case he’s a scumbag, or he didn’t in which case he’s appallingly irresponsible and doesn’t deserve a post more powerful than school crossing guard. But of course, it isn’t as though anyone trusts your judgment, given that you’ve bragged of doing the nasty with HIV infected prostitutes.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You have a great strategy for proving you have no capacity for telling the truth and that you will lie in every way to attempt to silence those willing to go up against the propaganda from the right.  

            Nobody debates you because you come off like an emotionally unstable whack job.

  • igx

    Jason Lewis has great analysis of the Ron Paul movement. They let ANYBODY in just  so they grow in numbers. There are complications from that. Their extremist monetary positions preclude discussion of other solutions that would do a ton of good and are more realistic, politically. Right now there is effectively a huge void between Krugman and the private money types and it’s a disaster for the country. Monetary policy is everything, but hardly anyone that matters understands this fact. 

    • reverendyo

      “Extremist monetary position”?  The Gold Standard is now extremist?  The US of A used this until Roosevelt from it’s inception and you call this extremist?   The Federal Reserve, a private banking system, that ‘supports’ the US of A currency is alot more extremist than the gold standard. 

      • igx

        I didn’t say that very well. I mean they are too inflexible. Too black and white.  Other stuff could be tried first. I have a bad feeling the gold standard is going to get forced on us the hard way, globally, anyway. 

        • Jamermorrow

          Yes it will. Gold has always been money and will always be money. Paper comes and goes depending on the discipline of those issuing the paper. 

          • igx

            What people don’t get is there is nothing “barbarous” or magical about the gold standard. It’s simply the most dependable way to allocate resources fairly and for the most economic efficiency. The freaking “PhD standard” is a disaster for everyone except the Political Class, the already wealthy, and sophisticated speculators. People would be really pissed of if they understood what was happening. 

  • Flamejob5

    Last week a video was found regarding him promoting his newsletters, and this week (gasp!) a new video of him endorsing one of his newsletters.

    So…   the fact that he acknowledges that he had newsletters being published has changed what exactly regarding his repeated answer?

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/76280303/PaulNewslettersFaq-Tunk

    Time to move on and focus on our $15,000,000,000,000 debt.

  • Neiman

    Why the surprise? Paul is in most ways an extremist on all the vital issues of the day. From not caring if terrorist regimes have nuclear weapons, to ripping the government apart to achieve what he believes is the highly limited federal government of our Founding Fathers, to moral anarchy in our laws, his every position is pushing at the outer limits of extremism.

    It is understandable that the more libertarian, libertine elements of our society embrace Paul, despite many things about him that make them uncomfortable; but, if any man is thus extreme in his public positions, surely it should be no shock if we discover even more extreme beliefs that are privately held.

    Paul, like Nader and other malcontents before him, can only play spoiler, he can only distract people from choosing and supporting viable candidates. It is an absolute truth he cannot gain the nomination and certainly not the White House, but with his overbearing, out of control ego, he will not go quietly into that good night and before he fades back into the shadows after the elections, he will mostly help Obama by attacking the GOP Nominee.

    • Flamejob5

      Following the Constitution is Extremism.

      Got it.

      Go Romney!

      • reverendyo

        The rule of law is a foreign concept to most RINOs.  At least one candidate realizes the value of their oath to protect and defend the Constitution from it’s enemies instead of being an enemy of the Constitution. 

        • Neiman

          That candidate is certainly NOT Ron Paul!

      • Neiman

        This is why you Paulbots are so dangerous.

        1. There is an honest debate even among those of us that, with allowances for Amendments, believe in Original Intent. Just because you choose to believe Paul is following the Constitution does not make it a fact. When one honestly examines the many words/actions of our Founding Fathers, it is obvious that they did NOT believe their Constitutional understandings included the type of moral anarchy Paul promotes. They did believe the State has a role, albeit limited, in passing laws that inhibited the immoral excesses of man that their licentiousness did not infringe upon the liberty of others or cause our moral decay.

        “If men were angels,no government would be necessary; if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” -James Madison

        “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be
        violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” – Thomas Jefferson

        “He is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who set himself with the greatest firmness to bear down on profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his
        country.” – John Witherspoon, member of the Continental Congress and
        clergyman

        2. If you look at my many comments and post today, you will realize I am not promoting Romney,even though I must oppose the extremism of Paul.

        • Flamejob5

          Let’s examine those words more closely shall we?

          James Madison: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious AssessmentsThomas Jefferson: Bill for Establishing Religious FreedomThomas Jefferson: Kentucky Resolutions

          When will it ever occur to some people that there is a mile of difference between force (law) and volunteerism (encourage & support)? Why is the unity, strength & security found within a de-centralized strong, voluntary, thriving religion overlooked in support for a dangerous, forced, centralized religion? Why would citizens want to revisit the Church of England? Have you forgotten? Has the understanding of absolute power been lost upon you?

          Do you realize that religion has been used over & over throughout history as a tool used by men to abuse power???

          …and you dare label those who uphold & support the seperation of power between the general government and State Republics as “extremists?” lol.

          I agree that our public servants within our general government have every right to publicly & privately support & encourage religion. I fully support the freedom to do just that. But, via the 1st amendment, they do not have a right to force religion upon society. That is just as dangerous of a power as any other they are restricted from and is a power reserved for the sovereign State Republics and their respective citizens.

          “Congress shall make no law (force) respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

          “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

          Ron Paul is following the “extremist” Constitution.

          • Neiman

            Rather than playing dueling quotations, which we could play all day and respecting the fact you have a reading problem; the Federal Government did pass laws that were against moral licentiousness, which is what you and Paul want, complete moral anarchy. They passed laws authorizing the bible to be taught in our public schools, that had every session and every public meeting started with Christian prayers. The Northwest Treaty, that document detailing requirements for statehood, penned by Deist Jefferson whom you Libertarians love,  encouraged the Christian bible be taught in all schools that the children might learn morality (Judeo-Christian), which He said was absolutely essential for good government. These same people said our government was designed to rule over a moral, religious people and would work for no other kind of people, well like Libertarians.

            So, as I said from the start and you cannot read – it is useless to argue words or play dueling quotes and even argue every word in those quotes, it is only necessary to look at their actions to see that they did NOT subscribe to the Libertarian/Paulite interpretation of our Constitution.

            Paul (and his disciples) is an “extremist” perverting our Constitution as it was enacted and operated under our Founding Fathers.

          • Gim234

            So Neiman – who is your choice then? I mean seriously, who’s paying you to be such an anti-Ron Paul knuckle-dragging gorilla? Who’s better -seriously? Who’s predicted the economic collapse for 30 years? Who’s never voted for higher taxes, never voted against the 2nd amendment, never voted for undeclared war, never vote to give the executive branch more power, who voted against the Patriot Act, who’s NEVER taken the congressional healthcare plan and gives money back each year the to treasury from his office? This guy is extreme? There is someone NOT on the dole other than him running for president? Yeah, if this guys extreme – more and more and more people are becoming extreme – which is much better than your apparent positions – which are thankfully becoming EXTINCT.

          • Neiman

            I have always said that you Paulbots are his worst enemies. You put people off, you engage in verbal thuggery and insults,when you should be trying to persuade people through logical arguments and overcoming their images of him.

            I reject his moral anarchy, which is contrary to our Founding Fathers, whom mostly believed in the State imposing some moral restraints against the immoral excess of men. I reject his not caring if terrorist states get Nuclear weapons and his isolationist foreign policies. I reject his scorched earth policy regarding the federal government, which I believe in theory is right but in practice will increase unemployment, worsen the economy and harm the states.

            A seemingly righteous extremist is dangerous, he is rigid, intolerant and tyrannical. But, you will see that even if he and his thugs win Iowa, he will never get close to the nomination.

          • Gim234

            He doesn’t have thugs – that’s the establishment parties on both sides. So you dislike some of his supporters who say it like it really is – not how you want it to be said? Tyrannical? Since when did the constitution and liberty define Tyrannical? You don’t, nor ever have had a decent argument against him. LMAO at all of you criminals who continue to support the policies that have put us where we are today and continue to blindly follow the status-quo as this nation goes right over the cliff. Don’t even try playing the “name calling” supporters. We didn’t start the Paulbots, Ronulans etc. as that dog doesn’t hunt.

          • Neiman

            A. You are one of those verbal thugs.

            B. You are a prime example of what I meant by his supporters being his worst enemies.You are not about winning more people to his side, but picking fights and calling names.

            C. I gave you specific examples of why I oppose Paul.

            D. The tyranny I was talking about was in his personality and the way he wants to charge ahead like a bull in a China shop, breaking down the State completely overnight, no matter the costs to real people.

            E. Most conservatives and I are one, did not support the policies that broke our economy, we opposed them even when GOP Presidents were in office.

            You are all bluster and fight and I warn you that tactic will only and always drive people away from Paul.

          • Gim234

             The polls say it differently. But it’s ok for everyone to call us names? Again, that dog doesn’t hunt. If you were a conservative, you’d realize Ron is the only true conservative in congress. I’m just one supporter – and you’re right – I’m calling it like I see it – you call me a name I’ll call you one back. Ron Paul is this countries only hope – unless of course, you get your information from Limbaugh and Fox news and their pinhead cronies. Not a single one of these status quo pinheads saw 2008 coming – because they don’t want to upset the satus quo power structure as they as a group benefit. You’re blind as one gets – you don’t like the fact you’ve been duped and the last thing your are going to do is admit it no matter how much damage it does – because you are party over principle.

          • Neiman

            Problem is – he has NOT made the sale, he will NOT get the nomination or the White House and you Paulites are to partly to blame.

            To win means sell his ideas and sell himself, he has failed and you Paulites only make it worse/

          • Flamejob5

            Patriotism to most of today’s conservatives translates to allegiance to the all-powerful State. (the right-wing military industrial complex of the National Socialist party – left wing being the social welfare crowd)

            Idolatry falls behind in a close second – flags, eagles, metals, anthems, fighter jets scrambling across the horizon… 

            Lost within the heartfelt emotional quagmire is the reason behind which true patriots pledged their lives and fortunes over.

            Liberty.

            Ron Paul: Patriotism

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Funny, but you are the only guy calling people names (thugs, Paulbots, etc) on this specific thread. Worse, it’s you who put people off.  There’s virtually no conservative here, except AW, who buys into your hateful religious positions or extremest viewpoints of religious persecution vs. freedom.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com Mountainmouth

    This guy appears to have a “hands off” management style.  

    This is not the time to have someone whlo isn’t tracking the things he can be held responsible.

    • suitepotato

      That’s not management. That is a total lack thereof. Is the only criteria for electing someone after Obama that they want the office and aren’t Obama? Isn’t that the same criteria used to elect Obama? Yes, I recall that it was anyone not Bush.

      One might think someone would realize that and consider that a more responsible and moral person be considered, but evidently one would be wrong.

      It’s the end of the world as we’ve known it, and I’m going to get drunk.

  • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

    “mistruths”?  WTF are “mistruths?”

    • mickey_moussaoui

      Is that like a near miss with the truth?

      • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

        As in “miss the bull’s eye” and hit the bullshit?

  • HG

    I’m enjoying Hanni’s defense of Paul.  I knew Paul was a leftist loon on national defense and foriegn policy.  I had no idea Hanni would practically endorse him.

    Hilarious.

    • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

      It’s the right-wing hatchet job, by the SAB kooks, that I am objecting to.  I believe it’s important to defend the truth, no matter how badly conservatives attack it in order to get their way in politics.

      I defended Romney against the right wing hacks as well.

      • HG

        So you consider yourself the source of truth on this site.

        Laughable.

        • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

          Yet you can’t make a valid argument how this video takes away from anything Paul said about the newsletters.

          • HG

            Why should I?  I  commented on a whole other matter, namely your support and defense of Paul. 

            I’ve intentionally withheld judgment on this newsletter story until more facts are known.  Just like I did with Cain.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Yes, my defense of Paul is based on facts and you are left unable to explain why it’s bad to stand up for truth when you and your friends attempt to smear Paul.

            So why do you side with those who smear Paul and make false conclusions about him?

          • HG

            Everyone is entitled to there opinion.   Rob is far more often right the wrong — something you should at least try to emulate.  He may very well prove to be right on this one. 

            I have no doubt you’ll get it wrong.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Based on the facts as we have them today, I am right in what I said about this information not changing any explanation Paul has offered, thus far.

            Yes or No, HG?

          • HG

            No.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            OK, please explain how this video changes what Ron Paul offered as an explanation for the racist newsletters.

            Should be easy, right?

Top