University News

Ron Paul espouses wary view of big government

The former congressman said his first priorities are ending war and reducing U.S. presence abroad

Senior Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Ron Paul skirted around potentially controversial issues and was met with respectful enthusiasm at a lecture Tuesday night in Salomon 101. Sharing his views on a plethora of political issues, Paul punctuated his lecture by voicing his distrust of politicians and government, at one point saying he wanted to “neuter” lobbyists.

“The bigger the government, the bigger the lies, the less liberty we have,” the former congressman told a packed house.

Paul highlighted what he described as the plights of big government in policy areas ranging from the economy to international relations, calling big government the root of the nation’s problems.

Once the only OB/GYN in his town, Paul said he was not interested in becoming a politician until then-President Nixon “ominously” took the United States off of the “pseudo-Bretton Woods gold standard” in 1971.

Since then, the government has continued to grow, the economy has become overregulated and the United States has ceased to produce tangible goods, Paul added.

Paul cited the end of the gold standard and the increasing power of Federal Reserve monetary policy as the causes of the recent economic crisis.

“In the ’50s and the ’60s when we were graduating from college and medical school, there was never a question about jobs,” Paul said, but now even graduates with advanced degrees face serious challenges finding work.

Paul condemned the Fed’s response to the recent recession as an example of what he called the corruption of big government.

“The Fed came in — in secret — to the tune of trillions and trillions of dollars to bail out all the banks and all the major corporations,” he said. “What happened to the people who were supposed to be helped?”

Large banks and corporations also profit from government welfare programs, Paul said, arguing that the programs do not actually benefit the poor.

But Paul said he would not immediately recommend cutting welfare.

“My suggestion wouldn’t be to cut food stamps for the poor or medical stamps for the children,” Paul said. The government should “stop all the wars and bring the troops home … before we do anything else.”

“I think he will eventually advocate for cutting welfare,” Galen Hunt ’14 said.

Paul’s statement showed how he “took into account” what the audience wanted to hear, Hunt added.

Paul continued criticizing big government and its manifestation through the military-industrial complex.

“The Koreans are coming, the Koreans are coming, so we have to have more weapons!” Paul said, mocking big government’s abundant fear-mongering.

Paul advocated removing U.S. military forces from bases across the globe.

“Intimidation doesn’t work, and we’ve been doing it for a long time, and so there’s a lot of resentment building up,” he said. Criticizing drone war, Paul said there are “50 innocent civilians killed for every terrorist.”

Paul spent the majority of his lecture discussing economic policy and international relations, but he took time to plug social issues close to the hearts of Brown’s liberal-leaning student body.

“He treated it much less like a lecture and much more like a trump speech,” said Stephen McShane ’16.

“There should be no question with a state saying you’re allowed to use marijuana,” Paul said in response to a student’s request that he elaborate on his position on the war on drugs. “The less drug laws any place along the line the better,” he added.

Paul also briefly mentioned his belief that the definition of marriage should not be the federal government’s concern. Another congressman once stated, “the people are too stupid — we have to take care of them,” Paul said. “I don’t believe that.”

When pushed by a student question to reconcile his views of individual freedoms with his pro-life views, Paul said he has “trouble defending everybody’s minutiae of what everyone wants.”

He referenced his former career as an OB/GYN and professional obligation to protect the rights of the fetus in the eighth and ninth months of pregnancy.

But Paul did not address abortions performed earlier in pregnancy, McShane noted, saying, “He is fundamentally a politician.”

The lecture ended on a controversial note when a student asked about racially charged statements written under Paul’s name for which Paul has previously refused to accept responsibility. Paul used this final opportunity to reemphasize his distrust of politicians and the government

“(The statements prove) that man is imperfect,” he responded. “That’s why you should never trust government.”

To stay up-to-date, subscribe to our daily newsletter.

  1. You think Ron Paul was pandering to the audience? The guy who insisted to southern military states that we should have a golden rule foreign policy and got booed for it? Or in the Bible Belt that we should end the federal drug war?

    Here’s the budget he proposed, it cut a lot, but block granted welfare to the states to manage without federal interference or cost of oversight, and didn’t cut a penny from social security or medicare for those who paid in, but let those under 25 OPT out. It cut things you are used to seeing at the federal government level which weren’t there before the 70s, like the ruination of the once best public school system in the world. But most of those programs were more corporate welfare, such as oil subsidies, than for the people. So his budget balanced in 3 years, despite no cuts to those who had paid in to medicare or social security, and despite block granting welfare programs.

    Check it out for yourself, then check into him. He’s the real deal. Never accepted medicare or medicaid, never turned a patient away for inability to pay, giving discount or free service. If you see something that bothers you, look into it. It will pop like a soap bubble. There are smears, but they don’t stand inquiry.

    Take care, and here’s the budget:

  2. Adam Green says:

    The one who should be President.

  3. Brown's Better Than That says:

    I was embarrassed Bradley Silverman would take this opportunity to ask such an inane, hateful question. What was the goal? “Expose Ron Paul?” The newsletter is an old, tired, and disproved issue. Anyway, Paul’s politics speak volumes in opposition to that kind of thinking, whether Bradley agrees with Paul’s ideologies or not.

    • It was a fair question. Ron Paul’s ideology is not at all opposed to the dozens of racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic remarks he has made through his newsletter. My point was valid; Ron Paul has continuously scapegoated others for the hateful remarks printed under his own name in his own newsletter. For a man who espouses such a high degree of personal responsibility that he would slash assistance to the needy, his refusal to man up and take responsibility for his own words constitutes rank hypocrisy and cowardice. Paul himself was the only hateful person in that room.

      The reason I asked that question is because in my experience Brown students are very familiar with Paul’s stance in favor of marijuana legalization and against involvement in foreign conflict, but are less familiar with the depths of his personal bigotry. It is also indisputably untrue that the veracity of the newsletters has been disproven; in fact, the whole point of my question was that he has failed to explain or take responsibility for them for several years now. If a student understands Paul’s prejudicial views and still support him, fine – but that student should still have the right to know everything relevant that there is to know about him before making up his or her mind. By the way, for those interested, a larger (but by no means complete) collection of Paul’s bigoted statements can be found here:
      and here:

      Finally, on the subject of cowardice, note that I post under my own name rather than hide behind an anonymous avatar.

      • Adam Green says:

        You reference “his newsletters” and cite a third party newsletter from 25 years ago. Ron Paul did address these accusations attributing excerpts from that newsletter, attributed in the newsletter to a writer, not Ron Paul.

        It’s absurd and disingenuous to repeatedly make the same accusations. If you don’t know or choose to ignore the fact he has answered these accusations and proven he was not involved, at least agree that in the intervening quarter century, he has never once made such statements in his own voice, nor has even one word or vote of his political career indicated any such prejudice.

        • Reasonable, well-intentioned people can disagree about matters of belief or opinion. This isn’t one of those disagreements, however; you are lying – pure and simple. Ron Paul has not taken responsibility for those newsletters. As far as I can tell, his acknowledgement that he is a flawed human being last night may be the first time he has accepted even indirect culpability.

          The thing that is most dishonest about your response, though, is your assertion that these are third-party newsletters. That is false. These are his newsletters – they are Ron Paul newsletters. I have no doubt that he was not the one who sat at a typewriter and wrote the words that printed under his name. Likewise, senators don’t actually type their own bills, rock stars don’t actually respond to their own fan mail and Jack Lew doesn’t actually write his own signature on every dollar bill. What is your standard for accepting responsibility? Does he need to write his name at the beginning of each article? Don’t be ridiculous – it’s his own famn newsletter, we can assume that he endorses and is responsible for it’s contents. Does he need to write them in his own blood? Does he need to attach a video to each pamphlet of him looking into the camera and asserting that the words are his own?

          You raise a number of straw-man arguments that are entirely irrelevant to the point I had made. I did not say that Ron Paul spoke those words in his own voice – just that he printed them in his own newsletter. I did not say that his voting record reflects his hatred, although his cosponsorship of the Marriage Protection Act and his assertion that women who experience sexual harassment in the workplace should just quit their jobs certainly do indicate some ugly beliefs on his end.

          It’s frankly pathetic to see the same libertarians who so self-righteously denounce the takers and leechers for failing to exercise personal responsibility clumsily try to absolve their idol when he shares his bigoted views by saying that he isn’t actually responsible for them, even when they appear in his own newsletters.

          • Adam Green says:

            Reasonable people do not rebut with “you’re lying.” I’ll leave it at that. Anyone interested in the facts can do the research without reading your guff.

          • Back up your claim that Ron Paul answered or apologized for the accusations related to the newsletter. I think Bradley was justified in getting as much of an apology out of Ron Paul as possible–even though it turned out to be a non-apology.

          • Adam Green says:

            That’s just silly. This newsletter muck-raking was covered during the 2012 US Presidential campaign and was promptly debunked. Even the most one-eyed media reports during the election made it clear it was patently nonsense and it was dismissed once again as the same claptrap that gets trotted out from time to time presumably by people with an axe to grind.

            Ironically, this kind of misinformation and disinformation does good when it provokes anyone interested in researching for themselves. This leads to a discovery of the facts and an appreciation of the US Constitution, which in turn provides the truth about the actual values and beliefs of a few remaining good men and women who have pursued politics for good purposes.

          • Isn’t hyper-linking easy? Help us out.

          • Adam Green says:

            I took little of my own medicine and did some of that research I was encouraging others to pursue. : )

            In short,
            ​Ron Paul did not write any racist or anti-homosexual articles though he does take responsibility for the mistake of neglecting the publication bearing his name during the 12 year period, 1985-96, when he was out of politics.

            ​There’s ample facts to prove Ron Paul should never have even been accused.​ It takes only about 12 minutes to watch both the videos, below.

            In 2007, leading up to Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign for US President, a blogger
            ​accuses​ Ron Paul of racist newsletters
            ​ from the early 90’s​. A mainstream TV reporter picks up the story and finds the facts: a freelance writer named James B. Powell
            ​ is connected to the offending newsletter articles. Powell might not be the author, but he made similarly offensive comments in one later edition of the newsletter. In total there were 9 racist passages in articles published in the newsletter circa 1990-92.

            It’s a storm in a fake teacup. James Powell wrote for only four months of the 20 years that the newsletter was published. He is suspected of writing 9 racist passages. There were 240 or more editions of the newsletter. Powell may or may not be the culprit. There is no by-line to the articles with the racist statements.

            This happened circa 1990 during a 12 year period when Ron Paul was not involved with the publication or in political office from ’85 to ’96. The newsletter started as an investment opinion mailer, but Ron Paul lost a Senate election and returned to practicing ​medicine. Years later, the newsletter continued under his name on the banner, but with political content which was not subject to his review.

            Here’s a video of the first TV report unearthing the facts:

            The next day, the same TV news show followed up with a response by the blogger, disclosing the name of the
            ​supposed writer and acknowledging the facts.



          • 1) James Powell wrote a technical report about bomb shelters. They brought in a guest writer specifically because that’s not a subject that Ron Paul would have been able to write on his own.

            2) There are no racial slurs in the James Powell pieces. He criticizes the LA Riots and calls one person “militant.” That’s not a racial slur. When James Powell writes complains that black people are fleet footed, let me know.

            3) The author of the racist writings makes references to OB-GYN medical journals in the same article where he defends Bobby Fisher for anti-semitism. Is James Powell an OB-GYN?

            4) The author also makes references to Ron Paul’s personal life, including referring to Ron Paul’s family in the same article he accuses MLK of being a gay pedophile, citing a guy who co-owned a coin shop with Ron Paul as a expert source int he “95% of black people are criminals” LA riots article, referring to struggles during his 1988 run for President in another article where he attacks MLK, etc. Does any of this sound consistent with James Powell?

            5) Renae Hathway, Ron Paul’s former secretary and subscription manager for the newsletter, confirmed that Ron Paul personally went over every article. The only response from the campaign is that Ron Paul wasn’t PHYSICALLY at the newsletter office every day. Which might be true, but you don’t need to PHYSICALLY be at the newsletter office every day to go over an 8 page newsletter every other month.

            6) Ben Swann has curiously made absolutely no attempt to vet his story by contacting Ron Paul or James Powell about his findings directly. The only reason I see for this is because he doesn’t want to trap Ron Paul in a lie, by forcing him to either confirm or deny his theory.

            7) Ben Swann is a known conspiracy theorist. Yesterday, he went on TV and accused the Boston bombing of being an inside job.

            If you think that James Powell is the actual author, then why has no one asked Ron Paul or James Powell to confirm it? The mainstream press can’t ask, because Ron Paul runs away every time they bring the newsletter up.

          • Adam Green says:

            You’ve cited no references or authoritative sources. I had not heard of the FOX reporter from Ben Swann prior to a little Googling earlier today, but his facts were not refuted by the blogger who dropped his accusations once he was refuted — he went on to then post the information from the reporter to his blog site. Swann’s Facebook channel has a recent interview with Ron Paul and nobody has come along in the last year, even the last six years since before the ’08 election to make these accusations as hard facts, not even leading up to the 2012 election campaign when surely any skeletons would have been forced out of their closets.

            It’s just spurious and unsubstantiated rehashing of conjecture to reference a comment from a secretary that may not have been relevant or pertinent to the context of whether or not Ron Paul was active for the relevant 9 passages (!) of text to have been edited in person by a doctor in Texas retired from writing an investment newsletter that others were now using as a political opinion newsletter. In the words of the bard, sheesh!

            If James Powell is important, indeed why hasn’t he been included and brought forward as the next accuser or even a first hand witness that Ron Paul penned those 9 passages? Why not clear his own name from the suggestion he’s a racist and is responsible for writing the article with his by-line that carries the racist opinions expressed in the other 9 passages?

            Finally, and this is all from me to you on this, if you come up with facts from authoritative sources, I’m all ears, but no more of this rehashing suspicions. At this point, I’m pouring this storm in a teacup down the drain.

            For all the muck-raking and smear tactics in politics, after a career spanning four decades, most of half a century, Ron Paul’s character and integrity, his purpose and intent as a politician and as a person, are the very definition of unimpeachable.

          • So Swann recently interviewed Ron Paul. Did he ask Ron Paul to confirm his James Powell theory? If not, then why?

            All of the examples I’ve provided can be found in the Ron Paul newsletters, if you actually bothered to read them. For instance, the OB-GYN reference can be found in the November 1992 issue. Ron Paul co-owned a coin shop with a man who is mentioned as an “expert” in the riots piece.

            Your argument is, “Ron Paul worked as a doctor, therefore it’s logically impossible for him to read over an 8 page newsletter that made millions of dollars off of every other month!” That’s a pretty weak alibi. Especially since the newsletter makes references to an OB-GYN medical journal that only a doctor in Ron Paul’s field would be reading.

            You’re the one who is promoting Ben Swann’s theory. It’s your job to find confirmation, either by asking Ron Paul, or by asking James Powell. Sorry, but I’m not going to assume that James Powell reads OB-GYN medical journals on your say so.

            OTOH, Matt Welch of Reason has printed numerous examples from 1996 showing Ron Paul defending the newsletter. You can’t even get Ron Paul to confirm Ben Swann’s theory, even when Ben Swann himself has had the chance to interview him.

            It’s funny how you fault James Powell for not defending himself, even though James Powell is not a public figure, and there’s no sign that he actually cares. Chances are he agreed with the newsletter, even though it’s doubtful he wrote it. But Ron Paul actually is a public figure, and he was asked about the newsletter point blank. He could have answered, “I didn’t write them, James Powell did.” Why didn’t he?

            Oh, that’s right: Because he would be lying. There’s no sign that Ron Paul himself believes in Ben Swann’s theory, and there’s no evidence to support it other than the fact that James Powell wrote a completely different article in a completely different style on a completely different subject. No evidence + no confirmation = no argument.

            But I’m still waiting for you to explain the OB-GYN reference in the newsletter, or why Ron Paul would admit to writing the newsletter unless he actually did. And before you reply, “He took some bad advice” does not count as an explanation.

          • Adam Green says:

            Just to be clear, I’m no longer at your disposal to slice up your conjecture. If you care to research facts and come back here, I’ll be sure to read what you’ve found. But let’s work from facts and credible sources. First hand information, not more blue sky conjecture.

          • And where are your first hand sources? All you presented is a video where Ben Swann speculates that Ron Paul didn’t write them. But you have given no first hand evidence for us to verify on our own. You haven’t even provided a coherent argument that can be broken down for analysis. You haven’t given us any reason to believe that Ben Swann is credible, or even objective. And you haven’t shown us that Ben Swann has made any attempt to verify his conclusions either.

            First hand sources to support my case:

            Do a search for “ron paul contemporary ob-gyn,” and it will bring you to a scan of the Ron Paul newsletter where Ron Paul makes a reference to an OB-GYN magazine, as well as a link so you can see the types of articles you would find inside. It is not a magazine for people outside of the industry. That’s a first hand source.

            Do a search for “ron paul rehashed reason,” and it will bring up a Matt Welch article where he goes over dozens of newspaper clippings from 1996, where Ron Paul defends the contents as his own. If you want to dig further, you are free to use a newspaper database to read the original articles in full, since most newspaper were not online at the time.

            Please explain away either of these examples. And feel free to provide any first hand sources of your own. Ben Swann is not a first hand source.

          • Adam Green says:

            A hodgepodge collection of Web site blogger blather is not source material, it’s just examples of people with poor reading comprehension.

            I found a seminal work on racism and equality that will sort all this out for you.


          • Adam, scans of the original newsletter and Ron Paul’s own words where he admits to writing the newsletters in numerous interviews apparently does not count on a first hand source. You don’t even have the balls to try to address it.

            Meanwhile, your only “evidence” is speculation from a truther who thinks that the Boston bombing was a government inside job, and who speculates that someone else wrote the newsletter with zero evidence and zero confirmation.

          • So basically, you’re response is just covering your ears and saying you can’t hear us. And by the way, just asserting that Ron Paul’s character is good says more about you than him. Finally, instead of whining about being called a liar, maybe you should stick to honest statements.

          • Thanks. In that first video, at around 4:27, Ben Swann says Ron Paul “takes responsibility for the content because it was published under his name.” Apology or non-apology, you decide. But still, is there an official statement, or a recording of Ron Paul saying this? Are we supposed to trust Ben Swann as a secondary source on what Ron Paul said?

          • Don't Be A Dick says:

            Bradley, I sincerely hope you learn how to communicate with people. Constantly attacking as if on the defensive. Believing the other side also has good intentions goes a long way.

            For example:

            “Reasonable, well-intentioned people can disagree about matters of belief
            or opinion. This isn’t one of those disagreements, however; you are
            lying – pure and simple.”

            Can also be said:

            “Hey man, I just have serious concerns about Ron Paul and these remarks. I believe I have credible sources that you should look into to see where I’m coming from.”

            Which do you think is more effective in getting your message across and doesn’t leave the impression you’re a jackass?

          • I see your point – however, I’m a lot less interested in coddling the feelings of someone who is, in my estimation, a deliberate teller of falsehoods than with labeling those falsehoods honestly and explicitly so that others do not fall for them. If you tell deliberate lies, don’t complain when you’re called a liar.

          • Don't Be A Dick says:

            Dude. How do you *know* the other person was a liar rather than misinformed? In debate it’s better to win the other person over rather than win over the other person. Again, you blew an opportunity here to convince people. The difference between us is you see a person who disagrees as someone out to get you, which is a really shitty, miserable way to live. I’m offering this advice because you could definitely benefit from it.

      • On the subject of anonymity, you made an ass of yourself and Brown in public. You needed to be called out, at least to follow up and defend your judgement. Extrapolating from the massive imbalance in community agreement with the previous poster and yourself, the previous poster did you a favor in offering you an opportunity. The previous poster was wiser in avoiding the downsides in public speech. There’s plenty on the topic of anonymity and why it is good. It has little to do with “bravery”, “virtue”, or “courage” as you assert.

      • It doesn’t add up.

        IF Paul were the racist that you claim he is, there would be some support for the argument other than a few non-PC quips from decades ago. Where is the supporting evidence for your thesis? It doesn’t exist, because you are wrong.

        The newsletters are a red herring cooked up by the communist, libertarian hating, Jamie Kirchick.

        • Can you find one example where Ron Paul’s political views in the newsletter do not agree with the actual views he had at the time? i.e., “In the newsletter, he criticizes the Civil Rights Act. But Ron Paul has always spoken out in favor of the Civil Rights Act!” would be a valid example, if it were actually true.

          Because if you can’t find a single contradiction, then that means that Ron Paul’s entire political career supports the newsletters.

          • It means no such thing. I can conclude, with much greater certainty, that you’ve never passed a logic class.
            You have no other example of Paul’s “racism.” My points stand.

          • I doubt you’ve ever been within breathing distance of a logic class.

            Ron Paul’s handwritten signature is on the newsletter. His name is listed as editor. The company and financial documents are registered to him and his family. The newsletter shared the same mailing address as Ron Paul’s 1988 campaign office. None of the staff members who are listed on the newsletter were ever fired for it, and many of them continued to work with him 2 decades later.

            On top of that, Matt Welch of Reason showed dozens of examples where Ron Paul and his staff defended the contents of the newsletter in 1996. That’s your confirmation, from the man himself. Sure, he didn’t admit to being racist. But he did defend the racist newsletter as his own, and said that his words were taken out of context.

            That’s evidence that Ron Paul did in fact write the newsletter. Now the burden of proof shifts to you. If you think that all of those things are invalid, then show us. Tell us how the newsletter was printed without any of Ron Paul’s knowledge. Give us the names of the people responsible, or a reasonable explanation on why none of the names can be found. And explain to us why Ron Paul would admit to writing the newsletter unless he actually did.

            You are demanding extra-ordinary evidence from the other side, while presenting no evidence of your own, and without addressing any of the evidence already on the table. That is not how logic works.

            If I have DNA evidence connecting you to the murder scene, you don’t get to reply, “Well, prove that I’m a murderer. Show video evidence of other people who I murdered recently.” No. You have to present an alibi explaining how you couldn’t have committed the crime, and you need to explain how your DNA turned up on the crime scene if you weren’t actually there. You don’t get to simply ignore facts that are inconvenient for you.

          • You are still wrong.

            In this country, just because you find some of my DNA at the crime scene means very little. You still have to prove my guilt to convict me of murder. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the guilty. Placing me near the scene is not enough ~ it might put me on a list of suspects, but if you want to prove my guilt, you must prove my guilt. In this case you can’t even prove he wrote a couple of non-PC quips over two decades ago, let alone that he is “racist.”

            Even if Paul did write the objectional material, that is not enough evidence to prove he is a “racist.” Maybe he was using a literary device. Perhaps it was an attempt at satire. What else do you have? Oh, that’s right ~ you have nothing.

            I hope that you are never judged by the standard you are imposing on Paul.

          • You have obviously never read the newsletters in question because if you had, it would be clear from the overall tone and context that his remarks were not literary devices or satire. You need to show how viewing his comments in that light would make any sense. Since it wouldn’t, you have a tough job ahead of you.

            To RonLawl: you’ve done a great job here, but arguing with people who view Paul as an essentially religious icon incapable of any wrongdoing is bound to get exhausting.

          • You are making the claim that Paul is a racist. Yet all you have are people talking about and quoting “newsletters” that may or may not have been written by Paul. You can’t prove they were written by Paul any more than you can prove Paul would be a racist even if he did write them. You provide ZERO support for your argument.

            Can you cite a working link to even one of these offending newsletters? I’ll bet all you’ve read is someone writing about someone writing about someone who claims to have seen them.

          • That’s again like saying that even though you have a video of Guy A robbing a convenience store as well as his fingerprints on the counter you can’t accuse him of the crime because you don’t have more evidence. There already is bountiful evidence that Ron Paul is a bigot. The quantity isn’t at issue here.

        • That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. You’re basically saying that if the evidence of Ron Paul’s racism were legitimate, there would be more of it? There already is quite a bit of it! And it’s fairly explicit!

          • You’re at Brown, I’m pretty sure that you’ve heard stupider.

            I’m saying:

            1. You haven’t proven Paul wrote any of it.

            2. The comments in question are not inherently racist, and in fact were pretty par-for-the-course in the 85-95 timeframe. This is the timeframe when Limbaugh and others were coining terms like “feminazi.” As unimaginable as it is to kiddos today, it was not uncommon to use literary device to cynically pander to “dittoheads” back then.

            3. Even if I give you that the newsletters were written by Paul, and that they are “racist,” you still haven’t proven your claim that Paul is a racist.

          • Nolan, burden of proof rests on the accuser. However, once evidence has been presented, it’s up to the defendant to explain it away. Sorry, but if you want to dismiss the evidence as being insufficient, then first you need to actually address it. If you’re on trial for murder and you don’t think your DNA is enough to prove get, you need to give the court a plausible reason why the DNA was there. You don’t just get to plug your ears and go “la la la, that’s not enough, so I don’t have to address it” like a small child. That is not how logic works.

          • The defendant does not have to explain away “proof.” The accuser has to make a case for a crime being committed.

            The accusation is that Paul is a racist. Newsletters or not, the case has not been made. What we have here is nothing more than a poorly sourced political smear.

          • So by your logic, we should all elect David Duke as President. Because even though David Duke says a lot of racist things, there’s no way to ever definitively prove that he actually believes them.

          • If you were asking me to make the case that Duke is a racist, I wouldn’t be limited to a handful of poorly sourced quotes from 20 years ago. I could provide recent video of him hanging himself. I could point out that Duke was a big shot in the KKK. I could quote speeches that he gave in public forums.

            If the totality of the argument against Duke was: I think he wrote a few insensitive things a few decades ago ~ you might have a point.

          • But can you prove that he’s a racist in his HEART? Maybe he just hangs out with the KKK because he’s lonely, or because he likes to talk. Are you a mind reader? Do you have telepathy? Can you show it with absolute fact?

          • I’m inclined to believe Duke is a racist. I don’t need telepathy to draw the conclusion. Since he is a racist, and he has an internet talk show, evidence abounds.

            I am not at all convinced that Paul is a racist. If he were, he would have “slipped” on camera at least once in the past decade. We would be talking about more than newsletters.

  4. Dale Holmgren says:

    I think everyone is missing the point about the newsletters. The real answer is that the newsletters were factually correct. I checked the dates, and the LA riots did stop on the day the welfare checks came out. There is no denying it was blacks rioting in the street, and they engaged in disgusting behavior, as we all remember from the Reginald Denny skull crushing. I did buy the Ralph Abernathy book, where indeed Abernathy confirmed that MLK engaged in orgies and made a homosexual comment. As far as deliberate infection of AIDS by gays, a Louise Hogarth even did a documentary on this true phenomenon called “The Gift”.

    As for whether AIDS was created by government, several conspiracy theorists, among them Dr. William C. Douglas, believe that the World Health Organization created the AIDS epidemic by administering contaminated smallpox vaccines to people in third world countries (including Africa) between 1966 and 1977. Dr. Robert Gallo, famous for discovering HIV, lent credence to this theory when he said, “the link between the World Health Organization [vaccination] program and the [AIDS] epidemic in Africa is an interesting and important hypothesis. I cannot say that it actually happened, but I have been saying for some years that the use of live vaccines such as that used for smallpox can activate a dormant infection such as HIV”.

    You may not like what the newsletters said, but you cannot deny the truth of what was said. Other comments that Ron Paul said, like IRS agents popping out of birthday cakes with AK-47’s, were obviously rhetorical devices not meant to be taken literally, but of course Ron Paul haters have to pretend that he literally means these comments as some sort of ‘proof’ that he’s out of control.

Comments are closed. If you have corrections to submit, you can email The Herald at