68 votes

Newsletter Scandal

Vote this up HARD !


It will be featured on Fox News this week. :)

Newsletter Scandal


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

@thedizzle, Wyandotte,

@thedizzle, Wyandotte, sammy321


In my opinion all it merely does is puts the suspect in the place, with the weapon. Which leaves the viewers to assume what most likely happened.

Making it obvious to the voters that this is going on is just as damaging as if they were found guilty in court.

This is bigger than Ron Paul people. This is a crack in the paradigm that the unknowing public ingest their data from. Once they are convinced that there truly is a biased man with an agenda behind the curtains at CNN it could perpetuate the seed that Ron Paul planted. It could be infinitely beneficial to our movement.

Or it could be dismissed, but I don't believe it would be negative in the slightest.

If those comments were so

If those comments were so "incendiary", then why didn't the subscribers to the newsletter ever complain to Ron about them immediately after they were first published? Why didn't word get around to his family about the comments?

This means one of three things: the comments are better understood in the context of the articles, not as single sentences; the subscribers have no problem with un-pc, possibly racist language; or Ron knew about the complaints and is covering up something.

I vote down

I just have to say, I pray that this is not on Fox News. The newsletter crap is dying by itself, b/c anybody that looks at Paul's record, consistency, life, etc. Can tell he doesn't have a racist bone in his body. Putting it in the news more, will not help.

Does this really have a positive rating?

And is it really going to be televised?

It's conspiracy theory sensationalism in its finest form - the kind of stuff I see Ron Paul's leftist enemies accusing him and his supporters of all the time all over the internet.

You want to REALLY help debunk this scandal? Use the following document instead - it uses only hard facts, and goes into much more detail:


reedr3v's picture

Thanks for posting that Wyandotte



Some total NOOB posts some crazy, sensationalist, guilt by association conspiracy theory and way too many of you guys are totally going for it! WTF???

Instead of voting down my comment, why doesn't someone answer this question -


I personally have come to the conclusion of, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING... Other than possibly making us look really frickin' nuts.

For real?

I'm sure I'll get downvoted for this, but am I missing something here?

No offense to the author - I'm sure your intentions are good, but this article is unbelievably weak in concrete evidence and will do nothing but damage if it is actually used in any kind of television report.

If you have evidence that the newsletters were actually forged, lets put that together in an undeniable way. Most of this report is attacks on the attackers. Personal attacks against Dr. Paul's detractors will do absolutely nothing but solidify his enemies.

Please tell me this is not really being used for any kind of official report...I appreciate your positions on this, but if you want to influence undecided people to our side, you can't write an article which is 80% attacking the positions and personalities of Dr. Paul's detractors - it won't get you anywhere.

the point isn't that the

the point isn't that the letters are fake but that the story, which is old news, has been rehashed as an attempt at smearing Ron Paul's character... and candidacy.

That fact that CNN & Gingrich worked together to purposely distorted things to make Paul look bad.

Reference the edited interview smear attempt.
Reference CNN questioning Paul 4 times in 2 days.
Reference that CNN keeps asking Paul if he'll stop his attack ads on Gingrich.

Illegal, maybe, probably not. But it will show the voters that any news they get from CNN is distorted to make Gingrich look better and Paul worse.

Ok, so the argument is that

Ok, so the argument is that they're smearing him? And we're debunking the smear attempt by trying to associate the various reporters in a conspiracy against him? Though I DO believe that the establishment is against Dr. Paul, this article does nothing but attack his detractors. That is utterly unconvincing to me, and to an objective observer (IMHO).

We knew Dr. Paul would come under greater scrutiny once he took the lead - it's time to deal with it, and dealing with it does not mean crying "conspiracy". Accept the skeleton in the closet, accept responsibility and apologize, and trust that people will realize this man hasn't said a racist thing from his own mouth for the entirety of his public career. Then, it will be done.

it puts the suspect in the

it puts the suspect in the place, with the weapon. since no legal charges would be pursued hard evidence wouldn't be needed.

Making it obvious to the voters that this is going on is just as damaging as if they were found guilty in court.

This is bigger than Ron Paul people. This is a crack in the paradigm that the unknowing public ingest their data from. Once they are convinced that there truly is a biased man with an agenda behind the curtain it would perpetuate the seed that Ron Paul planted. It could be infinity beneficial to our momentum.

reedr3v's picture

The "down" arrow is being used too much again

If someone makes an antiliberty or antipeace point, or a fallacious statement, those deserves a down click. But if someone is making a reasonable point with sincerity, as ernie has here, let's discuss the various views and either arrive at a consensus or proceed on varying activist paths as free and respectful individuals.

Who the hell said

Who the hell said newslettters were forged?

Maybe forged isn't the right word...

...but the article states:

"Ron Paul has had a newsletter, yes but a financial one. At the newsletter by James Kirchick who provided it to Reuters it says “Congressman Ron Paul”. Well sorry to burst your bubble but Ron Paul was practicing medicine at the time"

To me, that insinuates that somehow the newsletters Kirchick had weren't the same as the ones Dr. Paul was publishing himself. If that's not what it means, then why have this line in there at all?

Bad URLs on page 6

The last two URLs on page 6 are broken.

The Suzanne Wilson-Houck bio hyperlink does not need parameters; it should end with ".htm" (no "?" and following, which are only arguably useful if called as an inline frame).

The text of the page has a pretty far right margin. In printed form, there is no advantage to shortening any of the URLs to accommodate a lesser width, especially if it makes the printed page unusable as a hand-out. After all, a PDF is meant for printing.

Lets not get too chilly here.

Lets not get too chilly here. I was asked by a DP member to compile this stuff for a FOX Tv Show. So if you have harsh words to say this is not the place for it. I've done my part.

It's good that another DP member asked you, HOWEVER...

...wouldn't it be best for it to be vetted by the Paul campaign first? You wouldn't want to muddy the waters if they already have something similar in the pipeline ready to go.

Surely, they are thinking along these same lines?

ACT IN HASTE, REPENT AT LEISURE. And thanks in advance for your efforts.

People reacting to the Newsletter scandals

I'm not sure which one of the clowns associated with Gingrich the lady on the train begins laughing about but evidently the laughter becomes contagious.


Do not assume establishment party officials who say all the right things about conservative principles will do anything differently. This is the battle. Individual liberty demands personal responsibility. - Debra Medina

What University? We need to

What University?

We need to find out exactly where these newsletters are archived and get any Ron Paul supporters at that campus to expose the faked newsletters by contrasting them with the real ones.

Even if only one newsletter was faked, exposing it would be enough to completely reveal the media's intentions...this, coupled with the doctored-up-hit job Gloria Borger interview would be enough to majorly embarrass the media and probably get a few people fired.

"In fall 2007, Kirchick began

"In fall 2007, Kirchick began looking into Paul's background after seeing a report that his campaign accepted a $500 donation from Don Black, publisher of the white supremacist site Stormfront. He began digging and spoke with experts on far right-wing organizations. Through research, he obtained copies of Paul's letters that were held in the archives at the University of Kansas and Wisconsin Historical Society."

Kansas :)

Okay, great.. I guess I

Okay, great.. I guess I missed that part. How can we get the word out for somebody in the area to take a look at those archives?

I live in Texas which is a driving day away, but I'm more than willing to head up there if we can't find someone close. I'm sure, though we can find some Ron Paul fanatic that lives there or close by..

Surely there are RP

Surely there are RP supporters attending the University of Kansas, who would have easy access to those archives when the spring semester begins in a few weeks. And I imagine they have a meet-up group, with a website, like at most large universities.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Yeah, I just posted a forum

Yeah, I just posted a forum topic for anyone who lives near Lawerence Kansas or Madison, Wisconsin asking them if they wouldn't mind going digging.

I don't like this approach.

This approach of guilt by association, who's husband is who, who associates with whom, etc. is not a powerful way to refute these sorts of allegations.

It's part of the rules of campaigning that whatever potential ammo against a candidate is out there will be used to try to get them, distorting and spinning the info as much as possible. That's just how the game is played.

This sort of attack was used against Obama with the Rev. Wright sermons, and one can expect it to be used against Dr. Paul.

The only antidote is to point out that Dr. Paul is not a racist, and that no one who knows him personally has made such an allegation, and there is no evidence of this in Dr. Paul's messages or writings.

A further antidote is to point out Dr. Paul's basic concern for fairness, esp. with regard to the disproportionate incarceration rate for Blacks due to drug charges, etc.

But focusing on who has brought up these allegations and why is not productive, I don't think.

I think the Grinch is done

I think the Grinch is done for.....Romney is really the chosen one from the very beginning.....we must OUT him for the THUG that he is.....all the others will be exiting soon so as to throw their support to MITTENS....hide and watch....they don't care which NEO CON is put in office.....anyone but Dr.Paul will do for the NWO......let's do some concentrating on Romney too!!!

Down voted

This kinda crap is giving WAY too much attention to something that the Dr. himself will easily kill - when the time is right. Naming the conspirators who are only sensationalizing the newsletter issue accomplishes what? The bottom line is that the words were written, and Dr. Paul's name is associated with them. Only he can defeat this.

I personally believe that this whole thing is dying on its own due to lack of merit. This is more gasoline for the fire, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm also skeptical about someone with 19 weeks on the DP causing such a stir... And downvoting dissention.

stop downvoting advices..


Can we get this on the front

Can we get this on the front page?

Sorry but I don't see the

Sorry but I don't see the point of all this. This smacks of crazy conspiracy theories that most people will just use to confirm their thinking that Ron Paul and his supporters are nuts.

Plenty of people disagree with Ron Paul and are willing to use the newsletters to discredit him. Trying to make this into something more is a stretch that will not fly except maybe with Glenn Beck fans.

Exactly. Also - stealing other's work with no credit.

This is perfect for giving more ammunition to dis-credit Ron Paul and anyone who supports him.

Submit the story WITH CITATIONS AND CREDIT to some journalists with public credibility that can be trusted (try Glenn Greenwald to start with).

This looks like the original poster of this thread and who-ever is behind this stolen material is really young. A teenager.

Do this the right way or its going to backfire

is this proof?

Is this proof that the racist newsletters were put there on purpose so they could use this against Ron Paul if he tried to run for office? Or does this raise more questions about how they really got there and the motive behind them.

Ron Paul 2012 For Liberty, Freedom, & Peace