Dear Richard:

Posted May 7th, 2008 by Prometheus 6

Random rant

Adam Wilson sent a message using the contact form at
http://www.prometheus6.org/contact.

Hey Prometheus,

Thanks for chatting today. I didn't realize you would end up being such a COWARD and run from the fight. I guess you can't handle the truth, which is why you blew up my final post. Also, it looks like you failed to meet my challenge. I don't blame you, though. There is no answer to my challenge, other than Ron Paul is NOT racist, and it would embarrass you greatly to leave that challenge on your website when you've been so strongly against him. So I don't blame you at all for censoring me. I would have done the same in your shoes. I do get a chuckle about the way you ran away, though, especially given how you call out Prof. Kennedy on your website, for failing to answer your response to his article. Guess the tables have turned, Earl.

FWIW, I didn't lie about anything I posted. Regardless, I will continue to fight for freedom and liberty for all people, even you.

Oh. You DO want to be publicly humiliated.

First of all Dick, I said my issue is Ron Paul does not support civil rights legislation. If you don't know what "civil rights" means to Black folks, you are too stupid to breathe. You never addressed that, instead trying to flip the discussion in a direction you are more comfortable with.

Go back and read, Dick. Find where I called Ron Paul a racist. Email me the quote and I'll post it, even though I don't have to.

So in accusing me a calling Paul a racist, you lied on me. So you're a liar on multiple levels, "strong black man."

Be clear: Ron Paul opposes (let me nail it down for you) legislation intended to undo the damage (like shorter life spans!) inflicted on Black Americans by American Apartheid. You'd know that if you'd READ instead of letting your jerking knees hurl you out of your seat to defend a man that hasn't even asked for your help.

Additionally, Ron Paul would allow young workers to opt out of Social Security - this is important because blacks have shorter life expectancies than whites. In effect, black people are being taxed to pay for the retirement of white people!

Be clear: if you were fucking conscious AT ALL, you'd know a fucking Bush appointee was fired for suggesting this nonsense.

At the National Latino Congreso in Los Angeles earlier this month, Tanner said that voter identification laws primarily affect elderly people because they are less likely to have photo IDs, and that such laws are less likely to affect minorities because they tend to die earlier. A few days earlier, Tanner also suggested to the Georgia NAACP that poor people are likely to have photo IDs because check-cashing businesses require them.

The remarks prompted widespread criticism yesterday from Democrats -- including several black lawmakers -- who said Tanner's remarks indicated a lack of concern for minority rights and were based on flawed analyses.

National health statistics show that blacks have shorter life expectancies than whites. But lawmakers and some voting experts said other data also show that older minority voters frequently cast ballots at higher rates than their white counterparts.

Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.) said voting statistics in his own state show that a higher percentage of blacks older than 60 voted in the 2004 presidential election than whites in the same age group.

"You engaged in analysis without knowing the numbers," Davis said. "If you are basing your conclusions on stereotypes rather than facts, then it suggests to some of us that someone else can do this job better than you can."

I do on occasion waste my time, and the discussion with you was an example. So let me break it down for you: I've given you the reason I oppose Ron Paul. None of the issues you would distract me with address my issue with him, and because he is "principled" he will not change. Now, if a second amendment activist won't accept limitations on guns, no matter how much cities need to impose them, I see no reason as a 10th and 14th amendment activist to accept limitations on me, no matter how much you need to justify them.

You think there's a fight to be had or run from. You are wrong. And for your sake, I will now say directly

Paul's newsletters have carried different titles over the years--Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report--but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978. (Paul, an OB-GYN and former U.S. Air Force surgeon, was first elected to Congress in 1976.) During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman. The Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984. At one point, Ron Paul & Associates also put out a monthly publication called The Ron Paul Investment Letter.

The Freedom Report's online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul's newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles "Lefty" Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions," that "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be," and that black representative Barbara Jordan is "the archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism." At the time, Paul's campaign said that Morris had quoted the newsletter out of context. Later, in 2001, Paul would claim that someone else had written the controversial passages. (Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines.) Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul's explanation believable, "since the style diverges widely from his own."

Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.

But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.