NYJetsFan.com Forums: Associates: Ron Paul Pursued Strategy Of Publishing Controversial Newsletters - NYJetsFan.com Forums

Jump to content

Toggle shoutbox NYJETSFAN BANTER

Jets win 3-1. Beat dolphins so bad that philbin isnt allowed back from england.
MikeGangGree... Icon : (05 October 2015 - 01:50 PM) 4 turnovers and a Punt return TD
MikeGangGree... Icon : (05 October 2015 - 01:58 PM) If fitz can be smart with the ball and Marshall Decker and Ivory and stay healthy I think we can beat anyone
santana Icon : (05 October 2015 - 02:36 PM) http://www.sun-senti...1005-story.html
ROBJETS Icon : (06 October 2015 - 03:16 PM) I get it to a point why everyone is making a big deal about that missed call because difference between a win and a loss but I have never seen that call made in over 30 years of watching NFL so I guarantee that none of the fans , coaches or players new the rule. Yes the refs should know all the rules but they aren't computers and it's impossible for them to remember all the 1000's of rules. Especially an old rule no one but the officials ever heard of before. 22 new officials didn't help either. It took an old long time official now retired from officiating to tell the world the rule. Everyone and the officials will remember that rule from now on after all the media
ROBJETS Icon : (06 October 2015 - 03:27 PM) Lions fans are b*tching like hell about it. We would be if it happened to us but I think it's a bad rule any way and should be scrapped. If the defense causes the offensive player to fumble in the end zone because the defense makes a good play I personally think it would be bullshit to give the fumbling team the ball back. If the ball went out of bounds on its own or if a player tried to recover it and the ball went out of the end zone it's not a penalty. Both cases are a touchback so I feel that giving the ball back to the offense that fumbled it because of the defense batting the ball out of the end zone if the offense recovered the ball it would be a td so it would be bullshit to give them the ball back because of a simple ball bat. Rule should really be changed
ROBJETS Icon : (06 October 2015 - 03:30 PM) It's ok for the offense to deliberately take a safety to prevent a TD and only give up 2 points an benefit themselves so yeah I think it is an old out of date rule that should be thrown out. If the d makes a great play they shouldn't have to give the offense the ball back because of a stupid rule
ROBJETS Icon : (06 October 2015 - 03:30 PM) So I'm glad it wasn't called
ROBJETS Icon : (06 October 2015 - 03:31 PM) Hope it's changed next year
Jetsfan115 Icon : (06 October 2015 - 03:31 PM) it's been called a ton of times, they showed a montage o ESPN last night of a bunch of times it's been called
Jetsfan115 Icon : (06 October 2015 - 03:33 PM) just because one player made a great play, doesn't mean you can excuse someone making a bonehead play
Jetsfan115 Icon : (06 October 2015 - 03:34 PM) chancellor made a great play (remember when i wanted the jets to draft him?) but the LBer should have not illegally batted it, he could have tried to recover it or body blocked det from recovering.
ROBJETS Icon : (06 October 2015 - 03:34 PM) Not sure what ESPN you had on ESPN China? I left ESPN on for 2 hours after the game and I never seen this montage you say. I'm calling you out as bullshit. Show me a video of proof
ROBJETS Icon : (06 October 2015 - 03:38 PM) Even the old ESPN official couldn't remember an instance of it being called. It isn't the same as the offense backing out of the end zone with the ball or being sacked in the end zone for a safety. Completely different rule and situation. I've never seen it called and I watch at least 6 games at a time a week. None of the ESPN announcer players, Ray Lewis, Dilfer, or Young even knew the rule and that's over 20 years of NFL experience. Yet none of them knew or understood the rule until it was explained in detail
ROBJETS Icon : (06 October 2015 - 03:40 PM) I've never once seen the ball given back to to offense so I challenge you to show me this montage you claim was on. If I didn't see it for two hours I after the game I'm calling bullshit on your end
ROBJETS Icon : (06 October 2015 - 03:43 PM) Say whatever you want but show me proof or just leave it be because I won't believe you without a bunch of video proof. I have a hell of a memory and if it ever was called maybe once or twice in the past 30 years but no way there is some montage
ROBJETS Icon : (06 October 2015 - 03:48 PM) Nether coach knew the rule either and they would know more of the rules than the players and fans. If not for a retired official bringing it up it probably would've never even been brought up at all
ROBJETS Icon : (06 October 2015 - 03:58 PM) I highly questionable is on now and they are even saying no one knew the rule or complained until they were told the rule.
ROBJETS Icon : (06 October 2015 - 04:05 PM) I have seen plenty of games where defenders did knock the ball out of the end zone like the situation last night to prevent any possible touchdown not disputing that because that has happened a good many times. My point is I've never seen a flag thrown for it and the ball given to the offense. It's definitely an obsolete rule that should be thrown out. The NFL has made the rules so offensive friendly these days it's hard to play defense with out calls anymore. That is just one more bullshit rule to help the offense. Take the Jets Dolphins game for instance. Those bullshit pi calls against our defense for clearly uncatchable balls. Pi never should've never been called giving up like 60 yards on two calls and a td that never would've happened. At most they should've been 5 yard holding calls. Never would've been mad if they just called them holding calls.
ROBJETS Icon : (06 October 2015 - 04:06 PM) Anyway I'm tired of all these offense friendly rules these days screwing over the defenses. It's starting to get like non touch flag football for the defenses.
ROBJETS Icon : (06 October 2015 - 04:11 PM) You know it too. Our team has been a defensive team for well over a decade and so many bullshit calls have been called against our defense because of the new offensive friendly rules. So I say screw Detroit. I'm glad it wasn't called and a defense gets a break
Jetsfan115 Icon : (06 October 2015 - 06:37 PM) call em a liar if you want, but I seen it man
santana Icon : (Yesterday, 12:52 AM) guess I should enable a character limit for the shoutbox
santana Icon : (Yesterday, 12:53 AM) getting a bit out of hand
Jetsman05 Icon : (Yesterday, 06:30 AM) Rob you're brutal
MikeGangGree... Icon : (Yesterday, 01:30 PM) Who should I start this week in fantasy football? Its a PPR league. I can start 3 of the WRs Edelman-/D-Thomas/Mike Evans/James Jones
MikeGangGree... Icon : (Yesterday, 01:30 PM) Edelman and Thomas are must start
MikeGangGree... Icon : (Yesterday, 01:31 PM) So do I start Evans against Jax or James Jones vs STL
Jetsfan115 Icon : (Yesterday, 01:45 PM) jones. winston likes jackson more then evans
RetireChrebet Icon : (Today, 01:47 PM) My two year old daughter is less manic and is able to maintain her composure much better than someone we know here ....
azjetfan Icon : (Today, 03:07 PM) Dolphins have also fired their DC
ROBJETS Icon : (Today, 03:24 PM) I am composed. 115 and I may see things differently but he has never pissed me off. He is just trying to make his point of view and I mine nothing more
ROBJETS Icon : (Today, 03:25 PM) I just feel the rule is a very bad rule to give the offense the ball back for losing the ball in the endzone because of a batted ball and feel the NFL is far to offense firendly these days thats all
ROBJETS Icon : (Today, 03:27 PM) I know many agree with that. I get that many changes have been made to limit things like brain damage and other injuries some season ending and career ending but defenses cant play hard like they used to and pathetic calls on defenses have ruinbed many games.
ROBJETS Icon : (Today, 03:29 PM) Thats why brought up the Jets Fish game. The balls were clearly uncatcahable and a light tug on the jersey shouldn't be a pi. Whatever happened to the uncatchable ball rule?"
ROBJETS Icon : (Today, 03:33 PM) and as far as that montage I did have ESPN on for 2 hours after the game because I wanted to see all the reactions and get a clear understanding of this old rule and I never saw a bunch of clips where flags were thrown for the play in question. So I asked for proof. If it was on ESPN it wasn't on ESPN1 maybe ESPN 2 ,3 or news. Its not wrong or brutal to ask for proof when he stated he saw it on ESPN I had the channel on and didn't see what he claimed he saw and still haven't seen any video of proof of his claims
ROBJETS Icon : (Today, 03:36 PM) But as I said not mad at all. 115 and I are cool and always have been Ive never been mad at him in anyway. This is a fan forum and we dispute. If we all agreed on everything there would be no point of the forum. Disputes on stats and calls make things interesting, and makes each of use see things from different points of view
Jetsfan115 Icon : (Today, 03:56 PM) it was on whatever channel the game itself came on
Jetsfan115 Icon : (Today, 03:56 PM) and for the record I don't have any issue with anything rob said. I just disagree with it
Jetsfan115 Icon : (Today, 03:57 PM) I do think rules are too offense friendly, but I think in this case, when someone blatently breaks a rule ti should be punished
Jetsfan115 Icon : (Today, 03:57 PM) but then again pacman got away with ripping off a players helmet and didn't get a penatly
Jetsfan115 Icon : (Today, 03:57 PM) refs need to be more consistent
ROBJETS Icon : (Today, 09:04 PM) Hell yeah! Pac 12 AZ State Jaelen Strong. Not a Texans fan but and dont watch a ton of college football but do watch the Pac 12 for football and basketball growing up in Phoenix and also a Suns fan and liking the Cardinals since they moved to AZ .Was a Jets fan though before Az got the cardinals . Strong was really good for AZ State.
ROBJETS Icon : (Today, 09:05 PM) Havent studied up on strong for the Texans but will have to since the announcers said he hasnt played much. I want to know if he has been injured or not performing. He has good hands and size
ROBJETS Icon : (Today, 09:08 PM) I actually was debating on starting the Colts witth Jets D on bye week glad I dropped them. Wasn't much to choose from. Some decent defenses but bad matchups. took a chance on the Jags this week hoping they can shut down Tampa
ROBJETS Icon : (Today, 09:10 PM) Oh and thanks for that 115. people took it wrong. we were simply debating our opinions with passion for our love of football with no animosity and people took it wrong. Easy to misunderstand texts
Resize Shouts Area

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Associates: Ron Paul Pursued Strategy Of Publishing Controversial Newsletters

#1 User is offline   Mr_Jet Icon

  • Assistant Head Coach
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,325
  • Joined: 31-March 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth

  • NFL Team:

Posted 27 January 2012 - 10:59 PM


Associates: Paul pursued strategy of publishing controversial newsletters
By Jerry Markon and Alice Crites, Friday, January 27, 8:29 AM

Ron Paul, well known as a physician, congressman and libertarian , has also been a businessman who pursued a marketing strategy that included publishing provocative, racially charged newsletters to make money and spread his ideas, according to three people with direct knowledge of Paul’s businesses.

The Republican presidential candidate has denied writing inflammatory passages in the pamphlets from the 1990s and said recently that he did not read them at the time or for years afterward. Numerous colleagues said he does not hold racist views.

But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.

The newsletters point to a rarely seen and somewhat opaque side of Paul, who has surprised the political community by becoming an important factor in the Republican race. The candidate, who has presented himself as a kindly doctor and political truth-teller, declined in a recent debate to release his tax returns, joking that he would be “embarrassed” about his income compared with that of his richer GOP rivals.

Yet a review of his enterprises reveals a sharp-eyed businessman who for nearly two decades oversaw the company and a nonprofit foundation, intertwining them with his political career. The newsletters, which were launched in the mid-1980s and bore such names as the Ron Paul Survival Report, were produced by a company Paul dissolved in 2001.

The company shared offices with his campaigns and foundation at various points, according to those familiar with the operation. Public records show Paul’s wife and daughter were officers of the newsletter company and foundation; his daughter also served as his campaign treasurer.

Jesse Benton, a presidential campaign spokesman, said that the accounts of Paul’s involvement were untrue and that Paul was practicing medicine full time when “the offensive material appeared under his name.” Paul “abhors it, rejects it and has taken responsibility for it as he should have better policed the work being done under his masthead,” Benton said. He did not comment on Paul’s business strategy.

Mark Elam, a longtime Paul associate whose company printed the newsletters, said Paul “was a busy man” at the time. “He was in demand as a speaker; he was traveling around the country,’’ Elam said in an interview coordinated by Paul’s campaign. “I just do not believe he was either writing or regularly editing this stuff.’’

In the past, Paul has taken responsibility for the passages because they were published under his name. But last month, he told CNN that he was unaware at the time of the controversial passages. “I’ve never read that stuff. I’ve never read — I came — was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written.’’ Paul said.

A person involved in Paul’s businesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer, said Paul and his associates decided in the late 1980s to try to increase sales by making the newsletters more provocative. They discussed adding controversial material, including racial statements, to help the business, the person said.

“It was playing on a growing racial tension, economic tension, fear of government,’’ said the person, who supports Paul’s economic policies but is not backing him for president. “I’m not saying Ron believed this stuff. It was good copy. Ron Paul is a shrewd businessman.’’

The articles included racial, anti-Semitic and anti-gay content. They claimed, for example, that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. “seduced underage girls and boys’’; they ridiculed black activists by suggesting that New York be named “Zooville” or “Lazyopolis”; and they said the 1992 Los Angeles riots ended “when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.’’ The June 1990 edition of the Ron Paul Political Report included the statement: “Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”

It is unclear precisely how much money Paul made from his newsletters, but during the years he was publishing them, he reduced his debts and substantially increased his net worth, according to his congressional and presidential disclosure reports. In 1984, he reported debt of up to $765,000, most of which was gone by 1995, when he reported a net worth of up to $3.3 million. Last year, he reported a net worth up to $5.2 million.

The newsletters bore his name in large print and featured articles on topics ranging from investment advice to political commentary. Frequently written in first person, they contained personalized notes, such as holiday greetings from Paul and his wife, Carol.

The Washington Post obtained dozens of copies of the newsletters from the Wisconsin Historical Society. Texas news outlets wrote about them in 1996, and the New Republic published extensive excerpts in 2008. The issue resurfaced late last year, when Paul’s presidential campaign picked up momentum. The extent of Paul’s involvement and his business strategy had not been known.

Paul’s publishing operation began through a nonprofit organization he created in 1976, the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, which advocates for limited government and a free market. The group, founded the year Paul entered Congress, published Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, mostly a collection of his congressional speeches and commentaries.

In 1984, just before losing a Senate bid and leaving Congress, Paul formed Ron Paul & Associates. He soon began publishing the Ron Paul Investment Letter, initially offering mostly economic and monetary information. Texas tax records listed Paul as president of the business, his wife as secretary, his daughter, Lori Paul Pyeatt, as treasurer, and a longtime Paul associate, Lew Rockwell, as vice president.

Ed Crane, the longtime president of the libertarian Cato Institute, said he met Paul for lunch during this period, and the two men discussed direct-mail solicitations, which Paul was sending out to interest people in his newsletters. They agreed that “people who have extreme views” are more likely than others to respond.

Crane said Paul reported getting his best response when he used a mailing list from the now-defunct newspaper Spotlight, which was widely considered anti-Semitic and racist.

Benton, Paul’s spokesman, said that Crane’s account “sounds odd” and that Paul did not recall the conversation.

At the time, Paul’s investment letter was languishing. According to the person involved with his businesses, Paul and others hit upon a solution: to “morph” the content to capitalize on a growing fear among some on the political right about the nation’s changing demographics and threats to economic liberty.

The investment letter became the Ron Paul Survival Report — a name designed to intrigue readers, the company secretary said. It cost subscribers about $100 a year. The tone of that and other Paul publications changed, becoming increasingly controversial. In 1992, for example, the Ron Paul Political Report defended chess champion Bobby Fischer, who became known as an anti-Semitic Holocaust denier, for his stance on “Jewish questions.’’

Paul has said he wrote portions of the economic sections. The people familiar with his business said there was no indication that he wrote the controversial material.

Rockwell was the main writer of the racial passages, according to two people with direct knowledge of the business and a third close to Paul’s presidential campaign. Rockwell, founder of a libertarian think tank in Alabama, did not respond to phone calls and e-mails requesting comment. In 2008, he denied in an interview with the New Republic that he was Paul’s ghostwriter.

Paul “had to walk a very fine line,’’ said Eric Dondero Rittberg, a former longtime Paul aide who says Paul allowed the controversial material in his newsletter as a way to make money. Dondero Rittberg said he witnessed Paul proofing, editing and signing off on his newsletters in the mid-1990s.

“The real big money came from some of that racially tinged stuff, but he also had to keep his libertarian supporters, and they weren’t at all comfortable with that,’’ he said.

Dondero Rittberg is no longer a Paul supporter, and officials with Paul’s presidential campaign have said he was fired. Dondero Rittberg disputed that, saying he resigned in 2003 because he opposed Paul’s views on Iraq.

The July 15, 1994, issue of Survival Report exemplified how the newsletters merged material about race with a pitch for business. It contained a passage criticizing the rate of black-on-white crime when “blacks are only 12 percent of the population.’’ That was accompanied by two pages of ads from Ron Paul Precious Metals & Rare Coins, a business Paul used to sell gold and silver coins.

“The explosion you hear may not be the Fourth of July fireworks but the price of silver shooting up,’’ said one of the ads.

Hathway, the former Ron Paul & Associates secretary, said: “We had tons of subscribers, from all over the world. . . . I never had one complaint’’ about the content.

Hathway described Paul as a “hands-on boss” who would come in to the company’s Houston office, about 50 miles from his home, about once a week. And he would call frequently. “He’d ask, ‘How are you doing? Do you need any more money in the account?’ ” she said.

The company also had an office in Clute, Tex., near Paul’s home, which it shared with Paul’s foundation and his campaigns at various points, according to Hathway and Dondero Rittberg.

In 1996, as Paul ran for Congress again, his business success turned into a potential political liability when his newsletters surfaced in the Texas media. Paul was quoted in the Dallas Morning News that year as defending a newsletter line from 1992 that said 95 percent of black men in the District are “semi-criminal or entirely criminal” and that black teenagers can be “unbelievably fleet of foot.”

“If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” the newspaper quoted Paul as saying.

Paul won reelection, then dissolved Ron Paul & Associates in 2001. His nonprofit foundation is still in operation.

Staff researcher Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.
© The Washington Post Company

Wolf in sheep's clothing.

View PostFlyHiJets, on 01 June 2013 - 08:35 PM, said:

You're the scumbag that thinks everyone should kiss the as$es of a bunch of criminals but I'm a dumbass. Yeah okay douchebag. Go give some illegal wetback or Revis another blowjob. But then again.....don't you live in an entirely different country but yet think you can tell us how to live? Go fvck yourself little boy. You're likely still living with mommy & daddy. Pu$$y.

View Postazjetfan, on 02 July 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:

There are a few things I have realized about Mr. Jet over a few topics.

1) He is a racist. By constantly using race as a battling tool.
2) He is an extreme Liberal. If you are on either extreme you are probabaly more wrong than right.
3) He is one of those people who will never admit fault, error or defeat.
4)His life sucks and he takes it out on people who don't share in his views.

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users