2012 Election | AIDS/HIV | News | Ron Paul

BigGayDeal.com

Letter Signed by Ron Paul Talks of 'Federal-Homosexual Cover-Up on AIDS

Newsletter_paul

Reuters reports on what's surfacing in the Ron Paul campaign right now:

A direct-mail solicitation for Ron Paul's political and investment newsletters two decades ago warned of a "coming race war in our big cities" and of a "federal-homosexual cover-up" to play down the impact of AIDS.

The eight-page letter, which appears to carry Paul's signature at the end, also warns that the U.S. government's redesign of currency to include different colors - a move aimed at thwarting counterfeiters - actually was part of a plot to allow the government to track Americans using the "new money."

The letter urges readers to subscribe to Paul's newsletters so that he could "tell you how you can save yourself and your family" from an overbearing government.

Here's the letter (PDF), which was written around 1983.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Well that should do nothing to sway Ron Paul supporters but it does show Paul is happy to surf on the wave of whatever conspiracy theory comes by.

    Posted by: Joe B. | Dec 23, 2011 12:35:55 PM


  2. Haha, he just sounds like a crazy ol' conspiracy nut. I'm surprised he doesn't mention aliens in Area 51.

    Posted by: endo | Dec 23, 2011 12:40:11 PM


  3. Anyone remember when George Bush signed legislation that tripled American funding to fight AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis around the world?

    I didn't think so.


    I'm sure Andy and Joemygod covered that extensively. Because when a Republican is saving millions dying from AIDS related illnesses, it's just not news. Right, Andy?

    Meanwhile, people are dying in Africa from starvation while the Occupy Wall Street fools are moaning because they're too broke to buy a new Macbook Pro.

    What an effed up world.

    Posted by: Alan | Dec 23, 2011 12:45:09 PM


  4. Andy's post makes reference to the subscription letter that Ron Paul signed, urging people to subscribe and contribute. Huffington Post also links to the nastiest articles in the Ron Paul Newsletter:

    http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98883/ron-paul-incendiary-newsletters-exclusive

    Scroll to the subheading for "Gays" for some really loathsome pieces from 1989 through the early 90s. It really doesn't matter much that Ron Paul is denying that he personally wrote these newsletter articles. What really matters, when judging presidential candidates, is that he is responsible for them because they were published in his personal newsletter.

    Posted by: Artie | Dec 23, 2011 12:45:41 PM


  5. Oh, now you've done it, Andy, the Paulbots will be swarming.

    BTW, this is from 1993, not '83.

    Posted by: Glenn | Dec 23, 2011 12:52:40 PM


  6. Ron Paul is a nutjob just like any other Republican

    Posted by: Steve | Dec 23, 2011 1:00:05 PM


  7. @ Alan

    You're right. It is an "effed up world" when Ronald Reagan failed to even say the word "AIDS" as millions of people became infected and died.

    It's an "effed world" when GOP candidates vowed to support anti-gay constitutional amendments making gays second class citizens.

    It's an "effed up world" when the GOP frontrunner tells a gay married Vietnam War vet that he and his husband do not deserve to be treated equally.

    It's an "effed up world" when GOP candidates traffic in racism, sexism, homophobia, and unmitigated class warfare to appeal to the most base instincts of an aging and angry majority that makes up the base of the GOP.

    And, it's an "effed up world" when gay men make excuses for the GOP that has fought tooth and nail against every advance the LGBT community has made.

    Posted by: Michael | Dec 23, 2011 1:15:42 PM


  8. @Alan, I remember that plan perfectly. The money went into the hands of religious groups building churches in northern Africa instead of the doctors and professionals there.

    I also remember that a sizeable chunk had to be dedicated to abstinence only education in Africa, what a joke, which actually increases transmission rates.

    Simply put, he did more to hurt than help. He created a bigger problem and help spread Christianist doctrine which is responsible for the horrifying anti-gay ideology that now exists in Northern Africa.

    So yes, they did cover it, and they covered how awful it was.

    Posted by: THOM | Dec 23, 2011 1:18:32 PM


  9. it's also an effed up world when you have thousands of Americans who are denied HIV drugs because of underfunding of ADAP and states are dropping people who are currently covered because of lack of funds.

    We need to provide for our own first and then for the rest of the world.

    Posted by: Grover Underwood | Dec 23, 2011 1:35:38 PM


  10. These Paul boys - father the Representative and son the Senator - are "effed up" beyond belief. And, BTW, so are the nutjobs who support them and vote for them! Mary ffing Christmas!

    Posted by: HadenoughBS | Dec 23, 2011 1:35:51 PM


  11. And then...there was one. Mitt Romney, by default.

    (Who'd better be hitting his knees and praying that all these scandals and skeletons that have been derailing the other potential Republican candidates don't start hitting him in January, lest Obama sail to re-election just by looking sane, normal, and having more than a couple principles.)

    Posted by: Dback | Dec 23, 2011 1:51:42 PM


  12. Thank you THOM!

    Posted by: David R. | Dec 23, 2011 1:54:04 PM


  13. Member of GOProud: "Mommy and Daddy, look! I'm campaigning for homophobic politicians. Do you like me now?"

    Parents of said GOProud member: "No, we still can't stand you. Go away before you embarrass us in front of our friends."

    Epic. Fail.

    Posted by: Artie | Dec 23, 2011 1:56:06 PM


  14. *yawn*

    The banksters are looting all of our money, and wanting WW3 with Iran and this is the best you can come up with Andy?

    Look, I think all the Ron Paul bashing gets me more motivated to support him.

    You all do realize that you are speaking to yourselves in a void where nobody else is listening. Ron Paul is gaining a lot of support, especially from LGBTs.

    Again, Paul voted for DADT repeal, doesn't care about gay marriage, and really wants to reform our monetary system.

    Maybe for those of us who actually can do our homework and know what is going on in this country and the many rights that are being taken away, he seems to be nailing all these issues right on the head. I agree with a lot of what Ron Paul has to say, and that is a first for me to actually agree with a GOP candidate, as many other liberals (true civil libertarian liberals) are now supporting him.

    Like I said earlier, I met him already. We talked about the gay issue, he has no problem with homosexuality, and as a doctor he says is not a choice, etc...

    Lets see what other attacks Andy Towle is planning to use on behalf of his pals at GOProud and Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

    Posted by: Jose S. | Dec 23, 2011 2:13:19 PM


  15. Good for you, Jose. Ron Paul respects you about as much as your parents do. Which is to say, not very much at all. too bad.


    You know you're living in the Twilight Zone when Ron Paul gets talked about for his progressivism, LOL!

    And hey, wassup Gay Conservatives? Nice to see that as usual your comments all come from a transparently insecure and defensive place of online anonymous cowardice. *sigh* so typical.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Dec 23, 2011 2:19:11 PM


  16. Wow, RP is consistent. He already saw through corrupted politician & bankers back then.
    The gold was 300/ounce in 1991. Today it is 1800/ounce.
    Fed prints money to artificially inflate your dollar and artificially control the interest rate. Thus, if you kept stash of dollars, you would have lost about 80% of its value today.

    AIDS was once called "gay disease." Back then a lot of people were saying AIDS was caused by Gay people and Ron Paul foresaw this.

    Remember? the gas price was only 70C/gallon?

    Also,

    John Kerry & George Bush are from the same club.

    Gee, i hope i saw this sooner

    Posted by: Chris | Dec 23, 2011 2:22:44 PM


  17. Living in Texas, there are no contested Dim-ocrat races for me to vote on in the primary, so I plan on voting in the Repugnant primary for Ron Paul (in Texas we don’t have to pre-register as a partisan, just show-up and vote). I mainly want to vote against Perry so he’ll retire; he’s already collecting retirement pay as a former legislator, plus he’ll get ex-governor pay, and Mrs. Perry is getting hush money (to not tell the world the gov is a homo) from a no-show state government job, so maybe poor primary results might convince him it’s time to cash his chips. But if Obama somehow self-destructs or something "happens" to him (and nobody seriously wants Biden to be president), we could do much worse than Ron Paul. Like anti-gay corporations-are-people Romney. Or anti-gay holier-than-thou neo-papist serial-adulterer Gingrich. Or anti-gay crazy eyes. Or anti-gay frothy.

    Most importantly, Ron Paul is unique among Repug candidates polling above 1% in that he still believes in the Constitution. Without that we have nothing.

    Posted by: Anastasia Beaverhausen | Dec 23, 2011 3:04:34 PM


  18. This is a PR nightmare for the Paul campaign, but I suspect that the press knew about these newsletters for some time. Paul's handling of press issues is amateurish at best and a bit contemptuous all the time.

    Posted by: anon | Dec 23, 2011 3:24:41 PM


  19. Of course the press knew. So did Patient Less Than Zero (aka. Sully The Pooh) But he's still behind Ron Paul. And why should he not be? He's a racist and after all these years still in deep denial about AIDS.

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Dec 23, 2011 3:51:54 PM


  20. Ron Paul is an extremely naive anarcho capitalist. He doesn't believe in equality and freedom. He favors an extreme and unrealistic version of the "state's rights" argument. He may think that the federal government shouldn't restrict gay people's rights. But he has absolutely no problem with states doing it. In the same vain he'd be against abortion, against women's rights and against a lot of other things as long as it's the state doing the restriction

    Posted by: Steve | Dec 23, 2011 3:54:59 PM


  21. There was a coverup of AIDS. It's called history people, look into it. Does anyone remember how many people in our community were up in arms about Reagan's shameless silence about AIDS? I guess not. That is what RP was talking about here. These statements, like everything else, should be taken in their context instead of in today's, which is far different than it was then. The fact that many of you think this is some conspiracy theory, or a negative thing, doesn't make sense to me. Reagan and his administration, through their silence, did coverup AIDS. Many, many people were saying that then. Historical fact, plain and simple.

    And, for all of you who think I'm nuts for being a gay man who supports Ron Paul, I think you're all nuts for supporting Obama. He is a violent president, who wages war, orders assassinations, and continues to bury our nation in insurmountable debt. Supporting that is by far more nuts than supporting a man who believes that government should get out of our lives, that we should be a nation of peace, and that we should start living within our means. Obama believes government is the answer to everything, and he, like our government at large, is not a supporter of gay marriage. Ron Paul, however, thinks the government should get out of marriage all together, and that if people want to enter into same-sex marriages that should be their call! Why? Because he believes personal liberties are the most important and basic rights we have. Obama could care less about personal liberties.

    https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1YLC24UCyrOm-FcgktjiuxuWlv3BpqvYljJMSilcsSZk

    Posted by: brianinla | Dec 23, 2011 4:24:35 PM


  22. Steve, you don't speak truth. Ron Paul has said countless times that he believes the government (state and federal) should be out of marriage all together. He does support states' rights, and think that if government is involved in marriage it should be at the state level, but he has made it clear, over and over and over again, that he thinks government should be out of marriage. Both state and federal government.

    At least try to be a little honest with your comments.

    Regarding abortion, his position has nothing to do with women's rights or freedom. He believes that life begins at conception and because of that personal belief he holds, he doesn't think killing a fetus should be allowed (believing a fetus is allowed, means abortion is murder, and therefore no one, man or woman, should have the right to commit murder). If you don't think that life starts at conception, that's fine cause many don't, but saying his position on abortion means he doesn't support equality or women's rights is completely off base.

    Posted by: brianinla | Dec 23, 2011 4:32:07 PM


  23. *(believing a fetus is alive...)

    Posted by: brianinla | Dec 23, 2011 4:33:48 PM


  24. "...a personal belief...believing a fetus is alive..."

    But if some people do and some people don't, why does "libertarian" Ron Paul SUDDENLY think that the government should be involved at all in legislating this issue?

    This seems to be exactly the kind of thing that those in favor of "smaller government" would stay far away from--as far as possible, as a matter of fact.

    The only reason Ron Paul agrees to turn this particular "personal belief" into anti-abortion legislation is a craven attempt to curry favor with religious right-wingers.

    Principled, my ass!

    Posted by: Ron Paul Is a Phony | Dec 23, 2011 4:49:46 PM


  25. Except, if a fetus is in fact alive, the most important role of government is to protect life and liberty. That is the basic foundation of our country.

    So, if a live human is being killed through abortion, there must be legislation to end that murder. That is why it matters when you believe life starts. If you believe it starts at conception, government has no choice but to protect that life.

    Yes, government should get out of our lives and should be limited, except when it comes to protecting life and liberty which, again, is the main role of government.

    So, that is entirely in line with his libertarian principles. Good try though.

    Posted by: brianinla | Dec 23, 2011 4:57:52 PM


  26. 1 2 3 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «George Michael Gives Emotional Statement Outside London Home, Says He Almost Died from Pneumonia: VIDEO« «