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. Ron Paul believes in getting government out of marriage altogether?

    Really?

    Then where is his plan for the disestablishment of all rights and privileges currently offered to hetereosexual married couples?

    Posted by: fedorajoe | Dec 23, 2011 5:02:04 PM


  2. Here is a longer discussion, with quotes, of multiple statements that Paul published regarding people with HIV. It is not pretty.

    http://stopronpaul.blogspot.com/2011/12/ron-paul-and-his-bizarre-attacks-on.html

    Posted by: storeyinstitute | Dec 23, 2011 5:22:14 PM


  3. "If you believe it starts at conception, government has no choice but to protect that life."

    Not if you are truly a libertarian.

    Believing that the government should enforce your belief ovewr my belief is the ANTITHESIS of libertarianism.

    The absolute antithesis!

    Not only is Ron Paul a phony. You are too.

    Posted by: Ron Paul Is a Phony | Dec 23, 2011 5:25:41 PM


  4. Pathetic excuse for journalism.

    Posted by: Sickofthis | Dec 23, 2011 5:31:10 PM


  5. I find it hilarious that there was an banner for the movie "Shame", since that is all you should be feeling for posting this on your fake news site.

    Posted by: Sickofthis | Dec 23, 2011 5:33:41 PM


  6. what are you talking about? libertarians believe that government's only roles are the protection of life, liberty, and property. that is the libertarian foundation.

    you don't seem to get that.

    so, again, if the president believes that life starts at conception, the libertarian position is that he/she must protect that life and abolish abortion. that is completely inline with libertarianism.

    maybe you should read a little bit more about what libertarianism actually is because you clearly don't understand it.

    a president that believes life starts at conception, but also supports the right to abortion, is not a libertarian president. libertarianism requires protecting life, which is why a libertarian president must also stand against the death penalty as Ron Paul does.

    Posted by: brianinla | Dec 23, 2011 5:54:51 PM


  7. protecting life trumps beliefs in libertarianism. so while your belief might not be the same, a libertarian president that believes life starts at conception must do away with abortion. a libertarian president that doesn't believe life starts at conception, has no moral obligation to abolish it because there is no duty to protect life in that situation.

    a libertarian president that believes in life at conception = no abortion

    a libertarian president that believes life starts at birth = abortion

    both of those are in line with libertarianism.

    Posted by: brianinla | Dec 23, 2011 5:59:51 PM


  8. Yes, if you accidentally bump in to a pregnant person and kill the fetus, you are in big trouble. You can get charged with a murder. The fetus also has inheritance right from both mother and father. If you kill a women whether she is one day pregnant or 9 month pregnant that is 2 kill counts. Thus, fetus has equal rights. If you are pro choice, you are being a hypocrite. If you want to be prochoice, then there should be constitutional amendment. Thus, if a doctor accidentally kills a baby, the doctor isn't responsible for any thing.

    In 80's the most American blamed gay people for AIDS and thought AIDS was a gay disease. Dr Paul saw through that and took as a serious matter.

    Gold price was 300 in 91 but today, it is 1800. There is no arguing government is inflating the dollar and wiping out the middle class.

    Furthermore, there will be no SS & medicare left for you in the future. RP wants to fix that. No other candidate including Barrack Obama has answer except Ron Paul.

    Strict constitutionalist can't be a racist. If california wants pro drug law, gay marriage and pro chioce, health care mandate then that is californian's problem as those are states' right. however, if Texas wants anti abortion law, anti gay, anti drug law, than those are texans' chioce.

    if you do not like your state then, move. that is our law. If you do not like this make the constitutional amendment. but this is a land of free and the law. Unlike you liberals, we are law abiding citizen

    How can a liberitarian who views everyone equally be a racist?

    Posted by: Chris | Dec 23, 2011 6:05:54 PM


  9. Brianilla

    Life begins at conception?

    sperm and ova on their own are technically "alive" they are "living cells"

    It is not a question of "life" it is a question of it being

    1- HUMAN

    2- having the basis of sentience

    1- conception = when living sperm hits living ova is a 46 chromosome cell with no nervous system. On par with a bacterium cell

    are we to defend all living bacterium?

    2- sentience.......well till their is even a rudimentary nervous system there is no sentience. at 2 months there is the basics of a nervous system and brain so the basics of sentience are there and 1 can start making a logical argument from that point

    prior to the 2 month mark there is no sane , logical, and or scientific basis for saying the fetus has any rights what so ever outside of the rights amoebas have

    Judaism makes it the easiest.....the moment of 1st breath = human prior to that NADA


    Posted by: say what | Dec 23, 2011 6:36:43 PM


  10. Ron Paul is America's original Tea Bagger. Vote for him at your own risk.

    Posted by: Chicklets | Dec 23, 2011 6:38:43 PM


  11. Is Ron Paul actually claiming he was framed or set up here -- that the newsletter wasn't his (his enterprise)? If not, his not taking responsibility for something with his flippin' SIGNATURE on it would be deeply unprincipled.

    Posted by: starring nell carter | Dec 23, 2011 6:41:23 PM


  12. PS

    should have stressed

    prior to 2 month mark = YOU are a fool to defend such deserves any kind of protections.


    After the 2 month mark......fetuses can not survive outside of the womb prior to the 6 month mark and at 6 months only 27ish% survive with extreme medical intervention

    Posted by: say what | Dec 23, 2011 6:43:43 PM


  13. "what are you talking about? libertarians believe that government's only roles are the protection of life, liberty, and property. that is the libertarian foundation."

    I don't think any actual libertarian I've talked to actually believes that the sole role of government can be broken down into those three categories. Most of them are rational enough to realize that life can't fully accommodate their ideal society.

    Which is one of the reasons Paul is a disaster of a candidate: there's no room for a utopian dreamer in a leadership role.

    The other reason can be seen in Chris's post: Paul's libertarianism is framed in terms of states rights. That's not really producing a libertarian society, that's producing 50 state-incubators, a few of which might favour the libertarian model.

    Personally, I could not support a libertarian candidate who favours states rights over individual liberty. Individual liberty is the greatest principle that Western civilization has ever produced, the notion that our existence should not be reflexively subverted to the collective good. A candidate favouring states rights is making the argument that it is acceptable to greatly infringe on my personal liberty, because I happen to live in a particular state.

    "Yes, if you accidentally bump in to a pregnant person and kill the fetus, you are in big trouble. You can get charged with a murder."

    No you can't.

    "The fetus also has inheritance right from both mother and father."

    No it doesn't.

    "If you kill a women whether she is one day pregnant or 9 month pregnant that is 2 kill counts. Thus, fetus has equal rights. If you are pro choice, you are being a hypocrite."

    The fetus doesn't have equal rights. In any event, I doubt that many pro-choice supporters also support legislative attempts to give the fetus rights. Those measures are universally implemented by pro-life politicians as wedge attempts in a wider push for a comprehensive abortion ban.

    "Furthermore, there will be no SS & medicare left for you in the future. RP wants to fix that. No other candidate including Barrack Obama has answer except Ron Paul. "

    Ron Paul won't be able to fix that any more than any other candidate, because the greater hurdle is achieving necessary results in Congress. There is no getting around the inefficiencies and the inherent self-destructiveness of the democratic process. In other words, there is no long-term fix to Social Security and Medicare. The United States - and Western societies in general - will in all likelihood not 'fix' the inherent issues with healthcare until the system is actually collapsing.

    Also, Social Security doesn't really require it.

    Posted by: Nat | Dec 23, 2011 7:29:47 PM


  14. Say What, you can define life as when it is viable outside of the womb, or however you'd like to. That is your call. I don't hate on you, insult you, or tell you that you are a fool for your belief. You, on the other hand, attack people who don't agree with your beliefs. Thankfully you aren't in control of this country.

    I don't believe that at conception, a fetus, or an egg, or whatever you want to call it can survive on it's own. That is obvious. But, I think life BEGINS at that moment. It is the trigger of when a human being start to form. Without conception, there is no life. Conception is the beginning point of life, and that, in my opinion and those who agree with me, is when protection should start.

    There are thousands of adult humans around the world who are alive simply because they are on life support machines providing them with breath, a heartbeat, etc. Without those machines, they would die. They cannot survive without them, they are not viable on their own. Should people be able to kill them? The ability to survive does not equal "life".

    The moment that a human being begins to form, which is conception, is the moment that life begins. In my definition of it.

    Hate all you want. Spew your rude comments as much as you'd like. But, in the end, I will still hold the belief (which millions of doctors believe also btw, but obviously you believe they are fools and that you are the decider of what is fact) that life BEGINS at conception.

    Your belief and choices are up to you, I support your ability to live your life as you see fit.

    And hey, vote for Obama. Not only will you keep supporting the ability to abort unborn babies, you'll also keep supporting his illegal wars, his assassinations, and the THOUSANDS of innocent women and children his orders have killed around the world. You don't seem to care about those living beings either.

    Posted by: brianinla | Dec 23, 2011 7:36:09 PM


  15. Nat, I'm curious, who do you support? It must not be for Obama, since you claim to hold individual liberties as so important. He does not at all (assassinating American citizens with no trial, indefinitely detaining American citizens who have never been charged with a crime, dropping bombs on sovereign countries and therefore killing innocent people... just to name a few).

    You also mischaracterize Ron Paul's position on states' rights. He follows the Constitution. Seriously, have you ever read it? It lists specifically, verbatim, the roles of the federal government. Everything else is left to the states and to the people. It says that verbatim too. Thus, if it's not listed specifically to the federal government, Ron Paul says it should be a states' right issue. Simple. That being said, there are many, many things that Ron Paul says government shouldn't be involved in at all, whether state of federal (education, marriage, etc.). If you think that he supports states' rights over individual rights, you are misinformed and you have never listened to him at length. There is not one position of Ron Paul's where states' rights trump individual rights, not one. Again, he simply prefers states have more control than the federal government, which is perfectly in line with our Constitution and the founders' desires.

    You are also wrong about what Libertarianism stands for. Are you even a Libertarian? I have been for a very long time and have studied the principles of it at great length. Despite whatever these self-proclaimed "Libertarians" you mention say, Libertarianism's foundation, when it comes to government, is the protection of life, liberty, and property. That is the starting point and its most important role (and yes, many Libertarians argue it is its ONLY role). I don't know how anyone can argue that, as it is written in classic Libertarian books, has been discussed thoroughly by countless Libertarian icons, and has long been held as the main purpose of government by practically every politician who has run as a Libertarian. Liberty is the key to Libertarianism, and key to liberty is the ability to live one's life however they see fit. Including those who do not have the voice to speak for themselves. And key to the ability to live one's life how they see fit, is allowing them to in fact LIVE.

    I also noticed how you included many quotes from the post before yours except the one about if you murder a pregnant woman you get charged with two counts of murder. You don't really like that one do you? Criminal law holds an unborn fetus to be a living human being and therefore ending its life is murder. Fetuses may not have equal rights across the board, but criminal law holds them as equal to any other living being. So, in that sense, they do have equal rights.

    Regarding SS and Medicare/Medicaid, I agree with you that Ron Paul could not fix those things on his own. But, what he can fix, as Commander-in-Chief, is our military occupation of the globe. He, like Obama promised he would but then showed us all he was full of it, will bring the troops home. From all over the world. Period. And, you know what the result of that will be? A reduction of our spending in the TRILLIONS. Literally. And, do you know what the result of that will be? More money for SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. So, in essence, RP through his role as Commander-in-Chief can do a lot for SS, and Medicare/Medicaid.

    At the very least, we won't be killing innocent people all over the planet and continuing to fuel hatred against us. Obama, the biggest military spending president in our history, has no desire to do that.

    Posted by: brianinla | Dec 23, 2011 8:06:43 PM


  16. Brian well written and thank you. but you are wrong on RP can't fix the SS & Medicare.

    But Ron Paul can fix SS & medicare. RP wants to cease the all militarism spending over the sea and only concentrate on the US defense.

    As a president who is commander in chief, he will bring all the troops home. this will cut about 700 billion dollars in military spending. He will also abolish 5 department and balance the budget. This will fix the problem.

    Posted by: Chris | Dec 23, 2011 8:31:22 PM


  17. There was definitely a coverup or whatever you want to call it. I recall how hard they tried to make heterosexuals think that it would affect their community as easily as it did the homosexual community. They figured that if they could make them (the heterosexuals) nervous, they would get their support to spend an inordinate amount of taxpayer money on the disease. If this is what Ron Paul was referring to he was right on the mark!

    Posted by: gjdagis | Dec 23, 2011 10:05:16 PM


  18. There was definitely a coverup or whatever you want to call it. I recall how hard they tried to make heterosexuals think that it would affect their community as easily as it did the homosexual community. They figured that if they could make them (the heterosexuals) nervous, they would get their support to spend an inordinate amount of taxpayer money on the disease. If this is what Ron Paul was referring to he was right on the mark!

    Posted by: gjdagis | Dec 23, 2011 10:06:02 PM


  19. "He follows the Constitution. Seriously, have you ever read it? It lists specifically, verbatim, the roles of the federal government. Everything else is left to the states and to the people."
    So where does regulation of interstate commerce end? What about incentives to states for passing regulations the government wishes, as happened with highway speed limits?

    And how does Congress balance the 10th and 14th amendments? It's obvious we need explicit legislative protections in housing and employment for minority classes, because we see abuses in the real world to this day.

    The Supreme Court declared itself capable of invalidating Congress' legislation; it's not explicitly written in the Constitution, which is why we had Marbury v Madison.

    Guiding texts, be they Constitutions or Bibles, must be interpreted to be understood in a relevant manner.

    "But Ron Paul can fix SS & medicare. RP wants to cease the all militarism spending over the sea and only concentrate on the US defense."
    Out of the $700 billion, we spent about $100 billion a year on overseas wars, on average, in the last decade. The Department of Defense already spends the majority of its money on US defense.

    Now, back to the topic at hand. This certainly does create an awkward position for him, since he kept saying that he was unaware of such language at the time. Now he's signing letters with such language driving people to the offensive newsletters.

    He's fortunate that this was nearly 2 decades ago and and that the news broke on Friday and that the news broke on the Friday before Christmas. He might be able to squelch this for those reasons alone.

    Posted by: Dave | Dec 24, 2011 2:31:57 AM


  20. What's amazing are the number of clueless, ignorant drones (many are young men) who are his fans.

    Posted by: Philo | Dec 24, 2011 6:28:39 AM


  21. HIV does not cause AIDS. Many of you seem to have become mindless puppets. Free your minds.

    Posted by: David | Dec 24, 2011 9:08:16 AM


  22. More amazing to me is the mindless gay sheep that follow Obama, who does not support us. And, one who promotes violence around the world. We seem OK with violence though, as long as it's not directed against LGBT. Such a hypocritical joke.

    Regarding protection of minorities in housing and employment, Dave, Ron Paul certainly expects the federal government to protect them. Again, Libertarianism is based on the protection of life, liberty, and property. Protecting minorities in both housing (property) and employment (liberty: living life as one sees fit, which includes jobs) clearly falls within Ron Paul's view of the federal government.

    And, Dave, regarding your figures on how much is spent on our wars, you are gravely mistaken. Even by the government's figures (which are so low ball it's laughable), the wars since 2001 have cost us $1.285 trillion, $800 billion of which has been spent in Iraq, a domestically and internationally illegal war. Many, however, put the figure well into the multiple trillions. But, even if it is the government's figure of $1.285 trillion, you do realize that literally every single penny of that was borrowed? Which means that not only do we owe foreign countries that amount as the principle, we also owe interest on the $1.285, adding billions more to that total. We're going deeper into debt by the hour for these wars, whether billions or trillions (money that could be spent on domestic programs like SS, Medicare/Medicaid). Plus, worse than all, we spend vastly more money than any other country (almost more than every country on the planet combined!) in military spending. We are a war-based, military-first society, and Obama has expanded that more than any other president in history, which is shocking considering he followed war-obsessed Bush.

    Obama is pro-war, violent, and disregards the Constitution, whether in today's context of it or in its original context. He believes his decisions are above the law, and he has proven to be an unprincipled liar who has failed to meet so many of his campaign promises.

    Voting for Obama means more debt (a trillion a year), more war, and a destruction of individual liberties, as he has no concern for the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.

    Posted by: brianinla | Dec 24, 2011 10:10:25 AM


  23. BRIANINLA, it is too bad that Ron Paul doesn't support same-sex marriage because if he did, you could maybe marry him and get it over with.

    You only come to this site to extol the virtues of Ron Paul. With all the important issues that get discussed here, from the bullying of gay kids to the murders of trans people, you have nothing to contribute except when the name "Ron Paul" appears in a post. I can't be the only person that has noticed this. How many other sites do you grace with this sales pitch? You're like an AmWay salesman. Do you do anything else with your life?

    Posted by: RyanInSacto | Dec 24, 2011 11:51:05 AM


  24. Ryaninsacto, you're wrong about Ron Paul and same-sex marriage. Completely wrong. He personally defines marriage as between a man and woman (just like Obama does. you know that, right?), but he is absolutely, undeniably, in favor of gay men and women having the right to marry. He has said that so many times it's shocking that you and other uniformed people like you try to claim otherwise. He has said, verbatim, that any consenting adults should be able to enter into any agreement or relationship they want to, and that the government should not be involved in marriage and should not be able to limit it to heterosexual couples only. You are wrong. Google it. Watch a speech. Do something besides spread lies, which you are doing.

    And regarding other topics, especially the bullying of LGBT kids, I have written extensively on this topic. I have been published on several news websites, blogs, and in countless forums by others on it specifically. I have been contacted from LGBT individuals from Georgia to Japan because of my writings, and I have never received one negative response. So I challenge you, if you care to expand your inaccurate depiction of me, read this letter I wrote which was published in the West Hollywood News website (among others) here (http://wehonews.com/z/wehonews/archive/page.php?articleID=6761). Obama continues to perpetuate violence against LGBT because he continues to make this nation a violent, intolerant nation to people all over the world. His example is not peace or acceptance, it is violence, and children always follow the example that our leaders set. Obama is a bully to people in foreign nations, and his orders torture and kill them. Ron Paul wants to end violence, end war, and respect the national and individual sovereignty of everyone. Talk about a great example!

    I have also commented on many, many threads on this website and others like it that have nothing to do with Ron Paul. So, again, you're wrong.

    You think you know what you're talking about, but you simply do not.

    Posted by: brianinla | Dec 24, 2011 12:51:16 PM


  25. Additionally, the reason I almost always comment on Ron Paul posts on this website is because the comment sections are full of people spreading non-truths and inaccurate statements. You, like many here, are guilty of just that.

    But, I am very happy to see that you've noticed my continued posts. I stand out with my opinions, you just simply blend in with the rest of the uninformed individuals who like to spew misinformation and lies on here.

    There is a consistent group of people who comment on Ron Paul posts on this website who actually speak the truth. And I am very thankful for them. Keep up the good work truth-speakers! It's time the lies in the gay community end, specifically the one that Obama is somehow the best president for us.

    Posted by: brianinla | Dec 24, 2011 12:59:32 PM


  26. « | 1 2 3 »

Post a comment







Trending


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