This is very substantial. Are you just saying foul because you are not willing to look into what I have said? Read the whole article and please answer my questions at the end of this well researched investigative journalism.
Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters?
Libertarian movement veterans, and a Paul campaign staffer, say it was "paleolibertarian" strategist Lew
Julian Sanchez and David Weigel | January 16, 2008
Rockwell has denied responsibility for the newsletters' contents to The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick. Rockwell twice declined to discuss the matter with reason, maintaining this week that he had "nothing to say." He has characterized discussion of the newsletters as "hysterical smears aimed at political enemies" of The New Republic. Paul himself called the controversy "old news" and "ancient history" when we reached him last week, and he has not responded to further request for comment.
But a source close to the Paul presidential campaign told reason that Rockwell authored much of the content of the Political Report and Survival Report. "If Rockwell had any honor he'd come out and I say, ‘I wrote this stuff,'" said the source, who asked not to be named because Paul remains friendly with Rockwell and is reluctant to assign responsibility for the letters. "He should have done it 10 years ago."
The publishing operation was lucrative. A tax document from June 1993—wrapping up the year in which the Political Report had published the "welfare checks" comment on the L.A. riots—reported an annual income of $940,000 for Ron Paul & Associates, listing four employees in Texas (Paul's family and Rockwell) and seven more employees around the country. If Paul didn't know who was writing his newsletters, he knew they were a crucial source of income and a successful tool for building his fundraising base for a political comeback.
The newsletters' obsession with blacks and gays was of a piece with a conscious political strategy adopted at that same time by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard.
Rockwell explained the thrust of the idea in a 1990 Liberty essay entitled "The Case for Paleo-Libertarianism." To Rockwell, the LP was a "party of the stoned," a halfway house for libertines that had to be "de-loused." To grow, the movement had to embrace older conservative values. "State-enforced segregation," Rockwell wrote, "was wrong, but so is State-enforced integration. State-enforced segregation was not wrong because separateness is wrong, however. Wishing to associate with members of one's own race, nationality, religion, class, sex, or even political party is a natural and normal human impulse."
The populist outreach program centered on tax reduction, abolition of welfare, elimination of "the entire 'civil rights' structure, which tramples on the property rights of every American," and a police crackdown on "street criminals." "Cops must be unleashed," Rothbard wrote, "and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error." While they're at it, they should "clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares?"
Yet those new supporters, many of whom are first encountering libertarian ideas through the Ron Paul Revolution, deserve a far more frank explanation than the campaign has as yet provided of how their candidate's name ended up atop so many ugly words. Ron Paul may not be a racist, but he became complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists—and taking "moral responsibility" for that now means more than just uttering the phrase. It means openly grappling with his own past—acknowledging who said what, and why. Otherwise he risks damaging not only his own reputation, but that of the philosophy to which he has committed his life.
Julian Sanchez is a contributing editor and David Weigel is an associate editor of reason.
- My Comment Below
For all the messiah worship of Dr. Ron Paul: Don't you think that if there was a newsletter sent to thousands of people every month- and you received over $900,000 for those articles written in first person- with your signature as an endorsement on it pages-
1. You would know about them?
2. If you didn't write the articles then you would know who wrote them?
3. If you did know about them and received money for them, then you would want to make sure that they were in alignment with your own beliefs?
4. If they were written with racist and racially inflammatory remarks, and you were not a racist, you would disavow yourself from them long before ten years later?
5, If you disagreed with the remarks, wouldn't you insist that the publisher stop publishing them in your name?
6. If the publisher refused, wouldn't you sue the publisher to end the racist remarks attributed to your name.
7. Let's get real Ron Paul Supporters. If it were you, what would you do?
Ron Paul has tried to reform himself into a kinder gentler version of himself. The truth is that while he may
very well be a moral man, he is much more like Reagan than I would like. Regan was a moral man in my opinion but his policies have led to great suffering and human misery. When Ronald Reagan was elected, he immediately kicked hundreds of thousands of the mentally ill out of hospitals. In the 80's, Reagan claimed that taking care of the mentally ill stripped them of their Civil Rights. Pre-Reagan there were very few homeless. Today there are millions of homeless and 75% are considered to be mentally ill and incapable of participating in society for things such as holding a job, caring for a family, and paying one's bills. 100 homeless among men, women, and children die in Austin each year. Multiply this across the entire nation and you have thousands upon thousands of human beings stripped of their dignity. There will always be the rare Bohemian who makes money panhandling and taking advantage of you and I for a dollar but the cardboard carrying homeless are just the obvious homeless.
Ron Paul wants to strip the Constitutional Right of birthright citizenship to stop newborn children of Mexican parents to prevent them from receiving aid. Today, Hispanics are among the smallest percentages of homeless but with a policy that changes the way citizenship is given, there will be millions of homeless Mexicans.When this occurs, the Ron Paul answer is massive deportation. This Final Solution will look exactly as pre-war Germany in the 30's.- anti-immigration fervor and worse. This may seem like a good idea until one sees the outward expression of that policy- Millions of children with no healthcare, proper nutrition, or education. This is all a formula for disaster. An uprising of hatred toward Hispanics, regardless of their citizenship, will make America into a nation of racist haters.
There is a solution. Bring the troops home and just stop new illegals from coming in. This will save trillions of dollars that can support a non-racist America. If the Mexicans go back to Mexico and do not have legal right to come back in then they are Mexicans. If they stay in the United States , they are American. That is the way it has always been.