December 24, 2011

The Racist Newsletter Author Exposed

  8:57 am

As Newt Gingrich plummets and the single-digit candidates languish, the presidential race is shaping up to be a two-man race: Ron Paul (the Iowa frontrunner) and Mitt Romney (the New Hampshire frontrunner).

Romney has faced his fair share of attacks for his records and statements, but the heat is just beginning to turn up on Paul. At one time, it was thought that Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy and laissez-faire social policy were his biggest liabilities. As voters everywhere, from the right to the left, grow tired of the endless wars and nation building, and as a majority of Americans now support full legalization for hemp and legal equality for gays, the country has found Paul to be more mainstream and tuned in to the average American household than previously assumed. The conventionally estimated “ceiling” of Paul’s support seems to be shattered anew each week, as Paul’s support rises with no end in sight.

The one hurdle that threatens to cause the most trouble for Congressman Paul consists of a series of newsletters that were published under his name during the early 1990’s. While the bulk of the newsletters consisted of sermons on economics, lessons in constitutional interpretation, and financial advice, there are a good handful of quotes that are, to say the least, despicable. Everything from calling Martin Luther King, Jr. a communist philanderer, to saying that only “5% of blacks have sensible political opinions,” to referring to blacks as “animals,” to salivating over a coming “race war.”

While these quotes would be damning for Paul’s campaign had they actually been written by Ron Paul himself as the header on the newsletter implied they were, there is no corroborating evidence that Ron Paul ever used this kind of language or espoused these kinds of opinions elsewhere at any time. Even Austin, Texas’s NAACP President Nelson Linder, a 20-year friend of Paul’s, has come to the Congressman’s defense on this issue. There is evidence that Paul occasionally read content in the newsletters during this time, and was aware that there were some controversial statements being made, but it appears Paul was not aware at the time of the full extent of the problem. Faulting him for not taking a more controlling attitude over the newsletter that bore his namesake is a legitimate criticism, but making Paul out to be an actual racist is quite a challenge.

Paul was one of the congressmen who voted for the establishment of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day as a federal holiday in November, 1979, possibly a rare exception to his lifelong strict constitutionalism (seeing as the Constitution does not authorize Congress to declare holidays for the entire nation, and seeing as giving federal bureaucrats paid holidays is not entirely fiscally conservative). Rep. Paul voted for the holiday at a time when Rep. Newt Gingrich opposed the idea. Ron Paul has time and again held up King as a personal hero to emulate, has always referred to all people as valuable individuals, and has never savored the thought of any “race wars” or aggressive violence of any sort (even garnering some criticism for expressing concern about the unsober way in which many reacted to the violent deaths of enemies like bin Laden or Qaddafi).

But if the grotesque utterings that pockmark those newsletters did not come from the pen of Congressman Paul, then whose are they? The answer has been a poorly kept secret among libertarian circles for years: self-professed “paleolibertarian” writer Lew Rockwell, of A 2008 Reason article received word from a half dozen libertarian activists close to Paul who confirmed that Rockwell was the chief writer of the racist newsletter articles. Paul’s opponents have been reluctant to pin the racist remarks on Rockwell because they’d rather try to pin it on Paul, and Paul himself has been reluctant to shove the blame off on Rockwell because that’s not Paul’s style. As a libertarian who does not worship at the altar of demigods like Rockwell, however, I have no qualms about pointing out the emperor’s nakedness.

The evidence is plain enough for anyone to find.

Take the 1992 quotes about the “communist philanderer” Martin Luther King Jr. and his alleged “Hate Whitey Day”. Where have we heard this garbage before? Just months prior, in 1991, Lew Rockwell wrote an article in his own “Free Market” newsletter entitled “The Economics of Martin Luther King, Jr.”, which starts off with the sentence: “We’re supposed to venerate Martin Luther King, Jr., but that’s not easy for a believer in economic liberty.” The article goes on to excoriate King’s political beliefs, calling King a “Marxist,” saying King disliked the idea of entrepreneurship, and accusing King of intentionally pushing policies he knew would “create social conflict”.

In a May 1992 article in Rockwell’s “Free Market,” entitled “A New View of Civil Rights,” Rockwell continues this kind of language, saying that civil rights “have made us poorer and angrier,” and “must be junked.” During this time period, Rockwell also penned a pro-discrimination manifesto called “Repeal ‘64” (as in, the Civil Rights Act of 1964), in which Rockwell uses the kind of “black”-“white”, “us vs. them” collectivist thinking that Rep. Paul insists on avoiding. “White males,” says Rockwell, “are no longer fooled by the euphemisms.” Civil rights legislation, claims Rockwell, is about “denying economic opportunity to [white males] in order to benefit others.” Rockwell sounds positively David Duke-ian near the end of the article, when he proclaims “we also need to give up the notion of a ‘color-blind society’ – a goal as absurdly utopian as socialism itself.”

In a January 1992 article in Rockwell’s personal publication, in which Rockwell describes what he would do each day on his first 30 days as President, Rockwell gives curiously high priority to dismantling civil rights legislation, doing so on Days Eight and Nine.

In one of Rockwell’s more warped, pro-segregation rants in March, 1994, he fulminates over the small, Texan town of Vidor where four blacks had recently been chased out of town by hostile racists, and a new black family moving into town had to be escorted in by police. Rockwell was, of course, angry about the police escort for the blacks, not about the racist threat in the town.

Rockwell’s racist, twisted sense of justice was on display following the Rodney King beating, when he published in the Los Angeles Times an article with the title, “It’s Safe Streets Versus Urban Terror”, along with the repulsive, un-libertarian byline: “In the ‘50s, rampant crime didn’t exist because offenders feared what the police would do”. For any street criminal, Rockwell prescribes a police beating immediately after arrest, and another beating at the station. He also muses that perhaps video cameras should be banned in public, so that police can carry on these beatings undisturbed and without accountability. Rockwell’s comparisons of inner city troublemakers as “depraved infants” and “terrorists” would be perfectly valid, if the piece wasn’t in direct response to the Rodney King incident, with its obvious racial overtones. Rockwell does admit that the Rodney King beating was a tad excessive, but claims “that’s not the issue.” He writes that police beatings are “not a pleasant sight,” but equates such actions with “surgery” to remove “cancer.”

The style of writing and subject matter are undeniably similar to the racist articles peppering the newsletter that used Ron Paul’s name. Even if, by some unlikely coincidence, Rockwell was not actually the guilty ghostwriter for the Ron Paul newsletter, Rockwell has enough other unsavory work under his belt that deserves a full-throated apology.

Lew Rockwell needs to organize a televised press conference as soon as possible, take full responsibility for the racist, anti-libertarian content in the newsletters, apologize for, and fully repudiate them, and then completely disassociate and distance himself from venerable enterprises like the Ludwig von Mises Institute and the Ron Paul 2012 campaign, so as not to further tarnish these innocent parties. Rockwell, while claiming to be a fan of Ron Paul (though not a Ron Paul voter, because he considers voting to be “immoral”), has done more damage to Ron Paul’s presidential efforts than any other single person. Ron Paul has taken the heat and the responsibility for Mr. Rockwell long enough. Paul has apologized for and repudiated the newsletters, so why can’t Rockwell? I join countless other Paul supporters and lovers of the free market and individual liberty, in demanding that Rockwell come clean now and end his cowardly charade that threatens to damage the reputation of the congressman he claims to admire.



by Oldest
by Best by Newest by Oldest

Palin is the sole consensus candidate.

Romney means a 3rd Party.

GOP wake up!!!


Josiah, are you going to support Ron Paul over Gary Johnson now, since Gary is no longer GOP?

If Paul is not the nominee, will you support Gary over Mitt, and by default be voting for Obama?


Of course I'm supporting Ron Paul, right now. I don't know who I'll vote for in the general election yet (I know I won't be voting for Obama). If Romney somehow becomes the nominee, I'll let him make his case before I decide whether he'd be a step in the right or wrong direction for America. I intend to vote for Paul in both the primary election, and also as the Republican nominee in the general election.


1. Well then why did she decide not to run?


# Jack Says:

December 24th, 2011 at 9:02 am

Palin is the sole consensus candidate.

Romney means a 3rd Party.

GOP wake up!!!


and another Palin nut..... I would never vote for Palin.... Romney is a conservative, which means your a liberal.



Jack must be kidding. I hope.

I don't see how he could be serious...


Give 'em Hell Josiah!


a bit of a non story, everyone in the libertarian world, for years, knew it was rockwell et co.... having this long time ,on going, libertarian battle line become public will be very interesting...paul either needs to embrace this and disavow further...or rockwell needs to come public to save Paul...but rockwell is too much of a coward ever to do that



I like Ron Paul for several reasons and have respect for the man. Whether the letter reflected his sentiments at the time or not, whether he was guilty or not, I promise not to hold anything from 20 years ago against him, nor 10 years ago and probably not even five years ago.

I will measure Ron Paul by who he is today as well as more recent years... what his views are, where he puts his energies.

Ron Paul has some messages that need to be heard and I'm grateful to him for keeping them front and center when so many others wanted to sweep them under the carpet. If nothing else, he has done our country a valuable service by keeping his voice heard.

None of us are the same person we were 10 years ago, nor five years ago and probably not even a year ago. It is a weak case for anyone to go so far back to find some dirt and then make that their case for whether someone is viable or not in 2012. The only exception (for me) to that is a repeated pattern of corruption and repeated exhibits of poor character. But opinions and viewpoints change for everyone as we live and mature and experience. Thus that newsletter is of little consequence for me today in 2011.

What I'm worried about in the case of Ron Paul are two things. Would he be able to effectively and convincingly work with and form relationships with the opposing political parties? Without some good will, you cannot get very far without the opposing party. Do I feel good about his foreign policy views? (as our world gets smaller and smaller with our global market growing - that matters to me). On both those questions I don't feel Ron Paul is the man.


Governor Palin has a better record of accomplishment in govt than Newt, equivalent (but more main street) business experience of Romney, equivalent Christian values of Santorum, better sane libertarian ideas than Paul, better tea party standing than Bachmann, and a better bipartisan record than Huntsman.

And she got more accomplished in less time than all of them! No one has a record of reform to match what she has accomplished.

So yeah...she could be the perfect "consensus" candidate. If it came down to that.



equivalent (but more main street) business experience of Romney



What did Palin do in business, again? I forgot.

Anyway, Mitt is a business legend, and for you to say Palin's business experience presumably helps her understand jobs and the economy as good as Romney does... was good for a several minute chuckle.


11.She certainly produced more jobs in Alaska than Romney did in Massachusetts. A small business person with a strong commitment to free market values trumps a corporate raider buying junk bonds.

Chuckle all you want..the voters might be laughing at Mitt.


Even if Paul didn't himself right these newsletters, it still bore his name. If someone were publishing something in my name, I would make every effort to scrutinize what was being said. Saying "oh I didn't see it" is not a good trait if you want to be President. Would President Paul let say his Secretary of State go off and say outrageous things to our allies (or enemies) and then say "oh that doesn't reflect my feelings" even though that person were appointed by them?


If Larry Flynt was running for the nomination would we except his excuse that did he didn't snap the pictures?

Give em hell Mitt!


9. While I appreciate and understand your concerns about a President Paul, I would like to point on that you aren't going to agree with 100% of what your candidate says and wants. However, if the two reasons you have listed are the only two you have, please don't write him off.

Sure, I don't agree with 100% of what Ron Paul says, but I don't think a lot of people do. We do however, believe that it's time we elect a politician not backed by the establishment (Romney) but rather a man of honor and honesty.

In regards to his foreign policy views, Ron Paul gets 2x as much campaign contributions from the active duty military than all the other GOP candidates combined. His top three campaign contributors the army, navy, and airforce in that order. These are the guys seeing this stuff first hand, and they obviously don't see the need to be fighting these endless wars. Dr. Paul has been misrepresented on his foreign policy views, and I urge you to look into that further.


Won't wash, Josiah. It's his newsletter, so he's responsible.


This issue and these type of explanation create more questions that answers. Why doesn't Ron Paul out this Lew Rockwell? It's just bizzare. Why can't Ron Paul disavow the fringe aspect of his following in a specific.



I think Ron Paul isn't 100% sure who wrote the newsletters -- he probably suspects Rockwell -- but doesn't want to out him without concrete proof or a confession. Paul has taken responsibility for the newsletters, and just isn't really the type of guy to throw anyone under the bus for what he understands was a lapse in oversight on his own part. I think, however, that it's obvious enough that Rockwell's language is that in the newsletters. Even if it turns out someone other than Rockwell actually wrote those racist remarks (second most likely writer is Murray Rothbard), Rockwell has enough other stuff that needs a major apology and repudiation.


15. Eric, that's well said and fair. I will pay attention to the man.


"Frankly, Paul is fundamentally, radically nuts."

Fewt Fingrich


You may be right Josiah. I am not willing to assume Ron Paul wrote the articles or agreed with him. I do not believe he is a racist.

However, you are doing exactly what Ron Paul's enemies are supposedly doing. You have provided absolutely no evidence that Rockwell was the real author. The fact that he published racist content at the same time is hardly evidence of anything at all. You lament those that assume Paul wrote or knew about the articles for not providing corroborating evidence. At least Ron Paul's names were on the newsletters and he claimed that they were his.

I respect your efforts to defend Paul, and like I said, I don't believe he was the author and I don't believe he is a racist. But you really need to do a better job than this. Coming up with a name and trying to pin everything on him with no evidence connecting him to the newsletter makes you look desperate.



Government doesn't create jobs.

As a self-professed "Conservative," aren't you supposed to know that?

People like ROMNEY create jobs, by investing in start-up businesses which are built up by bootstrap warriors and people who stay up all night sketching in lab notebooks and soldering.

Mitt knows how it works, and because of that, he knows how to craft policy to benefit American jobs.


I usually enjoy your posts but this one was rather desperate. There are lots of people who recite the same type of racist talking points... Just because you found one doesn't mean he is the author of the newsletter. That's not evidence. And if this man is proudly openly racist, why doesn't Paul just out him? Afraid of what he'll reveal about what Paul knew? That's not leadership. Either way, Paul is not innocent in this matter as you claim. At best, he allowed this trash to be published in his name and profited from it.


23 - Exactly


Can I please have some details with regards to Paul profiting on the news letters? I was under the impression that when he gave up the newsletters that he no longer made money off of them.


Can I Just throw in the idea that this guy is being. Lamed for a racist article when he pushed to make MLK day a national holiday. Not only that but he is standing up against the conservative idea of policing the middle eastern people/countries. Honestly, does a racist fight against "popular conservative policing" if he's racist? Of course not. Just an attempted smut campaign because that's all they can do. The guy is squeaky clean.


However, if you want a cut and dry topic along those lines, look no further than Newt telling the gay man in Iowa to vote for Obama after the guy was just asking what will he do for them. That is on the record!


It's your future, my future, OUR future... Let's have it with freedom, vote Ron Paul 2012!!


A new faction of the movement = Libertarians Against Personal Responsibility.


The left (including websites like Hotair and Redstate) are intent on destroying Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute.

I doubt there is any proof LRC wrote those newsletters, and they just want a sacrifice.


What happened to the post about 1979 MLK day.

That was interesting post.


10. "Governor Palin has a better record of accomplishment in govt than Newt, equivalent (but more main street) business experience of Romney..."

It's been a long time since I thought anything you said was intelligent tele... but wow... you really know how to lower expectations.

As for Paul's racism... yea, I'm pretty comfortable now that Paul isn't racist.


Bob, if that was true, would they have gotten it from conservatives? I mean, since they buy the media and are supported by big businesses to back their best interest when they get elected? Let's see, Ron Paul leadi g on all polls and yet the media keeps saying Romney and Gingrich? Or how about brainwashing voters saying that Paul wont win Iowa, even of he does he won't go anywhere and will only be a spoiler for another candidate?!?!? Don't kid yourself, that's. It ok and nobody knows who is going to win! If they do that means this is no longer a free country!


I think if it's fair to say Bachmann hates Muslims then it's fair to say Paul hates black people. Why don't you get Paul to retract his statement about Bachmann before crying about Paul not being treated fairly.


Well let's see, Paul didn't say anything. Bachman ruined herself on stage. What did Paul do? Nothing. Bachman made her own bed.


I used to edit the Louis Rukeyser's Wall Street and Louis Rukeyser's Mutual Funds newsletters. The late Louis Rukeyser wrote a minority of the content in each newsletter, but he made damn sure to read and approve all of the content. He knew that what went out in a newsletter of his name had to be of an acceptable nature, otherwise it could hurt the reputation he had spent a lifetime building up. Mr. Paul should have done the same. To do otherwise is to show a carelessness and lack of discipline we don't need in the oval office.


Also Rockwell has denied writing those parts, so before pinning it on him you might want more evidence. After all Ron Paul went on political cesspool, it's not like there's absolutely nothing that points at him.


35 Okay, I guess fair is fair. Paul's a racist who had a racist newsletter in his name, and goes on racist shows talking with racist people about their racist issues. He's supported by racist's money, and defended by racist websites. If he's a serious candidate he needs to be held to the same standard as everyone else, so it's fair to say he hates black people.


#21 Jaxemer: Lew Rockwell was formerly a vice president of Ron Paul & Associates, the company that published the newsletter. See for details.


36- do you think a bought and paid for candidate is better suited for YOUR needs?


@ 38 where is your proof?!?!?


M 31,

I merged that post with this new one.


CNN edited the ron paul walkout interview to make him look bad. They just released the new raw footage.


41 What is in dispute?


Proof to back up everything you said? Bachman said she wanted to use force and Ron Paul's views are "dangerous".


Marksal (36): "He knew that what went out in a newsletter of his name had to be of an acceptable nature, otherwise it could hurt the reputation he had spent a lifetime building up. Mr. Paul should have done the same."

And of course he did. It's convenient now to claim he didn't, but anyone who believes him is a fool. He is not a particularly wealthy man, but we are supposed to believe he paid no attention to an enterprise he owned that brought in close to a million dollars a year.

We are further supposed to believe that he didn't know that Lew Rockwell was a racist, although they had worked closely together for many years (Rockwell was his congressionl chief of staff, worked on his presidential campaign, and then was VP of Ron Paul & Associates).

But Paul knew nothing about any of this. Either he is an utter fool or he thinks we are. Either way, he should not be president.


45 I don't see what's in dispute, and you haven't claimed anything is wrong. Ron Paul's newsletter was racist, he went on political cesspool which is a racist program, racist websites support him and raise funds for him (just look around). There's clearly more evidence that Ron Paul hates black people than there is that Bachmann hates Muslims (which is what Ron Paul said on national TV). So if we're supposed to take Ron Paul serious we have to hold him to the same standard he holds Bachmann, which means it's fair to label him as a racist.


Yea, I'm not sure it helps Paul if the racism was from a close associate as opposed to some lone wingnut.



"Paul has apologized for and repudiated the newsletters,"

So what did he do with the money he made off selling those racist screeds for 6 years?


So we have racist comments and information about what Ron Paul's son is saying to Ron Paul in the same newsletter. Hmmm.

The July 1992 Ron Paul Political Report declares, “Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems,” and defends David Duke. The author of the newsletter—presumably Paul—writes, “My youngest son is starting his fourth year in medical school. He tells me there would be no way to persuade his fellow students of the case for economic liberty.”

Here's an image showing Ron Paul was interviewed on a racist program. Hmmm.

Here's Ron Paul getting donations from/through a racist website that promotes him. Hmmm.

The Texas-based Lone Star Times October 25 publicly requested a response to questions about whether the Paul campaign would repudiate and reject a $500 donation from white supremacist founder Don Black and end the Stormfront website fundraising for Paul. The Times article lit up the conservative blogosphere for the next week. Paul supporters packed internet comment boards alternately denouncing or excusing the charges. Most politicians are quick to distance themselves from such disreputable donations when they are discovered. Not Paul

Racist ties exposed in the Times article go far beyond a single donation. Just below links to information about the "BOK KKK Ohio State Meeting", and the "BOK KKK Pennsylvania State Meeting", website announced: "Ron Paul for President" and "Countdown to the 5th of November". The links take readers directly to a Ron Paul fundraising site from which they can click into the official Ron Paul 2008 donation page on the official campaign site. Like many white supremacists, Stormfront has ties to white prison gangs.

By Ron Paul's own standards of determining if somebody hates a class of people it becomes clear that Ron Paul must hate black people. If Paul wants the benefit of the doubt he shouldn't have said that Bachmann "hates Muslims".


Ok, I will look at that if you consider all the conservatives the same for wanting to go to war with the middle east. Just sayin. Other candidates decisions have killed ppl


52 If you want to differentiate your candidate as hating black people instead of terrorists then I'm not going to argue over it.


wait...Rockwell wrote similar stuff, so he should apologize and therefore let Ron Paul off the hook? There is no evidence, and not even the allegation, that Rockwell wrote anything for Paul. The most you can say is he is of the same ilk. Odd "defense" of Paul.

@1 - the firm "consensus" about Palin is that she is not serious and not qualified. That's why she never even smelled the lead in any poll, even when she claimed she was considering running, as a way to raise money to pay her relatives to stuff envelopes. And as dumb as she is, she knew it...that's why she didn't ever take any concrete steps toward a run. She was never running, she never will.


Well actually that wasn't my point but if you sleep better with an I showed you attitude I'm all for that


Here's a bit of history for Newt: When you fail to plan, you plan to fail. Not getting on the VA ballot? EPIC fail. Romney now walks into the Iowa caucus with an already 40 delegate advantage.


Let's be honest, conservatives hate gays and they're not in touch with minorities or the middle east. Prove me wrong!!!?!?!


54 Loose Era,

Not only is the language used in the inflammatory portions of the newsletters the same tone and message as other stuff Rockwell was writing at the same time, Rockwell was also the senior editor of the newspaper at the time, so he bears far more responsibility for the content than the famous guy who's name they were borrowing


From Wikipedia -

In 2008, libertarian publication Reason published stories discussing several racially charged articles that appeared in Ron Paul newsletters circa 1989-1994. One Reason piece asserted that "a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul" had identified Rockwell as the "chief ghostwriter" of the newsletters. According to Reason, Rockwell has denied responsibility for the disputed material and has called the accusations "hysterical smears aimed at political enemies."[9]


54/58...ANYONE familiar/traveling with/within the libertarian world that last 20 years knows it is rockwell (possibly rockwell and co., whoever that co. may be although some good guesses can be made there too)...that is not the issue..the question is what happens next in this libertarian soap opera... many libertarians such as myself have been waiting for this fault line to blow up for quite some time


58 - LOL ... on what planet is that true? Ron Paul didn't just let him use their name. He claimed the newsletters as his own.

At least make your defense plausible.


59..Rockwell is a coward, he will never step up to save Paul


57 I assume by "conservatives" you mean Ron Paul supporters who are vocal about their hatred of gays and minorities, and constantly claim they're the only true conservatives.

RP direct mailer


Josiah (58): "Rockwell was also the senior editor of the newspaper at the time, so he bears far more responsibility"

Sorry, but that's patently false. Paul owned the newsletter -- he bears total responsibility for everything published in it.

I fear having a president who pays no attention to the actions of his subordinates and thinks he bears no responsibility for them.


Afk = bill o'reilly or hannity puke


Check out the phone number in the link below.

Then check out the phone number in the link from 63.

Same number.

It's a 1993 mailer that bears the Ron Paul campaign phone number. Of course we're supposed to believe Ron Paul was unaware of this mailer that bears his signature, and campaign phone number that says, "The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.)"

What's the BEST spin you can put on this? Ron Paul is supported by a large number of racists that raise funds for him, write his newsletters & vote for him, and he pays little attention to the campaign efforts of his supporters?

If you hold him to the same standards he holds Bachmann then you can't reach any other conclusion than he's a racist. So if you're a supporter you have to either condemn Paul for his comments about Bachmann, or you should explain why you support someone who hates black people. I'm fine either way.


Right, you have info but no proof that HE did it.


WHO CARES? Every candidate has skeletons in their closet. At least Ron Paul can say he didn't write them...and he doesn't hold those views. There is no evidence that he EVER held those views. i've said before....if you are willing to allow ANY of these phony balogna people a chance...ron paul is the best we've got. He has been consistent in his voting record.


67 Clearly I don't need to have watched Paul do it, or have him admit that he hates black people because he's set the bar of proof that someone needs to say a person hates a class of people so low that he's already way past the level of proof necessary to say he hates black people.

Either he was wrong in saying that Bachmann "hates Muslims", or it's fair to say he hates black people - take your pick. I don't care either way.


There is no evidence that he EVER held those views

There's an orgy of evidence - a lot more evidence than there is that Bachmann HATES Muslims. There's no smoking gun, or rather the smoking gun wasn't found in his hand, but since the bar of proof has been set so low, it's fair to find him guilty of hating black people. If you're saying that Paul was wrong when he set the bar so low, then I'll go along, but you can't hold Paul to a different standard than he holds Bachmann.

Pat Buchanan 2012

Loony libertarian values: "Racism" is worse than the LA riots


"At least Ron Paul can say he didn’t write them"

Anybody can say any damn thing they like. Ron Paul sent them out under his name and in some cases over his signature. They're his.

He's a racist or a fool -- take your pick.


Gary North probably wrote the newsletters, not Rockwell.


Josiah, I may vote for Gary Johnson over Ron Paul in the general. Afterall - I will get a chance to vote for Paul again in 2016.

Johnson on the other hand - is a one time-thing.


But let's not get ahead of ourselves, the Libertarian Party is well known to not support a candidate merely because they've held national or state office. (Just ask Senator Gravel)

Ron Paul 2012

Johnson/Wrights 2012


72. Yes, Paul is foolish enough to not vigilantly guard his image. He appears to have little vanity... he had also gone back to medicine at the time, so it's unclear that he had any intention of continuing a political career. Of course what happened on his watch carries with it a great moral burden, and one for which some will, understandably, never forgive him.

And of course his negligence doesn't recommend him as a great administrator. But many, many people are willing to overlook these obvious failings because Paul is promising to cut everywhere (including defense) and stand like a rock in protecting our Constitutionally guaranteed liberties. If the GOP allowed for more diversity of thought (ahem, Gary Johnson), then the libertarian-minded might not see Ron Paul as their only option.


Quote from Weekly Standard

"Yet a subsequent report by Reason found that Ron Paul & Associates, the defunct company that published the newsletters and which counted Paul and his wife as officers, reported an income of nearly $1 million in 1993 alone. If this figure is reliable, Paul must have earned multiple millions of dollars over the two decades plus of the newsletters existence. It is incredible that he had less than an active interest in what was being printed as part of a subscription newsletter enterprise that earned him and his family millions of dollars. Ed Crane, the president of the Cato Institute, said Paul told him that "his best source of congressional campaign donations was the mailing list for the Spotlight, the conspiracy-mongering, anti-Semitic tabloid run by the Holocaust denier Willis Carto."

Tommy #45

Your defense of Ron saying Bachman hates all Muslims.

"Bachman said she wanted to use force and Ron Paul's views are dangerous."

Bachman wants the US to defend itself against Islamic Extremist Terrorist organizations and countries who sponsor terrorism and provide sanctuary. This does NOT mean that Bachman hates ALL Muslims. Ron Paul's statement that he made on Jay Leno that Bachman hates Muslims was very unpresidential. It shows is inability to interpret events and facts. It was a highly unfair assessment of Bachman's motivations toward foreign policy. Anyone who could judge someone this way COULD be (maybe) a person who could hold prejudices.


Ok, this is redundant. I'm not in charge of explaining that your freedom is going to be taken from you. Good luck with your choice. It better not effect me...


I just urge you to find out why Asian countries are DAMN tired of us meandering in other nations' affairs... It's important for you to know that. Bachman has no case because we should never have been there in the first place! Please, please educate yourself!


NB: There is a big difference between a PUBLISHER and an EDITOR.


Annette, she wants the US to defend itself?!?! Against what lady?!?!? Like in iraq, where Rumsfeld said they had WMD and afterwards when questioned on national tv he was speechless?!?!? Defend ourselves like that?!? There is no threat, until we police countries.


Ultimately, it doesn't matter who wrote the newsletter articles. They went out in Ron Paul's name, and he is on record knowing about them and defending them in the 1990's. For him to say today that he didn't know and/or didn't endorse those views is to make him a liar in addition to a racist.


@50 Here's the archive for August 2006. Ron Paul doesn't appear anywhere. It's jusy one blogger causing trouble.

I've read a number of articles and books that Ron Paul has written and none of them sound even close to what was written in the 2 or 3 newsletters that contained that terrible content. It's a ridiculous smear campaign.

Our country is on the brink of financial ruin. We need Ron Paul to change our economic/financial policy from a Keynesian model to a free market/Austrian one.


The authors are Rockwell, Murray Rothbard and Paul Gottfried. The more incendiary stuff I personally would attribute to Gottfried and Rothbard. The reason why Ron is evasive is it would tarnish one of his economic heroes as well as destroy the credibility of the Libertarian party and the Ludwid Von Mises institute. I strongly suggest anyone dig up copies of Rockwell-Rothbard Report to see what I'm talking about.


Louis farrachan backs Ron Paul even! Find out its smear, obviously the people that looked into it have


I think the editor of the newsletter should come forward and apologize. I am not convinced that Lew Rockwell, or Rothbard wrote things like: "Everything from calling Martin Luther King, Jr. a communist philanderer, to saying that only “5% of blacks have sensible political opinions,” to referring to blacks as “animals,” to salivating over a coming “race war.”" IMHO, MLK is more of a myth, then a man. I like the myth. I would like to hear more of Ron Paul's ideas on Civil Rights.



We'll have to agree to disagree on foreign policy. Look..if Ron Paul disagrees with Michelle Bachman's views on foreign policy, he certainly has the right to express his concerns. You have a right to your viewpoint as well. But to come to the conclusion that she hates all Muslims because her views don't line up with his, is clearly demagoguery. She has made it very clear that her concern is with Islamic Extremist. I would question his judgment based on that comment.


"There is no evidence that he EVER held those views."

The newsletters which bear his name are the pieces of evidence which indicate he holds these views.


So, saying that King was a philanderer, which is true and has been substantiated by even his closest friends and wife, is racist? Does that mean when I say the same thing about Newt Gingrich I hate white people? Or saying that King was, if not in name, a closet communist, which again has been substantiated by his own circle of friends, is racist? Does that mean that if I say the same thing about Obama I am a racist as well? Those are the tired arguments of new speak. You can't call an orange an orange. You have to call it an apple. Wake Up!


The issue isn't that Lew Rockwell wrote the racist diatribes, and that Ron Paul is "too nice a guy" to throw him under the bus.

The issue is that after Lew Rockwell wrote the racist diatribes for Ron Paul, and Paul found out about them, he did nothing. In fact, Lew Rockwell is still a close friend, adviser, and confidante.

Ron Paul can't talk about making poor business decisions twenty years ago, when he's still making poor choices about who he associates with and works with today.

Comments are closed.

Recent Posts

Tweets by @Racefour

Search R4'16