“The burden of the newsletter content is on Ron Paul, the man whose name graces the covers, and shame on you scoundrel ‘libertarians’ for automatically drawing the assumption that Lew Rockwell must have, had to be, surely was involved in writing those passages that have you all so horrified. Yet you claim that this man, who has worked so hard – on his own time and dollar – to open peoples’ minds to the more radical aspects of freedom and free markets, is ‘destroying your movement,’ as if this is some juvenile brotherhood of badges, pin pricks, sworn statements, and membership cards.”

You can read the entire tiresome screed here:

http://www.karendecoster.com/blog/archives/002714.html

By the way, did anyone else not know that Rockwell was accused some time ago of having an affair with Cindy Sheehan? Google it if you want to read about it. I thought good paleos weren’t so morally lax, what with being “traditionalist Catholics” and all that.

Dear Lew,

You have now had three opportunities – 1996, 2001, and 2008 – to prove that you are a friend of Ron Paul and freedom, and you have failed to do so each time.

This week, for the third time, the puerile, racist, and completely un-Pauline comments that all informed people say you have caused to appear in Ron’s newsletters over the course of several years have become an issue in his campaign. This time the stakes are even higher than before. He is seeking nationwide office, the Republican nomination for President, and his campaign is attracting millions of supporters, not tens of thousands.

Three times you have failed to come forward and admit responsibility for and complicity in the scandals. You have allowed Ron to twist slowly in the wind. Because of your silence, Ron has been forced to issue repeated statements of denial, to answer repeated questions in multiple interviews, and to be embarrassed on national television. Your callous disregard for both Ron and his millions of supporters is unconscionable.

If you were Dr. Paul’s friend, or a friend of freedom, as you pretend to be, by now you would have stepped forward, assumed responsibility for those asinine and harmful comments, resigned from any connection to Ron or his campaign, and relieved Ron of the burden of having to repeatedly deny the charges of racism. But you have not done so, and so the scandal continues to detract from Ron’s message.

You know as well as I do that Ron does not have a racist bone in his body, yet those racist remarks went out under his name, not yours. Pretty clever. But now it’s time to man up, Lew. Admit your role, and exonerate Ron. You should have done it years ago.

John Robbins, Ph.D.
Chief of Staff
Dr. Ron Paul, 1981-1985

Oh, cut the sanctimonious crap. Ron Paul’s supporters aren’t the ones asking for a complete explanation. They’re not concerned with this story; they’re concerned with the next money bomb on MLK Day, and with the primaries coming up in their own states.

If you want a more complete explanation, speak up for yourself.

Thus, when someone manages to overcome a great adversity, the odds of great success increase.

It looks like our good doctor’s adversity quotient may well have just gone up, substantially. The tide of public opinion would seem to be turning in his favor in regard to the horrendous accusations made against him by The New Republic’s Jamie Kirchick.

Even the talking heads in the mainstream media are starting to concede that Dr. Paul is not a racist:

“I gotta tell you Congressman, you and I have talked a lot over these last several months and when I saw these newsletters I didn’t know anything about them until I saw that article in The New Republic. I was pretty shocked because it certainly didn’t sound like the Ron Paul that I’ve come to know and our views have come to know all this time.” — Wolfe Blitzer, CNN, The Situation Room

Watch the video on SnarksReview.com. ( http://snarksreview.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-adversity-quotient-is-important.html )

At this point, it even seems possible that Dr. Paul’s support amongst minorities might increase as a result of this kerfuffle.

Thank you, Mr. Kerchick.”

He said “I don’t recognize those words, they’re not mine.” He didn’t say “I don’t recognize the newsletter or the controversy.”

I hope you people start thinking for your self. Otherwise, the machine is going to assymilate more and more American’s while the people with a voice and want to stop it… bitch about what our enemies say.

You’re allowing our enemies to define us. You’re no better than Bush. At least he never pretended to be smart. At least his friends know he doesn’t care about America. Yours don’t. You tell your friends you care, then dog on Ron Paul for something he didn’t do. That way, he can make no further in-roads, and we can all go line up to vote for Hilary or Huckabee. Go China!

Bush clones, all of ya.

These are all quotes from many different media outlets at the time, where Ron Paul DEFENDED his comments in these racist newsletters.

What this shows is, the press release that Ron Paul put out, denying any knowledge of these racist newsletters is completely false. As you can see in that link, he actually WAS aware of them, and defended their contents.

GWB was nailed unmercifully by liberals for a forged/phoney document that was proven to be typed on MS Word, and to this day, many still assert it was factually correct. Here, we have Ron Paul’s OWN WORDS defending these newsletters, in a great many news sources, and some are STILL willing to pretend he didn’t?

Who I donate money to is nobody’s business but my own.

Blood on your hands, indeed.

You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people’s blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud

Since you didn’t donate any money to the Ron Paul campaign, did you donate any money to the families of those who lost loved ones in this war you supported?

So did many libertarians.

Your assertion, though, that I somehow “have blood on my hands” is an absurd lie.

Doug supported the invasion of Iraq which means he has blood on his hands. Paleolibertarians need to distance themselves from these mass-murdering apologists, indeed.

That is a lie.

This is not new, the Libertarian infighting as to which philosophy should best shape the party has long been the downfall of the Libertarian “movement”.

As for the truthers… perhaps its because the other two parties have turned their back on Americans that have questions about a very tragic event. Questioning their membership is at best a form of elitism, and worst, bigotry.

These racists papers should have been challenged years ago, not just by Paul, but by the same people who are exposing them now. They can claim the have, then why again 15 yrs later? Who’s pound of flesh do they want…. and why?

For the first time in history the libertarian concept is catching on, and guess what? This infighting may very well undo a whole lot progress.

Check out this website for the CNN interview with Ron Paul about this where all is explained:
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/01/hotline_after_d_323.html

The issue isn’t whether Ron Paul is a racist or not. I accept his statements on that issue.

The issue is why he would allow garbage like that to be published under his name, and why it’s so hard to come clean now.

And it goes to the broader issue of the extent to which some elements of the libertarian “movement” have come to be associated with ideas like this or nonsense like the 9/11 Truthers.