This is the original swiftboating... ronpauling...

We begin with two simple questions:

Why would he put out publications under his name without the slightest idea what was in them?
And if he didn't write the stuff, why hasn't he identified the author and revealed his name?



Based on comparing the writings and positions of Dr. Paul and several other people involved, it would appear the people responsible would be:

Murray Rothbard,
http://murrayrothbard.com/category/rothbard-rockwell-report/


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My google quest began with this article and the comments in it, i have compiled my results:
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/22/about-those-racist-ron-paul-newsletters-that-he-didnt-read-and-completely-disavowed

------------------------------------------------ RESEARCH

HERE'S RON PAULS RESPONSE:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

-------------------------------

OK, fair enough. Now for a 1995 interview, go to 1:54, here is transcription with his interview proving that he knew newsletters existed, not all the content. In fact, he seems more concerned with finance:

“Along with that I also put out a political, uh, type of business investment newsletter, sort of covered all these areas. And it covered, uh, a lot about what was going on in Washington and financial events, especially some of the monetary events since I had been especially interested in monetary policy, had been on the banking committee, and still very interested in, in that subject.. that, uh, this newsletter dealt with that… has to do with the value of the dollar [snip] and of course the disadvantages of all the high taxes and spending that our government seems to continue to do.”

Watch video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW755u5460A

A constant theme in Paul’s rhetoric, dating back to his first years as a congressman in the late 1970s, is that the United States is on the edge of a precipice. The centerpiece of this argument is that the abandonment of the gold standard has put the United States on the path to financial collapse.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98811/ron-paul-libertarian-bigotry

------------------------------------------------------

So what about that, he did have a newsletter? Did it talk about more than money, and did he author those writings? Well it gets more interesting..

this is from a comment here:
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/22/the-ron-paul-newsletter-and-his-jeremiah-wright-moment/#comment-152657

"Wish I had saved the links. This Dondero guy was supposedly part of a group of people that wrote the content of the newsletters (maybe seven different people), and that Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard were the main brains behind the content. Ron Paul wrote some of the content too (probably about sound money, lol). They have also hinted (maybe Rockwell did), that the writer of some of the extreme articles was now dead. It seems that multiple people from that time have died, but the most relevant is Murray Rothbard. He’s like a messiah to this sub-culture, and Rockwell would probably never spill the beans on Rothbard. The tone of the racially offensive parts does seem like it would be written by Rothbard. If you are unlucky enough to attempt to listen through one of his lectures on YouTube, you will notice his attempts at sarcastic humor, if you don’t fall asleep first.

Dondero: “Neither Rockwell or Rothbard are/were “libertarians.” In his later yers Rothbard called himself a “Paleo” aligning with the conservative southern successionists. Rockwell, today calls himself an Anarchist, and has distanced himself greatly from any part of the libertarian movement.”

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2011/02/1970s80s-libertarian-party-stalwart.html

“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. After breaking with the Libertarian Party following the 1988 presidential election, Rockwell and Rothbard formed a schismatic “paleolibertarian” movement, which rejected what they saw as the social libertinism and leftist tendencies of mainstream libertarians. In 1990, they launched the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, where they crafted a plan they hoped would midwife a broad new “paleo” coalition.”

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter"

---------------------------

Ok now we're getting somewhere.. so what about Dondero, Rockwell, and Rothbard?

Reason: Your former staffer Eric Dondero is challenging you for your House seat in 2008.
Paul: He's a disgruntled former employee who was fired.
http://reason.com/blog/2007/05/22/ron-paul-on-9-11-and-eric-dond

-----------------------------------
What about these mid 1990's interviews like this one from the Dallas Morning News:

In 1996, Paul told The Dallas Morning News that his comment about black men in Washington came while writing about a 1992 study by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank in Virginia. The comment about black males being fleet of foot came from a 1992 newsletter, disavowed by Paul.

Paul cited the study and wrote (NOT SAID): “Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

“These aren’t my figures,” Paul told the Morning News. “That is the assumption you can gather from the report.”

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]

"If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?" Dr. Paul asked.

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.

He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia

Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the congressman was practicing medicine at the time the newsletters were published and “did not write or approve the incendiary passages and does not agree with them.”

“He has, however, taken moral responsibility because they appeared under his name and slipped through under his watch,” Benton said. “They do not reflect what he believes in: liberty and dignity for all mankind. … Dr. Paul, renowned as a straight shooter who speaks his mind, has given literally thousands of speeches over the past 35 years, and he has never spoken such things.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context
http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d

"Instead of talking about the issues, our opponent has chosen to lie and try to deceive the people of the 14th District," said Paul spokesman Michael Sullivan, who added that the excerpts were written during the Los Angeles riots when "Jesse Jackson was making the same comments."

-----------------

And all the confusion because he wanted to take responsibility. .. and the real issue? Not with what he may have said, or how consistent he has been denying this lie, but merely:

"Would he even check in to see if his ideas are being implemented? Who would he appoint to Cabinet positions?"

it comes down to an EITHER/OR false choice:

Either Paul is so oblivious to what was being done in his name that this obliviousness alone disqualifies him for a job like the presidency
— or -
he knew very well that horrific arguments were being published his name and he lent his name to a cynical racist strategy anyway.

Is there not any other choice?

There is your answer. The GOP is trying to sow any and all doubt at any and all cost. The content of the newsletters is just convenient; they would have done this anyway.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/the-story-behind-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250338/
-------------------------------------

So Why Smear Ron Paul? Here is why... and the answer may NOT surprise you:

http://www.infowars.com/cnn-poll-ron-paul-most-popular-republican-amongst-non-whites/

yet we're supposed to believe this man, a physician and politician, has actually uttered words like, ""Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers?"

Please. It is VERY unlikely.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/165290/why-do-gop-bosses-fear-ron-paul

Thank you for your time.

>> ^notarobot:

They must have Jeff Goldblum writing viruses for them on his 1996 macintosh.


Please. All true hackers are using jailbroken iPhone 4S now.

They must have Jeff Goldblum writing viruses for them on his 1996 macintosh.

How can you not see the flaw in this logic? Atheists do not make claims for which evidence must be provided, there is no point in trying to "DISPROVE" god, or any other imaginary entity. the "evidence that god doesnt exist" is that there is no evidence that god does exist.

Drac did make the claim "I'm saying there is no God, so there are no necessary assumptions about his nature, since he doesn't HAVE a nature" So therefore he has a burden of proof.

Also, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Finally, no matter how you've redefined the definition, atheism is the belief that there is no God:

"Atheism, from the Greek a-theos ("no-god") is the philosophical position that God doesn't exist. It is distinguished from agnosticism, the argument that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not"

(Academic American Encyclopedia)

Atheism, system of thought developed around the denial of God's existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during the Enlightement, the age of reason"

(Random House Encyclopedia-1977)

Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments, but these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods.

(Oxford Companion to Philosophy-1995)

Atheism (Greek, a- [private prefix] + theos, god) is the view that there is no divine being, no God"

(Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor-1996)

Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist.

(The World Book Encyclopedia-1991)

According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no god.

(The Encyclopedia of Philosophy-1967)

Atheism denies the existence of deity

(Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia-Vol I)

This is what the world looks like to you, huh? absolute laws layed down and explained by God?

In the scientific worldview, there are no absolutes, our "laws" are based on repeated observations and revisions, take for instance Newtons first law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force.

Now, this actually works, it turns out that the world is this way*. It is natural for a curious human to ask "why?" because we expect,perhaps deep down that there is a reason and a purpose behind the world being arranged this way. But there doesnt seem to be any real reason, had Newton or Galileo lived in an alternate universe, where objects would move at random, independent of the forces acted upon them, well, then we wouldnt have this law, would we? Perhaps such a universe exist, but perhaps there are no Newtons there to check, because the evolution of life and therefore Newtons brain, requires objects to behave in this predictable Newtonian way.

We only have one sample, which is this Universe. Shoulds, woulds and perhaps don't explain away design. What you're really trying to express here is the anthropic principle. Take this example..let's say you're standing before a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all aiming for your heart, and then you hear the shots go off..and to your surprise you find that you're still alive, that they all missed. Should you be surprised that you do not observe you are dead? If you were dead, obviously you couldn't observe it. However, you are justified in being surprised you are alive, since all 100 marksmen missing you is extremely improbable. Which is the same reason we should be surprised that there is a conspiracy in the physical laws to support life in the Universe.

Anyway, here we are, we make our laws based on our observations of how things seem predictable, and if things arent that predictable, we cant make laws about them. For instance, why hasnt god, being so clever with the whole "law of motion" trick and all, made a similar law-system for finance? ie: "every 50 years, the market will collapse" and so on? or evolution " the ultimate goal of all of evolution is for all species to evolve big brains trunks, like the humans elephants have?

God laid down a lot of laws about how we should behave. The reason for the chaos in the world is because we haven't obeyed those laws.

No, it seems while God likes order and laws to apply to inanimate object, he's decided to go for chaos and indetermency when dealing with large, complex systems.

You'd almost think there was no god at all, huh?

*Yeah,yeah Einstein, relativity blah blah, for all intends and purposes, Newton will suffice here.

He gave us laws about how to live. Perhaps you have heard of the bible?

>> ^BicycleRepairMan

It seems Tyson has taken his number from a 1996 study mentioned here:

http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx

More than 80 years later, Edward Larson, a historian of science then teaching at the University of Georgia, recreated Leuba's survey, asking the same number of scientists the exact same questions. To the surprise of many, Larson's 1996 poll came up with similar results, finding that 40% of scientists believed in a personal God, while 45% said they did not. Other surveys of scientists have yielded roughly similar results.

Fair enough.

Done and Done.>> ^Grimm:

I feel like this from the YT desc should be mentioned here...
Alan Isaacman's speech about Freedom and the futility of Censorship as read verbatim by Ed Norton in the People vs Larry Flynt (1996). Easily one of the greatest movie speeches of all time, it was actually said in the courtroom as Isaacman's closing argument and obviously fell on deaf ears as Flynt was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Flynt is obviously no patriot or hero, but Isaacman is, and this speech is brilliant.

I feel like this from the YT desc should be mentioned here...

Alan Isaacman's speech about Freedom and the futility of Censorship as read verbatim by Ed Norton in the People vs Larry Flynt (1996). Easily one of the greatest movie speeches of all time, it was actually said in the courtroom as Isaacman's closing argument and obviously fell on deaf ears as Flynt was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Flynt is obviously no patriot or hero, but Isaacman is, and this speech is brilliant.

I read this book in 1996 and fell in love with it. In 97' I got out of the military and was working at a psych hospital in northern AZ. Me and my wife decided to drive to Vegas. When we got onto the freeway I noticed this paper sign with "Fear and Loathing" printed on it. It had an arrow pointing in the direction we were driving. We got onto the highway and kept passing up these fake cacti. I told my wife "those look like the artwork from the book!" We passed up the production crew at one point. It was just strange being a huge fan of HST and driving right threw all of this scene on my own way to Vegas.

>> ^chilaxe:

1. Fairness:
How many people do you know who follow the path I described? Even here in Silicon Valley, people like that are rare, so the world is basically just waiting for people like that to come along.
I doubt most people are genetically incapable of following that path, if that's what you're suggesting.

Genetics isn't the only thing you inherit from your parents. You also get citizenship in the country they live in, you get raised and educated in their social and economic class, and you might also be able to take advantage of their network of business contacts. And that's not even mentioning the potential differences in parenting techniques and lessons they impart.

When I say "you think life is fair", I'm mostly saying that you seem to think we all have the same paths in front of us to choose from. We don't.

I had a lot of opportunities available to me that other kids from my neighborhood didn't, not because I'd done anything to earn them, but because my parents were well off.

I had a lot fewer opportunities available to me than my classmates at school, not because I hadn't earned them, but because I wasn't the child of the owner of a multinational corporation.
>> ^chilaxe:
2. Racism:
You could call me an intelligencist if you'd like... I believe immigration slots should be given to that portion of poor people who can, regardless of ethnicity, be statistically shown to have good odds of doing well in the US, both regarding themselves and their children born here.
Remember that it's liberals who believe in institutionalizing racism. Here in California, liberals are fed up with Asians contributing so much to society, so liberals are currently seeking to restore racist discrimination against Asians in universities.
California outlawed such racism in 1996, so schools like UC Berkeley and UC Irvine are almost majority Asian. Personally, I like 21st century societies, so I think Asian studiousness is good.

There's a pretty big difference between having a debate over what the most fair (i.e. non-racist) admissions policy would be -- policies that promote racial diversity, or policies that discount race altogether -- and what you were talking about.

We can accurately predict that billions spent on trying to close the achievement gap will never succeed. We can accurately predict that hyper-liberal Berkeley will always have the highest crime rates in the San Francisco bay area regardless of legislative policy because it's sandwiched between Oakland and Richmond, which have collected genomes that are bad at complex society.

We can know that it was probably a mistake for liberals to import 80 million permanently poor people from other countries between 1970-2010.

In that short little quote you asserted:

1. Some races can't be educated, no matter how much money we spend trying to educate them
   
2. Some races will always commit lots of crimes, and no amount of policy change will stop it
   
3. Some races will be "permanently poor", and no amount of economic opportunity will change that
   

That's more or less the soul of the Jim Crow style of politics. There are good races, for whom higher education spending, and economic opportunity will work, and there are bad races, for whom such things are a waste. Therefore, the logic goes, smart policy would be to reserve that spending and those opportunities only for the good races, since they're the only ones who could ever make use of it.

Oh, and keep an eye on your valuables whenever one of those bad races comes by. You never know about those people.

You sure that all people in that kind of world can determine their ultimate fates, purely through their own individual choices? Hasn't that been disproven by history time and time again?
>> ^chilaxe:
3. Human rights:
Yes. People are free to work for anything they want.


Really, that's the only one? Rather than open that can of worms, I'll just follow through with my original line of thought -- that's a right you think everyone should have, right?

Why? Why not abolish such liberal ideas as "equal rights", and tailor our legal system to the findings of your studies?

>> ^NetRunner:

@chilaxe it seems to me that you do believe life is fair. Why you believe that is beyond me.
It also seems to me like you want to institutionalize racism again (and on pretty thin grounds at that).
I guess this begs the question, do you believe in fundamental human rights?


1. Fairness:

How many people do you know who follow the path I described? Even here in Silicon Valley, people like that are rare, so the world is basically just waiting for people like that to come along.

I doubt most people are genetically incapable of following that path, if that's what you're suggesting.



2. Racism:

You could call me an intelligencist if you'd like... I believe immigration slots should be given to that portion of poor people who can, regardless of ethnicity, be statistically shown to have good odds of doing well in the US, both regarding themselves and their children born here.

Remember that it's liberals who believe in institutionalizing racism. Here in California, liberals are fed up with Asians contributing so much to society, so liberals are currently seeking to restore racist discrimination against Asians in universities.

California outlawed such racism in 1996, so schools like UC Berkeley and UC Irvine are almost majority Asian. Personally, I like 21st century societies, so I think Asian studiousness is good.



3. Human rights:

Yes. People are free to work for anything they want.

Dec 5, 1996 Washington Times article covering Dr. Burzynski's trial: FDA ignores cancer drug's success ... Federal prosecutors concede that a cancer doctor they will put on trial here in January for using an innovative but unapproved drug has been "saving lives."

>> ^hpqp:
Ugh, this reminds me of Wakefield and the whole anti-vax shtick. Well-intentioned quacks are still quacks,Ugh, we get it. Burzynski's a quack. The thousands of people he has cured are quacks. Wakefield's a quack. And the thousands of parents whose children had a adverse reaction to being vaccinated are quacks too. They're all self-deluded and well-intentioned quacks. Why? Because the authorities told you so. Your blatant arrogance is sickening.
>> ^hpqp:
and making such a biased, *conspiracy-theory based "documentary" filled with anecdotal evidence, confirmation bias and the usual quack argument of "Big Pharma's out to get you and your cash" won't make things any better. Sounds like you haven't watched the film. Maybe you should be more specific on what the "conspiracy-theory" the film is based on? And irony at it's best, your "research" is filled with nothing but "anecdotal evidence" and "confirmation bias"... trying to "debunk" with bunk. Nice job. And I need a citation for "Big Pharma's out to get you and your cash". I don't know where that came from. Of course I'm pretty sure by this point that you're just full of shit.
>> ^hpqp:
Burzynski is a bit harder to debunk than others, because there may be a shred of truth in his claims, but up until now there has been no scientific evidence to support his claims.
Gotta love the double-talk going on here.
>> ^hpqp:
As for raking in the cash, Burzynski definitely has that down pat, demanding 30-60K for his treatments (example: at 963 patients in 1996, @30K/pers.=almost 29mio$... heck, almost enough to make a propagandish film to the glory of one's self!).And you do it again. First you got a problem with the argument you allege the film is making "Big Pharma's out to get you and your cash", and then you turn around and make the same argument against Burzynski. Only the film didn't make the "quack argument" and you did. So who's the real quack here?
>> ^hpqp:
The American and Japanese NCIs, as well as a pharmaceutical company (Sigma-Tau) showed interest in his claims, but were unable to duplicate his results, and not a single phase III randomised clinical study has been done with antineoplastons. The only "evidence" that supports Burzynski's claims come from his own publications, which have been criticised for not respecting basic research protocol (e.g. no control groups, omission of mentioning previous treatments, counting patients who did not even have malignant cancer, etc). Moreover, his claims do not seem to hold on a biochemical level. His credentials are shady as well.Maybe you should watch the film instead of copy-pasting false information from fallacious articles of 10+ years ago.
>> ^hpqp:
I'm all for researching new and out-of-the-box treatments,Clearly. That's why you've had such an open mind here.
>> ^hpqp:
but cannot stand when quacks fill their pockets out of the despair of sick and dying people.
But you can stand when the US government criminally suppresses a discovery that could have helped save millions of lives over the last two decades. Bravo!

Ugh, this reminds me of Wakefield and the whole anti-vax shtick.

Well-intentioned quacks are still quacks, and making such a biased, *conspiracy-theory based "documentary" filled with anecdotal evidence, confirmation bias and the usual quack argument of "Big Pharma's out to get you and your cash" won't make things any better. Burzynski is a bit harder to debunk than others, because there may be a shred of truth in his claims, but up until now there has been no scientific evidence to support his claims. As for raking in the cash, Burzynski definitely has that down pat, demanding 30-60K for his treatments (example: at 963 patients in 1996, @30K/pers.=almost 29mio$... heck, almost enough to make a propagandish film to the glory of one's self!). It's easy to say you have great results when you're the only one giving the evidence.

The American and Japanese NCIs, as well as a pharmaceutical company (Sigma-Tau) showed interest in his claims, but were unable to duplicate his results, and not a single phase III randomised clinical study has been done with antineoplastons. The only "evidence" that supports Burzynski's claims come from his own publications, which have been criticised for not respecting basic research protocol (e.g. no control groups, omission of mentioning previous treatments, counting patients who did not even have malignant cancer, etc). Moreover, his claims do not seem to hold on a biochemical level. His credentials are shady as well.

I'm all for researching new and out-of-the-box treatments, but cannot stand when quacks fill their pockets out of the despair of sick and dying people.

links on the research:
The chemical breakdown of his claims:
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html

Long in-depth report on his claims, history, etc.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/OTA/ota05.html

Unscientific methods:
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski2.html

relying on people's vulnerability to sell woo:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/05/harnessing_peoples_good_to_pay_for_woo.php

edit: nice publicity stunt, btw, shutting down the "documentary" shortly after posting it, then sending people to your website.

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^ant:
>> ^direpickle:
I like video games and all, but I think we need more people, today, that are willing to say, "No. The thing I have is good enough."

Yep, I am one of them. I still have my 20" Sharp CRT TV from 1996, VCR, Casio Databank 150 calculator watch, etc

I'm not one. It's something I have to fight. I either get overly sentimentally attached to old things, or way too green with envy over new things.


I keep using old stuff because they work fine. I don't need the latest stuff if they work. It save me money, time, etc. I do upgrade/replace them if they don't work anymore or really can't be used.

>> ^ant:

>> ^direpickle:
I like video games and all, but I think we need more people, today, that are willing to say, "No. The thing I have is good enough."

Yep, I am one of them. I still have my 20" Sharp CRT TV from 1996, VCR, Casio Databank 150 calculator watch, etc


I'm not one. It's something I have to fight. I either get overly sentimentally attached to old things, or way too green with envy over new things.