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.

um...... yes. man this is getting pretty weird. i thought you kinda knew me. guess not.

>> ^enoch:

>> ^berticus:
the psychology of the military fascinates me
"it's a game you have to play"
"too busy trying not to piss yourself"
"stripped of your dignity"
so bizarre

boot camp is all about psychology.
think about it.
it is NOT a natural state of being to shoot another human in the face,therefore it is imperative to strip that human of all self-identifiers in order to build them back up and incorporate them into the group paradigm.
one of the most powerful tools they use as @Skeeve mentioned is how they punish the entire company for an infraction YOU incurred.thats a mighty powerful motivator when you have 80 dudes staring at you with rage in their eyes.(i was lucky to never have experienced that particular discomfort).
you do realize after a short while that it is all a game (or mindfuck) but whats even MORE interesting is that even though you are aware of the manipulation you still fall in line with the group.
i was 17 when i joined (you could do that back then).speaking only for myself i remember that i adopted a "you cant beat me,i am not going to quit" mentality.which is EXACTLY the mentality they wanted.they took my defiance and made it work for them.
i was manipulated from the get-go and even when i became aware of that fact i still played their game by their rules.

>> ^berticus:

the psychology of the military fascinates me
"it's a game you have to play"
"too busy trying not to piss yourself"
"stripped of your dignity"
so bizarre


boot camp is all about psychology.
think about it.
it is NOT a natural state of being to shoot another human in the face,therefore it is imperative to strip that human of all self-identifiers in order to build them back up and incorporate them into the group paradigm.

one of the most powerful tools they use as @Skeeve mentioned is how they punish the entire company for an infraction YOU incurred.thats a mighty powerful motivator when you have 80 dudes staring at you with rage in their eyes.(i was lucky to never have experienced that particular discomfort).

you do realize after a short while that it is all a game (or mindfuck) but whats even MORE interesting is that even though you are aware of the manipulation you still fall in line with the group.

i was 17 when i joined (you could do that back then).speaking only for myself i remember that i adopted a "you cant beat me,i am not going to quit" mentality.which is EXACTLY the mentality they wanted.they took my defiance and made it work for them.
i was manipulated from the get-go and even when i became aware of that fact i still played their game by their rules.

AHAHAHA!!! best laugh i've had all day thankyou.

>> ^Diogenes:

>> ^berticus:
the psychology of the military fascinates me
"it's a game you have to play"
"too busy trying not to piss yourself"
"stripped of your dignity"
so bizarre

it should be both fascinating and bizarre to you
sad to say but there has always been and continues to be a need for soldiers in civilized societies
training them necessitates making them different from the rest of the populace, otherwise in wartime you could just give your everyday citizen a gun, wave vaguely in a direction and tell them to fire at will... and watch them be slaughtered
soldiers need to be trained to a higher level of discipline in order to react appropriately in stressful situations, to suffer a higher level of discomfort routinely, to more easily shrug off pain or fatigue that might incapacitate a civilian population
for this reason, there are various and sundry methods of training to achieve the desired effect -- are they perfect? of course not...
will this paradigm seem odd to you? sure, you're not a soldier - you're an ordinary citizen who probably never thinks for a moment about the underlying structure that protects you from complete anarchy

>> ^berticus:
the psychology of the military fascinates me
"it's a game you have to play"
"too busy trying not to piss yourself"
"stripped of your dignity"
so bizarre


it should be both fascinating and bizarre to you

sad to say but there has always been and continues to be a need for soldiers in civilized societies

training them necessitates making them different from the rest of the populace, otherwise in wartime you could just give your everyday citizen a gun, wave vaguely in a direction and tell them to fire at will... and watch them be slaughtered

soldiers need to be trained to a higher level of discipline in order to react appropriately in stressful situations, to suffer a higher level of discomfort routinely, to more easily shrug off pain or fatigue that might incapacitate a civilian population

for this reason, there are various and sundry methods of training to achieve the desired effect -- are they perfect? of course not...

will this paradigm seem odd to you? sure, you're not a soldier - you're an ordinary citizen who probably never thinks for a moment about the underlying structure that protects you from complete anarchy

the psychology of the military fascinates me

"it's a game you have to play"
"too busy trying not to piss yourself"
"stripped of your dignity"

so bizarre

^ what enoch and skeeve said

as a marine vet let me assure you that boot camp, et al, is where the talk-the-talk 'tough' become the walk-the-walk truly tough, both physically and mentally -- you are first stripped of your dignity and soon enough earn it back, and more so, through merit

that said, this appears to be some kind of ROTC or JROTC event rather than a usmc drill instructor training marine recruits

Can a discussion of this subject be as serious as it needs to be if we refuse to even pronounce the word being discussed? Yes, it's difficult, upsetting, offensive in any circumstance, but in order to have a complete conversation in which we treat its participants with the full respect and dignity that they deserve, and take them as seriously as they deserve, surely we can't dance around the issue in this way, sprinkling euphemisms for something we could just fucking talk about.

"We are not bashing your Christianity, we're rightfully bashing your bigotry, intolerance and hatred"

This video is clearly bashing Christianity, and you have put your stamp of approval on it. And I don't hate anyone; I view all people as being in the image of God, having an essential dignity and being worthy of respect. Neither am I a bigot; what I am intolerant of is sin.

>> ^Hanover_Phist:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If you want to say anyone who speaks out against homosexuality is a bigot, I disagree with you. We're commanded by God to speak out against sin and we aren't going to stop obeying God to listen to the politically correct establishment. You and your ilk feel free to bash Christians all the time, so you don't really have much to say about tolerance.
We are not bashing your Christianity, we're rightfully bashing your bigotry, intolerance and hatred.

I didn't listen to it either, actually. I just wanted it as a reference on the Sift.

I did click thru the links in the description and I read the speech instead. http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/74942691

Definitely worth the time.


>> ^bamdrew:

'Clinton? OMG-trolltroll troll troll-troll lol pay attention to me?'
too long;didn't listen - This is a talk by a government official about the evolution of human rights and human dignity in the United States, in the face of discriminatory laws which violate these human rights.
It is a big deal because this is a high level, active, powerful government official,... and this speech is a long time coming. Hopefully something productive will come of it.

'Clinton? OMG-trolltroll troll troll-troll lol pay attention to me?'

too long;didn't listen - This is a talk by a government official about the evolution of human rights and human dignity in the United States, in the face of discriminatory laws which violate these human rights.

It is a big deal because this is a high level, active, powerful government official,... and this speech is a long time coming. Hopefully something productive will come of it.

excerpt:

Now, there is still, as you all know, much more to be done to secure that commitment [to universal human rights], that reality, and progress for all people. Today,I want to talk about the work we have left to do to protect one group of people whose human rights are still denied in too many parts of the world today. In many ways, they are an invisible minority. They are arrested, beaten, terrorized, even executed. Many are treated with contempt and violence by their fellow citizens while authorities empowered to protect them look the other way or, too often, even join in the abuse. They are denied opportunities to work and learn, driven from their homes and countries, and forced to suppress or deny who they are to protect themselves from harm.

I am talking about gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, human beings born free and given bestowed equality and dignity,who have a right to claim that, which is now one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time. I speak about this subject knowing that my own country's record on human rights for gay people is far from perfect. Until 2003, it was still a crime in parts of our country. Many LGBT Americans have endured violence and harassment in their own lives, and for some, including many young people, bullying and exclusion are daily experiences. So we, like all nations, have more work to do to protect human rights at home.

I enjoy some of the animal videos on the sift, and I upvote those. Other than that, as an outspoken bible believing Christian, who is pro-family, pro-life, and as someone who opposes the politically correct left wing agenda, we probably don't have many areas of agreement. It just shows though how insular you are to believe that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't have sincere beliefs. Since you know what I am against, I'll tell you what I am for:

I advocate the essential dignity and value of human life, that all people are deserving of equal treatment, and even love. I believe that we should help people who are in need, those who are suffering in the world, that we should be advocates for those who don't have a voice. I believe that cruelty to animals is a quiet holocaust, although, I do not believe animal life is essentially equal to human life. I believe in communities, in working together towards common goals, and that we all have a moral responsibility to participate in civil society and use our God given gifts to benefit our fellow man.

I am sure we can find something to agree upon in there.

>> ^Stormsinger:

Let me get this straight. You find a video with a controversial title posted by a gentleman (using the term most loosely), whose entire time on the sift has been spent trolling. And you think you can actually have a meaningful dialog with the twit?
Get a clue folks...shiny's just here to see how many people he can annoy. Whatever is popular, he's against...whatever is unpopular, he's for. You're wasting your time trying to show him the errors he's propogating. Granted, it's your time to waste...but don't then complain that he's wasting it.

No no no, these people are smart. They understand that it's not the $23 they'll abandon their morals for...it's the 92% cost decrease. They're thinking bigger than that...>> ^Morganth:

Your average household waffle iron costs about $25. That means these people are willing to abandon their morals and views on the dignity and rights of other people to save 23 bucks.
People still really think that we're all inherently good?

Your average household waffle iron costs about $25. That means these people are willing to abandon their morals and views on the dignity and rights of other people to save 23 bucks.

People still really think that we're all inherently good?