Facts in defense of Lew Rockwell

[Cyclone]

For all of you on a witch hunt against Mr. Rockwell, perhaps you ought to read the facts that I found today by reading.

Wow, what a witch hunt indeed. So, has anyone read any of this junk that passes for journalism? Kirchick claims he has a source for this garbage to prove it was Lew Rockwell.

Don't take my word for it, read Kirchick's blog post about who wrote the article here: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/10/who-wrote-ron-paul-s-newsletters.aspx

In that post he writes "Some people "in the know" are implying that it's Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr."

Ok, want to know what this big source is? Want to know who the people in the know are?

He cites to it. Good thing too, thank goodness we get to see this piece of unconditional truth: http://www.dynamist.com/weblog/archives/002695.html

His "proof" comes from a blog, and consists of nothing more than a bare paragraph. This statement contains the proof: "...Ron Paul said--or, more likely, allowed to be said in his name (probably by Lew Rockwell)".

More likely, probably by. Wow, now that is incontrovertible proof if ever I saw it. Thank you so much Mr. Kirchick for slandering a man so thoroughly based on a more likely, and probably by.

I hope to God you get sued. That is the most irresponsible journalism I have ever seen.

Then we have this little gem - warning what you about to read is false - every word:

Open Letter To Lew Rockwell - From John Robbins
Posted January 12, 2008 by Sean Gerety

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

(End of false statement)

As for Mr. Robbins, the man who wrote that despicable piece of trash ,
despite the Ph.D by his name, you can find out more about him here: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/whoisjwr.php

Also, if you notice the dates he claims to have been chief of staff, that doesn't seem to match up with the dates from wikipedia: In 1984, Paul chose to run for the U.S. Senate instead of re-election to the House, but lost the Republican primary to Phil Gramm.[43] He returned to full-time medical practice. I can't imagine why you would need a Chief of Staff when you were no longer a congressman? But then I can't vouch for the accuracy of Wikipedia.

If you read the actual article written by Kirchick, you will notice that not one of the articles he references occurred during Robbins' tenure as Chief of Staff and happened in some cases over a decade after he left.

Wow, he too refers to these people in the know, boy these people do get around. Ok, in all fairness he calls them "all informed people", but still, I think the concept holds.

Hmmm, I wonder if there could be any reason why Mr. Robbins would want to lie through his teeth about Mr. Rockwell? I can't imagine. What could it be? Do you think maybe he is still sore about this awful review the Mises Institute (Run by Lew Rockwell) wrote about some piece of drivel that Robbins wrote:
http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=41

Oh, do read that. Please. I mean, if we are going to hurl insults, at least lets use ones based on reality. For those that won't bother, the review is NOT good.


Or could it be based on this post I found on the Daily Paul:


I'll tell you everything you need to know about John Robbins
On January 13th, 2008 cdwitmer says:

John Robbins has some very kooky, very strongly held religious opinions, and he anathematizes everyone who disagrees with him. Basically, if you don't agree with him, he writes you off as a gospel-denying, hell-bound heretic. In fact, I'll tell you what his bugaboo is; it can be summarized more or less as follows:

"You are justified by faith alone, and not by works. If you affirm that, you are saved, and if you place emphasis on the need for a Christian life characterized by faithfulness to God's commandments, that is 'works salvation' -- a damnable heresy and a sure sign that you are on the road to perdition. Affirmation of correct doctrine is essential to salvation."

Of course, you can see the immediate problem -- affirmation of "justification by faith alone" itself becomes a "work" of sorts and thus this particular attempt to get away from "works salvation" runs more or less directly into the arms of "works salvation."

Robbins has rightly been described as a gnostic, because for him the Christian faith is primarily about Christian doctrine -- ideas. For him, intellectual affirmation of all the right Christian doctrines is what the Christian faith is all about.

Robbins has rightly been described as a donatist, because he separates from and anathematizes Christians who don't see eye-to-eye with him. For John Robbins, all of Christendom could fit inside a phone booth, that's how tiny the number of genuine Christians is.

Robbins has long been grinding his axe for Gary North; Robbins has been attacking North for years. His animosity to Lew Rockwell comes as no surprise, given Robbins' background.

I note that Robbins was working for Dr. Paul until 1985, which predates the newsletters in question. Further, Robbins cites no hard evidence at all. Instead, he just makes bald assertions.

In the past, Robbins' repeated total failures to accurately analyze and critique his opponents in virtually any theological debate -- none of his opponents could ever recognize themselves in his writings, which is a sure sign of gross misrepresentation -- make me inclined to take his "open letter" as an affirmation that Lew Rockwell is innocent of the charges Robbins makes. That's how bad Robbins is -- whenever Robbins says "X," you will usually be much closer to the truth if you immediately assume "opposite of X." "Contrarian investing" works when Robbins is your advisor. Take whatever he says and do the opposite. I am seriously inclined to take Robbins' "open letter" as a confirmation that Lew Rockwell is okay.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/25203



Before you go believing people who refuse to give real citations or just fling out accusations based on things that "they" said, use your head a little will ya?

Are you going to believe Lew Rockwell who has written hundreds articles that are anything but racist and a man of deep integrity who has given up his non-profit status (at a cost of 70k or thereabouts) just to help Ron Paul and so he could print more articles about Ron Paul or are you going to believe one little cheap blogger who uses blogs as citations and a disgruntled evangelical who only accepts the right kind of Christian as being a real human?

To think that the people who are closest to Ron Paul are the ones leading the attack against Lew Rockwell makes me ill and embarrassed.

How many times has the MSM attacked Ron Paul? Why on earth would you believe this particular piece of garbage?

I will end on this note where one of the men that Mr. Kirchick attacked indirectly in his article attests to his ability file suit against this slandering filth:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018418.html

I hope he files, I hope he files, I hope he files. There. I said it three times while clicking my heels together. That should do it right?

[Cyclone]

bump

[stevedasbach]

Someone was in charge of the editorial content of the newsletters. Someone approved these articles for publication. That's the person who should come forward and clear Ron's name (assuming he cares about Ron and/or this movement.)

Those of who do not know for certain the identity of this person shouldn't point their finger at anyone.

[billyjoeallen]

Your arguments appear to have merit and I am inclined to believe them until/unless new information is presented that effectively counter them.

Every powerful person has enemies, but the rank venom spewed at Rockwell apears to me to be irrational. Clearly there is something going on here that is not being presented fully by one or both sides, but lew has demonstrated a clear desire and ability to advance our cause.

On the other hand, an $85,OOO dollar ad in the NYT does also. Yet I don't see Rockwell calling for anybody's head. These people scare me suggesting that when we come to power their will be a purge of those of us who are not sufficiently "libertarian" enough.

Dr Paul is not just about advancing libertarian thought, although he is certainly successful at that. It is about honesty. Taking an oath of office seriously. It is about character. following the golden rule. I would seriously consider voting for Paul if he was a conservative, simply because that kind of integrity is so rare and so neccesary today. It complemnets a fairly sound economic philosphy as well.

Honestly, us libertarians are a minority and President Paul will have to serve all /americans, regardless of political stripe. A political philosophy that doesn't get strengthened when challenged is not worth keeping. I would fear libertarian thought police as much as I fear the neocon thought police now.

We want freedom, not philosophical uniformity here. I trust the market of ideas as much as any other market.

But damn, some people REALLY hate Lew Rockwell!

[Corydoras]

Are you going to believe Lew Rockwell who has written hundreds articles that are anything but racist and a man of deep integrity who has given up his non-profit status (at a cost of 350k or thereabouts) just to help Ron Paul and so he could print more articles about Ron Paul

What is the source of your assertion about this dollar figure?

[constituent]

there has been a unified smear attempt on lew rockwell lately. it's not only been in regards to this, but various other 'rumors' as well.

it'd be interesting to do some hardcore searching to see what the sources of the (numerous) allegations were.

what i'm getting at....

is this abunch of libertarian party, bad blood bullshit or what?

[MsDoodahs]

In a word, YES.

[billyjoeallen]

and a couple other things, while we're at it.

This mantra: someone wrote it! He MUST come forward.

It's a nonsequitur! Would a President Paul vulnerable to that kind of blatant manipulation be a better or worse executive? My curiosity as arroused more by the mystery source of hostility to Rockwell than the mystery of who wrote some poor periodical literature.

I'm almost certain I've given this whole issue far more energy than it merits already. Let them howl OFF WITH HIS HEAD like the queen of hearts. I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

[Cyclone]

You are not talking about one newsletter. Here is the whole list of them. There are a lot.

And before you go on another witch hunt I suggest you read these links. Oh, I agree, one or two are ugly, but if you put out five or more newsletters every week for twenty years, to find one or two bad sentences does not exactly make a case for putting someone on trial.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129

Go, read all the selected sections. The part at the bottom about secession is covered already by this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018418.html where the author apparently thought that a conference on the Northern secessionist tradition prior to the War between the States, including the Hartford, Ct. secession convention of 1814, and the secession movements of the mid-Atlantic states that existed prior to the war (see the book, The Secession Movement in the Middle States by William Wright), was actually a conference about Confederacy and by extension would try to imply that Lew Rockwell is a racist.

The kid doesn't even know what he is talking about.


In fact, it appears most of the stuff this creature finds objectionable are things that are said on this forum on a daily basis. He consistently underlines any comment that is derogatory to big government. One of the terribly "offensive" articles discusses the need for a militia and talks about how dangerous big government has become.

Well, we all talk about how dangerous big government is all day long. Should we all be drawn and quartered as well?

Here is one that is cited as being offensive to gays entitled Back to the closet about a scandal in Washington at the time where some guy stated he was gay. http://www.tnr.com/downloads/August1990.pdf

Sorry, but it just looks like facts about things that were going on at the time to me. It is not actually an article suggesting that gays go back into the closet, although that is what Kirchick wants you to believe.

This article dares to mention the Trilateral commission and is supposedly evidence of how insane Ron Paul is because he believes in conspiracies. http://www.tnr.com/downloads/freedomApril1978.pdf

The Trilateral commission was founded by David Rockefeller, who was the chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations at the time.

Should we string him up for that?

So go through these, each and every one. Read the whole thing. Then you will know what the big hoopla is about. Nothing.

Now if this is really just one or two awful comments it appears that perhaps the person who wrote those got fired. As Lew Rockwell put it: "The person who was in charge is now long gone ... He left in unfortunate circumstances." http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/10/who-wrote-ron-paul-s-newsletters.aspx

Again, the author throws in a slimy comment implying that this answer is cryptic. If you have ever been an employer you know that you can and will get sued by an employee if you tell people that they have been fired, and especially if you tell the facts surrounding the situation.

It is called privacy rights.

So, what would have them do?

I don't know much about labor law, but I would imagine throwing someone to the wolves during a public witch hunt might also violate labor laws even if they were not fired.

What if the person who wrote those things is dead? What if they don't want to come forward? Then what? Violence? We force them to? I mean what are you really asking to have happen?



Oh, and this is a thread to CLEAR Lew Rockwell's name and to END the smear campaign, not prolong it. Letting it die with everyone thinking the worst is not the answer. The light of truth is.

[LibertyEagle]

Someone was in charge of the editorial content of the newsletters. Someone approved these articles for publication. That's the person who should come forward and clear Ron's name (assuming he cares about Ron and/or this movement.)

Those of who do not know for certain the identity of this person shouldn't point their finger at anyone.

Apparently that person was fired, long ago.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/10/who-wrote-ron-paul-s-newsletters.aspx

[Malakai0]

Guys Lew has been fighting for freedom and sane/fair economic policies for as long or longer as many of us have been alive.


PLEASE QUIT LETTING THE MEDIA BULLSHIT SIDETRACK YOU FROM OUR GOAL. NO ONE IN THE RP FREEDOM MOVEMENT ARE RACISTS, GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS!

Endcaps


I wouldn't be surprised if the newsletters were made years ago by his political opponents. Ron has said many times he was retired from politics at the time and had NOTHING TO DO with them.

You really think Lew, after reading over a decade of his writing on lewrockwell.com, is some kind of closet racist? Jesus christ you guys are messed up sometimes.

[kirkblitz]

question. Why are we still talking about this? Can we move on and try to win the election? Lets deal with this crap later, i havent seen cnn cover this story in days.

[Cyclone]

What is really distressing to me is that all of the stuff I posted were merely links in the New Republic article. In other words, this was readily available for anyone to read if they wanted to see the sources. Instead, everyone jumped on the accusations and no one bothered to discern that the accusations were totally unfounded and made by a typical statist who regularly hates Ron Paul's views.

We face this sort of smear job all the time. We face it daily from Fox, this kind of ugly tactic is used against Ron Paul regularly. Why, when it was aimed at one of our friends was everyone so willing to believe it?

Isn't there anyone left on this forum who has been here since it first got started? Look up this subject. It has been spoken about often. Why? Because it comes up every time Ron Paul runs for election and we knew it would come up again.

Other papers wrote about it early on. This is not the first time the MSM has seen this either.

We all knew this would come out right about now, during the first few primaries. Back then no one left the campaign. No one walked out. We all just steeled ourselves against the coming storm.

But now people are running around screaming like chickens with their heads cut off. Ugly, cruel, hurtful things have been said about Lew Rockwell, a man who does more to spread Ron Paul's message than the entire grassroots and the campaign put together. The articles that Mr. Rockwell publishes about Ron Paul are copied and printed all across the globe. If you have read any articles at all about Ron Paul, there is a good chance Lew Rockwell published it.

In today's LRC he has at least three articles about Ron Paul and perhaps more - with some of them it is hard to tell, but they are nearly all on point about Dr. Paul's message. http://www.lewrockwell.com/

In dollar amounts, this coverage is priceless. His site is among the top ten of all political websites. (Or at least it was, not sure where it is now). With the MSM treating Ron Paul like dogmeat, Lew Rockwell is THE alternative for us.

I dare you to name three other websites that write positive well written, well thought out articles about Ron Paul. Now I dare you to name any that publish as much as Lew Rockwell does. Yet, you all are so willing to throw this man to the wolves?

Oh, and for those of you that are so anxious to find out why so many hate Lew Rockwell? Well, one of the big reasons is that he supports US.

[Cyclone]

question. Why are we still talking about this? Can we move on and try to win the election? Lets deal with this crap later, i havent seen cnn cover this story in days.


removed as an apology

[Cyclone]

What is the source of your assertion about this dollar figure?

Apparently a misguided memory. The actual figure is around seventy thousand:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/1138. I will fix the figure in the original post.

[hasan]

For all of you on a witch hunt against Mr. Rockwell, perhaps you ought to read the facts that I found today by reading.

Wow, what a witch hunt indeed. So, has anyone read any of this junk that passes for journalism? Kirchick claims he has a source for this garbage to prove it was Lew Rockwell.

Don't take my word for it, read Kirchick's blog post about who wrote the article here: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/10/who-wrote-ron-paul-s-newsletters.aspx

In that post he writes "Some people "in the know" are implying that it's Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr."

Ok, want to know what this big source is? Want to know who the people in the know are?

He cites to it. Good thing too, thank goodness we get to see this piece of unconditional truth: http://www.dynamist.com/weblog/archives/002695.html

His "proof" comes from a blog, and consists of nothing more than a bare paragraph. This statement contains the proof: "...Ron Paul said--or, more likely, allowed to be said in his name (probably by Lew Rockwell)".

More likely, probably by. Wow, now that is incontrovertible proof if ever I saw it. Thank you so much Mr. Kirchick for slandering a man so thoroughly based on a more likely, and probably by.

I hope to God you get sued. That is the most irresponsible journalism I have ever seen.

Then we have this little gem - warning what you about to read is false - every word:

Open Letter To Lew Rockwell - From John Robbins
Posted January 12, 2008 by Sean Gerety

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

(End of false statement)

As for Mr. Robbins, the man who wrote that despicable piece of trash ,
despite the Ph.D by his name, you can find out more about him here: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/whoisjwr.php

If you read the actual article written by Kirchick, you will notice that not one of the articles he references occurred during Robbins' tenure as Chief of Staff and happened in some cases over a decade after he left.

Wow, he too refers to these people in the know, boy these people do get around. Ok, in all fairness he calls them "all informed people", but still, I think the concept holds.

Hmmm, I wonder if there could be any reason why Mr. Robbins would want to lie through his teeth about Mr. Rockwell? I can't imagine. What could it be? Do you think maybe he is still sore about this awful review the Mises Institute (Run by Lew Rockwell) wrote about some piece of drivel that Robbins wrote:
http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=41

Oh, do read that. Please. I mean, if we are going to hurl insults, at least lets use ones based on reality. For those that won't bother, the review is NOT good.


Or could it be based on this post I found on the Daily Paul:


I'll tell you everything you need to know about John Robbins
On January 13th, 2008 cdwitmer says:

John Robbins has some very kooky, very strongly held religious opinions, and he anathematizes everyone who disagrees with him. Basically, if you don't agree with him, he writes you off as a gospel-denying, hell-bound heretic. In fact, I'll tell you what his bugaboo is; it can be summarized more or less as follows:

"You are justified by faith alone, and not by works. If you affirm that, you are saved, and if you place emphasis on the need for a Christian life characterized by faithfulness to God's commandments, that is 'works salvation' -- a damnable heresy and a sure sign that you are on the road to perdition. Affirmation of correct doctrine is essential to salvation."

Of course, you can see the immediate problem -- affirmation of "justification by faith alone" itself becomes a "work" of sorts and thus this particular attempt to get away from "works salvation" runs more or less directly into the arms of "works salvation."

Robbins has rightly been described as a gnostic, because for him the Christian faith is primarily about Christian doctrine -- ideas. For him, intellectual affirmation of all the right Christian doctrines is what the Christian faith is all about.

Robbins has rightly been described as a donatist, because he separates from and anathematizes Christians who don't see eye-to-eye with him. For John Robbins, all of Christendom could fit inside a phone booth, that's how tiny the number of genuine Christians is.

Robbins has long been grinding his axe for Gary North; Robbins has been attacking North for years. His animosity to Lew Rockwell comes as no surprise, given Robbins' background.

I note that Robbins was working for Dr. Paul until 1985, which predates the newsletters in question. Further, Robbins cites no hard evidence at all. Instead, he just makes bald assertions.

In the past, Robbins' repeated total failures to accurately analyze and critique his opponents in virtually any theological debate -- none of his opponents could ever recognize themselves in his writings, which is a sure sign of gross misrepresentation -- make me inclined to take his "open letter" as an affirmation that Lew Rockwell is innocent of the charges Robbins makes. That's how bad Robbins is -- whenever Robbins says "X," you will usually be much closer to the truth if you immediately assume "opposite of X." "Contrarian investing" works when Robbins is your advisor. Take whatever he says and do the opposite. I am seriously inclined to take Robbins' "open letter" as a confirmation that Lew Rockwell is okay.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/25203



Before you go believing people who refuse to give real citations or just fling out accusations based on things that "they" said, use your head a little will ya?

Are you going to believe Lew Rockwell who has written hundreds articles that are anything but racist and a man of deep integrity who has given up his non-profit status (at a cost of 70k or thereabouts) just to help Ron Paul and so he could print more articles about Ron Paul or are you going to believe one little cheap blogger who uses blogs as citations and a disgruntled evangelical who only accepts the right kind of Christian as being a real human?

To think that the people who are closest to Ron Paul are the ones leading the attack against Lew Rockwell makes me ill and embarrassed.

How many times has the MSM attacked Ron Paul? Why on earth would you believe this particular piece of garbage?

I will end on this note where one of the men that Mr. Kirchick attacked indirectly in his article attests to his ability file suit against this slandering filth:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018418.html

I hope he files, I hope he files, I hope he files. There. I said it three times while clicking my heels together. That should do it right?


I personally don't know if he approved the newsletters or not. I am not going to

pursue it because it is not helping the good doctor's cause right now. But I am

appalled that you drove away one of the biggest supporters of Dr. Paul and that

is Lawrence Lepard. I am disgusted with people that drive away fellow

revolutionaries due to personal differences that have no bearing in this campaign.

Because you treated Mr. Lepard with such bad manners and because the

manners of a person reflects his/ her character I will not condone anything you

say.

[MsDoodahs]

If Larry leaves it is because he chooses to, Hasan.

Cyclone has as much right to express her point of view as Larry does to express his.

Neither of them is any more - or less - important a supporter than the other.

:)

[Dlynne]

All it takes, insofar as Rockwell goes, is a simple, straightforward denial:
"I didn't write that, and I didn't approve that message."

[Corydoras]

Cyclone has as much right to express her point of view as Larry does to express his.

This is not about rights. This forum is private property.

[hasan]

If Larry leaves it is because he chooses to, Hasan.

Cyclone has as much right to express her point of view as Larry does to express his.

Neither of them is any more - or less - important a supporter than the other.

:)

so he did choose to leave but the direct reason he sighted was that he did not

deserve the sort of treatment he got from cyclone. cyclone should be ashamed of

herself because she drove away a supporter with personal attacks regardless of

who the supporter was.

[MsDoodahs]

This is not about rights. This forum is private property.

Cyclone is a member here same as Llepard.

They disagree on this topic.

They've aired their views.

Both are still members.

:)

[LibertyEagle]

All it takes, insofar as Rockwell goes, is a simple, straightforward denial:
"I didn't write that, and I didn't approve that message."

He said it here.


...when I interviewed him last week for the story, he denied ghostwriting material in Paul's newsletters. He said that he was "involved in the promotion" of the newsletters, as well as, "writing the subscription letters" (maybe he wrote this ditty [PDF]?) and "writing mailing lists." Rockwell told me that there were "seven or eight freelancers involved at various stages" of the newsletter's history.

When I asked him who was in charge of the editing and publishing of the newsletters, Rockwell got cryptic. "The person who was in charge is now long gone ... He left in unfortunate circumstances." Ultimately, however, Rockwell says his role was "just to bring the money in."

--James Kirchick

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/10/who-wrote-ron-paul-s-newsletters.aspx



Look guys, these folks have been through this for more than 20 years. Every election, it is drawn back up again by Ron's competition and once again, is put to rest.

Lew did not write these.
Ron did not write these.
They have told us so.
The editor was fired.
Ron has told us this multiple times.

Now, what is it going to take to let this go?

[MsDoodahs]

so he did choose to leave but the direct reason he sighted was that he did not

deserve the sort of treatment he got from cyclone. cyclone should be ashamed of

herself because she drove away a supporter with personal attacks regardless of

who the supporter was.


It was his choice to leave.

[billyjoeallen]

Hey, I'm just as greatful to Mr. Lleppard as anyone, but does that mean we have to throw Lew Rockwell or anyone else to the Wolves? Is $85,000 the going rate to destroy a man these days?

Witchhunts do not stop when witches are found. We have to make a stand. Dr. Paul made it clear that we all need to get back on track here, despite the obvious concious efforts to derail the movement. This whole issue is a voodoo curse: it requires our belief in it to have any power.

[constituent]

If Larry leaves it is because he chooses to, Hasan.

Cyclone has as much right to express her point of view as Larry does to express his.

Neither of them is any more - or less - important a supporter than the other.

:)

ahhhh... llepard takes breaks every once in a while, who doesn't?

he's cool, he'll be back.

i don't think he was trying to throw LR under the bus though...

could be wrong, there are clearly forces at work w/ this whole bit
with which i have zero familiarity....

and frankly, i'm quite glad.

these situations are why i avoid people at all costs.

[Corydoras]

there are clearly forces at work w/ this whole bit
with which i have zero familiarity....

I don't actually know if llepard has a background with the Libertarian Party or if he was a Republican before Ron Paul. If the latter, he may well have stepped into a dead zone without realizing it.

[stewie3128]

It's entirely possible that it was Bob Wallace or John Robbins - take a look at what they've written before.

[Cyclone]

I personally don't know if he approved the newsletters or not. I am not going to

pursue it because it is not helping the good doctor's cause right now. But I am

appalled that you drove away one of the biggest supporters of Dr. Paul and that

is Lawrence Lepard. I am disgusted with people that drive away fellow

revolutionaries due to personal differences that have no bearing in this campaign.

Because you treated Mr. Lepard with such bad manners and because the

manners of a person reflects his/ her character I will not condone anything you

say.

Mr. Lepard wrote that thread and then vengefully sent it to Lew Rockwell. What does that say about manners? Why would you condone, let alone defend his actions? Who do you think is a bigger supporter, Mr. Lepard or Lew Rockwell? You don't think Mr. Rockwell has feelings? You don't think he might get angry? What if he stopped printing any Ron Paul articles? What kind of effect do you think that might have?

Now you understand my disgust earlier. I too was appalled. I could not condone what he wrote either.


Peace.



And thank you Ms. Doodahs. Your equality is greatly appreciated.

[dirknb@hotmail.com]

Lew Rockwell has done as much or more for Ron's campaign as anyone. It's a shame so many are quick to slam him because of some BS.

[Corydoras]

What if he stopped printing any Ron Paul articles? What kind of effect do you think that might have?

At this point, not much.

[TheConstitutionLives]

It doesn't bother me but the public isn't gonna drop the newsletter story until the whole truth is told. They sooner they do that, the better.

[Cyclone]

At this point, not much.


Buck up. It's not over yet. Besides, if we could get the whole world to Lew's site, we could change the world! First we have to change the minds, then...

This is a long fight. It doesn't end here.

[Cyclone]

It doesn't bother me but the public isn't gonna drop the newsletter story until the whole truth is told. They sooner they do that, the better.

Read the whole thread.

[Wyurm]

I really hope I never speak my mind about anything offensive that could be associated with a future candidate for the presidency. For that matter, I hope I never make a mistake, or bad decision that could be linked to anyone like that. It is clear that a candidate must not only convey the appearance of utter perfection, but all those around them must do so as well. Wasn't there a judge that lost their job because of an attack on Romney? I mean it might have been deserved, but they were only fired or told to step down because of the attack, not because of any wrongdoing. Now we seem to be on a witch-hunt for someone who wrote offensively in a newsletter. They probably didn't think twice about it being under Dr. Paul's name, just spoke their mind. When Dr. Paul found out about it, he delt with it which had to be upsetting enough for the person who committed the wrong.

Imagine you insult a customer while working for McDonald's and are fired for doing so. You go home dejected, demoralized and feel just awful replaying in your mind how you could have done things differently. Then 15 years later, that insult gets brought up again, but on a national level. You turn on your TV and BAM! there it is all over the news being used to smear a presidential candidate because he accepts moral responsibility for not monitoring what was said by his employees more carefully.

In this case, it happens every time Dr. Paul runs for office, so like it or not, the person in question may not even be alive any more. If this is the case, then I doubt anyone will be comming forward. If the person in question didn't have a strong character, they may well have committed suicide over this. If not, they probably feel like doing so now.

What was said was inappropriate at the time it was said and was dealt with already. Just drop it, after all, this Kirchick is the one writing offensive insults now and I don't see anyone calling for his head. I think there should be more of that and less seeking to just find anyone to point the finger at.

[constituent]

What was said was inappropriate at the time it was said and was dealt with already. Just drop it, after all, this Kirchick is the one writing offensive insults now and I don't see anyone calling for his head. I think there should be more of that and less seeking to just find anyone to point the finger at.

OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!!!??????

[Wyurm]

OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!!!??????

much better. :)

[Peppy690]

idk, but I'm getting sick of all this newsletter stuff. Shit Ron Paul is still 50x better than any other GOP, no matter who wrote the stuff

[seeker5]

Cyclone,

You lose me the moment you accused llepard of being a traitor simply because he dared voice his disappointments in Lew Rockwell.

You remind me of the communists really, who burn and call a "traitor" any who doesn't tote the party-line. You'll probably end up doing the same to me.

[Trance Dance Master]

It doesn't bother me but the public isn't gonna drop the newsletter story until the whole truth is told. They sooner they do that, the better.
I disagree. Let the drama continue. Judging by the number of threads started by this story, it's what is keeping the Ron Paul campaign in their heads of the public.

[MsDoodahs]

Take the discussion of religion to a new thread.

[Laja]

No matter what anyone comes out with to shed light on this situation, it will be something that will brought up again and again. Just like Clinton's Lewinsky dalliance. No one who hates him ever forgets about it and it will be always associated with Clinton's name and Presidency to them.

So we just have to let this go and let Ron sort this out. We need to be in this for the long run and not disappear when the going gets tough. Let Mr. Leppard nurse his wounds for a while. I know he'll be back because he's a very good man with very high ideals. Sometimes this stuff just gets too painful and we need to step away from it for a bit.

[Cyclone]

Well, Ben. It was simply an assessment of the character of Mr. Robbins and I was much more interested in the "he anathematizes everyone who disagrees with him", than any of the other stuff. The quote also seems to characterize a man who has a narrow sense of the acceptable.

Not wanting to edit someone else's comments, I pasted the whole thing with a citation. Had I chopped it up I would have been accused of using fragments of arguments, something I myself cannot stand.

The reader now has the opportunity to judge for themselves the character of the author of the complete statement and decide for themselves how trustworthy this comment is. One doesn't have to take offense to the commentary, you can simply read it for its value or lack of value.

[josh24601]

I missed the part about why I'm supposed to care about any of this.

[Cyclone]

I missed the part about why I'm supposed to care about any of this.

See post 14. This has been very necessary today.

[Corydoras]

I missed the part about why I'm supposed to care about any of this.

When I did, my posts were removed and I was told to start a different thread on it. Like this topic needs another thread.

[TheConstitutionLives]

I disagree. Let the drama continue. Judging by the number of threads started by this story, it's what is keeping the Ron Paul campaign in their heads of the public.

BS. If it was good for the campaign Paul wouldn't have disowned it.

[Johncjackson]

Most of the libertarians who claim to know who wrote the newsletters are long time members of the libertarian movement and have known Ron Paul and his associates before most of the conspiracy theorists on these forums were even born.

I don't have anything against Lew Rockwell. He just isn't a libertarian ( well maybe he is, depending on your definition, but many of his writers and associates are not) IMHO. He's probably better than 99% of non-libertarians on issues and he puts out some good stuff.

I think in a way some of the outraged libertarians are a little responsible. perhaps if they had so many objections to Ron Paul they should have made their opinions known in a rational way before all this mess. true some have.

And many libertarians, even those disgusted with his association with racial collectivists, are still planning to support and vote for Ron Paul. They just aren't going to celebrate him as som figurehead of a great libertarian movement- which he is not.

[Johncjackson]

BS. If it was good for the campaign Paul wouldn't have disowned it.

Well that "Trance Dance Master" guy is an admitted racist who agrees with and worships criminals who have been involved in racially motivated killings, murder plots, and other violence.

I'm sure sickos like him do want Ron Paul to be some racist great white leader. he probably really does believe Ron Paul "speaks in code" directly to him.

[Trance Dance Master]

Well that "Trance Dance Master" guy is an admitted racist who agrees with and worships criminals who have been involved in racially motivated killings, murder plots, and other violence.

I'm sure sickos like him do want Ron Paul to be some racist great white leader. he probably really does believe Ron Paul "speaks in code" directly to him.
I "speak in code" directly to Ron Paul. You've got it all backwards.:p

[Laja]

Lol

[Cyclone]

I apologize to llepard for attacking him personally. That was out of line.

[LBT]

Lew is to the think tank, acedemic and new media establishments what Ron Paul is to the political establishment. A trouble maker that isn't afraid to speak the truth and to shine a light on hypocrisy.

It's little wonder he has enemies in a lot of places. Many many libertarian types that have drifted into acceptable establishment positions, and organizations like Cato that have sought out mainstream acceptable positions, have been swayed by various interests.

Mises.org and LRC does not. Hence they are nuts / kooks....ring any bells?

Fact is there is divergent opinion at the Mises Institute and with LRC writers. This is not a cult, it is just a place of incredible output and interaction of good ideas.

Being critical of the wars is a perfect example. Where nearly all libertarians swayed under peer pressure and mainstream indoctrination, almost across the board, regulars at LRC and Mises.org were seeing what was coming and leading the intellectual debate for avoidance of war. They predicted no WMDs and a quagmire and much much more that came true.

They've launched eggs apon many a deserving face.

[Cyclone]

bump for apology to llepard

[FireofLiberty]

Really though, the attacks and witch hunt against Lew Rockwell are disgusting. Some of you are so quick to look for an opportunity to dump this off Ron's back and onto someone else's that you're willing to rip down and assassinate the character of a good man who has done more for liberty in his life than ANY of us have -- no matter what the facts are and how thin the so-called "evidence" is. Don't resort to this. We shouldn't eat our own. We are better than this.

[Cyclone]

Found some new evidence that Mr. Robbins may not be telling the truth about the time he worked for Ron Paul as Chief of Staff. Mr. Robbins claims he worked for him from 1981 to 1985 as Chief. According to Wikipedia, in 1984, Paul chose to run for the U.S. Senate instead of re-election to the House, but lost the Republican primary to Phil Gramm.[43] He returned to full-time medical practice.

I would imagine these dates are accurate, but I can't vouch for Wikipedia. If they are correct then Mr. Robbins' is not telling the truth about his Chief of Staff in 1985, I doubt Dr. Paul needed a Chief of Staff when he was in his medical practice. More dates are in question as Wikipedia also states that Lew Rockwell was Chief of Staff from 1978 to 1982. So that leaves out 1981 and 1982 for Mr. Robbins as well.

[Soccrmastr]

Thank you for writing this and providing another side to the current accusations.

[John P Slevin]

Apparently a misguided memory. The actual figure is around seventy thousand:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/1138. I will fix the figure in the original post.

The whole concept that Lew Rockwell has sacrificed any money whatsoever due to "losing his tax exempt status" is a complete crock.

What a bunch of mindless drivel.

[Dlynne]

He said it here.

Lew did not write these.
Ron did not write these.
They have told us so.
The editor was fired.
Ron has told us this multiple times.

Now, what is it going to take to let this go?

Just out of curiosity, how was the editor fired when they did not know who the ghostwriter was?

I am also wondering if ron paul forums. com is connected with Lew Rockwell or Mises in anyway. Not that would matter to me, but I am curious.