Facts in defense of Lew Rockwell

Cyclone · 01-13-2008, 02:08 PM

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_p...wsletters.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/lewr...es/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 · 01-13-2008, 02:21 PM

stevedasbach · 01-13-2008, 02:25 PM

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.

LibertyEagle · 01-13-2008, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Apparently that person was fired, long ago.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_p...wsletters.aspx

billyjoeallen · 01-13-2008, 02:29 PM

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 · 01-13-2008, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyclone

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?

Cyclone · 01-13-2008, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corydoras

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.

John P Slevin · 01-14-2008, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyclone

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.

constituent · 01-13-2008, 02:34 PM

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 · 01-13-2008, 02:49 PM

In a word, YES.

01-13-2008, 02:08 PM	#1
Cyclone Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 750	Facts in defense of Lew Rockwell 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_p...wsletters.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/lewr...es/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? Last edited by Cyclone; 01-13-2008 at 07:35 PM.

01-13-2008, 02:21 PM	#2
Cyclone Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 750	bump

01-13-2008, 02:25 PM	#3
stevedasbach Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Falls Church, VA Posts: 1,392	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. __________________ If you're feeling any doubt: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=87578 Help take it to the next level http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22808

01-13-2008, 02:49 PM	#10
MsDoodahs Moderator Join Date: May 2007 Location: Chappell Hill, Texas Posts: 10,317	In a word, YES. __________________ Why can't everybody else leave everybody else alone?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-13-2008, 02:29 PM	#5
billyjoeallen Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: treehouse Posts: 921	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!

01-13-2008, 02:34 PM	#9
constituent Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Now Hear Posts: 13,762	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?