Yes, The Atlantic made the connection. They quote Reason:
In interviews with reason, a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists--including some still close to Paul--all named the same man as Paul's chief ghostwriter: Ludwig von Mises Institute founder Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr.
Rockwell is racist! Oh wait, he named teh Mises Institute after a Jew, and was extremely close to another Jew, Rothbard, and also is an intellectual descendant of many other Jews. WooOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Well, it didn't take that long to bring up the Nazis: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/22/thedcs-jamie-weinstein-ron-paul-and-the-nazi-century/
Daniel Muffinburg:Let's not forget all of the racial profiling that would no longer occur by getting rid of the TSA. All my Indian homies wouldn't have to drive to Vegas anymore for fear of flying there instead and being strip searched.
I have no idea what you're talking about. It seems like the complete opposite of what you're describing. A large part of the TSA is the notion that profiling has such a stigma.
a) What makes you think privatized security wouldn't economize on information costs?
b) What's wrong with racial profiling?
Speaking of Israel, it seems to work quite well for them...
Daniel Muffinburg:Well, it didn't take that long to bring up the Nazis: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/22/thedcs-jamie-weinstein-ron-paul-and-the-nazi-century/
Damn Tunk. This is getting blown to a whole new level. Looks like you produced this paper just in time. Thanks again.
John James: Daniel Muffinburg:Let's not forget all of the racial profiling that would no longer occur by getting rid of the TSA. All my Indian homies wouldn't have to drive to Vegas anymore for fear of flying there instead and being strip searched. I have no idea what you're talking about. It seems like the complete opposite of what you're describing. A large part of the TSA is the notion that profiling has such a stigma.
I have no idea you are talking about. Are you telling me that there is no racial profiling at airports; not even just a little? If you think there is, then you must know what I am talking about.
What makes you think that I think that privatized security wouldn't economize on information costs?
Why does it matter that I find racial profiling to be right or wrong?
I don't get it. Do you think that I think that racial profiling doesn't work quite well? If so, why?
Daniel Muffinburg:What makes you think that I think that privatized security wouldn't economize on information costs?
This:
"Let's not forget all of the racial profiling that would no longer occur by getting rid of the TSA."
I didn't say it does. I'm asking what you find wrong with it.
It sounds like you're in favor of racial profiling not taking place. I want to know why.
John James: Daniel Muffinburg:What makes you think that I think that privatized security wouldn't economize on information costs? This: "Let's not forget all of the racial profiling that would no longer occur by getting rid of the TSA."
Non sequitur on your part. You seem to think that I am saying that there would be less in total. Edit: You should have asked to what kind of racial profiling I was referring.
Why does it matter that I find racial profiling to be right or wrong? I didn't say it does. I'm asking what you find wrong with it.
If it doesn't matter, then why are you asking?
I don't get it. Do you think that I think that racial profiling doesn't work quite well? If so, why? It sounds like you're in favor of racial profiling not taking place. I want to know why.
Re-read the entire thread. That Ron Paul is racist is irrelevent to me, but it is certainly relevant to voters who find it relevant; likewise, that TSA is racist is irrelevant to me, but it is relevant to voters who find it relevant.
Daniel Muffinburg: John James: Daniel Muffinburg:What makes you think that I think that privatized security wouldn't economize on information costs? This: "Let's not forget all of the racial profiling that would no longer occur by getting rid of the TSA." Non sequitur on your part. You seem to think that I am saying that there would be less in total.
Non sequitur on your part. You seem to think that I am saying that there would be less in total.
You seriously gotta consider the context. Much of the support for the TSA comes from the belief that the market has failed to provide and will continue to fail to provide adequate security at airports. Given what the TSA does, that means that market will fail to provide enough racial profiling.
P.S. I don't why you keep trying to catch me slipping.
John James:This: "Let's not forget all of the racial profiling that would no longer occur by getting rid of the TSA."
Daniel Muffinburg:Non sequitur on your part. You seem to think that I am saying that there would be less in total. Edit: You should have asked to what kind of racial profiling I was referring.
You have got to be kidding me. We're talking about Ron Paul and racism and how the two don't mix. And as a supporting point you say "Let's not forget all of the racial profiling that would no longer occur by getting rid of the TSA".
If you do not intend that to mean Ron Paul would help create less racism by removing the TSA, the what the hell was the point of saying any of that?
Why do most people ask anything. I want to know. (If you can't think of an answer, just say so. I can accept that.)
John James:It sounds like you're in favor of racial profiling not taking place. I want to know why.
Daniel Muffinburg:Re-read the entire thread. That Ron Paul is racist is irrelevent to me, but it is certainly relevant to voters who find it relevant; likewise, that TSA is racist is irrelevant to me, but it is relevant to voters who find it relevant.
Okay I'll make it simple for you. Are you in favor of racial profiling not taking place?
Daniel Muffinburg:Non sequitur on your part. You seem to think that I am saying that there would be less in total.
You seriously gotta consider the context. Much of the support for the TSA comes from the belief that the market has failed to provide and will continue to fail to provide adequate security at airports. Given what the TSA does, that means that market will fail to provide enough racial profiling. P.S. I don't why you keep trying to catch me slipping.
Did you seriously just respond to yourself?
John James:You have got to be kidding me. We're talking about Ron Paul and racism and how the two don't mix. And as a supporting point you say "Let's not forget all of the racial profiling that would no longer occur by getting rid of the TSA".
Read my follow up post.
"would help create less racism" You're putting words in mouth; "create less" is not the same as "get rid of."
Why do most people ask anything.
I don't know and it doesn't matter to me.
I want to know. (If you can't think of an answer, just say so. I can accept that.)
What you want to know doesn't matter to you?
Are you in favor of racial profiling not taking place?
At all or in airport security?
Okay I'll make it simple for you.
Yet you faild by not being specific. **sigh**
No, but I did quote myself.
We can do this forever, bro.
Wow. Check out this headline: "In ad for newsletter, Ron Paul forecast "race war". The reporter wrote:
A direct-mail solicitation for Ron Paul's political and investment newsletters two decades ago warned of a "coming race war in our big cities" and of a "federal-homosexual cover-up" to play down the impact of AIDS.
after RP's interview with Wolf "The Situation" Blitzer.
Daniel Muffinburg:"would help create less racism" You're putting words in mouth; "create less" is not the same as "get rid of."
If the amount of racism/racial profiling would essentially be the same, then I say again, what was the point of even bringing up the fact that Ron Paul would work to abolish the TSA?
That was a rhetorical question, as I provided the answer immediately following it. (Hence the lack of a question mark.)
Who's putting words in who's mouth? The fact that you have the opinion you do is what ultimately doesn't matter. I want to know what leads you to that opinion.
Both.
Seriously? And you want to lecture me about being rude?
Then why did you respond to my post, and then quote your own response and respond to that?
It doesn't matter to me.
Anyway, you make a good point about racial profiling that extends to everything else. Even if the drug war ended, then that doesn't mean that there would be less racial profiling or less blacks in jail.
Also, as economists, whether racial profiling is good or bad is irrelevant since economics is value-free; likewise, whether we go through cancer machine or get felt up is irrelevant.
The problem to me is the state itself; I don't mind getting searched at an airport, nor not being allowed to smoke certain drugs at a certain place, but I do mind the state forcing others to search me, etc.
So back to my original question, you're saying you don't find anything wrong with racial profiling?
I don't think there is anything wrong with descriminating at all.
Daniel Muffinburg:Even if the drug war ended, then that doesn't mean that there would be less racial profiling or less blacks in jail.
Right now the drug war makes it extremely easy for cops to arrest anyone- just have a bag of weed on you at all times and plant it on the "suspect". I'm sure they'll come up with some new way to make arrests for absolutely no good reason at all but ending the drug war would make it more difficult.
If Ron Paul honestly didn't know that those newsletters were being sent out, he would've disavowed them in 1996. He didn't fully deny responsibility on the advice of his campaign staff? Give me a break!
Walking out of an interview is almost always a sign that the interviewee has something to hide. Good Riddance RP.
Everyone complaining about the newsletters isn't even a minority I'd bet 100%. I'm a minority in this country and I don't know anyone else who cares about stupid things like this when it comes to presidential candidacy- they just care about the job situation turning around.
I mean we have actual real crimes against humanity going on as we speak when it comes to a lot of government policies and this is what's on the news? What a waste of time. You'd have to be really into soap operas or other type of drama to think even think this newletter thing is meaningful. Ahh I feel more stupid just talking about it right now.
Here is an article Gene Callahan dug up on the subject:
http://gene-callahan.blogspot.com/
I agree with AJ's overall senitment - this won't go away, that's just the way the worl works. You can debunk and cry foul all you want, but it won't matter. Whoever wrote those letters is certainly being a dick by throwing RP under the bus by not comming out though.
Of course, assuming there is more fact than fiction in the article and Ron Paul knew some Rothbardians were race baiting on his letters as a political tactic...that's about as dumb a move as one can make.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
The guy most likely to have "I hate Lew Rockwell" tatooed in multiple places on his body. There's an objective input on this.
so apparently in one of the newletters there is a quote about voting against MLK day and it being called Hate Whitey day. Well according to politifact, Ron Paul voted FOR MLK day:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/sep/17/ron-paul/a-few-exceptions-to-his-small-government-principle/
If it's not Rockwell, who wrote it? It couldn't have come out of thin air without Paul's approval. It's either Rockwell or (trololol) Rand Paul.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
My problem with Ron Paul is that his reaction to the media asking him these questions is making everything worse. I realize that he hates it when they bring it up and that he doesn't want to have to answer questions about the newsletters everyday but that's just the reality of running as a front runner. They want you to snap and lose your cool. Walking off of an interview was a mistake. He should have just got used to the fact that they're going to keep asking and face it, whether its fair or not. Just come up with a few regular talking points like "yes they were published under my name, I should have screened my ghost writers more carefully, it was my fault but I ask the voters to look at my record of voting, my consistency over the years on the issues and see that the offensive things written in those newsletters in no way match my views" ...I'm just disappointed that he wasn't ready to take this on when him and his staff should have known it was coming all along.
If the massive reporting capabilities of CNN (haha) can only come up with some newsletters that he didn't write as a main point to discredit him then ron paul is much more of a gentlemen than me. Heaven knows what the powerful cnn would be able to dig up on me if they looked hard enough. For a man that has been in the public spotlight for several decades, his sincerity and track record is astounding.
I think it realy just shows how desperate they are to try and discredit him, by any means available.
Libertyandlife:If it's not Rockwell, who wrote it? It couldn't have come out of thin air without Paul's approval. It's either Rockwell or (trololol) Rand Paul.
Is this supposed to be a joke?
I really don't think he made a huge gaffe by walking away from that interview. He had answered the question as thoroughly as he was going to or was able to, and she just kept repeating the same thing, and reading off quotes from the newsletters. It's obvious she had been repeatedly asking him about it because they had to edit the interview.
And honestly, I really do think that Rockwell is the chief suspect. It totally fits with the whole paleo-libertarian strategy him and Rothbard were persuing back then. The articles read a LOT more like Rockwell than Paul, and looking at the listed staff of the newsletter, Rockwell is one of the main employees.
LogisticEarth:And honestly, I really do think that Rockwell is the chief suspect. It totally fits with the whole paleo-libertarian strategy him and Rothbard were persuing back then. The articles read a LOT more like Rockwell than Paul, and looking at the listed staff of the newsletter, Rockwell is one of the main employees.
You are entitled to your suspicions but I think its a bit crass to present them publicly with such flimsy evidence against such a stalwart figure of the movement.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
In Tunk's paper, there's stronger evidence that Fred Reed wrote the newsletter articles in question.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Yeah, I'm getting a 404 on his link right now, I wanted to go back and read the stuff about Reed. Has anyone uploaded it anywhere else yet?
Are you implying that he wrote them, Rockwell (chief editor) winked, and Paul defended his friends like the principled man he is?
Why anarchy fails
Maybe there's a silver lining to all of this. "All publicity is good publicity," and that's all the more true when you have a great product that's being chronically ignored.
It'd be hilarious if Ron Paul clinched Iowa, the media went for the jugular, and Paul slingshotted himself to the presidency by using the now-copious air time to explain his positions on the war on drugs, welfare, undeclared wars, etc.
I'm not so sure "all news is good news" - I don't think it is uncommon for 1 thing to send a canidate down in flames due to one issue. The media / opponents will find a charecter flaw and stick with it.
I think there were more than a few canidates in the past (Gary Hart for an affair, Howard Dean for over enthusiasm, etc) who got shot down over seemingly trivial issues over stupid 1 trick pony things. It seems to be part of the nature of these primaries.
Fred Reed looks like Max Hardcore.
So yeah.....
@vive Well yeah, but I'm thinking Paul may be different. Though it sounds like a cliche, he has real grassroots support, much larger than Howard Dean, and way more enthusiastic and commited. Plus it is obvious to most people who have spent much time listening to him that he is completely sincere, consistent, honest, principled, humble, and in every way the consummate anti-politician. He'd got so much going for him in terms of personal qualities that mentioning them all in one ad or piece is really hard. You're forced to focus on a just a few at a time.
When he is held up to the the light, people can only like him more, not less. ...Just as long as he starts taking the right tack with this newsletter thing, rather than getting defensive.
I have a sinking feeling that more Iowa Republicans will want to vote for him after hearing about this than before.
And so it begins...
This really doesn't look good. His campaign better make some shit happen, fast.
AJ:Are you implying that Reed wrote them, Rockwell (chief editor) winked, and Paul defended his friends like the principled man he is?
No. I'm simply saying that, from what I've read, there seems to be at least slightly more evidence in favor of Fred Reed having written the articles in question than Lew Rockwell.
Has anyone (besides Tunk) actually read the newsletter? Are they actually racist? Please provide snippets (with context).
Autolykos:No. I'm simply saying that, from what I've read, there seems to be at least slightly more evidence in favor of Fred Reed having written the articles in question than Lew Rockwell.
That'd certainly be a better outcome. In fact, if he came out and announced, "Yeah, I wrote them, HAHAAAA, God sent me to piss the world off!!" dressed up like he does on his website, it'd probably play pretty well. It'd look like Ron Paul had nothing to do with it, which I assume was the case.