Ron Paul is a retired Republican politician. He is most known for his libertarian views within the Republican Presidential Race in 2008 and 2012. His son has taken over the family business.
A lot of people falsely categorize his political ideology. You’ll hear things like Constitutionalist, Libertarian, “true conservative”, etc and they’re all wrong. Ron Paul’s political ideology is better described as paleoconservative. This explains so much about understanding what Ron Paul is really about and also the people that he often associates with.
It seems easy to categorize Ron Paul as a libertarian because he ran as a third party candidate with the political party. but he’s not a libertarian (small “l”). There is a big rift within libertarianism (small “l”) regarding the primary drivers of ideals. I’m not going to go into a long description on the topic because a book could be written on the subject. A libertarian magazine like Reason isn’t a Ron Paul talking point and often very critical of him for a reason  .
Paleoconservativism is a very fringe ideology that has attracted the likes of Ron Paul, Alex Jones, Justin Raimondo, David Duke, and Pat Buchanan. Their views all descend from that of Murray Rothbard - as I regard as the father of all of this politics. These people have used liberty movements to reach their own political aims. Tactics used by the fringe is to infiltrate smaller political groups and change them. Simply put, the ideology they believe isn’t necessarily driven by rights or liberty, but by a nostalgic view of pre-civil war south.
With the relentless rhetoric of Ron Paul being a libertarian, it gives people the false impression of libertarianism. I’m not a proponent of libertarian ideology, but I feel the need to defend it from the likes of Ron Paul. In 2008, he ran an ad that falls into the category of anti-immigration. This contradicts libertarian ideology, which is simply “the free movement of people”. It’s possible that he’s selling his soul to be elected, but I can only judge what I see. Another example is on foreign policy. Classic libertarianism has very little in the way of literature on war. Isolationism definitely isn’t a libertarian position and justifications for war with Iraq are just as valid in libertarian ideology.
Isolationism is a very big part of his ideology. Despite the rhetoric that you will hear from supporters, he is an isolationist. Often they’ll use the term “non-intervention” because he wants free trade and he’ll be friends with countries. Paul has made it clear that he has no intention of doing anything with any other countries including trade agreements because that could lead to entanglements. Paul believes in unilateral free trade, which is isolationist free trade. The constant lumping in of embassies in the “military bases” discussion about “bringing them home” is just more evidence that his vision of America is to do nothing outside it’s own borders no matter what. That is the definition of isolationism despite the rhetoric otherwise.
The great isolationists that have been around for 50 years have also been the biggest anti-Semites around. If you look at Ron Paul’s ideologs like Pat Buchanan and Lew Rockwell, they’re big anti-Semites or at the very least Jew Baiters using the term “Israel”. Some hide it better than others. The usual anti-Semitic rhetoric usually revolves around the Jewish grip on the government, obviously that was before the existence of Israel, so today you can replace every single anti-Semitic rhetoric with Israel to get the new version.
Even Ron Paul’s newsletters are paleoconservative ideologically and yet no one seems to be picking up on this fact. The racism, conspiracies and hatred of Israel is quite consistent with paleoconservative ideology.
Ron Paul supporters absolutely froth at the mouth when you call Ron Paul an isolationist. They don’t froth because you’re saying anything inaccurate. They froth because it is such a concise and accurate statement that makes him look so damn bad. I thought it would be best to bring up a scenario that helps provide some framework against Ron Paul’s foreign policy positions.
I’m very confident that 200 years ago an isolationist type foreign policy would have worked great in the United States. But that was a much different time and I want to point out the big differences between today and 200 years ago.
It was a much different time for people. The world was much more primitive. Countries were much more isolated. Today, we have a world that is very connected and integrated. We also have amazingly powerful technology that can be used for good and bad things. We have intercontinental ballistic missiles that can have various warheads attached (nuclear, chemical, biological) and reach countries thousands of miles away. The US government has been doing recent testing where it can hit a target accurately anywhere in the world in under an hour. We live in a different world and that requires a different approach. We can’t just ignore or bury our heads in the sand expecting dictators and theocracies to behave rationally with very powerful technology.
Would you expect a country that puts homosexuals to death to rationally behave with a nuclear weapon? I don’t think so. This is essentially why isolationism is such an irrational position and the reason Paultards froth when you state it. They would prefer to use words that sound better to explain their irrational pacifism.
You’ll often hear Ron Paul supporters defend him and say he’s not an isolationist. He just wants to be friends of countries, have free trade and just peace. It sounds nice, but it isn’t accurate.
It’s best to get Ron Paul to define what friends means when it comes to countries. His idea of friends is basically not talking to them and not doing anything with them. Anything other than that would be telling them what to do. He won’t engage in any international treaties or other such obligations because he views it as an attack on American sovereignty. A treaty would make the US obligated to do things and Ron Paul doesn’t like that. It’s a very isolated type position he wants for the country.
When it comes to free trade you’re getting caught up by a buzz word. Ron Paul is against every single free trade agreement that America has ever signed into law or tried to. This includes NAFTA, GATT, FTAA, etc. He says they’re technically not free trade. It’s true, they’re “technically” not free trade. They’re actually agreements between countries to greatly liberalize trade between countries. In the world we live in today, that’s what has to be done to build international trade. Ron Paul believes in something called unilateral free trade, which means he’ll implement free trade on the US side of the border. He won’t enter into any agreements or discussions with other countries. Other countries can import what they want into the country, no regulations, that’s it. Unilateral free trade is isolationist. The other side of free trade agreements is that Ron Paul views them from a conspiracy point of view, but you can read more about that in the conspiracy section.
Lastly, Ron Paul doesn’t care about peace. Being anti-war doesn’t make you pro-peace. Ron Paul’s policy on peace is isolationism. He would go out to a bar with friends and turn his back if one of his friends got beat up. That’s his view of “peace” and it’s not getting involved in anything for any reason. He has stated that if he was President during WW2 he wouldn’t have responded militarily to the Pearl Harbor attacks and he also stated that he wouldn’t have tried to stop the holocaust. That is Ron Paul’s idea of “peace”.
Ron Paul tends to be a much more emphatic defender of countries that pose the greatest threat to Israel, which happens to be Iran in this case. So I thought I would give it special consideration. The big problem with Ron Paul on Iran is that he simply doesn’t get it. His ideology literally helps him glaze over and ignore actual facts and reality. You could apply that statement to just about any view he has, but Iran just happens to be the one I find the oddest. Here is a very troubling quote from Ron Paul on Iran:
There is little resistance to the rising clamor for “democratizing” Iran, even though their current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is an elected leader. Though Iran is hardly a perfect democracy, its system is far superior to most of our Arab allies about which we never complain. – Ron Paul (April 5 2006)
If you’re unfamiliar with Iran, this might appear to be an innocent statement. The facts speak differently. Iran is not a democracy. It’s not even near a democracy. Calling it a democracy destroys the meaning of the word democracy. Iran is actually a theocratic dictatorship with a supreme ruler and an Islamic constitution. It is true that they do have elections in the country, but elections don’t mean democracy necessarily. The supreme leader and a group of unelected theological elders choose who can actually be on these election ballots. In Iran, your election is basically voting between the guy the supreme leader chose and the other guy that supreme leader chose. Most human rights groups don’t even think the votes are counted and they just declare whoever they want winner. Hence, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not an elected official of anything that represents a democracy.
I would like to give you a quote from Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, on March 2nd 2012 while on a visit to Canada.
It sends its own children through mine fields; it hangs gays and stones women; it supports Assad’s brutal slaughter of the Syrian people; it is the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism: it sponsors Hizbullah in Lebanon,<b Hamas in Gaza and terrorists throughout the Middle East, Africa, even South America. Iran’s proxies have dispatched hundreds of suicide bombers, planted thousands of roadside bombs, and they fired over twenty thousand missiles at civilians. I say all his to make one point clear – This is how Iran behaves today, without nuclear weapons. Think of how they will behave tomorrow, with nuclear weapons.
This is simply what Ron Paul and Ron Paul supporters don’t understand. They assume that with nuclear weapons they’ll just behave “rationally”. They think Iran has a “right” to nuclear weaponry. I’m not sure where that right comes from, but I’m sure they don’t either.
The Paul supporters of the internet try to make it sound like Ron Paul is just about being neutral internationally as he can, but that isn’t quite that true. There has always been more hostility thrown towards Israel (the closest thing to a libertarian state in the Middle East). Often it revolves around international aid for countries. I’ve made a post on this site dissecting content on Ron Paul community websites. You can view it here. The largest Ron Paul community on the internet is DailyPaul and they have a sick obsession. The word Israel was used more times than Bush, Iraq, and Federal Reserve even though these are supposed to be the big talking points of the Paul political movement.
A former staffer of Ron Paul (of 12 years) stated that Ron Paul was anti-Israel and doesn’t think the state should exist. I’m not sure if that is a neutral position by Ron Paul standards or “an act of war” on his part. Either way you have to admit that he has some sort of passionate hatred of Israel that doesn’t seem to be fair or balanced. He has said, in Congress, that Hamas was created by Israel. This sort of falls into his conspiracy theory type thinking, but that’s a scary thought. He actually believes a terrorist organization that has one purpose of killing Jews was created by Israel. Please see this crazy video below:
He has the most convoluted type of thinking, but it isn’t that surprising if you understand the background of where his views came from.
I mentioned in Ron Paul’s ideology portion of this is a Paleoconservative view. This is sort of like libertarianism, but it’s anti-immigration, xenophobic, homophobic, isolationist, full of neo-Nazis, conspiracy theorists and other weirdos. This really needs to be understood. When Don Black, past Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and creator of the white power website Stormfront, endorses Ron Paul he does it for a reason. Ron Paul hits all the important bullet points of paleoconservatism and the racists come running.
Ron Paul hates Israel for a reason. It’s hidden in his polluted ideology, but where he keeps his mouth shut about it (though exposes some of it in his newsletters).
The most interesting part about Paul is that he believes in a lot of whacko things and that makes me extra vigilant against him. One thing is having genuine political beliefs that I just flat out disagree with and another thing is complete crazy stuff that isn’t based in reality.
There are many different conspiracies expressed in the newsletters that he made from 1984-1995. I would like to keep these to a minimum because I’ve shared a lot of it on my newsletters page.
There are many 9/11 conspiracy theories and I’m not exactly sure what Ron Paul believes. What I do know is he thinks the government has covered up something and is lying to the American people. Whatever that is supposed to mean.
January 7, 2007: Paul on the conspiracy theory radio show put on by Alex Jones. When he received a caller:
CALLER: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I’m tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please? RON PAUL: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don’t have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there’s not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn’t going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on.
February 2007: Here’s what Paul had to say when asked a question by the Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth and stating he questions the official 9/11 story.
Well, I never automatically trust anything the government does when they do an investigation because too often I think there’s an area that the government covered up, whether it’s the Kennedy assassination or whatever.
June 16, 2007: Ron Paul at Sky Harbor International Airport while surrounded by supporters, after asked about investing 9/11, said,
Government investigations aren’t all that reliable. You know shudder repetition, when they look at Waco, and Ruby Ridge, and assassinations or 9/11, they’re cover-ups
October 7, 2007: Paul while on speaking with Steve Gill on the radio
Steve Gill: ….Do you think the American government, the U.S. government, had anything to do with bringing those towers down either directly or allowing it to happen? Ron Paul: I think indirectly out of ineptness rather than participating in it, planning it or allowing it to happen. […] But you know, the neocons were very explicit even before 9/11 that it would be an advantage if they had a Pearl Harbor type of an event…
June 19, 2008: Paul being asked on Alex Jones conspiracy movie EndGame.
I have NOT Accepted the 9/11 Investigation.
July 19, 2009: Ron Paul surrounded by supporters is asked why he doesn’t come out with the truth about 9/11,
Because I cant handle the controversy, I have the IMF and federal reserve to deal with. I have too many things on my plate.
Conclusion: I think the evidence, based on his public record, is that he doesn’t believe that it’s an inside job or that this was setup by the government. He does believe in the conspiracy that the government is covering it up. It is also certain that he likes to conspiracy-bait for his supporters. The idea here is that you’ll get much more inside job-ish comments from supporters and he’ll chose his words carefully, giving them enough ‘bait’ to make it seem like he’s with them.
Speaking at a Campaign for Liberty Regional Conference in Atlanta, on January 15, 2010, Ron Paul stated the following:
There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything, they run the military. They’re the ones who are over there lobbing missiles and bombs on countries. … And of course the CIA is every bit as secretive as the Federal Reserve. … And yet think of the harm they have done since they were established [after] World War II. They are a government unto themselves. They’re in businesses, in drug businesses, they take out dictators … We need to take out the CIA.
This is a really simple conspiracy. The idea is that there is a planned “super highway” that wants to be built from Mexico, through the United States to Canada. This “super highway” would be used to help transfer goods easily across the borders that signed into NAFTA (Canada, United States and Mexico). This conspiracy mainly comes from the right wing anti-NAFTA group and the main argument against is that this highway will result in some loss of sovereignty of the United States. And also that this linking of a “super highway” is a step in the direction of a North American government (similar to the EU) and this is a stepping stone to one world government.
Ron Paul has discussed this extensively at Lew Rockwell’s website. Let me quote the most troubling part:
The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union — complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether.
I don’t want to turn this page into a big conspiracy debunk because that’s not the intention, but this isn’t an even remotely real idea. There is no “super highway” planned. In case Paul isn’t already aware. There are highways and roads that extend from Mexico, through the United States to Canada already.
A classic and very understood conspiracy. The idea is that Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t actually do it and was just a patsy. Someone else did it, maybe in the Grassy Knoll. The motive being the elitists/bankers upset with Kennedy.
…too often I think there’s an area that the government covered up, whether it’s the Kennedy assassination or whatever.
Yes it appears that Paul has bought into the WooWoo that Jenny McCarthy is apparently selling. It would appear that his fears aren’t based on autism, but on the government out to get people. Well let’s hear what Ron Paul has to say about this subject:
I think Persian Gulf War syndrome is related to vaccines
Another classic conspiracy that is parroted by the likes of Alex Jones and now even Ron Paul. If you’re unfamiliar with the conspiracy it is essentially detention camps (concentration camps) being setup by the government to enslave the population. This could be to detain political opposition, re-education of people, whatever. All very crazy.
When Ron Paul was asked about it he said”
They [the Government] are setting up the stages for violence in this country.
If you’re a conservative or someone interested in Republican politics, you probably came across pretty nice quotes of Ronald Reagan speaking about Ron Paul. The big reason for this is that Ron Paul was part of the original Republicans that wanted to see Reagan seek the Republican Nomination. And at that time Reagan wasn’t that popular among Republicans. So of course you would see nice happy quotes like this,
Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.
FactCheck.org tried to actually find proof about whether Reagan actually made this “endorsement”. According to their site, they have found no proof or documentation. They have asked the Paul Campaign (which champions this quote) for proof and they have yet to provide anything.This quote alone is fine and good for Ron Paul, but if you’re unfamiliar with the situation you’re being mislead. Really the only reason the campaign and PaulPACS use this quote is that they’re trying to get Reagan like voters to vote for him even though Paul is a completely different ideology. Though Paul supported Reagan starting out with the Republicans he grew to hate him and hate his politics. So why would you proudly place an endorsement of someone you don’t like? Unless you’re a manipulative politician that would say or do anything for a vote. Here are some of the things Ron Paul has said about Ronald Reagan,
Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day(February 1990 Newsletter)).
I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that have given us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy. … There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government. That is the message of the Reagan years(Letter to the Republican Party).
The American people have never reached this point of disgust with politicians before. I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan Administration.
It doesn’t sound like Ron Paul really liked Reagan or his policies as the President of the United States. Even though there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of the Reagan endorsement, and unverifiable now that Reagan has passed away, why would Ron Paul proudly display the endorsement of a person that he quit the Republican Party over?
This should come as no surprise that Paul doesn’t believe in evolution. He is in fact a creationist.
I think you can get a very reasonable view of a person when they’re caught, like a deer in the headlights, and all they can do is fall back to their deep down beliefs. The classic scene from Bruno with Ron Paul. “This guy is a queer.” This is the type of unsettling startling words that come out in the heat of the moment. He’s queer. Better run.
This isn’t Paul’s first time you’d see this type of comment. A simple look at this newsletters will show a few extra items.
I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any coincidence that the AIDS epidemic developed after they came ‘out of the closet,’ and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy? I don’t believe so, medically or morally (Political Report – June 1990).
And there is more…
The largest blood bank in San Francisco succumbed to political pressure and holds blood drives in the gay Castro district; where the people give at three times the usual level. Either they are public spirited, or they are trying to poison the blood supply (Political Report – June 1990).
A well-known libertarian editor told me: ‘The ACT-UP slogan on stickers plastered all over Manhattan is ‘Silence=Death.’ But shouldn’t it be Sodomy = Death’? (January 1990 Newsletter)
Gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense. […] [T]hese men don’t really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners. […] They enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick. Put it all together, and you’ve got another wave of AIDS infections, that you, dear taxpayer, will be asked to pay for.(“Survival Report” – January 1994)
A whole political movement has been created and sustained on a single notion: homosexual sodomy(Political Report – December 1989)
The average homosexual has 1000 or more partners in a lifetime and the average homosexual has only one sexual encounter per partner and never sees the person again after that encounter. (Political Report – December 1989)
There is more to the story that I have to share. Ron Paul also voted YES on an amendment that bans gay adoption. Like I mentioned above, Paul uses the constitution as a weapon for his real views by saying it’s state rights (I mentioned this above in the ideology section. Well, adoption isn’t in the constitution. According to his own political rhetoric he should have abstained as this would fall into state rights in his view. But he just couldn’t help himself because this was about homosexuality.
I start off stating that we do have a collection of some of these newsletters that you can view and make your own judgments on. There has been a lot of great commentary on the Ron Paul newsletters that myself and many other great people have written. I do have my own newsletters page where I have a collection of newsletters for you to read first hand. I’ve also given each article specific keywords and broke out quotes that I found to be on the disturbing side.
I will try to keep the conversation to a minimum and discuss three questions: Did Ron Paul know what was being published under his name? Even if he didn’t write the content, how much did he profit from it? And finally, who may be the key players who did write it?
Well this is a hard one to answer because no one really knows how oblivious a person can be when it comes to things. I would like to throw out that this was a for-profit venture that he started, so he at least knew what type of business he was starting and what his target audience was going to be. Paul was also the President of this organization.
So far we’ve established that Ron Paul had enough interest and knowledge about the newsletters to start a corporation. He was the President and Director of the company. He also aligned the board with his relatives and his long time friend (ideological equivalent) Lew Rockwell.
The newsletters that were sent out were written in first person and signed by Ron Paul. Often these letters would reference Paul’s hometown, the fact that he’s a doctor, etc to really emphasize that he was the one writing the letters. Such example passage would read “even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas.”
Lastly and the more interesting part of the newsletters is the timeline of events. A lot of people seem to think that the newsletter story came out in 2007. At the time, Paul said he didn’t write them, he didn’t read them, he doesn’t know who wrote them and he has taken ‘moral responsibility‘ for them. In 1996, was the first time the newsletters came to light and Paul had a much different tune to sing at the time. The excuse this time was that this was his newsletter and that the words were being taken out of context. You can even see him on television in 1995 promoting his newsletters. “I also put out a political, type of business, newsletter.”
Conclusion: Ron Paul formed a for-profit corporation to distribute his newsletters. He filled the board with his family and friend, including Ron himself. The letters distributed were written in the first person and referenced aspects of Paul’s life and profession. In 1996, Paul defended his newsletters as merely being taken out of context. During his run in the Republican Primary, a more important election, did he say that he didn’t write them, didn’t read them, doesn’t know anything about them, and doesn’t know who wrote them.
Can anyone really tell whether he wrote them? No. The evidence suggested that he was certainly responsible for it. He lined the board with his family and friend. The narrative seemed to be okay with all the other parties involved (family and friend). No one raised concerns to Paul about the content of the letters. It is possible that his family is racist, his friends are racist, the people getting the letters were racists, and Ron is completely innocent in all of this, but that is really hard to believe.
In 1984, Paul had a failed run at Congress that left him in debt according to the Washington Post. Before the creation of the Ron Paul and Associates, Inc newsletter company he had $765,000 in debt. By the time that 1995 rolled around, after which some of the most racist, homophobic and provocative conspiracy content was produced, his net worth was listed at 3.3 million with most of his debt wiped out . Large holdings were reported such as Ron Paul and Associates, Inc. 250,000. Carona Limited, 100,000-250,000, American Barrick, 100,000-250,000. When you take a look at the mass of owned assets it amounts to roughly 3.3 million in value. Declared (working) income during this time is 1133 auto allowance for Ron Paul and Associates, Inc.
According to Opensecrets.org, which obtains legal financial documents on politicians, as of 2012 Ron Paul’s net worth is roughly $5.7 million. It might be a little unfair to use the 2012 as the comparison date, so I also looked at his Financial Disclosure statement from 2001 and his net worth is roughly a few million. I can’t give you an exact number because the declaration process only requires a person to disclose within specific ranges.
Conclusion: The question becomes whether Ron Paul profited from it. Well the real answer is yes he did. It was a real business that made money and paid him. Paul had other business ventures going on, that could be attributed to his growth in assets. In the mid-90s the requirements of the Financial Disclosure statements contained information on earned income, which only showed income as a working doctor, Ron Paul and Associates Inc. and Ron Paul and Associates Inc. auto allowance (aside from other investment type incomes such as dividends, or interest income). After 1996 Paul no longer reported an income (working) over two hundred, so had nothing to disclose. During the disclosures Ron Paul and Associates, Inc. was always valued between 250,000. Sometime between 1996-1997 the assets of this corporation dropped substantially and the company was listed as inactive on the disclosure.
It’s hard to say where the money went within the newsletter corporation. Unfortunately the financial disclosure was only for Ron Paul and wouldn’t look as deep into the actual corporate entities and how the money moved around.
This is often the more important question for a lot of people. I’d first like to state that most rational people and myself included really don’t believe Ron Paul wrote every single word of these newsletters. It’s highly unlikely for the amount of money coming in and the ease of being able to work with ghost writers. For me, who wrote it is less of the point. For me, it’s he opened a corporation for this, staffed it with specific people and issued it under his name. For this reason he owns the content and the responsibility of it forever. There is no valid excuse to blame someone else. I’ll also point out that just because you didn’t write it, doesn’t mean you didn’t read it, approve of it, or request this type of content.
The most commonly sourced person to have been in charge of writing/editing was Lew Rockwell. Rockwell was described by two people with direct knowledge of the business claimed he wrote some of the racist content.
For me, without a doubt, Rockwell probably wrote some of the more outspoken racist, homophobic and conspiracy based content. Did he write it all? No one will ever know. It’s truly hard to pin it on him because simply because it wasn’t published under his name, nor his business or anything like that. Are other people involved? Who knows? Ron Paul has decided to remain quiet and won’t at least put the evidence out there for people to figure out.
A big reason for not throwing Rockwell under the bus is that their pasts are too intertwined. Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell have worked together for a long time and are ideological equals. He worked as Paul’s congressional chief of staff, consulted on Paul’s Libertarian Presidential run. It wouldn’t have helped to throw Rockwell under the bus because the questions it would have generated. “So why would you hire your friend, the racist? Why would you employee your racist friend at your newsletter business, give him free reign to publish things under your name and the whole time you put your head in the ground.”
According to Renae Hathway, a former secretary of the corporation, she described Paul as a “hands-on boss”. Former Paul aid Eric Dondero Rittberg said, “the real big money came from some of the that racially tinged stuff, but he also had to keep his libertarian supporters, and they weren’t at all comfortable with that. The libertarian magazine Reason has said, “Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist “paleoconservatives,” producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters recently unearthed by The New Republic.”
Conclusion: It’s hard to say who exactly wrote the content of the articles. One of the big suspects to writing some of the content is Lew Rockwell, though he has denied it. A former secretary with the newsletter described Paul as a “hands-on boss”. Another political Paul aid described the racially charged content as a way to earn more money.
We’ll never know who wrote the articles unless Ron Paul tells us and distributes the evidence. It’s pretty clear that he created the business, he employed the people in the business, allowed these people to write under his name, he profited from, he defended it when first caught, so it seems the only responsible person is Ron Paul.