The New Yorker is the latest publication to attack Ron Paul for his newsletters. Over a brief period of time in the early 1990s, a handful of Ron Paul’s thousands of newsletters contained offensive passages. It’s highly unfortunate that some short-sighted and opportunistic people sullied Ron Paul’s name this way and it was totally negligent (or similarly opportunistic) of Dr. Paul to let material go out under his name that did not reflect his own views.
Should Dr. Paul be forgiven this transgression? It has been almost twenty years since this misstep and neither before nor after that time have Dr. Paul’s own words or actions shown any sign of the attitude that was presented in these newsletters. As a matter of fact, a video from around the time the controversial newsletters were published clearly shows that Dr. Paul viewed the newsletters as financial and economic in nature with a focus on monetary policy in Washington. The voters must decide the seriousness of the matter and its relevance to Dr. Paul’s candidacy. The media, of course, would like this issue to be a deal-breaker for the Ron Paul campaign–after all, Dr. Paul is not their friend.
The January 27th New Yorker piece by Alex Koppelman, Ron Paul’s Filthy Lucre, claims that Lew Rockwell, “who remains close to Paul,” wrote the offensive articles. Koppelman bases this claim on speculation in a 2008 reason magazine article, Who Wrote Ron Paul’s Newsletters? It is hard to believe, however, that Koppelman has not seen the recently revealed photocopies of the main newsletter in question, which clearly shows Lew Rockwell not to be the author. Of the six newsletters that contain offensive statements, one in particular contains most of the incendiary language. This newsletter, though widely cited and reprinted, had always appeared without a “by line,” as if the author were unknown. As early as January 5th, however, the author was revealed: James B. Powell. Although several sites claim this is the same James B. Powell who is a senior editor at Forbes and a fellow at the Cato Institute (and this seems most likely), there is another James B. Powell who is a publisher of investment newsletters even now. I have not found any definitive evidence as to which of these two James B. Powells wrote the newsletters, or if it was a different James B. Powell altogether. In any case, the author is most definitely not Lew Rockwell, nor Ron Paul.
Should Koppelman be forgiven for being negligent or perhaps opportunistic in his article? Perhaps his career should be over. After all, he is a journalist who knowingly or negligently reported something misleading. (I’m going to put a note in my calendar to bring this up again in twenty years, especially if Koppelman keeps his nose clean and turns out to be a good guy, assuming our politics are still different.)
For a more complete version of the Ron Paul Newsletter story, check out the following video, “Ben Swann Reality Check,” which lays out a more complete picture of the Ron Paul Newsletter controversy before the byline was revealed. The second video is a follow up discussing the byline.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGH77lZsglU]
And here’s Ben Swann’s follow up after the James Powell byline was revealed.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DOS9WwKAqA]
Politics
Ron Paul Enjoys Luxury at Taxpayers' Expense?
I woke up this morning to find a laughable article on Yahoo, Ron Paul’s First-Class Airplane Trips: Do as I Say Not as I Do, criticizing Ron Paul for splurging on first class flights from Houston to DC. I laughed because of the relatively minor amount of money in question: “he spent $25,000 more than he should have.” After all, Ron Paul returned over $140,000 of his Congressional budget last year alone, and John Murtha, God have mercy on his soul, spent $150,000,000 of taxpayers’ money on an airport he had built and named for himself. But the real kicker here, is that the story isn’t even true! Ron Paul upgrades using frequent flyer miles! Ends up this story was based on a total fabrication by Associated Press and had already been debunked by MSNBC by the time Yahoo published its story. Here’s the whole story:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5IJQYY9dx4]
What Is Really Going On in Iran?
There is an article in today’s Wall Street Journal titled The Mortal Threat from Iran, by Mark Helprin, which begins with this line: “To assume that Iran will not close the Strait of Hormuz is to assume that primitive religious fanatics will perform cost-benefit analyses the way they are done at Wharton.” If that didn’t get my propagan-dar pinging, nothing would. Dehumanizing the target and terrifying us with death threats are classic earmarks of war propaganda. Given that not a single dissenting voice on this issue can be heard from the mainstream media–the left-dominated TV arm and the right-dominated radio arm–one wonders why the Wall Street Journal is coming out so strongly on this. I mean, of course this country of 70 million people is working to develop a bomb they will gleefully pop off at Israel so they can cheer wildly as they watch 300 missiles rain down on themselves in retaliation–they are irrational, primitive, religious fanatics, after all, every one of whom would love to commit suicide as soon as possible. Why even bother pounding the drums, let’s just wipe them off the face of the earth and be done with it already. Oh, but what is that kooky Ron Paul always on about? “Maybe there are people over there” or some such nonsense–hmm. I know it’s a silly waste of time, but before I paint my face and grab a flag, I just want to see if there’s any possible explanation for Ron Paul’s weird position. (I mean, what kind of freak applies the Golden Rule to foreigners anyway?)
So, just for giggles, I went to Foreign Policy Journal online for an alternative viewpoint on the subject and I found one from none other than the always outspoken and never politically correct Paul Craig Roberts. This is it:
The Next War on Washington’s Agenda
by Paul Craig Roberts
Only the blind do not see that the US government is preparing to attack Iran. According to Professor Michel Chossudovsky, “Active war preparations directed against Iran (with the involvement of Israel and NATO) were initiated in May 2003.”
Washington has deployed missiles directed at Iran in its oil emirate puppet states, Oman and the UAE, and little doubt in the other US puppet states in the Middle East. Washington has beefed up Saudi Arabia’s jet fighter force. Most recently, Washington has deployed 9,000 US troops to Israel to participate in “war games” designed to test the US/Israeli air defense system. As Iran represents no threat unless attacked, Washington’s war preparations signal Washington’s intention to attack Iran.
Continue reading this article at Foreign Policy Journal.
For another view, watch Col. Shaffer on Freedomwatch:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUrX9t9v3rY]
Ron Paul Highlights from South Carolina Debate–and Fox Busted for Being Insanely Biased Against Ron Paul!
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN0cMcCK1gk&feature=player_embedded]
Ă…nd here Fox News busted as insanely biased against Ron Paul: “Ron Paul. Ron Paul way above the line. Ron Paul always tends to do well in these twitter surveys. They are not scientific, they are people voting for their favorite candidate sometimes, at other times they are a good measure of what’s being said.” How do these guys decide when it is a good measure and when it’s not? It is crystal clear the “reporter” is saying that when Ron Paul comes out ahead, it’s not a good measure but when someone else does well it is a good measure. At least this guy is busted by a fellow reporter who must have been inundated with twitter-rage!
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KfDJfvYH6CY]
Is Operation Fast & Furious Obama’s Iran-Contra?
I think there’s much more to Operation Fast & Furious than we’ve heard about so far. Will it bring down Eric Holder? How about Obama? Listen to my take on the developing story: Monica Perez Fast and Furious
Ron Paul Video: "Ron Paul shames Santorum & Bachmann with Biblical argument of a Just War"
Here is a concise and lucid overview of the moral and legal bases of Ron Paul’s foreign policy position. (It really does look like Bachman and Santorum are passing notes to each other–probably saying something like, “Holy Crap! This guy actually BELIEVES this Bible stuff!”)
Here’s another video that may help correct some misperceptions of Ron Paul and his foreign policy.
Review of Democracy, The God That Failed, by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
For my review of this book, click: Continue reading…
Joe Sobran, brought to me by twitter…
I have a bit of a twitter problem–it keeps me up way past my bedtime and delays me from starting my day’s work. I’m not sure whether or not to feel guilty about this. Am I educating myself or amusing myself? Does this count as work or leisure? Is following twitter the future equivalent of reading the newspaper everyday, or is it merely a narcissistic distraction? Well, this morning decided the issue: I happened upon a tweet by @libertarianmike: “The chances of being harmed by terrorists are mathematically minute. The chance of being robbed by your own govt? That’s easy:100%–J.Sobran.” I recalled that my father (a Classical Liberal like Ron Paul) loved Joe Sobran, but I still pegged Sobran for a neo-con, so complete had I thought was that sect’s dominance of conservatism. I had to follow up, though, just to be sure. I searched for Sobran references in other tweets and each one was better than the last, so I looked for Sobran’s twitterfeed. I obviously didn’t know much about Joe, because apparently he died in September 2010, so no twitterfeed. Still intrigued, I started googling “Joe Sobran” and found a tribute, upon his death, by neo-con Ann Coulter*, and another one by one of my favorite libertarian anarchists, Professor Robert Higgs–this was getting interesting…Upon further googling, I quickly found an article by Mr. Sobran himself on LewRockwell.com explaining beautifully his conversion from conservative to philosophical anarchist, a conversion I myself had undergone. Now I will add Joe Sobran to my list of favorite anarchists, and will read everything by him I can get my hands on–if I can stop tweeting long enough!
All of this simply to share with you these illuminating articles by and about Joe Sobran, which I wouldn’t have found if I were not addicted to twitter….
The Reluctant Anarchist, by Joe Sobran
Joe Sobran, 1946-2010, by Robert Higgs
Not Your Average Joe, by Ann Coulter*
*To her credit and my great surprise, I just saw that Ann Coulter said she would prefer Ron Paul to Newt Gingrich as the Republican nominee. Who knows? Maybe an intriguing tweet set her on a new path!
UPDATE: Apparently, Joe and William F. Buckley had a public feud. For Joe’s side of the story, read How I Was Fired by Bill Buckley, by Joe Sobran
Ron Paul Highlights from New Hampshire Debates
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQQUbaBiNTs]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_owONAOdmEc]