And LookingIn - yes it was a computer issue on my end. The mods were kind enough to help me move and lock one.
As for Mr. Rockwell, from his policies and website, it would seem that he would support Ron Paul. So his statements are biased (he was Ron Paul's Chief of Staff).

Well that was a good link. Since he has handled this before, shutting this down now should be easy for him.

I find it bizarre that there was a newsletter with his name on it, and yet he never knew what was being printed in it. If Bush or Clinton had a newsletter with their name on it, and it had racist stuff in it, we would all be attributing it to them. And rightly so. So I don't see how it is any different here. Either 1) he knew exactly what was being printed and didn't care or agreed or 2) he was allowing people to print things in his name without reviewing them. Ironically, the latter is much more disturbing than the former. What else would he allow people to do in his name if he were given real power?

I think this is indefensible.

What kind of reputation this source or reporter has? Why this isnt being reported by the major news outlets? I smell BS a political hit to dwindle his support prior to the vote.

And by no means Im a RP supporter.

I don't buy Ron Paul's response. To me it's worthless. The fact that such hate speech was published over the course of decades under his name definitely qualifies as guilty by association. I don't understand how someone who has allegedly stood for all Americans over his entire career could allow such garbage to be published under his name or be associated with his name for DECADES. Paul's response does not ring true. It's like the late and former CEO Kenneth Lay saying, "I didn't know." That he wasn't aware of any of the illegal activities the executives of his company were involved with. How could a person of Lay's talent and shrewd ability not know anything? Not much is going to get by someone of Kenneth Lay's stature. His was the quintessential rags to riches story. Anyway, Ron Paul operates in the public arena where one's image and reputation are everything. Because of that, it is impossible for me to believe, “In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’ Those sentiments do not jibe with the content of his newsletters at all. In fact, why have sentiments such as those not been brought forth yet, that have been published in Ron Paul's newsletters? It would be the perfect rebuttal by his campaign to produce such an article written by Ron Paul's hand during the time period those newsletters were published. Preferably and article that appears alongside the garbage in question.

Paul consistently denies having wrote those article, yet he doesn't go as far to furnish proof that he did not write them. Yes, it was years ago, but I do not see any other candidate that is not also suffering the actions of there past. Words written and published constitute actions taken. They are not just words, they are meaning and communication, and whether Ron Paul wrote them or not the fact is that they are associated with his name, and as far as I am concerned, he has not done enough to dispel the stench.

For some reason the Ron Paul Campaign will not take the easy way out bury this issue for once and for all. If one wants the full scoop one has to have access to the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society in order to research Paul's newsletters. Any attempt to bring the content of the newsletters to light results attacks against the writers who make an attempt to do so. Maybe the records of who wrote what no longer exist. Who knows? I cannot imagine any other candidate having a ghost of a chance at party nomination, never mind as POTUS, with having their name associated with such material. Would Barack Obama be in the position that he is in if such newsletters were attributed and associated with him? No. If those articles were associated with any politician on the current ticket, you could bet the value of your home that those candidates would not be on the current ticket. No one would believe that Hillary Clinton wouldn't have been aware that such newsletters had been published under her name without her consent or approval, anymore than they believed her when she denied having withheld billing records for legal work she had done at the Rose Law Firm for Madison Guaranty in connection with Whitewater Development Corporation. It is clear to me that the Ron Paul Campaign has not been completely forthcoming.

There's an unconfirmed rumor going around that the person who wrote this, and the person Ron Paul's trying to protect is Lew Rockwell. Lew Rockwell did use to work for Ron Paul, and according to some people, the style of writing matches. I don't how how credible this is, and I'm not an expert on Lew Rockwell or his relationship with Ron Paul. I just wanted to throw this out there though, since this is ATS (or to be exact, abovepolitics) after all.

Total political hit.
Politics is dirty. This is some of the dirtiest.

Think about it.
20 year old documents, written by someone else, using Paul as a masthead.

Paul didn't say, or write any of it.
When he heard of it, he denounced it..What more did you want him to do?
Should he throw himself off a bridge?

All of his years in public service, never heard uttering anything similar.
Consistent to a tee, in his beliefs, and his actions.

Wonder why Drudge pulled it so fast? He knew it had no legs. And he's a sensationalist.

Wait until the next primary, this will come up again.
You know why? Thats all there is. Thats the closest thing to dirt they've found.

I look forward to your repeat of this post, come super-tuesday.

Actually this WAS posted before. Go find something more "sticky"
I dare you..

I have a thought. Shouldn't Ron Paul sue for Defamation of Character if those writings are not true? Someone has used his name and put out some horrible statements. I would think this would be a slamdunk right?

I believe statute of limitations for libel is just a year or two in almost all jurisdictions.

Maybe he doesn't flip out over it because the only people going nuts are the ones who are desperately hunting for a single speck of anything to use against him? Everyone else doesn't really care as it is ultimately irrelevant.