"A tax document from June 1993 wrapping up the year in which the Political Report had published the "welfare checks" comment on the L.A. riots reported an annual income of $940,000 for Ron Paul & Associates, listing four employees in Texas (Paul's family and Rockwell) and seven more employees around the country."
According to Paul, he says that he allowed others to continue publishing a series of newsletters bearing his name when he returned to medical practice, but he's not revealed to whom he relinquished control. Many people would like him to do so, but until he does, it appears most likely that editorial authority was passed to Lew Rockwell.
IF, and I say IF, that turns out to be the case, this is not just old news that doesn't matter any more, because Rockwell is STILL a close associate of Paul's, has accompanied Paul on CURRENT campaign events, and Rockwell's organization published Paul's most recent book a few weeks ago (a collection of Paul's older congressional speeches and writings). In my first piece about Ron Paul and these newsletters, I said,
"though I don't think Paul is racist, he's CLEARLY had commerce with them over his political life, and more than likely some entanglement with them still exists."
By "entanglement", what I meant was Paul's continuing relationship with Rockwell,
So why won't Paul reveal more about the newsletters?
Because IF, and I say IF, the Rockwell connection is true, it means that Paul still associates with the writer of that newsletter, and there's no way to get around the contradictions in Paul's most recent public statements now. And there are more implications to both Paul and Rockwell if the Rockwell connection to the newsletter is true. I'll simply repeat that Rockwell is and has been a close associate of Ron Paul's and that Rockwell worked for Paul, in Washington, during Paul's first terms as a congressman.
A message to the more zealous of Ron Paul's supporters: no candidate's positions fit neatly into mine. I do not engage in blind loyalty, and if you do, I think that's a flaw greater than my airing this issue. I understand Paul's positions, shortcomings, the background underpinnings of his candidacy, and the state of the nation as well as anyone and possibly more than my critics.
I'm just consciously acknowledging compromises. From my point of view all that means is that I don't have to sit on the bandwagon. That's OK -- I'll walk.